Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on October 06, 2004, 01:43:47 PM
-
sign up now but... be warned The Lingenfelter 510 HP 6 speed option will add $25K to the cost of your standard CTS-V....
still..... 0-60 in 4.0
lazs
-
who is Lingenfelter and why do i want his car?
-
John Lingenfelter was the founder of Lingenfelter performance. They are a company that works with the auto manufacturer to turn out new, factory warrantied vehicles with er... "performance enhancements"
why do you want one? 510 HP and a 6 speed and 4.0 second 0-60 times and because.... you are not an apartment dwelling, womanly kerrie voter. that's why.
lazs
-
If it's a modern Cadillac, did he somehow also make it less hideous-looking?
I fully expect Cadillac to be the next nametag that disappears from the GM lineup (having killed Oldsmobile) unless big changes are made. Cadillacs have lost any sense of identity and are little more than hideous Mercedes wanna-be's. This comming from a guy who was very happy with his 1990 Cadillac. Buick isn't looking too healthy either, what with the average Buick buyer being about 6 days older than dirt.
J_A_B
-
LOL JAB thank god that you have nothing to do with the car business.
Cadillac is doing great for GM - it has finally broght back American luxury cars to a world class after decades of mediocrity.... And no world class does not mean 500lbs of chrome, boat like handling, bad quality, FWD, huge overweight cars, whitewalls and that other outdated nonsense...
Man if it was up to you they would still be producung the clunkers of the late 1980s..
And yiu dont even get it, one one hand you call for outdated old man cars with chrome bumperrs and whael like handling then you bash Buick for having customers who are too old..
SAme with your call for TVs built into wood cabinets.
:rofl
Sorry to jump all over your style preferences but you are just so incredibly wrong....
-
New mustang, Ininiti G35, Nissan 300Z convertible. Or the ultimate car, Porsche.
But Im saving for a truck. Z71, F1500 something like that to haul my stuff when I need to.
:D
I used to have an oldsmobile, it was built like a tank.
;)
-
Originally posted by senna
But Im saving for a truck. Z71, F1500 something like that
you deserve no truck for mentioning the Z71 and the "other" vehicle int he same sentence...
You should actually be banished to the 8th ring of hell for something of that magnitude...
-
STS is a hot rod, right out of the box. My Dad even bought one. His other cars are a 55 T-bird, various Vettes and an old Rolls ( and Ford pickups!). He is an old school hot-rodder, '58 Mercury's and '64 Belairs among them. I can only imagine what Ligenfelter can do with an STS.
-
I need a truck but have been told they are gas guzzlers compared to your aaverage car. Thats the only drawback. Im open to suggestions on the model etc... Dont need 4x4, just some cab room, four door truck and standard bed. Not planning to raise it either.
-
Not sure if I want all of the options. Just air conditioning, power windos/locks. Keep it simple.
-
F-150 crew cab is all you need, get the small motor and a manual shift, and you are GTG.
-
Grun, from what you describe, I don't think you even know what you're talking about. I run into so many people like you, who talk about things they know nothing about.
I drove a 1990 Cadillac Sedan Deville for 6 years so I am intimately familiar with Cadillacs of the late '80's. Have you driven one for 6 years on a daily basis? Have you ever driven any Cadillac ever?
My Cadillac was the most beautiful car to come out of the '80's. It had chrome bumpers, a canvas-covered roof, two-tone blue/gray paintjob, whitewalls, skinny pseudo-fin taillight housings, and overall was an extremely attractive and stately automobile. No modern car can match that look. My Roadmaster (generally a superior vehicle) looks like a beached whale by comparison.
Far from being heavy, its curb weight was just over 3400 pounds. Huge? Overweight? Dude, you're clueless.
Far from handling badly, it would out-handle any Honda or Toyota from that same era. Its steering had no play and was feather light; I could maneuver it around a tight parking lot with ease using just my pinky finger with absolute precision. It was front-drive so it drove like a snowmobile in bad weather. I used to drive through 2-3 foot snowdrifts at 50-60 MPH just for fun. Try that in your beloved Honda and you wouldn't stay on the road.
