The re-introduction of a full-size, body-on-frame, rear-wheel-drive sedan to Buick’s lineup in the 1990s was somewhat surprising. After all, despite switching almost entirely to front-wheel-drive – the slow-selling Estate wagon being the lone exception – sales had not been negatively impacted. Buick’s 1985 Electra and 1986 LeSabre were modern, efficient and attractive offerings, and even Buick’s more traditional consumers were opting for these FWD sedans despite stabilizing gas prices. For 1991, Buick launched a brand new FWD flagship, the Park Avenue, which received plaudits for its elegant styling and comfortable interior. But while the Park Avenue may have been the most expensive Buick, it wasn’t the biggest. We’ve covered the wagon here before, but let’s look at Buick’s biggest sedan of the 1990s: the Roadmaster sedan.
The big B-Body sedan’s arrival had been pre-empted by the Roadmaster Wagon. The longroof had arrived in 1991, thus ensuring Buick dealerships always had a full-size wagon. Roadmaster wagons were almost identical to the Chevrolet Caprice and the short-lived Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser, differing only in trim and minor details like the grille.
The first RWD Buick sedan in 7 years would receive much more visual differentiation than its wagon counterpart. Designed by Wayne Kady, the Roadmaster sedan had a bold waterfall grille and striking full-width taillights. Despite styling vastly different to the related Caprice sedan, the Roadmaster sedan received many of the same criticisms levelled at the Chevy: their smoother, more aerodynamic lines arguably seemed ill at ease with the platform’s sizeable dimensions. And those dimensions were indeed sizeable: wheelbase was 115.9 inches and overall length was 215.8 inches, 5 and 10 inches longer respectively than the flagship Park Avenue. The interior was spacious, and the 21 cubic-feet trunk was cavernous.
There were two Roadmaster sedans available: base and Limited. The base model came well-equipped with air-conditioning, cruise control, power steering, power windows and anti-lock brakes. The Limited added climate control, keyless entry, power locks and power mirrors. Detail changes were made to the equipment list during its run, the most notable being the addition of dual airbags which came with a slightly rejigged dashboard. In a sign of the times, a vinyl roof became an option, even on the Limited.
Initially, the Roadmaster sedan’s engine was the L05 5.7 V8 with 180 hp and 290 lb-ft. The big news for 1994 was the arrival of a much more powerful V8, the LT1. This was a detuned version of the same V8 used in the Corvette, and put out an impressive 260 hp and 335 lb-ft; 0-60 was around 8 seconds. With the trailer-towing package optioned, a Roadmaster could tow up to 5000lbs. Even the Park Avenue Ultra’s supercharged V6 had just 205 hp and 260 lb-ft. The transmission was one of GM’s smooth-shifting four-speed automatics, the 4L60E.
It may have looked huge, and indeed it was at 4,300lbs, but the Roadmaster achieved pretty admirable fuel economy with its powerful LT1. The EPA rated it at 16/25mpg (slightly better than the previous V8), while the more modern Park Avenue was only marginally better at 17/29mpg.
Handling was nothing to write home about, with copious amounts of body roll. These cars were built for cruising and not for racing around the twisties. The towing package helped firm up the ride and handling, but if you were after a full-size sedan with some athleticism you would have been served by a Park Avenue with the Gran Touring suspension option. The Roadmaster may not have handled terribly well, but its ride quality was excellent and its cabin was extremely hushed.
But the Roadmaster Sedan’s advantages in pulling power and towing ability weren’t enough to prevent it from being outsold, often quite significantly, by the more expensive Park Avenue. The former outsold the latter only once, in 1992. From 1993-96, the Park Avenue would outsell the entire Roadmaster range each year.
The market had shifted away from big, body-on-frame, RWD sedans. Although the B-Body platform was now quite old and each Roadmaster sale was likely a very profitable one for GM, the company had found an even more profitable sale: a full-size SUV.
Of the final B-Bodies, the wagons often have a loyal following because they were the last of their kind. The Impala SS has that unassailable cool factor. The Caprice sedan was beloved by cops, who were often reluctant to change to Crown Vics. The Fleetwood Brougham has a brobdingnagian, classic Cadillac charm. The Roadmaster sedan, in comparison, seems to be one of the most overlooked of its kinfolk. The only final-B that seems to enjoy less attention is the short-lived ’91-92 Custom Cruiser.
All of GM’s B-Bodies would face the executioner’s axe for 1996. The Arlington, Texas factory would be retooled to produce SUVs. These less efficient and generally cruder vehicles had become much more acceptable for families and city-dwellers to own.
