Cadillac Owners Forum banner

94 thru 96. What to buy?

9K views 48 replies 16 participants last post by  Lord Fleetwood 
#1 ·
Well guys I am back here on the board, I used to have a 91 with a 305 which was absolutely gorgeous, I got compliments every time I took friends out in it but I thought I would try something different this time and wanted LT1 powered D body. My question to you guys would be that would be there be a particular model that would be make or break for this body style? ( ie. would it bother you to have a 94 with the smaller windows or does OBD 1 mean something over OBD two for 96? There a lot of good attractive prices out there on these models from what I'm finding but am torn over what I might choose ( color notwithstanding because the color does make a difference to me).
Lastly, would buying a V4P equipped model be worth buying over the lesser Broughams ? ). I wonder if that option package makes it tremendously more Valuable to the average driver in the way it handles and accelerates versus the better gas mileage of the regular one.

I appreciate all your thoughts.
I'm located in Colorado Springs song going to have to travel to get any of the ones that I want regardless seems.
 
#2 ·
Not sure about the car choices but as far as ODBI verses ODBll, ODBII came out on some mid 1995 but really didn't get started till 1996 I belive it was a mandate by the feds to get car testing and troubleshooting easier too perform and standardize. P codes the stands for power train witch is usually engine related there are standard code as well specific code for different making and models and there's also other type of codes not mentioned in here but that's the basic difference with me ODBII and ODBI.
 
#3 ·
A lot of it is personal preference really. Some prefer the "small mirror" 94's over the "big mirror" 95/6 models. I happen to prefer the latter myself. OBD2 (96 only) can be a benefit if you still have emissions testing to deal with.

The V4P can be a little harder to find but really doesn't give you anything unless you want the towing capability which really is more about engine and trans cooling than anything else though you do get higher gears too.

The one bonus the 96's have in, my opinion, is the updated radio unit. Everything is in the dash, where prior years have a big bundle of cables that run to a module in the trunk. Mainly an issue/expense if you're putting in an aftermarket radio.

Anyway, just my two cents. Good luck shopping!
 
#4 ·
I have a 1995 Fleetwood Brougham and can't think of too many differences, but I love the car overall. The side-view mirrors are smaller on 1994 and they aren't as nice to use, but they also don't have the Dumbo-ear effect, either. What I mean by that is, like with most new cars, when you are behind the car you can see the mirrors sticking off like big ears on a face and they are more easily hit and knocked-off by other cars. The bigger 95 and 96 mirrors are better for visibility, but I must say I like the mirrors on those older Fleetwoods where they don't stick out beyond the body. The 95 and 96 mirrors do fold toward the back of the car, so if you bump a car they will collapse, but if a car going forward hits you parked, they won't. If I park on a narrow street I will fold them in to be safe since, if hit, they will not collapse forward. My older Fleetwoods don't have that issue.

There is the OBD I and II difference. Being OBDI and pre-1996 gets you out of some tests and regulations depending on where you live. Not only is there the OBD I and II thing, but some of the other devices on the 1996 are unique, like the radio/tape/CD player. The only thing I usually don't keep stock on my cars are the radios, but all of the mid-90's Fleetwoods have there own unique harness and set up not shared with other cars (not even other Cadillacs) which makes it harder to put in aftermarket stereo equipment. I really wanted a CD player in my 95 when I got it, but it didn't have one. I could find no one who had wire harness adapters for the car. I was then just going to hard-wire in an aftermarket control head, but adapters for the device to fit nicely into the instrument panel were also not to be found. I have a 76 Fleetwood that I hard-wired and modified myself to fit everything handsomely, but I decided the best thing for the 95 was to get a Cadillac CD player (which was obviously not an option on the 76). Doing all of this made me notice at a future time that the radio in the 1996 (and I think the climate control) were different, and thus must be unique to that one model and year since they were discontinued after that. This would make these items even harder to find if they needed replacement than their 93-95 counterparts.

95 and 96 have a button to disable the traction control and I believe 94 doesn't, which is bad if you need to spin the wheels. I have rarely used it, but twice in the last decade I have and would have been screwed without the ability to disable it. 95 and 96 also have a quieter cam set up that is supposed to make the engine run quieter. I've never listened to the engine of a 94 vs. a 95, but in theory the cam should run more quietly according to GM. 95 also got a more durable torque converter clutch over 94.