The 1990 had a 273 V-8 which gave it a mid 16 second 1/4mile time; not bad for that era. '91 to '93 had a 300 cid V-8 which supposedly dropped that by about another second. My car always got over 20 MPG and I drove it commuting in a city.
Far from being a clunker, I mistreated it like you wouldn't believe and it always took the pounding. I even used it as a tractor for pulling out tree stumps. I drove it through creeks. I pushed other cars with it and got hit several times and the bumpers never had so much as a scratch. I changed the oil maybe once every 20K miles and it barely used any. Once when I got stuck I used my father-in-law's winch truck to pull it out....attached a J-hook to the bumper to pull it. Try THAT with your Honda and you'll tear the car in half.
Its back seat had more space than most car's front seats. Of all the cars I've ever driven it had the most comfortable interior...it fit me like a glove. As far as I'm concerned, its interior was perfection.
And for durability....when a Honda Accord pulled out in front of me last January, there was no avoiding the colision. After the wreck, the Cadillac would still start and could still move under its own power even with the right front tire ripped apart and the wheel was just hanging. Both headlghts still worked despite one being all cracked to heck. As for the Honda? It lost the entire front end; tires, engine parts, radiator, everything was strewn around the road. I completely ripped his front end off--I went through him like a knife through butter; my car didn't change course at all. It wasn't even much of a jolt. My nice thick slab steel bumper did its job and was still intact--abeit bent up--on the front of my car. If the guy in the Honda was 4 feet farther foreward, he'd be dead.
The only downside to that car was its rear visability was sort of limited (the back window was only 4 inches wide on the inside)...but that's why God invented bumpers that actually work.
Sorry, Grun, but in this case you're completely wrong. The late '80's Cadillac was a superb car--and was the best selling luxury car in the US--which you might want to note, the current overpriced ugly Cadillacs are NOT.
The Northstar engine is pretty nice though. I would have almost killed to have one of those in my '90 (the torque steer would have been awful though).
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Lizking
F-150 crew cab is all you need, get the small motor and a manual shift, and you are GTG.
I was looking at the Ford as well. Just didnt list every model.
-
Get the V8 with auto, it's a no brainer, Liz i'm shocked.
-
He said Gas Mileage. At this time, I am without a Ford truck for the first time in 20+ years. I couldn't afford the V8 truck's gas, and couldn't live with the little motor, so I have a snappy 4 cly Mazda.
I miss my trucks.
-
But before you start calling me a Ricer, My wife still drives her Expedition.
-
You can get 500+ hp out of the LS6 that powers the CTS-V for a whole bunch less than $25k.......................
-
Originally posted by Lizking
But before you start calling me a Ricer, My wife still drives her Expedition.
Then I take it that she will have no trouble picking up that 3 foot tall wing for you at the local ricer shop? ;)
-
Originally posted by Lizking
He said Gas Mileage. At this time, I am without a Ford truck for the first time in 20+ years. I couldn't afford the V8 truck's gas, and couldn't live with the little motor, so I have a snappy 4 cly Mazda.
I miss my trucks.
How new is that Mazda?.....if it a newer one it justa Ford Ranger with different badges and front end bodywork.
So you are still driving a ford LOL.
-
Drop the tailgate on that Mazda and she'll get near 90 mph.
-
Upon more thought Grunherz, I can think of a car that matches what you describe. But it isn't a Cadillac, and it isn't from the late '80's.
I learned to drive on a 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass Cruiser (my aunt's car). Now THAT was one horrible car.
It had one of those V-8's that made about 140 HP and got about 15 MPG while doing it. It didn't even sound nice. In fact it sounded sort of like a steam engine when you accelerated...CHUGGA CHGGA CHUGGA CHUGGA. It sounded ready to explode at 60 MPH. It also left a nice wispy blue cloud behind it wherever you went even when it was new.
