(first posted 5/8/2017) Cadillac’s greatly downsized 1985 DeVille and Fleetwood have been extensively covered here before, but we’ve never featured a front-wheel drive C-body Fleetwood Seventy-Five limousine… and we still aren’t in this post.
That’s right. Although Cadillac continued offering a factory stretch limousine on the new front-wheel drive C-body platform in the form of the Fleetwood Seventy-Five, this 1985 Cadillac limousine is not one of them. Rather, it’s a more basic DeVille converted into a stretch limo by an aftermarket conversion firm.
While the Fleetwood Seventy-Five was actually a stretched Fleetwood coupe body, with large rear doors added between the front doors and rear-quarter opera window, this DeVille is based on a standard sedan body, with regular sedan doors in their normal position.
The idea of a small, front-wheel limousine is still a little odd to me, but at least Cadillac’s versions weren’t as extreme as the Chrysler Executive. Still, a 4,000+ pound, extended length vehicle powered by an engine with only 135 horsepower and 200 lb-ft torque isn’t ideal even for slow daily driving, especially when loaded with 7 passengers.
It’s unusual that Cadillac decided to shift the series Seventy-Five to the front-wheel drive C-body, when the rear-wheel drive D-body was still in production. After all, at 218.6 inches long and 71.7 inches wide, the FWD Seventy-Five “limousine” was actually shorter and narrower than the RWD Fleetwood Brougham regular length sedan.
I have no idea the length of this aftermarket conversion DeVille, but it can’t be that different from the Seventy-Five. Regardless, General Motors was on a massive purge of its rear-wheel drive vehicles in the 1980s, and the decision to make Cadillac’s production limousine front-wheel drive was likely made in the way of CAFE.
Plus, the Series Seventy-Five was always more of a personal limousine, and not one used for say, a wedding party, prom, or a state dinner. For those needs, plenty of aftermarket coach builders converting RWD Fleetwood Broughams (later just known as “Brougham”) into stretch limousines. In fact, following the FWD Fleetwood Seventy-Five’s discontinuation after 1987, the 1988 Cadillac brochure featured these aftermarket inspirations.
Now as for this particular stretched DeVille, the forward compartment appears pretty stock. The new front-wheel drive DeVille featured a new two-tiered instrument panel, that according to Cadillac, “replicated a hand-tailored leather appearance”. Okay, if you say so. Either way, it had a full-width effect similar to its C-body Oldsmobile and Buick siblings.
All 1985 DeVilles came standard with amenities such as digital automatic climate control, six-way power driver’s seat, one front and two rear cigarette lighters, retained accessory power for up to 10 minutes, digital fuel data calculator, carpeted litter receptacle in the center of the lower dash, and electronic load-leveling suspension. Limousine conversions were naturally to each and their own. Many likely featured TVs and minibars.
This car features the available Sierra Grain leather up front, but velour in the rear. Unfortunately, my one shot of the rear came out terrible due to the dark aftermarket tint and excessive dirt on the windows. I would’ve taken more but my car was illegally parked and running (locked, thank goodness for Comfort Access!).
Either way, the exterior of this DeVille looked remarkable for a 32-year old car, much more so than its decade newer Curbside Classic Roadmaster and Grand Marquis bookends. I’m willing to bet it hasn’t accumulated many miles in its three decades, especially so in recent years.
Beyond CC aficionados, not many people want to be chauffeured around in a 1980s front-wheel drive Cadillac limousine. The old-school rear-wheel drive Wreath and Crests still were the preferred choice of limousine in the 1980s and early 1999s, as evidenced by TV and films such as Pretty Woman.
The truth is, this was likely very true when this car was new as well. Front-wheel drive C-body Cadillacs (whether DeVille or Fleetwood) just didn’t convey the same presence and prestige as their rear-wheel drive D-body predecessors and counterparts. It was much easier to show that you’ve arrived in a “big Cadillac” than one of these, unfortunately.
The Fleetwood Seventy-Five was dropped after the 1987 model year, marking the end of the Series Seventy-Five’s four decade history. Front-wheel drive Cadillacs were still converted into limousines by aftermarket companies in the following years, though not really until the DTS of the early-2000s did it become more common to see one on the road (or more specifically, in a funeral procession). As for this DeVille, it looks like it still has a few good years left.
