Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
2009 CTS White Diamond base, 1992 Brougham White/White 5.7
Joined
·
643 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'll have to admit I love "mushy" steering. I had to take my decaying 87 Brougham out of the garage for a power wash and fell in love with the steering all over again.

How many happy pinky steerers are out there? Are the 80s Broughams any different than the 90s Broughams in terms of this quality?

I think in 91 Electronic-variable-orfice steering was added. I'd be really curious to hear any reviews on this and if it's still pinky. Comparitive reviews would rock even more!

Any and all info as well as ratings of your steering would be appreciated. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
94 Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
7,534 Posts
My 94 has the EVO steering, it is fine, but I have heard reports that EVO has random problems. I was looking into disabling it the right way (unplugging it doesn't work, it goes full assist) but there was no one who seemed to care, so if I do it it will be later. I have to replace or rebuild my box one of these days, as it is leaking our of the lower half of the box.

It works well, fairly seemless on my end, light steering at lower speeds, reasonable for a Cad at higher (which it had more feel at high speeds).

No, I am not a fan of mush no road feel steering, I like solid contact with the road. If you want totally disconnected steering, 4 door Acura's in the 80's were flat out scary. No, I mean, ZERO road feel.
 

·
Registered
2009 CTS White Diamond base, 1992 Brougham White/White 5.7
Joined
·
643 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
N0DIH said:
My 94 has the EVO steering, it is fine, but I have heard reports that EVO has random problems. I was looking into disabling it the right way (unplugging it doesn't work, it goes full assist) but there was no one who seemed to care, so if I do it it will be later. I have to replace or rebuild my box one of these days, as it is leaking our of the lower half of the box.

It works well, fairly seemless on my end, light steering at lower speeds, reasonable for a Cad at higher (which it had more feel at high speeds).

No, I am not a fan of mush no road feel steering, I like solid contact with the road. If you want totally disconnected steering, 4 door Acura's in the 80's were flat out scary. No, I mean, ZERO road feel.
Maybe Mushy isn't what I mean then. I can certainly feel the road when I am driving and can adjust fairly well to any required adjusting in steering. It just seems the swing of the wheel needs more turning than a stiff wheel would give when correcting. I can probably swing 2 inches each way without a noticable change in direction. What I like best is coming out of a corner and letting the wheel correct itself straight as it glides under my palm. Ahhh!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
I have a 1990 Acura Legend. NO road feedback at all.
Very light steering for a FWD car. It does handle very well.
I have done aggressive lane changes at 100mph+ and she is glued to the road. Im going to miss this car.
But hey I got a Fleetwood to replace her.
 

·
Registered
2009 CTS White Diamond base, 1992 Brougham White/White 5.7
Joined
·
643 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Gio1978 said:
I have a 1990 Acura Legend. NO road feedback at all.
Very light steering for a FWD car. It does handle very well.
I have done aggressive lane changes at 100mph+ and she is glued to the road. Im going to miss this car.
But hey I got a Fleetwood to replace her.
I don't like the steering on my FWD 90 Fleetwood. I find I use my muscles more than I like. I have to hold the wheel while turning and hold it when coming out of the turn and straightening up. Gotten used to it, but my recent drive with the Brougham was heaven.
 

·
Registered
'93 Fleetwood Brougham...Dad's
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Usually really like the "pinky" feel at low speeds in my Fleetwood, but really dislike it when up to normal road speeds most of the time, since it's just a little too loose for total comfort--the effort isn't bad, but there's TOO much slop off center when, say, cruising down a straight highway.

Other than that, it isn't bad, but I think something a little firmer would make controlling this barge that much easier.
 

·
Registered
94 Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
7,534 Posts
I hope to get a faster ratio box for mine, like a 92 WS6 T/A box or if the Impala SS box is worthy, one from the B Body kin. The 92 WS6 T/A is considered the best of the std Saginaw (800 series??) box there is. 2 turns lock to lock, best road feel (must get WS6 box!) then any other. Best to avoid older boxes, as there is some issues with fitting compatibility as GM went metric around 1980. But the 1978-1981 WS6 cars were a 13:1 constant ratio box, with great feel. Imagine that in a 4400 beast! My T/A was a short wheelbase 4030 lb ride, so it would do just fine if you as me.
 