It was insanely overweight. I don't know the curb weight, but it had to be well over 5,000 pounds. With that much weight and an underpowered (yet oh-so-thirsty) engine, 0-60 times were slower than most new cars 1/4 mile times. Actually I wouldn't be surpised if ITS 0-60 was slower than its 1/4.
For some reason it had "sport" wheels with no hubcaps. Pointless, and good at attracting rust at the same time. Most everything on that car was good at attracting rust. My aunt kept it until the bumper rusted so much that the tail lights fell completely out. She always got an undercoating (remember those?) but it didn't help much. We used to joke that if the car broke down you could punch your foot though the rickety floor and drive it like the flintstones car.
Steering was somewhere between "vague" and "pray". I kid you not when I say I could turn the wheel 30 degrees and have no change in the car's direction. I hated going more than 35 MPH in that thing becase keeping it on the road was an adventure. There was a picture of Christ wedged in the dash, and in this car's case I was glad it was there because I needed all the help I could get.
Handling....well...there basically wasn't any. Its turning radius was only slightly smaller than the QE2's, it was basically immobile in any sort of snow or slush even with snow tires (the only time it could spin the tires), and parking usually meant finding a part of the lot where there weren't any other cars. The ride floated enough to make some people sea-sick even if you were going 30 MPH on a smooth road.
It had a heater. I know this because it had a little knob on the dash that said "heat". Of course "heat" in this case was air which was only slightly less cold than the freezing air outside...even after we replaced the heater core. Windows were usually kept clear by using a paper towel which was kept on the dash for this purpose. Oddly, we accidentally ran it one winter with an empty radiator--bone dry--and it never gave any indication that something was amiss, except the "heater" blew slightly colder air.
So yes Grun, I know what you're talking about when you talk about horrible junky vehicles. What a lot of people do NOT realize is that eventually automakers got it right with large cars. My Roadmaster is such a far cry from those junk heaps it isn't even funny. It has nice acceleration, good steering with no play, an even ride without too much body lean, and even corners decently. My Cadillac handled bette still. Unfortunately, by that time public perception was unchangeable, and so the big cars gradually disappeared because people wouldn't buy them due to perceptions which were no longer valid. Oddly enough, people switched from "junky and uncool" large cars to buying SUV's....which, while offering a "cool factor", are generally larger and more ponderous than the vehicles they replaced.
The new Cadillacs are ugly, and why buy one when you can just buy a Mercedes instead if that's the sort of car you want. Why buy an imitation when you can get the real thing.
As an FYI grun, from the '93 to the '94 model year, the Cadillac DeVille gained about 500 pounds, somehow lost space on the inside, and IMO took a big step backwards (it has taken a step back in sales for sure). Hence why I dislike the newer models.
J_A_B
-
It is a Mazda CAR, a 6. I like it, but it is not built very well. I have put 20,000 on it in 9 months and do not see keeping it past 40,000.
By comparison, among 4 Broncos that I owned, they shared around 700,000 miles, and all were sold to be driven as daily drivers. My various (company) F-150's generally were replaced at 120,000, looking brand new with the exception of the bed. I hauled 1000-3000# almost daily, so it was always scratched up, and the yard guys usually managed to ding my tailgate when the truck still smelled new.
-
JAB like I said yiou can have your style preferences, fake cloth horse and buggy roofs but I'm glad you are not designing cars today.
As for Cadillac, today its withing 1% of sales of Mercedes so the new models have repaired the damage done in the past 15 years. 15 years of cars designed for old people, pewople who like chrome, whitewalls, and fake cloth roofs. Thats what old cars were, and thats why they lost the sales.
But again Im sorry to make fun of your style. Really, somehow the way you say "nice" I can see that you mean it with your heart and in a good way. And when it comes to style I definitely agree to a great extent about your dislike of plastic as a replacement for wood or metals, but I also see there are solid and beneficial reasons for that.
