89 Brougham DElegance - Should I buy?

[Ian Robertson CLC # 20080]

Came across a 89 Brougham DElegance the other day with approx 25K on the clock.

It looks like a nice enough car but Im not sure about things like:

Reliability of the mechanicals
Power and torque characteristics
Any known problems with the computer and/or electrics of this model

Anybody got any comments about what to look for/be aware of when buying a model from this year.  Any input greatfully accepted as usual.

By the way, the dealer is promoting the car as a Fleetwood, but there are no decals or scripting on it which say "Fleetwood". Therefore I suspect it is actually a Cadillac Brougham dElegance.

Regards,  Ian.

[Porter 21919]

If you can live with the 307 engine, which I assume it has.

http://www.alldata.com/TSB/08/89080713.html TARGET=_blank>http://www.alldata.com/TSB/08/89080713.html

You can always talk to Stampie about more power (500 CID)

Porter

[Mike #19861]

 In 1989 the Fleetwood was a front drive car, the Brougham a rear drive. It sounds like the rear drive you are looking at.

These are great cars. The Olds 307 is a very reliable and dependable engine, but in some cases has a reputation as an oil burner. This is usually attributed to lack of maintenance. If the oil changes have been done regularly, you should be OK. They do have a lack of power as well, but can get along adequately. Tuned properly they should get in the 20-22MPG region.

 Drive the car as well. Feel the transmission. Make sure the shifts are firm and crisp. These 200 4R transmissions could be troublesome, but most have been updated by now and that should be a non-issue. If it shudders when coming to a stop, it is likely the Torque Convertor Clutch solenoid, a common problem, but an easy fix. Ususally the trans has to be warm, usually a good higway run, before it shows.

 They are a great driving and very comfortable car. They have a good solid and heavy feel to them, something that is lacking in many of todays cars. Overall, they are a solid buy. I have an 86 which is near identical to the 89 and I love it. Id buy another in a minute.

 The maintenence is pretty straight forward, they are not difficult or expensive to fix when something goes wrong. Some of the accessories can give some grief like the power antennas and the level ride, but a knowledgeable mechanic can adress these with little problem.

 A 24K car is like new. Mine has over 250,000km on it and it still drives like a new car. If this car were offered to me Id snap it up, providing the asking price was reasonable.

  Mike

[Rob Gerace #16100]

It does have the 307 Olds engine, with the THM-200-4R transmission.  Its probably a pretty reliable car, but it does only have 140 hp with 346 ft-lb of torque.  That same engine configured in the 84 Olds 98 I had, has a neck-snapping 148 hp.  

I guess the main thing to go by, is that a Brougham of that era probably wont give you much trouble, but at the same time you cant expect great performance from a full-size car from the 80s.  Im sure it would be a comfortable, enjoyable car to have, nevertheless though.  

Rob

[Rusty Shepherd CLC 6397]

Even though Ive complained about the performance of my 83 Olds Cutlass Supreme and (especially) that of the 83 Ninety-Eight I inherited almost new from my dad, I wouldnt mind having that Bougham at all (maybe 20 years and turning 50 have lowered my performance needs)despite an aborted trip up Pikes Peak with four passengers and luggage aboard (couldnt get above 20 MPH and turned around halfway up). They are great looking, comfortable, cars that ride like a cloud and the Olds 307 is reliable and reasonably economical. I got a consistent mid-20s on the road in the Ninety-Eight (actually a bit better than in the Cutlass which had a three-speed automatic)and neither Olds used any oil at all between 3,000 mile changes (which may prove the frequent oil changes advice). One annoying characteristic of the carbs in those engines is that they completely drain if the car has sat more than 24 hours. In a previous discussion about the 307, someone said that a carb rebuild would take care of that problem but I can tell you that they did that when new. If you dont start the car daily, just be prepared to really pump the accelerator before cranking with the throttle closed. BTW You are not alone in being confused by the Fleetwood/Brougham/Fleetwood Brougham. Apparently Cadillac thoought its prospective customers were confusing the name Fleetwood on its FWD cars introduced for 1985 with Fleetwood Brougham on the RWD cars (if they thought people were confusing the actual CARS, they were crazy), so beginning in 1987 the big RWD cars became just plain Brougham, although many people continued to refer to them as Fleetwoods.

[JIM CLC # 15000]

02-28-05
Seems Ive read somewhere that the HP rating was taken at the drive wheels, and that is with the engine turning all of the accessories. ( maybe not the A/C )
I had an 86 SDV,put 220+ before I traded it in.
Good Luck, if the price is ok so will be the car, Jim

[Bruce Reynolds # 18992]

Gday Jim,

Yes, when the powers-that-be decided that the Horsepower readings were to be taken at the rear wheels sure made the "new" motors seem very weak when compared to the previous years ratings.