It’s a shame, as the GM B-Body was the quintessential full-size American sedan. With the LT1, it achieved levels of power and efficiency the likes of which had never been seen, and all at a competitive price. The Roadmaster sedan may have had its flaws – frumpy styling, some cheap interior materials, mediocre handling – but where else could you find that combination of value and ability in the 1990s?
I actually thought the Roadmaster was the best looking of the last B-body sedans. And I got a kick out of the dashboard including a tachometer.
Car and Driver wrote a review of an LT1 powered one in a “Little Old Lady from Pasadena” vibe dressing up one of their testers in a white curly wig and little blue polyester dress.
Here it is!
These will prove to be rare in the future as it seems that many of the survivors are still being harvested for their desirable parts.
Yes, especially those T84 headlamps on export version of Chevrolet Caprice. They are light years (no pun intended) ahead of crappy US headlamps. The T84 version has glass lens and uses H4 bulb: both offer dramatic improvement in lighting output.
http://www.capriceshop.com/PARK.JPG
Last time I checked, a good set of second hand T84 headlamps retail for more than 2,000 euros. They haven’t been made since twenty years.
I’m with Dan on this – I really liked these. I will admit that the Park Avenue was more attractive (it was a genuinely beautiful large sedan) but the Roadmaster had an impressiveness about it that made you take it seriously. It was much better looking than either the Fleetwood or the Caprice, in my mind.
In the midwest, there were a lot of these owned by older people, and I still occasionally see one piloted by the original elderly owner. One was always on my list of cars to consider when looking for a nice older car, but I never found one at the right time.
I always thought that these needed about another 2-3 inches in wheelbase to really pull off the look. A fair number of original, low-mileage examples are now turning up for sale at the various Carlisle events.
> Despite styling vastly different to the related Caprice sedan, the Roadmaster sedan received many of the same criticisms levelled at the Chevy
I also think the Roadmaster is better looking than the Caprice or Fleetwood versions. My dad can’t really tell the difference; he doesn’t believe that the only exterior parts common between a Caprice and Roadmaster are the front doors and windshield, despite the fact that my parents own a 1992 Roadmaster Limited.
One nice touch that the Limited has that the base model does not: There’s a running light on the C-pillar of the Limited that comes on with the exterior lights. As much as anything, that’s why my parents wanted a Limited when they were shopping for a Roadmaster.
Part of the reason for the Roadmaster’s decent fuel economy is that the drivetrain is geared so that the engine isn’t turning over at much above idle when you’re on the highway at 70 MPH.
My mom’s Roadmaster has a wallowy ride, but my brother had one with the trailer towing package. That adds a rear sway bar and heavier front sway bar, probably heavier springs as well, which greatly improves handling. It also has a lower gear ratio, which hurt fuel economy but helped acceleration. A Roadmaster with towing package and the LT1 would be like a stealthy Impala SS.
Agreed, this was the best of the last B bodies by far.
These were true bargains for a luxury car, especially the ’94 – ’96 years with the LT1. I can’t understand why they didn’t sell better, as they were a far better package than the similarly sized, and very popular, Lincoln Town Car. I can’t recall any real effort at advertising or promotion of these, which is puzzling. Also, I can’t recall ever seeing anyone under 60 driving one.
At 4,300 lbs. the Roadmaster may seem big, but it weighs less than a current Dodge Charger, Ford Explorer and practically any mid size SUV. They’re big, but not whales.
And by the way, isn’t “Roadmaster” one of the best model names ever!
A+. “Roadmaster” is a fantastic name. Road MASTER!
Yes, I couldn’t agree more. Roadmaster is one of the last really “aggressive” or “strong” car names used by a mainstream automaker, like Plymouth Fury, Studebaker Dictator, Oldsmobile Cutlass, Buick LeSabre, AMC Matador, Buick Invicta, Jeep Commander.
Agreed! Fitting name for a big comfy land yacht.
‘Fury’ is one of my favorite car names. Shame there isnt a 2 door 300C to wear it.
What sucks is when a strong aggressive name is misapplied to a mild mannered car. Dodge had a great name with ‘Avenger’. Had the ’95-’00 version been packing rwd V8 power, how badass would ‘Avenger Magnum 360’ have sounded? The bodystyle had the looks, just not the guts. Applying it to a midsize sedan was just insult to injuy. Rinse and repeat on the current ‘Renegade’. My ’78 CJ-7 was a Renegade edition. With a swapped in 360
And cherry bombs, it sure was. That Fiat version of a Kia soul…ummm….NO.