Still I'm happy that youi are not designing cars simply beacuse those damn Crown Vics or Bonneveiles that you touted so much are pretty awful cars and they are the reason American automakers have pretty much given up the passenger car market to the Japanese and Europeans....
So I guess we disagree what our dream cars are.
For me, I'd love to have the new 500hp V10 powered BMW M5.
What would yours be?
-
Wow jab... I can't help but think you're operating off of an incredibly selective memory.
77 Cutlas Supreme, V8 (305) with a 4 brl. It handled a bit soft but had plenty of get up and go. The car lasted 11 years and had 200,000 miles on it when we traded it in on a 88 Cadillac SeVille.
The SeVille lasted for 6 agonizing years. It was a front wheel drive transversely mounted V8. It was by far and away the biggest piece of **** I've ever driven. It handled like crap, but did have a smooth ride.
If I had to go back and choose, it would be no contest. The olds would win.
Amazing just how different perspective can be.
-
I had a '72 Olds Cutlass Supreme with a 350 and 4brl. I think that was my favorite of all the cars I've owned.
-
"Wow jab... I can't help but think you're operating off of an incredibly selective memory. "
Nope, I tell it like it is. Mini D, I'm awfully glad for you if your Olds wasn't a complete piece of trash like the one I drove was. Perhaps the fact that it was a station wagon had something to do with it, or perhaps Olds engines didn't respond well to the switch to unleaded gas or maybe something got messed up for the '78 model year. In any case, that car was the embodiment of the popular notion of the "sucky big land yacht". Be GLAD yours wasn't like that. I wouldn't wish that monstrosity on anybody.
I have never driven an '80's Seville so I can't comment on those. They sure look look small and cheap though and I don't see very many of those on the road. In particular the early/mid '80's Cadillacs with the HT4100 engine were notorious for a complete lack of reliability. The late '70's/early '80's were a horrible time for Cadillac...much worse than today. Two of the worst automotive engines of all time were in Cadillacs of that period...the 4.1 V-8, and the infamous 8-6-4 engine. God help the people who bought one of those. My car was a '90 Sedan Deville and it definately did NOT have the problems of its immediate predecessors.
Grun...where did I say that if I was designing cars I'd design a Crown Vic or a Bonneville. In the other thread I said they'd be worth their price if they were about $10 grand cheaper than they are (more like 20 in the case of the horribly overpriced Bonneville V-8). That isn't saying much. I brought them up as being superior to a Honda Accord...which also isn't saying much (being superior to a basic family grocery getter is like...being more interesting than beige....not difficult). My wife's Grand Marquis is like a toy compared to the Roadmaster.
No, if I was designing cars I'd be doing much more subtle things. Next time you see a PT Cruiser on the road, imagine it with shiny chrome bumpers instead of flat black or body color bumpers. That fake chrome that they make grilles and stuff out of nowdays is virtually as cheap as regular plastic and doesn't wear off like it used to, so cost wouldn't even be much of an issue. That's the sort of stuff I'd do. I like how some of those PT's have flames painted on the hood. A lot of modern cars have so much potential if their designers just took a little more pride in them. The current Buick Park Avenue....I love how they brought the hood "portholes" back...now it's just dying for a V-8 and a different roofline and maybe whitewalls. If it's supposed to be a formal classy car...MAKE IT formal and classy! That 4-litre V-8 they used in the Olds Auroura would be perfect. The pushrod 3.8 V-6 is pretty outdated for a $35,000 car. Take a HONDA CIVIC...Civics are popular nowdays with younger buyers; why not capitalize on that right at the factory? Where are the factory-installed wings and body paneling and 3-inch exhausts? That plastic stuff would add almost nothing to its cost and would improve desireability. Give that Civic a bumper with VTEC imprinted in big letters right between two fat tailpipes and a big wing on top...it would sell. The new Mustang is a step in the right direction; all it needs is a different look in the rear--the plastic bumper reaching up as high as it does makes it look like an Eclipse. I actually LIKE the Chevy Avalanche's look; lots of plastic and a squarish look are appropriate on a vehicle which is meant to be abused some and easy to wash.
