Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was looking at some stats, they are almost identical in size (224 for the newer one vs 221, width is 78 vs. 76.5, and wheelbase is identical). So, the actual sizes are almost the identical, but check out the interior specs. Rear legroom: 43.9 vs. 41.2; rear hip room: 59.8 vs. 55.4; rear shoulder room: 64 vs. 59.4!! I mean, sure design can be different, but you can only go with as big a car as you start with! How can the shoulder and hip room be so much larger, the wodths are almost the same. I just was wondering how this was so? My 92 deville actually has more rear seat legroom than the late 80's brougham; mine has 43.2, and wheelbase isnt even close
 

·
Registered
1991 Cadillac Brougham D'Elegance 5.7 Litre, 1994 DeVille
Joined
·
6,796 Posts
For one thing they could have gotten those interior measurements in a different way. The older one might also have thicker doors and stuff like that then the 1993-1996. Like I said before you can't always go by those measurements, you also have to see them both in person. :bonkers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
I know that part of the rear seat legroom thing has a little to do with the additional length, but in the newer Brougham (and DeVilles) the backs of the front seats are thinner than on the older Brougham. There is a slight width increase on the new Brougham, but Cadillac realized that thinner door panels would increase hip room without making the car much larger. This was done on the DeVille bodystyle and the 93-96 Brougham.

Now with front-wheel-drive Cadillacs starting in 1985 such as the DeVille, the engine was mounted transverse (sideways). This drastically reduced the space needed under the hood and more was given to the interior. You also didn't have a drivetrain cutting into the center floorboard. So these cars felt large inside even though they were really mid-size at the time.

I am very partial to the old Brougham 1992 and earlier. I think that this classic body style really says Cadillac. It carries more chrome, has the chromed fins, and has the older-style opulence. That is my opinion. However, the old Brougham is not aerodynamic, and all the 93-96 Broughams had the 5.7L engine, so they might actually perform better. The old Brougham was built not as a performance car, but just a luxury chariot, the ultimate conveyance, a posh living room on wheels. For this reason, it was well-liked by coachbuilders for limousines and funeral cars. The old Brougham was a very strong car, a very heavy car, and I think more serviceable at home.

Also I think the 93-96 Brougham handles better than the previous one. You would not take a fast turn in my '91, but I think Cadillac improved on the suspension for the newer one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
I'd like to see both of them to get in an accident and see who wins! As I like to say with my old boat, "Eat my chrome!" :D
 

·
Registered
1991 Cadillac Brougham D'Elegance 5.7 Litre, 1994 DeVille
Joined
·
6,796 Posts
cadillacjack01 said:
You would not take a fast turn in my '91, but I think Cadillac improved on the suspension for the newer one.
Wow! My '91 D'Elegance is one of the best handling cars I've ever driven. What engine do you have? Mine has the 5.7L.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
I have the 5.0L. I think it accelerates well, I don't know why some folks don't like the 5.0. I think it gets good gas mileage, especially for such a large and heavy car. And she's still a virgin. I haven't modified the engine at all. Everything is as the factory intended.

The 91 Brougham handles great, but leans a little in the turns. Some of the road test magazines of the time agreed with me, but it is not a big problem. It still gives me that pillow-soft ride that I am after. I think they made the suspension and steering stiffer on the 93-96 model to give it a more "road" feel. I posted pictures of the car at photos.yahoo.com/cadillacjack01.
 

·
Registered
1991 Cadillac Brougham D'Elegance 5.7 Litre, 1994 DeVille
Joined
·
6,796 Posts
I asked about the engine because the 5.7L cars are supposed to have a different suspension. Sometime I want to drive one with the 5L just to see what it's like with the different engine.

Out of all the newer Cadillacs I like the 1990-92 Broughams best. They're the last ones to ever have the classic Cadillac look and I like the changes they did to make it look a bit newer for the 90s :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Hmm...

I thought the other suspension was only part of the trailering package. Or were all 5.7's equipped with the trailering package? I am not really sure here. Likewise, I have never driven one with a 5.7 and am a bit curious.

I really never get tired of the 90-92 Brougham. It is my favorite of all the big Broughams. And I think it beats the new luxury cars people pay $50,000 or more to buy.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top