(first posted 3/31/2016) Most cars are representative of their times. This Cadillac Fleetwood is an example of one that is not. It was built to be nostalgic – to harken back to a time when luxury meant pillowed upholstery and opera lamps, when showrooms brimmed with 2-door cars, when fender skirts and tail fins were commonplace, when the word “Fleetwood” stood for something extra-special, and when Cadillacs were instantly recognizable. Although this Fleetwood Coupe is part of General Motors’ C-body family (which accounted for two-thirds of Cadillac’s production between 1985 and 1993), it is one of the rarest variants. Fewer than a thousand Fleetwood Coupes were made in 1991.
This car represents the waning days of two trends: brougham-style luxury and 2-door sedans. It was a niche vehicle to be sure – designed to appeal to buyers who fondly recalled Cadillac’s glory days. A counterpoint to the division’s earlier attempts at downsizing and modernizing, the Fleetwood epitomized traditional luxury cars. Whether it’s a tragic attempt at nostalgia or a testimonial to luxury done right depends on your point of view. But regardless of one’s viewpoint, the story of how a 2-door brougham came to be produced in the 1990s is an interesting one.
“Fleetwood” is a highly storied name in automotive history – tracing its roots to a coachbuilder that once manufactured bodies for high-end carmakers such as Packard, Lincoln, and Rolls-Royce. The Fleetwood Metal Body Company, located in the Borough of Fleetwood, Pennsylvania, was independent until being purchased by GM’s Fisher Body Division in 1925, and subsequently became fully integrated into GM in 1931.
Fleetwood continued to make custom bodies for Cadillac, like this magnificent 1930 V16 Phaeton. But the Depression killed the high-end and custom market, and Fleetwood came to be known as the top-tier Cadillac range for most of the next 70 years.
Cadillac’s Fleetwood range typically consisted of the 60 Special sedan, which often had a longer wheelbase and body than the DeVille/Series 62, and of course the Series 75 8-passenger sedan and limousine. Somewhat curiously, Cadillac dropped the Fleetwood moniker for the 1954, 1955 and 1956 model years, using only the terms “60 Special” and “75 Limousine.” Perhaps “Fleetwood” was sounding too old-fashioned in the jet-age 1950s? But by 1957, the Fleetwoods were back, in their typical role, except for the ultra-expensive Eldorado Brougham, which now occupied a rung above the Fleetwoods.
The Eldorado Brougham was a short-lived affair, but both of its names would reappear a few years layer. In 1965, the Fleetwood Brougham was an even more luxurious variant of the 60 Special, which soon fell by the wayside. And the Eldorado name reappeared on the 1967 coupe, also as a Fleetwood.
The RWD, C-body Fleetwood Brougham continued as the top-tier full-size Cadillac through 1984, after which things became a bit more confusing. The top C/D-body RWD Cadillacs continued to be named “Fleetwood Brougham,” but there were also Fleetwood versions of the new FWD C-Body that appeared in 1985.
These C-body cars were perhaps the most significant Cadillacs of their time, since they marked the second wave of downsizing for Cadillac’s mainstay offering, as well as the shift to FWD. Despite being 2 feet shorter and 600 lbs. lighter than their predecessors, the new cars offered similar interior space. Combining a contemporary, sharp-edged exterior with a traditional interior, the cars attempted to appeal to Cadillac’s existing customers, while at the same time attracting a new, younger clientele.
Sales were good, but not great. While not catastrophic like the 1986 Seville and Eldorado downsizings, the C-bodies failed to excite many buyers and eventually wound up being a disappointment to GM. They were too bland, too small-looking and not distinguished enough. This sentiment was perhaps epitomized by a 1986 Lincoln television ad, in which Cadillac was pilloried for offering generic cars indistinguishable from other GM offerings.
Both DeVille and the more heavily equipped Fleetwood were offered in coupe versions. In 1985 and ’86, coupes accounted for about one-quarter of DeVille sales, but the market for 2-door cars was quickly collapsing. Just 6 years later, that proportion dropped to under 10%. Fleetwoods saw a similar trend, and in fact, Cadillac did not offer a Fleetwood coupe for 1987 or ’88, due to tepid sales. However, the coupe was reintroduced for 1989.
Facing criticism for its cars being bland and undistinguished, Cadillac resolved to give customers more of what they wanted. So, for 1989, a new DeVille/Fleetwood was introduced that was noticeably longer than the previous model. The redesign provided more “road presence” (i.e., size, and suggestion thereof), a major expectation for Cadillac purchasers of the day. For sedans, overall length increased by 9”, including 3” of added wheelbase. Two-door models, though, retained the former 110.8” wheelbase, while receiving the same front and rear overhang increases as the sedan, resulting in a 6” total lengthening. The outcome was a design that harkened back to earlier Cadillacs, with a long hood and long deck.
Conspicuously, the ’89 redesign also featured some visual throwbacks to Cadillac’s heyday: Small fins formed by the vertical tail lamps, and – on the Fleetwood – fender skirts.
Early prototypes suggested that GM considered offering fender skirts throughout the DeVille lines, but ultimately only the Fleetwoods gained this styling touch that hadn’t been seen on a Cadillac since 1976. It was the most obvious sign that Cadillac was charting a new (or perhaps old…) direction for this generation of car – ditching the notion of attracting younger, import-oriented buyers to the C-body fold, and instead reinforcing the car’s desirability to an older, more traditional crowd.
This retro strategy suddenly reversed Cadillac’s downsizing and contemporizing trend begun in 1977.