I like a car that takes some pride in itself. The Roadmaster was a typical old person's car when it first re-emerged in '90--big, portly, and horribly underpowered. It had no life and little personality. In '94 Buick slapped the 'vette engine in it (Chevy's version was called the Impala SS and differed only in having the cop car suspension) and really brought out the potential in such a vehicle (it still looks like a whale though; its biggest failing). Wouldn't you agree that something is badly wrong with GM's thinking given that the Buick and Chevy sedans they were selling 10 years ago had better performance and more space than any of their sedans do today?
Your dream car shows some taste...a V-10 M-series is definately a car with a solid pedigree. I don't care much for Euro design philosophy, but one can't argue with quality. I don't really have a "dream car" in that no new car really ideally matches my tastes. The Chrysler 300C comes closest but it isn't perfect. I like big cars with a lot of power and shiny bumpers, but I'm not stupid enough to expect EVERYONE to like them. We all have our own tastes. The key is to build automobiles with PRIDE that appeal to people's tastes. Make people want to buy that car because it's a Chevy, or Honda, and not just because it's 100 bucks cheaper than the near-identical car on the next lot. That's what they need to do.
Cadillac needs to not only maintain its Mercedes clones for the people who like them (the '90's Seville proved the popularity of this concept), they also need to take their basic DeVille and turn it back into a pure CADILLAC. Make it look long and low, give it fins (however small), make it fast, and make it really shiny in front--and by god it has to have the hood ornament. This semi-cadillac, semi-doesn't-know-what-it-wants-to-be stuff that has been hurting them for years has GOT to go. The Escalade is the vehicle which pretty much saved Cadillac. It's pretty bad that Cadillac had to resort to selling a truck for survival.
A car that people either love or hate will sell better than one that tries to simply not offend anyone. Except in the case of the Pontiac Aztec, which pretty much offends almost everyone (but I hear it's actually a joy to own).
Those are my thoughts.
J_A_B
-
i think J_A_B really hates Hondas
""I like big cars with a lot of power and shiny bumpers""
-
Well I can say for having driven both the CTS, CTS-V, and the STS for an extended period of time. These three cars are the best GM/Caddy have come up with. I can tell you I've never been happy with GM and Ford. I've always been a Mopar or a Mazda person but the new Caddy's are tempting me.
I can tell you the CTS & CTS-V are great there the only car at the moment where you can fully turn off big brother and have a little tail wagging fun. I give kudo's to Caddy for having a car that can set off the traction control in 4th gear at 90 plus. :D
-
Hey Jab.. did you just say the cadillacs of the 80's sucked? Wierd... you just got done saying grun didn't know what he was talking about at all.
Cadillac did not start re-emerging into the market until the came out with the STS. Some people still swore by the land-yacht "buy American" mentality, but overall the Cadillac emblem was floundering.
The new models are pretty sweet rides. They blow the 80's away. The fact that you'd even try to say otherwise is just plain odd.
-
I just cannot get past the styling of the new Caddies. They all look like they were designed by the guy that did the Pontiac Aztek to me.
-
The new trend in auto design is "different" and promotes a love em or hate em mentallity. Regardless of like/dislike, it is now distinguishable in the market.
I fell in love with the CTS at a Camel GT race... didn't much care for them up till then. Then I saw a "super sedans" race (or something like that). It was the most beautiful car out there.
-
I kinda like the new designs except for the beltline being too low compared to the hood and trunk lines. This disrupts the design flow and works against the overall clean and edge theme. Though Caddy isnt alone in this mistake IMO. Nonetheless I think they are much better cars than the older models and so are able to compete with the leadars of the luxury segment again..
