Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'am going tomorow to look at a 1993 fleetwood broughm with 160,000 miles and my question is is this alot of miles for these cars? Assuming the car was treated well,and checks out when I look it over really well do you guys think I can get alot more life left in it?,I'am very good at maintaince with my cars FWIW. I've read here that 200,000 and even 300,000 miles is common for these boats but is this common experiance for those of you who own these caddys?,whats your milage on your FWB and has it needed anything done to it major or minor in the time you've owned it? I can't really ask my brother as hes only has his fleetwood a couple of months now.

My brother has a '93 FWB with 88,000 miles and it runs like a new car,now I know thats not the same thing as 160,000 miles but the car is awsome. As a side note my a friend of mine has a '95 chevy lumina sedan with 163,000 miles and it runs as well as my brother's fleetwood go figure I guess milage is only a number if the car was well cared for. Anyways thanks for any feedback on this guys.
 

·
Registered
Unicycle
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
the '93 had a regular fuel injected Chevy 350, easy to work on and cheap parts.

Its a SBC.... pretty darn reliable.

I'd say you are good... may want to service the trans with those miles, otherwise pretty nice :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Cool night wolf thanks,and as far as the tranny goes if it has any issues will these show up during normal driving? Or should I get on it to see if it slips at all? I'am going to bring a friend whos a mechanic with me so I should be ok I've always wanted a fleetwood and this might just be "the one":bouncy:
 

·
Registered
Unicycle
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
Well a couple WOT runs would be good, make sure it sounds good and shifts good etc...

160k is on the average-high side for an auto trans... atleast GM, I am not saying it'll fail in 5,000 miles, but I am not saying you'll get 100k from it...

I'd say if it was taken care of etc... you should have a good 50k miles on that trans... just have, say $1,400 aside to get it rebuilt, then it'll go on for as long as you drive it.

once you own it, a simple filter and fluid change is what I mean by servicing it... alot of people neglect auto trans, so bring it to a shop have them do a filter/fluid change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
927 Posts
WORD OF ADVICE if the tranny has not had any service on it EVER then please dont' change the fluid now for some ODD reason if you change the fluid after 100,000 miles with new fluid it usually makes the tranny fail or start slipping and hard shifting.

After 2 different occasions of this happening on 2 different vehicles and also a friend of mine that works at maaco trans. I have been told that the new fluid mixing with the old fluid that remains in the tranny have a negative effect.

Somehow the old tranny fluid adapts to the worn parts and new fluid causes bad problems with old trannys.

I've seen trannys go upto 250,000 miles without any fluid changes etc. and still run fine.

Yet I've had 2 cars fail at less than 150,000 once I changed the fluid and another time i had the fluid changed at a shop. Usually a couple weeks after it'll start shifting harsh or slipping etc.
 

·
Banned
1995 ETC, 75 Deville, Cad500 powered 73 Apollo, 94 Mark VIII
Joined
·
7,971 Posts
^^ Never heard THAT before. Maybe if you were talking about flushing the trans rather than just changing the fluid.

Anyway keep in mind you've got a cop car drivetrain in that thing pretty well, and think how many high mileage cop cars are out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,471 Posts
First, I must point out that IMO, 160K is a lot of miles for any car if it hasn't been taken care of. To be honest, 60K is a lot of miles for a car that has been neglected. The problem when buying a used car is that for the most part, you'll never know what the car has endured in the past. That said, keeping in mind that 13-15,000 miles per year is considered "average" usage so the 160,000 miles is right in the ballpark. Funny how used cars tend to end up in the "ballpark" huh? I would check everything out and as long as everything "looks" okay, and the test drive goes well, you shouldn't feel worried about the mileage. I routinely kept my fleet cars 'til well over 200,000 miles and they ran fine. Of course I DID put a lot of money into them and they DID feel rather worn by the time we got rid of them.
As for the transmission issue mentioned, I would agree and this is how it was explained to me years ago:
If the transmission has not been regularly serviced, the internal parts wear more rapidly for sure. By over 100,000 miles, the clutches and drum especially are worn. These are the main friction areas in the trans. As the trans fluid ages, the lubricative properties and additive packages wear out, and the clutches will accumulate a good amount of embedded "crap" for a lack of a more technical term. When you suddenly change the fluid at this point, the new fluid, being extremely high in detergent additives (many old timers used to use it as a hand cleaner in the shop), the fluid goes right to work cleaning all the embedded "crap" out of the clutches and dumping it into the filter and sometimes other areas where it can cause a problem. The filter can get clogged and cause a problem, and the new fresh slippery fluid acting together with old worn clutches allows the trans to slip especially on full-throttle shifts.
I've had some guys blow this off and tell me it's an old wive's tale but I have experienced it several times both personally and through freinds experiences.
 

