I like Cadillacs. I like Broughams, even if they are not Cadillacs. And in case you’re wondering what I’ve been up to lately, I am now helping Richard Bennett with his Facebook Group, The Brougham Society. So the Broughamtastic types of cars I’ve really been sinking my teeth into over at TBS are now getting some CC love!
So: Like Cadillacs? Check. Like Broughams? Check. Thus, you can naturally assume how I feel about Cadillac Broughams. And this one is a Doozy. One of my favorite Cadillacs is the 1980-86 Fleetwood Brougham and its non-Fleetwood, just-plain-Brougham 1987-92 Brougham. The newly downsized 1977-79 Cadillacs were also attractive luxury vehicles, but with the 1980 refresh, Cadillac created a future classic.
If you like American luxury cars, you have to agree this was a great design. Strong, bold and clean, with squared-off styling that left no doubt you were looking at a Cadillac. From the bold grille, to the quad headlights, to the rear finlets and vertical taillights, this was the car to arrive in here in the Midwest. If only Cadillac had said screw it to CAFE and kept the 368 CID V8 in these cars after ’81…
But I’m not here today to talk about Cadillac’s stumbles in the early ’80s. I am here to tell you about what they did right–and as far as style was concerned, the traditional “big” Cadillac had it in spades. So did the Eldorado, and even the polarizing Seville–especially if you loved Hooper-bodied Rolls-Royce Silver Wraiths and Daimler DS420 limousines.
The Seville may or may not have been the best idea at the time, but the 1979-85 Eldorado and these deVilles and Fleetwoods were beauties.They were so classic that they lasted through model year 1992 with only new “Euro” side trim, flush headlamps and a slightly retouched instrument panel.
In mid-’80, the Fleetwood Brougham, a four-door sedan exclusively since its inception decades before, introduced a coupe model. Like the elegant sedan, it offered even plusher accommodations, a padded vinyl roof, and a limousine-style backlight.
Fleetwood Coupes utilized a landau-style top instead of the full-length version used on the four-door, but added a frenched-in opera window instead of the more conventional quarter light used on the more common Coupe deVille. The chrome rocker trim from the sedan was also applied.
The Coupe, as attractive as it was, never sold like its four-door companion, and 1985, the year of our eBay find shown here, was the last time you could get the “big” Fleetwood Brougham Coupe. That same year, a non-Brougham “Fleetwood Coupe” appeared on the downsized, FWD C-body, but it obviously did not have the sheer presence and heft of the 1980-85 Brougham Coupe.
I love these cars. And I also love these Cadillacs (and Lincolns, and Imperials…) in triple white. This one is just a stunning time capsule, with only 43K miles on it. The condition is amazing. And the blue trim contrasts nicely with all that plush white leather.
I am sure there are plenty of readers rolling their eyes and thinking “Tom, you are a hopeless case. Don’t you know this is just a Caprice coupe with a metric ton of gingerbread on it? A W126 Mercedes or equivalent BMW 7er would be so much more dynamically superior!” Well, that may be, but if I saw this car at a show with an ’85 500SEL and ’85 735i, I would check out the Caddy first. Such Broughaminess may even make the Bimmer and the Merc nigh on invisible. Look! White leather! Twenty-odd wreath-and-crests! Cadillac script on the overhead console!
And, approximately fourteen square feet of simulated wood trim! Chrome pedals, too. It’s all these little touches that make me love these cars. The great exterior styling makes it even better! And you will not be seeing woodgrained radio knobs on any of those high-falutin’ German sedans.
Even the driver’s seat is pristine on this car. Someone really loved their Cadillac. I can imagine driving this down to the golf course to hit a bucket of balls, passing Paul as he heads down to the lumberyard. Different strokes for different folks, you know!
The back seat is equally appealing, if not better than the front seat. I love that woodgrained reading lamp with the Cadillac emblem. I have also always loved the micro-mini Cadillac emblem on the side shields of the front seat. This is just a wonderful car, and certainly a car of its time and place. Especially if that place was a country club in Grosse Pointe in the fall of 1984.
So, what price Broughaminess? Well, there were seventy-five bids for this Cadillac, and it finally hammered down for $16,500. Whoever got it will have one of the best-looking ’80s Cadillacs, in one of the best possible color combinations. What a beauty!
All photos courtesy of eBay. View the auction here for lots and lots more photos!
16.5K? Wow. Sounds like the values on these are actually starting to increase…though it’s of course rare to find a nearly 30 year old car in that sort of cream puff condition with less than 50K miles.
I’ll confess to loving it too though. They did nail the styling, clearly the best-looking of the B/C-bodies. And that flawless white leather is fantastic. The Mayor of Broughamville, indeed.
Oh baby… that car is sweet! I always thought the ’80-’92 Cadillacs were great lookers, and were a big improvement over the clunky ’77-’79 cars. Although I would definitely NOT do it to a survivor like that car I’ve wondered what a two door would be like with LSx motivation…
Yeah that would stop me at a show a BMW or Merc wouldnt there are plenty of those running about and rusting into lawns here abouts but Caddies are kinda rare here and that one is in very good condition.
Having spent 8 years driving C/D bodies from the 80s, I will confess to a bit of the “been there done that” mentality. They were nice, but I prefer a little more get-up-and-go in my big comfy car. So, I was not one of the bidders on this unit.
This is certainly a sharp one, and I am not sure I ever even remember a Fleetwood Brougham 2 door. Coupe deVilles were rare enough – I cannot imagine how few of these were built.