Ive always liked Honcho, Cherokee Chief, and Commando, also. Jeep’s internal codename for the 4.7 V8 was ‘Corsair’. Why they didnt run with that, Ill never know.
Yes, Avenger, Renegade and Commando are pretty strong names, as well as Nitro. Magnum is up there too, as well as Charger and Challenger of course. Dodge also had a Matador model briefly, before AMC did. Buick Centurion was a good one too. Buick, Jeep and Dodge seem to have had a fair number of them. Only other one I can think of is Mercury Marauder.
How about Dodge “Viper”. Thats aggressive!
Forgot Nitro. I liked them and the Caliber (especially in SRT4 guise). Caliber, in name and appearance was sort of the Magnum’s little brother.
Initial sales of the updated B cars were an bit weak, mostly on style issues. Coupled with GM struggling a in those years with CAFE numbers, GM was a bit schizophrenic with development and promotion of these cars – witness the various desirable updates during 1994 – 1996 while the planners were constantly threatening to convert Arlington to SUV production. Eventually the answer was too easy – build Tahoes and the style and CAFE issues would go away, all for the price of handing the fleet market to Ford.
“Beached Whale” would have been a far more apt moniker than “Roadmaster”.
I wish I could conjure up the slightest bit of kindness towards these Roadmonsters, but I just can’t. I think the Park Avenue was far better looking and much more dynamic. Where this ancient B-body excelled was in its relative fuel efficiency (shockingly close to the supposedly efficient FWD C-bodies) along with old-school body-on-frame isolation and towing ability, for the rapidly dwindling number of people seeking those attributes in a car (versus an SUV). To my eyes, Ford did a markedly better job with adopting aero styling on its RWD biggies. At the very least, the fully cut out rear wheel openings on the big Fords, Mercurys and Lincolns made them look much less bloated.
“but where else could you find that combination of value and ability in the 1990s?”
Your Lincoln Mercury dealer, who had the Grand Marquis, a very similar car- hey, you asked.
I always had a thing for these, admittedly. I always associated it, honestly, with my thing for DeTomaso-era Maseratis, particularly the BiTurbos. Why? Because under the sun of god’s universe, there is nothing good about Maserati BiTurbos and their numerous derivatives. I should hate them. Poorly built cars, badly designed, practically not engineered at all, that existed as a check-box proposition. Turbo engine? Check. Performance? Double check. Superluxury interior? Check. Exclusive brand? Quadruple check. Price it just above a 3-series. Sell it fast.
Alejandro De Tomaso was always an imbecile of the first order. What makes the BiTurbo so unbelievably awesome is that a man so stupid, could get a product so poorly conceived, into mass production, partially for appealing to a patriotism towards a country he was, in fact, not born in. He even sold a sizable quantity of the things. Brio and an illogical sensucht overcame all else to deliver a product of practically no redeemable qualities.
There’s nothing great about the Roadmaster, or any 90s B-body, really. Don’t get me wrong, fellas, I’m not saying its a garbage car like the BiTurbo. Nothing is that bad. A Kaengsaeng 88 has more redeeming qualities than a BiTurbo.
But it was a product born of stupidity. (Look up the literal definition of stupid if you are getting your heckles up!) At least the Ford Crown Vic had a modern engine! It didn’t consider the future at all. Designing it to adapt to the future in ways it was not capable of would have been better. It was conceived of the same exact logic that has many Americans saying, “Gee, after years of gas costing $3+ a gallon, they have finally fallen to lower numbers for an indeterminate amount of time. Thus, I can now afford to buy something I am going to own for multiple years without worrying about fuel economy!”
Sure demand had risen for larger cars in the early 90s. But the decision to invest even one penny into B-body engineering should have involved a long-term outlook that would have allowed the B-body to adapt to the future. It never did. I’m sure the inherent dead-end of the engineering put into it, and the amount of money it would have taken to modernize them, was a substantial part of the reason for choosing to end that particular set of cars production for increased truck capacity.
Newer isn’t better. I’d take a pushrod GM V8 engine any day over the Ford 4.6l or any of Ford’s mod motors. My coworker’s 2005 5.4l Triton engine in his F150 just failed (loss of oil pressure on one half of engine – dealer wants $9K for a new motor) and that was after $6K of work to replace lifters, cam phasers, timing chains, etc. And this is with proper maintenance, and he mostly does highway miles as well. At less than 150K miles.
