http://cgi.ebay.ca/Cadillac-Fleetwood-/160580680055?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item25635ab977
That car is sweet! And the simple and bulletproof throttle body injection.
Mike
There is something about that body style that's like nails on a chalk board.
And what's with the zebra carpeting? Surely you jest !!! :yikes: Someone actually bought that? :speechless:
I'd buy it in a heartbeat, It's gorgeous!
On the outside it looks identical to my 94.
GJ
Damn. :taz: I thought with that reply I'd get more than one person stirred up. :pot:
I guess I need to try harder. :devil:
He he...
I'm used to it. Seems that many folk don't like the "Modern" Cadillacs here.
Mike
I don't consider it that modern, the platform goes back to 77.
GJ
It's still modern by some standards. I know that some folk here consider anything built after 1972 new junk.
Modern Cadillacs for me are those less than 10 years old.
And I still say these 94-96 Fleetwoods would wup any other previous standard Cadillac's ass. And be perfectly serene while doing it.
Mike
Now I like that :yes: Still VERY Cadillac.
QuoteAnd what's with the zebra carpeting? Surely you jest !!!
Someone's being clever with the vacuum cleaner.
I doubt that. The stripes are too uniform and perfect. To do that with a vacuum requires a great deal of effort. And you wouldn't do that to a sale car. You want it as 'factory looking' as you can get it to get all the money out of it
Quote from: guidematic on May 11, 2011, 01:35:03 PM
I know that some folk here consider anything built after 1972 1964 new junk.
My cut-off year is 1976 for most American made cars. A few different models went to 1979 before they went in the crapper.
Look at it this way. As time went on, good cars become more scarce. the really bad period was in the 80's for many cars. there was some real junk being built then. But there were also some very good cars.
Today most everything is junk, but there are still some good cars out there to be had.
And I'll put my '94 up against any full sized Cadillac that went before it. Nothing can compare to it for comfort, convenience, power and quietness. And it gets 28 MPG. Plus, it will outhandle anything built before, save for the few equipped with the FE2 suspension.
Can ANY pre '94 full sized Cadillac do that? And have a top speed approaching 140 MPH? (with the governer disabled)
Mike
Quote from: guidematic on May 11, 2011, 01:35:03 PM
I know that some folk here consider anything built after 1972 1964 1965 commercial chassis new junk.
:Muttley:
QuoteI know that some folk here consider anything built after 1972 1964 1965 commercial chassis 1979*new junk.
:Muttley:
(* Offer excludes mid-90s Fleetwoods and that '84 Monte SS I like. And the Corvette (shuddup, Fins). Oh, and the one in my avatar.)
Quote from: Denrep on May 13, 2011, 05:53:11 AM
:Muttley:
Hey, you cant do that, I did it first. :bs:
Who do you think he was referring too? :doh: :icon_OO:
Quote from: pyro on May 13, 2011, 11:54:46 AM
Hey, you cant do that, I did it first. :bs:
Nothing is sacred around here............
GJ
Quote from: guidematic on May 12, 2011, 04:24:03 AM
. . . And I'll put my '94 up against any full sized Cadillac that went before it. Nothing can compare to it for comfort, convenience, power and quietness. And it gets 28 MPG. Plus, it will outhandle anything built before, save for the few equipped with the FE2 suspension.
Can ANY pre '94 full sized Cadillac do that? And have a top speed approaching 140 MPH? (with the governer disabled)
Mike
:chin:
So would that be a nod to the Chevrolet engineering, if Cadillac had to borrow from Chevrolet and re-skin the Caprice to top the best that Cad had ever built themselves? :scratchhead: :smoke:
Oh Ueahg, I heard that the studio has procured dash-cam footage of '72 Eldo vs SS Impala that could change minds. It's sealed and waiting for something like licensing, copyright, or statute of limitations to run out.
:Muttley:
What year SS so we can calculate the statute???
'96 give or take
Statute is 7 years. Run the movie there Dad.
Okay, but the Crapiece wasn't new
We're waiting.................
:pot: :pot: :pot: :Movie Camera:
Okay, okay, we'll see if the studio can throw together a quickie. :Muttley:
:rotfl: :rotfl: Up the price of admission to compensate. :yes: :hi:
Huh? What? Where is it? :sleep:
I fell asleep waiting for Denrip to do his Movie Magic. :protest:
I guess I'll check back later. I need to get some more rule violators at the CLC forum for CF to turn in. :yes:
Quote from: Big Fins on May 15, 2011, 08:49:34 PM
I need to get some more rule violators at the CLC forum for CF to turn in. :yes:
Thanks but no thanks Fins. :No:
You, me and the Mobo just sounds like trouble waiting to happen. :dnd:.
Ya really think huh? :chin:
:Muttley:
Ueah, so where is it? I wanna see a '72 Eldo beat out an Impala SS.