For the short term, at least, traditionalism paid off for Cadillac. Fender-skirted Fleetwoods initially proved more popular than Cadillac had predicted (Fleetwood sales averaged between 20%-25% of DeVille sales). Just a few months into their 1989 production run, Cadillac doubled its Fleetwood production in the face of strong demand, and even experienced some dealer shortages.
Source of production figures: cadillacforums.com
But while the DeVille and Fleetwood sedans met decisive marketplace approval, the same cannot be said for the coupes. The sun was setting on full-size coupes, and no amount of retrospective sentimentality would bring back buyers by the early 1990s. For 1989, Fleetwood coupe sales totaled 4,108 – or about 13% of Fleetwood production, which totaled over 30,000 units. But both sedan and coupe sales fell for each of the following 3 years. Significantly, the proportion of coupe sales tumbled as well, from that first-year high of 13% to 6% for our featured year of 1991. For 1991, just 894 Fleetwood coupes were produced.
Cadillac billed its Coupe DeVilles and Fleetwood coupes as the only 6-passenger luxury coupes on the market in the early 1990s, which was true, but clearly an uninspiring statistic to buyers. After an even-more-dismal 1992 model year, the Fleetwood coupe was discontinued, while the Coupe DeVille made it through one more year.
Rapidly waning popularity of 2-door cars had much to do with the Fleetwood coupe’s downfall, but the car’s somewhat awkward proportions probably did not help its cause. While the 1989 redesign lengthened both the wheelbase and overhangs on the sedans, the coupes received only the increased overhangs. The design – with long overhangs, an upright greenhouse, and a relatively short wheelbase – looked almost patched together. Fleetwood’s fender skirts and tail fins extending to the rear bumper enhanced the appearance of length as well. As the above comparison illustrates, the 1985-88 coupes presented better proportionality, if not distinctiveness, than the later, elongated models.
While the 1989-92 Fleetwoods appear similar on the outside, 1991 saw major drivetrain enhancements. A new 4.9-liter V-8 replaced the former 4.5-liter engine, bringing with it 200 hp and 275 ft-lbs of torque – respectable output for the early 1990s and a significant improvement over the previous 155 hp power plant. Furthermore, a new 4-speed automatic transmission and more advanced computer controls resulted in improved smoothness.
Few would mistake the Fleetwood’s driving experience for a Lexus, but these enhancements for 1991 now provided these Cadillacs with driveability commensurate with their sticker prices. The Fleetwood could now reach 60 mph in under 9 seconds.
Prices for the 1991 models started at $34,695 – about $4,500 more than the standard Coupe DeVille. For the extra money, buyers received several features that were optional on DeVilles, such as a digital dash, power passenger seat, a padded “formal cabriolet roof” with opera lights, and the “Computer Command Ride” speed-dependent damping system.
Additionally, Fleetwoods carried several unique features unavailable on DeVilles. The dashboard wood was genuine walnut, not plastic woodgrain; upholstery was buttoned, in brougham style; and the alloy wheel designs were unique to the Fleetwoods. And, of course, Fleetwoods sported fender skirts.
This particular car has been clearly well cared-for. Its Medium Garnet Red paint is excellent shape, its roof unfaded, and its Slate Gray leather interior (optional over the standard cloth) has few blemishes.
Even the floor mats are clean, although Cadillac made that job slightly easier by offering reversible mats. An aftermarket stereo appears to be the only non-original component of the car; while Fleetwood buyers could choose from two optional Delco/Bose CD sound systems, most buyers instead opted for the standard cassette unit.
The above picture of a similar car shows that the coupe’s rear seat was relatively roomy, although the small side windows and high rear shelf make it a dark place in which to spend time.
Over the C-body Cadillac’s lifespan, quality and performance kept improving each year, such that these 1991 models had good fit and finish, a powerful engine (among the most powerful FWD cars of its day), and a smooth, more responsive ride. Under the nostalgic appearance was a thoroughly modern car.
But this generation of Fleetwood will likely be remembered as a time capsule. After several mistakes in the mid-1980s, Cadillac felt compelled to return to a tried-and-true formula of traditional luxury, appealing to its core group of older customers and repeat buyers. As a 2-door, our featured car further epitomizes this objective. It’s hard to imagine this formula being put into production by many other brands.
Turning the clock back in such as manner carries benefits as well as pitfalls. Cadillac did recapture some prestige lost due to its late 1980s overly-downsized errors. However, this car attracted few new customers – a significant liability in the increasingly crowded 1990s luxury car market. Eventually, Cadillac’s lineup would bifurcate: contemporary-designed 1992 Seville and Eldorado models chased a slightly younger audience, while a refreshed 1994 DeVille continued to carry traditional luxury qualities.
But the early ’90s Fleetwood Coupes like this example can be celebrated for representing one of the last stands for traditional, two-door luxury. Fender skirts and all.
Photographed in Atlantic City, New Jersey in October, 2015.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1991 Cadillac Sedan DeVille – Almost Doesn’t Count Laurence Jones
Curbside Classic: 1991 Cadillac Sedan DeVille – Save Me! Tom Klockau
Thanks for an interesting article. Perhaps it is just me, but those ’80’s front wheel drive GM cars rate amongst the ugliest things ever put on the road. The killer is the hideous angle of the rear window and its remarkably awkward relationship with the wheel arch below it – it’s all just so wrong you really wonder how it ever got signed off. Just who were they trying to kid by taking an ugly car, adding six inches to front and rear overhang (!!!) and then having the nerve to call the dreadful result “state of the art luxury”? Well, it didn’t work as evidenced by the sales graph.
