Go for it. Many of the owners here prefer the 305 to the 350 since it rides smoother than the trailer package equipped 350 cars.

 

If you like the cadillac softness, you'll love the 305. If you want a good base for performance, you'll want the 350. I drove one 305 caddy and it was like the softness of 307 caddies but with more response on the pedal.

 

I agree; the 305 would be a mild step-up from the 307 because of the Throttle Body Injection system, which offers more engine response. The 350 is more bang for your buck, but it's only marginally better than the 305, and was almost exclusively optioned with the towing package, so the ride quality will be a lot harsher.

 

Can you put 1991 Cadillac brougham 5.0 full suspension on the 1991 Cadillac 5.7 since the cars identical in size and weight and not have no problems

 

The trailer towing package was the only way to get the 350 in 1990 from what I remember, in 1991 and 1992 the 350 could be had separate from the towing package. I owned a 90 Brougham d'Elegance with 350 and tow - to this day I still can't believe how firm that car rode, not very Cadillace-esque. Get the 305 and you will be assured of the smooth and soft Cadillac experience these cars are known for. Good luck!

 

I can't believe that no one mentioned the fact that Giovanni just waltzes back in here after being absent, and not even a case of beer under said arm to share with the bro's.

 

Heh, sorry guys. I suppose I should have dropped in every once in a while. If I pick up this new Brougham, I'll certainly share pics.

I was always planning a big restoration for the '89, and I was certainly gonna share that. The restoration finally got under way because I had a beautiful new chevy 350 practically fall into my lap, and that was slated to replace the leaky, tired 307. But now that I have the money, I started peeling back the layers and saw some pretty ugly things. I'd post pics of that, but... that would just be depressing. 24 New England winters and over 200,000 miles without a garage, kinda rough. But hey, as long as my crated 350 keeps, I can always pop it in if the 305 blows... if my father doesn't steal it for his plow truck this winter...

But thanks for the input, guys! A big help, as always!

 

Yes, sometimes you have to "know when to fold 'em" when it comes to salt belt cars. Been there, done that, will do it again. Harvest the good parts, and move on to something new.

 

I'd go for the 5.0. It preserves the cadillac ride while giving you better power than the 307. Besides, at 40k miles, the body is barely broke in and the car should serve you well for many many years to come.

 

I wouldn't take anything but a 350 Brougham, but like someone else said if you don't care about the extra performance and would rather have the softer ride go for what you found.

 

I had a 350 Brougham, never again. Didn't ride like a Cadillac, trans shifted like a truck, squeaked and rattled with the sunroof option. Had great torque off the line, but man it was a DOG over about 50mph. Get one with the CHEVY 305, the suspension is set up properly for that Cadillac ride. Plus you can always swap in your 350 with minimal fuss if it proves to be too slow for you.

 

I have not driven either of those cars but I would take 5.7 V8 but don't quote me lol Well, anyway I remember you and good to see you back
May you become happy with your decision

 

I have never drove the tbi 5.0...but I own a 90 with the 5.7 & use to have a 89 with the carb'd 5.0.

Power on the 5.7 is good, the 5.0 was better than my 4100, but the 5.7 destroys it.

Now for ride quality to me they all have that "Cadillac" ride.

Just my opinion though...

 

I have never drove the tbi 5.0...but I own a 90 with the 5.7 & use to have a 89 with the carb'd 5.0.

Power on the 5.7 is good, the 5.0 was better than my 4100, but the 5.7 destroys it.

Now for ride quality to me they all have that "Cadillac" ride.

Just my opinion though...

I drove a 1991 roadmaster wagon with the tbi 5.0 (had 90k miles on it). It was a hair faster than my 307 powered brougham to 40, but it fell on its face after that, while the 307 kept pulling and would run out of steam about 60 or so.
However, my brougham with the '87 350 motor would obliterate the tbi 5.0 and 86-90 307.
I've never driven a 90 tow pack brougham, so I can't comment on the ride of one, but it can't be any worse quality wise than all of the old caddys out there with original, worn out suspension that bobs arounds and bottoms out.

 

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.

Never drove a 350 Brougham but did hustle a 350 Roadmaster rental from Memphis to Nashville one night in the mid 90s. The 350 felt really powerful and the car was fast.

Never drove a 305 but logically (and from the comments here) it should be similar to a good 307 meaning completely adequate. You would get the same great ride that the 307 cars had and the FI should be easier to keep in tune and pass smog. I can't imagine the 305 being smoother or quieter than my 307, though.

If it's true that getting a 350 car means sacrificing the Cadillac ride that would be a deal breaker for me. The ride is something than cannot be matched by any modern car. It's the thing everyone mentions when they ride in my car, well that and the classic Cadillac leather smell!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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”.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

HEY!:want:

 

Go get him!

 

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....

 

You could get it stand alone but it still got the different suspension. I've never minded the way mine rode. It doesn't float but it's no teeth chattering feel every bump ride either.