I would be willing to bet that there is no car that General Motors made more money on than this generation of Cadillac. For those under about the age of 40, when someone says Cadillac, this is the car that comes to mind. It should, because this was in constant production for about 16 years and in virtually this exact flavor for about 13. Nobody planned for this car to be around for so long, but just like the great old Vaudeville performers, the car kept coming out for one encore after another before finally leaving the stage.
The new downsized Cadillac came out as a 1977 model and was a huge improvement over the oversized jelly-bodied 71-76 model. The car lost about 1000 pounds but was still powered by a 425 cubic inch version of the great Cadillac V8. Unlike its predecessor, this car felt tight and solid and made of some better materials. Its smaller size may have alienated some traditionalists (I have long maintained that the smaller size of the 77-79 Cadillac was partly responsible for booming sales of the final big Lincolns during those years), but the car had a lot of engine for its size and was mighty quick.
The car got its first (and only) significant restyle in 1980. Much more than the original 1977 version, this car captured the essence of Cadillac. The only real changes that this car would see from here on out were under the hood. From 1980-85 Cadillac played an unending game of musical engines with the 368 (a smaller version of the Cadillac 425 for 1980), the V8-6-4 (a 368 with variable displacement), a 4.1 Liter Buick V6 (believe it or not), the HT4100 (a 4.1 liter V8 designed for front drive applications), the Oldsmobile 5.7 diesel, and maybe one or two others. These were cars that were bought in spite of their engines, not because of them, and the 1980-85 models are not often seen these days, although they sold fairly well when they were new.
When Cadillac brought out the disastrous 85 front drive models, this car continued in 85-86 as the Fleetwood Brougham (not to be confused with the front drive Fleetwood). It was evidently still too confusing, because in 1987, the car became simply the Cadillac Brougham. All of this confusion came about because this car was simply not expected to survive the new front drive replacement. But in what became a Detroit ritual, surging sales for the big now-ancient rear drive V8 sedans would lead to one stay of execution after another. In 1986, GM finally hit the balance between fuel mileage (to satisfy the CAFE regs) and power (to satisfy complaining customers) when it grabbed the Oldsmobile 307 off the shelf to bolt into these cars. This is the engine that had powered the final rear drive Oldsmobiles and Buicks, and solved everything that was really wrong with the cars. Okay, reintroducing the 425 would have REALLY solved the power problem, but this was simply impossible with CAFE-imposed fuel economy constraints that existed at the time. With sticker prices well north of $30K, GM’s profit margin must have been huge.
The big Cadillac made it though the 89 models with virtually nothing but periodic grille changes (which were themselves little more than re-using grilles from the early 80s either in whole or with minor revisions. Some moderate trim changes for 90-92 filled out the run of these classic Cadillacs, when they were replaced by the 93-96 Roadmaster-based Fleetwood, the last of the big rear drive Caddies.
If ever there was a car that a company could have continued almost indefinitely (Checker or Avanti-style), it was this generation of Cadillac. Although the 1987 version sold about 65,000 units, it seemed to drop about 10-15,000 per year thereafter, settling under 14,000 for 1992. The final series saw an uptick into the 30K unit territory before dropping back to 1992 levels by the end of the 1996 model run. It is my opinion that GM would have been ahead to simply continue the original car (perhaps going back to the styling of the pre-1990 version, but with the more powerful Chevy 5.7 of the later cars. (So, is it Chevrollac and Oldsmollac, or Cadrolet and Cadsmobile?) Really, what would be wrong with 10-15,000 annual units of pure profit at $40 thousand a pop? A new dashboard with some airbags (even the Crown Victoria got a new dash with air bags in 1991) and these cars could sell in small but steady numbers yet.
This Cadillac was the last of the kind of passenger car that GM was uniquely good at. The cars were structurally tight and solid, virtually impervious to rust-through even in our midwestern climate, and insanely durable. In this part of the country, there are still a lot of these out on the streets. Some are the blinged-out customs of enthusiastic kids, others are like this, nice originals that have been lovingly cared for by owners who knew that they would never see another Cadillac like these. OK, I actually have one complaint with these cars. Why could none of them ever hold a shine on the hood? I once read that GM used aluminum hoods do keep down weight, and surmised that the heat transfer characteristics of that alloy wreaked havoc on the paint finishes. Maybe someone else can say for sure, but my own 89 always had a poor finish on the hood while the fender tops shined like crazy. Ditto an 84 Olds Ninety Eight and an 84 LeSabre. Copper, white and navy blue, respectively, it made no difference. Can anyone shed light on this mystery?
