GM's full sizers were some of the best cars produced in the 1970's. Literally every friend I had in grade school had a parent with a C or B body GM including an Impala wagon, A Deville, Olds 98, LeSabres and Bonnevilles. They were all very good cars and many bought the same cars from GM when trade in time came around.
And it was bulletproof. Its only issue was that the Rochester Quadrajet carburetor was a finicky bastard that needed relatively frequent adjustments. I got quite expert at rebuilding mine. The main bearing on the 425 and its older larger displacement relatives, the 472 and the 502, are a full half inch in diameter larger than the main bearings on a big block Chevy motor. This meant the crankshaft flotation on a film of oil was superb. Failures of the 425 in the short block were all but completely unheard of. It is a supremely reliable motor. I loved my '78 Fleetwood Brougham and the only reason I eventually got rid of it was rust issues that I couldn't handle or afford to pay someone else to fix. I could handle the small stuff but structural rust was beyond my pay grade. I often miss that car. But I don't miss the 10 MPG city gas consumption. These Cadillacs had the fuel filler behind the license plate so it didn't matter which side of the pump you pulled up on. I think cars should have that feature, today.
Indeed. The modulated displacement 368 V8 (aka "4-6-8") was a good engine, you just had to disconnect the modulated displacement and make it run on all eight cylinders. Eaton designed that system with GM and told them it needed more testing, but GM rushed it to market. As a result, it was a disaster. Computing power in 1981 wasn't up to the task. My uncle had one, but he lives in TX, so it worked there (mostly flat terrain). My dad worked at a local Cadillac dealership and many of them were converted to run on eight cylinders all the time. Then you had a good engine. What a lot of folks don't know is both the 368 with four barrel and the 368 with DFI (4-6-8) were available beyond 1981. The 368 with carburetor was used through 1984, but only in commercial cars. Same with the 4-6-8. The retail/passenger cars in 1982 could have the Buick 4.1L V6, the HT4100 or the Olds diesel. After 1982, the V6 was dropped.
I owned a 83 with that 4100 I must of been the very lucky person because I never had issues. But I will say the car was an absolute pig. Would barely get out of its own way
@@googleusergp I thought it was "8-6-4," not "4-6-8." I say that, not to be picky, but to point out what Cadillac was trying to achieve in those days. With the engine starting out in 8 cylinder mode, that gave you the power you needed to get up to 55, and the processor would cut out power to cylinders as needed. Once up to cruising speed, the system (ostensibly) would then run on just the 4 cylinders in the hopes of improving gas mileage. Like you said: great idea, poor timing.
Three plants made them during this era: Linden, NJ, Southgate, CA and Detroit, MI. Being a Florida destined car, my guess would be a Detroit or Linden made car. You didn't want a Southgate, CA assembled car, as the Southgate plant was part of the "Terrible Three" in the GM system, along with Van Nuys (closed in 1992) and Fremont (closed in 1982).
Not exactly. The Brougham was a closely related car but it was actually two inches longer and built on a different frame and body. The difference can be seen in the space between the front and rear windows. On a Brougham, that space is slightly V shaped and wider. On a DeVille, that space is narrower and the lines are parallel. I learned a great deal about these Cadillacs, and once I retrofitted the entire interior out of an '87 Brougham into my '78 Brougham. And salvaged parts off of Sedan DeVilles many times to benefit my '78 Brougham. I became something of a late 70s Cadillac subject matter expert, as I kind of had to....
@@Turboy65 Actually after 1985, the RWD model that became simply know as the Brougham was the same car that was called the Sedan DeVille prior to 1985. The RWD Fleetwood & Fleetwood Brougham which did indeed ride on a larger wheelbase and were a few inches longer were discontinued in 1984.
@@charleskosyjana1295 Yes that was confusing. Because when the C-bodies went from wheel drive beginning in 1985, they put the Fleetwood name on the same C-body that was the deVille lineup, and the Brougham name on the 1978-84 C-body RWD deVille. Then in 1993, the Fleetwood name would leave the front wheel drive models and go back to the rear drive replacement for the 1985-92 Brougham. Talk about alphabet soup!
@@joe6096 What was even more confusing for consumers was that as late as 1995 there was a Deville and a Fleetwood Brougham, the former front drive, the latter bigger and rear drive, yet both were styled exactly the same with imitation fender skirts and all. Cadillac was losing their way big time.
By this point Mercedes was in a different league from Cadillac in terms of engineering, safety, and quality control. The Cadillac had more gadgets and a better stereo, but Mercedes had ABS in 1978 and a drivers airbag in 1981 (not a Cadillac option until 1989) Mercedes textile quality was second to none at this time. Also, the Mercedes 450SEL made 190hp with 4.5 liters but the Cadillac made 180/195 with 7.0 liters. The Cadillac was better than most American cars of the time but compared to a few European makes it fell short.
