William Rubano caught a final-series Cadillac Fleetwood in a rather unfortunate shot, one that really accentuates the basic problems with this car.
Its rear wheel looks like it’s too far forward on the body, and the tall roof, very heavy C-Pillar and rear trunk look like they’re totally overpowering that rear wheel, even when it’s not actually overpowered like on this one. It just lacks the typical Cadillac gracefulness that was the hallmark of so many fine cars that once carried that evocative name.
I don’t think that at that ignominious point in the life of the marque, gracefulness was of any concern. What was wanted, in typical “old GM” fashion, was to differentiate itself from what it started out as, before the gussying-up started: a Chevrolet.
“We have to make it seem like it is worth thousands upon thousands more. So let’s pile junk on it. Worked in 1959, didn’t it?”
Hideous. Absolutely hideous. Probably one of the ugliest GM cars ever, next to the beached whale Caprice of the 90’s and the Pontiac Aztek. IMO GM designers lost their way in the 90’s. Most of the cars looked bloated and not at all something I would want parked in my driveway.
Yes – it looks like someone dropped that ugly, awkward frame onto a chassis by accident.
This look is better on the Chevy Caprice, with whom it shared this platform. Even the Roadmaster was better-looking.
Yea, but that’s kinda like saying Rosanne Barr is better looking than Rosie O’Donnell…
The goggles
minor styling changes! They do nothing!I disagree. The proportions on the Chevy (a design I’m not really wild about) are significantly better than the Caddy and Roadmaster, despite having quite a bit shorter wheelbase. The Chevy’s roof is curved, and starts to slope down from the B-Pillar, which makes it a relatively much more cohesive and balanced design.
The Caddy and Roadmaster’s roof line continues on straight, for too far, and its bulk ends up overpowering the rear end and unbalancing the whole car. And the very petite front end, almost unchanged from the Caprice, only adds to the lack of balance.
The problem here is that this car was originally designed as the Caprice, and had to be cobbled up with a formal roof for the Buick and Caddy, the result being very unfavorable.
The FWD Caddy of this vintage is a much better design, because it is cohesive.
The Caprice was easily the best looking of the three. The irony was that the Caprice was the only member of the B-body trio to receive significant styling alterations, while the Roadmaster and FB, which clearly needed more help, remained unchanged throughout the run.
It’s amazing how much more attractive the Caprice became after the rear wheel arch was rounded in 1993, but IMO the chamfered rear window that was added in 1995 was the more significant change. This had a profound effect on lightening the appearance of the car. Just goes to show how subtle changes can make a world of difference.
+1
I hated the Caprice when it came out. I thought and still do, that the car it replaced was a much better design even though it dated back several years. The new design just looked bloated and I thought it looked comical as a police cruiser. However, with the changes, it became an attractive car, depending, of course on the color and options. They sure made better looking police cars.
The Roadmaster did get significant styling alterations, but on the inside rather than out – new dashboard, door trim, armrests, and steering wheel.
Agree, Paul. The Chevy’s not bad at all. The Caddy certainly needs the rear wheel shifted at least four inches further back, and perhaps the roof lowered an inch or two for sleekness.
The Roadmaster is the ONLY one I’d take if same year and condition, I’d pay at least 10 percent higher vig for the Roadie. This is not from the same planet as the 1980-1992 RWD Cadillacs, (Blowing chunks now….)
In the right colors with 235s it can look better, but having owned one I tend to agree. The worst view was this one, directly from the side, where every incongruity was apparent. Angles were kinder. However, it was contemporary for the blobby 90s. The real disappointment on these was the interior, which even on the fully loaded version was seriously cheapened out from the ’77-’92 model. The old Brougham may have been a tricked-out Caprice at heart, but it. wasn’t that obvious. The last Fleetwood was so plasticky inside it made you wonder: how did these nice leather seats end up in here?
It starts with this. I think the proportion is very right instead of many wrong proportions nowadays ( no overhangs makes cars bloated and cheap looking )
Always liked this one tremendously.
Wow, now that is a looker!! C’mon, GM – with today’s technology you can build a fantastic contemporary Fleetwood/deVille that would surely sell like crazy. Enough of the angular designs already.
I remember loving this concept when it was shown, and thought it was really “right” for a Cadillac.