Pity they didnt do it earlier and then the Drag raced vehicles could have been in more competitive classes, ha ha.

General Motors usually under-rated their high performance engines in the advertising stakes, to please Insurance Companies and Corporate Bosses, and Ford seemed to go the other way.

Bruce,
The Tassie Devil(le),
60 CDV

[Jeffrey Klinner CLC 19166]

Ian,

I consider myself to be somewhat of a self proclaimed expert on this exact car.  Having picked out my grandmothers 1989 Brougham delegance in Bordeaux Red with matching claret leather in 1989, and been the manager of service its entire life, I can give you the run down.  

We went through two automatic dimming rearview mirrors, three power antennas(died without cause), and experienced phantom automatic door locks that would fail to engage with the transmission selector.  Given this was a new car, these were annoyances.  Now, I would consider them character.  Of course its not a Cadillac until it leaks oil.  This car will leak. In its latter years, we were a frequent visitor to the Cadillac dealership for engine and transmission seals.  The car is very weak from a horsepower standpoint and will barely climb a mountain here in Birmingham.  The remainder of accessories worked without a hitch.  The car was stunningly beautiful and if I could find one loaded out, as hers was, and in excellent condition, I would not hesitate to buy the car.  It is, of course, a technological dinosaur.  But man how much glamour can you buy per foot?  Often the people selling these cars will call them Fleetwoods just because they are the largest car.  There is much suffering over this when searching to buy one.  However, it was never badged as such.  You had Brougham and Brougham delegance.  The delegance package gave a higher ratio rear end and more padding!  I will be happy to pull the window sticker from our 89 and give you the details if you like.  Buy the car man!  If its Bordeaux Red (deep burgundy) with a matching interior...Ill buy it from you!

Best of luck.  Contact me if you need more info.

Jeffrey Klinner
Birmingham Alabama
205.790.6000

[Mike #19861]

 Up until the early 70s engines were rated for power at the flywheel with no accessories, intake or exhaust restrictions. As such, the ratings were considerably higher than later ratings. These were termed as SAE Gross Power.

 Starting in the early 70s, the engines were rated for power at the flywheel, but with the normal intake and exhaust restrictions and running the normal accessories as installed to that particular body. That is why you will see differing ratings for what seems like the identical engine but in differant car lines. This was termed as SAE Net Power.

 Simple changes like differant transmissions, final drive ratios and tire sizes can alter the at wheel power ratings. If the engines were rated here, we would see a vast array of power ratings for the same car, but with all the transmission, final drive and tire combinations.

 In 1971 GM published both ratings in promotional materials. The Cadillac 472 was rated at 345 HP Gross, but 250 HP Net. With the introduction of EGR in 1973, this rating would fall to 210 HP Net and finally end up with the 500 producing a mere 190 Net HP in 1975-76.

 Mike

[Mike #19861]

 I really have to question your estimation of the 220+ Hp you feel your 1986 Sedan deVill produced. The HT4100 produced a HP rating of 135 HP. This was a Net rating (see my post down a bit) and even if it was a gross rating, I doubt that it would be much more than even 180 HP.

 The 1991-95 Cadillacs that used the 4.9 were rated at 200 hp, and this was a hot rod compared the the HT4100 powered cars.

  Mike

[Rob Gerace #16100]

I think he meant 200k miles on the car, before he traded it in.

[Ian Robertson CLC # 20080]

Thanks for all the responses guys - its all much appreciated!

But with all the comments about the 307 and liesurly performance I now have to ask about the cars ability to tow a 5,500lb trailer (caravan here in Australia).  We normally tow it with our Nissan Patrol 4X4 Wagon and occasionally with our 67 Chevy Impala Sedan (sold here with a 327/240HP gross engine) and neither have any real difficulties in coping with the weight of the van. Note: I dont care about fuel economy - there wont be any; just lots of thirst! And I dont mind if the thing is a bit sluggish accelerating to crusing speed.

As usual any input you have is appreciated.

Regards,  Ian.

[David #19063]

Ian,

The 307-4 and the word perfomance should never be in the same sentence.  Not even leisurely performance as it could never even aspire to that.

I had the 307-4 in my 85 Toronado Caliente.  

Calling the engine anemic is even giving this engine the benefit of the doubt.  I seriously doubt it had anywhere the 140 net hp it is supposed to have.  I had a 59 Dodge Coronet with a two speed and a Flathead 6 with 138 gross hp and it was quicker than the Toro.

The engine barely has enough power to move the 4000 lbs. the car weighed.  The Brougham will weigh even more.  It struggled on any kind of a hill.  And this was a very nice maintained showcar.

Towing would be a disaster.

Now, if you like the car and want to junk the 307 and drop in a built Olds 350-4 or a Olds 403-4, then youll be fine.  The 307/350/403 has the same exterior dimensions and are interchangeable, you just need to save and use the brackets from the 307.

