Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Wel, let me start off by saying that I am in love with the 94-96 Brougham. I have always loved that MASSIVE cadillac style and ride, and I was very disheartened by the styling of all the newer caddys. It was all about sportiness, when I really wanted that huge, soft car. I wanted one very badly, but they were too much $$; I instead got a 92 deville, but if I didnt spend so much $$ on my ram air t/a, it would be a 94-96 brougham. I was very shocked to see that so many people actually prefer the previous model. Dont get me wrong, that car was sweet, but I cant believe people actually prefer it over the 94-96 model. In my opinion, the newer one is the EPITOME of Cadillac style. Its huge, has all that chrome (the whole bottom half of the car is shiny for cying out loud, lol), has the fins, etc. It seems people think the previous model represented traditional caddy style pefectly (and it does), but I have to think that the newer one plain and simply is more (no pun intended). Bigger, heavier, etc. And than there is that interior!! Frame cars always lack in rear seat legroom for some reason; even my dads enormous 79 lesabre had little rear seat leg room, its just the design. But, somehow, the newer brougham managed to come up with limo like rear seat leg room (I think it may be the most of any car made in a long, long time, if ever); the other dimensions are just rediculous - hip, shoulder room just blows away the previous model. I sat in the older brougham and my deville actually has more rear leg room, which was even verified by caddy in their brochure. I just think the latest brougham was the perfect caddy; HUUUUGE with that traditonal caddy style and an interior of a limo. Aside from this car, you gotta go back to the 70's to see a car this big, and the interior space just blows away all. What do you guys think?
 

·
Banned
1995 ETC, 75 Deville, Cad500 powered 73 Apollo, 94 Mark VIII
Joined
·
7,971 Posts
Cadillac was starting to get it right again with the "whale body" 93-96s, but then they stopped making them. They're IMO the best Caddy since 81.
 

·
Registered
2005 CTS-V, 1994 Infiniti Q45
Joined
·
7,658 Posts
I think the previous model brougham has the most classic styling, whereas the 93+ has the best of both worlds... IT has a classic, but modern looking... The old ones look old, but the 93+ still look fairly new and expensive....
 

·
Registered
1991 Cadillac Brougham D'Elegance 5.7 Litre, 1994 DeVille
Joined
·
6,796 Posts
You've pretty much summed up why there are different car companies and different makes of cars- because different people like different things.

I like the 1993-1996 ones, but to me more then anything else they're just a big car. The outside and interior of them look plain compared to the older ones and they have the same shape as the Caprice or Road Master. I like the 1991 & 92s better because they're bascially an old car that was updated for the 90s but kept the same look. They looked different then any other car of the same time.

Cadillac did a good job making the 1994 DeVille look like the Fleetwood. It's almost like you can buy the same car but in different sizes which is kinda neat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
For me the old caddys had that sharp look to them. Of course since I own an older model I'm more biased; but never was attached to the newer caddys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Hey Lowcosbigbody, seeing that you have had both, how do the rides compare? Is the newer one just as soft (or even sfter from the additional weght), or was ride sacrificed for handling? Any other differences you noticed from having both?
 

·
Registered
93 fleet, 95 fleet, 59 impala
Joined
·
728 Posts
They both are very similar honestly the ride feels the same to me they basicly have the exact drivetrain both have 350 engine and heavyduty suspension, and the other thing is my 93 has 14 inch wires on it and has since the day I bought it, two years ago, so I dont know what it felt like with stocks.
 

·
Registered
'93 Fleetwood Brougham...Dad's
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
I've had my own debate over this lately too. My dad first intended to find a '93-'96 Fleetwood this past spring when looking for a new car and wanted nothing other than that; no Roadmaster and no Caprice. But, he ended up finding a '92 Roadmaster Limited in awesome colors and very nice condition that had 184k miles, but ran almost perfectly and was something he could afford. Not a Fleetwood, but he fell in love with the car, and it is somewhat similar.

But anyway, I digress. We now also have an almost flawless '93 Fleetwood Brougham that's white with red leather that I use as my everyday "get to school" car (how nice, huh!) I COULD NEVER GIVE THIS CAR UP!! It is so beautiful, so smooth, so fast, so quiet, and so smooth, I just love every bit of it. Considering it's not technically in my name and that I'll be going to college next year, I've been starting to look around at Roadmasters and Fleewoods again myself, and have been interested by the '92 and earlier Broughams, but not greatly.

Mainly, I just can't get over the fact of how extremely antique they look and feel. Some seem to like them for no other than this fact, but things like the nasty looking and very old dash. The ugly buttoned seats that don't look comfortable. The fact that they look quite cramped compared to my '93, except for on the outside. I also don't like the boxy, squared off body panels and corners. My '93 is just a lot more modern, and that's something I like a lot. All of this is just my opinion, though, and I'm still a little interested in looking at one sometime.

I have been wondering for some time though, has anyone driven both the "old" and the "new"? What are the differences and similarities? Mainly, the power, the steering, the quietness, the brakes, etc.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I like the 93-96 cars but prefer the older model ones based on looks. To many my 87 looks like an old car but to me it looks like a REAL Cadillac. The fins and all, just my opinion. I will make my car more than capable of taking on an LT1 94-96 Fleetwood.
 

