Surprisingly road-able for such a levithian.
![]()
![]()
Exterior design: 8/10
Interior design: 7/10
Powertrain: 9/10
Acceleration: 8.5/10
Suspension: 8/10
Steering: 7.5/10
Overall: 8/10
This one was built in July of '96, has 73k miles and they want $6995 for it.
Ok, let me start this off by saying that I was honestly SURPRISED at how nicely this car drives. No, not in the traditional land-yacht sense, but how firm and controlled it was, for a car of it's size and magnitude. It actually seemed rather....European in the way it didn't bob or bounce after it hit a bump or undulation in the road, especially at speed. It was a lot firmer and controlled than the Roadmaster I drove a few months back (or the one I owned...). I just felt more confident doing evasive maneuvers in this, and even with the way it takes corners at low speeds is better than the Roadmaster or Town Car (the last one I drove being a 1996 Executive Series withOUT the handling package). No, it's no 7 Series or S Class in the way it handles, but it's VERY good for a car two hundered and twenty five inches long. At speed, even the steering seemed more direct than in the Roadmaster, but at low speeds, it's two-finger easy.
I think even compared to the 1992 Sedan deVille I owned, this one rode firmer and more controlled, but my friend Kevin, who rode along with me on the test drive (I like a second opinion) didn't agree. He did agree that the FWB offers a much more controlled ride than the 1994 Town Car I looked at a few years back (that one made him carsick). I seem to remember the SDV bouncing more on the highway when I'd hit a rough patch of pavement, or a dip.
The LT1 power is very good, not as fast as I remembered, but the mind warps over time, am I right? It's definitely a few classes (pun intended) above my little twin cam 3.2 liter inline six. Torque is immediate and endless, power never seems to top off and it's velvet smooth, and just loud enough so you know something's brewing down there, but never intrusive. I noticed a definite loss in power after jumping back into the Mercedes, so I'd guesstimate at it being atleast a second quicker in the 0-60 than mine, so figure about 7.5 or so, on the high end. I was going down a paved road with a lot of peat gravel on it, and I gave it about 1/3-1/2 throttle while doing about 30 mph and I felt the traction control kick in, and the road was dry! Is it as quick as the Regal GS I like (more)? Probably not, but it's quite close, and the power is more attainable. There's no replacement for displacement.
This one did not have the mechanical fan, so it did not have the trailer tow package, which means it has the 2.93:1 open rear differential, same ratio as my Roadmaster, except mine was posi-traction, which meant that it had the trailer tow package, with the mechanical fan (hated that, so loud).
I always liked the styling of these 1993-1996 Fleetwoods. They were a definite product of early '90s GM (big and rounded) and when you combine that with the sheer size of the car, along with my favorite exterior design cue; the HUGE grille, give it much presence, especially considering how rare they are. They still don't grab my eye as much as a clean 1990-92 does, but it's certainly more eye catching than anything else Cadillac was making than, aside from a white STS or ETC. Unlike the new-for-'90 Town Car, the Fleetwood is easily identifiable as a product of the '90s. The TC looks much more clean cut and proportionally correct, much less radical than the FWB. In a different sense, the 90-97 Town Car looks like what would have come in between the 1992 Brougham and 1993 Fleetwood....it's a much more natural progression.
The interior, while very clean and in my favorite color, lacks any visual excitement. There are lots of big, flat surfaces and not a lot of small details, like in the older Broughams. The instrument cluster is extremely simple, just a fuel gauge, digital :bigroll: speedometer, odometer and trip odometer. The Town Car definitely has the advantage there...atleast it has the trip computer and two trip odometers. But then again, considering the demographics of these cars, anything more would be a surprise. Like I said before, I never really liked the dash in these.....it's huge. Deep and tall, but for no good reason. Is there really that much stuff in there? It hinders front legroom, because it hangs down so low, which means we've gotta push the seats back for good room, which hinders the rear legroom. Other than those two things, the interior is very good for it's main duty....cross country travel.
The seats are awesome...just the perfect balance of firmness and cush, with many adjustments and heat, all covered in a very soft leather. The back seat, for whatever reason, was quite firm. No, not like my S Class, but surprisingly so for a Cadillac. Maybe they were never sat in? FWIW, the seats in my DeVille were much more plush, but lacked the lumbar and heat of these. In the long run, I'd say the FWB seats are more comfortable, only because they're probably more orthopedically correct.
It didn't seem to have the abundant interior space of the SDV though. There definitely wasn't as much front legroom, and I could have sworn it had less rear seat legroom, but that's probably because it's got to deal with the rear axle and differential, and FWD cars always have more interior space, it's a design trait.
Would I buy it?
I liked it a lot, but the Regal GS still is top dog. Why you ask? Well the Regal is much easier to live with on a day-to-day basis, not only because it's like three feet shorter, but because I wouldn't be so paranoid about it, because it's just a souped up family sedan, not the king of Cadillacs. At this point in my life, I don't want a car I have to baby and pamper. I just want something I can enjoy, but as a regular car, not some super rare, semi collectible relic of a past era, and I mean that in the good way. I wonder if maybe I would like a 4.9 DeVille more? They're like twenty inches shorter, or the same size as my S Class, and have more creature comforts than the FWB, and are a bit more maneuverable and road-able. The 4.9 offers about 80% of the power of the LT1, and it's just as reliable. Too bad it's FWD. :anger: I was gonna go look at a 1993 SDV for sale later on tonight, but everyone at the Saturn dealer in which it was located was busy. I'll have to find a 94-95 SDV to drive. They have a much more modern interior than the 1991-93's do, but have those wheel skirts, which throws off the proportions and makes it look rather frumpy.