Photographed: North Quincy, MA – April 2017
Related Reading:
IMHO, The aftermarket stretch limos killed limousines as a status symbols. The 1984 and older Series 75s said “Old Money”. Modern stretches say “Rented by a bunch of guys to go to a strip joint.”. The FWD jobs are at least less tacky (although they do look like stretched Celebrities.)
Back in the day, Auto Hunter (is that still around, Brendan?) used to refer to the factory Fleetwood 75s as “Corporate” limos, which summed it up – they were built by the GM corporation, mainly for corporate executive fleets to do VIP airport runs.
It’s interesting how determined but incomplete GM’s RWD purge was – not only did the B and F bodies survive the ’80s to get new RWD chassis, but the G and T bodies made it well past the midpoint of the decade, and the latter was the last RWD left in its’ class.
not only did the B and F bodies survive the ’80s to get new RWD chassis…
I know I’m picking nits here but the B-body got a new body (and eventually engine/transmission combos) for the 90s on the same old frame.
Now that the featured car is just another used car, I’m OK with it. But I’d want the 200 hp Cadillac 4.9 ltr V8 before I’d feel like it could safely get out of its own way.
That’s an old limo that wouldn’t be too burdensome to own given that it is likely still shorter than the Suburbans and Excursion XL that it would find itself sharing the streets with.
I like old Caddies, but this one just causes pain…
Credit to the owner that is keeping it in good shape.
Looks like tough times at the A.F. Murphy Machine & Die company.
You don’t say! The limo though looks to be in better condition than any/all of its three lot-mates, any of which could also easily have been the subject vehicle in this post.
This reminds me how thoroughly depressing things were in the American car industry in the early-mid 80s, especially at GM. Everyone knew that gas was never going to be cheap again and GM spent big bucks on a new C body fleet, including a factory Fleetwood 75 Limo. I had forgotten that the 75 only lasted 2 years in its final version – 2 years and some really small number built, what a waste of resources.
I almost prefer this to the factory limo. The proportions were awful on the factory version, and much better on this one. A very cool find, but a car I would turn down if someone offered it to me for free. And there are not many of those.
Just out of curiosity, was there any badging to identify the company that did the stretch?
JP, you are in luck, as I had my Encyclopedia of American Cars beside me as I read this.
For 1985, there were 405 Fleetwood limos in four-door sedan guise; no tally for the formal four-door sedan. Weight for the lesser of the two was 3,583 pounds with a price of $32,640 – almost twice that of a DeVille.
In 1986, there were 650 four-doors and 350 formal four-doors. Weight was up 50 pounds for the four-door as was price by $1,255. The formal was 99 pounds heavier than the base four-door and cost an additional $2000 at $35,895.
JP, unfortunately I didn’t. The rear windows were tinted so dark I could’t see if there were any decals or anything like that maybe on the inside of the windows.
I’m just really impressed by the great condition it’s in..it looks brand new!
How you manage to spot such a diverse range of cars in Massachusetts always is interesting. I rarely saw anything noteworthy when I lived there.
I wonder if it isn’t the owner of the business in the background who owns the Cadillac. The low digit reserve plate on it says to me, anyhow, that they have owned it for some time.
They aren’t as omnipresent as elsewhere, but older, rarer cars have the habit of finding me when I least expect it.
If it’s not the owner, I’m willing to bet that there’s some connection to the owner of this car and the owner of the property. I shot this last Sunday after dropping a buddy of mine off after brunch… I have not idea if A.F. Murphy Die & Machine Co. is a functioning business. When you Google it though, the Grand Marquis and Roadmaster are in the parkinglot from the street view. https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x89e37b5e49f39dc7:0x1e6cc201ed5d5cba!2m19!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i20!16m13!1b1!2m2!1m1!1e1!2m2!1m1!1e3!2m2!1m1!1e5!2m2!1m1!1e4!3m1!7e115!4s/maps/place/a.f.%2Bmurphy%2Bdie%2Band%2Bmachine%2Bco/@42.2728821,-71.0246606,3a,75y,30.29h,90t/data%3D*213m4*211e1*213m2*211sjC0N-Z0scDkh9gh1mTyqvQ*212e0*214m2*213m1*211s0x89e37b5e49f39dc7:0x1e6cc201ed5d5cba!5sa.f.+murphy+die+and+machine+co+-+Google+Search&imagekey=!1e2!2sjC0N-Z0scDkh9gh1mTyqvQ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDn4fe6-DTAhXp4IMKHUzhA1QQpx8IazAK
Just as with other types of cars, I’m not sure folks really cared which wheels were the driven wheels. That said, I agree with a previous poster that the extremely squared off styling looked way too similar to that of the contemporary Chevy Celebrity. And with only 135 horsepower to pull that big box around, wouldn’t performance be about the same, or even worse than the smaller engined Chevy?
