(first posted 7/4/2011) I would be willing to bet that there is no car that General Motors made more money on than this generation of Cadillac. For those under about the age of 40, when someone says Cadillac, this is the car that comes to mind. It should, because this was in constant production for about 16 years and in virtually this exact flavor for about 13. Nobody planned for this car to be around for so long, but just like the great old Vaudeville performers, the car kept coming out for one encore after another before finally leaving the stage.
The new downsized Cadillac came out as a 1977 model and was a huge improvement over the oversized jelly-bodied 71-76 model. The car lost about 1000 pounds but was still powered by a 425 cubic inch version of the great Cadillac V8. Unlike its predecessor, this car felt tight and solid and made of some better materials. Its smaller size may have alienated some traditionalists (I have long maintained that the smaller size of the 77-79 Cadillac was partly responsible for booming sales of the final big Lincolns during those years), but the car had a lot of engine for its size and was mighty quick.
The car got its first (and only) significant restyle in 1980. Much more than the original 1977 version, this car captured the essence of Cadillac. The only real changes that this car would see from here on out were under the hood. From 1980-85 Cadillac played an unending game of musical engines with the 368 (a smaller version of the Cadillac 425 for 1980), the V8-6-4 (a 368 with variable displacement), a 4.1 Liter Buick V6 (believe it or not), the HT4100 (a 4.1 liter V8 designed for front drive applications), the Oldsmobile 5.7 diesel, and maybe one or two others. These were cars that were bought in spite of their engines, not because of them, and the 1980-85 models are not often seen these days, although they sold fairly well when they were new.
When Cadillac brought out the disastrous 85 front drive models, this car continued in 85-86 as the Fleetwood Brougham (not to be confused with the front drive Fleetwood). It was evidently still too confusing, because in 1987, the car became simply the Cadillac Brougham. All of this confusion came about because this car was simply not expected to survive the new front drive replacement. But in what became a Detroit ritual, surging sales for the big now-ancient rear drive V8 sedans would lead to one stay of execution after another.
In 1986, GM finally hit the balance between fuel mileage (to satisfy the CAFE regs) and power (to satisfy complaining customers) when it grabbed the Oldsmobile 307 off the shelf to bolt into these cars. This is the engine that had powered the final rear drive Oldsmobiles and Buicks, and solved everything that was really wrong with the cars. Okay, reintroducing the 425 would have REALLY solved the power problem, but this was simply impossible with CAFE-imposed fuel economy constraints that existed at the time. With sticker prices well north of $30K, GM’s profit margin must have been huge.
The big Cadillac made it through the 89 models with virtually nothing but periodic grille changes (which were themselves little more than re-using grilles from the early 80s either in whole or with minor revisions. Some moderate trim changes for 90-92 filled out the run of these classic Cadillacs, when they were replaced by the 93-96 Roadmaster-based Fleetwood, the last of the big rear drive Caddies.
If ever there was a car that a company could have continued almost indefinitely (Checker or Avanti-style), it was this generation of Cadillac. Although the 1987 version sold about 65,000 units, it seemed to drop about 10-15,000 per year thereafter, settling under 14,000 for 1992. The final series saw an uptick into the 30K unit territory before dropping back to 1992 levels by the end of the 1996 model run. It is my opinion that GM would have been ahead to simply continue the original car (perhaps going back to the styling of the pre-1990 version, but with the more powerful Chevy 5.7 of the later cars. (So, is it Chevrollac and Oldsmollac, or Cadrolet and Cadsmobile?) Really, what would be wrong with 10-15,000 annual units of pure profit at $40 thousand a pop? A new dashboard with some airbags (even the Crown Victoria got a new dash with air bags in 1991) and these cars could sell in small but steady numbers yet.
This Cadillac was the last of the kind of passenger car that GM was uniquely good at. The cars were structurally tight and solid, virtually impervious to rust-through even in our midwestern climate, and insanely durable. In this part of the country, there are still a lot of these out on the streets. Some are the blinged-out customs of enthusiastic kids, others are like this, nice originals that have been lovingly cared for by owners who knew that they would never see another Cadillac like these.
OK, I actually have one complaint with these cars. Why could none of them ever hold a shine on the hood? I once read that GM used aluminum hoods do keep down weight, and surmised that the heat transfer characteristics of that alloy wreaked havoc on the paint finishes. Maybe someone else can say for sure, but my own 89 always had a poor finish on the hood while the fender tops shined like crazy. Ditto an 84 Olds Ninety Eight and an 84 LeSabre. Copper, white and navy blue, respectively, it made no difference. Can anyone shed light on this mystery?
To me, this period of Cadillac marked the first time since maybe 1960 that Cadillac built a better car than Lincoln. The Town Cars of the late 80s may have had their charms, but they did not say “Lincoln” the way these big Broughams said “Cadillac”. These were clearly not the quality of the Cadillacs I grew up seeing in the 60s (I once owned a 63 Fleetwood and know the difference), but those days were gone after about 1970, never to return. If you get a chance to ride in one of these, take it. Enjoy those soft crushed velour (or leather if you’re lucky) seats and the view of that Cadillac hood ornament standing tall and proud waaaaay out there. Or better yet, take the back seat and just enjoy the ride.