The actual Fleetwood that came out was a bastardized Frankenstein of a car that took a few styling elements from the concept and ruined them by plopping them on the Shamu Caprice. Just dreadful. Hopefully they won’t do the same thing with converting the styling of the Elmiraj into a production car, but somehow I’m afraid that will come out all wrong too.
Why did GM never put their good designs into production?
Dunno, IMHO it looks okay with the trim on the quarter panels (pic). The wheelbase could be longer, that’s true – obviously too much rear wheel-well intrusion for a full-size sedan, and an ugly shape of the door, too.
Something like this
Big improvement, Stanislav.
For those like the shorter overhang, they had it from ’97-’99.
The solution for the Buick version is this:
The dog approves:
I can’t help myself, the absurdity of the whole thing brought some levity to my I-85 grind home. He was sweaving around a good bit as well for extra entertainment.
“Sweaving”. LOVE it!!!
That is totally insane! These deserve a post of their own.
“Crazy Curbside Commuting”? Feel free to use the pics. I’d love to hear some of the crazy stuff other folks have seen. This went from WTH?, get the phone camera to OH S**T! to thank God it’s my exit in about 45 seconds.
Looks like the modern day Joads! They are even in the fast lane!
The photos are not in chronological order. The first picture is half a mile down the road after he scared the bejesus out of everyone. I was in the slow lane and he came from behind in the center lane. Traffic was slowing down fast due to the rush hour I-85/I-385 interchange backup. His solution was to brake hard while changing lanes to the fast lane – you can only imagine how that went with that set up. EVERYONE gave him WIDE berth despite the congestion after that! This is just after he started braking and a few milliseconds before the “sweave” maneuver, I literally had to drop my phone to get both hands firmly on the wheel and get as far away as I could from what I assumed was going to be a fiery pileup:
The 1st time I saw one of these Fleetwoods I thought “GM/Cadillac has re-invented the 69-70 Imperial….but without the hidden headlights”.
I think these cars are okay, though the one pictured looks like a particularly sad example. And as far as I’m concerned, overhangs or the lack thereof has no DIRECT correlation with how right or wrong a car looks. Case in point: the 55 T-bird and the 88 T-bird. One has minimal overhangs while the other has overhangs bordering on excessive.
Much more important, IMHO, are the proportions and overall cohesion of a design.
I think the point that is being made with the thread is that overhangs are a major component contributing to overall cohesion of specific design, and that poor proportioning can easily ruin what would otherwise be a pleasing and acceptable design.
The 1988 Thunderbird you cite as an example easily illustrates this point. That car had a 104.3 in. wheelbase, with an overall length stretching 202 inches. As a former owner of an ’88 T-Bird, I always thought the overhangs were excessive, even after taking into consideration that the car came from an era when large overhangs were an accepted part of automotive design, and the average person likely paid them less notice.
I would assume that most who regularly post here would generally agree that the 83-88 Thunderbird were attractive cars, albeit clearly from a specific era. That said, I don’t think it would be much of a stretch to say the same posters who generally approve of the car would also agree that the car would have been considerably more attractive if the proportions were improved, via a longer wheelbase, which would have rectified certain issues, specifically the poor dash to axle ratio which was an inherent part of the Fox platform.
It’s not just about overhang; it’s about overall proportions and massing. The T-Bird had overhangs front and rear, and its roof wasn’t so massive.
The problem with this car is that it started out as the Caprice, with a rather small and delicate front end and an aero-roof that started sloping down at the B-Pillar. But they gave it a huge, flat formal roof line, that simply isn’t harmonious with the front end, and overpowers the lower half of the car. This was not a design that was ever organic, due to sharing the front half with the Caprice. The FWD Caddys of this era were relatively much better in these regards, as they were designed like that overall. The Fleetwood is a Frankenstein-mobile.
It reminds me a bit of the ’59-’60 GM full-sizers, which by decree had to all share the Buick front door. This time it was the Chevy front door – just about all the other sheetmetal on the sedans including the the hoods, front fendersand front fascia are unique to each brand. The Caddy has a much more squared-off wheel opening, grill, and cornering lamps. I think the rear door may be shared between the Chevy and Buick save for the split glass.