Aside from CAFE, I wonder if the move to a FWD platform wasn’t also an economic decision?
You’re right in that the average person cares little between FWD and RWD (except today, when everyone here in the Northeast “must have” all-wheel drive), but at least to me, something just seems so unnatural about such a long car that’s front-wheel drive.
These old limos are somewhat like conversion vans – a pretty short shelf life and a limited market.
However, I’m impressed on the condition of this particular one. In an environment that’s relatively hostile to cars, this one has survived well. Perhaps its spent some time parked inside the tool and die company building?
Weight on these was only 250 to 300 pounds more than the regular DeVille so while those 135 horses were straining, it’s not the worst case imaginable. It would likely be somewhat like a B-body wagon being toted around by a 140 horsepower 307. It’ll get you there but don’t get in a hurry. Oh wait; this is the 4100, isn’t it? Let me rephrase that; don’t get in a hurry.
I like the 5-digit numerical Mass. license plate and how the numbers are centered. I don’t know if it’s a regular issue or a custom ordered vanity plate but there is an “official” quality to license plates with only numbers, much like Delaware license plates. The current Mass. license plates are a six digit jumble of alpha and numeric digits.
The Massachusetts standard alpha-numeric designs are changed up every few years it seams (i.e. “AAA ###”, “#### AA”, ## #AAA”), but I have no idea how it works with reserved low number plates.
For example, the plates my grandfather had for years that I was able to get re-issued to my mom last year are “K 9546”, with the half-spaces on either side of the “K”.
Low number plates are highly sought after in Massachusetts. They are issued by lottery every year. No, I’m not making this up.
I’ve heard the same about low numbered license plates in Rhode Island. I saw an RI plate with “3” in Providence. It probably belonged to some kind of state bureaucrat.
And you pay a premium on your registration to boot.
I think the Low-Number Plate Lottery in Massachusetts is only for 4-digit (& under) license plates. I think (not positive, though) that 5-digit plates like this one were “Livery” plates intended for limos, shuttles and other type vehicles that are for hire, but not requiring a taxi license.
Current-issue Livery plates have an “LV” prefix, but before that I THINK they were just 5-digit numbers. Again, not positive here — especially since the Cadillac’s plate doesn’t say “Livery” anywhere on it. But that’s just my guess.
I’m not familiar with any such low-number plate lottery here, but then again I’ve never looked into obtaining a 4-digit or lower plate.
As far as getting a special 5-digit plate for my mother, I called the Mass RMV’s Special Plates Department (yes, they literally have that department and a number to call), spoke with an RMV worker, told them what plate I wanted, they checked availability, told me it was and asked what RMV branch I wanted to pick it up at. It was as easy as that!
The classification for here 5-digit plate is a “reserved number plate”, and it works just like a regular one – no extra registration fees or shorter renewal period.
Special plate designs, such as the Cape & Islands ones I have on my car (below) do have an additional registration fee (varies depending on which design you go with) which some of it goes to support whatever cause the plate represents (charities, conservation efforts, etc.). I must also pay to renew my registration every year, versus every 2 years with the regular Mass plates.
As for this DeVille, it just has standard plates and not livery ones, which would start with “LV” in vertical orientation.
Interesting. All of this varies a great deal by state. Here in Virginia, 3-digit plates are given out personally by the Governor (to donors, political allies, etc.), but a driver doesn’t have to surrender his plates when a new governor is elected. 4-digit plates are typically used for National Guard members & veterans. 5-digit plates are treated just like any other vanity tag… people like to order 5-digit plates to show off the Zip Code of their hometown, I’ve noticed.