Cadillac made some really beautiful cars right up to the ’60’s and even some of the Brougham-era cars look cool, but by the ’80’s any vestige of style had just evaporated. As for the picture of that back seat……I get car sick just looking at it! By what measure could that have ever been judged as good taste?
The area between the C-pillar and the rear wheel arch always bothered me, as well – particularly on the originals that were introduced for the 1985 model year. It looks fragile, as though the car could be easily broken into two pieces at this point.
I feel the same about the E platform (Eldorado, Riviera and Toronado) that was introduced for the 1986 model year, and to a lesser extent, the original versions of the N and W platforms.
Yup. And my boss bought one of the FWD sedan devilles in 87. Total disaster, went thru 3 engines in 4 months because of bad camshafts. Lots of electrical gremlins. And when he had to have the front brake pads replaced after 10,000 miles I brought the old ones back to the store and they were physically exactly half as big ( length and width) as the pads on the 74 Pinto wagon I was driving at the time. Some more good old fashioned Roger Smith penny pinching.
I’m convinced that there couldn’t have been but a handful of good things came from Roger Smith’s tenure of leadership at GM. One could probably count them on the digits of one hand.
With three or four fingers missing.
+1
Roger Smith’s GM seemed to have an uncanny knack for spending record-breaking amounts of money and time on developing meh cars that were dated at launch, and then at facelift time cheapening out the product in ways the customer could see and feel to claw some of that back.
Love the way the ad stated “It’s totally new.” No it’s not – just the same old car stretched a bit.
Cadillac was in a strange position during these years – trying to appeal to a younger clientele, then realising they’d lost the oldies, then introducing this – in seemingly a return to old times (“It’s longer.”). It must have made some potential customers wonder just what Cadillac stood for.
Certainly a beautifully kept rarity.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. The ’91 was the first year with the 4.9 and the best engine they ever made. I own one of these and it is a good car.
+1 yes it literally does look patched together. Look at that obvious vertical seam a whole foot forward of the rear fin. Frankencadillac.
Shutline between the sheetmetal rear fender and Endura (plastic) taillight/bumper surround.
Great article, Eric. I was in high school when the redesigned models came out, and I remember rejoicing that some of Cadillac’s brougham-mojo had returned. The sedans looked better than the coupes (to my eyes, anyway), but I felt both bodystyles were an improvement over what had come immediately before. I remember rolling on the floor when I read a comment on CC about these cars from an earlier post that likened these narrow-and-long Cadis to a Capri cigarette.
In fairness, these are not THAT narrow. These are certainly FAR wider than, say, a FWD ’91 Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue. THAT car is a Capri…maybe even a Misty 164. Fleetwoods of this vintage? Just a regular 100. 😉
Eric, thank you for a very comprehensive and even-handed article on a car that was a total anomaly when it was being sold.
Your statement in the first paragraph about what constitutes luxury having changed over time is very true. This version of “luxury” is not going to resonate with many of us, but it certainly did at one time. I’m even finding myself drawn to a certain era of “luxury” – perhaps a sign of my not being 25 any more.
While this car generated sales, I can’t help but wonder how many sales were lost due to it. If one was looking at a new Sedan Deville and saw this hot mess across the showroom, it wouldn’t be difficult to envision the skirts and vinyl on the Deville – not a desirable thought for many.
Good point about the Fleetwood and DeVille. While the ’89 DeVille was aesthetically and commercially successful, the Fleetwood did seem a bit of a caricature of an American luxury car. It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me at the time, but I would not have been caught dead buying one.
Over the years I have seen a few of the DeVilles with skirts and vinyl treatments, my guess is some dealers were trafficking the stuff under the counter.
What I find interesting about the late 1980s and early 1990s is that there was such a variation in what defined “luxury.”
It seemed that there were three distinct segments in the luxury market at that time: Traditional (i.e., Cadillac), Contemporary (i.e., Lexus) and Performance (such as BMW). Within a decade, traditional luxury fell by the wayside and the other two melded together. But for a brief time, the marketplace was at a crossroads of all three types; the variety of vehicles in that period was really impressive.
I’ll be in the minority of saying it’s not a bad looking car. Love the seats although I’d have done the top half of the IP – the line from beneath the vents up – in the same dark gray as the carpet, there’s just too much of the light slate gray.
These cars always make me sad. The 85 had gone too small in anticipation of an austere future that never happened. The engine improvements were turning the V8 into an ideal Caddy engine, far more than the later Northstar with all the power at high rpm. GM was also getting better at putting more power to the ground with FWD. An 89 refresh could have really made an impressive car.
Volvo in their subtle restyles of their 700/900 series was a good example of making a boxy car aero aware without losing the major advantage in packaging or the distinctive design language. Something like this is what I would have liked to see for the 89 Caddy.
Instead Cadillac lost it’s confidence and the youth oriented models started aping the Germans and this modern platform started harking back to the long ago on an inappropriate platform with all this tacked on lard. The classic Cadillac customer would have been better served by more updates on the Fleetwood Brougham.
“Volvo in their subtle restyles of their 700/900 series was a good example of making a boxy car aero”
Rover managed this with the restyle of the 800 in 1991 also
I think VW did a good job with “Aero-Izing”, the 3rd gen Golf/Jetta in 1993, from the venerable 2nd gen 1985-92 versions, as well.
