[82CDV]

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”.

 

[Cadillac Giovanni]

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.

 

[jamespowers]

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.

 

[82CDV]

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.

 

[Bro-Ham]

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.

 

[talismandave]

HEY!:want:

 

[jamespowers]

HEY!:want:

Go get him!

 

[82CDV]

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.

 

[Cadillac Giovanni]

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.

 

[cadillac kevin]

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....

 

[Bro-Ham]

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.

In 1990 the only way to get the 5.7 was as part of the lumber wagon package (towing package). I seem to remember the sales literature indicating that in 1991 and 1992 the 5.7 could be ordered as a standalone option.

 

[brougham]

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.

 

[Bro-Ham]

That firm suspension in the tow package is the devil, probably contributed to the death of the rear drive luxury Cadillac when the ride became as firm as any other car. I prefer to ride on a magic carpet. I would love to try a 5.0 FI 91-92 Brouham with the traditional float, I love the 80's digital dash that made it to the Bro in the 90's!

 

[charley95]

That firm suspension in the tow package is the devil, probably contributed to the death of the rear drive luxury Cadillac when the ride became as firm as any other car. I prefer to ride on a magic carpet. I would love to try a 5.0 FI 91-92 Brouham with the traditional float, I love the 80's digital dash that made it to the Bro in the 90's!

I have a 91 that was a 305 that turned crop duster so I added a 350 crate motor from Mr. Goodshaft at my local Chevy dealer. It's the best of both worlds, 305 suspension with a 350 motor and it's heavenly to drive.

 

[brougham]

That firm suspension in the tow package is the devil, probably contributed to the death of the rear drive luxury Cadillac when the ride became as firm as any other car. I prefer to ride on a magic carpet. I would love to try a 5.0 FI 91-92 Brouham with the traditional float, I love the 80's digital dash that made it to the Bro in the 90's!

When you consider that less then 1/2 the cars had the 5.7 and tow package, their death was more related to GMs poor marketing of the RWDs and the Fleetwoods that followed. GM just wanted to get rid of all their RWDs at the end.

 

[charley95]

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....

I must agree about the 307,My 91 350 is not as quite as the 307.

 

[Bro-Ham]

When you consider that less then 1/2 the cars had the 5.7 and tow package, their death was more related to GMs poor marketing of the RWDs and the Fleetwoods that followed. GM just wanted to get rid of all their RWDs at the end.

GM stopped seriously investing in large comfortable all American rear drive luxury cars in the early 80's. The Brougham by the 1990, even with a decade overdue freshening, was obtuse when new compared to all the modern competition. Marketing probably wasn't necessary since people knew these cars still existed. At the time of the funeral I seem to remember GM taking the manufacturing floor space from these cars to instead build trendy hot selling large SUV's.

 

[Cadillacboy]

When you consider that less then 1/2 the cars had the 5.7 and tow package, their death was more related to GMs poor marketing of the RWDs and the Fleetwoods that followed. GM just wanted to get rid of all their RWDs at the end.

As though that was not enough , they also ditched traditional beautiful model names :stirpot:

 

[brougham]

GM stopped seriously investing in large comfortable all American rear drive luxury cars in the early 80's. The Brougham by the 1990, even with a decade overdue freshening, was obtuse when new compared to all the modern competition. Marketing probably wasn't necessary since people knew these cars still existed. At the time of the funeral I seem to remember GM taking the manufacturing floor space from these cars to instead build trendy hot selling large SUV's.

But if you don't do any advertising for them no-one thinks about them. Ford gave up marketing their RWDs too and around the same time sales dropped off and kept falling. Then a few years later they complained about lack of sales and interest and started chopping trim packages. It was all planned to kill them off. Probably the same reason GM did it.

 

[Bro-Ham]

But if you don't do any advertising for them no-one thinks about them. Ford gave up marketing their RWDs too and around the same time sales dropped off and kept falling. Then a few years later they complained about lack of sales and interest and started chopping trim packages. It was all planned to kill them off. Probably the same reason GM did it.

I'm sure GM would have advertised the Brougham in 1990-1992 had they believed it would have increased sales. But I doubt a 45 year old in the market for a luxury car at the time would have considered buying one. 70-90 year olds were already aware of the Brougham and knew where to get one. I think playing down the Brougham was intentional by Cadillac since they were desperately trying to escape the geriatric image of that car while quietly scooping up the orders from the remaining buyers who were still turned on by it.