Difference Between 80's and Early 90's Broughams

cmgrafmc · #1 (**permalink**) 08-19-05, 11:01 PM

I'm not talking about the Fleetwoods here, just the run-of-the-mill Brougham. I know about the engines, the mechanical stuff. What I'm wondering is, besides the switch from our nice "wood" trim to the cheesey "burlwood" kind of stuff on the early 90's versions, what, if any other differences are there on the inside? Of course the D'Elegance leather seats are nicer but that's true of any year. Anyone have pictures? From what I've seen, the're about identical but someone has said that the newer ones were nicer.

Thoughts? Pictures?

caddieboy · #2 (**permalink**) 08-20-05, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmgrafmc

I'm not talking about the Fleetwoods here, just the run-of-the-mill Brougham. I know about the engines, the mechanical stuff. What I'm wondering is, besides the switch from our nice "wood" trim to the cheesey "burlwood" kind of stuff on the early 90's versions, what, if any other differences are there on the inside? Of course the D'Elegance leather seats are nicer but that's true of any year. Anyone have pictures? From what I've seen, the're about identical but someone has said that the newer ones were nicer.

Thoughts? Pictures?

Although they don't have many pictures interior-wise, there are lots of descriptions of what changed from year to year at this website:

http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/

Go to the year you want, and at the bottom of whatever page, you can select to see the Brougham history. In years 1990-1992 they mention lots of changes, standard options etc. Great resource for changes. I'm expecting a book on Cadillac soon and hope it's full of pictures and info. I'll review the book and post about it.

Adam · #3 (**permalink**) 08-20-05, 12:11 PM

the only thing i can think of is the front ends were changed a little bit. i believe you mentioned everything else. 350s were offered along with a higher price tag.

cmgrafmc · #4 (**permalink**) 08-20-05, 05:50 PM

Yeah, that's what I thought. The guy who said the interiors are nicer must have been referring to the new style "wood" they used on the dash. Personally, I think it's not nearly as attractive. I would like a 350 tho... heh.

Destroyer · #5 (**permalink**) 08-20-05, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmgrafmc

Yeah, that's what I thought. The guy who said the interiors are nicer must have been referring to the new style "wood" they used on the dash. Personally, I think it's not nearly as attractive. I would like a 350 tho... heh.

Actually there were some nice differences. The digital dash (debateable) but I find it to be an improvement. Yes I like the burlwood look better but also the way the dummy lights light up. They are masked and you cannot see them till they light up, pretty cool. Also the positioning of the seat belts. The stereo was a big improvement stock vs stock and the updated climate control was also nicer. Rear lamps which I believe were on option on the earlier models were standard as well.

Besides the Chevy motor though there were more improvements found in the steering, gearing, transmission, abs brakes and suspension. Not too mention the exterior stuff and Im not just talking about the tailights and front end plus moldings, I'm talking about the the space between the front and rear doors, the pillar I think, nice shiny chrome. I had an 87 and loved it but the 91 really surprised me as to how much improved it felt, drove and looked. IMO the last two years of that body style were the best ones.

cmgrafmc · #6 (**permalink**) 08-21-05, 03:38 AM

Hm. Interesting. I wouldn't mind test driving one, actually. I don't care for the single headlamp assembly or the enlarged rocker panels, but those are minor quibbles. The B pillars between the doors are pretty nice on mine, tho...with the padded roof and all. Room for those nice opera lamps of mine. Heh

I'd like to see some pictures to compare and contrast, if anyone has any. I have a hard time finding them except on cardomain and they're always so small there.

*UPDATE*

I looked on our site for pictures and found a few. I'm convinced that, for myself, the late 80's are better looking. What was "improved" with the climate control system? They went to blue/green instead of yellow digits and a different layout but I don't see any additional functionality. (Unbelievable that they don't allow us to choose where the air comes out, though. The dams are all in place and computer controlled - why not let us direct air flow?!) I like digital dashes (my Seville has one) but there's some nostalgia in that old, jiggly needle. Anyway, about the only things I wish mine had:

A powerful engine (DUH)
D'Elegance pkg
Moonroof

I can do something about the 1st and 3rd but not the 2nd. Oh, well. As much as I'm fond of mine, I'd sell it to get an '89 in burgandy, like DopeStar's, if I found one in as good shape as mine. =P After all, mine only has 74k miles on it...just a baby!

Additional pictures are welcomed!

Broughamadrosis · #7 (**permalink**) 08-21-05, 03:53 PM

I've owned both, and my preference is for the 90-92 cars -

I've gotten to like the digital dash, there's no cable to deal with (replaced two on the last one). The fuel gauge is in the cluster, instead of on the top center of the dash. It's funny how when I got in the 86 (coming from the Brougham), the needle seemed so weird to hunt for, and then to have to decipher the actual speed (counting the clicks between the numbers)... It' just what you get used to...