To me, this period of Cadillac marked the first time since maybe 1960 that Cadillac built a better car than Lincoln. The Town Cars of the late 80s may have had their charms, but they did not say “Lincoln” the way these big Broughams said “Cadillac”. These were clearly not the quality of the Cadillacs I grew up seeing in the 60s (I once owned a 63 Fleetwood and know the difference), but those days were gone after about 1970, never to return. If you get a chance to ride in one of these, take it. Enjoy those soft crushed velour (or leather if you’re lucky) seats and the view of that Cadillac hood ornament standing tall and proud waaaaay out there. Or better yet, take the back seat and just enjoy the ride.
Give me a 1977 to 1980 model (as long as it has the big block, V4-6-8 can be deactivated, leaving you with a genuine big block Caddy) or a 1987 to 1992 version with the 5.7V8. This is the last true Cadillac. The RWD STS “coulda been a contender” if Cadillac would have put more effort into it. (Likely the interior would have been the best place to start, then an elongated wheelbase.)
Having driven a 307 V8 Cutlass sedan I always worried about the ability of that engine to haul a Cadillac around. (Although around town, stop light to stop light… very nice.)
Dan, you would be correct about the 307. It was, uh, leisurely. But give it enough road, and it would cruise at 90. I tried this out when my wife was having a kidney stone attack on the way home from an out-of-town funeral. Fortunately, I avoided a ticket after whooshing past the Crown Victoria with the black grille – the officer could tell that she was not kidding, and gave me directions to the nearest ER. But I was used to it because my 84 Olds 98 had the same engine.
I drove an employer’s 77 with the 425 a few times. The ride was softer and less controlled, but it was fast. I knew another kid who also drove it and did burnouts on an asphalt parking lot.
That likely speaks to the gearing of the Cadillac. I was never able to get faster than about 75mph but then I never had the patience to run it wide open for miles upon miles at a time just to see if I could hit the absolute top speed.
What boggles my mind is that several internet sources say that GM used the 307 and the 305 depending on which engines they could get their hands on for a paticular production run. This always made me laugh because that meant that two brand new Cadillacs sitting on a dealers lot could have diffent base engines, and different “feel” on the test drive. Having driven both 307 and 305 equipted B-body wagons I would tell you that the 305 was more pleasant on the highway (if you were doing a top speed run like 17 year old me) and the 307 was more pleasing to drive around town.
I had understood that the 305 and the 350 were not used until 1990, but I am open to correction on this point. I am not sure I ever saw an 89 or earlier with the 5.7 badge on the trunk. Until I did some research for these pieces, I did not know that the Chevy 305 had about a 30 horsepower advantage over the 307. But I suppose this is logical, since the 307′s development was sort of arrested at about 1982 or 83. I just know that I always wished that mine had the 350.
I’ve never seen independent confirmation either of the exact engines used the exact years, just lots of internet speculation. Likely the confusion comes from the fact that the basic chassis was asked to take so many various engines over the years. Perhaps the perfect canidate for a daily driver would be to find an example with a good body and interior and then drop the powertrain of your choosing in there.
I don’t think the 350 was offered until 1990. When it did arrive, I dimly recall that it was offered only as part of trailer towing or “coachbuilder” packages, and that it carried a gas guzzler tax, which I believe was against GM corporate policy at the time. The packages suggest what may have happened — the corporation didn’t want Cadillac to get back into guzzler territory, but the livery companies, hearse builders, etc. that probably made up a large percentage of this car’s market were complaining that the 307 just wasn’t enough. I don’t know if that was the case, but it seems plausible enough.
You pretty much nailed it. It was indeed 1990 when the 5.7 was introduced in these. And was only part of the Trailer towing and Coachbuilder package. I have the 1990 Cadillac showroom brochure and that’s what it said. And, the Gas Guzzler Tax was also an unfortunate part of the deal…
True Dan, until ’89 anyway, 5-liter GM could be either Chevy or Olds.
I owned an ’89 Caprice wagon with the Olds 307. It was GM’s last car with a carburetor. In contrast all SBC’s from ’87 forward were fuel injected.
I don’t have the pleasant memories of that engine at all…most of the time I couldn’t use overdrive as it never had enough power…and when it reached 185,000 and needed something or the other, that was all the excuse I needed. I got hold of JTR’s “Chevrolet TPI/TPI Engine Swapping” book, made the case to my wife – it was the family car after all – and took the Caprice off the road for about six months while replacing the 307 with a 350 TPI.
Can you say “transformation”?
In addition to becoming a ball to drive, it picked up about 2 MPG since the car could now get out of its own way. Driven at a steady 55 it would get 25 MPG. When I scrapped the car six years later – the Western PA weather had caught up with the body – the odometer was at 317,000.