I think Massachusetts’ low-number plate lottery began about 15-20 years ago, after complaints about corruption in the former practice of handing out low numbers to politically connected people. Some other New England states instituted similar systems. The lottery is held annually — here is the information from last year’s lottery and the people (and plates) who won:
http://www.massrmv.com/2016PlateLottery.aspx
As for the 5-digit plates, my recollection was that they were livery-related, but as you can tell from my post, I was pretty unsure about that. I was surprised that the plate didn’t say “Livery” on it, so given that and your own experience, I guess the Limo’s plate is “reserved number plate.” Sure does help make the Cadillac a little more special looking!
I got a 4 digit plate in California with no problem at all.
4 6 6 4 for a Challenger. 😀
Same thing when I lived in Illinois. When you had a low number plate, people knew you had influence in Springfield or Chicago. Here in California, personalized plates are easy to get, and I eventually took the bait. My plate gets quite a few smiles, I must admit.
These little FWD Cadillacs made poor funeral coaches too…too narrow between the rear shock towers and they looked top-heavy with a high-top and professional glass. As I recall there was only about 36 inches of clearance for the casket and more than once I had to wash our Econoline “body van” and use that for services with oversize caskets that simply would not fit in the hearse.
The funeral coach builders are still using the FWD platform, although now it is the XTS or Lincoln’s.
Makes it easier in not having to lengthen the drive shaft. 🙂
There’s no intrinsic benefit to RWD for a long vehicle.
I never have had, nor ever will have a vanity plate. Why make it easier for others to remember your plate?
Car industry critics said
1980: “Cadillac needs to make fuel efficient smaller cars ASAP!”
1985: “These new Caddys are too small. What are they thinking!?”
Mon Valley Big car Guy (me) 1980: “Cadillac has a good car, but needs the 425.)”
Mon Valley Big car Guy (me) 1985 “I’m high on ‘shrooms, but seriously, the price of Celebrities is outta control!!!!”
One needs to remember that gasoline prices were rising quite fast at the end of the 1970’s, spiking about 1981. GM thought that they needed to have another round of downsizing and a move to FWD. The plans for this were in the works by 1981 for the 1984 model year to have new FWD C-bodies, followed by the B-bodies either for 1985 or 1986. The C-bodies were delayed by some technical problems so they were early 1985 models followed by the FWD B-bodies in 1986. However, by the time the B-bodies got into the works, fuel prices were decreasing.
By the mid 80’s the plans to junk the BOF B-bodies, and the Cadillac Brougham (aka fleetwood 60 special) was tabled. Cadillac had planned on the BOF car to be gone, and had moved everything to the FWD platform. GM was really committed to the FWD plan, as they developed the Aurora’s stiff body design expecting it to make the “full size” cars competitive.
I wonder at what point they decided not to go ahead with FWD B body wagons. Was it near the end of the design process when the RWDs were still selling steadily while gas was cheap and the market moving to the Chrysler minivans, or early on when they figured out they’d have little to no more usable space than the FWD A wagons?
The A.F. Murphy building has what appears to be a limestone winged wheel relief at the top, common to 1920s auto dealership buildings. Wonder what it used to be?
See this webpage
Good eye. Some quick research turns up references to a Nash dealership (Nash and LaFayette to be precise) — called JF Rogers Auto Co. at that address in the 1930s, although the building could easily predate it
What I found is that the first owner was Murphy and the building was constructed in 1930. link
I like the aftermarket versions of these better than the factory versions. They just look better.
I think the main problems with these downsized FWD Caddies is not so much that they were so small, but that they were somewhat ill-proportioned and very narrow. Compare to the current ATS which is about the same size/width with a similar wheelbase. The ATS looks so much nicer with better proportions. Also, these mid-’80s Caddies seemed to be lacking in details esp. in the rear quarters, it was like the stylists just gave up once they got past the back doors!