You can’t go wrong with either of the engines offered in the Roadmaster.
And thousands of livery and taxi fleets rely endlessly on the 4.6L version of the same bloody engine, and are crying their hearts out that they are going to have to find a replacement product for them. Clearly because lively fleets are masochistic. Or their accountants are idiots. Or something.
“My friend had an X which had trouble Y which cost him a dreaded $Z to fix. Thats proof that X is bad.” Anecdotal thoughts are proof of absolutely nothing.
You can like older engines all you want. You know what? I have a Leica M3, and Leica’s seminal F1.0 Noctilux 50MM lens to go with it. I’d say it takes the best standard pictures a professional photographer could ever produce. In some circumstances it blows anything Leica currently makes out of the water.
And the ordinary consumer, in the real world, would not only find it more enjoyable to use their iPhone to take pictures, but probably produce better photographs with it.
The Ford Panthers never had tow ratings much above 2,500 lbs. Some of the GM cars went to several thousand lbs, You could not buy this much car in any Panther at any price,
Pfui. As reasoning, that is admirably specious. We can pick 5 random statistics where the Panther is hugely different than the B-body cars. But thats totally irrelevant.
The B-body was a comfortable six seater traditional RWD V-8 powered American car in the full-size category. The Panther was a comfortable six seater traditional RWD V-8 powered American car in the full-size category.
The Buick Roadmaster was a premium but not luxury branded variation of the B-body. The Mercury Grand Marquis was a premium but not luxury branded variation of the Panther.
Maybe 10% of buyers cared what it could tow. I tend to guess that the Septuagenarians and Octogenarians who bought them gave no real thought to the engine power.
The cars were overall comparable with basically similar capabilities. I didn’t say they were identical.
I find that a really bizarre rant, and largely off-base. Go ahead and tell someone that just bought a new Vette that the pushrod V8 in their car is antique garbage. The Roadmaster had good fuel economy, especially for a fullsize RWD car that could actually tow a house trailer. GM killed them off to free-up production capacity for more SUVs because they were more profitable.
+1. Ill add that for such old school, ‘antiquated’ tech, the modern Hemis sure are kicking a LOT of ass and taking names. Knocking down good mpgs and dead reliable, at that.
I wouldn’t call it “antique garbage” because, well, thats just childish. The Roadmaster wasn’t “Antique garbage”- but it was an antique.
As for the Vette… the Vette has exactly the engine it should have for what it is. Its a raw, very American sports car, with all of the crudeness, unrefinement, and wildness that implies. That doesn’t make it a bad car. A Mercedes SL customer wouldn’t buy a Vette- nor would a Vette customer ever consider the Mercedes. The Vette engine has no place in the Mercedes, as Mercedes’ nonpareil twin-turbo V12 has no place in a Vette.
Love “traditional” American cars for what they are, not for what they are not. But also recognize that business doesn’t have to make sense to you to make sense as business.
GM made a lot of mistakes over the years. Building a car on an existing platform because de minimis changes are made to it from 1992 until it ends production in 2012 makes sense as a business move. Modifying a platform substantially for a model run from 1991 until 1996 because customers whine about it and dealers cry about it is stupidity. The Panther did not see a ginormous spike in sales when the B-body was discontinued. Roadmaster buyers transitioned primarily to Cadillacs and Park Avenues.
DeTomaso had a history of doing that. Prior to owning Maserati, he owned Benelli motorcycles. In an effort to pull the Italian motorcycle industry out from under the Japanese who were crushing them (the Brits weren’t the only ones going under), he first copies the Honda CB500 almost nut for bolt and comes up with the Benelli 500. Then he adds two more cylinders giving us the Benelli Sei. First as 750cc, later bored out to 900.
And this is three or four years before the Honda CBX.
I see a few around occasionally, they don’t sell for particularly big bucks. Then again, parts are almost impossible to get because they went out of production decades ago when Benelli failed. Yeah, another of DeTomaso’s brilliant ideas crashed and burned.
As much as I like the Ford 4.6l engines(sorry redmondjp, in 4.6l 2V form they are absolutely bulletproof) they were consistantly outpowered by GM’s Pushrod engines(LT and then LS) and are very very space inefficient, being nearly the same width as an old 426 Hemi. The lack of displacement and accompanying low end torque pretty much means you need to apply more moderate throttle than you would for the larger GM pushrod equivelant, defeating much of the mpg benefits benefits of it.