As far as ride goes, my 95 is the best riding car I have ever driven in my life, and I've driven a lot of cars. I do not have the towing package, nor would I want it if it meant making my ride less smooth and soft. My 95 has the FE1 soft ride, and it is so great because it is so soft, but isn't overly boaty. It holds steady on the road, yet eats up the bumps. If you're into that nice ride (if not, why have a big RWD Cadillac?), I'd avoid the towing package with stiffer suspension. The LT1 has more than enough power and torque as it is, so why eat up more gas on the highway and give away that smooth ride just to get a tiny bit more off the line?

All-in-all, I'd go 95 with no tow package (unless you need it), but not just because that is what I have. I just happen to get a 95 since I would have taken any 94-96 back when I was looking, but in retrospect with what I know now, I'm glad that's the one happened to get.
 
#6 ·
95 and 96 have a button to disable the traction control and I believe 94 doesn't, which is bad if you need to spin the wheels. I have rarely used it, but twice in the last decade I have and would have been screwed without the ability to disable it.
Just as a clarification, both my 94's have the traction control disable button. Saved my butt on numerous occasions during our once-a-year massive snow dump on my uphill commute - with TCS off, I was plowing past cars and trucks that couldn't make it up the hill. Had I left TCS on, the system would have brought the car to a standstill in a hurry (and it did the first time I drove it in the snow)
 
#11 ·
If I was shopping, I'd look for:
- condition
- care (maintenance records)
- colour choice
- rear gear ratio (depends on model/what you want)
Similar to what Jason said, I would look for condition and maintenance first. Small mirrors, big mirrors or color, are pretty far down on my list. Other than minor differences 94's, 95's and 96's are all the same car. Two years ago I bought a 96 Fleetwood, 65K, and no vinyl roof. If it was a 94, I still would have bought it.

Tom
 
#8 ·
94s also come with 3 way lumbar support whereas 96s only 1 , must be for cost saving
VP4 Packages come with mechanical fan whereas non VP4 cars come with electrical fans . I also reckon VP4 supports or come with stiffer suspension setting I forgot which was which ,FE1 or FE2
 
#12 ·
I haven't decided yet I would modify it or not. I definitely have a hot rod or mentality within me, knowing that a nice computer chip/reflash too could improve things even more (I owned in 1994 Firebird Firehawk in the past with an LT1 and modified it). I had just read what a few owners said about the V4 P package and they loved how well it handled and accelerated. Deep down I know that I will probably drive it for gas mileage reasons on the highway anyway though.

Thanks for you guys for chiming i,n yes I knew what some of the differences were of the years, I just wanted to know what you would choose

----------

96fleetwood, I would like to get up to 300 but Corvette without making it sound like a muscle car so I know you could do it work or something close to that to get the power possibly, it's been so long I had to research what's available out there now for this engine. I come from owning, previously, a 99 BMW 750il V12 322 hp weighing the same as the Caddy, I would sure like to have that level of power if possible
 
#13 ·
You can easily get these big boats to handle well and kick up some rubber.

Here was my old '96 before I sold it:







And I love them bone stock too. This was my modded '96 with my stock '96. The Yin/Yang as I called them.





Personally I like the '94 because you get more seat adjustments with the Brougham package.
 
#15 ·
Just make sure you buy one from down south. These cars can look pristine on the paintwork/sheetmetal, but be an utter pig underneath. I got burned buying a 50,000 mile car from Michigan that matched that description. Looked PRISTINE inside and out, put it on a lift, the frame was downright scary looking where the steering box bolted to the frame. I could hit that section of the frame with a screwdriver and pull off huge chunks of paper thin rusty scale.

As far as color, I'm pretty damn picky. Black, red, burgandy, navy blue, if it isn't a dark color I will pass. The dark colors make the chrome really pop.