-
caddy's had a lot of mechanical problems in the 80's and 90's they had fit and finish problems. the cars improved quite a bit in the late 90's and are a very good car today.
I needed a boat to drive my grandaughter and people around in as my other cars were 2 seaters. It didn't take much research to rule out most of the 90's caddy's. I got a Lincoln Town car. Seems fine.
the Lingenfelter Caddy is more than just an engine and trans... it is handling enchancements too. I think they are pretty neat looking cars myself.
lazs
-
Mini D, you're falling into the same trap of incorrect assumptions that I see a lot of people fall into.
Why do you and Grun and people continue calling them land yachts? You sound silly calling them that. My Cadillac had a 3400 pound curb weight. If that's a boat, then so is a smallish car like a Ford Taurus because the Ford is only about 100 pounds less. The 2004 Chevy Impala--a smallish, mediocre car--weighs 150 pounds more than my Cadillac did. Yet....I've neve heard anyone call THAT a "land-yacht".
Like I said, Cadillac was building cars at sensible weights from the mid '80's up until 1994 when they abandoned that philosophy and went back to pointlessly bloated designs. The modern-day DeVille weighs 600 pounds more than mine did, yet is SMALLER on the inside (which is where it counts). Which means....all that weight is completely wasted.
Since my Caddy had a positively huge interior at only a 3400 pound weight, one has to wonder why cars like Taurus and Impala and such are so tiny inside. Are their designers stupid? Do they think we're midgets? I considered my Cadillac a very well-designed car that combined low weight with a very spacious interior and huge trunk. Not many cars have accomplished that feat. The Caddy even had a partial frame instead of being a pure unitbody. Whether you had a reliable one or not....you almost HAVE to admit that it was an excellent design to begin with.
The late '70's and early '80's Cadillacs sucked; the HT4100, the 8-6-4, and the olds 350 Diesel, those were all notoriously problematic engines. The Cimarron damaged Cadillac's reputation to such a massive extent that it will probably never recover. By the late '80's Cadillac was getting it right. The 1990 car was an excellent vehicle and the '91 was even better. As some of you guys demonstrate though, perceptions are a difficult thing to change and nobody was willing to give them a chance by that point.
J_A_B
-
JAB you can love your slow 11mpg 180HP V8 Caddilac Deville boat all want, like I said its a personal decision.
But I think its an ugly car.. And I think the philosophy of it and other cars like it is what doomed the US passenger car industry in the 1990s..
And no it wasnt a good design, nobody has to admit that. It was a terrible design and only set Cadillac up for failiure in the 1990s... Customers did not want cars like that...
Lets see why...
Bad and unsuccesul luxury car for the 1990s... 1990 Caddilac Deville 180hp V8..
(http://auto.consumerguide.com/images/autoreview/lrg/90122161991119LRG.jpg)
(http://auto.consumerguide.com/images/autoreview/lrg/92122261990109LRG.jpg )
Good and succesful luxury car for the 1990s.. 1990 Lexus LS400 250HP V8..
(http://auto.consumerguide.com/images/autoreview/lrg/94806011990204LRG.jpg)
(http://auto.consumerguide.com/images/autoreview/lrg/93806011990409LRG.jpg)
Acres of chrome, whitewalls, weak large displacement engines, dark interiors, poor materials, pointless fake cloth roofs, fake sorta tailfins and bad handling did not fare too well in the 1990s aginst the high quality and up to date ideas seen in this lexus LS400.. Hmmm maybe it just needed a fake spare tire hump in the trunklid to fare better? Fake wire wheels?
What else is there to say...
Well except of course that you are 100% justified in loving your car, but that doesent mean its an objectivly good one for the times.
-
I'm not falling into a trap... you're trying to "place" me there.
I don't know of anyone that claims the Impalla was not a land yacht. It's just that the SS had one hell of alot of HP packed into it.... or are you now comparing it to the FWD version? Most view the new impalla as a step backwards. It'd be quite ironic if that's what you were comparing your 90's cadillac to.