Plus Ford gave nearly zero room to grow with the Modular engine themselves – it’s a perfectly square engine with very tight bore spacing, which limits displacement bumps to increasing stroke (5.4), which means it’s undersquare, which, means the valves are shrouded and doesn’t like RPM, completely defeating a huge benefit an OHC layout is supposed to offer. When it came out it matched, didn’t best, matched the output of the long in tooth 5.0 H.O, giving a slight bump in efficiency, but also an elevated powerband less useful for day to day driving, and not as powerful as GM’s LT1, and this wouldn’t be remedied until the PI versions came around in 1999/2001, which by then were yet again completely outgunned by the all new LS engines.
I was never a fan of the Roadmaster Sedan, but I’ve always liked the Roadmaster Wagon. It’s an unforgivable shame that either was discontinued. There are people who like full-sized cars, I think there are some that need full-sized cars. If you have a large family, or you have more cargo than a smaller car can carry, then a full-sized station wagon should be on your wish list.
There is some awkwardness in the styling of this Roadmaster for me. The sort-of oval grille retains brand continuity with the rest of the Buick lineup, but really doesn’t harmonize well with the rectilinear headlights. The trailing edge of the greenhouse on the rear doors needs to flow a bit more softly instead of having that very sharp angle — it almost gives the optical illusion of slanting up a bit before the angle. I suspect this was a cost-cutting measure — we’ll use those Caprice door window assemblies, dammit, styling be damned!
Yeah, Roadmaster styling suffered considerably because GM wouldn’t spend much on making each brand unique. The Park Avenue had unique sheetmetal and mostly unique glass and had a distinct Buick look. Likewise inside where the dash, door panels, and seats were not shared with their Olds, Buick, or Cadillac counterparts. Ther Roadmaster by contrast obviously uses the Caprice (and Fleetwood and Custom Cruiser) front door, and I think the rear door is the same too except for the divided window. Even more so inside where the dash and door panels have only slight reworkings from its sister cars. The base model had what was essentially the Caprice seats. For some reason the Roadmaster wagons used the Caprice front clip (with a Buick grille insert) rather than the unique sedan fenders even though they would have fit fine on the wagon.
I agree there’s something about that rear door/C pillar that makes the rear of the roofline look too tall and mars and otherwise solid design.
I was never keen on the Park Avenue which looked to me like a Mercury trying to be a Jaguar.
Quoting my Grandfather from many years ago: “Nouveau riche and flashy gangsters buy Cadillacs, old money and those with quiet taste buy Buick Roadmasters.”
Try as I might, I’ve never been a fan of Cadillac, and for that reason. And Cadillac really disgraced itself in the past two decades. I’ve always prefer Buicks and Chevys. I also like Chevy and GMC pickup trucks.
Of this generation, Only the Roadmaster looked related to its parents, It was obvious to any observer that it’s a Buick, Cadillac OTOH should have left well enough alone. Chevrolet I guess sold enough cars that styling continuity was less important, I’ll take a burgundy one in Limited guise with leather.
The Park Avenues were new for the 1991 model year, not 1992. For the 1992 model year the Park Avenue Ultra got the supercharged V6 I think.
I kind of think that the Roadmaster was put into production because the Caprice and Fleetwood Brougham sales were decreasing so that there was left over production capacity. Roadmaster interiors were not quite up to the level of the Park Avenues, although perhaps slightly better than the Lesabre. I think the Roadmaster’s C-pillar looks better than the last Fleetwoods do.
I think the problem with these isn’t the “frumpy styling” but rather the wheelbase… which is too short! Someone recently–on this site, I think?–pointed out that the problem with the Fleetwoods is that the rear wheel is too far forward, giving the car a hunchback look. If it were further back, the car would have proper proportions in spite of the old-fashioned trim. Same with all of the B-bodies: more wheelbase and less rear-overhang would have made them look classic instead of bloated.
I tend to agree. I’ve seen cars that look too long from the rear window to the rear bumper. I’m like “can’t they move the rear wheels back a bit, towards the rear of the car? It’d make the car more proportionally like it should be. It’s not an ugly looking car overall, it’s just its proportions don’t make it look attractive from certain angles.
Well, in the recent 86 Seville article the problem was said to be that the rear window (or wheel) is not where it should be: either the window is too far forward or the rear wheel is too far back. I don’t think the Roadmaster is bad, but the basic styling is not exceptional either.
I agree. The only part of the Roadmaster sedan was the grille. It didn’t make the front end very attractive. The grille on the wagon, on the other hand, doesn’t look bad.