Also, don't expect the bigger 94-96 Fleetwoods to drive/handle as nice as your 91 Brougham. I had a 91 Brougham as well as a 95 Fleetwood. The 95 felt a lot heavier, rolled a lot more in the turns, and just didn't give me the sort of confidence like my old 91 had in the turns. The 95 floated a little bit nicer, but it wasn't worth the handling trade off. If you hustled/pushed that 91, you could nail the apex every time, push it hard enough and brake late enough on a wet road, you could have all kinds of sideways fun and still manage to catch it. I never felt brave enough in the 95 to push it that hard on a public road, it just felt like it would terminally push you into the opposite ditch.
 
#16 ·
thx Aron9000, my '92 handled and felt great I believed....with 168k miles, just drove a '94 w/108k miles and it felt tight! ( they had done lots of maintenance), and it felt a bit more 'modern' if you will. I haven't driven a v4p opioned fwb yet though.....sure wish I could to feel the difference in ride/handling/acceleration/rpm's and to see if the 'loud' mechanical fan would be bothersome or not.

I like the 'quiet cam' and quieter/more solid door latches I've read on w/the 95-96's, but like the looks of the smaller mirrored '94's and their 3 way lumbar adjustments. grrrr can't find the right combination of value/price/miles/color/condition yet!!! I'm NOT a fan of the silver/grey/gold-ish colors...really like the blue , blue-grey, green and maroon colors....white is alright but looks more sedate than those other colors I mentioned.

----------

oh, I've been reading more about the 'pristine on top and ugly under' posts and inquiries to owners....yuck, and what a shame......

----------

Question: can you get a fwb with a sunroof AND the rear roof mounted vanity lights? ( I just really like that 'gimmick')
 
#19 · (Edited)
I had a 95 and have a 96. The radios are different as is the OBDI vs OBDII inn the 96. The 95 had a different front armrest which I liked better. Otherwise the cars were nearly identical. My 96 has the theft deterrent system (also avail on the 94-95), which is mainly horn & lights, but it also locks the rear license plate to prevent getting at the gas tank filler!!! Tthe 95 had the factory chrome wheels option (N83), but these can be found (I bought an NOS set of 4 in the boxes)

Some year changes, besides the ones already mentioned.

94 - first use of LT1 engine
95 - first use of platinum plugs, lumbar adjustment changed (for the worse)
96 - first use of DexCool and OBDII, and DRLS (in US, DRLs were already mandatory in Canada)

Broughams have the padded top, but they also had other items such as the rear storage armrest (with 2 cupholders, Twilight Sentinel, plus a 2.93: 1 axle ratio, oil and trans coolers, plus extra capaciy cooling (larger electric fans).

A couple of options to look for:

CF5 - Sunroof - but this deletes the dual rear vanity mirrors (RPO DC5)
GU6 - 2.42:1 rear axle, often seen only with V4P, trailer pkg
G80 - Locking Differential - possibly only on coachbuilder models,but maybe on V4P optioned cars
NM8 - Leaded Fuel, Govt order only!!!
N83 - Chrome wheels
QQR - V rated tires!! This SHOULD mean no 108MPH speed limiter.....
UA6 - Theft deterrent system

??? - Sungate windshield. I can't find the code. It might be part of a "merchandising package... Mat Garret has an Impala with a Sungate, code A23, so that might be it. But then ho also has a 1996 Fleetwood and mentioned the windshield and has a photo of the SPID sticker, but there is no A23 on that sticker ?????

Whatever you get, drive and enjoy it.
 
#20 ·
Great info. I believe GU6 would be 3.42, not 2.42. I'm sure that's just a typo.

Jay, is it just FE1-3 or is there a fourth code for stiffer suspension?
I know that F40 was heavy duty option on Roadmasters (my 92 had it), but unsure if that is an RPO used on Cadillac. I know it is used on many GM vehicles.

My 92 Roadmaster wagon had Sungate, but there is no RPO on the SPID for it. Probably part of a package (1SE, 1SZ, etc). My 94 FWB had Sungate as well, but I don't have the Compnine data for it.
 
#21 ·
I didn't know there were 94s with the traction-off button...I had a friend who had a 94 who told me he didn't have it (didn't see for myself, though) and remember reading somewhere they put it on in 95. Anyway, thanks for the correction! I'd still go 95 or 96, though. As for 93, I never drove one, but the engine numbers just don't look good compared to the LT1. That and I know a guy who had both and he totally preferred the LT1 version for its better power and smoothness. With these cars coming in at around 4500 lbs., it's nice to have power!
 
