What happened to all the 93-96 Fleetwood Broughams?

[64\/54Cadillacking]

Engine tech has come a long way since the 90's, but if you notice, the majority if those huge power gains in 4 banger engines are because of the use of Turbo's, specially twin-turbo's, and direct injection. The combustion engine hasn't actually "changed" much at all ever since it was first invented, it's that little things are constantly added to it to make them more efficient and more powerful and more controllable by computers, and to get the most out a small displacement engine as possible in order to satisfy consumers including the FEDS.

The Main problem I notice in every 4 cylinder car that I have driven, is once the miles start piling up, the engines start to vibrate and sound, ticky and whiny. Even the most expensive cars can't completely eliminate the problem. More and more dampeners and improved engine mounts have help isolate engine noise and vibrations when the car is new, but because of the natural state of a 4 cylinder to be buzzy and shaky, the rubber components tend to wear out faster and the engine will feel less refined with higher mileage.

So personally I would never buy a turbo-4 based car,  V6's age much better and are pretty smooth in their old age. To me if there's not a V6 or 8 under the hood, it's not luxury.

[64\/54Cadillacking]

I really don't know what all you tall guys with big shoulders drive around in, because I'm an average sized guy, and I can't stand driving smallish cars, mid sizes are ok, but I still feel cramped and uncomfortable in many of them.

So for anyone that is looking for a truly large full-sized luxury ride, there really isn't anything on the market for anyone to choose from unless you want to fork out almost a $100,000 for typical European biggies.

The Chrysler 300 is a great car, with a great ride, so that's an exception, it's still not a true full sizer though. But another thing that has bothered me for the longest time is how uncomfortable modern seats are. They are either too narrow with a lack of thigh support, and or are too stiff for me, and no I'm not a fat ass.  In some ways I wish I was so I would have extra cushion down there for added butt support! Haha.

I guess I'll keep my 94 Fleet until the end of the time. It's been a great a car, it has the size and comfort of something that cost twice as much today. They honestly don't make them, and never will make them as big as these cars ever again.

[57eldoking]

Engine tech has come a long way since the 90's, but if you notice, the majority if those huge power gains in 4 banger engines are because of the use of Turbo's, specially twin-turbo's, and direct injection. The combustion engine hasn't actually "changed" much at all ever since it was first invented, it's that little things are constantly added to it to make them more efficient and more powerful and more controllable by computers, and to get the most out a small displacement engine as possible in order to satisfy consumers including the FEDS.

The Main problem I notice in every 4 cylinder car that I have driven, is once the miles start piling up, the engines start to vibrate and sound, ticky and whiny. Even the most expensive cars can't completely eliminate the problem. More and more dampeners and improved engine mounts have help isolate engine noise and vibrations when the car is new, but because of the natural state of a 4 cylinder to be buzzy and shaky, the rubber components tend to wear out faster and the engine will feel less refined with higher mileage.

So personally I would never buy a turbo-4 based car,  V6's age much better and are pretty smooth in their old age. To me if there's not a V6 or 8 under the hood, it's not luxury.

I'm not impressed by the improvements in engine technology over the past 20 years. It's interesting to compare a 93 Seville and 15 XTS! Both in terms of fuel economy and emissions the improvement in 22 years (!!!) is anything but impressive, especially considering the XTS has 2 fewer cylinders and 1 liter less displacement.

[bill06447]

These cars are rust-prone around here. Ten years ago I could buy all I wanted for a grand or less. Inside the trunks, especially up by the wheel tub, and the rear door hinge pillars. Then there are the cars with the rust under the vinyl tops. Never an especially popular body style so I would pass on most. Not many of this vintage Town Car on the road any more either, come to think of it.

Bill

[Scot Minesinger]

64caddielacky,

I'm a huge fat ass and my wife's 300 does have hard seats.  They seem like they would be uncomfortable, but actually they are not too bad.  The seats these days are not that comfortable. 

My Crown Vic Police Interceptor is the car to drive on a long trip.  Terrific handling and braking with a firm ride, but super comfortable seats.


All,

On the mileage, my 1985 Caprice when it had 250k miles on it with 305 V-8 got 27 mpg at 75mph with a/c on.  Then the Cadillac Fleetwood RWD got about 24 mpg, but it was more powerful and way cooler.  My 2006 Doge gets 23 mpg, and it is nice but rather have the Caddy back.  My wife's 2014 300 w/hemi (same engine as Dodge) gets about 23 mpg too.  The Chevy had a 26 gallon tank and I could drive 550 miles to my parents on a single tank of gas.  Any improvement? - no.

[Big Apple Caddy]

The Chrysler 300 is a great car, with a great ride, so that's an exception, it's still not a true full sizer though.