Exterior design: 8/10
Interior design: 7/10
Powertrain: 9/10
Acceleration: 8.5/10
Suspension: 8/10
Steering: 7.5/10
Overall: 8/10
This one was built in July of '96, has 73k miles and they want $6995 for it.
Ok, let me start this off by saying that I was honestly SURPRISED at how nicely this car drives. No, not in the traditional land-yacht sense, but how firm and controlled it was, for a car of it's size and magnitude. It actually seemed rather....European in the way it didn't bob or bounce after it hit a bump or undulation in the road, especially at speed. It was a lot firmer and controlled than the Roadmaster I drove a few months back (or the one I owned...). I just felt more confident doing evasive maneuvers in this, and even with the way it takes corners at low speeds is better than the Roadmaster or Town Car (the last one I drove being a 1996 Executive Series withOUT the handling package). No, it's no 7 Series or S Class in the way it handles, but it's VERY good for a car two hundered and twenty five inches long. At speed, even the steering seemed more direct than in the Roadmaster, but at low speeds, it's two-finger easy.
I think even compared to the 1992 Sedan deVille I owned, this one rode firmer and more controlled, but my friend Kevin, who rode along with me on the test drive (I like a second opinion) didn't agree. He did agree that the FWB offers a much more controlled ride than the 1994 Town Car I looked at a few years back (that one made him carsick). I seem to remember the SDV bouncing more on the highway when I'd hit a rough patch of pavement, or a dip.
The LT1 power is very good, not as fast as I remembered, but the mind warps over time, am I right? It's definitely a few classes (pun intended) above my little twin cam 3.2 liter inline six. Torque is immediate and endless, power never seems to top off and it's velvet smooth, and just loud enough so you know something's brewing down there, but never intrusive. I noticed a definite loss in power after jumping back into the Mercedes, so I'd guesstimate at it being atleast a second quicker in the 0-60 than mine, so figure about 7.5 or so, on the high end. I was going down a paved road with a lot of peat gravel on it, and I gave it about 1/3-1/2 throttle while doing about 30 mph and I felt the traction control kick in, and the road was dry! Is it as quick as the Regal GS I like (more)? Probably not, but it's quite close, and the power is more attainable. There's no replacement for displacement.
This one did not have the mechanical fan, so it did not have the trailer tow package, which means it has the 2.93:1 open rear differential, same ratio as my Roadmaster, except mine was posi-traction, which meant that it had the trailer tow package, with the mechanical fan (hated that, so loud).
I always liked the styling of these 1993-1996 Fleetwoods. They were a definite product of early '90s GM (big and rounded) and when you combine that with the sheer size of the car, along with my favorite exterior design cue; the HUGE grille, give it much presence, especially considering how rare they are. They still don't grab my eye as much as a clean 1990-92 does, but it's certainly more eye catching than anything else Cadillac was making than, aside from a white STS or ETC. Unlike the new-for-'90 Town Car, the Fleetwood is easily identifiable as a product of the '90s. The TC looks much more clean cut and proportionally correct, much less radical than the FWB. In a different sense, the 90-97 Town Car looks like what would have come in between the 1992 Brougham and 1993 Fleetwood....it's a much more natural progression.
The interior, while very clean and in my favorite color, lacks any visual excitement. There are lots of big, flat surfaces and not a lot of small details, like in the older Broughams. The instrument cluster is extremely simple, just a fuel gauge, digital :bigroll: speedometer, odometer and trip odometer. The Town Car definitely has the advantage there...atleast it has the trip computer and two trip odometers. But then again, considering the demographics of these cars, anything more would be a surprise. Like I said before, I never really liked the dash in these.....it's huge. Deep and tall, but for no good reason. Is there really that much stuff in there? It hinders front legroom, because it hangs down so low, which means we've gotta push the seats back for good room, which hinders the rear legroom. Other than those two things, the interior is very good for it's main duty....cross country travel.
The seats are awesome...just the perfect balance of firmness and cush, with many adjustments and heat, all covered in a very soft leather. The back seat, for whatever reason, was quite firm. No, not like my S Class, but surprisingly so for a Cadillac. Maybe they were never sat in? FWIW, the seats in my DeVille were much more plush, but lacked the lumbar and heat of these. In the long run, I'd say the FWB seats are more comfortable, only because they're probably more orthopedically correct.
It didn't seem to have the abundant interior space of the SDV though. There definitely wasn't as much front legroom, and I could have sworn it had less rear seat legroom, but that's probably because it's got to deal with the rear axle and differential, and FWD cars always have more interior space, it's a design trait.
Would I buy it?
I liked it a lot, but the Regal GS still is top dog. Why you ask? Well the Regal is much easier to live with on a day-to-day basis, not only because it's like three feet shorter, but because I wouldn't be so paranoid about it, because it's just a souped up family sedan, not the king of Cadillacs. At this point in my life, I don't want a car I have to baby and pamper. I just want something I can enjoy, but as a regular car, not some super rare, semi collectible relic of a past era, and I mean that in the good way. I wonder if maybe I would like a 4.9 DeVille more? They're like twenty inches shorter, or the same size as my S Class, and have more creature comforts than the FWB, and are a bit more maneuverable and road-able. The 4.9 offers about 80% of the power of the LT1, and it's just as reliable. Too bad it's FWD. :anger: I was gonna go look at a 1993 SDV for sale later on tonight, but everyone at the Saturn dealer in which it was located was busy. I'll have to find a 94-95 SDV to drive. They have a much more modern interior than the 1991-93's do, but have those wheel skirts, which throws off the proportions and makes it look rather frumpy.