To my eye, this particular one is sitting a bit high – more like the stance of the 90-92 model than that of the 80-89. Does anyone else notice this?
I’d spot you that the stance of some of these could be a bit high, sometimes one end more than the other. But, I’d be hard pressed to categorize by year.
The Coupe de Ville of this era was still selling in the 50-60K per year, down from their six digit peaks of the 70’s, but still plentiful, Fleetwood Coupes never cracked mid 4 digits their entire run.
In the fall of ’79, the GM product line generally looked ready for a successful decade in the ’80s. From a styling standpoint, I liked virtually the entire GM portfolio – handily the best of the domestics.
If the cars had been able to back up the styling with solid reliability, and avoided the terrible drive train modifications that were starting to arrive in showrooms, the nature of auto styling today might be very different. If you found your vehicle styled such as this to be terrible, and took refuge in a Mercedes Benz showroom in 1984, your view of cars like these was irreparably damaged for most people.
Still, my Spain born sister-in-law loved their diesel RWD Fleetwood, even after their disastrous experience with it. The space, the quiet, the soft ride – a revelation compared to what the typical Spaniard had available to drive.
Your SIL loved her Caddy because it was appropriate for its environment-Interstates that demanded little of a car’s handing, and urban environments that were scaled for big fat American cars. But aside from Spain’s Autopistas, she would have found the Caddy out of its element as it would have been just too big. Remember, in 1980 Spain was only five years beyond Franco’s tyranny and the most exciting cars available for domestic consumption were still just warmed over bottom feeders from Fiat (Seat) and Renault, not exactly the stuff dreams are made of. The Caddy that she drove would have made those cars seem wanting.
To this day, Spaniards mostly drive little econoboxes or scooters (like in much of Europe). You cannot really fault a Fleetwood Brougham for not being able to navigate streets made for donkey carts in the 15th Century.
Who wants to take a fairly sharp curve at 90 when you can roll in like you own the place in style and comfort? I suppose those of us that like these landyachts just have a temperament that prefers the later.
I always found it strange how the sales of Coupe deVilles decreased over the years as originally they were a much better seller than the sedans. I absolutely love the Fleetwood Coupe. That color combination is striking, too. That car is truly a find! It instantly reminded me of an older couple that had one of these back in the day in my neighborhood. Theirs was triple black – I always thought it was such a rare and striking color combination. I never saw another Fleetwood Coupe in that color combination. I also felt that the small opera window in back looked so much richer and classier than the regular deVille. I would see the couple every Sunday driving around in that car and the rest of the week it was garaged. They had a 78-79 Pontiac Phoenix as their everyday car but used the Caddy only on weekends and in nice weather. I don’t know what happened to that Coupe as I got married and moved away. When I went by their house a few years later to see if the car was there new people had moved in.
Holy crap, please tell me it has an Oldsmobile 307 and not that steaming pile of crap the HT4100! I think I’m in love.
It has the steaming pile Dan. Imagine what it would have sold for with a 307.
Wasn’t ’86 the first year for the 307 in the C-body Cadillacs? Of course, the Fleetwood Brougham Coupe was discontinued. Curses!
So the one to get would be an ’80 (it was introduced mid-year, so is not in the 1980 brochure) or an ’81 and disconnect the V8-6-4 computer.
To be honest an Olds 307 would only be good for about 65 mph unless you had the patience of Job, so it would be best to stay of the interstates with these Caddies.
I have an ’86 Brougham 4-door with the 307. I can cruise effortlessly all day long at 80-85mph. A friend of mine has a nice running one too and we have compared notes. The poor running ones have either a clogged cat, clogged EGR passage or need the carb rebuilt. They can get in this condition because they last forever and most you see have high miles. 307s can be doggy in Olds and Buick models if they received a super tall final drive.
65mph is a sweet spot for fuel economy, mine gets 24mpg at that speed.
Matt Garrett a Cadillac aficionado that people mention here a lot likes the 307 too (the 4100 no so much). Craig the ex-GM guy who used to post here spoke very highly of the 307+200R4 powertrain in the RWD Cadillac.
The Chevy engined square Broughams from 90-92 feel the same unless you’re climbing a hill. Those models fetch no more money than a comparable 307. 82-85 Brougham 4-doors with the 4100 fetch a lot less money than the 307s but it’s hard to tell since there are so few around.
You’re definitely giving the 307 short shrift. We had one in an ’86 Pontiac Parisienne; sure, a few hundred pounds lighter than a Brougham, but that wouldn’t make such a dramatic difference. Give it enough road and that 307 Parisienne could get close to, if not past, 100. I profess innocence on how I found this out (damn the 85 MPH speedometer for a lack of further precision). It’d cruise happily at 75 all day and still knock down over 20 MPG.
Not the best engine GM ever made by far…the vacuum layout on the ’86 versions (at least, the only one I have experience with) was nightmarish and acceleration was somewhat lesiurely…but much better than the time bomb 4100 and probably just as good as a Chevy 305.
Give me the 305 all day long. Dad had a 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, 307 qudrajet, later it would be mine. He also had access to a fleet of 305 equipped Caprice wagons at his job. 305 would bury the needle on the speedometer in short order (a few high speed cross county runs would show me that). The 307 on the other hand was out of breath by 60-65 and as I said would slllllllllllllllooooooowwwwwwwwwlllllllllyyyyy continue to accelerate. When the speed limits were raised on interstate highways in the 90s that thing became a pain to drive.