@@DamnStraightM35A2 GM was actually the first make to offer air bags. From 74-76 you could get air bags on any of GM’s larger more expensive cars. Starting in 1972 or 73 you could get air bags on a Chevy Caprice/Impala. No body wanted then, that’s why GM stopped offering them. Imperial, not MB, was the first production car to offer 4 wheel anti-lock brakes, GM & Ford for rear wheels only, before MB, again no body wanted them & all 3 manufacturers stopped offering them(Chrysler, Ford, GM)
@@petermartinijr.1012 I wasn't implying Mercedes was the first, just that they were far ahead in engineering by 1978. The Americans may have been the first to offer these systems, but they were less developed than what Mercedes offered. The Big 3 stopped offering their earlier systems after only a few years while Mercedes introduced systems that were fully developed and intended to be integrated as standard equipment within a few years time. Why didn't the American manufacturers build upon their previous knowledge and have more advanced (digital) ABS and airbags ready for the 80's?
Wow, guess they got one not built on a Monday, Friday, or a holiday. It always surprises me when companies like GM CAN turn out quality vehicles like this, yet choose to let mediocrity be the name of the game. Read the book Rivethead which is an autobiography of a GM factory worker at this time.
I had one of these. When it ran over a dime on the road, the suspension oscillated in all three dimensions! Enough to make you sea sick. Cant imagine what he was comparing it to. Bought a used ‘78 New Yorker a few years later. That was far more comfortable and easy to control.
For being just under 2 minutes these reviews are packed with information. Very well produced and informative!
GM's full sizers were some of the best cars produced in the 1970's. Literally every friend I had in grade school had a parent with a C or B body GM including an Impala wagon, A Deville, Olds 98, LeSabres and Bonnevilles. They were all very good cars and many bought the same cars from GM when trade in time came around.
Caddy 425 was a fantastic engine.
Then came 1981 and everything went to hell.
@@drewburk6309 *1980
Sure was. And then came the HT4100 and the V8-6-4 debacle. It's too bad their electronic systems had a tendency to be volatile.
so slow... tho and 9-10 mpg when they are running good
And it was bulletproof. Its only issue was that the Rochester Quadrajet carburetor was a finicky bastard that needed relatively frequent adjustments. I got quite expert at rebuilding mine. The main bearing on the 425 and its older larger displacement relatives, the 472 and the 502, are a full half inch in diameter larger than the main bearings on a big block Chevy motor. This meant the crankshaft flotation on a film of oil was superb. Failures of the 425 in the short block were all but completely unheard of. It is a supremely reliable motor. I loved my '78 Fleetwood Brougham and the only reason I eventually got rid of it was rust issues that I couldn't handle or afford to pay someone else to fix. I could handle the small stuff but structural rust was beyond my pay grade. I often miss that car. But I don't miss the 10 MPG city gas consumption. These Cadillacs had the fuel filler behind the license plate so it didn't matter which side of the pump you pulled up on. I think cars should have that feature, today.
I had a '79 Sedan Deville in Sterling Blue metallic. Nice solid car. Very reliable and of course very plushy and luxurious.
Would LOVE to have this car as my daily driver - GORGEOUS!!
I have a 79 CdV as a daily driver...
Quite complimentary!
Hard to believe that the 4.1 aluminum 4100HT nightmare was around the corner. The 500, 472, 425 and 368 were bullet proof engines.
Indeed. The modulated displacement 368 V8 (aka "4-6-8") was a good engine, you just had to disconnect the modulated displacement and make it run on all eight cylinders. Eaton designed that system with GM and told them it needed more testing, but GM rushed it to market. As a result, it was a disaster. Computing power in 1981 wasn't up to the task. My uncle had one, but he lives in TX, so it worked there (mostly flat terrain). My dad worked at a local Cadillac dealership and many of them were converted to run on eight cylinders all the time. Then you had a good engine.
What a lot of folks don't know is both the 368 with four barrel and the 368 with DFI (4-6-8) were available beyond 1981. The 368 with carburetor was used through 1984, but only in commercial cars. Same with the 4-6-8. The retail/passenger cars in 1982 could have the Buick 4.1L V6, the HT4100 or the Olds diesel. After 1982, the V6 was dropped.
I owned a 83 with that 4100 I must of been the very lucky person because I never had issues. But I will say the car was an absolute pig. Would barely get out of its own way
@@googleusergp I thought it was "8-6-4," not "4-6-8." I say that, not to be picky, but to point out what Cadillac was trying to achieve in those days. With the engine starting out in 8 cylinder mode, that gave you the power you needed to get up to 55, and the processor would cut out power to cylinders as needed. Once up to cruising speed, the system (ostensibly) would then run on just the 4 cylinders in the hopes of improving gas mileage. Like you said: great idea, poor timing.
@@beauanderson7762 I just call it "modulated displacement". Lol.