Nice write-up on a challenging “transition” car for Cadillac. My Pop, at 62 years old, got an ’89 Sedan DeVille–thankfully no vinyl top or Fleetwood fender skirts for him. He’d always wanted a Cadillac, and felt this one once again looked like a Cadillac, so he took the plunge. But as you point out, this was a “throwback” buy from a customer who loved what Cadillac had represented in their glory years. Not a recipe for long-term success.
I do feel that if this design had appeared for 1983, when the C body cars were originally scheduled to be downsized again, it would have hit a better sweet spot. The style would have been a more contemporary continuation of the ’80 – ’82 cars, and the size would have been well received at that time. Then for ’89, when this model should have run its course, a new, sleeker look could have appeared, better to capture the younger generation of luxury car buyers who preferred cleaner designs.
I agree that this would have been a very successful design (particularly the sedan version) when the FWD C-bodies first came out.
The 85-88 DeVille/Fleetwoods were underwhelming, but I think they also suffered from Guilt By Association: both from GM’s other lookalike offerings (with the Cadillacs not offering enough distinction), and from the ’86 Seville/Eldorado, which devalued the whole Cadillac brand. The combination of those three things was tough.
With a more distinctive original model, Cadillac could have overcome these issues for the most part, and had a much easier time down the road in broadening its appeal.
All I can say is yuck. Doesn’t do a thing for me. I find it not attractive at all.
A lovely paean to a car that was simply out of step with its times. That said, if I had a garage, I would be happy to give this Fleetwood a home and preserve it as the rolling anachronism that it is.
One more thing: Though the ’90’s still used the 4.5, it was the port-injected variant that was good for 180hp. The throttle-body injected version was only used in 1989.
A neighbor of mine has two of these. I’ve always think about taking some pictures of them. They are true curbside classics as they are always parked on the street in Chicago.
Hey you must live near me as I know exactly the two cars you speak of (Blue and Black)!
I didn’t expect to, but I’m warming to this (featured red) car, even with the obvious compromises in its style and origins. For a European comparison, I guess I’d be looking at a late model Jaguar XJS?
Yes, the limitations of the original building blocks are clear, but you can see how extending the overhangs for little purpose other than visual effect seemed a good idea in the office, and the execution almost works, until you line it up with the original. I can see also that original didn’t look the full Cadillac, and that the revised version looks to be pretty much the Zenith of the Brougham. That is or isn’t a compliment according to personal choice.
And I now see the reason for the light shapes on current Cadillacs.
I’d totally rock it, but I’d rather have one of the big RWD Broughams.
I really like the button tufted seats, vinyl tops, opera lamps/Windows, fender skirts and hood ornament. Luxury cars these days often look too sterile.
Certain Fleetwood models are a little bit more to my liking, but this one was a well cared for example, and well worth preserving. Kudo’s to its owner.
Now that’s a CADILLAC!
+1. The Fleetwood name was long associated with Cadillac’s biggest models. Buyers aspiring to own a block-long Fleetwood weren’t looking for a truncated 1/2 block-long model.
I’d love me a Fleetwood Sedan with the 4.9 V8, a high school friend got to borrow his parent’s DeVille with the 4.9 and we burned rubber at every stop sign.
Having grown up in a GM family I can’t think of Fleetwood the custom coach builder without thinking of “Body By Fisher” ubiquitously on the door sills of my Dad’s cars.
Body by Fisher but interior by Fleetwood?
I could almost see that logo in my sleep…
I’ve always had a soft spot for these FWD Fleetwoods – guess it just proves the fact that I’m an old man before my time. The ’85-’88 coupes just seemed too insubstantial, too short and stubby, and the added length gives the car back some “traditional Cadillac” appeal. Combined with the revised front fenders, it makes the look much more agreeable. And I don’t fault the decision to go Full Brougham on these cars; after 4 years of the new Deville/Fleetwood models, it was painfully obvious that no import buyer would give them a second look. So if you’re not ready to spend the money on a full redesign, why not attempt to appeal to your traditional customers? The real error here was *staying* too traditonal on the ’94 Deville. That one cost them bigtime.
And what a fantastic job this owner has done keeping the car up! Looks quite sharp in red.
I don’t think the 94 “cost” them at all, at least as far as traditional Cadillacism went. I do think they are fat, piggish cars, the RWD Fleetwood of that area certainly wore that particular aero treatment better. The problem is they never hit that import fighter sweet spot in one of their lineup at least.
I for one would be in a Cadillac now if they still made a car with that traditional Caddy flair. Hell, the whole rest of the lineup could out BMW BMW for all I care, but they don’t even throw a bone towards the old school. That is fine, you can’t waste R&D money on a handful of people after all.
One point not mentioned yet is what an oddity a Fleetwood 2 door was. Back in Cadillac’s postwar prime, the Fleetwood name graced only a high end sedan and a limo. There was also the Fleetwood Eldorado convertible (which most simply called an Eldorado), but never a closed 2 door car. It could be interpreted as an act of desperation that Cadillac added a coupe version of the Fleetwood.
As for the lack of success of these 2 door Caddies, I don’t see a mystery. The whole reason for the existence of a 2 door car is that it is better looking/more sporty/more rakish than a 4 door car. Cadillac was selling a reasonable number of Eldorados, but this 2 door Cadillac was just awkward and ungainly. I am surprised that they sold as many as they did.
