5.0 vs. 5.7 - Page 2
Cadillac
 

Cadillac Forums | Help Us Help You | Advertise | Cadillac Parts | Cadillac News | Cadillac Classifieds / (Old System)

Cadillac Technical Archive | Cadillac Dealers | Cadillac Reviews | Cadillac Dealer Reviews | Cadillac Vendors

CadillacForums.com is the premier Cadillac Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 40
Like Tree7Likes
RWD 19xx-1984 DeVille and Fleetwood,
1985-1996 Fleetwood and Brougham Forum Discussion, 5.0 vs. 5.7 in Past Cadillac Vehicle Discussion; Thanks for all the opinions. I took the car for a test drive, it really is nice. It's quite a ...
  1. #16
    Cadillac Giovanni's Avatar
    Cadillac Giovanni is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): 86 DeVille (RIP), 89 Brougham D'Elegance, 95 FWB
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Westport, MA
    Age
    28
    Posts
    894

    Re: 5.0 vs. 5.7

    Thanks for all the opinions. I took the car for a test drive, it really is nice. It's quite a bit more peppy than my 307, and it has a nicer sound to it as well. I find the power on my 307 varies wildly just depending what mood it's in, but this was noticeably more responsive. Of course, that's the difference between an engine with 40,000 miles and 200,000 miles, I bet.

    The car is gorgeous, otherwise, absolutely mint. Should have taken some pics. It's got a couple of dings from the previous owners (a grandma and grandpa, most assuredly), maybe a couple hundred dollars in bodywork. The thing that bothered me the most was the rust on the underside. Seeing as how my current Caddy is losing a slow battle against rust, I'm very weary. Most of it is just surface rust from being driven in winter, and I'm sure I could take a day to grind/wire wheel most of it away and hit it with a coating of POR-15 or SEM Rust Shield or whatever, and it would be fine, but that's a lot of work, so I'm trying to get the guy down on price. He seems like he doesn't want to budge. In the meanwhile, I'm still searching.

    My old 89 effortlessly made the 160 mile trip to see the car, though, which makes me feel even sadder I have to replace it.

  2. #17
    charley95 is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): 91 brougham
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Age
    50
    Posts
    61

    Re: 5.0 vs. 5.7

    The Chevy version 305's were notorious for premature oil ring failure. Replaced mine with a 350 crate motor for my 91 Brougham. 350 is a much better engine in my opinion.

  3. #18
    Gman1023 is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): 2013 CTS-V Wagon, 1996 Fleetwood Brougham
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA suburbs
    Age
    25
    Posts
    188

    Re: 5.0 vs. 5.7

    Neither engine makes the Brougham a 'fast' car in any real sense. Especially if you have a crate motor sitting around go for the 305 knowing that if you have issues with it or want the extra power and torque you have options.

  4. #19
    JDArgonaut is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2
    I have the 305 91 Brougham and can't be more than pleased. It only has 275,000 miles on her and doesn't leak or burn oil. Whoever had leaks probably didn't take care of the care. I love my Big Blue!

  5. #20
    jamespowers is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 1986 Brougham, 1975 Eldorado, 2008 Escalade
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,025

    Re: 5.0 vs. 5.7

    Quote Originally Posted by Seville fan View Post
    I'm of the opinion that most 307 owners who complain about power need carb, EGR or vacuum line work or their cat is plugged. I say that because I test drove a lot of 307s and power was all over the map, esp. on the higher mileage cars. The good ones were completely adequate in any situation save accelerating up a hill with a full load of passengers.
    That is exactly my experience. The Electronically controlled carb has to be rebuilt just right to deliver the performance it was meant to have. I know because the TPS went out in mine and the rebuilt carb made a heck of a difference. It still didn't overcome a full car going uphill with a huge load of groceries from Costco though.

  6. #21
    82CDV is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): 1992 Fleetwood Brougham
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale
    Posts
    59

    Re: 5.0 vs. 5.7

    Keep in mind that the 90 model 5.0 was still the Olds 307. Starting in 91 the 5.0 was the Chevy 305.

    Also, here is the 5.0 vs 5.7 from noted collector, Matt Garrett:

    “The 5.7 Liter engine, even though rated only a little higher than the base 5.0 engine, is nothing in comparison. It has at least 50 more usable HP and even more torque than that over the 5.0. It was underrated. The 5.7 liter engine goes way deeper than the motor. The trans is the HD/Police version of the 700R4. The Diff is the large "Corporate 8.5" vs the little, (no business in a big car) 7.5 in the 5.0 cars, the suspension is different, the cooling system is different and there are even more things that you got for the small price of the 5.7 liter option”.

  7. #22
    Cadillac Giovanni's Avatar
    Cadillac Giovanni is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): 86 DeVille (RIP), 89 Brougham D'Elegance, 95 FWB
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Westport, MA
    Age
    28
    Posts
    894

    Re: 5.0 vs. 5.7

    Yeah, and that "different suspension" makes the car ride like a truck, and in a Cadillac, the different trans. and differential add up to pretty much squat. It's just some fancy numbers to throw around, and I'd imagine if you're driving a Brougham, you're not looking to be in a performance pissing contest.

