(first posted 7/4/2011) I seem to have gotten carried away in a swoosh of nostalgia after seeing my old 89 Cadillac Brougham. The Cadillac Broughams got a more extensive treatment with a 1987 model posted earlier today, so now would be a good time to say a few words about the last of the Brick Broughams.
I have never been crazy about the final years of this car. Up through 89, there was a certain Cadillac-ness that those cars captured very well. But with Lincoln’s first new Town Car in a decade, Cadillac apparently saw the need to tart up modernize the Brougham.
The big single headlights, the massive lower bodyside cladding and a 2 inch increase in ride height did nothing good for the look of this car, in my view. I have also never been a fan of the door-mounted automatic seatbelts. One would think that GM could have spent a little money on a new dashboard and airbags. This dash went all the way back to 1977 and the steering wheel to 1979, so I think that GM got its moneys worth out of them. GM might have been more successful investing on the inside of this car than with the full restyle of 1993-96.
The only redeeming feature was the switch from the anemic Oldsmobile 307 to the more muscular Chevrolet 305 and 350 V8s. I guess it’s all about your perspective: Are you outside looking in, or behind the wheel.
But here is an example for your consideration. This one is the d’Elegance trim level with the extra poofy seats and the vinyl roof trim over the rear door quarter windows. (The Cadillac of Cadillacs?) Who among us can’t find a little love in our hearts for white leather interiors? I spied this car at my local supermarket a couple of weeks ago, and got a minute to speak with the owner as he loaded his groceries. An older gentleman, this is one of four that he owns. He plainly enjoys the old Cadillacs, and has had this one for about 4 years. It could use a bit of a spiff up, but who among us couldn’t?
So the question for your consideration is this: Do you prefer your Brougham with the extra lipstick or without?
Lipstick, please, but with the real wire wheels.
I prefer the first one that you owned but a 350 mill would be ok with all that weight, WTF are automatic seat belts something we werent inflicted with
Bryce, you are so lucky that your country never had these miserable things. They ruined so many cars. For a good write-up on these gawdawful contraptions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_seat_belts#Automatic_seat_belts
OMG I see what you mean I gradually learn to use seatbelts years ago now thru being fined and a couple of crashes where they helped save a friends life I even fitted belts to a 63 Holden I rebuilt though it wasnt a requirement i didnt grow up using them but I see my daughter and her friends automaticly belt up in my car its been hammered into them with tv ads My car has a drivers seatbelt warning light and a warning on the radio screen until you belt up but it also has a deactivation switch for the front passenger airbag so as it doesnt kill kids.
For Bryce and others – GM cars in North America of this period didn’t really have “automatic” seat belts. Rather, these were a half-assed version of “passive” belts. You “crawled” under them – or – simply unhooked them and buckled them like “regular” seat belts. (I had a ’90 Chevy Celebrity Eurosport Wagon of this vintage).
These are not to be confused with the “hamster track” retractable seat belts forced on NA cars (usually Ford, Mazda and Mitsubishi and I believe some Toyotas and Nissans of the ’89-’93 vintage). Those suck – and- they’re only the shoulder harnesses! (not the lap belts!!). Why bother?
Honda had them too, especially the 1991-93 models until airbags became a requirement.
I know as my parents had a 1991 EX sedan. They didn’t bother us too much as we used out belts one way or the other anyway.
When Honda finally added air bags in ’92, the fan-boys then talked as if Honda invented them.
I had a two-door Geo Metro with these GM-style door belts. Just once, out of curiosity I left them buckled when I parked. When I got back in, the lap belt set itself just under my knees.
I went back to using them as normal seat belts.
Weird. I guess they thought it would be an erosion of freedom or something to make wearing normal three-point belts compulsory?
At least the Caddys didn’t suffer the indignity of the motorized automatic belts that so many other cars of this era were equipped with. The Caddy belts could be used like conventional seat belts, just attached to the door instead of the B pillar.
Never like those headlights. If you retro fit the older style then this would be ok.
I can go either way, but I will admit that the 1980’s version seemed more, well, timeless. Neverthless, these are what one thinks of when the idea of “real Cadillac” comes to mind.
There is a collector in Dallas, TX that LOVES these things and has an amazing collection of them.
http://www.mcsmk8.com/cadillacs/mycads.htm
Oh, lipstic for sure for me! That White Whale up there is one of my all time favorites.
Couldn’t agree more.
Actually like the two larger headlights better than the previous four.
Enjoy the renaissance of the 1966 style taillights with clear glass over red glass.