#22 ·
The 93's have the traction control off button as well.

Just an fyi about the 93 vs 94-96 engines.

We are talking about 30 ft lbs of torque difference between the two engines. This equates to .5 seconds in 1/4 mile times when tested as new.

The 1993 did 17.8 in the 1/4 mile and the 1996 did 17.3 in the 1/4 mile.

It really isn't that much more power is it?
 
#25 ·
I love my LT1s, but my folks had a RMW with the earlier motor. It's really not that different. It *does* drive different with a different power band, but not in a bad way. Drive a 93 before dismissing them - you may be selling yourself short if you don't include them on your list.
 
#24 · (Edited)
Interesting numbers on the 93, but they don't match numbers I've come across. The roughly 30 foot-pound difference in the torque is accurate, but don't ignore the horsepower difference, which will matter at higher speeds. The LT1 Fleetwood has 260 hp vs. the L05 Fleetwood at 185 hp. The 0-60 time for the LT1 Fleetwood is 8.5 seconds vs. 10.5 for the L05 Fleetwood. That means the L05 takes almost 25% longer, which is significant. I also did not find quarter-mile times for the LT1 that you did. I found the LT1 does the quarter-mile in roughly 16 seconds. One was a computer simulation, but two others actually measured it on their cars (one from this forum) and got 15.7 and 15.8. The lowest I found for the L05 was 17.3 and some went as high as your 17.8 This is roughly a 2 second difference, which is also significant. I couldn't find end speeds for the quarter mile, but finishing at around 110 mph (low estimate and ignoring the limiter) would mean travel of 161 feet/second, so being 2 seconds behind would mean around 300 feet the L05 would have to make up that the LT1 already traversed. This equates to around 16 car lengths (both are 225 in long). So it would seem the LT1 driver in the 1/4 mile would see the L05 driver quite far back in his rear-view mirror. The power jump seems significant by the numbers.

Now, I've never driven a 93, so I can't provide an actual comparison by experience. I, however, have driven an L05 in a 92 Brougham, which is lighter than a 93 Fleetwood, and it was noticeably slower (though not horribly so) than my 95 Fleetwood. Just looking at the specs, I do find it hard to believe that a 30 ft-lb. jump in torque (10% increase) and a 75 hp jump in power (40% increase) would only result in .5 seconds for a quarter mile run. There is already a 2 second difference in 0-60 times, and that extra horsepower and torque, no matter how small, is going to pay even more dividends over 60 for extra speed, which is more distance per unit of time. This doesn't account for everything like final drive ratios which would matter and which do differ between base Fleetwood, Fleetwood Brougham, and those with the towing package. I am also aware that the calculations for acceleration are more complicated than just considering the factory-reported peak horsepower and torque numbers that only occur at specified RPMs (power curves are more useful), but overall everything I come across gives the LT1 a significant edge. The 93 has a lot going for it in general, but nothing the 94-96 doesn't have. The major difference is the engine, and when it comes to performance, the LT1 is the way to go.
 
#27 · (Edited)
I definitely agree about the gear ratios making a significant difference. My friend had a 97 Deville and replaced it with a 96 Concours. Though there is a little tuning difference between the Northstar engines, the major difference is that the Concours has a higher gear ratio and it definitely feels faster off-the-line. The price to pay is that it revs quite a bit higher at highway speeds. When my friend got the 96 he actually thought there was a problem with the transmission due to the revving until he learned it was due to the more-aggressive gear ratio.

In the case of the Fleetwoods I suppose the true test of the engines would be to have the same final drive ratios, in which case the LT1 should perform a bit better. I don't think the 93 to 94-96 difference seems really huge, especially in daily driving, it is just if someone really does want the max that was offered from GM, the difference between the L05 and LT1 should be considered. To be honest, though, in non-aggressive daily city driving my Olds 307 doesn't move the car much differently than my LT1 under 45 mph and normal throttle (the same friend always jokes about its impressive 0-20 acceleration), but virtually no one would argue to have an Olds 307 in their mid-90s Fleetwood. The real difference in any of these is when the pedal is really down and the speeds and loads get high and/or the hills get steep. That is why Olds 307 wouldn't cut it, and where the edge of the LT1 over the L05 would be felt, all other things being equal.

