Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Cadillac Brougham - how much better is the 5.7?

Expand Messages
  • electrola.geo
    Ever since the 1980s I ve thought the Cadillac Brougham of the early 1980s - 1992 was the King of the Cadillacs in recent years. I think they really hit on a
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Ever since the 1980s I've thought the Cadillac Brougham of the early
      1980s - 1992 was the King of the Cadillacs in recent years. I think
      they really hit on a great style with that design, though some have
      kidded me for liking those "fogeymobiles." I have two of them; a
      1989 that I've had for 9 years, and a 1988 that I found with only
      46,000 miles on it that I've had for 3 years that looks almost new.
      I like them, but unfortunately, both of these cars drive like they've
      got an extra 3000 pounds of weight on them. They just don't get
      moving the way I'd like them to. I don't like some of the later
      styling that showed up on the early 1990s models, but Cadillac did
      offer them with a choice of 5.0 and 5.7 liter fuel-injected engines.
      I've never driven one of these. Is there a significant difference?
      How much better do these cars perform? I'm thinking about buying a
      cheap one to try it out. There are plenty of these around here in
      Minnesota now that have attained "winter beater" status. Does anyone
      have any comments?

      Thanks,
      Jeff in Minneapolis
    • team_pms
      Jeff, I never had a 5.0 or the 5.7 . However, I did have an 83 Sedan and 86 Sedan, (Baby cadi w/ the 4500) and I can honestly say the 86 was leaps and
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 8, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeff,

        I never had a "5.0" or the "5.7". However, I did have an 83 Sedan
        and 86 Sedan, (Baby cadi w/ the 4500) and I can honestly say the 86
        was leaps and bounds a stronger. Presently I have an 85 Seville de
        Elegance with the old 4100. Essh, that mill is just as soggy as the
        83's. Of all my favorite toys, which included a 70 Sedan, 72 Sedan,
        76 Eldo, 77 Coupe, 85 Eldo and the aforementioned above...my 77 with
        a 425 was my all time best.

        I'm no expert, just an enthusiast. In my opinion the 4100 was 2nd
        worse mill next that 4-6-8 crap they through at us. Nevertheless,
        they are so cheap to buy at the present time, I don't mind melting
        one every once in a while. (grin)

        PS. Don't get me started on that dressed up Chevy Caviler Cadi
        either.8>P

        BTW If you through 6000 lbs, let alone 3000 lbs in the trunk of my
        70, it still would pull the 4100 through a 1/4 mile.

        Anyway, good luck on your search.
      • electrola.geo
        It turns out I get to answer my own question, because I found a 92 Brougham with a 5.7 liter FI engine today, and test-drove it. It was a somewhat junky one,
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 9, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          It turns out I get to answer my own question, because I found a '92
          Brougham with a 5.7 liter FI engine today, and test-drove it. It was
          a somewhat junky one, but it really hauled! It had far better
          performance than either of my 5.0 liter carbureted ones. The
          speedometer didn't work, the power antenna was broken off below the
          surface, the radiator leaked, the rear shocks were gone (actually
          missing!) and a bunch of other minor things plus rust that's probably
          beyond the point of stopping. It wasn't a total wreck...I may go
          back for it as a beater vehicle for this winter.

          Jeff in Minneapolis

          --- In cadillacclub@y..., "electrola.geo" <electrola@a...> wrote:
          >I don't like some of the later
          > styling that showed up on the early 1990s models, but Cadillac did
          > offer them with a choice of 5.0 and 5.7 liter fuel-injected
          engines.
          > I've never driven one of these. Is there a significant
          difference?
          > How much better do these cars perform? I'm thinking about buying a
          > cheap one to try it out. There are plenty of these around here in
          > Minnesota now that have attained "winter beater" status. Does
          anyone
          > have any comments?
          >
          > Thanks,
          > Jeff in Minneapolis
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.