Grunherz was slamming on the 80's land yachts... so was I. You're saying the 90's weren't like that because the deville was lighter than an impalla... great... goodie for you. THEY WERE STILL FRICKING LAND YACHTS! FWD... what kind of weight ratio did they have on that thing?
Cadillac is moving back in the right direction. They caught on in the 90's and are really getting there now. There's actually a reason to buy them now and there's even hope that these current cars will be worth a tad more than $5000 after 5 years. That hasn't been the case with cadies for some time now.
-
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
-
What was the wheel base big guy? come now.. you're holding up weight as if it's the holy montra of "land yacht". It's not. The car was a fricking boat. So it had thin steel too... it doesn't make it any less of a boat. And don't forget that increadible aerodynamic styling. Hey... how about telling us what else it was just about as fast as while you're at it.
The thing was a flaming POS. It was a boat. IT WAS FRONT WHEEL DRIVE! How you can even compare it to the new stuff coming out is beyond me.
As much as I hate to say it... grun had you pegged in his first reply.
-
So all new front wheel drive cars are junk?
J_A_B
-
Oh, incedentally:
Cadillac Sedan DeVille wheelbase--113 inches
Cadillac Coupe DeVille wheelbase--111 inches
'90 Lexus LS 400 wheelbase--111 inches
Overall length, the Cadillac is less than a foot longer than the Lexus. Darn Toyota land yachts! (That's sarcasm, if you didn't catch it).
Look up the 1990 Fleetwood Brougham and I think you'll agree that the Brougham is actually the Cadillac you're talking about--massive, overweight, thirsty, underpowered, and handling like an aircraft carrier. The Brougham pumps its wheelbase up to 121 inches and its overall length is pushed to more than 18 feet. Powering the majority of those behemoths was....Oldsmobile's famously thirsty and underpowered 307 V-8. It didn't even have fuel injection! We're talking 0-60 times of over 14 seconds here...talking about a slug!
Quite a lot of difference from the DeVille, huh?
J_A_B
Edit--corrected a Typo
-
JAB that Deville is ugly and otdated. The interior is horrid. The car is underpowered.
I'll agree it's "stately" like in state funeral. ;)
Those cars and their styyling are no good for the 1990s and they are no good for today or tommorow.
What does a fake cloth roof add to a fixed roof sedan?
Whitewalls? You have whitewalls on tall tires, tall soft riding bad handling tires.. Again it adds nothing.
Tons of chrome.. Fine for 1954. But by 1990 Americans were tired of it and saw it as garish and unsophisticated - which it is IMO.
These old Cadillacs dont keep their resale value, they arev something like 1/3 or 1/2 or so of a simiar year lexus and I know the lexus wasnt 2 or 3 the purcse price. Bad build quality, bad materials and being outdated in concept does that.
You say that cadillac had 40 years or so of luxury dominance. Well cars like you describe, mediocre, chrome laden, underpoered, soft riding, bad handling, fake cloth roof, etc etc is why caddy lost it.
All these cars, and the philosophy behind them is what let the germans and Japanese builders dominate the market now. Thankfully caddy is figuring out now and making world class cars...
I remember you saying that you would take your 20 year old wood cabinet RCA TV over any modern plastic TV today..
That statement clearly shows that you have other priorities than performance, features, modern technology, progress etc...
And you certainly seem to have the same attitude about cars..
Thats fine, like I said many times you are fully entitled to enjoy what you wish.
-
"What does a fake cloth roof add to a fixed roof sedan? "
Class. I like the look. If you're buying a premium car (which a Cadillac is by defintion), cost isn't as much of a concern, so why NOT dress it up a little?
I'm sure there's SOME kind of cosmetic options you guys like. Ok, so you don't go for chrome or clothtops or whitewalls....what about exhaust tips or tinted windows or monochrome paint or pinstriping or fancy wheels or such?