The 1967 Eldorado coupe was officially called the Fleetwood Eldorado, and was in the Fleetwood brochure. But I don’t think that name stuck for long:
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Cadillac/1967_Cadillac/1967_Cadillac_Fleetwood_Brochure/dirindex.html
By 1964 or 1965 the Eldorado convertible was classed as a Fleetwood model in the brochures. I think even before that it was considered a Fleetwood although that is not a clear as it should have been. The first Eldorado’s were considered series 62 models, which I think was a mistake.
Around 1990 I bought a used 85 Sedan de Ville. We had looked at other full (?) size GM models such as the Olds 88, but once we got past the sort of fugly exterior and drove a Caddy the choice was pretty easy, save for the POS 4.1 engine. That is why it was affordable for us to buy at the time, and it was a perfect car to travel with a couple of kids.
Happily, the only thing that failed on mine was the oil pump, and since I was driving at the time I stopped right away, towed it home and replaced it with an updated version myself.
My prevailing thought at the time was that GM *almost* got it right, if not for the crap engine and ugly styling. It sure was sweet and comfortable to drive.
The roof line, along with the half vinyl roof, combined with the stubby look is not good. No mystery why it was a poor seller.
Still, it’s nice to see someone preserving this car and keeping it on the road and in great shape.
+1. GM seemed to have a mania for wacky rooflines back then. With more slope to the rear screen, it could have been a looker.
Take the 1985 downsized C-bodies, make the C-pillar thicker and more angled, raise & lengthen the rear deck a couple inches and give the car a CTS style taillight treatment, and it would have looked great. It was mostly the stubby rear end that gave these cars the wrong look, the front clip wasn’t too bad. I don’t think what Caddy did to elongate these cars really make them look much better in the end.
+1. I like your suggestions. Kind of transition into the then-current look but still distinctively Cadillac, rather than a flashback to the seventies..
Definitely the last holdout of a bygone age and the end of an era when it was discontinued. Broughams would never be high on my list as cars to own, but I definitely have a strong appreciation for this car. Despite its many critics, Cadillac continued giving it attention and improvements right up until the end. Nice writeup and pictures.
Looking at that picture that compares the original downsized Coupe to the featured Fleetwood I have to say that I prefer the proportions of the original version. I like the bigger window of the non vinyl covered roof. I have seen some regular 1989 Deville Coupes without the vinyl and they also look better. Of course that isn’t saying much. The sedans were just so much better proportioned and I wouldn’t mind having one today. Back when I worked at GM we built the 1981 Buick Regal coupe and I thought that this would have made a great Coupe De Ville design. It had the wedge design with a lower hood line and still had a better designed formal roof. These cars had plenty of room for the front seat passengers which was all that really mattered anyway. This was the time when Cadillac lost it’s way and it might be finding it’s way back finally. I really like the new ATS coupe, I wish I could afford one.
Funny, when I went to get gas in my 85 Regal, some guy yelled, “Nice car, is that a Cadillac?”
Lol
I think that the Regal was nice but this design I feel was a great evolution of the GM big coupe. I find the design clean and honest and much more modern than the second gen downsized Caddies ever were. Why couldn’t we have had a Coupe de Ville based on this design?
I think the LeSabre coupe was the best-looking GM car of the 1980s — quite possibly the best-looking domestic car. I never though of the possibility of some sort of Cadillac version, but the idea is an interesting one.
I also think these LeSabre coupes, and their 88 coupe near-siblings, were quite striking due to the nicely symmetrical greenhouse. I think the roofline could have worked for the CdV, mated to the Cadillac front sheetmetal and a modified tail that is similar in proportion to the Buick but uses more traditional Cadillac taillamps.
If only I was better at photoshop…
I really liked the look of that generation (H-Body?) LeSabre coupe.
Buick had a good thing going with the whole blacked-out T-Type trim packages they were pushing at that time, shame they didn’t stick with it.
Pre World War Two there were Fleetwood 75 and 90 coupes.
see example here
Nicely written article on what ended up to become a “niche” car. I like these coupes, even if their proportions were not perfect. My eyes always turned to “retro” – style garnishes of classic luxury, such as hood ornaments, white walls, fender skirts, coach lamps, vinyl roofs. Even nicer in 2-tone! Cadillac dared to produce the full-size luxury car, when other car makers (Lincoln, Chrysler/Imperial) did not. I wonder if we will ever see a return of this format in the future?
I don’t think these are bad looking, and are a great improvement on the ’85-’88s in my view. I also appreciate the interior effort on these, the one I especially like is the Fleetwood 60 Special which has additional rear leg room and walnut trim.
But, I always wondered, once they knew they were going to keep it around by ’88 or so, why they didn’t just apply the 60 Special Treatment to a RWD Brougham, throwing in the L05 V8 a couple of years early. Such a car would have served Cadillac’s purpose more than this retro Fleetwood could have hoped to do.
The market for these even at the time continues to puzzle me. In theory, if you wanted modern and domestic, you’d go for the vinyl-roof-less FWD Sedan DeVille. “Fleetwood” only had real significance for traditional, conservative, Cadillac clientele at this point. I just can’t see being one of those people and yet preferring this Fleetwood over the Brougham. About the only explanation I can think of is that Cadillac likely so under-promoted the Brougham and the constant nomenclature changes between ’85-’92 were so confusing to the traditional buyer that they were unaware the Brougham was still available for purchase. Maybe helped along by that Lincoln Town Car commercial.