For my senior prom in high school (spring of ’98), we had a party of four couples and decided at the last minute to rent a limo. Naturally, most car services were sold out, but my buddy Jeff found one with available cars just a couple days ahead of the prom, so we went to go rent one. They had two available–a white Brougham stretch with a blue interior, and one of these downsized versions in black. Don’t remember if it was a 75 or an aftermarket conversion–we were not particularly impressed in any case. Not only was it shrunken and oddly proportioned, it was 12 or 13 years old at the time. (The Brougham, which we ended up with, may not have been any newer and still wasn’t the epitome of style in 1998, but at least it had old-school gravitas.)
That early 90’s brochure photo is also interesting–I don’t know that I ever saw a stretched version of the ’89-’93 Fleetwood. Actually doesn’t look half bad.
If you think the FWD 4100 was slow try the same engine in a RWD.Later they went to an Olds 307(still a slug) then a Chevy 350 with trottle body FI and finally an LT1 350 with iron heads on the D body cars.BTW they had a “baby” 265. ci Lt1 typeV8 on the final B bodys at 200 HP, That was a nice engine.
The smaller 4.3 liter “baby LT1” was only available in the 94-96 Caprice sedans. The 5.7 liter LT1 was optional on Caprice sedans and standard on wagons.
The 5.7 liter LT1 was standard in 94-96 Fleetwoods and Roadmasters
The 4100 V8 was the worst engine Cadillac ever produced, aside from the disastrous 6 liter with the cylinder deactivation. I had an ’83 Eldorado with the dreadful 4100 and it never ran right. It surged at idle, knocked under the slightest load, got horrible mileage, would intermittently stall while waiting at traffic lights and it would struggle big time ascending light grades on the freeway. Cadillac should’ve gotten the axe way back then.
I worked at a Cadillac dealer in the service department. The 4100 usually ran smooth and got good milage if it wasn’t damaged due to internal coolant loss.. The 368 4-6-8 was a one year engine that could run ok if the cylinder deactivation was bypassed. I would say the 4100 was the worst. Followed by the 350 diesel.
The first 4100’s had a design problem that resulted in engine failure in a large (about 25% or so) percentage of engines. It took a year for the problem to develop, then another year or more to sort out the problem. The 4100’s should have been OK by the 1986 model year I think, or certainly by the 1987 model year.
The 8-6-4 engine had solenoids to activate the variable displacement. The solenoids were troublesome, due in part to the heat. I think too, that the system would get into the six cylinder mode and sit there. It was a good idea, but a poor design.
By 1987, displacement had grown to 4.5 liters, and grew again to 4.9 liters in 1989.
There used to be a joke that circulated amongst some of my coworkers at a Cadillac/Olds dealer that I used to work for. It went; knock knock, whose there? Cadillac 4100. Those 4100’s had a propensity to ping even on higher octane fuel.
We’d refer to the 368’s equipped with cylinder deactivation as the V8 6 4 0 motor. Because you’d be guaranteed to be left stranded somewhere in one of those darling automobiles.
The diesels, oh that was a fiasco. Our dealership stockpiled Goodwrench replacement motors since customers were having their cars towed in with seized engines to be replaced under warranty. I was met with a lot of very unhappy campers back then.
And the latest debacle for Cadillac motors is the once lauded northstar V8. Blown head gaskets, cracked blocks, oil leaks, high oil consumption, pinging and eventual engine failure.
What it all boils down to are good ideas that were extremely poorly executed. All manipulated by penny pinching GM finance hotshots who lined their pockets in gold and under cut every car and truck they built. That was GM’s mantra for 60 years.
Now that Cadillac’s have improved substantially within the last couple of years, I still don’t think they’re worth the money, especially considering their monumental depreciation. You’re much better off in a new BMW or Lexus where quality and reliability still outgun any Cadillac made.
Have you owned or even driven a Cadillac built since 2015? It took them forever, but Cadillac has slowly but surely regained its footing. This Summer, Cadillac will reveal the Celestiq, a car that will compete with Rolls Royce. Hand built on commission, it’s a return for Cadillac as Standard of the World. But it won’t be cheap.. They’re only building about 400 a year, and the price can reach North of $350,000.00
“You’re much better off in a new BMW or Lexus where quality and reliability still outgun any Cadillac made.”
The phrase there is nothing more expensive than a cheap BMW did not come from nowhere.
Me personally I would say if you cared about reliability you’d stay away from all the luxury brands, especially the German ones.