By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The TBI 350 was pretty anemic in those years. My grandpa had a '92 Roadmaster with that 350 and my dad had a '92 Crown Vic with 4.6. At that time, the 4.6 was a much better/ higher tech engine, the Crown Vic actually felt like a sport sedan compared to the lumbering and floating Roadmaster. It revved much quicker, adn was much smoother. The 350 felt like the truck engine it was. The LT1 version of the 350 changed much of that, I still don't think it could match the refinement of the 4.6, but at least it had more power and didn't run out of breath at 4k rpm.
That's probably what set the Town Car apart in '90. I think that is when the OHC 4.6 was introduced. Man, a OHC v8 in a Lincoln!! With sequential port FI, a 1 coil pack per cylinder etc. It was way more advanced than the GM v8's at that time.
I always thought the Caddy Brougham's were an elegant looking car, but the Town Car seemed to have a more modern edge to it.
Didn't Lincoln also have the Taurus based Continental? They were definitely Euro themed, to bad they had that lousy 3.8 v6, yuck.
Believe it or not the 4.6 made its debut in 1991, the 90 TC had the 5.0. The Vic and Marquis got the 4.6 in 92,
Didn't Lincoln also have the Taurus based Continental?
Please don't bring that car up... that is Lincoln's Cimarron.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
That would have been pretty cool. I am not sure what Caddy was thinking in the early 80s with that 4.1. I guess at that time people were not looking to Caddy for performance.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
I thought the 4.6 was in the TC a year or so before the CV. My dad ordered a '92 Crown Vic as soon as the '92 redesign was available. IIRC he actually got it in April or so of '91.
Please don't bring that car up... that is Lincoln's Cimarron.
It wasn't that bad, if the Continental had a decent engine/trans combo it probably could have been a decent car. The Cimarron was just a complete disgrace. Could you imagine Ford putting a Lincoln badge on an Escort.
In HS a friend of mine's mom had a Cimarron. What a horrible car.
Yeah, that FWD Continental wasn't Cimarron-bad, but the first-gen wasn't so hot. Troublesome 3.8 that tended to blow head gaskets, that 4-speed auto that liked to chew itself up, and the air suspension that could practically total the car when it failed. And, they just didn't look all that upscale. I remember occasionally mistaking them for a Dodge Spirit or Plymouth Acclaim, until I saw the front!
I liked the 2nd-gen FWD Continental though, the one based on the "catfish" Taurus. It had a standard V-8, and just had a more expensive, upscale look to it.
Speaking of Cimarrons...
Back in the 1980's, not long after my grandmother bought her '85 LeSabre Limited, one of her friends went to visit her and show off her "new" used car...a Cadillac Cimarron. Grandmom didn't know what to make of it, and couldn't tell what kind of car it was, until her friend showed her the badge. Then, suddenly my grandmother was just beaming with false praise, "Oh WOW...you got a Cadillac! You did better than me...I just have a Buick!" But she said it in sort of a sarcastic, Betty White as Sue-Ann Nivens or Ellen Harper-Jackson type of way.
After her friend left, my grandmother asked me..."That's a Cadillac?! Really?! I like my Buick better."
I forget how long her friend had that Cimarron, but it was eventually replaced by a first-gen Hyundai Sonata, and then after that, I think she started showing off used Benzes.
Yeah, I think the TBI 350 only had 185 hp, but something like 300 ft-lb of torque. I recall a C&D or MT test of one of the angular Broughams with the TBI 350, and I think they got 0-60 in just under 10 seconds. Which, in a car like that I wouldn't mind.
Too bad that whale/bathtub/supossitory style came out before the LT-1 350 did. I actually prefer the boxier Caprice and Brougham to the newer styles, and think one of them would have been awesome with the LT-1!
Hey Lemko, if you ever blow up that 307 in your '89 Brougham, you should look into doing an engine swap! :shades:
When I had my grandmother's '85 LeSabre, I'd thought about replacing the Olds 307 with a 350 or 403, if the engine ever blew. Alas, the engine would be the LAST thing to go on that car, and was still running great when I got rid of it.
Tough times is one thing, but GM and Chrysler have been having tough times since 1970, which was 40 years ago and multiple bailouts ago.
The difference between bailouts and lucrative State giveaways is that one is optional and potentially beneficial for all sides, and the other (bailouts) only helps a select few incompetents that work at a failed company producing failed products with failed workmanship, and it isn't optional (at least according to the fear mongerers that support the bailouts).