I had an ’87 Brougham with a 307 and found it to be more than adequate. It would cruise all day at 80 and still give decent fuel economy. The only issue I had with that engine was noise, they’re well known for valvetrain clatter.
I had a used car dealership back then… HT4100 was sooo bad even the warranty companies wouldnt cover them, for any price. I had a dealer friend who bought one with that eng new. it was going south fast at 49 K miles. Cadillac dealer fought him hard over fixing it (they were drowning in junk HT4100 failures, so they figured if they could brush off some ppl…). Finally my friend found out a federal emmisions law forces car companies / dealerships to make the cars pass emmisions under 50 K miles. He got a new engine under that law, cuz he knew his rights. good luck with those caddys folks
I consider this the last of the great Cadillac Fleetwoods.
That interior is fabulous, I’d buy it just for that it is sooo inviting, a stark contrast to what you would have found in a period German car. The Caddy is like a warm living room while the Germans were like a waiting room at an overpriced professional’s office.
No, it’s the German interior that you would have found to be stark…
Is this a joke? $16,500? SIXTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS?
Granted, it is immaculate. But not long ago (late 2012) I bought a beater-spec 1986 Fleetwood Brougham 4-door for $900 as a winter junker. Yes, nine hundred dollars. Even the “nicer” ones were around $2000-$4000 when I checked autotrader. It drove and ran great, had some rust on the door sills, but everything worked… even the original courtesy lights and cassette player with giant fake-wood knobs. Smooth ride, no rattles, clean velour interior.
I just cannot fathom someone spending SEVENTEEN TIMES what I bought that Fleetwood for. Literally $3000-$4000 of body work, new doors skins, and paint would’ve brought it to equivalent condition if one so desired. This is not a 1959 Eldorado… I still see this bodystyle wafting around on a pretty regular basis. They sold it ’til 1992 for goodness sake. There is nothing THAT rare about this car, apart from the fact that it is a two-door and is especially nice. Some people have more money than sense…
Gotta love that white leather, though.
You couldn’t restore one to that condition for $16,500. I wonder what Matt Garrett’s opinion of this car is/was. I wonder if he was bidding or was the seller.
I’d toss $16,500 on that car in a heartbeat if I collected those types of cars.
id say at $16,500 you could restore to better then new
I doubt it…unless the car is in excellent shape to begin with. Most of the hard plastic bits that deteriorate over time are not reproduced, especially any white interior pieces.
This ain’t a Camaro or Mustang.
I know the coupe would be a bit rarer in terms of parts….but considering the interior is pretty much the same from 1980-1992 I don’t think it would be as challenging as you make out.
Matt Garrett has one of these on his site, but it trumps this one, triple white with the RED dash and carpet, it has the d’Elegance, Astroroof and the real wire wheels, the Brougham full house.
I don’t think that is an unreasonable price. Originality, condition, rarity and desirability. Those are the drivers of price, and this car has all in varying degrees. It would be hard to find one in better original condition. They built 3000, one of the lowest production years, and the last in the line of RWD Caddy coupes. The only thing holding it back on desirability would be the HT 4100, and possibly the lack of a moonroof (if that was available). Almost 30 years on, the more desirable 80’s cars are starting to go for collector prices and there will be a big difference between exceptional condition cars like this and the more common $2-4k decent condition sedans.
You could get the moonroof, here’s an 85 with the moonroof and real wires.
http://www.mcsmk8.com/85-FLEETWOOD-COUPE/85-CAD.html
That must be what Bear Bryant is driving in heaven.
HT4100 is the reason they are rare. None survived without an engine transplant, or some extreme rebuilding. none. they had an bad crank / block problem from GM. not even warranty companies would cover them for any price.
I’m with MaxP. on this one.
Yes, it is a rare car in beautiful condition, but $17,000 is a little too much. I’d guess more like $8-$10K; maybe a trifle more with lower miles. If the odo read 43 hundred instead of thousand, then I could see the $$$. I mean, at 43K miles you’re probably going to have to replace some semi-major components soon.
Perhaps the seller was lucky enough to have two bidders who each really wanted the car. I’ve been selling (not cars) on ebay for quite a while, and I find that I have more upside surprises than downside ones. Auction fever actually exists….
That is a gorgeous car! I love the triple white and blue color scheme. Its a shame that it has a 4100 in it, but I would guess with that condition and at this stage in the game, its probably not going to be driven regularly. Regardless, its got that panache and presence you just cannot get from anything but an American luxury car. It was just a pity about all the engine missteps. I would certainly agree that this style probably wouldn’t have been so far gone to the dustbin of history had it not ended up on a roadside as often.
I recently saw a red 83 Eldo Biarritz with the 4100 engine in it. It certainly saw better days, but with the landau roof, opera lamp and brushed steel top, you could still see what a sharp car it would be in a condition like this Fleetwood.
Tons of Perfect Original Seats?
Plenty O’Space!
Which reminds me of Plenty O’Toole in Diamonds Are Forever…sorry, what were we talking about?
I love this place 🙂
Thank you for sharing. Those are some great photos. The car was simply elegant. It is interesting that body styling ran as long as it did. Coupes fell out of favor and there was no Brougham coupe of the 1993-1996 generation. Cadillac figured if you wanted a big coupe, you would buy Eldorado. It was true. The Coupe Deville died in 1993. They were a hard sell in the end. Cadillac did put thought in the interiors and touches. You have got back to that after not doing it for a while. The one thing you can say that styling is unmistakable Cadillac.