I by far prefer the dash and door trim from the 1990-92 models over the trim in 1993-95.
Too much black plastic in the door trim in the latter.
I have driven both the 1990 and in particular the 1992 Brougham as livery cars both as regular sedan and stretch limousine, all with digital instruments.
Always a pleasure.
I like every single RWD Cadi from 1971-1992, if you couldn’t already tell. Only year that rubs me the wrong way is ’77 with the ugly 2 piece taillights, cheaper, non-padded vinyl roofs, and straps for door pulls instead of the casket handles. And of course the bad engines from the 80s..
So long story short: like both equally. And the extra body cladding: it works pretty well on this car, and I’m by no means a GM cladding fan. But, this car still looks contemporary to me, and I’m not an old geezer. The last of the Bill Mitchell era cars with the “sheer look” (look it up) when GM still styled them…
I like both, but prefer the later versions. There was a business owner in town that had an all-black 1990-92 model with factory gold package and the personalized plate PACEMKR. Frequently seen about town until 2004 or so when it disappeared. The example above would be welcome in my garage.
This will sound really stupid, but I always thought the very curvy gear selector lever was a strong indicator of luxury. I went so far as to pull one from an old Caddy at the junk yard to install on my ’78 Impala, but it had so much pullback on it it would kiss the steering wheel when you went to take it out of Park.
I thought it looked so cool I kept it installed anyway.
Less lipstick, please. The suspension lift (why???) makes this longer-lower-wider beast look as silly as a Chrysler 300C AWD. And we didn’t even get AWD!
Having said that, I’m frustrated that the downsized Fleetwood/Brougham cars never had a “perfect year.” The best engines were in 1994-1996. The best coachwork was in the late ’80’s. The biggest (if not best) engines were in the late 1970s. I gather that the the 1995-1996 models had the best handling, though that term is highly relative. (I almost bought a 1995, but an emergency maneuver on the test drive frightened me back to German cars.)
In spite of all that, these are on my someday-list. Maybe a 1989 for its classic proportions. And a 1995 because it’s the last dinosaur. (No 1996 models for me; no OBD II means no emissions in MA!) Panthers have their charms, but they don’t have tailfins.
David42, I agree that the Fleetwood Brougham never had a ‘perfect year’. I like the ones from the late 1980s… but utterly hate those Olds 307 V-8s.
The 425 engines are great in the late 1970s ones… but those cars are UGLY!
The ’93 – ’96 ones make me nervous for complexity that might translate into high maintenance cost. We do know that the ignition systems on the ’94 – ’96s are very pricey. So, what about the rest of those sleek RWD cars? I don’t know.
I am so glad someone else came out against that suspension lift. It just looks so wrong.
People have been getting taller at the rate of at least half to one inch(1cm) every 40 years or so. More and more people prefer climbing into, rather than dropping down into, their vehicles.
Picture ‘grandpa Jim’s’ six foot two inch teenage grandson getting into the 61 Corvair 5 foot 9 inch Jim had since he was a teen back then. Quite a ways down!
That might have had something to do with that 2 inch adjustment on that generation Cadillac, along with cosmetic appearance.
The “lipstick” Broughams are my favorite, if only for the cleaner look of the composite headlights and the two-tone taillights. And I especially like it in white.
I much prefer GLASS headlights. I’ve got those dopey ‘composite’ ones on an otherwise great car, a ’89 Caprice with fuel injection, the F41 suspension, and rear sway bar / perf. axle.
Those composites on the front of those Broughams impress me as being made of glass, even that late in the run.
I understand that if you have a front end accident with one of these, you will have a devil of a time finding a front clip. The 1990-92 front clip is a direct bolt on to any 1980-89 model, and is a very common mod especially for 1980-85 coupes getting the lowrider treatment.
I have one of these almost identical to the one pictured, but not a d’Elegance . . . It has 256,000 miles on it! These things are amazing for durability and reliability! I prefer the non-lipstick look – especially as that extra vinyl roof makes the rear window even smaller. However, you couldn’t get fuel injection until ’91 – and I’m on a strictly NO CARB diet. Not to mention the Fuel Injection gives it the power needed to get out of its own way. So it has to be a lipstick model for me.
The ’90-92’s Broughams were the best ’77-’79 Caddies. Love me some Chevy 350. This girl could scoot. Hoo!