That's great that you think GM makes the best cars and trucks in the world, and even if you think they make the best product money can buy, you shouldn't translate that to being a great American company and a symbol of American Corporate ingenuity!!!
Even if you give them the big benefit of the doubt on product, you still have to say they ran the corporation into a devastating disasterous bankruptcy and catastrophic failure of BIBLICAL proportions.
It wasn't just mismanaged, it was horrifically horribly managed. They did the equivalent of taking a big 747 and nose diving into a granite rock at full speed and full throttle with full jet fuel tanks from an altitude of 40,000 to make sure they have decent acceleration room to hit the bottom as hard as possible.
An '89 Cadillac Brougham had a 307 instead of a 305? I didn't think the 307 ever made it into anything but Oldsmobiles. My Grandpa also had a 307 in his '83 Olds Delta 88.
Yeah, I think the TBI 350 only had 185 hp, but something like 300 ft-lb of torque. I recall a C&D or MT test of one of the angular Broughams with the TBI 350, and I think they got 0-60 in just under 10 seconds. Which, in a car like that I wouldn't mind.
Unfortunately tall gearing offset the torque of the 350, IIRC it would only turn like 1400rpm at 60 in gramps '92 Roadmaster. My FIL has the same basic 350 in his '95 Tahoe, man is it slow.
I agree about the LT1 and boxier versions of the Caprice. My Grandpa had an '87 Brougham LS that was as sharp car. It would have been great to have the LT1 in that body style. Though the 305 4bbl moved it okay and sounded pretty nice too.
Yeah, the 307 eventually went across all divisions. It came out in 1980 as the standard engine in the Electra, 98, Riviera, and Toronado, and was optional on the Delta 88 and I think the Cutlass. I think California Catalina/Bonnevilles might have gotten it as well.
Buick LeSabres started using the 307 once Pontiac's 301 went away, and in 1985 Regals started using it. In 1986, Cadillac finally got a clue and dumped the 4.1 in the big Brougham, replacing it with the 307. And in either 1986 or 1987, all of GM's wagons had it standard, up through 1990. Even the Caprice...if you bought a sedan you got the V-6 or the 305, but the wagon was a 307. I think they started using the 307 in other applications because the cars that had used them the most...the Electra/98, LeSabre/Delta 88, and Toronado/Riviera, all went FWD and they had a lot of excess capacity.
The 307 had less hp than the 305, but more torque at a lower rpm, so it might have been well-suited to those heavy wagons and Broughams.
The last year for the 307 was 1990. For 1991-92, the Brougham had a Chevy 305 TBI with 170 hp standard.
Kind of insulting to the Bible, wouldn't you say? :P
It wasn't just mismanaged, it was horrifically horribly managed. They did the equivalent of taking a big 747 and nose diving into a granite rock at full speed and full throttle with full jet fuel tanks from an altitude of 40,000 to make sure they have decent acceleration room to hit the bottom as hard as possible.
...and then George Bush held out a net to catch them. :mad:
I think because I had an extremely troublesome 93 Taurus LX with the 3.8 I am a little hard on that car. I just don't know what Ford was thinking going from the Fox body Conti with the 5.0 to the Taurus based model.
I liked the 2nd-gen FWD Continental though, the one based on the "catfish" Taurus. It had a standard V-8, and just had a more expensive, upscale look to it.
Me too (didn't we just have this discussion in another thread?) however by this time Cadillac was starting to take over this segment with the STS. Lincoln really lost its way in the mid 90s.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
Whoever thought the 4.1 would be enough grunt to power a car as big as an 83 Fleetwood should have had their head examined.
Heck, I'd have rather seen Caddy throw a small-block Chevy under the hood
They did... just about 8 years later!
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
May not have to follow them to heck. Only China. Part of design of Buicks sold in US already done in China. GM is in purgatory now. We will see how it goes.
Maybe GM lovers can embrace great Chinese car companies such as Geely. Who knows but that GM might subcontract Geely to make some of their Buick and Cadillac cars. Geely bought prestige brand Volvo.
GM has Mexican and Canadian manufacuring for many years. How long before they might have Chinese making and exporting cars to US.
In the future, excited co-worker will come to work at office in morning and exclaim to their colleagues: "You just have got to come out to parking lot at lunch and see my new Geely Buick."