Two door Fleetwood Brougham from the 1993-1996 era:
I’ll let you all in on a little secret about me…
I actually really enjoy precise Euro style driving dynamics, and I marvel at Japanese engineering, but sometimes you just want to be able to stretch out and be pampered while traveling down the road, and be able to do it in style. THAT is why I admire these cars so, and is why I started The Brougham Society.
Cars of this ilk will never be made again, and sometimes it’s just nice to get to take that luxurious trip down Memory Lane.
Tom, as usual, you did a wonderful job with this gorgeous car!
What a truly beautiful car. I love the body and interior. This car is what a Cadillac should be except for the horrible engine. The *ht 4100 is so slow and unreliable. That is a deal breaker for me. I remember driving one and it was so underpowered it was dangerous. I also remember the transmission would not stay in gear. It was always shifting up and down. Other than that it was perfect. Smooth and quiet and effortless steering. Still the lack of power made it a third rate luxury car. Best 85 was the Lincoln Town Car and marquis. Second would be a fifth avenue. I think if I was to have one of these it would have to have a 368 or a big block transplant. Great right up on a car that I used to want. That engine deserves deadly sin status. Or did it get it already in the baby Cadillac???. I consider it a deadyly sin gm took a gorgeous car and ruined it by putting in an engine suited to a compact power wise and also made it unreliable. This engine ruined Cadillac. After 83 those who bought Buicks and olds and even Chevy and Pontiac b bodies had a faster better car at least with a v8 version. This is why Lincoln ruled the 80 and 90s and 00 s. Yes the 93 to 96 was a worthy successor but the styling was the same as the smaller ones and at a distance was hard to tell the difference and many people were scared to try another Cadillac. That is because gm cars have issues. Big Fords have been better cars since the early 70s. I also agree 16500 seems high. My mark vi was only 3000$ and it has the time proven 302 a sunroof and digital dashboard. Mark vi Lincoln s Fleetwood competitor in my opinion was a better car. Better drive train and more brohamier. No flip up lights or gilled fenders or rolls royce grill or continental hump on the cadillac!!! Now if who ever bought this upgrades to a big block 472 and gets a nicer rolls royce grill like those A Moore versions had and perhaps a continental kit this might be a worthy competitor to Lincolns mark vi.
the Lincoln IMO is also much more unique- touring lamps, nicer interior options,…..the interiors on these were pretty much identical throughout 1980 1992- you wither got the leather seats with buttons- or what you see here….and of course velour equivalents
I wanna rain on this parade so bad, but the choice of colors, options, gorgeous condition and nice photography are preventing me from unloading venomous hate on this specific car.
That said, I don’t really get these and I’m always surprised that they have so many fans. I do like the ’77-’79 version quite a bit and the ’92-’96 Fleetwood, but the generation in between I look at and think only of some frail, old, sunburned woman in Florida chain smoking Virginia Slims with a fanny pack on. I’m not really sure why I’m so down on them either. Part of it is because they were so neutered compared to their predecessors. Wishing for an Olds 307 is pretty sad, and for that matter even the one-year 368 was still a turd compared to the 425 it replaced. More importantly, the ’77 model was still a relevant, contemporary and competent luxury car when it came out, but these were really more of a novelty after their first season or two. The FWD Cadillacs were an utter disaster, the worst thing that happened to the brand in the 80s (or ever), but I think the RWD cars being such an anachronism turned off some people as well. They definitely turned me off…
But I don’t wanna make it sound worse than it is. The car seen here is a perfect example of how order forms could be manipulated to build an attractive car out of almost anything back in the day. I’ve seen plenty of others I’ve liked, too – but it’s gotta be something special. One of the things I do love about all the monstrous Broughmobiles is that you could usually get some pretty far out colors on them, inside and out, that reflected the fashions of the time. The blue/white interior is fairly restrained compared to some others, but it looks great and it’s far enough out of the norm to catch my eye. That leather is in unbelievable condition!!
$16,500? Insane… but if it means someone is going to give this car the love and care it deserves, I suppose it’s a good thing.
I’d never pay $16,500 for one, but I do think you have to enjoy the styling, the overall “feel” and the ride to really like them. Obviously that requires overlooking appallingly bad acceleration (though many other cars, particularly in the early 80s, could hardly be said to be fireballs), sometimes questionable transmissions, and a 1970s sense of interior design.
Having owned a Fleetwood Brougham sedan, it’s a car you have to draw lines with to avoid tackiness and kitschiness, in my view. If you come on in a triple white brougham in your striped shirt and thumping speakers, then it looks tacky and thuggy. If you come on with your cane and plaid pants, driving 20 mph in the breakdown lane for 50 feet before completing a turn, and forgetting to turn off your blinker, Geezermobile.
But I have driven a 1980s Cadillac in both black and white tie to places with valet parking. The sense of valets immediately coming to attention and moving towards you. The fact that bystanders look you over when you get out of the car int hat kind of situation…”who is that?”. If you keep it in good repair and it’s in a classy color, it still means and looks like what Cadillac was meant to mean, and that’s where the magic is. In those situations, you have just as much mojo as that other guy in the new S-Class. In fact, he might even look a little arriviste compared to you, because in the right color, that Cadillac just has dignity in spades. You overlook its shortcomings over past Cadillacs and present imports because you still get a car that’s smooth, has presence, and gets that kind of respect. It is a big, formal car. We don’t really have a “formal” looking sedan on the market now. Chrysler 300? Please…
It’s not something you can measure with dimensions, quality reviews, or comparisons to the 1985 300E. We all know it’s less space efficient, less ergonomic, less powerful, less technologically advanced, possibly even less safe.