But a profound change had occurred in the market for big cars between the last time this cars were revamped in 1977 (interior) or 1980 (exterior) and 1993. In 1977, full-size cars were the bread and butter of Detroit’s lineup – the “real” Chevrolets, Buicks, and Cadillacs. Like there’d be dealer brochures for the ’77 Nova, Camaro, Monza, Chevelle, and Chevrolet – with “Chevrolet” not being a full-line brochure (as I first thought when I saw it) but rather the ‘true’ Chevrolets – the full-size Caprice and Impala. By 1993, the Caprice was just another Chevrolet – the big one – and no longer the staple of America’s suburban driveways. Now the Caprice was sold primarily as a taxi, a police car, for older traditionalists who didn’t like the new smaller FWD cars, and as tow vehicles. The mainstream had become Camrys and Accords, not Impalas and LTDs. These cars reflected that reality – the big funding was saved for where the action was – small and midsize cars, trucks, and SUVs.
I thought Cadillac did a reasonable job turning the neo-Caprice into a Cadillac given the constraints. It looked toned down compared to the ’80s car, but so was everything else. The Roadmaster OTOH never looked like a real Buick to me, unlike the concurrent Park Avenue which was unmistakeably all Buick inside and out.
The Olds Custom Cruiser wagon may have been the best looking of this lot. It even had the historic 2nd and 3rd row skylights.
I had a customer with one of these in 2006. It had spent its years garaged in Florida and had accumulated less than nine thousand miles. It was as clean as a new car, but much of the chrome trim was coming apart. The chrome was actually some sort of plastic film, and it was delaminating, cracking, and falling off. It made the whole car look like a facade. The styling was heavy handed and clumsy, but the idea of the last traditional Cadillac with an LT1 was appealing until I saw how cheaply they were made.
That chrome film is Di-noc. It comes in more iterations than just woodgrain.
It was originally intended to simulate paint and chrome on styling clays, then one day someone got an idea. “How much could we save if we used this stuff on actual cars”?
They probably saved the trouble of building a bunch of cars for former repeat buyers.
Well I still like them. The 93-96 Fleetwood was the last example of a traditional American Luxury Car with the formal c pillar, fenderskirts and cathedral taillights. Something everything GM had during the 60s till the downsizing in the 80s used on the c or d body. Nothing looks worse than an old worn out Luxury Car like the one in the picture, missing a fender skirt, inoperative Level Ride and chrome trim falling off which really accents the worst of the design.
I like them but not as much as the previous generation Fleetwoods-those are sharp. I think they wear the “aero” design better than the FWD Devilles of this same era. To me, the FWD cars just look incredibly fat and dumpy.
If you want to see a really bad interior in one of these Fleetwoods, try one with the leather-delete option…crappy cloth that would have looked more at home in a Cavalier. My ex-wife’s grandfather hated leather seats, and his last car was a platinum gray 94 or so with those horrible cloth seats. His 1990 Brougham had really nice mousefur velour, but the newer car was just awful. Thank God he had macular degeneration, I don’t think he could tell how bad it looked.
Cadillac interiors were even worse than the exteriors. In this 1995 the steering wheel is a big blob of gray vinyl that doesn’t match the rest, which looks like maybe a pickup truck.
My ex’s grandfather had a heavy front end collision with his, and when it came back from the bodyshop, the steering wheel and column were black…in a light gray interior.
Wow, that’s pretty bad. Maybe they thought a totally flat dash looked clean or modern? It really does end up looking like a truck though.
Barring the sad condition of this car, I definitely like the Fleetwood design when in good condition – even though I recognize that it’s technically not a good design in terms of proportion. It’s polarizing, but even those who hate it will admit it has personality.
It’s the exact opposite of how I feel about some similar-vintage Giugiaro designs (no offense intended – I have TREMENDOUS respect for the man and most of his designs, even if he “sold out”) that are technically well-proportioned but painfully anodyne, like the 1993 Lexus GS and the Eagle Premier. Yes, they may be good textbook examples, but they fail to stir any emotion in me.
The pictured Cadillac appears to be missing the rear fender skirt, which makes the whole car look bad. I think that Cadillac’s from the 60’s are better looking than any after that for the body on frame designs. Current RWD Cadillacs are fun to drive, but styling is not to everyones taste.
The proportions are way off on the Caddy, none of these whale cars are what I’d call good looking but the Caddy is just awfull and they had the cheek to price it above the rest.
This generation is certainly not to everyone’s taste, especially coming as it did after the “sheer” look of the 77-92s. I would note this Fleetwood is riding on the exact same 121.5 inch wheelbase the previous model did. The Caprice and Roadmaster shared the same 115 inch wheelbase of the old B-Body.