The engine still sits in a corner of my garage…I need to sell it as my proclivities have moved on…now it’s Gen III baby!!!
And today I drive a ’91 Caprice wagon with the 305…feels more like my old 350TPI than the Olds. It cruises at 75-80 and knocks back 22-23 MPG even at that speed.
I think the main reason for running the Olds motor was that it felt more refined than the Chevy. It was smoother under power and it’s torque came in lower than the 305. I could be wrong though as I’m a bit biased against the SBC..
I chimed in on the other Brougham article about the attributes of the Olds 307. I drove one in a similar sized car (an ’85 Buick LeSabre Collectors’ Edition RWD). It did ‘just fine’ in ordinary driving with the 307 Olds 4-bbl. Slightly better with a low restriction, Y-pipe cat-back 2 1/2″ Flowmaster exhaust system.
Flint gray w/black vinyl top and chrome Riviera wheels. Sold to to a guy who enlisted it in taxicab service on Oahu (Hawaii) back in ’95 . . .
IRT the “difficulty to get the paint (hood) to shine” – well, living in weather-challenged areas most of my adult life (California/Guam/Hawaii/Alaska/Cleveland) – it takes – LOTS and LOTS of washing and waxing.
In AK and OH in the winter I’d go outside with a bucket of warm water and wash and rinse – in sections – before things would freeze! Yes, it’s crazy, but it works. One fender, one door, one trunk lid at a time.
In the salt-on-the-road climates, would rinse underside extensively if/when warm enough to do so. It seems Cleveland and Parma (Ohio) BP stations would have their car washes open in the dead of winter using warm water underside spray. (Forgive me rust-belters – I’m originally from the S.F. Bay Area and find such things novel!)
Alaska is rough – If you’re by the sea (S.E. AK – Juneau/Ketchikan/Sitka/Kodiak, etc.) combine lots of rain, snow (mostly rain in the S.E. and Kodiak), sea/salt air, and that is a challenge on any paint job or piece of sheet metal.
Let me know what you think?
I have a 1987 fleetwood my stepbrother did a engine swap from a wreck 01 gmc yukon ( rear-end total lost) … Ok this is the juicy part. The gmc has a 5.3Liter Vortec, i have elimated the fuel injection and left it carburetor. The 87 Transmission mounted right on the new 01 engine. so now all i have left is the conversion mounts, intake, a few things here and there but the 325 is bolted frim where the 307 used to be. I cant wait but i should have the car running in less then 1 week hopefully if you want to give me some idea feel free and if you would like to see pics and video she send me a request thank you.
I owned a 1981 Fleetwood Brougham d’Elegance for 12 years from 1999 and its still going strong on its new owner. That said, it was no ‘Standard of the World’. Fit and finish, build quality of all but drivetrain and frame/suspension components was an absolute disgrace. It had the 368 V8/6/4. After years and a lot of money I had that operational, but then the rocker solenoids died so I disconnected it. Ran fine as a V8, but with a mere 140hp, it had dismal performance above 50mph. Good torque though. I’ve driven a friend’s 1986 model with the Olds 307 – dreadfully underpowered. No Cadillac should ever have any engine but a Cadillac engine, and with at least 8 cylinders. The HT4100 was a disaster. The 305 and 350 Chebby engines used later on are a disgrace – a working stiff’s ‘low priced three’ engine in a CADILLAC?????
Cadillac quality declined substantially after 1966 – a turn off for me. 1981 was probably rock bottom. I’m familiar with many years of Cadillacs and do respect the 1972 year in particular.
I kept my car garaged and regularly serviced, but was never happy with its dismal build quality, cramped width, or sluggish engine, so I bought a one-owner 1977 460-powered Continental Town Car, which is built to a much higher standard – one that the self-proclaimed Standard of the World ought to have insisted on. Just over a year on, I am extremely happy with the Lincoln.
I have a large collection of US large car catalogs from 1948 (mainly 1960-1980, including more than 70 for Cadillac – always happy to answer spec questions from enthusiasts. dermot.thompson@optusnet.com.au
Dermot
As far as I’m concerned these are the last real Cadillacs. Everytime I see these cars going down the highway their nose is gently pointed up in the air like a fine boat and with their seating position the driver and passengers take on a somewhat regal appearance. They are also probably the styled Caddy’s in the last 40 years, the new ones leave me somewhat cold and even the last few Fleetwoods appeared bloated and cartoonish compared to the perfectly porpotioned beasts.