Mike
Quote from: Denrep on May 15, 2011, 04:39:38 PM
:chin:
So would that be a nod to the Chevrolet engineering, if Cadillac had to borrow from Chevrolet and re-skin the Caprice to top the best that Cad had ever built themselves? :scratchhead: :smoke:
Re-skinned Caprice?
I have a 95 Caprice and even though they were built on the same assembly line they are worlds apart.
As for the LT1. It's a much better engine than a N*
But if you want to put it that way, the 75-79 Seville was just a re-skinned Nova.
GJ
I still stand by what I said.
As it turns out, the N* has been a problem child since it's inception.
Mike
Been following a discussion thread on an Olds Forum, 'Are the Caddy Northstar Engines really that bad?'
http://www.realoldspower.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=76320 (http://www.realoldspower.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=76320)
Olds Aurora had a N* variant
"The Northstar is somewhat "weird"; but so far as I know, it's NOWHERE NEAR as bad as the 4100/4500 series engine."
That comment is wrong right there.
"the problem with this motor is not the motor,it's the people that bought them
they needed maintenance that wasn't done,therefore the motor got bad press,when it was actually lazy owners.
fresh antifreeze is pretty critical"
That comment is what the root of the problems were with the 4100.
GJ
My experience with them when I worked at the dealer was a little less than good. Right off the hop, customers complained about oil consumption. Where other GM engines easily went 2500-3000 km before any oil needed to be added, it was normal for a N* to need a litre every 1000-1200 km. GM simply changed their specifications on oil consumption, and most all of the customer complaints went unheeded.
Then came the oil leak issues. That was caused by a defective machining process (GM admitted to it) that caused cutting of the spagetti seals between the upper and lowe crank case. The engines leaked oil like a fiend, and many customers demanded their cars be fixed because it was destroying their driveways. One KM or one day over the warranty, GM washed their hands of it. It was and is a very expensive repair.
After 1995, the oil leak issues seemed to get better, but the oil consumption remains a problem. And this was not just a few engines, but most all of them out there.
Then comes the head gaskets and the bolts pulling the treads out of the block. That is something that certainly is not as common, but really, who wants to buy one of these cars with that hanging over your head? That's why they are so cheap now.
Electrically, these cars are money pits as well. They were constantly in the shop for one thing or another. Once they ran out of warranty, the problems often went unrepaired, leading to real piles of junk on the road. It was simply too costly to repair them.
The starter under the intake manifold was not as severe as most would have you believe. Replacing it was not that hard of a job.
Oh, and P/S pumps were notorious for leaking as well. But they leaked into the cylinder valley, then out a small hole in the back of the engine. It looks for all the world the rear main was leaking. I have to wonder how many transmissions were pulled to replace that, and the leak persisted.
Mike
Quote from: EXCRUISERGUY on May 16, 2011, 02:43:17 PM
"The Northstar is somewhat "weird"; but so far as I know, it's NOWHERE NEAR as bad as the 4100/4500 series engine."
That comment is wrong right there.
"the problem with this motor is not the motor,it's the people that bought them
they needed maintenance that wasn't done,therefore the motor got bad press,when it was actually lazy owners.
fresh antifreeze is pretty critical"
That comment is what the root of the problems were with the 4100.
GJ
First off, the 4.5 has very few if any problems at all. The 4.5 in my '88 Eldo is a great engine. It has no issues whtsoever. The succeeding 4.9 was even better. There were issues with the first batch for cold piston slap, and the odd HT4100 style main bearing knock, but that was it. The main bearing issue was easily fixed, and if left, the piston slap issue did not have any relibilty or durability issues at all.
I'll be the first to admit that many of the initial HT4100's had problems. I have well documented them here, so I won't repeat it. However maintenance, or lack of, was an issue, and still remains so with these engines. Coolant changes were absolutely necessary because of the high aluminum content, and often that was not done. Remember, these engines pioneered this type of construction. But people simply did not understand the importance of proper cooling system maintenance. That was the most critical.
Also, regular oil changes were very important, something that was not done as often as it should have been. And BTW, all of the 4.* series engines were exceptional with oil consumption. Practically zero.
And, in the event of coolant loss, for whatever reason, people would continue to drive the car until it was severly overheated. That pretty much rendered these engines as scrap. That is something you never do with an aluminum engine. And I think that is what prompted the N* engineers to allow the N* to run sans coolant for 50 miles. Simply to prevent engine damage at the hands of idiot drivers.
Mike
Quote from: EXCRUISERGUY on May 16, 2011, 02:01:39 PM
Re-skinned Caprice?
I have a 95 Caprice and even though they were built on the same assembly line they are worlds apart.
As for the LT1. It's a much better engine than a N*
But if you want to put it that way, the 75-79 Seville was just a re-skinned Nova.
GJ
Whoa, slow down!