The reason one likes a car like this is not because it’s objectively better, but because it’s different in a way that can no longer be replicated. The same reason people enjoy Mad Men characters. It’s a nostalgia piece that, used the right way, is still cool, is still imposing, is still tops. You can’t get that same sensation out of a 1985 Front Wheel Drive Fleetwood Coupe. Or, really, anything else.
Motor Trend’s review of the ’90 put it best “the real appeal of this car is that it so faithfully reflects a luxury car tradition that’s increasingly scarce. Get in, shut the door, and suddenly it’s 1965, with the addition of superb audio systems.”
That either appeals or it doesn’t, objectivity be damned 🙂
Well said.
No doubt. Nicely put.
Oh I’m sure Motor Trend said all kinds of crazy stuff in 1990. They should have a “PAID ADVERTISEMENT” disclaimer printed on their front cover. For instance, the Lincoln Town Car was their 1990 COTY… nice car and everything, but that was the same year the Lexus LS400 debuted, amongst others.
If Mad Men was a period piece and nothing more, it wouldn’t be interesting at all. Like that show Pan Am which got cancelled after one season. The visuals on MM may be vintage, but the guts are cutting edge. If Cadillac had done a car that was its automotive equivalent, I would’ve been head over heels for it, but this car isn’t like that at all. They’re to the classics of the 60s what a well-equipped Yugo was to the Fiat 128: air conditioning, nicer stereo, same basic feel, style and technology as a late 60s Fiat FWDer, but somehow something got lost along the way. I’m sure valets and bystanders would take notice if you pulled up in either of those as well, especially if you hopped out wearing a three piece suit.
Have you ever driven or ridden in one of these?
It’s a tangible experience which you either are attracted to or not.
And I suppose if you are, you can “wear the car well”, like some people can wear a 3 piece well and others can’t.
Comparing it to a Yugo? Seriously. Even in its late 80s form, having regressed to carburetion, and Cadillac already having lost market share, this car sold between 40 and 60K a year. When was Yugo close? How many Yugos on the road today?
People continued to buy the car because it still said Cadillac in a way nothing else the brand produced and nothing anyone else was producing did. It would not have continued to sell, year after year, virtually unchanged, if it did not have that certain something. The PanAm analogy works on the “new T-Bird”. This car continued to sell despite being virtually abandoned by GM. It had something other cars just didnt.
As for Popular Mechanics (if I said Motor Trend then I was mistaken), they heaped the praise on the Town Car in that article, ripped the K-Car Imperial a new one, and criticized the Cadillac for fit and finish issues. But they still recognized its appeal that went beyond an empirical rating of the car.
I did not compare it to a Yugo. I said it was to the Cadillacs of the 60s what a Yugo was to the Fiats they were based on from 20 years earlier. A Yugo is a Fiat 127, which was their second FWD car after the 128; both celebrated vehicles in their day (the 128 more so). Cadillac in the 60s built incredible cars. In the 70s they built cars that were still very good. The downsized ’77 models were a hit. This car is basically that but a decade later and crappier, but they had better stereos. Get it? I realize that’s probably way too confusing an analogy now that I’m reading it back to myself… my bad.
I’ve never driven one, but I’m familiar enough with them. I still seem to see them all over the place. Can’t imagine it would somehow change my mind or it’s in any way different from all the other floaty and soft land yachts I’ve driven. Do you even like them for that reason, or is it really more about the whole image you feel they impart? The good old olden days when men were men and law ruled the land or whatever. Cuz I do like plenty of cars *like* this, but that part I don’t really care about at all and can’t relate to.
Absolutely like them for that reason, and they ARE different from other “floaty land yachts”. The Cadillac is more isolated. I’ve driven big Fords and big Buicks; they aren’t the same.
As for the image that may be what kept them selling. All of the “professional” reviews of the car seem to agree on that point even as they disagree with great variation as to whether it has any other redeeming qualities.
These cars are sooo handsome! Too bad they are so weak they could not pass a tractor.
We ordered an 82 Fleetwood D elegance 4 door. It had the best riding back seat of any car I have ever ridden in. I thought the coupe was more handsome than the sedan.
Tom: your honor, you are the mayor of Broughamville.
It’s a shame GM didn’t go for better mileage with the 368 via a 4 speed overdrive/lockup transmission and a port fuel injection system with good electronics. They had the genesis of such a system in the EFI that was offered on the 500’s in 1975-76; it just needed some improvement.
The problem with buying an ultra low mileage HT4100 car like this one is it’s a crapshoot. The bad ones and poorly maintained ones were notorious for packing it in around 75K miles; I used to see them in salvage yards all the time. I don’t know if you can assure their longevity by replacing the head gaskets, changing the coolant and adding the magic tablets, and so on.
What a beauty! Too much especially with that engine but at least it looks like a Cadillac.