I still would LOVE a Cadillac Brougham. But only an ’86-’91 in this body style. I have had two mid-eighties GM cars (’85 Buick LeSabre Collector’s Edition and ’86 Olds Cutlass Supreme Brougham) with the 307-4bbl. Decent power – great low end grunt; not a race car – but did what it did well in the cars they were put into – cruisers – and had that distincive “Olds burble/rumble”. On both of mine, I enhanced that sound with Flowmasters and 2 1/2″ pipes.
You could feel more “oomph” on such 307 equipped cars with a lower-restriction exhaust, such as the Flowmaster setup I had. Guesstimate 5 hp gain. I know for a fact I picked up and extra 1-2 mpg – Plus, that Oldsmobile “rocket” deep baritione exhaust note. Sounds like no other car on the planet.
These cars were not SUPPOSED to be “S” type Mercedes wanna-be’s – these were just an evolution of the traditional, BOF, RWD classic American cruisers (although, by this time, Lincoln was doing it much better).
I recently saw a cherry ’91 Brougham (white w/blue velour seats) a guy brought here to Hawaii from Florida – a low mileage estate car. Man! What a beauty!! I waited for him to cruise past just to hear the lamented, and much missed (muted) burble of that Oldsmobile 5.0L (307).
Yes – I do remember seeing in the day a couple of 5.7L (Chevy 350) Broughams. Most were pressed into trailer-towing duty as they had the pre-requisite “grunt”.
I prefer the original 77-79 bodies. Still the classiest. I know a guy who has a 92 Brougham, treats it like a baby. I can’t say I blame him.
Quite frankly, I prefer Hondas.
Kev Kalihur:
You, my brother, are a man of the world! 😀
The “lift” on those were due to the fact that the 350 had too much torque for the standard Brougham suspension. So, Cadillac had to use a beefed up suspension in order to handle it. Also, I’ve heard that the standard “wire” wheel covers couldn’t handle the torque either. So, all Broughams that used the 350 sit a little higher than the others.
So that’s why they were jacked up. Typical GM bandaid fix.
Would love to explore the technical details of that explanation. I just thought it was a step in the heightening of cars in step with a taller population, as well as to make them easier to, in this case, sink into, and alight from.
actually, there were TWO 307 V8s.
You could get the normal LQ4–140 hp, but some of the rare chassis codes had 8 instead of V in the VIN ? I think…there was a HO 307 with 170 hp in ’87 and ’88. most of them were 140 hp though.
While not a huge fan of these kinds of cars in any marquee, I love that it’s white (normally nor my favorite automotive color) and add to it, the burgundy red dash and steering wheel to an otherwise all white car!
Classy!
I beefed up mine to what this rougham should have been for its last running traditional size and style. I am not done…im going to make a couple other mild modz to it.
I just bought one of these. It’s a 1990 with the 5.7, Academy Gray, non d’elegance. I absolutely love it. It has only 82k on it, and rides/drives like a cadillac should. I think I’m probably the only 18 yr. old who loves these cars. For me, the only way to travel is Cadillac Style!
I currently own this exact car in dark gray with the 307 Olds V8. When I first got it with 70K miles it could only muster 14.8 second 0-60 times. With some carb work and tweaks, a new catalytic converter, tune up etc it now does the same run in 11 seconds which is hardly quick but no longer seriously under powered territory. The Olds mill puts of 255 FT LBS of torque at a low 2000 RPM’s and gives this car enough scoot starting out. The only real place it feels slow is when trying to over take another vehicle on the open road. Otherwise I love it.
I know where one of this very model is for sale in Florida. He says it has 4k miles! Maybe he is reading the odometer wrong, might be 40k! He is old. I have been in it. Looks brand new.
I really liked the last 3 model years (90-92) of the classic Brougham. It was a wise move to put the more stout Chevy driveline in this car; too many Caddys from this era suffered from lackluster powerplants. Did always find it weird that the instrument panel remained virtually unchanged from the 1977 version when this size Cadillac debuted. I especially like the tail lamp treatment on the later cars; very classy. Could do without the body cladding on the side, though. GM was in love with this crap back then, especially Pontiac division.
I wonder why Cad raised the ride height of these RWD Cad for the early 1990s?
And, how long has it been… since YOU saw one of these cars.. with a REAR sway bar?
Such used to be common on the 77s – 92s. Maybe it’s ’cause I simply don’t see these fine cars much anymore. I keep forgetting that this is now 2016!
