Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have had a few people tell me this crap. I said Im pretty sure they share the chassis and maybe the drivetrain to a point. But the Fleetwood is a Roadmaster? WTF is that? Are they just haters or something? I wasnt amused by it.

I have heard the Fleetwood called "The Cadillac of Cadillacs" I would think thats not a Roadmaster, with a different body trim and hood ornament.

What are your thoughts?

P.S. I love my Fleetwood anyway. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,029 Posts
next time tell them to take their dislexyia pills, the Roadmaster is a rebadged Fleetwood. ok here is the thing, the Fleetwood is LONGER, WIDER (i guess anyway), looks different, has a WREATH AND CREST (something they will probably never have) and the interior is different. other than that the only thing that is the same is the chassis and the engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,087 Posts
the fleetwood rides a 6" longer wheelbase
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
We own both, and they definately are not the same car. Yes, all of the mechanical bits underneath the skin, the frame design, suspension, and powertrain is identical between the Roadmaster and Fleetwood.

HOWEVER, as was said above, the Fleetwood is on the longer D-body platform, which is the lengthened version of the B-body under the Caprice/Roadmaster. In truth, the Caprice and Roadmaster are the two that are the most like one another, especially in dimensions and pieces, the Caprice being the cheapest and the Roadmaster in the middle.

All of them, especially the Roadmaster and Fleetwood, drive pretty much identically, too. BUT, the Fleetwood definately has a higher grade of interior materials and finishes (Roadmaster has a lot of rock hard, shiny plastic and stiff leather, while the Fleetwood has mostly soft, low sheen plastic and soft, supple leather), and shares next to nothing on the exterior.

So, TECHNICALLY, they are pretty much the same car, but the Fleetwood was nearly $10k more when new, and that money was clearly well spent on more size, better materials, and the best look of the bunch. I've never been much of a Caprice fan because of the typically low-buck, mass market look, but really like both the Roadmaster and Fleetwood.

Here's a good comparison of the exteriors, at least, of our cars (yep, identical colors inside and out!):

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,419 Posts
Actually, I like the Roadmaster. Definately not rebadged though. A Taurus and a Sable are rebadges. A Dodge and a Chrysler are rebadges. This is not a rebadge, it's just multiplatforming. And without the magic of multiplatforming, why our leadfooted Fleetwood drivers couldn't use those Impala SS parts that are great for performance modding! So you see kids, multiplatforming is GM's own little blessing in disguise.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
LMAO!!! What did you think your Fleetwood was? A rebadged Rolls?. Not so ritzy when think about all the cabbies driving Caprices and your car is just a rebodied version of the same car. All kidding aside, the Fleetwood is a much nicer car than a Caprice. All car companies do this so dont get your panties in a bind over it. :alchi:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
More good points--none of these cars, the Caprice, Roadmaster, or Fleetwood, are "rebadges". Enough is different on each, that they seem completely unique, except for the real guts, the powertrains and suspensions, which is probably still one of the BEST things about them--just being able to bolt on virtually any and every performance mod made for the Impala SS onto any of the others is just great!

That way, you can get the best of both worlds--the luxury and style of the Caddy, mixed with the performance of the Impala SS, for example, one of the most commonly performed "transformations".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,087 Posts
cabbies and cops used the caprice (and mourn the death of it) because it was very solid, very reliable, very quick and the 9C1 police package made a regular caprice handle like a BMW. So all in all, the GM B & D bodies are a very solid car. my Roadmaster was very solid, perhaps more solid than my deVille due to it being body on frame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,534 Posts
There were some things I liked on my 91 Deville (FDC), there isn't much I miss, my Fleetwood will smoke it anyday and it far more joy to drive. They share frames (basically same, other than length) and drivetrains, but even in that Cad got better things like traction control and 4 channel ABS.

9C1 and 9C6 cars (Taxi) are some tough cars, as are limo's and other commercial chassis variants, and even evidence of them getting some front suspesion upgrades in 96, shows that Engineering wasn't ready to the B/D cars die, but it seems front office had final say.

I~LUV~Caddys8792, there is a early Mark IV for sale on my way home from work, want me to stop and look? Extreme NW Chicago Suburbs (Fox Lake).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,087 Posts
ahhh no thanks man, i can't get one now, but i'm planning on getting one after college (3-5 years) But thanks anyways, what color is it, and whats the interior like? I really want to drive one of these big boys sometime! I sat in one once, and i was amazed at how long the hood seems when ur behind the wheel, its massive!

BTW...when you said your FWB is much more of a joy to drive, what exactly did u mean? I personally prefer my '92 Sedan deVille to the '95 Roadmaster Limited i had. The '92 handles better, rides smoother, and is not as quite as quick, but its got more gadgets. Thanks Again, -Chad
 

·
Cadillac Maniac
Joined
·
13,753 Posts
My 1995 Fleetwood Brougham was one of the best cars I've ever driven. I wish I could have afforded one brand new in 1995.. I still intend on getting one to keep forever one day. I just need a garage first...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
927 Posts
that statement is pure envy the same could be said about the roadmaster in comparison to the caprices.

there are at least 80 things i can name that are diff on the caddy and much better including the luxurious look of the fleetwood

a roadmaster to me just looks like an old car to me it has a station wagon look which is too 70s for me

the better more accurate statement would be that a roadmaster is a rebadged caprice
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,534 Posts
I just like the bigger cars, smoother over the road, sure, doesn't handle quite as well, but that can be fixed, and less gadgets (sorta like the simpllicity of it), and then when you park, you realize just how LONG this sucker is! Especially in the parking lot at work when half the cars rear bumper comes the my back tire!