I wholeheartedly agree, these were the last “real” Cadillacs. I spent a bit of time riding in the passenger seat of one as a kid because a family friend had one in dark blue. He actually bought it (used) partly because it had the Olds 350 diesel engine. It was the last year for the engine (1985?). By the end, GM actually had most of the gremlins worked out of the 350 diesel.
Agreed that the 1980-1989 (not crazy about all the boilt-on plastic junk on 1990-1992 models) do have great styling – a classic design of the era.
Indiana lisc plate…cool
I live in Indianapolis, so it is less of a novelty here. I will admit, though, that it is one of the more tasteful license plate designs I have seen recently.
identical to Ct. plates.
I liked the “Amber Waves of Grain” plates, but I guess they did away with those.
Im just 150 mi south..
My business partner has a 1978 Sedan DeVille, in that ubiquitous light blue of the era. I found the car in Victoria and it cost all of $1000 in 2004. Few saw the value in these models at the time. I did! The 425 has tremendous torque and the THM 400 impeccable.
But it’s still a GM car as the two slam doors attest. The steering is vague (and the entire front end has been replaced) and it’s really not safe above 110 km/h. Still it’s a cool ride and wow, did I mention the torque? I’ll attach an image later.
.
Your steering could be vague for a dozen reasons – converted to RHD? Worn linkages, worn rubber bushings? Worn steering shaft flexible coupling? I had mine (1981 FB d’E) all redone and it was pin sharp.
Gorgeous cars, even still today. Especially love the look of the later, blinged out versions dripping in expensive chrome and graced with the REAL wire wheels (although apparently they can only be had with underpowered engines? Matt somethingorother, the guy from TX selling his Cadi collection on eBay, once wrote how the real wires were unavailable with the 350 option and HD suspension, because there was a risk the wheels would fail. Strange, because my dad’s 78 came with those same wheels).
Wow, that is sort of strange. Although if I one of these I’d likely get some Dayton wire wheels and see if it were possible to affix a Cadillac crest to the centercap.
Painted steelies with Caddy-crested baby moon caps and beauty rings would be pretty sharp as well, esp with narrow white walls…
The first series Coupe de Ville versions always looked particularly good to me, though the 305, 307, and 350 spec cars were undoubtedly the most well-sorted and probably what I’d prefer.
Have known a number of people who owned these over the years, in all conditions from utterly dilapidated to better-than-new. Even when they’re shot out, they still have a regal quality rarely seen in modern cars. Or maybe it’s just me getting old, LOL…
@Btrig: interesting spin. Soft spot here for collectors who go extra lengths to make sure the whitewalls are in the 1 to 1-1/2″ range, which was standard in the 70s and 80s. I understand only a couple of manufacturers even make them anymore (Coker might be the one I’m thinking of) at about $300/tire, no discounts.
One thing I always despised were any RWD GM cars with blackwalls. Don’t care if it’s an old Cutlass or Delta, Cadi, etc., just doesn’t look right. Same goes for some of those old, cheap aftermarket wheel covers big in the 80s, like fake KMart wire wheel covers.
@educatordan: Good choice, as IIRC they are Dayton rims. They are fantastic looking.
Matt Garrett, and he still has quite the collection…
http://www.mcsmk8.com/cadillacs/mycads.htm
That’s him, he’s got a fascinating collection.
By the way, a 92 5.7L in midnight blue with only 5000 miles on it just sold for $20k in eBay. Highly unusual money spent on a highly unusual collectible. Most of these sell in the $2500-$10,000 range.
Count me another fan of these timelessly styled cars. If GM were willing to continue them as a low production model they could bump up the interior quality up a notch or two or three, add all the high tech interior baubles people expect these days, but tastefully, without adding a console or a bulging center stack, and sell them as an ultra high end car for traditionalists. As time went on, it was really the gauge-free 70′s instrument panel that dated these cars more than anything else, and the bulky, intrusive revision for the 1993-96 cars didn’t help much (they really should have gotten something like the 1991-93 Roadmaster dash with one of GM’s best analog clusters ever).
As for what is available today, the 1990-92 cars have the best engines since 1980, but are unfortunately plagued by those horrible GM door-mounted safety belts. I have also always thought it odd that the effect of the 1990 facelift was to make them look more like a late-80′s Town Car, given that was also the year when Lincoln leapfrogged over Cadillac with the equally timeless mile-aero Town Car redesign.
Hmmm, that’s funny, I always thought the ’90 restyle where they added all that plastic body cladding to the door bottoms and rockers was to make them look like Pontiac Grand Ams.
Two Brougham articles in as many days – jp, you’re making me want to get one of these even more! I especially like the 1990-1992 with the 5.7L V8. Living in the Quad Cities, there are still quite a few running around here-similar demographic to Indianapolis.