Less! Though this look was suitable for 1980 when introduced, the design was woefully out of style by the early 1990s, and the “freshening” just exacerbated the problem, like putting lipstick on a pig. Also, I simply cannot get excited about any Cadillac with a Chevrolet engine. It is amazing to me that the flagship division of General Motors couldn’t produce a decent, modern V8 during this time period, or offer a fresh, stylish design inside or out. Keep in mind that when this car was new, the Lexus LS400 was also on the market, gobbling up customers who previously might have considered a Cadillac, but who would have had less-than-zero interest in this antiquated barge.
I love these Broughams and their Fleetwood Brougham predecessors. That said, skip the cladding for mine and give me an LT1. But keep all the vinyl top and button tufted goodness!
They were antiquated by that time, but if that is what you like, no LS or Seville is going to tempt you away. One of these days I’m going to get one of these last Broughams as a Sunday driver.
Would love to find one of these in good shape. An LSx motor with 4L80e would be an almost trivial drop in.
Gad, what awful photos. I wouldn’t publish anything else from this clown until he gets a decent camera. 🙂
I still have very mixed feelings about these. I don’t think this white one shows the car at its best. I have seen one that was a sort of a light silver/rose/brown that looked quite nice. And I really like the white plastic lenses for the rear lights – they remind me of those from my Granddad’s 62 Cadillac.
But the ride height increase is just wrong. I guess all in all, it is easier to find a really attractive one of these in the 1980-89 generation than in one of these.
J P Cavanaugh wrote: “Gad, what awful photos. I wouldn’t publish anything else from this clown until he gets a decent camera.”
My initial inquiry into your comment was deleted, so I’ll ask again: What’s wrong with the subject photos?
Did you see the smiley face? Or the author’s name?
I love your posts and that you can make fun of yourself 🙂
My grandparents had the ’80 Olds 98. My father had a ’77 Impala. My great-uncle had a bunch of Caprices.
Never forget the B-bodies!
It was outdated, if they didn’t have a replacement they had to do something. While I don’t like the results it at least looked somewhat more modern at the time.
No lipstick for me. The wrap-around front bumper with the thick plastic insert kills the Cadillac-ness. The “carriage roof” tries to turn the rear quarter glass into opera windows and loses the lovely Seville-style DLO in the process, that’s a key part of the original design. The white lens taillamps are OK, they remind me of a ’65.
I believe there was a delete-option for the cladding so there must have been some internal debate on that one.
The 2″ higher ride height has always been a mystery. You would think it was related to the higher output of the Chevy engines but the ’77-79 425 big-block models had more power still, heavier engines and lower ride height like the pre-facelift 307 and 4100 cars.
If the goal was to firm up the suspension that was a bad call because I’ve heard people complain about the harsh ride on the facelifted models. Usually lower is better for handling and the earlier cars handled great.
calibrick: “DLO”?
Sorry, I did not study acronyms before entering the 21st century. 😮
DLO stands for daylight opening on the side of the car i.e. the shape of the windows.
Though I made a negative-ish comment when this post first appeared back in 2011, I’m now the proud owner of 1991 Brougham. It only has the 5.0 engine, alas. I still prefer the look of the “pre-lipstick” models, but the changes make it easy to live with:
-The fuel-injected Chevy 5.0 is good enough, and apparently a big improvement over the earlier carburetted engines.
-The increased ride height isn’t pretty, but it gives more suspension travel. I get a kick out of sailing over railroad crossings at full speed. If you like the classic Cadillac ride, this suspension makes it even better.
-The extra cladding makes the car less elegant, but when a friend of mine opened the door into a high curb, it was awfully nice to have all of that plastic to protect the sheet metal.
It’s no performance car, but it’s perfect as a low-stress, daily-driven classic.
That would make sense, that the higher ride height was for more suspension travel. I read somewhere that in addition to the higher ride height, all of the 1990 and most of the 1991 and 1992 5.7L cars came with a “towing package” which I believe had firmer suspension than your 5.0L. The earlier carbed cars had good power unless the cat was clogged or you were going up a steep hill. Joe Y. posted above about the difference between clogged and unclogged (and tuned right).
My pops had an 81 Coupe Deville so these body styles are important to me now and as a kid. I thought the white taillights were the most awesome thing my kid brain had ever seen.
As for the cladding, it was important to elongate the body after the lift
As little tacked-on junk as possible for me. Give me a TBI 350, tow package (for the HD suspension, trans cooler, and deeper gears with Positraction), gray interior, and base wheelcovers-no wire of any sort. Make it dark blue.
Best Year?
