Mini D....did you even read my post?
My Cadillac looked sort of similar to the one Grun pictured (thanks Grun, beautiful car), except mine was blue, had canvas instead of vinyl roofing, and didn't have fender skirts. IMO it is the most beautiful car built in the 1980's. You'd have to see it in person in good shape to really appreciate it. The Coupe DeVille was even more beautiful, I always regretted buying the Sedan instead of the Coupe.
Mini D...you are so badly mistaken. You are a pefect example of what I mean by having perceptions that aren't accurate. Please read this with an open mind, and accept the truth that you are mistaken. I don't hold it against you; the incorrect beliefs like you hold are pretty widespread. I literally run into it EVEY day, especially now that I own the Buick (which I admit is a large car, but it is definately not slow).
YES, I was comparing the '90 Cadillac (like the one pictured) to the NEW, SMALL, LIGHT, Front-Drive Impala. NOT the '94-96 one. I drive a '95 ROADMASTER now, which is virtually the same thing as the '94-'96 Impala--so believe me, I know the difference. My BUICK is FAR heavier and more massive than the Cadillac was.
The '90 Cadillac Sedan Deville--the car pictured in Grun's post--weighed LESS than the NEW 2004 Impala sedan. That's right, LESS, by about 150 pounds. Compare it to the older Impala, and it's more like 800 pounds lighter.
Seriously guys, look it up yourself. I'm not making it up. The Sedan weighed 3400 and some change. If you take a Coupe DeVille, it was even lighter, about 3250.
How is a 3400 pound car a "land yacht"? That is a pretty average weight...barely more than a Taurus. A Toyota Camry--a CAMRY--weighs about 3150 pounds, or only about 300 pounds less than the Cadillac pictured above. Is a Camry also a barge?
IT IS NOT A BARGE. Unless, that is, you also consider a Ford Taurus a barge too.
Guess what guys. You know that Lexus that Grun posted? That Weighs MORE than the Cadillac. That's right, MORE. In fact, about 200 pounds more, it is over 3600 pounds curb weight. Is a LEXUS LS 400 a stupid slow land barge? By your definition it must be! Obviously it isn't, and neither is the Cadillac.
The Cadillac handled pretty good; as good as you'd expect a 3400 pound front-drive car to handle. It was not underpowered by any stretch of the imagination. Nobody complains about the handling of a Camry or Taurus or Front-drive Impala, so what is wrong with the Caddy? The Cadillac handled as good as those other sedans (I know, I drove a Taurus an awful lot since I trained on one in police academy), and has a better ride too.
Yes in 1990 the 4.5 litre V-8 made 180 peak horsepower. That isn't the whole story though; it made 240 lbs torque so it had reasonably good performance for that era. 1/4 mile time was in the mid 16's....nothing special, but not horrible, and again--respectable for that era. Remember this is the late '80's, before horsepower ratings started to climb again. The Lexus LS 400, despite having a higher peak horsepower, was only about .5 second better in the 1/4, or about 16 flat so it wasn't exactly blindingly fast either. This is why I called the '91 car better, the 4.5 engine was replaced with a 4.9 that got 20 more horsepower across the entire power curve with no loss of fuel mileage.
Peak horsepower looks good for advertising, but it doesn't always tell the whole story. My Roadmaster can easily smoke that Lexus despite only having 10 more peak horsepower and weighing 500 pounds more.
Grun, you're horribly wrong about the gas mileage. HOW, HOW can a person be so wrong and not realize it? Where did you come up with "11 mpg"? Who told you that line of BS? In 6 years of owning the car, I averaged about 21 MPG overall. It did not get bad gas mileage by any means. The Cadillac got BETTER gas mileage than my wife's V-6 Lincoln Continental, and probably got equal mileage of that Lexus.
Grunherz, how was the '90 Caddy unsuccessful? It outsold that "successful" Lexus by a wide margin. Does that surprise you? In 1990 Cadillac was still enjoying more than 40 years of luxury-sales dominance. They didn't really slip until after 1994, which is AFTER they replaced the popular, sensible midweight cars with bloated behemoths. It was a stupid move and they paid for it.
Guys, seriously, I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air. Look at what I said, look up the facts yourself on the internet if you don't believe me, and re-evaluate your perceptions about that 1990 Cadillac.
If the formal styling isn't your taste, that's one thing....I don't expect everyone to like it. But please at least throw away the misconceptions. I swear that a LOT of people would re-consider the traditional american car if they could only shake the misconceptions.
J_A_B