We owned a 1983 in pearl white with leather interior… my wife cried when we sold that car… needless to say, it was replaced with a 1986 Crown Vic, which was inferior in every way.
My great Uncle Jake bought an ’80 Coupe, white with a blue top, blue interior (same scheme as my car, now that I think about it) for my great Aunt Colleen. I WORSHIPPED that car. They drove it for years, never had much trouble with it that I recall, and you could do cartwheels in the back seat even with it just being a 2 door. It had the 368 and hubcaps, the hubcaps being its only real shortcoming, but it still looked good.
That car probably more than any other is responsible for my love of great big American gravy boat cars.
Thats a real Caddy we never had any but all rhe Cads on TV seem to be these now i know why its like beetle same car year after year minor changes unnoticed, Surely if the powertrain was modernised these would sell again noone builds a real luxobarge any more and the current CTS is only a Holden but that powertrain would give these car a new lease of life and there is no competition from Ford L brand at all.
By the way, the ’77 Fleetwood Brougham in the ad has the peculiar tapered B-pillar found only on the 1977-79 models. It was presumably intended to distinguish the Fleetwoods from the Sedan deVilles that now shared a wheelbase for the first time since 1964, but it is definitely a matter of taste. The ’77 Broughams also carried over the Brougham-trademark rear passenger footrests. In a foreshadowing of much more decontenting to come, they went MIA in ’78.
Youtube: 1986 Cadillac Brougham commercial
Check out that ad. Notice how GM is selling it based on its size, comfort, and V8? Notice how it isn’t compared to BMW or other luxury brands? Notice how it isn’t on a racetrack?
As soon as the ad starts you can tell its a Cadillac the voicr ova doesnt need to tell ya the new CTS is obvious here any way as it looks like nothing else except it has the same frontal styling as a Holden Colorado, that was really a dumb idea GM the top of the range should not resemble a farm truck What were you smoking that day?Out here Cadilac means luxury Merican where Lincoln means nothing
Lincoln for 2011/2012 is a ‘dead brand walking’. Billy Rockfish to FoMoCo:
EPA-cert an Aussie Ford Falcon – use some 2002 Lincoln Continental show car styling tweaks – use the Aussie Turbo Six and the current Mustang 5.0 and you’ve got yourself a winner (and a competitive product for a change).
As Marlon Brando said to Rod Steiger, “I could’ve been contendah, Chahlie, instead of a bum – which is what I am.”
Lincoln deserves more than rebadged Ford SUVs and a Fusion with lipstick. Lincoln is a fine brand with a grand heritage and I hate to see it go as an “also ran” . . . . . This B.S. about “too expensive to U.S. federalize/change over from an RHD platform” doesn’t seem to hold water in light of the bizarre (but not too clever) disguise of a Ford Taurus (Lincoln MKS with a beltline as high as a pole vaulter’s bar).
Town Cars, Marks and Continentals forever!
“Hey, Johnny – Johnny Friendly – C’mon out!”
If ever there was a car that a company could have continued almost indefinitely (Checker or Avanti-style), it was this generation of Cadillac.
This claim, in itself, suggests MMing a list of viable candidates for perpetual production. A few which strike me as equal of this Cadillac and the Checker:
Volvo 200-series
Volvo 850-series
Ford’s Panther cars
Buick’s 7th generation H-body LeSabre
Subaru’s 3rd generation Legacy/Outback
Honda’s 4th generation Accord
Mercedes W123
Toyota Crown Comfort
This is a really interesting question, and one I also have considered many times myself.
I think if this kind of thing were to really work, the line of cars would have to have a few very important traits that would be valued by the kind of people that would probably buy them: simplicity, competency, and reasonable cost. You aren’t going to be reeling in many CamCord NEW car buyers, but I bet you’d get tons of fleet buyers for my car line, and people who would want to buy a CamCord new but can’t afford it and can otherwise only swing a 3 year old Grand Prix GT program car that until recently were staples of large GM used car dealerships.
This is next part is IMPORTANT: All the cars would be updated versions of cars from the past, with virtually all known bugs worked out. They might be bland, but the interiors would not rot, the paint would look great for years, repairs would be of a reasonable cost, and they would be priced low because I would spend zilch on new tooling or development. They indeed would be the modern Checker. (I would repeatedly win whatever sorts of “initial quality” and low cost of ownership awards because my car line would be known quantities that my assembly workers could built well even in their sleep.)