I didn't design the :tapedshut: I'm just saying what it's built of, and that's namely a '91 Caprice. :no rules:
The Cad and Chev, along with Roadmaster and Custom Cruiser, share chassis, suspension, brakes, powertrains, glass, inner body panels, etc, of the new-for-'91 Chevrolet design. I guess that's what I would call re-skinned Caprice. Yes, just as the '67 Eldo was basically a re-skinned Toro and the Cimaron was a Cavalier/J-2000.
Anyway, it's no secret that GM shared engineering strengths and investments between divisions, that was always the corporation's edge. On that note, personally, it's my opinion that if in the post-425 CID era, if Cadillac would have farmed out engine design duties to Olds or Chev, the Cadillac division wouldn't have lowered its grip on the luxury car broomstick.
If one thinks back on all of the blown-up and not economically repairable Cadillacs that sat around at dealers, auctions, garages and wrecking yards, it only makes sense that each of those duds took a chip out of buyer loyalty. Yup, in that era the division was better off when "borrowing" other corporate engines.
Granted, that's all 20/20 hindsight.
Good Luck
Quote from: Denrep on May 16, 2011, 03:45:13 PM
it's my opinion that if in the post-425 CID era, if Cadillac would have farmed out engine design duties to Olds or Chev, the Cadillac division wouldn't have lowered its grip on the luxury car broomstick.
Good Luck
79 Eldorado with Olds 350 :yes:
Or the 76-79 Seville with that same engine. And what of the 34-36 LaSalle with the slightly modified olds straight 8.
GM had been sharing bodies with all the divisions since 1934. It really went into high gear for the 1959 model year, but divisions kept their own chassis and powertrains. Bit by bit that was eroded so that all frames were shared. Then engine exclusivity disappeared in the late 70's. Cadillac was the sole division to produce their own engines that they could claim their own. But now we see that going away with the discontinuation of the N*.
It's been an evolutionary process. Even our beloved big Cadillacs of the 40's, 50's and 60's shared bodies with the C-body Buicks and Olds.
So really, are these 94-96 Fleetwoods really any differant from what came before? And I would suggest that they have their own exclusive 121.5" wheelbase, body structure braces and unique dash and interiors. And also unique electrical systems. Not just sheet metal. Enough to warrant their own sevice manual, whereas the Caprice/Roadmaster share a manual.
Sharing all the driveline components, in which I would say the LT1 is superior to the N*, is better for us post production since all the mechanical bits are readilly available still.
Except for sharing the engine, there is no real differance in the way big Cadillacs were built through the 70's and 80's.
Mike
and is you have a 1996 fleetwood like me, you will find that it does not have the same radio as the 94-95's do, also 93-96 FWB have 4 channel anti-lock while the caprice/impala have 3 channel, I found this out the hard way, having to find a rear ABS sensor for mine, they were only used on those 4 years and have been out of production forever
Quote from: Kubla on May 16, 2011, 08:20:08 PM
also 93-96 FWB have 4 channel anti-lock while the caprice/impala have 3 channel, I found this out the hard way, having to find a rear ABS sensor for mine, they were only used on those 4 years and have been out of production forever
That's because the Fleetwood has full range traction control that the Caprice/Roadmaster lack.
Mike
Quote from: Denrep on May 16, 2011, 03:45:13 PM
I'm just saying what it's built of, and that's namely a '91 Caprice.
Actually you can go back to 77 with that platform.
In 91 they got all new sheet-metal but underneath they are pretty much the same as the 77. A lot of new technology got added over the years but that platform was so good right from the start that it didn't need much updating.
I consider it one of the best cars ever produced.
GJ
But really isn't the change from '90 to '91 too great to justify classing it too closely with the '77?
Lots of heavy change for '91, most obviously at the cowl, pillars, and greenhouse.
Whereas '77 through '90 even shared windshields.
Good Luck
The Caprice got the big change in '91, and the Buick Estate wagon became the Roadmaster wagon. The Rodamster sedan was introduced in '92. The Fleetwood (previously the Brougham) got the big change in '93.
All of the sheetmetal above the floor stampings was changed. But those floor stampings and the frame/suspension stayed largely the same.
If you compare the floor stampings on my '90 to those of my '94, they are virtually identical.
In the '77-'92 models, there were many changes over the years, largely evolutionary. the '77-'79's really are quite unique from the '80-'92's. None of the sheetmetal is interchangible, and I have also found that many of the switches and minor bits are also not interchangible.
'80-'89 it was largely driveline changes that identified the sub-generations. The '90 got a fairly heavy makeover which lasted until '92.
I have found that there are so many bits that are interchangible between all the B/D cars through the 80's as well. For example, I took a left front door hinge from a '88 Caprice and used it on my '86 Fleetwood Brougham. That makes building a car that really suits you quite easy. Picking parts, particularly suspension and driveline bit from the B/D parts bin can make for some pretty unique cars.
Mike