I wouldn’t call this a Caprice with jewelry. I owned an ’87 Brougham. It had a lot of things the Caprice didn’t. And a lot of things my ’77 Electra 225 doesn’t, that suggested better quality. The classic 1950s Cadillac door handles. Chrome coat hooks over the rear windows. Thick carpeting. Insulation under the hood and those x-bars for reinforcement under there. I’ve said it before, my Buick feels like a “Caprice L” but the Cadillac never did. Obscenely slow, yes, but still beautifully isolated from the road. I recently came into a ’93 Fleetwood Brougham from a relative. It has that isolation and presence too, and much more power, but the features that made this car several steps above the other Bs and Cs are largely missing in the final generation. Metal replaced with plastic. Unique parts generalized. Thinner carpet.
I’d drive an ’80 coupe over anything I’ve owned thus far in a heartbeat.
no the interior was not high quality- thick carpets, hood insulation and chrome interior bits that look like they belong from the 1950’s do not equal quality in my mind.- the overuse of obvious fake woodtrim and subpar seating that had no real support might have been okay in 1975…..but by 1985 I think it was getting a bit obsolete
I like the car interior but definitely not because of its quality- its kitsch factor is what draws me to it.
as for features everything that your describing as features sounds like lipstick on a pig….well maybe not it did have a state of the art 4.1 V8….
I guess that’s where we would differ, I view anything that hearkens back to the Cadillacs of the 50s and 60s as an element of quality that survived the bean counters into the 70s, 80s, and 90s even if it did not survive on GM’s other brands. Especially if that element was actually a part on those 50s cars and still was being used.
Few commentators dispute that the 50s and 60s, at least through the mid 60s, Cadillacs, were fine cars. Including the now famous comparison article from ’65 that basically says a Mercedes is hardly better.
Also your comment reads as though GM were imposing the unsupporting seats, wood trim, and such on people without their consent. I don’t recall reading any discussion in reviews of the cars at that time that ripped the car’s interior as being cheap. Most of the complaints, as they were until the 5.7 became available, were about the car’s utter lack of power (either with the 4100 or the 307) and the fact (with the 307) that it still had a carburetor when everyone else had gone EFI, as well as GM’s not bothering with certain amenities like ABS or 4 wheel discs. Most of that lack of refinement can be explained (though not justified) by the fact that GM believed this model was going to be cancelled and felt no need to invest in it further until they seemed to realize it was still selling around 1990.
My own experience with the ’87 was that the car was very comfortable on long trips. The leather also looked and smelled great for years. The carpet dampened sound. And while real woodgrain would have been nice, the 80s woodgrain looks more realistic than that used in the 90s. And at least it was put in places that conceivably could have been real wood. I
Certainly the interior of the Lincoln at the time was no less old fashioned. They were both old fashioned cars, but hardly (except for the 4100) POSs. The MB of the time was surely more ergonomic and modern but debatable whether more comfortable or a better cruiser.
yes I was a bit harsh, I don’t think they are POS- but they are disappointing for a Cadillac, for such a stately vehicle I think features such as ABS, fuel injection etc should be standard….it was getting kind of pathetic by 1990 to have a 5.0 litre V8 with a carb and whatever horsepower it had.
As for the interior of these cadillacs being cheap- here is a review from popular science stating “most appalling is Cadillac’s use of crude door mounted front seat belts on what should be it flagship” or here is a second article from Popular Science stating that “the build quality of our test car won’t do much to revive Cadillac’s long-held “Standard of the World” image. The metallic paint on the hood had spots….the fit and finish of the bodywork was terrible”- just rather sad fro 1980s- no ABS, no heated seats, no lumbar support options, no memory seats….really Cadillac this is the best you can do?
and no- the fake wood is so blatantly overdone its silly……most of the wood trim is not in places where it could ‘conceivably be’- its the complete opposit
as for the Lincoln- yes fake wood abounds and they do get some harsh remarks from the critics but they did have a digital dash, fuel injection, and IMO a more modern interior that could be had with a wider variety of options
The funny thing is that Caddillacs were the first US cars to offer modern EFI as they did on some of the last of the 500 cu in monsters. (Limited production Cosworth Vega excluded)
@ Eric
Yeah it’s kind of sad, starting in, I think, MY ’80 they started regressing on the advanced options instead of improving on them, confident that these would soon be history and it just wasn’t worth it.
I can see the planners at the meeting:
1980: “Look, gas is going to be $4.00 a gallon soon. We’ve got the FWD ’83s (that was the plan, I believe) waiting in the wings. Let’s not waste any more effort or funding on these, they’ll be dinosaurs soon”
1985: “Allright, gas is cheap again, but c’mon, this old thing is just a temporary bridge model. People are going to start flipping for our new FWD models any day now, and then we can toss this thing. This Lincoln Town Car resurgence is a temporary blip on the radar”
1987: “We had 65K in sales on these old relics this year. And that g-d Lincoln is still selling like hotcakes. Might as well keep it around, not like it’s costing us anything. That Olds engine sure was a cheap fix. Roger loved the idea. Look, the only people buying these are going to be dyed-in-the-wool traditionalists. They aren’t going to give a damn whether there’s a carburetor or ABS. They just want a big Cadillac”
1989: “Can’t believe these old things are still selling, but we moved 40,000 last year! But we’re getting ripped apart in the magazines. They say this is a pathetic embarrassment for a flagship. Maybe we should put a little bit into a restyle and some peppier engines. I mean 140 HP is pretty lame for a V8. And a Cadillac should have the stuff every other car sold today has–ABS and EFI, and composite headlights. These might not be dead yet, and the Allante isn’t working out so great. We don’t even need to change the design much. Everyone knows this is a Cadillac from 100 feet away”
If the 1989 conversation had happened in 1985, and Cadillac decided to really improve these as a flagship rather than treat it like a lucky holdover that would be cancelled any second, I’m sure things would have been somewhat different in terms of top options, and reviews.