·
Registered
1974 fleetwood 75, 1980 sedan deville, 1970 eldo
Joined
·
319 Posts
I agree with katshot on everything he said and definetly on the trannys. Had an 88 chevy that went out after it had a filter and fluid change. A friend of mine had a 96 that did the same. Ive currently got an 88 and 89 chevy one with at least 165K miles and one with about 300K miles on them. Ive never changed the fluids in either and never plan to because it would probably be a waste of money. The truck with 300K is the original engine and tranny, its had 20w50 in it since its first oil change and runs great, the tranny has a little slip between 2nd and 3rd and if u take a corner real fast. Other than that its great and its the same engine tranny in ur 93 fleet, so I think if its been cared for ur good to go.
 

·
Registered
93 fleet, 95 fleet, 59 impala
Joined
·
728 Posts
I have a 93 fleet, it now has 188,000 miles on it, I bought it from the original owner, with 125,000, he said that he had done nothin to the car had no problems ever. The only things I have done to the car since I have owned it are, full tuneup all acdelco parts, tranny flush 2 of them, waterpump at 182,000 and rebuilt the radiator at the same time, thats it, since day one it has had 14 inch rims. and for the last 20,000 it has had hydraulics, probobly an extra 1,000 pounds of weight.
 

·
Registered
'93 Fleetwood Brougham...Dad's
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Yeah, these are definately some high mileage running beasts, even without the best of care--though it certainly does help.

My father's '92 Roadmaster with 191k is still going strong, and is still remarkably free of any maintenance issues--gas and the occasional oil change, and it's good to go. Plus, for a 13 year old car with so many miles, it looks AMAZING--he constantly has people, particularly when he's at work, that are shocked to hell when they find out the truth about the car, having thought it was no more than a few years old and low mileage.

And, on the other side of the driveway, the '93 Fleetwood has 102k and, in all honesty, is still as smooth, quiet, tight, and powerful as what, I would imagine, it felt like brand new. Besides a few slightly loose trim pieces outside and a couple small "grandma in the parking lot" scrapes on the front corners, it too looks terrific, better than the Buick actually. Mechanically, in the 2.5 years and 14k miles we've had it, it's needed a new oil pan seal to fix a slight leak, new front brake pads, an EGR valve and solenoid to cure pretty bad spark knock and a check engine light, it got a transmission flush plush new fluid and filter, and then, just recently, a new right front lower ball joint to cure some bad creaking. Oh yeah, and it just got a new starter too, after having an intermittant problem where it wouldn't start until about the 7th try. All minor stuff, and not expensive at all--even the stuff we had the dealer do, like the EGR and ball joint.

I USED to be scared of what I thought were high mileage cars--basically anything that was in the 90k or higher range--but have changed my opinion completely after owning and seeing a lot of these cars, in particular. Mileage is one factor, yes, but there are other things that affect the condition and wear of a car much more: how and if its basic maintenance was taken care of, how the past owner(s) drove the car, and also the kind of environment and roads it was used on. For instance, a car that only has 60k on it, but was pounded over, say, the crater filled streets in NYC is most likely going to act and feel more beat and be more worn out than a car with 150k that did nothing but constantly cruise back and fourth on glassy smooth highways down south.