The Chrysler 300 is classified as a "large" car and has only three fewer cubic feet of passenger volume (~106 versus ~109) than a late 1970s Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham sedan.

[Big Apple Caddy]

I'm not impressed by the improvements in engine technology over the past 20 years. It's interesting to compare a 93 Seville and 15 XTS! Both in terms of fuel economy and emissions the improvement in 22 years (!!!) is anything but impressive, especially considering the XTS has 2 fewer cylinders and 1 liter less displacement.

The 2015 XTS has more horsepower (on regular gasoline) than the 1993 Seville STS (on premium) and is rated 20% higher city mpg and 22% higher highway mpg.

[57eldoking]

The 2015 XTS has more horsepower (on regular gasoline) than the 1993 Seville STS (on premium) and is rated 20% higher city mpg and 22% higher highway mpg.

Comparing a 2015 V6 to a 23 year older V8 I would say those figures are quite astonishing! I've owned 4 Sevilles 93-97 and have always ran them on regular gas, never had a problem. In fact I can't tell the difference from running premium vs regular both with respect to fuel mileage and performance.

Since Cadillac didn't make a V6 sedan in 93 the Oldsmobile 98 would be a better comparison to the XTS. A 12% improvement highway mpg and 6% city mpg in 22 years of development is terrible. Only horsepower which is up by about 50% has seen a substantial improvement. The internal combustion engine is running out of areas of improvement.

[Big Apple Caddy]

I've owned 4 Sevilles 93-97 and have always ran them on regular gas, never had a problem. In fact I can't tell the difference from running premium vs regular both with respect to fuel mileage and performance.

While you can run a "premium gas" car on regular, it certainly can effect horsepower/performance and fuel economy and potentially cause engine damage (piston, rings, etc.) long-term.

Since Cadillac didn't make a V6 sedan in 93 the Oldsmobile 98 would be a better comparison to the XTS. A 12% improvement highway mpg and 6% city mpg in 22 years of development is terrible. Only horsepower which is up by about 50% has seen a substantial improvement. The internal combustion engine is running out of areas of improvement.

The 1993 Oldsmobile 98 you referenced only has 170 horsepower compared to 304 for the XTS.  The XTS offers nearly 80% more horsepower while still getting better fuel economy.

A 2016 Cadillac CTS with 3.6 L non-turbo is nearly twice the horsepower of that 1993 Olds 98 and gets 18% better city mpg and 20% better highway mpg.

A 2016 Cadillac CTS with 3.6 L turbo has more than twice the horsepower of the 1993 Olds 98 with supercharged V6 (both on premium) yet still gets basically the same fuel economy.  I'd compare against the XTS with 3.6 L turbo too but that adds AWD.

A 2016 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid has 11% more horsepower than the non-supercharged 1993 Olds 98 and is rated 141% better city mpg and 56% better highway mpg.

[57eldoking]

Well in 700.000 miles of driving those cars on regular gas neither one gave me a mechanical engine issue. So the probability of that happening must be extremely low.

The 1993 98 was available as a Touring Sedan with a 205 hp version of the 3800 V6, fuel mileage was the same. The 304 HP XTS is thus 48% more powerful.

The CTS belongs to a smaller vehicle class, the correct sized vehicle for this comparison is the XTS. If you want to compare the CTS then compare it to the Cutlass Ciera, again very unimpressive figures.



The MKZ Hybrid has a small 4 cylinder engine coupled with a battery pack and electric motor. How is that relevant to a discussion on internal combustion engine technology today vs 23 years ago? Let's bring in the Tesla Model S too if that's the case. At 99MPG city and 106 MPG hwy with 417 HP it destroys all other cars in terms of efficiency. Not very relevant when comparing internal combustion engine technology though...

[Big Apple Caddy]

Well in 700.000 miles of driving those cars on regular gas neither one gave me a mechanical engine issue. So the probability of that happening must be extremely low.

Not extremely low, no.  Diminished performance and fuel economy are bigger factors, though.

The 1993 98 was available as a Touring Sedan with a 205 hp version of the 3800 V6, fuel mileage was the same. The 304 HP XTS is thus 48% more powerful.

As I stated in my previous post, the XTS with V6 turbo is mated to AWD while the 98 was only FWD but if you want to continue this silly game and compare the two turbo/supercharged versions........the XTS with V6 turbo and AWD has twice the horsepower of the supercharged 1993 98 (both on premium) while getting similar mpg rating.

Gee, let's have more "fun":
The 2015 Chrysler 300 with V6 has 72% more horsepower than the 1993 Olds 98 (both on regular) yet gets 12 % better city mpg and 24% better highway mpg.

The 2015 Lincoln MKS with V6 has 79% more horsepower than the 1993 Olds 98 (both on regular) yet gets 12% better city and highway mpg.