People were well aware the RWD Fleetwood Brougham/Brougham was still around. Cadillac hedged its bets by keeping it around after the FWD C-body was introduced in ’85. The RWD continued selling well enough and the tooling had long been paid for so each RWD Brougham sold was more or less gravy for GM. And if something is selling well, why bother throwing any money at? Sure, I get your point of a RWD Sixty-Special edition. As the biggest car in the line up, I agree some sort of ultra-luxury edition, maybe with real wood, cut-and-sew interior bits and maybe some power rear seats would have been an appropriate option. I do see why someone might choose a C-body though over RWD and that’s traction. My FWD ’92 Fleetwood, with its relatively narrow tires, is one of the best cars I’ve had in snow, even with all season tires.
This thing looked beyond hope when I first saw it, but I think stretching the roofline and trunk improves it. It’s still nothing I’d ever buy, but at least it loses the “shortie” look. The C-pillar on a couple generally needs to “take in” the rear wheel opening. I don’t know why GM designed so many cars in this era that failed to do this. It’s hard to design a car that’s too short at the same time it has its ass dragging down the road, but GM achieved it here.
Perfect illustration of how they could have made it better! I think the really disturbing thing on the original is how the trailing end of the roofline ends mid wheel. Stretching the c pillar back so that the roof ends over the wheel makes it so very much better!
That is quite an improvement just modifying the greenhouse.
Somewhat infamously, the coupes did not get the extended wheelbase that made such an improvement in the ’89 sedans. That also contributes to the car’s odd proportions. Considering how important coupe sales had been to Cadillac sales not so many years before this car, it was an odd decision that likely contributed to its eventual demise.
The other point that bothers me is the car’s stance. It looks just a bit jacked up in the back – completely wrong for a traditional American luxury car. The skirts seem to accentuate this. This is not a peculiarity of the subject car, you can see this in the Cadillac promotional photo.
Dave, coupes in general were selling less and less each year. It was a trend that started in the early 80’s. In fact, when at the showroom getting our 1990 Cadillac, my Mom and I wanted my Dad to buy a Sedan deVille for practical purposes and he insisted on the Coupe deVille because he liked the LOOK of it. I highly doubt the extended wheelbase made one bit of difference when someone was looking at these cars. It didn’t affect interior room as our car was huge inside. The salesman even commented that GM was building 10 Sedan deVilles to 1 Coupe deVille – so they were a rare site on the lot to begin with. He said most people wanted the convenience of the four-doors.
On a site like this we are car aficionados, so we tend to super analyze things that the average consumer would not even notice.
As far as the car looking jacked up in the back, the nose of these cars was sloped down for aerodynamics. This makes the back of the car look like it is higher because it actually is. Once again, I think it looks great. And it is just my opinion.
True, sales of coupes were falling, but as has been written here, Cadillac was trying to recapture some of its heritage with this car – specifically the 1967 – from an era when Cadillac coupes outsold the sedans! They went a long way in succeeding with their revival, but I felt from day one that shortchanging the coupe by retaining the 1985 roofline and the shorter wheelbase that they really didn’t give the coupes a fighting chance.
I do like this car to an extent, and respect your opinion. But, while I really liked the Sedan DeVille of this era, I could not seem to get as enthused with the coupes and the Fleetwood.
I would raise the height of the hood and flatten it our a bit to remove some of the slope. Give it a more formal look.
I agree with what you said about the roofline having to take in the wheel opening. I never quite looked at cars with that in mind, up to now that is.
That’s one of the things they did to the ’97 Deville to make it look less bloated. Two others were full rear wheel openings and a significantly wider rear track. IMO, it worked. More recently, they leveled the hoods (raising the fascia) of the CT4 & 5 to reduce the pronounced wedge shape of their predecessors.
One weird thing about the ’94 restyle was the sporty Deville Concours got small fender skirts but not the regular model.
I’m going to get blasted for saying this, but every time I read about these cars on this site they are mocked for being ugly, out of proportion, etc. etc. etc. I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that is fine. But you know what? I know plenty of people that had them and loved them. And it’s not because my Dad had one – he had a 1990 Coupe deVille Spring Edition that he absolutely loved. It is because the MANY people that I know that owned them said it was one of their favorite cars or best cars or most comfortable cars ever. And why does it seem that these coupes in particular are made out to be so awkward, so out of proportion etc.? I never saw that, and I still don’t see that, especially when you see them in person. The original ’85 design was small, and it took some getting used to. But the 1989 model made them look more like a Cadillac should look. These cars were the perfect balance of luxury, space efficiency, economy and effortless driving pleasure. And I think the Coupe is a stunning automobile, especially the featured car. I feel it is in perfect proportion. And that is my opinion!
I agree with you that these are not bad looking, certainly no worse than the down sized 1977’s, which were not better looking than the Cadillac’s from the 1960’s. I think that the 1985’s were a bit off on style, but the changes in the late 80’s made a huge difference.
For the Cadillac buyer, back then it was all about presence. To me, the 1985 downsized models were too much of a shock to the consumer even though they sold fairly well. The same thing happened with the 1986 Eldorado, Toronado, Riviera and Seville. People bought those cars because they LOOKED classy and were prestigious. The downsized models totally lost all of that. They looked like any other generic GM mid-sized car.
When GM revised the deVille in 1989, it once again looked like a Cadillac. Plus it had many other virtues that truly made it a fine automobile!
Tom, not to give you a hard time, but I wonder if you aren’t ignoring the proportions and are simply fixating on your beloved Broughamtastic details. I’d get it if you said you like the car despite the dorky proportions, but I don’t get that you don’t see them. I mean, if this isn’t an ill-proportioned car, what luxury barge of this era would you say is?! Cheers.