<<Few commentators dispute that the 50s and 60s, at least through the mid 60s, Cadillacs, were fine cars. Including the now famous comparison article from ’65 that basically says a Mercedes is hardly better.
Was that the same article comparing the Cadillac, Mercedes 600, Imperial, Lincoln, Jaguar and Rolls? If so I got a total different impression than you having read the article.
They say the Mercedes has better brakes.
The say the Cadillac
* rides better than anything else
* has more convenience and comfort than anything else
* is the best value in its class
* has excellent fit and finish
* is well laid out
* would be considered exclusive if it didn’t sell well and was made in classy England by craftsmen in tweed jackets instead of in icky Detroit by icky Americans that remind you of Archie Bunker
It just furthers my point that the MB is all about function over form. To appreciate a big Cadillac, you cannot think in those strictly utilitarian terms, otherwise the Mercedes and pretty much anything that is not a Lincoln or an Imperial is automatically, by definition, a “better” car. That includes, by the way, the Electra and 98 which, according to that analysis, have most of the same options for a cheaper price. For Cadillac, form was always a huge component of the appeal.
Yes, it states the Mercedes out performs them all by a long shot. I remember it said the Rolls had excellent fit and finish and excellent brakes. I think there might have been a mention of the Mercedes riding like it was on rails. Don’t know how any of the rest would have beat it in convenience and comfort with all those hydraulics; four wheel suspension hydraulic and pneumatic, trunk lid up and complete pull down, hydraulic door closing, console cooler, rear hydraulic seat, sunroof, etc. I don’t remember Cadillac’s fit and finish being mentioned. I will have to read it again. To be fair the only other car in the Mercedes 600’s price range was the Rolls. It was not a fair comparison for the rest. The domestics were not world class cars nor was that the aim of their makers.
We did a post on that C/D article, including a reprint: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/six-luxury-cars-a-car-and-driver-test-from-1965-with-some-cc-pictures/
this is the only car built after the early 70s that always makes my lottery list. yes, the power train is govt. weak…but installing say, a 70 400hp 500 and appropriate transmission is easy. in fact i’ve run across a site put up by some moneyed Cadillac collector who did just that to the same era Coupe De Ville…looks completely factory except for having an extra 250 hp…..stuff of dreams.$16.5 seems high…but i’m not surprised, the two doors are rare and I’d sooner spend that on this than $60 k on yet another GTO….
Matt Garrett, the Cadillac collector down in TX made a 1980 Fleetwood Brougham sedan with a built 500 in it.
And speaking of MG at ebay, here is an example of the “Brougham d’Elegance” edition of above car:
And for those so inclined, the 1985 FWD Fleetwood coupe:
Ick.
Not my cup of tea, I suppose because back when these were new Caddys seemed to be driven by those for whom the maximum speed was 10 below whatever the limit was. Well, that and I just don’t like the sense of isolation and floatiness. These days Cadillacs still occupy this space, joined by Buicks, minivans (no longer the ride of suburban moms, now the ride of elderly couples), and a fair number of MBs.
Having said that, this is a wonderfully preserved example of the type, and I salute it.
Sir, I will have you know our cars were the top of the line in domestic travel back then. We ordered a Fleetwood d’Elegance fully equipped with even the rare memory seat option. How dare you suggest we drove 10 mph below the speed limit. That was full throttle for those cars. We had to throw stuff out when attempting to pass a car or preform a pit maneuver on our victim to get in front of them.
Still it was the last stand for Cadillac and the last of their handsome models. I can remember their every body line as they moved by slow enough for me to see every one. Kind of like I imagine a dinosaur would have moved,,,,,an old dinosaur,,,,,,an old very sick dinosaur,,,,,,an old very sick dinosaur wearing uncomfortable shoes.
Not my cup of tea either but it is spectacular.Too big,thirsty and soft handling for me but I would love to be chauffeured in it,Fleetwood USA is obviously a step up from Fleetwood UK although they were twinned once.(Twinning towns was a great excuse for councillors to swan off on expenses paid holidays)
Given its engine, how about “The Eunuch of Broughamville”?
Wonderful car – high kitsch of course but 100% fabulous and worth every cent. Up until this time Cadillac – and Lincoln – offered unique looking products. Yes, floaty and flawed, but unique nonetheless. I don’s live in the USA and this story made me think what do Caddy and Lincoln offer these days? A visit to their respective websites and…..I could not believe my eyes – pale, imitations of German cars. They probably perform and handle much better than their ancestors, but to my eyes at least the new ones are ugly and characterless.
Lincoln is a dead brand walking. Ford would be doing it a mercy by killing it. Cadillac, on the other hand, is in the midst of a comeback…the styling may not be to everyone’s taste but dynamically they’ve regained competetiveness.
Cars like this Brougham Coupe are gone, never to return, though. Maybe that’s better, as we always appreciate something more once it’s left the world.
Beautiful find! Someone in my neighborhood drives a Fleetwood limousine from this era almost every day.
I also love the baroque nature of high-end American cars of the ’70s, especially Cadillacs and Imperials.