One thing I dislike about the Lexus is how it looks almost identical to a Camry. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but that's an awfully plain and conservative design. Love it or hate it, at least you're not going to mistake that Cadillac for anything else on the road. Likewise with my Buick...it might be whale-looking and invisible to anyone under age 30, but it still is extremely distinctive. That was my initial point about the newer Cadillacs (especially the DeVilles)--they don't have that level of identity. The very new ones seem to be trying, but IMO they have a ways to go. From a mechanical standpoint I don't have any issues with them and hope I haven't given that impression.
My Cadillac's tires were decent for a 1990 car; if memory serves they were P225/70 R15. I drove my car with Goodyear Regatta tires. They held the road pretty well. I also ignored the manual's recommended tire inflation value and inflated them a bit higher; this gave a slightly firmer ride but made a very noticable improvement on handling. I'm the first to admit that at the manual's recommend inflation settings, the car handled like mush. That wasn't a design flaw, but rather a dumb recommendation.
The Lexus probably had slightly better tires. I certainly hope so! I haven't brought this up yet (didn't occur to me), but in 1990 the Lexus LS 400 started at $10,000 MORE than the deVille. I know that isn't true anymore, things change, but in 1990 the Caddy was a LOT more affordable than the Lexus. So if you feel the Lexus is a better car--well, it also cost a lot more, so that would make sense. I have always considered those 1st-gen Lexus cars to be fine automobiles.
As for whitewalls, they do nothing except dress up the car a bit more, so once again that's a subjective thing. They're somewhat unpopular nowdays because they take some work to keep clean (I have a jug of whitewall cleaner in my trunk for this purpose) and when they get dirty they're pretty ugly. I always keep my tires nice and clean and they really help make the car stand out. Some cars look good with whitewalls, others look stupid with them. I probably wouldn't want them if I had that Lexus, for example.
I got comments on frequent basis on my Cadillac. Some liked it, some hated it, but people always took notice. Among drivers my age, Mustangs or Eclipses are a dime a dozen, but almost nobody had a Caddy. When I went somewhere with friends I always drove because the interior was big enough to ensure the guys sitting in back could stretch out at will. Like I said, the back seat in the Cadillac was bigger than most cars' front seats. GM did a really good job of maximizing space while minimizing weight.
I don't care whether you share my tastes or not. That isn't the point. Call it garish and ugly all you like. That's subjective. I'm just trying to convey to you the fact that underneath that skin you dislike so much is a perfectly normal, modern car (modern for 1990 anyway). If you compared it to the Fleetwood Brougham like I suggested, I think you would see what I mean. The Brougham was the outdated throwback to the past--not the deVille.
J_A_B
-
But how is a fake and functionless cloth top, a dress up? Are you trying to make people think its a convertible? A horse drawn buggy? ;)
-
It's like putting a pretty girl in a dress and heels instead of jeans and tennis shoes. Not terribly functional, but a lot more eye-catching despite being the same underneath.
In the case of the old deVille, the car with the basic metal roof was kind of unattractive on top. The vinyl roof on the car you pictued above wasn't much of an improvement (nor were skirted wheels which thankfully mine didn't have). The fancier roof options really made the car look a lot better (it had 4 or 5 different roofs available). I'll send you a picture of my Cadillac if I can find one so you can judge for yourself.
The new DeVilles look incredibly stupid such such roofs; especially tacky are the tan cars with green cloth roofs. I only like that stuff on cars which actually look better for having such options. Likewise, an Eclipse with a foot-high wing doesn't look too funny, but imagine that Cadillac with a wing....or perhaps don't imagine it, the horror is too terrible to contemplate.
I know that my tastes aren't exactly typical for a man of my age. I like to joke that my wife and I are the only couple our age in the entire state who both drive RWD V-8 sedans. I only try to illustrate that such vehicles aren't always the ponderous outdated dinosaurs people expect them to be.
J_A_B --> scrolls back up to gawk at the excellent silver hubcaps on that Cadillac one more time