1968 Fleetwood.
For me all that plastic ruined Cadillac from the late sixties onwards. Probably the cut off for real style about 1964 where I think they peaked with looks. Still had fins but they were restrained and while there was still plenty of chrome it had been massively toned down. This ’64 Eldorado Biarritz convertible is probably perfection for me https://www.oldcars.site/cadillac/1964-eldorado-biarritz-convertible/
Cannot compare to the 1977-79 Fleetwoods – that was “peak” Brougham for Cadillac IMO. The body side cladding and jacked up suspension did nothing for this car’s looks, and don’t even get me started about those stupid door-mounted seat belts – worst design idea ever!
Love it or hate it, you could be a half mile behind one of these Cadillacs in the dark, and still know what it was by the tail lights. The last classic Cadillac.
Hardboiled Eggs:
You got that right, pal! ? And when I see a 2010 or later CTS, my first impulse is to call a UFO sighting in to the FAA, LOL!
I love these final “old school” square RWD Broughams. I absolutely hated the rounded successors to these. I think with the many updates they made an older design look so much more modern and fresh. Even the updated dash looked great IMO. When I told my Uncle Bob they were coming out with an upgraded, more powerful engine in 1990 he could not wait to trade in his underpowered 1986 Fleetwood Brougham d’Elegance for a 1990 model with the 350 V-8. He LOVED that car and kept it well over 100k miles, replacing it with a 1997 deVille that he also loved. He followed that one up with a 2003 Seville and eventually a 2010 DTS. But his favorite of all of them was the gray 1990 Brougham d’Elegance with the 350!
I prefer the older 80-89 nose and no cladding, But If the right 90-92 came along I’d go for it. I’m not necessarily AGAINST the restyling, Its just that I had an 82,86 and 89 and the older (more familiar) style just looks “right” to me. The 77+ “box” C bodies are near the top of my list ever since my 77 Buick Electra Limited. ?? +1!
If I had to have one, it would be a ’80 or ’81 with the last real Cadillac big-block engine under the hood, plus nicer styling. Or maybe a pre-facelift ’78. The lipstick-era opera window looked like a bad copy of the ones Chrysler was using on the NY Fifth Avenue at the time, as well as several other models of that time and earlier.
Also, the door-mounted shoulder belts hurt outward visibility, effectively doubling the width of the B pillar.
An older woman in the town where I grew up has a ’90-’92 in triple grey. It’s beautiful, especially on a cloudy day with rain beaded up on it.
All in all, too much lipstick. I respect these for being the final version of the 1977 classic design. But other than the. 1965 style taillights, I never liked them as much as their predecessors. The engine is of course an improvement objectively, but I don’t know why they couldn’t put a Cadillac V8 in there, the 4.9 was much more powerful by that time. The composite headlights are a bit tacked on, too. I don’t mind the datedness of the 1980 refresh by 1990, but the 1990 refresh answered a question no one was asking. A little more effort by Cadillac could have yielded a better looking version of the 1993-96 design that could have been more competitive with the Lincoln.
I’m of a similar mind to those who say there is no real best of this series. The 1980 body with the 1977-79 425/THM 400 would have combined the best look and powertrain. But having experienced an ’87 and a ’93, as well as a ’77 C Body Buick, I’d still take an ’80 with a 368 and THM 400 over the other years. Cadillac big block, great transmission, classic styling, no computer.
The 4.9 had less power than the TBI 350. Not to mention, it was nowhere near as durable…I rather have a 305.
Not sure I recall the 4.9’s not being durable. I know lots of folks that had deVilles with them and they got 200k+ miles on them with no serious issues.
Agreed, the 4.9 was durable, it was no 4.1.
It’s true that the TBI 350 had more torque (although not more horsepower), but it was not all that common on these, many had the standard 305, which I suggest might have been, overall, less powerful than the 4.9.
After MY ’80 there was always some compromise.
350 TBI wad 205hp…I recall the 4.9 was 190.
The 4.9 I recall had 200 hp. The 5.7/350 L05 had first 175 hp then 185 hp. I had one in my ’93 Fleetwood Brougham, the first of the Bubble years. It had 185 hp and peak torque around 300 lbs/ft. These big RWD Cadillacs did not have engines that would produce 200+ hp between 1974 or so and 1994 when the new 5.7 came in. (detuned 500 cid made 190 hp, 425 made 180, 368 made 150, 4.1L made 125-135, Olds 307 made 140, Chevy 305 made 170, first Chevy. 350 made 175-185).
Again, this is an auto manufacturer’s way of ‘preparing the public’ for major changes(a new body, or new platform, etc) a couple model years out. The 1990s would fully usher in the clad, integrated bumper look in storm. The efforts on this particular Brougham look cheap, with plastic wrapped around existing chrome bumpers, and no allowance made on the sides for thickness of cladding applied in those areas.