Sorry mFred, I really DON”T see the odd proportions. And like I said we had one for 8 years in our driveway and not once did I think that car had odd proportions. Now a 1994 deVille, Fleetwood or Caprice? Those are some cars with odd proportions!
The Fleetwood bodies that came out of the “real” Fleetwood plant were a combination of wood and aluminum. When they sold out to Fisher Body the owners were aware that steel bodies were making their bodies out of date. Something like 80% of the Fleetwood bodies were put on Packard’s before the takeover.
I saw a Leno’s Garage featuring a huge 1915? Packard with an aluminum body. I don’t remember him saying who built it.
Aluminum was still an exotic metal in the Aughts. I have an exposed-bulb, gilt cast iron light fixture that uses aluminum pieces for highlights.
I know in 1993, the big RWD Cadillac was redesigned and it was known as the Fleetwood or Fleetwood Brougham. From 1987-92, It was simply the Brougham. I also know that 1993 was the last year for the Coupe De Ville.
The rear seat ashtrays in the arm rests combined with the back windows that don’t roll down don’t quite seem like they belong together. No one probably ever sat back there anyway.
ever see a 1985 Fleetwood Brougham RWD coupe? Now there’s a car with extravagant presence… these days it looks like one of those V16 three window coupés must have looked in the 30s….there was an old lady owned one that used to come in for oil changes at the Pontiac dealer I worked at around 2000…the other cars there just seemed to shrink in comparison. When that kind of luxury went out of mass style, that was the end of Cadillac as anything special.
This was the car that made my Dad buy the very last of the Lincoln Mark VIIs back in 1992.
The Fleetwoods and Marks were so heavily discounted it was beyond belief. The one my father got had a $33k MSRP and he got it for right at $22k. I’m sure the last of the Fleetwood coupes had a similar depreciation trajectory. It was the luxury version of Enron.
I grew to like some aspects of the Mark. However, after owning a half-dozen versions of these early 90’s Cadillacs and watching their paint flake away and interior decompose into delaminated plastic, the only good thing I can say about them is this.
These Cadillacs helped keep thousands of young adults away from the next generation of Northstar engines.
And for that, we should all be thankful.
Jack Nicholson drove one exactly like this on About Schmidt.
Excellent! I saw this car’s twin at a local dealer, only in Academy Gray. This was an even rarer ’92.
Nice in-depth article. Growing up in the 1960s and 70s around Cadillacs and Imperials, I could not wait to buy one myself once I reached adulthood and could afford one. In my mid-20s I bought a mint, used 1979 Eldorado from my boss and loved it. Once I could afford a new luxury car I was faced with the dismal mid-80s and early 90s domestic luxury cars. While styling is subjective, they were just plain unattractive. The worst flaw was the fact that they were of mediocre (at best) design and execution. I went German and have never gone back. Sadly my favorite Cadillacs are vintage of 1961 – 1975 which I collect. The new Cadillacs are the best cars they have produced in years but still aren’t enough to make me buy one over their German counterparts. Hopefully one day i will be able to trade in my German car for a new Cadillac of my childhood dreams.
I had an ’89 Fleetwood Coupe and found it a very enjoyable car until lots of the dash and engine electronics went south all at once shortly after the odometer crossed the 100K mile mark. The worst was the digital gas gauge failed and two dealers could not diagnose or fix it.
The driving impression was that GM had tried really hard to replicate the feel of the pre-1976 land yachts, but you could tell that the front wheels, and the subframe to which they and the engine were attached, were being called upon to do all the work and the rest of the car was along for the ride.
The interior photos show that although billed as a six passenger car, both the front and rear seats were clearly padded for two passengers each with extremely narrow spaces in between. GM went through two phases of downsizing each time claiming that they were able to do so without taking away from usable interior room, and these cars show that just wasn’t reality.
I spent a lot of time in the back of an 89 as a teenager, it was really comfortable if it was just two people with the cente arm rest down and if the front seat people were reasonable with their seating position and it was cold out or the a/c was working. Add in a middle passenger front or rear and the car is too narrow. One time, my cousin and one of his friends and I were in the back seat, in the summer, with broken a/c and wearing shorts so our knees were all jammed together and we were cooking. We were all 6′ at the time, it was a big relief when friend got dropped off. They’re great four seaters as long as the front seat passengers are 6′ or less and the a/c is operative. As for the styling, I think it’s fine, the padded roof adds the extra bit of length over the rear wheel the roof needs and the fender skirts eliminate the stubbiness of the rear. It’s the metal and fake convertible roof devilles with big side rear windows and no skirts that look odd to me. Cadillac coupes are supposed to have tiny rear passenger windows, the large windows are why 85-88 coupes and 98/electra coupes look bad imo.
I just LOVE the pillow-tufted seats…reminds me of a casket interior. The funeral home I worked for in the mid-80s got several FWD Cadillac funeral coaches, 2 ’86 models and an ’88. They were a little funky-looking compared to big, traditional coaches, but they handled well and seemed more athletic than the big ones.
I would drive a 4 door Fleetwood from that era, but the LONG doors on big coupes don’t do it for me.