It's a shame they didn't just throw the Olds 307 under the hood the moment Cadillac got rid of their own 368, instead of fussing with that aluminum 4.1. When Cadillac finally started using the 307 in 1986, the EPA estimates actually went up! The 1985 with the 4.1 had a 3.42:1 axle, so not only was it slow, but it had to really rev up just to move. It was EPA-rated 16/22. The 1986, with the 307 had a 2.73:1 axle, and managed an EPA estimate of 18/25.
Interestingly though, the 1985 LeSabre I got from my grandmother, which had the same driveline and axle ratio as the Brougham, was rated slightly lower at 17/24. So I wonder if something changed on the 307 for 1986 to make it more efficient, or the EPA just made slight changes in their testing? Or maybe they just guessed?
Oddly, a 1986 Cutlass Supreme or Regal with the 307 has the same EPA rating as the Brougham...18/25, despite probably being about 800 pounds or more lighter.
I wonder how fast the 307 Brougham was from 0-60? The extra torque no doubt helped considerably, although the taller gearing might have offset it somewhat. My 1985 Consumer Guide tested a 4.1 Brougham at 0-60 in a leisurely 14.8 seconds, and a 307 Delta 88 in around 12 seconds. So the Brougham would probably come somewhere in the middle? Maybe 13?
To be fair though, it's hard to make a FWD car (or any car, for that matter) and make it roomy on the inside, yet not too big and cumbersome on the outside. The passenger cabins just get longer, while hoods get shorter. And rear decks get shorter as well, but usually manage to maintain interior room by increasing height.
I think GM did a pretty good job with the proportioning on the current Lucerne and DTS, for being FWD cars. You still have the issue of the front axle being a bit close to the door, with too much front overhang, but I still think it was a good effort.
And I think they did a pretty good job with the proportioning on the 1997-05 Park Ave...
The C-pillar doesn't overlap the rear wheel as severely as many modern cars, and the A-pillar doesn't come too cab-forward, so you at least still have a decent amount of hood and rear deck to balance out the car. I do think it would look a little better though, if the front axle was moved forward a couple inches. Maintain the overall length of the hood and fender, but just move that axle up a bit to reduce the front overhang.
And I'm not bragging on the Park Ave just because I own one. :P The car does have its shortcomings, but IMO, styling isn't one of them.
But Oh So TRUE!
Regards,
OW
Sadly, it is true. Sad, but true.
George Bushes Safety Net that caught the nose dive about 20 inches from the pits of hell has cost us taxpayers immeasureable amounts of money and economic opportunity costs.
Taxpayers swapped about $43 billion in loans for a 61 percent majority stake in GM. It won't be clear for years whether taxpayers will be fully repaid -- until the government sells all of its shares in GM. At current prices, taxpayers would lose about $8 billion on their $50 billion GM bailout.
Well, I'm done investing in GM, that's a given.
Regards,
OW
But Obama couldn't have approved a single dollar of the bailout had Bush done the right thing for one time in his life and let them fail.
Obama is the one who let GM survive, but demanded big changes like replacing most of the Board, and firing of Wagoner. Something that the original Board was too stupid to do. They were still blaming their failure on the economy.
GM properly used escrow to repay U.S. loans, Treasury says
10:36 pm U.S. ET, April 28
General Motors Co., which repaid $4.7 billion in U.S. loans last week, properly used escrowed cash for the payment, a Treasury Department official said in responding to complaints from a Republican senator. GM used the escrowed funds created with government loans and overseen by the Treasury after determining the cash wasn't needed for “extraordinary” expenses, Treasury's Herbert Allison said in a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley.
autonews.com
Perhaps focusing on a more efficient 4 cylinder engine. GM, work with what you already have before you move on.
Not that this matters to me at all, because I won't ever own a GM product, but it has a ripple effect on the consumer.
Perhaps focusing on a more efficient 4 cylinder engine. GM, work with what you already have before you move on.”
I have a GM sedan – equipped with a reasonably efficient V8 –
and a somewhat more efficient 4 cylinder.
DoD \ AFM actually does work well [ 6.0L V8 – runs as a 3.0L V4 when conditions allow ] in this 4,000 pound sedan.
The transitions are a bit more obvious now, with a replacement axle-back exhaust, but I find the MPG, both on long highway trips & in my typical commuting [ in & out of midtown HotLanta ] to be acceptable.