I feel like the Deville was more fragile, like if I dogged on it I would break that fragile trans or pop a head gasket. It ran good, got low to mid 20's for mpg. But my 94 Fleetwood has tons more power and gets high teens for gas mileage. I hope to see how they compare on the highway at the end of the month.

The Mark IV is a lighter color, tan/gold. No idea on interior, but looks in good shape. I always liked the Mark V's. But wouldn't touch one now, just not me. I like the cars, but they seem so lethargic on power to the size/weight. At least they have a 460 and 9in with rear discs (V's were rumored to, some had slug 400's). So power can be dealt with easily. Get a EFI setup from an early 90's truck and go to town with a 5.0L Mustang ECM (easy mods).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,029 Posts
Administrator said:
My 1995 Fleetwood Brougham was one of the best cars I've ever driven. I wish I could have afforded one brand new in 1995.. I still intend on getting one to keep forever one day. I just need a garage first...
I TOLD YOU!!!! but no you just didnt want to listen to me.

the Fleetwood isnt called the "Cadillac of Cadillacs" for nothing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,419 Posts
Fleetwoods are definately more bad ass than any of their RWD cousins. I still remember the test drive I took on a 93. That was a sweet car. I wants me a 95! I want a 95 Fleetwood Brougham as a different daily driver car and retire my 89 to fair weather weekends and the garage life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,029 Posts
DopeStar 156 said:
Fleetwoods are definately more bad ass than any of their RWD cousins. I still remember the test drive I took on a 93. That was a sweet car. I wants me a 95! I want a 95 Fleetwood Brougham as a different daily driver car and retire my 89 to fair weather weekends and the garage life.
im... so... proud :crying:! you gonna let me juice it :eyebrow:? you'd have so many girls around that car after i did that you'd have to fend them off with a stick!

just out of curiosity, how many miles does your 89 have? them Fleetwoods arent too rare where you are. it seems every Fleetwood i see on ebay is from NJ. good luck and happy hunting, took me two years to find mine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,796 Posts
From the side a Fleetwood looks a lot like a Caprice. But it's not a rebadged Roadmaster. Roadmasters look like they're around the same age as Fleetwoods are they don't look any older. They aren't a rebadged Fleetwood either- Roadmasters were made first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
927 Posts
brougham said:
From the side a Fleetwood looks a lot like a Caprice. But it's not a rebadged Roadmaster. Roadmasters look like they're around the same age as Fleetwoods are they don't look any older. They aren't a rebadged Fleetwood either- Roadmasters were made first.
ONLY because less thought and effort was put into their interior so their production began sooner but not becaue they were made better in the least way.

Good things must be thought out and well designed which I think they succeeded with the fleetwood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,534 Posts
Yup, I agree, I looked at a 93 RM Wagon for sale by work and the interior (seats are the main thing that caught me eye) is so plain and lame. The car has some damage to the fenders down low behind the back tires and he still wants $3300. Dreamer.

The seats looked like a cheap vinyl.

Cadillac upscaled the car a lot. The car isn't the high tech Deville, and interestingly enough never seemed to be against it in sales. Fleetwood buyers are Fleetwood buyers. If you like gadgets and FWD (aka, Wrong Wheel Drive), and a smaller car, the Deville is more up your alley. For me, I like the bigger, wider, less gadgets (I do miss FDC though) car.

My thoughts are the Fleetwood had to be a major profit machine, $40K+ average price or more, and my guess is the car didn't cost GM more than $16K to make. Most high tier high end models are killer money makers in any business. Low end "mass market" stuff is often lower profit margins.

Does it make it a cheap ride? No. The seats are firmer than my 91 SDV, but more supportive, has seat warmers, has more goodies on the seats (power lumbar, power recline), a great sounding stereo stock (many will argue, but the dynamic range is actually very good on mine, decent lows, good highs, able to crank it some). Loud isn't the #1 factor, quality is what I am looking for.

My car is very solid, only rattle is new is from a overhead handle. Else the car is dead silent down the road. Quieter than any car short of a $90K S500 MBenz or $225K Bentley Turbo R. Ok, the Bentley 420 CID Turbo has the best exhaust I have ever heard, but I'm not into paying that much for an exhaust.

I have driven and compared, the Fleetwood isn't too far off from that class of machine. (compare same years, not 2006's vs 1994!) and the Cad Fleetwood has an interesting market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
ocjmakaveli said:
ONLY because less thought and effort was put into their interior so their production began sooner but not becaue they were made better in the least way.

Good things must be thought out and well designed which I think they succeeded with the fleetwood.
I totally agree with you. Same thing was with 1967 Eldorado - they fixed all drivetrain mistakes, what Oldsmobile had (1966 Toronado) and produced one nicest big luxury coupe in all times.:worship:
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
About this Discussion
37 Replies
16 Participants
CaddymanTom
Top