I present to you Mr. Tactful’s “Integrity Motors”:
Small car with good fuel mileage: E100 Toyota Corolla clone circa 1994
Midsize family sedan: 1992 Taurus clone with a enlarged Vulcan v6 making about 190 horsepower and without a self-destructing automatic transmission
Large family sedan: 2003 Ford Panther, complete with the then-new first Panther frame that wasn’t made of Silly Putty (the fleet master)
SUV: 1st gen Toyota Highlander, the simple Vulcan v6 from my above Taurus, but a little more butch looking (“Real” SUVs no longer sell, which is why the current Explorer is now a crossover)
These cars would all common sense safety and convenience items, but not navigation systems and higher-end stuff that until 5 years ago people didn’t think you’d need.
I wouldn’t take over the world, but I’d think I would always have customers. Or would I?
I never owned a Caddy; never drove one; never even SAT in this generation of Cadillac. That said…it’s curious, and telling…that a model line that was once the very essence of trendy style, came to be a sort of upmarket American Beetle.
I had a great-uncle who had a 1957, a De Ville, I think. Another great-aunt who had a 1963 and later a 1966. The three cars couldn’t have been more unalike…style changed rapidly. What the customers depended on as a constant was a Cadillac V-8; the best automatic transmission GM could make; a solid feel and luxurious appointments.
Compare that to this generation…the body just went ON and ON and ON…even the dashboard remained the same. Yet after starting with Cadillac power, the switch to Olds units…then Chevrolet…and then, hey! All those engines, are just “GM” engines!
The Cadillac customer does not spend the kind of money listed on the sticker, for Checkeresque styling updates and parts-bin engineering. Is ANYONE surprised that the luxury market now belongs to Lexus and Infiniti and Daimler and BMW?
Urban Scavenger Hunt #133: Find one of these that still has the plastic trim between the aft* fender edge and the taillight surround. It’s very, very difficult, at least in the South. Otherwise every part of these seems to hold up forever.
*a car like this always deserves to have its attributes expressed in nautical terms
For me, this car symbolized the American dream.. big, bold and daring. The vast majority of modern cars just don’t do it for me, including one’s from the same make. Yes a lot of these older cars looked similar, but that wasn’t a bad thing since the basic concept was good; why else would they be manufactured for so long? I detest modern cars and their complete lack of flair. In a modern car you feel like a number..in one of these? You feel like you belong to a number, but more like a special breed than a cog in a huge great corporate machine, one that is soon to be replaced the moment more gullible buyers come along.
I don’t care how hard it is to maintain these older cars. They personify the America I grew up in (even though I come from the UK). The cars beg to be driven, from the bustling eastern cities to the lesser-known roads of the Western deserts. This was a time before the roads got rammed, before the borders with Mexico got decimated..
These days you look on the road, at the raging traffic and all you see is miserable faces in their nameless, self-imposed and utterly forgetful bubble’s. Vile. Today sucks, and so do a lot of cars which are built not to be unique or to have character but to get as much metal through a machine as possible and for as little as possible whilst ripping off the consumer via any means. Modern cars symbolize nothing compared to these.
It does sound nostalgic, and it does sound I am living in the past, but so what. I want some originality back in my driving experience. Get inside one of these older cars, feel the desert air on your face as you cruise in comfort, with no particular place in mind. These cars exemplify the emotion.
That’s driving, and that’s living.
Thanks for reminding me of a bygone age, an age when people loved to build cars and give them character. I’ll always associate this style of car with the USA and I am happy to have lived in a time to remember it.
I owned a 1987 Brougham with the d’Elegance package. Dark blue with vinyl leather like roof and the Olds 307 V8. My favorite car of all time. What a ride and what a fashion statement. The bad thing is it fell apart after 200,000 miles. If the body had been sound I would have fixed the motor and trasmission.
It was so big that when I went on fishing trips I never bothered setting up a tent. I could sleep in the back seat and say warm & dry.
Very, very bittersweet memories of this car: My late father had an ’86.
Dad was a Chevrolet dealer until ’65, for the next 16 years he still drove nothing but Chevrolet’s. Bought an ’81 Dodge Omni (absolutely floored me with that one), then started on Buick’s. All the while a Cadillac was the dream car for him, yet he was just too tight fisted (sister was in medical school, no scholarship here) to do it. Little sister got married in ’85, done with school; and mom finally got on his ass to go and get that Cadillac he always wanted.
He did. And less than six months after he got the car, mom died. That just absolutely killed the car for him. It was gone by the summer of ’87, I don’t think he put 5k on it. And he never talked about owning one again.
I drove it once: A Christmas party at the local snotty country club, and the wife and I weren’t all that keen on using our current rides (an ’84 Caravan C/V customed up a bit, and an ’82 Escort GT really boy-racer set up). Dad loaned us the car, and I have to admit I was appalled at the quality of the interior. Trim pieces not attached properly, door panels not quite hooked down correctly, etc. It was nowhere as well built as any of the Buicks he owned in the latter part of his life.
