22nd May 2013, 23:19
"I don't get tossed around or slide from side to side like I do in my Townie."
Were you driving through a tornado? The Town Car weighs less than the Brougham, but it's still a tank.
24th May 2013, 06:25
Haha, no! The Town Car had a much softer, "floaty" suspension compared to the Fleetwood, and yes it tossed me around because of it. Even after replacing the shocks and springs, the culprit? Very thin sway bars that were geared towards comfort, rather than handling.
The 90's TC might be big, but it's no way a "tank" per se when going up against the much heavier 93-96 Fleetwoods. You can easily feel the difference going from one car to the other. While the TC feels very light on its feet, having light weight doors, and a trunk lid, the Caddy Fleetwood feels like a 70's Cadillac, bank vault status. The doors are very heavy (the front doors mainly), step inside and take it for a drive and you feel better planted to the road, it's quieter to drive from the extra weight and sound insulation, and its ability to absorb potholes and rough patches of pavement is much more noticeable too.
But I found out the only other modern car that I have driven that beats both the Town Car and my Fleetwood on driving comfort and ride harshness, is surprisingly the 2012 Chrysler 300. Now that is one great car that still rides like a boulevard cruiser of the past. I loved it.
25th May 2013, 12:38
I find that very hard to believe that the 300 rides more smoothly than a 90s full-size anything. For decades now Detroit has shunned that famous "Detroit Magic" big car ride. I might have to take one for a test drive some time. I am not a fan of Chrysler, and have never cared for the looks of the 300, but if it truly rides that smooth, that just might be my next car.
The closest I have come to that boulevard ride of the past was my 2005 Park Avenue, and I have regretted trading it every day for over 2 years now. It rode somewhat softer than my grandparents '99 Town Car, but I once drove a mid-90s Park Avenue that was a lot softer than both, but probably needed new shocks. Personally though, I like that floaty ride. Too bad that Detroit seems to think it needs to mimic Japan and Europe now, and make everything feel and look like a sportster.
13th Apr 2015, 03:29
I too prefer the 1993 models because of the traditional 350 engine. Less to go wrong with them and cheaper to fix/get parts for than the more advanced LT1 engines, despite their better power. You get the "Optispark blues" with an LT1, you'll curse the day it was made. The L05 Chevy 350 definitely isn't as quick, but it's a reliable, tough, no-nonsense motor that won't let you down.
I guess the only problem with these cars at the time was that they just didn't really improve on anything over the 1992 Brougham with a 350. Just a new style and smoother ride (the 350 equipped Broughams did not ride too well in comparison). While the Town Car was sort of guilty of this too in 1990, they at least added several new major features that year (the air suspension was a big deal then). The 1993 Fleetwood in comparison, while a great car in every respect, was just a re-skinned 1992 Brougham with a softer suspension and now standard 350. I think that explains the poor sales for this car, especially in comparison to Lincoln's Town Car.
Was a great car; just too little, too late for GM (especially the "too late" part).
15th Apr 2015, 23:31
The Fleetwood was a very BIG car; almost as big as the largest cars from the 70s. I think by the mid-90s, unfortunately most of America was tired of the true land barges. If you compare the sales of the less costly and smaller DeVille of this time, it paints a more accurate picture of the brand popularity. The Fleetwood was never intended as a volume seller like the Town Car and DeVille were.
21st Apr 2015, 10:10
I think the 93-96 Fleetwoods were more than just reskinned Broughams. They had features that weren't available on the Brougham, including: retained accessory power, heated front seats with 3 stage lumbar, rear heat ducts, rear power door lock switch, one touch climate control, fluid monitors, oil life indicator, air bags, traction control, battery drain protection, rear vanity mirrors, rear center cup holders, door ajar indicator, pass key security, and a kickin' 6 speaker stereo with programmable 5 band equalizer.
27th Apr 2015, 01:21
True that there were some introductions of new options and features. But then again, if they wanted to, they could've added all that had they chosen to continue the Brougham much longer. No doubt the 1993 Fleetwood has some new stuff over the Brougham, but under the skin, it's pretty much the same car.
27th Apr 2015, 07:22
The 93-96 Fleetwoods were also a little bigger inside compared to the Broughams of previous years, due to the Fleetwood's wider rounder body style and increased length. I mean a fully loaded 93-96 Fleetwood Bro had all the accessories and luxury features one could ever ask for in the 90s.
One issue that I have with these particular years are the plain interiors and lack of any chrome or high quality materials. The car feels very solid, but the materials inside are just "Whatevers".
Once Cadillac went into the new modern era of design, it removed a lot of what made their older cars so great, classy, comfortable, with chrome laden lavish interiors. You can say the same thing about the Devilles after the 92 model year; everything felt cheaper, thinner, and plainer inside.
Plus the 93-96 Fleetwoods ride much stiffer than the older Broughams; part of this reason was because they weighed more, and Cadillac decided to increase the handling characteristics of the car by adding larger sway bars to the front and rear of the Cad to prevent body roll and a "boat like" ride. All this did was it limited the suspension travel on the car, which then caused a harsher ride.
I know because I have driven both my 94 Fleetwood and an 89 Brougham. The 89 feels much softer and is more comfortable to drive than my Fleetwood. But if you look underneath both models, the 94 has thicker sway bars compared to the 89, and I believe the spring rate was stiffened up too in 93.
Very un-Cadillacish if you ask me. I wanna float and cruise in snuggled softness, not feel every damn bump in the road. The removal of the sway bars or downsizing the sway bars is the only thing that will help improve the ride comfort in my experience.
29th Apr 2015, 14:56
I think they beefed up the suspension on all 93-96 Fleetwoods so they can have better towing characteristics. All Fleetwoods (even the base with it's 2.56:1 axle) had a minimum tow rating of 2000 lbs. My 93 base has superb ride quality with Hankook Mileage Plus II tires. They are hard to find these days however.
21st May 2011, 03:39
I am the original owner here. After about 2 years of ownership, the Caddy has treated me well. I replaced the water pump, did a full tune up, got all new tires, new shocks front and rear. I did some exterior work, new vinyl top, detailed the car, and general maintenance has keep my Fleetwood looking and driving great. There's never a day that goes by where I don't look forward to driving my Cad. I have gotten so many thumbs up, people asking me if I would ever sell it. You feel very powerful and well respected in a car like this. Nothing else on the road today can compare to it. All the real chrome, the size, its presence is unmatched. Even new Lexus's and full size BMW's can't compare to the Fleetwood's size.
I have been in a new CTS, and sure it's a super modern and sleek looking car. It really doesn't feel like a Cadillac though. The interior materials in CTS are subpar, and too much cheap plastic is present in it. At least in my Fleetwood, the leather door panel is padded, and the trim doesn't feel so plasticky, since it's all vinyl.
I will never sell my car, it's too rare of a Cad to find again in such good shape. The MPGs are not too bad, and this car is perfect as a daily driver; that's why in a sense, it's a 70's Caddy with modern components. It's a perfect combination.