    With all the research, test-driving and comparison work I've done over the past year, in a matter of style vs. power vs. reliability, the 86-89 Brougham is still the choice for me, hands down.
    talismandave likes this.

  8. #23
    jamespowers is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 1986 Brougham, 1975 Eldorado, 2008 Escalade
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,025

    Re: 5.0 vs. 5.7

    Quote Originally Posted by Cadillac Giovanni View Post
    With all the research, test-driving and comparison work I've done over the past year, in a matter of style vs. power vs. reliability, the 86-89 Brougham is still the choice for me, hands down.
    I am with you there brother.

  9. #24
    82CDV is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): 1992 Fleetwood Brougham
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale
    Posts
    59

    Re: 5.0 vs. 5.7

    I had a 92 with a 5.7 and it rode and handled great. I also had a F 350 so I know what driving a truck feels like.

    My 82 CDV was brand new and it had a "floaty" ride. I traded it on a new 1984 MB 300DT.

  10. #25
    Bro-Ham's Avatar
    Bro-Ham is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 1979 Cadillac Sedan deVille d'Elegance
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Age
    46
    Posts
    3,940
    Many years ago I acquired a loaded 1990 Bro-Ham d'Elegance with 5.7. That model year the 5.7 was only availale as part of the trailer towing package. I compared its brutally stiff ride to driving a lumber wagon. Now, I have never owned or even actually driven a lumber wagon or even know exactly what a lumber wagon is, nevertheless I am confident enough the analysis is correct to bet all the cocktails in Florida. I dissatisfiedly unloaded that car after only one month. I would consider trying a 1991-92 Brougham with 5.0 and spongy ride if the right one presented itself. My personal preference is for the 1977, 1978 & 1979 425/7.0 Cadillacs which have no Chev or Olds aftertaste.

  11. #26
    talismandave's Avatar
    talismandave is offline Cadillac Owners Master
    Automobile(s): 1987 Brougham, 1974 Fleetwood Talisman, Volvo C70,
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Madison WI
    Age
    55
    Posts
    6,135

    Re: 5.0 vs. 5.7

    HEY!

  12. #27
    jamespowers is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 1986 Brougham, 1975 Eldorado, 2008 Escalade
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,025

    Re: 5.0 vs. 5.7

    Quote Originally Posted by talismandave View Post
    HEY!
    Go get him!

    talismandave likes this.

  13. #28
    82CDV is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): 1992 Fleetwood Brougham
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale
    Posts
    59

    Re: 5.0 vs. 5.7

    Quote Originally Posted by Bro-Ham View Post
    Many years ago I acquired a loaded 1990 Bro-Ham d'Elegance with 5.7. That model year the 5.7 was only availale as part of the trailer towing package. I compared its brutally stiff ride to driving a lumber wagon. Now, I have never owned or even actually driven a lumber wagon or even know exactly what a lumber wagon is, nevertheless I am confident enough the analysis is correct to bet all the cocktails in Florida. I dissatisfiedly unloaded that car after only one month. I would consider trying a 1991-92 Brougham with 5.0 and spongy ride if the right one presented itself. My personal preference is for the 1977, 1978 & 1979 425/7.0 Cadillacs which have no Chev or Olds aftertaste.
    So the question seems to be; do the 91/92 5.7 cars necessarily have the tow package like the 90's do?

    Also, if the 91/92 5.7's don't have the tow package, do they have the transmission, rear end upgrades?

    My 92 sat up higher than a 5.0 car so I suspect that it had the upgraded suspension.

    It rode fine.

  14. #29
    Cadillac Giovanni's Avatar
    Cadillac Giovanni is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): 86 DeVille (RIP), 89 Brougham D'Elegance, 95 FWB
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Westport, MA
    Age
    28
    Posts
    894

    Re: 5.0 vs. 5.7

    I've heard that they are available with the 5.7, but without the whole tow-package, but I'm unsure on the details, and it's comparatively rare. The other issue I have with them is the ride height. It throws off the proportions of the car.

    And while I love the big block Caddy engine, let me just say that the only "aftertaste" I got from my Oldsmobile was the taste of quietness and reliability.

  15. #30
    cadillac kevin's Avatar
    cadillac kevin is offline Cadillac Owners Master
    Automobile(s): chevy 350 powered 86 FWB, 00 safari h.t. 66 toro, 83 lesabre
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    5,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Cadillac Giovanni View Post
    I've heard that they are available with the 5.7, but without the whole tow-package, but I'm unsure on the details, and it's comparatively rare. The other issue I have with them is the ride height. It throws off the proportions of the car.

    And while I love the big block Caddy engine, let me just say that the only "aftertaste" I got from my Oldsmobile was the taste of quietness and reliability.
    I miss the quietness of my 307, but the 350 has good power and is quiet at speed.
    Also, I'm gonna end up with a 425 rocket next year when I junk the toro. Hmmm....

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Bookmarks

Cadillac Posting Rules

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Read about Lincoln | Buick | Kia Forte Forum
Need products for your Cadillac? Check out your options at the links below:

custom floor mats | Cadillac Chrome and Black Chrome Wheels | window tinting