This experience taught me “if cars are important to you, make damn sure you own whatever it is your dreaming of – no matter how much sweat you’ve got to put into it to make up what you can’t afford to buy new”.
Thank you for your Cadillac memory. I worked with a guy much like your Dad – he had always wanted a Cadillac. When he could finally afford it, it was 1981 and he got a V8-6-4. He stuck with it for a few years, then owned a series of Honda Accords for the rest of his life. He saved a lot of money and liked the cars better. It really galls me what GM allowed CAFE to do to Cadillac. They should have just charged the guzzler tax and kept it a first class ride.
I love my 1992 big body Cadillac Brougham, it is not a classic car and I do not believe any car of this body style is a classic. The body style started in 1980 and went to 1992. What kind of insurance can I find to put on it so that I may get more than the blue book value which is $2,500 if ever in an accident?
My dad had an ’88 Cutlass Supreme Classic with a 307, and it didn’t feel much more powerful to me than my mom’s 78 260 V8 Cutlass Supreme. But then, he carrys tons of stuff in his trunk and back seats
i just bought an 87 brougham last week.it has the 307 motor out of a 85 olds 98regency,but the factory sticker is still under the hood and it would have been a factory 307 anyways.i got it for less than 2 grand drove it 30 miles home on the highway at 70mph with 4 junk tires and it still rode like a dream.i just need to get used to the caddy sway when crusing.this car is a beast and i love it.
I’ve got a 1987 Brougham Six-Door version of the Cadillac – love it… Cost $3000.00 off the lot in 2011 and I’ve put tires and breaks on it, 52800 original miles.
Love it!
I just came across an 87 brougham. Hopefully it will end up in my garage. A Christmas gift to myself. Keep you all posted.
Peace Paul
Late to the party. I had an ’87. I still find these to be a striking and elegant design, particularly the ’80-’89. Probably my second favorite behind the ’63-’64.
For all the comments above, I found mine to be fairly nicely put together compared to most cars. The leather was far more comfortable than that in comparable European sedans. The coat hooks were made of chrome, not plastic. The car didn’t rattle (although it did creak in cold weather) and it rode softly (but not sickeningly) and quietly. It even got decent mileage, sometimes into the high 20s on long, cruise-controlled trips maintaining posted speed limits. Nothing ever broke or fell off on the car, which was white with white leather and red accents. In fact, these all came in many nice colors–the light blue, the pale yellow, the burgundy, the midnight blue, the black, the silver, the coral. One of the last models to come in colors other than white, silver, and beige.
To me, the real drawback to these were the engines and the fuel system. Obviously the 8-6-4 was its own can of worms, but the 4100 and 307 were so underpowered for a car this big. I never drove a 4100 version, but the experience of trying to get that 140 HP Olds 307 up hills or into 70 mph traffic ranged from comical to genuinely frightening, depending on the situation. It was slower than the Ford 302, which seems impossible. In addition, I’ve got nothing against carburetors, but that computer controlled carburetor on the ’86-’90 was an incredible pain. I imagine it was a bother on ’80-’85 big Buicks and Oldsmobiles, too (and the big wagons). Vacuum lines always coming off, expensive sensors and solenoids to replace. I found the fuel system to be a never ending maintenance nightmare.
That said, it stayed on the road for 175K until I sold it. The a/c never broke, nor did the climate control system. The stock sound was excellent. The power windows never stopped working. The much-maligned TH200R4 gave me only trouble free miles. And it never broke down on me on a long trip.
And it is, as the article says, really the last type of car GM did uniquely well. Some of the “Cadillac” mystique remains even now with these cars. It was easy to merge lanes because someone always would let you in. Parking valets were inordinately polite. You got a lot of respect in the car if you kept it up.
Finally, I think the criticisms of the car’s styling and temperament are unwarranted as part of a general critique of Cadillac’s downfall. They might have been warranted if these were the only thing Cadillac was building at the time. But from ’77-’84 they represented progress: a more fuel efficient downsize from the enormous ’71-’76. And from ’85-’92, they were a (highly effective) way for Cadillac to hold onto its traditional market while also trying to move in a new direction with the FWD drive models, the Allante, etc. I think most will agree Cadillac failed at that, BUT I don’t think Cadillac failed *because* the old model was still around. The failure was in the new FWD models which adopted new technology but tried to keep aspects (padded roof, whitewalls, etc) from this car (DeVille) or simply couldn’t measure up to the competition in quality (Allante). If Cadillac had been decisively forward looking with its new models and simply left this one as the sole remaining model that would appeal to its traditional customer, rather than trying to go halfway as it did with DeVille and Seville, I think it might have done much better in the long run…provided its new models were good cars.