Cadillac had an interior design theme that I thought especially appealing. The grade of materials, such as the plastic used for the dashboard was definitely of a higher grade than the other GM divisions. It had a more matte finish to it and was more dense and supple than that used by the other GM divisions. Designers also used generous amounts of brushed aluminium. I especially liked the way the warning lights were set inside an eybrow-level matte black strip that stretched across the entire width of the dashboard. Various notices would light up at determined spots along this band, information like: “door adjar” or “trunk open”, I’m not sure of the complete list. Chimes were used instead of the more common buzzer sound and the sentinel automatic light panel and climate control system panel used a Mercedes-like blue white and red rotating wheel that help drivers dial-in the desired cabin temperature. Like Chrysler, turn signals and use of high beams were indicated using a lighting system sited on the two front fenders, but Cadillac went further — in addition to that a unit one was sited at the top of the back window which relayed the same information when the driver looked into the rear-view mirror. The passenger-side view mirror had a control stalk that mechanically ended somewhere around the radio just within reach of an outstretched right arm and the trunk opener was a bright yellow button curiously located inside the glove box, a definite reach for even a driver with long arms — hardly ergonomic but special none-the-less. There was a waste basket “for WASTE not TRASH” (not that that mattered because were could never eat in the Cadillac like we could in the Town and Country). The waste basket was nicely carpeted and discretely located in the passenger front footwell. All four doors had cigarette ashtrays each with their own lighter (just imagine the moments — which must have occurred with some degree of regularity — back in the day when four, perhaps five passengers all decided silmultaneously to light up. That Cadillac must have appeared to be on fire.) Finally, there was the infamous trunk close-assist feature, ever the golf caddie’s worst nightmere and certain tip eliminator; woe to the poor slob caddie who slammed close the trunk of my father’s silver over red leather 1975 Seville (padded roof and wire wheel cover delete, thank-you). If I heard it once, I heard it a thousand times: “Just set the trunk lid down, thank-you! The car will do the rest — pause — Dammit Clyde!! (klutzes, including this writer, were always classified as “Klydes”) Didn’t you hear me??”
All these very small and seeming inconsequential Cadillac “marks of quality” in their totality used to set the brand apart. And I can attest to their rememebred longevity as I have not sat in a Cadillac in over 30 years yet still I vividly remember every one.
In fact, doing things just a little bit better and, crucially, uniquely are perhaps the strongest and most enduring “hooks” automakers have at their disposal yet they are called upon infrequently preferring instead to “benchmark” the class leader. The risk is of course for some element to be judged “too strange” and in so doing turn off potential customers. But I argue failing to provide characterful elements will one day get the anodyne automaker in the end. We should see more of it today. Cadillac provides a unique look on the outside, but I don’t see evidence that their interiors do anything more than attempt to match what comes out of Germany.
I’m going to correct you on one thing, Mercedes used a CADILLAC LIKE wheel for temperature control, being that Cadillac had automatic climate control with a temperature thumbwheel way before Mercedes did.
And its a “litter compartment”.
The GM Fiber Optic light monitors were the early version of letting you know that your light bulbs were working as much as they were for telling you the turn signal or high beams were on. Having them for the taillights was also done in 70’s Buck C bodies.
My father’s 70 Mark III had them for the taillights as well, mounted over the back window so the driver could see them through the rear view mirror. None for the front, though.
The Mark III and the Thunderbird had them on the rear only, the Thunderbird even had sequential indicator monitors for a couple of years too!
http://automotivemileposts.com/autobrevity/lampmonitor.html
They were spread around to a few cars, they were optional on a few Chevrolets too, Impala/Caprice, Camaro and Chevelle, they were standard on the 1968-1971 Corvette, which had them inside the car on the center console, it had a set for the front up under the radio and a set for the rear lights by the hand brake, the Corvette was the only one that had an indicator to tell you if the license plate light was out too!
I will never get to this day why Cadillac didn’t spend the development money on pulling the 200R-4 or 700R-4 overdrive transmissions into the 81’s tied to the 368. That alone would have increased highway mileage from the dismal 21 to at least 23 or 24 and out of the gas guzzler tax region until at least 1983 or 84 when the 307 could have been substituted in it’s place early on. That would have given these cars a far more reliable drive train up to when the Chevy smalls blocks were substituted in 1990-96.
Actually the 368 was in production through 1984 on the limousine and commercial chassis Cadillacs, but I don’t think overdrive would have increased MPG that much, it was always expected that these cars were always perennially “going away” every year.
CARMINE, I’m sure you’ll know if this is correct or if I’m just hallucinating, but I remember reading somewhere that not only was the 368 in production until 84/85ish for the “Commercial Chassis” vehicles, but the V8-6-4 version was as well. True?
From what I recall, without consulting “the archives” the limo had the 4-6-8 fuel injected version, which they were able to make work better than the 1981 version and the commercial chassis had the carbureted 368, they were able to skirt around emissions and CAFE on the commercial chassis since it was sold as an “incomplete vehicle” for upfitting.
I’ve only owned my 80 coupe for almost 29 years. It’s the first thing I ever had a loan on. I’ve owned about 40 cars over the years and this one they can bury me in. I’d get rid of my AMG Benz before I’d sell my Cad.
hi
I hope you are doing well
this Cadillac still available?
its for sale ? if its how much?
thanks
with all my respect
mohamed
i own the car as of 7/4/2020 and everything is for sale for the right money
Is da 85 cadillac for sale
i own that car now i purchased it 7/4 2020 and everything is for sale for the right money
I have always said everything is for sale