So, I'd rather have a low mileage used car than one with 300k on it, but that number isn't a completely accurate depiction of the shape a car might be in--especially if it's something like a Fleetwood.
 

·
Registered
1970 Sedan deVille hardtop
Joined
·
595 Posts
Engines aren't what they used to be. Basically ditto on what everyone said above about them lasting. The whole 'high mileage' thing when a car turns over 100K is really from years ago when metalurgy in engines wasn't as good, and many engines didn't have full pressure oil systems. Modern oils are also a TON better than they used to be, so that helps alot, and EFI is just icing on the cake by ensuring the engine doesn't run too rich and hurt the ring seal. The way engines are designed today they can go 100K even with total neglect. 200K should be no problem with even minimal maintenance. The problem with most cars is either the owner gets tired of it nd buys something else, or lots of small parts start breaking (interior parts, etc) and the owner gets tired of being "nickel and dimed" so they go out and get slaughtered with a new car payment. Go figure...
I'd say if it runs strong, it probably is. If you want to be absolutley sure, go to a shop and have them check the compression and the oil pressure. That will tell you alot. Make an appointment ahead of time and be sure you have the engine warmed up before taking it to them. They can also check the brakes & etc at the same time. It's probably a good idea if you aren't familiar with working on cars.
 

·
Registered
01 STS, 92 Roadmaster, 01 SLS-sold, 88 Brougham-crushed
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
195,000 and still going strong with my 1988 307 powered brougham. the 350 will last forever though. and like they said, very cheap and reliable
 

·
Registered
Too many...
Joined
·
878 Posts
davesdeville said:
^^ Never heard THAT before. Maybe if you were talking about flushing the trans rather than just changing the fluid.

Anyway keep in mind you've got a cop car drivetrain in that thing pretty well, and think how many high mileage cop cars are out there.
Yep... its a luxury version of my Caprice 9C1... the downfall to these drivetrains is definitley the tranny. The 4L60E isnt the best tranny ever... Us B-Body guys seem to kill these trannies pretty quickly especially with a 350 or LT1 in front of it. You are looking at a 93 which, like my cop car, has a L05 350 (TBI) ... a much cheaper and simpler engine to work on compared to the LT1 350 (MPFI) with about a 50 horse difference though.... A 4L60E with 160k... with no work is plausible, but not usual, impy and 9C1 guys are usually pretty happy if they can get 130k out them without a rebuild. I have 110k on mine and its operating fairly well. The L05 doesnt put as much stress on it as bad as an LT1 would either.

Ok thats my hogwash... what im saying is, thats good amount of miles for a 4L60E. I would hook up with www.impalassforum.com and see how these guys rip through those transmissions!

And the engines... you take care of them they will last! Like you saw... I also see... all the time, caprices fleetwoods roadmasters and impalas with well over 200k or 300k on the original engines... usually not original trannies however.
 

·
Registered
1994 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (some show and some go!)
Joined
·
607 Posts
JTraik said:
caprices fleetwoods roadmasters and impalas with well over 200k or 300k on the original engines... usually not original trannies however.
True that. :eek:

160K miles is a lot on a vehicle with poor or zero maintenance. Even the trusty L05 engine.....

So, without having knowledge of past owner(s) or maintenance records, I would suggest giving the car a thorough test drive. Be weary of any engine and tranny noises or quirks. The suspension also has 160K miles possibly so get a good feel of that. Listen for noises from the third member also (rear end) as it can be pricey to overhaul also.

The mechanic diagnosis is a good suggestion also, as long as you have a trustworthy person and competent one. Have them check it out on a lift if possible and give the whole car a good once over.

Good luck! Hope it turns out to be the car you're looking for!

And just to add, if the mechanic likes it and your test drive goes well, then don't be bashful to purchase it. A well-maintained L05 is still a great reliable engine, even at 160K.
 