Three plants made them during this era: Linden, NJ, Southgate, CA and Detroit, MI. Being a Florida destined car, my guess would be a Detroit or Linden made car. You didn't want a Southgate, CA assembled car, as the Southgate plant was part of the "Terrible Three" in the GM system, along with Van Nuys (closed in 1992) and Fremont (closed in 1982).
Hello Google man I see you troll the same sites I do, including Benny's channel
@@user-mp3hw9bm3n Not "troll" but watch and comment.
To think this model survived until 1992 as the Brougham
Yes, your right 😊
Not exactly. The Brougham was a closely related car but it was actually two inches longer and built on a different frame and body. The difference can be seen in the space between the front and rear windows. On a Brougham, that space is slightly V shaped and wider. On a DeVille, that space is narrower and the lines are parallel. I learned a great deal about these Cadillacs, and once I retrofitted the entire interior out of an '87 Brougham into my '78 Brougham. And salvaged parts off of Sedan DeVilles many times to benefit my '78 Brougham. I became something of a late 70s Cadillac subject matter expert, as I kind of had to....
@@Turboy65 Actually after 1985, the RWD model that became simply know as the Brougham was the same car that was called the Sedan DeVille prior to 1985. The RWD Fleetwood & Fleetwood Brougham which did indeed ride on a larger wheelbase and were a few inches longer were discontinued in 1984.
@@charleskosyjana1295 Yes that was confusing. Because when the C-bodies went from wheel drive beginning in 1985, they put the Fleetwood name on the same C-body that was the deVille lineup, and the Brougham name on the 1978-84 C-body RWD deVille. Then in 1993, the Fleetwood name would leave the front wheel drive models and go back to the rear drive replacement for the 1985-92 Brougham. Talk about alphabet soup!
@@joe6096 What was even more confusing for consumers was that as late as 1995 there was a Deville and a Fleetwood Brougham, the former front drive, the latter bigger and rear drive, yet both were styled exactly the same with imitation fender skirts and all. Cadillac was losing their way big time.
My dads 92 fleetwood brougham is practically the same very nice vehicle.
Usually it is a widow leaking, locks don’t work, rattling glove box door,lights dimming.
Back when caddy was king
Back when Mercedes looked up at Cadillac and not the other way around...
By this point Mercedes was in a different league from Cadillac in terms of engineering, safety, and quality control. The Cadillac had more gadgets and a better stereo, but Mercedes had ABS in 1978 and a drivers airbag in 1981 (not a Cadillac option until 1989) Mercedes textile quality was second to none at this time. Also, the Mercedes 450SEL made 190hp with 4.5 liters but the Cadillac made 180/195 with 7.0 liters. The Cadillac was better than most American cars of the time but compared to a few European makes it fell short.
Uh.... are you serious? They arent even in the same league..
@@DamnStraightM35A2 Not to mention fuel injection, four wheel discs, and fully independent suspension.
@@DamnStraightM35A2 GM was actually the first make to offer air bags. From 74-76 you could get air bags on any of GM’s larger more expensive cars. Starting in 1972 or 73 you could get air bags on a Chevy Caprice/Impala. No body wanted then, that’s why GM stopped offering them. Imperial, not MB, was the first production car to offer 4 wheel anti-lock brakes, GM & Ford for rear wheels only, before MB, again no body wanted them & all 3 manufacturers stopped offering them(Chrysler, Ford, GM)
@@petermartinijr.1012 I wasn't implying Mercedes was the first, just that they were far ahead in engineering by 1978. The Americans may have been the first to offer these systems, but they were less developed than what Mercedes offered. The Big 3 stopped offering their earlier systems after only a few years while Mercedes introduced systems that were fully developed and intended to be integrated as standard equipment within a few years time. Why didn't the American manufacturers build upon their previous knowledge and have more advanced (digital) ABS and airbags ready for the 80's?
Adjusted for Inflation for September 2018: Base Price $11,124 = $45,607.79; As Tested $12,695 = $52,048.80
and 11mpg = 21L/100km. not that bad for mostly city & air on
Suspension on the firm side, Lol
Compared to a Lincoln of the same year or a Cadillac two years older, heck yeah.
Dramamine no extra charge
Probably had the optional Heavy Duty Ride Package.
Compared to 1978 Lincoln Town Car, probably yes
Wow seeing all those defects on cars from the 70s makes me think on how bad manufacturers were back then
I find it hilarious, that my '98 Jeep gets slightly better gas mileage than a 1970's land yacht.
Bo$$!!!
Wow, guess they got one not built on a Monday, Friday, or a holiday. It always surprises me when companies like GM CAN turn out quality vehicles like this, yet choose to let mediocrity be the name of the game. Read the book Rivethead which is an autobiography of a GM factory worker at this time.
I had one of these. When it ran over a dime on the road, the suspension oscillated in all three dimensions! Enough to make you sea sick. Cant imagine what he was comparing it to. Bought a used ‘78 New Yorker a few years later. That was far more comfortable and easy to control.