- Ray
Just my experience & my 0.02 gallons worth of opinion . . .
I wonder if it would be conceivable to hit 30 mpg out on the highway, if you were gentle on it?
I wonder if it would be conceivable to hit 30 mpg out on the highway, if you were gentle on it?
On New Year’s Eve day, I drove from Atlanta, Georgia to visit friends who live on the Florida Panhandle.
I filled the G8 just south of Thomasville, GA & continued on toward & around Tallahassee. On entering their property, just east of the Thriving Metropolis of Carrabelle - I noted the distance, MPG and range, according to the DIC:
Distance driven – reset at fuel fill = just over 97 miles.
MPG – also reset at last fill = 28 MPG.
Range = 509 more miles . . .
Pictures - These were all taken within about a minute of each other
[ Note the fuel gauge reading. ] -
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/rayainsw/G8%20GT%20range/P1440406G8GT28MP- - G.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/rayainsw/G8%20GT%20range/P1440401G8GTrang- e509.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/rayainsw/G8%20GT%20range/P1440396G8GTtrip- 97.jpg
- Ray
Driving a GM V8 ‘economy car’ – kinda, sorta . . .
Note: Though, there is a slight elevation drop between Thomasville & Carrabelle – about 280’. I think that this would probably be offset [ at least ] by the fact that driving ‘around’ Tallahassee involves a number of stop lights & traffic was moderate to heavy at times – moving at 35 - 45. Also, much of the rest of the time I could not achieve TCC lock-up in sixth gear nor DoD \ AFM. And I hit WOT a couple of times, to achieve a brisk [ and safe ] pass. Anyway – point here is really only that these were not exactly ideal conditions. . .
In essence, had Bush made the right and GOOD DECISION in the first place, it would have also served a positive benefit on the world of not allowing Obama to make another poor decision as well. One poor decision was directly responsible for 2 poor decisions. It was entirely preventable.
In essence, had Bush made the right and GOOD DECISION in the first place, it would have also served a positive benefit on the world of not allowing Obama to make another poor decision as well. One poor decision was directly responsible for 2 poor decisions. It was entirely preventable.
I don't disagree. Think of the injustice to Ford by allowing GM to survive, and with more UAW concessions than Ford ever got. For'ds business would be positively booming if GM and C had failed. The fact that Ford is STILL successful just shows how well Mulally is doing.
Ford and Mulally deserve some credit for doing well without bailouts for sure.
But dont be so quick to discount or minimize the effect of BAILOUT BACKLASH. I am positive that GM and Chrysler would have higher sales figures today had they been able to avoid taking bailouts against the majority of the populations wishes.
I think part of bailout backlash isn't just black listing all that is GM and Chrysler, but perhaps REWARDING Ford for being different.
That said I still think both presidents screwed up here.
Bad companies should die.... good ones will take their place. It's all natural and good.
Unfortunately, when I did the pen and paper calculation for that tank, it came out to a depressing 22.7 mpg. But then I had forgotten that I had reset the computer. So in actuality, I probably DID get about 27 mpg for 2/3 of that tank, and more like 18 for the other 1/3, which was local, short-trip driving.
On the way back, I managed to get an average of 30.4 mpg, from the gas station to my driveway, according to the computer. It's sunk since then though; driving back and forth to work and running around locally sunk it to around 24-25.
Well - I do typically try to stay on topic.....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/rayainsw/Audrey%20and%20Don%20various/P13- - 30370cropharryatsunrise.jpg
At least this is my [ previous ] GM vehicle -
at my friends' house in Carrabelle:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/rayainsw/C6%20A6%2007%20MINE/P1140109Scar- - lettattheGulf.jpg
In the mid 70s I was down in Tallahassee for a year. I loved it. Used to go on weekends out to St. George or Panama City Beach (which would be a whole lot more developed now than it was back then).
Your friend is outside Carabelle? The greater Carabelle metropolitan area?
I used to have a nice time visiting in Apalachicola then, too. Now the only time I hear that name is as a reference point for a hurricane.
I know I shouldn't make two references to this sitcom in one week, but I think the only time I heard mention of Apalachicola was in an episode of the "Golden Girls" :P
Actually, with direct injection and camless technology(essentially high speed servos in place of the entire top end) - those right there will give you a 20% gain in power AND economy.(and about a 20-30% weight savings from doing away with the whole cam and valve and timing part of the engine. Really all you ever need for the top end of an engine is two valves and something to open them and close them at the proper time. This would also get rid of the entire headgasket as well, since there would be no need for lubrication of the top end. Essentially you would have a 4-stroke engine built almost exactly the same as a 2 stroke design. win-win.