David

[Todd Rothrauff]

Hello Ian,

I must agree with the previous comments from everyone concerning the performance/towing ability of these cars.  In the mid-1990s, I test drove a beautiful 1989 Brougham, Dark Blue with White leather, 55K miles.  This was a garage kept car that was about as mint as could be expected.  I lived in Altoona, Pennsylvania at the time (translation:  MOUNTAINS !!!).  During my test drive along I-99, I came to a rather long uphill grade with the cruise control set on 70 mph.  What I expected was for the car to slow down, downshift by itself, and continue up the hill.  What I got was to have the car slow down to about 50 mph with no downshift, thereby shutting the cruise control off.  So, I second the motion that the 307 V-8 in this car has a hard time towing itself around, let alone any kind of trailer.

Having said that, I must respectfully disagree with David concerning the performance designation of the 307 V-8.  My 1985 Olds 442 had the 180 hp version of this engine, mated to the same THM200R4, mated to a 3.73 rear axle.  By the standards of the day, it was a pretty quick car, (not fast at all by todays standards, but quick enough - 16.3 ET).  This same engine was available in the 1983-84 Hurst/Olds, and the 1985-87 442.  

The weak link in my Oldsmobile (at that time), was the transmission (just ask the Buick Grand National crowd, they can tell you all about it).  While I could bark 2nd gear every time, mine began to drop thrust washers into the pan at 50K miles.  This same THM200R4 also motivates the Broughams of the era.

However, I would still buy a Brougham if given the opportunity.  These are beautiful, smooth highway cruisers.  Currently, I live in Missouri, where I no longer have to deal with those pesky mountains.  

Hope this info helps.

Todd

[Ian Robertson CLC # 20080]

Thanks to everybody who responded - your advice and input was just fantastic.  As a result Ive decided to let the car go by. Sad but true.  In the end I also had a professional go over the car and while there was nothing really negative, he wasnt as upbeat about it either.  I guess that the issue about towing really was the straw that broke the back of the deal - if I cant tow my trailer with relaxed confidence then its not worth it.

Thanks again to everybody for your wonderful contributions and open discussion.

Regards,  Ian.

[David #19063]

Hello Todd,

Yes, I always wondered why Oldsmobiles Flagship, the 85 Toronado Caliente did not get the 180 hp version of the 307.  I think my car stickered for near $25,000 in 84.

I think the Hurst/442 were the only cars to get the 180 hp version.  I think all other cars got the 140 hp.

My car had the option 2.73 gear MPG package and still only got 18 mpg highway at 75 mph, even with the 4 sp overdrive auto.  But was pitiful for acceration, speed.  But is did ride like a dream.

I never had trans trouble with mine, but it was also the weak link on the front wheel drive 307s as well.  

Since building more hp from an Olds 350 or 403 is much easier than with the 307, it doesnt make sense to build up a 307...plus almost know one can tell the difference from the outside.

But with all the bad I have said, Id take the 307 over the 4100 anyday.

David

[David #19063]

Hello Ian,

Just out of curiosity, what were they asking for this 25,000 mile Brougham?  

David

[Rusty Shepherd CLC 6397]

I didnt know that you wanted to tow with that car, but since you did, you definitely made the right decision. Having owned two cars with that engine, I can assure you that it really doesnt have enough power to tow itself, much less a trailer.

[Ian Robertson CLC # 20080]

Hi David,

For details of the car and price go to this address:

http://flinkier.carpoint.ninemsn.com.au/DesktopDefault.aspx?UsedCarID=572048&TabID=87492&Alias=flinkierau TARGET=_blank>http://flinkier.carpoint.ninemsn.com.au/DesktopDefault.aspx?UsedCarID=572048&TabID=87492&Alias=flinkierau

But remember, this car is in Australia, has been converted to right hand drive, and carries the not insignificant cost of shipping from the U.S., customs and import duties, currency conversion, cost of right hand drive conversion, local government taxes, and just about anything else anybody can use to load the initial price! So you can see that the price does not relate to current book prices in the U.S.

Having said that I do think that the price is inflated by several thousand ozzie dollars, especially when one takes into account that the wheel covers are not correct for the year, the body molding is black rather than white, the minor dings and scrapes, the sun faded velour etc etc. I had a professional look the car over and he said, and I quote "The cars not bad for its age." It certainly came up o.k. in the nechanical department with good compression, handling, brakes, steering, and so on. There was some evidence of paint touch-ups around the doors and some of the weather seals are starting to deteriorate. The car looks like it may have spent a good deal of its time in  the sun.

Hope this is of interest to you.

Regards,  Ian.

[David #19063]

Hello Ian,

Somewhere, I missed the fact that it is in Australia and already a right hand conversion.

What would a right hand conversion cost in Aus$$ for a 95-96 Fleetwood Brougham?

What would the full import cost be?

David