12th Jan 2004, 13:36

Well, using that reasoning, ANY car could be called sexy if someone likes the way it looks. My 1978 Checker Marathon: not fast, but dang, it sure is sexy! Big chrome grille, giant fenders and all!

24th Feb 2004, 13:28

>> A '78 Cadillac "fast" and "sexy"? On what planet?? <<

A. On THIS planet!

Since this survey is to be filled out by people who own, or have owned the particular vehicle in question, I would recommend that people NOT make ridiculous comments about cars that they have never ACTUALLY OWNED.

That said, as a former owner of one of these, I agree that this vehicle is fast and powerful (it's got a 425 CID engine).

As far as sexy, I guess that would depend on the color. Mine was red (very sexy). They look very nice in black, as well.

The only reason I do not still own this vehicle, is the high gas consumption.

3rd Mar 2004, 09:04

The writer of the previous comment needs to follow his own "recommendation" about not making ridiculous comments.

You don't need to have owned a particular car to have an opinion on whether it is "sexy" or not, subjective as that decision may be.

And anyone can leave comments here, not just owners or "former owners" of the model being reviewed.

And as far as a '78 Brougham being "fast and powerful" because "it has a 425 CID engine"-it also has a curb weight of 4314 pounds to push around, so with 180 hp it has a power to weight ratio about the same as a '78 Pinto with a V6.

13th Mar 2005, 00:15

Car & Driver magazine (June, 1978) tested a '78 Coupe de Ville. With a curb weight of 4,270 lbs, they got 0-60 mph in 10.6 seconds, 0-80 mph in 18.5 and a 18.2 sec @ 78.8 mph 1/4 mile time.

These time would probably easily beat a '78 V-6 Pinto.

21st Apr 2005, 09:29

Wow, an 18.2 sec 1/4 mile...gee, I guess it really is fast...

4th Mar 2013, 17:49

The car wasn't that fast. Hell, I don't even know why they dropped a big 425 CID V8 into it when it was just so underpowered. A smaller V8 would have been even slower, but much more efficient. The 425 produced borderline small-block power, but got big-block fuel economy.

Personally, I think Cadillac should have introduced a smaller V8 engine (within 307-368 cu in) for 1977, and just kept it until 1982 (when the Olds 307 could just kick in instead of that crappy HT-4100). I mean I like big-blocks as much as the next guy, but the 425 was gutless for its immense size, thanks to all that emissions junk.

14th Mar 2013, 21:19

I test drove a 79 Deville about 5 years ago. It was in nearly mint condition with only 48,000 miles on it. That 425 wasn't underpowered at all. The torque was incredible. The thing went from 60-85 in the blink of an eye it seemed; and did so without growling or becoming raucous like small blocks do. It was a very graceful and quiet performing car. Not underpowered for the era at all. A late 70's Trans Am has similar power and torque ratings from its Olds 403 V8.

15th Mar 2013, 09:46

The engine was somewhat underpowered for its size. You wouldn't notice it as much because the 1978 Cadillacs were so small compared to the larger Lincolns and Chryslers of the same year. The 320 lb-ft of torque the 425 put out was only a microscopic improvement over Ford's smaller 400 cid V8, which was slow off the line behind the big cars.

Believe me, if Cadillac had kept the big bodies through 1978, the 425 would be quite slow when powering those.

15th Sep 2014, 17:28

Drive a 1977-1982 Full size Chevy, Oldsmobile, Pontiac or Buick with one of these anemic 2-barrel carburetor engines: Chevy 3.8 V6 (229), Buick 3.8 V6 (231), Oldsmobile 4.3 V8 (260), Chevy 4.4 V8 (267), or Pontiac 4.3 V8 (265).

Then we'll talk about what slow really is.

17th Sep 2014, 00:03

The issue was whether the Caddy was "fast" simply by virtue of having a 425 CID engine (it wasn't).

Obviously, a full-sized car equipped with a V6 (or undersized V8) engine is going to be slow, but what does that have to do with anything?

18th Sep 2014, 12:31

There was a day in the early 50s that hot riders sought out the Cadillac motors. They were the high performance engine of the day in America.

18th Sep 2014, 22:36

They went from hot rod engines in the 1930s to 1950s; to gutless, troublesome boat anchors in the 1980s. It's sad that they resorted to Chevy and Oldsmobile engines under to the hood in order to find something that runs decent and goes down the road.

And then in the 1990s, the Northstar oil guzzler debuted, another product they tried to ignore the warranty on and wouldn't stand behind. Shows what they thought of their customers.

The "because we're big" and "because we can" attitude is what led GM to bankruptcy once and Chrysler twice.

It's no wonder so many traditional buyers turned to Honda and Toyota in the 1990s.

19th Sep 2014, 02:58

Slow, yes. But the reliability on most of those engines made up for it.

19th Sep 2014, 12:01

There were a lot of "hot riders" in the early '50s -- very few cars had air conditioners back then.

19th Sep 2014, 14:44

How about a new 638 HP manual trans new Cadillac? Corvette LS motor. Plus did anyone consider the big Cadillac motors being bashed could run at sustained high speeds for hours? I had 2 Mercedes that loved running at twice the national limit. Off the line they were heavy and slow. On an open road or Autobahn driving I have owned slow 1/4 mile cars, but they love stretching their legs.

Heavy luxury cars are typically bought for comfort, whisper quiet and cold air. Not drag strips. Check out the track statistics on late model Cadillac wagons with high HP. Pretty great family cars for the boomers. If you want to drag race the 1/4 mile, pick up a used Fox Body Mustang cheap. This is a luxury car.

19th Sep 2014, 21:24

The 4.5 - 4.9 V8s from the late 80s - early 90s weren't bad engines. They had much better performance and reliability than the prior HT 4100, and better reliability than the oil burning inferno Northstar that came after.