Even clapped out as it is, I’ll bet this old 93 or 94 (wing mirrors give it away) Fleetwood rides better than any current Cadillac.
That’s true, If I was to ride any distance, I’d rather be in one of these before ANY current Caddy, It’s just as a lover of the ’77-’92 version, This reskin was a letdown. Plus worse for me (as a GM guy.) I thought Lincoln pulled off the “areo” reskin on the 1990-1997 Town Car much better. It was “Modern” and still obviously “Lincoln”
I can’t comment on the XTS’s ride. However I owned a 2013 ATS which did have a firm ride with AWD and no magnetic shocks. I now own a 2014 CTS sedan with AWD and electronically controlled magnetic shocks. The CTS does have firm bucket seats which may not be as soft as many would like, but the car rides as well as my 2002 FWD Seville luxury sedan did and much better than the ATS.
The RM just needs to be dropped, that’s all
I like that. Might have chosen a different wheel than the Impala SS 5-spokes (personal preference) but it’s a good look with the lowering job.
The Roadmonster gets my vote as the pretty sister of the three. What the heck was wrong with GM that they wouldn’t design side mouldings that would stay on the car?!? There is an insert in the Buick side moulding that is either missing, or has been screwed back on with sheetmetal screws on almost every Roadmaster I see. Shitty, sloppy design.
This generation of Fleetwood is a classic case of a manufacturer not wanting to spend the money necessary to do a design properly.
The Lincoln Town Car was selling well during these years – and not just to livery companies. Lincoln came out with a sleek, new look for 1990 that was well-received in the market. Cadillac didn’t want to completely abandon that market segment, but GM management obviously didn’t want to spend much money turning the Caprice into a Fleetwood.
Then again, maybe GM simply didn’t have the money, as it came perilously close to bankruptcy in 1992-93.
The RWD Fleetwood sold at 50,000 in the mid to late 80’s but sales were down by 1990. Cadillac was making the FWD Fleetwood’s, including a Fleetwood 60 Special, the “Standard of the World” so to speak. I think Cadillac actually had planned on shutting down the body on frame Fleetwood by the early 90’s. Chevrolet had other plans obviously. Cadillac wanted the stiff body architecture that was in progress for the 1992 Seville, but had to make do with a revised body design based on the FWD Deville. This may be why they delayed the restyle of the RWD Fleetwood.
I think the dropping sales is why Buick got the Roadmaster. Even with the new style, Chevrolet sales were dropping, and the Cadillac sales rebounded for only a year. Buick’s sales, good the first year, then proceeded to crash. By 1996 the party was over. They should have stopped at the end of the 80’s. What GM could have done is to have made the 1995 Aurora a stiff bodied RWD sedan. Then Oldsmobile and Cadillac would have had “real” European style sedans.
I don’t hate these by any means, but the ill proportions are evident from this nearly dead-on side view. A couple of tweaks could have helped a lot–a bit more arch to the roof so the rear door isn’t completely flat at the top, a slightly thinner c-pillar, and about 6 inches of length removed aft of the rear wheel. Kind of the same treatment that they used to create the Deville Park Avenue in the 60’s?
I don’t know where I saw the photos, but I have seen a Roadmaster wagon with a Fleetwood front clip, wheels, and trim. Now that actually looked good!
Weird thing was that the real Roadmaster wagon had a Caprice front clip (with a Buick grille) rather than a full Buick front clip, even though it would have fit fine.
The Roadmaster wagon was put into production a year ahead of the sedan, and so was more Caprice than Buick. The wagons are the best looking cars of these RWD iterations.
While I think this particular Cadillac is worse than usual, the real problem with the C-pillar is that the vinyl roof does not come down to the lower glass on the rear door. This makes the side glass look oversized. The 1977 through 1992 Cadillac’s had the C-pillar vinyl line up with the lower edge of the glass in the rear doors. The Buick Roadmaster’s C-pillar seems to line up with the lower edge of the glass in the rear doors and so looks better even though the C-pillar seems a bit big. The Caprice dodges this problem with the glass behind the rear doors in the C-pillar.
This particular Cadillac is missing a fender skirt and the level control does not seem to be working as the rear is sagging and the front end seems to be riding high. This makes the car look very bad in this picture. Pictures of this model in better condition do not look as bad.
The last (93-96) Fleetwood’s were actually about 4 inches longer than the 1977’s.