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

Re: Cadillac Brougham - how much better is the 5.7?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.