115.9 in WB is definitely not big in a historical sense. That is the same as the ’68-’72 A body sedans. B body B-O-P cars were over 120.
It doesn’t happen often, but to my eyes this was one of those instances where the wagon had the looks (as well as got the looks) while the sedan was kind of frumpy. And I’m not just talking about the Buick, the Chevy sedan looked like an overturned boat, and the Cadillac struck a poor middle ground.
These are way too much car for me to ever consider, even as a 2nd or 3rd car, but as a substitute for a minivan or SUV…..the wagon wouldn’t be a bad choice.
“Of the final B-Bodies, the wagons often have a loyal following because they were the last of their kind. The Impala SS has that unassailable cool factor. The Caprice sedan was beloved by cops, who were often reluctant to change to Crown Vics. The Fleetwood Brougham has a brobdingnagian, classic Cadillac charm. The Roadmaster sedan, in comparison, seems to be one of the most overlooked of its kinfolk. The only final-B that seems to enjoy less attention is the short-lived ’91-92 Custom Cruiser.”
Very nicely put!
But honestly, the poor Custom Cruiser should be lumped together with the other wagons. Those of us who are keepers of the flame certainly haven’t forgotten about them.
and there you have it….lots of room, comfy ride, good accel..and within a couple MPG of the “modern ” “big” cars. who cares if it doesn’t go around corners like a go cart? that’s not what it’s for. Killed for more cushy, expensive trucks…victim of politicians and propaganda. RIP the American Car.
The company I worked for at the time used these for executive transport. A dark red one with matching velour interior was handed down to our motor pool. Very nice reliable car for long distance drives and a huge improvement over the pre-Panther Fords we had.
Nice article. I can appreciate the LT 1 engine but the rest of these B body cars just turn me off. The styling was and is bizarre. What I remember most was the poor build quality of the Arlington Assembly Plant; items falling off, etc. Something that apparently didn’t get better when they switched to SUVs.
My favourite of the full-sized GM cars of this generation was the Chevy Caprice/Impala SS.
Good pics and history of the final Roadmaster. Wonder if Buick will give the name a “Go” once more in the future. These were really comfortable for long road trips. Even the L05 had more oomph than the earlier 307 Olds powered Buicks of the 80’s; I had one cruising at around 100 from Spokane through the center of our state one fine summer afternoon. Only things I didn’t like were the rackish rake of the front windshield and how the rear was sculpted in a way that made the car’s ass end narrower than the rear window.The front end shared the same aerodynamics. This really made the car look like a bear on ice skates, at least when viewed at certain angles. Not too big of a deal when all the positives of its powertrain, interior room and ride comfort were taken into effect, though. On a different note, this is one of the few cars out there where aftermarket fender ventiports actually make sense.
Swell looking Buick and those license plates are hella rare with their number originally being issued in the mid-1980s. Good find here. I have not seen a 1234 ABC combo plate in years.
http://www.15q.net/ny.html
Cool, über-elegant, head turning. Simply unbelievable that the market doesn’t have requirement to these kinda luxury V8 sedans… Aussies are still keeping the heritage…
…with the Holden V8 line…
Chrysler 300C and Charger are also RWD V8 sedans.
There are plenty of other ones too….but these are all in a completely different price-universe.
Exactly. That’s the point.
Today’s GM Holden V6/V8 RWD sedans seems still affordable…at the Down Under…
On October 9th, 2013, I became a Roadmaster owner. A few months prior, I had a 2002 Cadillac Deville that was stolen & wrote-off. While the insurance claim was being worked out, I looked for another Cadillac. I wanted a Fleetwood with the LT1 but had no luck finding one. Around the time my claim was finalized & I received a cheque, “Goldie” came up for sale locally online. I immediately jumped on it. I recognized it from the pics, I used to see it years ago, and knew one of the senior citizen owners (she had 3, I knew the 2nd one).
She’s a 1995 Roadmaster Limited.
Goldie has been very good to live with. She needs a few cosmetic fixes but nothing major. The LT1 runs amazing and I had the transmission rebuilt a year ago when it went kaput on me, a common issue with the 4L60E’s in the LT1 B-Bodies. I love my Big Girl, best damn car I ever owned!!!
I have a ’92 RM Ltd Sedan as my daily driver during the snow free months. The L05 TBI gives enough power for moving it around the rural area where I live. Most Roadys here in Sweden are wagons, and most of the Cappys are sedans. There was no regular import of the RM here, the importer only sold the Park Avenue. There was quite a lot Cappys imported through GM dealers and some of them were used by Taxi owners too.