I sold my Brougham when I moved to Manhattan. At the time I couldn’t afford a place to park it. Things improved, and when I wanted to get another set of wheels for weekend trips, I started hunting for big game and bagged a 1977 Buick Electra.
The Buick’s a handsome car, and the Buick 350 is head and shoulders above the 307 in power and torque. It rides nicely and has most of the options the Cadillac had (and a bigger trunk). But, even though they’re both C bodies, that Buick just doesn’t quite feel like a Cadillac. No horizontal speedo. The hood seems shorter. The steering wheel is thicker. The steering, just a little tighter. No infrared light monitors on the front corners and over the rear window. Oh, Brougham…I wish I had another. Make mine a 1977-80, though, without the computer control.
Yes!
Avoid 81′s (last year of the 472 block engine and THM400) because of the complex computerized engine and expensive sensors. Also avoid the optional injected 425s (or 500s earlier) because the port fuel injection systems then used are very expensive to service. TBI is fine (1980+) and very reliable, although it mean’s computers. Best path is a carby car with HEI. Simple.
Dermot
About 1991 or ’92, my grandparents bought a silver ’79 Fleetwood Brougham from their neighbors in Sun City, AZ. Except for some faded paint on the rear trunk (which my grandpa had repainted) from the AZ sun, this car was beautifully mint. The neighbors used it mainly as a trip car and while it had 117K on it, it ran like new and its interior was spotless light grey leather. I even remember it had a good set of Michelins on it…this car had been cared for.
Around the time I graduated from high school, they moved to Michigan a couple towns away from my family and the car came with them. I was lucky enough to drive it a few occasions (had some pep with the 425!) and rode in it a number of times to family functions with them, even hand washed it for them a couple times. What an awesome ride this car had..very smooth but not floaty. You still felt a bump here or there though it felt isolated far away. I loved this car. I wanted this car…and wasn’t too subtle about wanting to buy it from them when the time came.
I was in my 1st or 2nd year of college (so around ’94 or ’95) when I got word they traded it…for a mini-van. It had close to 160K on the clock and served them faithfully but they were having some coolant leaks and didn’t want me to have to fool with it. It still would have been better than the rusting ’87 Taurus LX my folks handed down to me…THAT car left me stranded several times on I-75 going back to school.
The past few weeks, I’ve been searching around and researching ’79 Fleetwood Broughams. To my surprise, they have 4-wheel disc brakes (SDV’s do not) and I’ve decided against one with the d’Elegance package…I don’t like the seat design and faux fur carpeting. So I think the search has officially begun..
Hi Delerium75,
I had an ’81 FB d’E for 12 years (pictured above in this thread). Very similar to the ’79 FB except the ’77-’79 FBs came with rear discs.
The ’79 FB is a good car. Razor-sharp, sculptured styling, roomy and comfortable (especially the foam seats), good performance. A handy size. Very nice to drive and relaxing even after long distances. A great town car too.
Downsides? The ’79 has an ultra-low 2.28:1 rear axle ratio. The build quality is crap, a massive disgrace for what used to be ‘The Standard of the World’, although the body strength and entire driveline is fine.
I have a large collection of US car catalogs focused on the 60s and 70s – 315 plus a lot of other related material. Email me offline for specifications and the like. I can also send you a copy of a great road review of a ’79 CDV written in glowing tones.
The Cadillac 425 engine is of course, like the 368 and the 500 a derivative of the 472. Many parts are interchangeable including the timing set. You can even replace the 425 with a 472/500/368, not that I recommend that. The 472, 425, and 368 all have the same stroke, varying in bore only. The 500 has a bigger bore and a longer stroke.
I replaced my ’81 Cadillac with a ’77 Continental Town Car, which has an immensely greater interior build quality and grade of materials. Plus its…..full size and has a whopper of an engine.
Dermot
dermot.thompson@optusnet.com.au
The 307 was offered from 1986-1990 only on the Broughams. The 305 didn’t come on until the 1991-1992 models years in TBI form with 170 HP and 255 torque. The 350 was offered from 1990-1992 but had a guzzler tax in it’s first two years. The 1986-1987 307 cars came stock 2.73:1 rear gears with 3.23:1 offered with the trailer towing package. The 1988-90 307 cars came with electronic spark control and 2.93:1 rear gears as std to help a little. It is also stated that certain 1987-90 307 equipped trailer tow or coach builder Cadillac Brougham’s came with the Vin 9 HO 307 as fitted to the 442 cars but I have never seen one.