Also, as a correction, I finally did find an LT1 Fleetwood 1/4 mile run with an end speed. Apparently it did it in 16 seconds @ 88 mph, so my estimate above of 110 was quite a bit overstated, but the LT1 car would still be over 10 car-lengths ahead of the L05 car by the new numbers, which is still enough to be significant.
 
#28 ·
Hey, did you buy one yet? I'd like to chime in as a Brougham to Fleetwood convert and tell you it isn't worth it. Do not get me wrong, the 93-96 Fleetwood is a great car, everything you could want, but the Oldsmobile-powered Broughams are FANTASTIC cars.

Like you, I wanted to "upgrade" to something with more power, and while I will admit it is nice to have that many horsies under the hood, the novelty wears off quickly, and the extra power is, in my opinion, the only edge these cars have over their predecessors. The older Broughams are easier to get in and out of, ride nicer, look nicer, handle nicer, and the build quality is much better. I went from an 89 Brougham with over 200,000 miles into a 95 Fleetwood with barely 30,000 miles, and I was a little disturbed by how quickly the Fleetwood started to creak, rattle and generally deteriorate under normal driving conditions, compared to my Brougham.

Granted, both cars are mechanically sound and generally great, comfy, large, American luxo-barges, but if the ONLY thing you want is more power, rethink your decision. After a handful of burnouts, I got bored with it.
 
#41 · (Edited)
...The older Broughams are easier to get in and out of, ride nicer, look nicer, handle nicer, and the build quality is much better...
Easier to get in and out of?? With that seat belt contraption in lieu of the dual air bags??? WTF?????

Ride better? No way.

Build Quality. Nope, look at the old initial quality surveys from when these were new.

The one thing I hate on mine is the stupid digital dash with only a fuel gauge and a single trip odometer. But then the olders Broughams had the same dash. My 2000 Eldorado Convertible had a nice cluster and DIC, but GM was not spending any $$on the Fleetwoods because they were canceling it after the 1996 model year.
 
#29 ·
Why "convert" when you can own both? There are benefits to both the 80s Broughams and 90s Fleetwoods.

As far as the 90s Fleetwoods go, they don't have the "classic" beauty or as much dress-up as the Broughams, but its still a great looking car. Those shiny chrome rockers exude class and the whole car executes an impressive fusion of the "aero" look of the 90s with the classic Cadillac. The car seems more imposing, too. It is longer and wider than the Brougham, and I always wished those Broughams were a little wider. The hood is a bit weak on the Fleetwoods, but driving behind the car it looks like a behemoth, wide and full. My 95 FWB has 170,000+ miles and it doesn't creak or rattle at all. My 86 DOES rattle and creek a bit, though I would agree it has a more "solid" build quality - that is, its parts feel more durable and fewer things are made of plastic. The Brougham does handle better and feels more lithe, but in general it is a lighter car and once again not as wide. The Brougham (mine's also D'Elegance) has WAY more comfortable seats...probably the best I've ever sat in.

That said, those Olds-powered Broughams are indeed fantastic, but the engine itself isn't. It's reliable and well-built for sure, but it doesn't accelerate well at high speeds and doesn't plow up hills. The only way to have road dominance is to anticipate what others will do and try to get accelerating before they try to do it. Not so with my 95. With the 95 the power is there when I want it and it moves well on hills and at high speeds, and I don't have to "anticipate" people's actions - at any time I can usually blow them away or at least hold my own, even with newer cars with good engines. The Olds 307 was built in a time of EPA regulations and new gas-guzzler taxes. It was made to pump out less pollution and use less gas in a time when engine manufacturers struggled to meet those needs and still provide power. The 307 has some decent low-end torque considering, but when it comes to giving excess like a Cadillac should, it doesn't. I really love the look of disappointment and frustration when someone driving a Jap-crap car loses to what they think is an "old-man" car that is nearly 50% larger and heavier. My 86 almost never gives me that feeling, but it is still a wonderful car.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top