I just want to thank you for an interesting article. I also wish to inform you that the car in the article is my car. Curbside Classics is a site we follow. While looking at it over the weekend, we commented on how much that car looked like our own. We saw the license plate and the office sticker in the rear window, and obviously knew that it was our own car. We actually live in Ocean City, New Jersey, which is about 20 minutes south of Atlantic City. I was visiting a friend who lives in Atlantic City on the day in question. It is a wonderful car to drive. Very comfortable and with plenty of power. It is garage-kept. I actually use it as my daily driver. I plan on keeping this car for as long as it keeps moving. It is also the thirteenth Cadillac our family has owned during the last 20 years. I just sold my 1985 Eldorado. We also have 1975 Fleetwood Brougham in storage at the office. I don’t plan on buying another car – unless it is a Cadillac! Please continue this site, as I love reminiscing about our Caddies!
Wow! Well, I’m glad you liked the article, seeing that you know this car better than anyone else!
A Fleetwood was on my list of interesting cars to write about, and when I saw your car, and the condition it was in, I knew I had to photograph it. I actually live in Virginia, but was visiting relatives in Atlantic City that day; we were just about to leave town when I caught a glimpse of the fender skirts from two blocks away.
The car is in a beautiful condition, and it’s impressive that you’re able to keep a 25-year-old daily driver in such great shape. You have quite a fleet of Cadillacs too. I hope you continue to enjoy driving the Fleetwood as much as I enjoyed writing about it… I’ll be on the lookout for it next time I’m down the Shore!
That sir, is one clean car! This is detailed to the n-th degree, ready for show duty! Very nicely kept!
I absolutely loved the Cadillac Fleetwood/DeVille of the late 80s/early 90s. My first car was a 1988 Coupe DeVille. Later I got a 1992 Sedan DeVille. I feel they are elegant, well-constructed, and every bit Cadillac. I feel that Cadillac lost its way starting in 1994 and I’ve never purchased one since. The 4.5 liter V8 was one of GM’s best engines and I rarely had any issues with my cars. I’d gladly own a 1990 Fleetwood!
That car is in very nice condition a credit to the owner, its a horrible car and actually looks like a cartoon car or a really bad photoshop, how the mighty have fallen.
Extremely ugly car. Completely out of proportion (like the other models on the same platform) and cheaply put together. Adding 1 ft of auto-degradable plastic filler to make it look longer doesn’t turn a turd into a luxury car. Neither does an interior that resembles a cheap brothel and a completely illogical, poorly put together cheap plastic dashboard with warning lights instead of gauges. No real luxury anywhere to be found here.
In my opinion this is the point where the already struggling Cadillac brand was damaged beyond repair.
If they’d added 3″ to the wheelbase, they could have sloped the rear window like the attractive late 70s Coupe de Ville, but I guess sales didn’t justify the tooling expense.
I do wonder why they added the RWD Fleetwood coupe in the early 80s when the Coupe de Ville already had the d’Elegance option. Guess it didn’t cost them much.
What was the last American coupe to offer a factory landau roof and opera windows? The ’93 CdV? I’m pretty sure the ’72 Eldorado was the first.
Does anyone know whether the FWD car of 1967, the “Fleetwood Eldorado,” retained the Fleetwood name all the way through 1978 or dropped it along the way?
How much headroom did these big FWD Caddies have? The reason I ask is because if the roofline was lowered a couple of inches, the ’85 wouldn’t have looked all that bad, shortness notwithstanding. I think all that glass doesn’t help its proportions, kind of makes it look a bit top-heavy- necessitating the extra length.
After all, the Europeans and Japanese were building attractive cars on platforms smaller than this, why couldn’t GM? As it is, this is sort of GM’s answer to the Austin 1800 – a great engineers’ car, a packaging triumph, wonderful to ride in and all that – just doesn’t look quite right. 🙂
Marketing and visuals are curious. As a child in the 60s I’d heard of Fleetwood, but barely. To me Cad’s were Coupe or Sedan Devilles. To this day I hear Fleetwood and think R and B music from the 50s. Now I’ve been an enthusiast for a long time, admittedly with a strong Euro bias, but not totally obviously to domestic cars, just mostly. But to me Deville, Fleetwood, Eldorado were vague interchangable terms, with the exception of the over the top, 70s FWD 500 inch engine Eldorado. Which I at once despised as conspicuous consumption and saw as a future collectable just because of it’s ostentatiousness. So at best, Caddy didn’t do a good job of marketing the different subtleties in it’s cars. At worst there weren’t differences besides nomenclature, and perhaps price.
But this car. With it’s square shape, chopped off rear roofline, to me was just coyote ugly, chew my arm off to get out. Boxy can be done well, not usually, but it can be. But this thing, with it’s chopped off slowback roofline, bizarre interior, geared to a certain buyer I guess, is just ugly ugly ugly. Cadillac price, odd at best styling with lousy mechanicals. How could it miss? With cars like this it’s a wonder GM lasted as long as they did before bankruptcy.
My uncle owned an ’85 Sedan de Ville in metallic blue. Subtly attractive styling combined with a sporty stance. When it came time for a refresh, Cadillac could have appealed to its traditional buyers by adding more Cadillac character. Namely by enhancing the grille, making the center section more prominent. The wheelbase could have been up sized by a couple of inches- to better accommodate a more sloped rear window. To attract younger buyers, they could have gone with a black walls only regime, while ditching the wire wheels and padded top options. Inside, a less brougham interior, maybe harkening back to the mid sixties for inspiration. It was possible to thread the needle (younger buyer/older buyer) without resorting to longer front and rear overhangs, much less fender skirts.
An ungainly, out of proportion awkward looking vehicle. A life-size ‘Palmer’ scale model. Any scale car modeler knows what that means!