·
Registered
2009 CTS White Diamond base, 1992 Brougham White/White 5.7
Joined
·
643 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
caddycruiser said:
Usually really like the "pinky" feel at low speeds in my Fleetwood, but really dislike it when up to normal road speeds most of the time, since it's just a little too loose for total comfort--the effort isn't bad, but there's TOO much slop off center when, say, cruising down a straight highway.

Other than that, it isn't bad, but I think something a little firmer would make controlling this barge that much easier.
My memories of highway driving were what you describe. Kind of slopping back and forth each way to not drift one way or the other, but overall, it was never much effort and was as second nature as shifting a manual drive. I never thought about it. I guess all I'm hoping is that if I get a 91 or 92 Brougham, that the steering is as nice or similar to the 87.
 

·
Registered
2009 CTS White Diamond base, 1992 Brougham White/White 5.7
Joined
·
643 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
N0DIH said:
I hope to get a faster ratio box for mine, like a 92 WS6 T/A box or if the Impala SS box is worthy, one from the B Body kin. The 92 WS6 T/A is considered the best of the std Saginaw (800 series??) box there is. 2 turns lock to lock, best road feel (must get WS6 box!) then any other. Best to avoid older boxes, as there is some issues with fitting compatibility as GM went metric around 1980. But the 1978-1981 WS6 cars were a 13:1 constant ratio box, with great feel. Imagine that in a 4400 beast! My T/A was a short wheelbase 4030 lb ride, so it would do just fine if you as me.
I'll try and make head and tails of this soon. Would the Saginaw take away ppinky driving? Actually, it sounds like it would make turning the wheel even easier!!! That would be awesome. As long as I can let go after a turn and it straightens out without aid or holding, I'm happy.
 

·
Registered
'93 Fleetwood Brougham...Dad's
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
The steering on my dad's '92 Roadmaster LTD (the LTD got variable assist, the base model didn't), is very similar to the Caddy's, but also kinda different.

Both cars have issues of "tugging" while doing a light turn to the left or right for a drift in the road, where the system will hiccup and jerk in the same direction even more, but that seems to be a common issue with the variable assist.

I'd have to say the Buick feels a little tighter somehow, still sloppy off center, but also more heft/firmness. I've always been curious, however, as to what the "base" Roadmasters and their normal assist systems feel like.
 

·
Registered
1995 Triple Black FWB
Joined
·
92 Posts
My 95 FWB used to have very mushy steering. It used to float around and as you described I could twist a couple of inches either way without actually turningthe wheels. Frankly I didn't like it. I took my car to the Bergstrom dealership in Madison, WI and they recommended replcaing balljoints, center link and tyres.

I did spent some dough and had these things replaced and got the wheel allignment re-done. I was lucky as they had a guy hwo has been allignment stuff for about 15 years now and he tweaked the alignment a few times until I was satisfied.:)
Now, My car drives alot tighter than before. you get a significant road feel and the variable assist does a great job. Plus the LT1 engine is hardly broken in at 60K so you can imagine the fun when a big ol caddy zooms pass all those euro blobs.
Alas, I have to let my caddy go.:helpless: So I am looking for a FWB lover who can take good care of the car and may be I would be able to buy it back some day. :shhh:
 

·
Registered
2009 CTS White Diamond base, 1992 Brougham White/White 5.7
Joined
·
643 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
caddycruiser said:
Both cars have issues of "tugging" while doing a light turn to the left or right for a drift in the road, where the system will hiccup and jerk in the same direction even more, but that seems to be a common issue with the variable assist.
Tugging!?!? Hiccup and jerk?! Are these symptoms of all variable assist cars from that time? Is it a bothersome thing, or just something that can be ignored?
 

·
Registered
2009 CTS White Diamond base, 1992 Brougham White/White 5.7
Joined
·
643 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
abdullahone said:
My 95 FWB used to have very mushy steering. It used to float around and as you described I could twist a couple of inches either way without actually turningthe wheels.
I never minded correcting it since there was very little effort in steering at all. My big thing is that I like to be able to turn the wheel with virtually no effort so the power steering is doing, let's say, 90% of the work. Ya know? :)
 

·
Registered
2009 CTS White Diamond base, 1992 Brougham White/White 5.7
Joined
·
643 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
eldorado99 said:
My '70 Deville is like controlling a cloud, I use one side of one finger to steer most of the time.
Sounds like heaven! I hope the 91-92 Broughams have similar ease of steering cloudiness.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top