My memory fades when it comes to the temp control, but I don't think the 86 had the same functionality of the 90. The difference being the ECON button, which basically shuts off the A/C compressor. By manipulating the temp and the ECON button, you can direct the air anyway you want. Put system in ECON, and adjust the temp. If the inside ambient temp is above the temp you set, the system assumes you want interior cooling so the (fresh) air blows through the dash vents. If the inside ambient temp is below the temp you set, the system assumes you want interior heating, and will blow (heated) air at your feet. Setting the temp to 60 blows full-blast fresh air throught the dash vents (no temp monitoring/blending), or setting the temp to 90 blows full-blast heat to the floor. The auto button does the same thing, except with the A/C compressor running, and if you set the temp to 60 in AUTO, it recirculates the cabin air for maximum cooling.

And as for the wood - plastic is plastic, choose your faux grain.

The D'Elegance is nothing more than the button-tucked seats, available in both cloth or leather. The package also included grab handles above the doors, and slightly different upper door panels, with "D'Elegance" stitched instead of "Fleetwood" or "Brougham", and oh yeah - emblems...
If you are tall you'll notice the difference in leg and head room, the extra stuffing of the D'Elegance seats take up a few inches.
All the 90-92's had power recliners on both front seats - my 86 did not, but I can't speak for all of the 80-89's
All the 90-92's have the armrest that flips open for storage, and includes a coin holder and flip-out cup holder.

All of the 90-92's had the "Deluxe" vinyl roof, (unless you have on of the rare vinyl-delete cars) which is basically the addition of vinyl covering around the rear door opera windows. This was available as a Fleetwood option starting in (I think) 1988.

The 90-92's have the passive seat belts - the belts are attached to the front doors, and the doors can be opened with the belts buckled. Here again, it's what you get used to - but it sure is convenient to hop in, close the door and be belted up. When I got into the 86, (coming from the Brougham) I kept forgetting to buckle up - which is a ticketable offense in my state...

Styling aside, the drivetrain is the vast improvement, besides the fuel-injected Chevy small block (ready for remote-start installation), there's also the 700-R4 trans, and ABS.

The Olds 307 is certainly proven and reliable, but you're asking a lot of it haul around a car of this size, especially when loaded. I live in a mountainous area, and even with just me in the car, I had to hold pedal to the mat to maintain speed uphill on the interstate. I had to plan ahead and pickup speed on the downhill run in order to not be doing 50 at the top of the next hill... and forget using the cruise.
My 350 cars just kick out of OD and power up the hill like it's not there, while on cruise.

Another difference, although minor, is the 90-92 cars came with 7" wide wheels. I'm not sure when they started this, but my 80's cars had 6". Not a big deal, but I always replace my rubber with 235/75-15's, which is one size larger than stock, but they fill the wheel-wells nicely, and do not mess with the speedo accuracy - I'm guessing there was a fudge factor built into the original speedo calibration (10% error is an industry acceptable factor). A few local towns have those automated "YOUR SPEED IS" radar signs, and my Broughams with the 235/75's are always dead-on (another digial speedo advantage).

I've owned a lot of Caddy's over the years - 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, Eldos, even a hearse.(yeah, I know - I've got it bad...) What I like about the 90-92 Brougham is it's sort of a transition car... Old-school Caddy styling, full-framed rear drive, cast-iron V8, yet with fairly modern systems like FI and ABS, that makes for an all-around satifying daily driver. No one will ever mistake it for a 56 Deville or a 68 Fleetwood, but at first glance there's no question that it's a Caddy

cmgrafmc · #8 (**permalink**) 08-22-05, 12:56 AM

Good info to have. I don't know about the '86, I have an '89 and I can tell you our climate control systems are exactly the same except the way they look. I would like to have the better engine and ABS but other than that, I guess I'm not missing much. My personal styling preference aside, they're both nice cars. =)

leroylecher · #9 (**permalink**) 08-22-05, 06:10 PM

what he said

caddieboy · #10 (**permalink**) 08-22-05, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broughamadrosis

Another difference, although minor, is the 90-92 cars came with 7" wide wheels. I'm not sure when they started this, but my 80's cars had 6". Not a big deal, but I always replace my rubber with 235/75-15's, which is one size larger than stock, but they fill the wheel-wells nicely, and do not mess with the speedo accuracy - I'm guessing there was a fudge factor built into the original speedo calibration (10% error is an industry acceptable factor). A few local towns have those automated "YOUR SPEED IS" radar signs, and my Broughams with the 235/75's are always dead-on (another digial speedo advantage).

Just wondering if the rims and tires from my 87 Caddie will fit. I think the bolt pattern is the same. In terms of tire size, I have whatever is standard. P225/75R15. I think they both take the same size tire and rim. Could someone have switched your 80s Caddie with 6 inch or your 90s Caddie with 7 inch? Front tread seems to be 61.7 inches and rear tread is 60.7 inches for bnoth vehicles as far as I've found.

*scratches head*

90Brougham350 · #11 (**permalink**) 08-22-05, 10:11 PM

The biggest thing I like about the 90-92 over the 80-89 is the exterior styling. I believe the body molding on the 90-92 with the 5 small grooves is simply gorgeous. Another plus is the wrap-around bumper, which goes all the way to the wheelwell. Other than that, the digi dash and the solid chrome B pillar are nice but certainly a smaller detail than the body molding.

Brian