·
Registered
'93 Fleetwood Brougham...Dad's
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
What's the REAL difference between the tranny on '91-93 models and that on the '94-96 LT1 cars? I was just talking to my father how it seems like the transmissions in the newer B and D-bodies seem to be more problematic, which made us wonder what was really different--or was it just that the added power of the LT1 put more stress on it and caused a higher failure rate. Didn't it switch from hydraulic to electronic operation in '94?

As an example, we know for a fact that the only thing our '93 with 102k has ever had in this regard is at least one fluid flush and filter change and still operates perfectly. And we're quite certain that the '92 Roadmaster with 191k hasn't had any real tranny work either--and it too functions completely fine.
 

·
Registered
94 Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
7,534 Posts
Yes, 94 was first for the 4L60E, as compared to the 4L60, aka THM 700R4, (aka, THM350 x2.... which the 700 was based on the 350)

Well, most consider the last year of the old trans the best it ever got, and the first year of the new trans often the worst. My 94 is doing well, but my 96 Burb with 4L60E shifts smoother and not so abrupt at times. I wondered if it was just mine had the V4P and it was just that way for towing. But wouldn't the 96 Suburban be the same? They are night and day difference, and they are close in age, and the Suburban trans has 218K miles and the Cad 171K. But I don't know if the Suburban one was ever rebuilt. The Cadillac one I am fairly certiain it has not.

The electronic controlled version I feel is better, but you are dependant on the ECM doing the shift points.

It is still hydraulic, but told when to shift by solenoids, and temp and pressure are also ECM controlled. So overall the 4L60E is better, and should be more reliable. And shift more consistently. Still, I prefer my 1976 Delta 88 Royale's THM400 (ok, THM375, same thing minus a clutch pack....), still it was best trans in my book.

People probably were harder on them, the LT1 is just plain fun to punch it!!!
 

·
Registered
'93 Fleetwood Brougham...Dad's
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Interesting points. Like I said, we've never had a single problem with either of the trannies in the Buick or the Caddy, and I've not had the lightest foot in the past two years of driving the Caddy--shifts like silk and doesn't make a single od sound. Only got better with the new fluid and filter this past January.

On the other hand, sometimes the 4L60E in our '04 Suburban shifts oddly and has the occasional thud, things that often make the Caddy's shifts feel smoother, even if it doesn't have as responsive of a feel. This was weird, nonetheless, because the same engine/tranny combo in our '02 Avalanche seemed to work a little better than it does in the Suburban--sometimes it seems, almost, as if GM messed with the programming and screwed something up in the 2 years b/w the trucks. Already had a problem with one of the seals in the 'Burbans tranny going bad too, causing a noticeable amount of fluid to leak out--but we're pretty sure it was just a weird fluke, like the seal being just a little off from the start.
 

·
Registered
94 Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
7,534 Posts
Sounds like my Cad trans (has thud sometimes), and the Sub never does. Strange! I want to copy the programming from both and make a better trans shift program.
 

·
Registered
'93 Fleetwood Brougham...Dad's
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
N0DIH said:
Sounds like my Cad trans (has thud sometimes), and the Sub never does. Strange! I want to copy the programming from both and make a better trans shift program.
Yep. Our Caddy doesn't exactly feel "snappy" with its shifting, at least not as much as the Suburban does, but at least it doesn't have a 1-2 hard thud like the truck does at lower speeds sometimes. Not a horrible thing, but noticeable.

Regardless, I'm still very satisfied with the "older" unit on the Caddy.
 

·
Registered
1994 FLEETWOOD94 BROUGHAM
Joined
·
178 Posts
509 Rider
Yea Man, Thas Alot Of Extra Weight On Ur Vehicle And Its Still Runnin Str8 Huh

Thas Tite. Lil 94 Caddy @ 116000 Miles On It, Purrin Like A Cat,

Good Info Tho From Everyone

Dpgc23
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top