Done right, they can easily get in the 10-15mpg range under hard acceleration and probably close to 40mpg highway. Shoot, they came out with a version of the GTO a few years back that got 30mpg highway. From a LS1 Corvette engine. 350hp v8 and 30mpg... GM has the technology. They just need to get out of the engineers' way and let them make great cars.
I personally see a change back to more cylinders but far more efficient engines. You will likely see 3-4L 8 cylinder engines and similar designs. Or maybe 2 L I-6s and the like.
That's a great idea. Are there any automobile engines already doing this?
Not so sure about GM. They were way late in getting to OHC engines. Kind of ambitious to think they'd leap ahead so quickly. But we can hope.
Tim McGraw Southern Voice
I've read about camless engines probably 25 years ago in a science magazine as a kid. At the time, I remember reading that electro magnets and pneumatic actuators were being lab tested for replacing cam shafts. I guess many manufacturers have been working on it and F1 engines already employ pneumatic valve springs (metal springs can't close the valves fast enough at 20k rpm).
Anyway, back when I read that article they said 100hp/liter of displacement would be the minimum output w/o camshafts and fuel economy would be improved at least 20% over a similar displacement engine.
This is from Wikipedia:
Camless engines are not without their problems though. Common problems include high power consumption, accuracy at high speed, temperature sensitivity, weight and packaging issues, high noise, high cost, and unsafe operation in case of electrical problems.
Camless valve trains have long been investigated by several companies, including Renault, BMW, Fiat, Valeo, General Motors, Ricardo, Lotus Engineering, Ford and Cargine.[1][2][3][4] Some systems are commercially available, although not in production car engines.
Notably, Formula One cars do not use camless valve trains, but pneumatic valve springs together with conventional camshafts and followers instead, this is however primarily due to the regulations teams must follow for engine development.
Washington -- A senior Republican criticized General Motors Co. decision to run television advertisements featuring the company's CEO that tout its repayment of $6.7 billion in government loans.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a letter obtained by The Detroit News today to GM chairman and CEO Edward Whitacre Jr. that the company "has come dangerously close to committing fraud and that you might have colluded with the U.S. Treasury to deceive the American public."
GM's ads featured Whitacre touting that fact that GM "repaid our government loan in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule."
Issa called on GM to stop running the television advertisements. But GM spokesman Dave Roman said the ads stopped running as scheduled on Tuesday night.
At issue is the fact that GM received $50 billion in U.S. government bailout funds -- but about $43 billion of those were swapped by the government in exchange for a 61 percent majority stake in GM.
GM had $17.4 billion of those funds in escrow -- and GM tapped unused funds from that account to repay the taxpayers for the loan portion. But it won't be clear for years whether taxpayers will be completely repaid until the government sells all of its shares in the company.
GM declined to comment directly on Issa's letter.
"Our work is not finished, but repaying our loans with interest is a clear sign that our plan is working, and a critical step toward returning GM to profitability and public ownership," GM spokesman Greg Martin said. "It's hard to see how GM's loan repayment could not be seen as a positive milestone for the company and taxpayers."
Issa argues that GM could even face lawsuits if people purchased a GM based on the advertisements.
"The American people, as the majority shareholders of GM, have a right to know the truth behind the cost of the GM bailout and GM's genuine financial condition," Issa wrote. "GM's false advertisements are counterproductive and shameful."
But another critic of GM, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, acknowledged in a speech on the Senate floor yesterday that the GM advertisements and Treasury statements were "technically correct."
The White House has touted GM's repayment as a sign of progress.
The Treasury Department said in a letter yesterday that they repayment was a positive step -- and denied it misled anyone.
"The fact that GM made that determination and repaid the remaining $4.7 billion to the U.S. government now is good news for the company, our investment, and the American people," Herbert Allison, assistant secretary for financial stability, said in a letter.
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20100429/AUTO01/4290473/1148/auto01/GM--close-to-comm- iting-fraud--in-ad--lawmaker-charges#ixzz0mYzeAMdM
100% dishonest in my book.
Doesn't surprise me. Why would anyone trust a company that lies on a regular basis? They make Toyota look like HONEST ABE.