·
Banned
1996 Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
7,237 Posts
I think the 93-96 Fleetwood was the perfect design to end a long and great tradition of BIG Cadillacs.

I think the 94-96 with it's LT1 engine and it's platform sharing with the Impala SS makes it very appealing for the variety, quality and availablility of OEM and aftermarket perfomance parts.


Other BIG Cadillacs are nice too! :welcome:
 

·
Registered
06 STS-V, 94 Fleetwood TS
Joined
·
754 Posts
I have owned both...

When I was driving the "brick" (My 81 was maroon and square) the arrival of the 93 really had me pumped. Every dealer kept telling me that the rear wheel drive model would die and there was no hope of getting an updated platform. Obviously I liked it because my 94 is on the 10th year now and I don't see the thing getting traded any time soon.

Now that I am driving the "aero" Fleetwood and I see the classic style pass by, I still get caught admiring the timeless lines of that style. The simple fact is that the 80-92 models have an unmistakeable Cadillac style to them that just works.

Bootom line: I like them both but for different reasons.
 

·
Registered
93 Fleetwood Brougham, 66 Fleetwood
Joined
·
179 Posts
I'm real into classic cars and the Mid 90's Fleetwood Broughams are the only cars made in the last 25 years I'd consider buying. They remind me of classic lacs but with a modern touch. I'm so into classics its probably the newest car I'll ever buy. I'll never sell it. Its already a classic to me.
 

·
Banned
1996 Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
7,237 Posts
lacmang said:
I'm real into classic cars and the Mid 90's Fleetwood Broughams are the only cars made in the last 25 years I'd consider buying. They remind me of classic lacs but with a modern touch. I'm so into classics its probably the newest car I'll ever buy. I'll never sell it. Its already a classic to me.
He gets it! :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
96 FWB
Joined
·
32 Posts
lacmang said:
I'm real into classic cars and the Mid 90's Fleetwood Broughams are the only cars made in the last 25 years I'd consider buying. They remind me of classic lacs but with a modern touch. I'm so into classics its probably the newest car I'll ever buy. I'll never sell it. Its already a classic to me.
couldn't agree with you more!!my brother has a 92(which just died god rest it's soul:crying2: ) which i spent alot of miles in,both behind the wheel & shotgun.it was a beautiful car to be in & i loved it.having said that my 96 is hands down a much better driver.from power to handling & interior & trunk space the newer style has it all over the old one.as for the styling,well......i hope that one day i'll have the space for one of each.
 

·
I'm a Cadillac Fanatic!
Joined
·
9,575 Posts
When looking for my Fleetwood Brougham, I checked out (online) a lot of the previous model as well.. The one thing about the older style - it's unmistakably Cadillac. This newer style has lost just a bit of that feel. I've had somebody who'd only seen it from the side if it was a Chrysler.. I don't think that would happen with the older version...

Still, I chose this car because I too believe it's the best car Cadillac has put out in many years. It IS what Cadillac...IS! It's big and luxurious... From the back, you certainly don't have to guess what it is. The front, however, is painfully BLAND.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Well I have rode in a 94 fleetwood and it is a nice ride in all but, it just doesn't gimmie that old cheech and chong feel that I get from my 87. I guess I was born in the 80s and I just love the 80's car styles.
 

·
Registered
1991 Cadillac Brougham D'Elegance 5.7 Litre, 1994 DeVille
Joined
·
6,796 Posts
Sal Collaziano said:
When looking for my Fleetwood Brougham, I checked out (online) a lot of the previous model as well.. The one thing about the older style - it's unmistakably Cadillac. This newer style has lost just a bit of that feel. I've had somebody who'd only seen it from the side if it was a Chrysler.. I don't think that would happen with the older version...

Still, I chose this car because I too believe it's the best car Cadillac has put out in many years. It IS what Cadillac...IS! It's big and luxurious... From the back, you certainly don't have to guess what it is. The front, however, is painfully BLAND.
The back of those ones have a bit of styling like the early 70s ones with that big panel under the trunk lid. A Chrysler :confused: It definately looks like a GM from the side, like I said before it looks a lot like a Road Master or Caprice. If Cadillac didn't have so many other models or had more choices of rear wheel drive ones they might have sold better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
I've loved both my 87 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, 307 engine, arctic white with white vinyl roof and continental tire kit, and my 96 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, LT1 engine, marblehead gray with gray vinyl roof & factory sunroof.
My girlfriend thinks of the 87 as a Classic Cadillac. I personally prefer the 96 Fleetwood Brougham for handling and all-out power, I drive it like a big Corvette, highway and Cayuga Dragway, Toronto Motorsports Park.
The aerodynamics of the 96 are interesting as occasionally I've had gravel (road debris) glance off the windshield with no chips, unlike the 87 Cadillac.
The 94, 95 , 96 are more open to performance modifications than the Classic Bulletproofs :) and are scarcer on the roads around here. I often notice when stopped at a red light , the person beside me reading FLEETWOOD on the the lower body trim. The 96 is also more fuel efficent then the 87.

Jim, age 57

:elvis2:
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top