Cadillac Brougham - how much better is the 5.7?
- 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?
Jeff in Minneapolis
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
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.
- 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
> I've never driven one of these. Is there a significant
> 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
> have any comments?
> Jeff in Minneapolis