In May of 2014 I bought a really nice 87 Brougham with the 140hp 307 under the hood. Mileage around town is great..low 20’s. This car was built for the Canadian market. Speedo is in kph. Came with 62,000 original km’s which is about 41,000 miles. The main reason for buying this car was it did not need any e-tests here in Ontario. (That’s just a govt money grab anyway. What a rip)
The only problem with the car was the ac/heater fan speed control. Paid $300 for a used one from Cadillac King in California. Didn’t work! The solution was to install a ground wire in addition to the already existing ground wire connected to the blower motor. With a switch inside on the dash it now becomes a manually operated system. All other climate control functions work well. Just the fan is manual. It took a while to notice the car had a 2004R tranny but the gear shift position indicator above the steering column only indicates a three speed. OOPS!
I love driving this car. So damn comfortable
WOW I just read this whole blog. I’m a little late to the party. Please let me tell my experience with this body style Feetwood brougham, First one I owned was 1977 FWB. The year was 1988, I was at MyrIle Beach SC, When my Ford grenade blow up on me. I had to have a car and fast I had my gf and golf buddies with me. I went to a used car lot. They had the 77 FWB on the lot. It was little on the ruff side. Big block 425 cost a grand but what a car, I owned the car for 2yr then give to my gf, She have it for two more. Drove this car to Daytona Fl, from Washington DC 2 times a year each year I had it. Never had problem never left me on the side of the road. I was Racing motorcycles in daytona towing a trailer with four race bike and two street bikes, Ok now it 2011 I was moving and needed a truck started looking around and that;s when I came across 1991 Base FWB. It had a sbc 305 in it but had a 700r4 trans. I rememberd my 77 and thought that car will haul a trailer. I went on Ebay and got one with 62k on it. It did the job but had to put springs and shocks on it to tow. As a teenager I had Camaro’s Nova’s So I know sbc engines like the back of my hand. When I saw Cadillac was putting fuel inj sbc in FWB Ya right on. Now it’s 2015 from 2011 to now I have had Five. Two 1990/ one 1991/ one 1992/ one 1989. I have one now it’s a 1990 with a 350 it is so much beefer then the base FWB with the 305 it’s night and day. The whole driveline is so much beefer you think it’s not the same car. Even lugs bolts and nuts. The one I have now i’m rebuilding putting a 250 hp 350 in it. I shouldn’t even have too change the ECM prom. I’m keeping the single exhaust and the cat and smug pump. It’s a Caddie after all. 75 hp with very little mods. I love these car and will own one for rest of my life. The 1989 FWB i had was a nightmare vac hoses/ oil leaks/ vac leaks form intake/carbs/ no thank you. Need help with your caddie email me mikeskyler51@gmail.com. Q&A
I have a 1987 Cadillac Fleetwood Broughm D’ Elegance,with 73,000 original miles,
307 engine,all original from bumper to bumper, new tires, headliner, oil change,
new coolant change,all original paperwork and manual, Triple black with pleated
interior.locking wire caps. shiney as a new penny except the hood as it is fiberglass.
No rust.
Thanks, Cincinnati Kid
My e-mail is glporter71@yahoo.com Thanks
Today I put on 75 miles driving around the South Bay. What did I see on the road? Expedition after Expedition, Suburban XLs, Escalades, Full size, quad cab pick ups of every marque and plenty of runty little Tahoes. What do these things all have in common? They are big, spacious, comfy, don’t handle all that well and get poor fuel economy. Why is it okay to drive a big truck or SUV but a horror to drive a car like that Brougham? Would those truck buyers drive an updated and modernized version of the Cadillac? Or ARE those Trucks an updated version of the old Cadillacs?
One reason: higher floor means easier ingress and egress.
Other reason: keeping up with Johnsons. If my neighbour has a bling-bling on wheels, then I must have one, too.
This cars brother is my (semi) daily driver – https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1988-cadillac-brougham-last-christmas-at-clark-street/
Yes, the 307 Olds isn’t quite up to the task of keeping up on the highway (except in the flatlands or gentle hills), but in town it does fine.
Drives me crazy that in 87 the SBC got TBI, yet in the car costing $30k it still breathed thru a carb. Ah well…at least the slow lane is comfy!
Really late to this party. A friend of mine had two of these (one he still owns, sitting in his daughter’s garage waiting to be fixed up for his grandson). I rode in both many times. First, I heard that the cost difference to manufacture for GM between a Chevrolet and a Cadillac is, or was $600! At the time I was driving a Scion Xb. The Caddy, as I recall, had seats about eight inches off the floor. My Scion had chair height seats. My own idea of a Cadillac is the 1950 or so, to 1956 sedans. Even a 1955-57 Chev had a good deal of room in the back seat (try a modern car at a drive-in theater-passion pit in a modern sedan!)
Looking back in hindsight Cadillac could have easily solved the engine issues with these cars in two ways. For the 1981 -85 cars they should have kept the DFI 368 engine in the full sized RWD C-body cars and the E-body Eldo and Seville and used the 200R-4 in the C-body and the 425 in the E cars. The 4100 with more development time introduced in 1985 in the downsized cars may have been fine by that time if not rushed into market 3 years prior. For 1986 the full sized cars could have used the 307 Old block with Vin “9” components and throttle body injection and that would have easily carried this car up to 1990 with more acceptable performance, even better drive-ability, happier customers and a more competitive car to the Town Car which by 1986 had a 150 HP SFI 302 with the option of a dual exhaust 160 engine. Roger Smith did so much damage to GM during the 80’s it’s a wonder they are still here in 2020.