You could have all the same trappings in photograph #2 – for $5k less in 1990!…
Compare the second image down to this – you can see what the last model years of the square C-bodies were hinting at…. (and the same underpinnings!)
This here is a ’92(!!) – I thought the whale boats took over all of GM full-sized RWD by model year 1991?
At Christmas in 1982, I was at my favorite auto recycling point trading used wheels for used wheels. The owner asked if I knew of anybody looking for a Cadillac. They had the contract to buy all salvage from a large restaurant chain. The founder’s daughter had driven a 1983 Cadillac Fleetwood D’elegance brougham with real wire wheels for 2 months, and had scraped the left front fender and wire wheels while backing up. It had 1200 or 1400 miles on it.
She didn’t want a damaged Cadillac and my friend paid 40% of sticker plus a new wheel and fender repair/painting. No insurance involved as the fleet self insured collision.
That night i went to the company Christmas party hosted by my Brother in Law who had several dental clinics. I mentioned the Cadillac. He wanted it and got me up at 8 AM in a snow storm to see the Cadillac. He bought for less than 60% of new sticker.
He still complained to me when the front brake pads wore out in 2 years. I replied that he could have the front pads off any Cadillac in the wrecking yard.
When the Cadillacs were redesigned/downsized for ’77, I was most impressed. I’ve always been a Lincoln Mercury man, but there is something about those cars that just said “it’s a Cadillac” with class we hadn’t seen in a while. And even to my teen age eyes at the time, they immediately signaled it was time for Lincoln to change too. I had the opportunity to drive a ’79 Fleetwood Brougham d’Elegance when new and it was quite something.
I think the earlier (’77-’79) versions of these cars still look good today and are my favorite Cadillac models. The exteriors of these last versions look like cakes with too much cheap frosting.
I much prefer the earlier version which was more restrained and dignified. The vinyl roof, the quarter “opera window,” and cladding on this car make it look like a Cadillac/Town Car/Imperial mash-up.
Believe it or not, but these 90-92 era RWD Caddy’s are in demand. Check ‘Bring a Trailer’ and see the sales prices they have gotten.
To be honest I think the too much lipstick question emerged with the 80 refresh of the 77-79 body, the extra formal roofline, the extra height of the headlight/blinker subassemblies, the extra baroqueness of the fins didn’t do the design any favors, the 90 refresh at hand certainly had it’s questionable elements, namely the ride height increase and lower silver/chrome cladding, but other aspects I’m either neutral on or think might even improve it(the headlights).
I Iike this substantially more than its successor when it comes right down to it, where these maybe had too much makeup the 93s were so conservative they may as well have sold them directly to the retirement villages. In the 70s and 80s choosing a Cadillac may have been a sign of questionable taste, but in the 90s it was strictly a sign of age. The 90-92 was the pre-menopause Cougar phase, the 93 was the matronly grandma phase.
Someone had a post here about a ’93-6 without a vinyl roof, which I’d never seen before. Made a world of difference. Vinyl just didn’t work with their limousine-style doors. What a shame the ’94 Deville and Fleetwood didn’t follow the ’92 Seville’s style.
With the lipstick, I picture a 40-something Miami Vice drug kingpin, riding in the back.
With the later front end, thank you.
Though I would prefer it sitting at the original ride height.
Interestingly, Revell kitted that up as a model of a car that never existed in stock form. By the time of the 1990 facelift the 2-door was long gone.
Yes, they released it as a donk and a lowrider.
I find these Cadillac Broughams to be a Classy Brick. I like GM’s intentions here to keep the car visually relevant in the automotive landscape. Similarly, the 1987-1990 Chevrolet Caprice Classic Brougham LS model, used extra gorp and dressing to tart up their old RWD sedan. I like both attempts, but they lack ONE detail for me: the Coach Lamp! Here’s a nice pic. of a 1990 Caprice Classic Brougham with the LS trim package. Note the similar treatment of the rear door window encased in vinyl, creating an Opera Window, another Must Have for me!
Remember looking at a silver Caprice, like this, in mid-late “90’s”. Miles on the odometer were not all that bad, price was pretty good.
Just too hard to park anything that bad in the neighborhood. As it’s street parking felt bad about leaving something so nice to sit “out” all the time.Miss “chrome bumpers” to this day. Keep those body color ones.
Replace “big” for “bad” in my message above. t/y