0-65 mph foot to the floor 1984 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham d'Elegance HT 4.1L V-8

[Tokopol]

Yeah, those 4.1 liter V8s were real chunks of shit. They were one of Cadillac's first tries at an aluminum block engine, and the walls were so fucking weak that they would crack and the oil and the coolant would start to comingle if the car was under enough load. Thank god they replaced them with Olds 307s.

Fleetwood Broughams sure are fun, but they're a hell of a lot more fun if they're 1987 OR LATER.

[wranglersnmt]

@Tokopol

Yeah I agree, when this Caddy died I found a nice 87 with the 307-much better.

[DieselBrougham]

I have an 84 Fleetwood with an Olds 350 Diesel in it that moves out faster than this! That 4.1L V-8 was a mess. I was told by and old GM guy that they never intended that engine to go into a large RWD car, they pulled it ahead due to CAFE regulations. Cadillac's RWD cars were supposed to have the V8-6-4 6.0L engine up until 84, but the electronics controlling the modulated displacement were weak and they killed that engine except for Limosines.

[thecruisingcars]

You should have whipped it harder!

[blackericdenice]

That engine was suffering from something when it left the factory. My mother had an 82 Deville 125hp 200lbs.ft. torque but it got 25 on the hwy. Just think of it as a smooth Diesel and live is good.

[sandrochatlos1]

my 3.9 v6 '88 dakota is wayyyy slower. this cadillac i like a veyron when compared to my dakota...lol

[EspecialMoviesByJohn]

The 4.1L Cadillac engine was the absolute worst engine GM ever built. They had problems when new like bad crankshaft bearings and the intake rotting away leading to overheated engine. Slow and prone to trouble and expensive to rebuild. Cadillac's in the '80's were truly garbage. Pretty interiors but junk in every way. Those little eldorados were really crap and unsafe in collisions but the stupid consumers bought the hell out of them as usual. People by and large are complete morons.

[AnonymoussourceL0L]

I think you could still outrun a smart car

[rubberwoody]

its more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow

[Thunderchicken1997]

These cars, along with most cars of the day were fraught with build quality problems. Manufacturers were kinda lost with new government regulations, poor technology, ect. These 4.1 engines, however, were great to tinker with and drop into a Pontiac Fiero. Tweak about 300 HP, and the Fiero mas MADE for the 4.1.

[texan176]

I had an 83 in high school and was plagued by problems. Didn't the push rods exit the engine block then enter it again before going up to the heads instead of being 100% internal? I remember something that like creating more places for oil to leak out.

[eorchestrator]

Awesome! I will keep this car in mind when my kid hits 16 and wants his drivers license.

[Toni7859]

I had a 89 Pontiac Safari wagon, same engine and it was slow. They were just underpowered for these heavy cars, but the engines are solid and bulletproof.

[tgarre6]

Wow...my Ford Contour is faster

[rompn4x]

The HT4100 was a disaster. GM was frantically trying to up their MPG so they rushed this engine into production. Aluminum block and cast iron heads... wtf lol. Our 85 Eldorado had this engine and it would only do 30mph up the hill to our house.

[motorknocks]

lol i used to have one of these. i love the way it sounds when it grinds up

[casswat]

damn brother, I know you have to have some updates now. 2 different cadillacs? I'm on your team, but rectify this. You must redeem yourself.

[Gibson299]

4.1L V8? ya that's a very low displacement, extremely rare at it's time. they must of being trying hard to improve gas mileage, sadly making a v8 that slow doesn't really improve gas mileage at all lol, not to mention the weight and what not of these cars just makes This Thing, GuzzlaY.

[EdwardPack1988]

da,m, ,y k car does better than that. lol still a cool car though. lol The aint to be fast to be kewl

[MsCrappants]

lol a 1938 pickup truck might be able to do better 

[Flashvette]

That Fleetwood Brougham is a heavy car. Its a cruising car. Not a friggin race car. I had an 1983 & 1984 Fleetwood Brougham stretch Limousines back in 85. I put 180k miles on one and 140 on the other. Never had a problem with the HT4100 engine. But my dumbass driver blew the 4100 in my 85 sedan on the way to the airport. He must have been beating on it. They went to the 5.0 engine in 86.

[counterclockwise123]

5 gallons per mile with it floored lol

[chpman2013]

@counterclockwise123 if it had the 500 c.i. V8, that'd be about right...lol

[hottdylan1993]

The 4.1 was extreamly slow. they should have put 350s in these.

[chpman2013]

@hottdylan1993 they put a 350 diesel in it, but it had no guts and actually did worse

[azimmey]

My babied, 83 fleetwood with a 4.1 snapped at 159,000 miles. the top rocker arm on left side just broke :( Not one of caddilacs better ideas!!!!!

[azimmey]

My babied, 83 fleetwood with a 4.1 snapped at 159,000 miles. the top rocker arm on left side just broke :(

[campingkillen]

Oh my god......My stock -57 Coupe de Ville is not a very fast vehicle but it sure makes the 0-60 run in about 12-13 sec!

It´s also a lot heavier than this car (well over 5000 lbs with a full tank of gas and 2 passengers).

Many of these cars from the -80´s were just awful in terms of performance and build quality.

[pompsteve]

@campingkillen

The Cadillac build quality was actually better from the '77 model year and up,compared to the early '70`s.I worked in a GM plant from '76 thru '86 so i know this to be true.I own a mint 1978 Cadillac Sedan Deville and it`s real solid.

You`re right about the awful performance engines in the '80`s though.A combination of government mandated higher gas mileage ratings and car makers scrambling around to create lighter more fuel efficient engines resulted in some real shitty engines.

[GlamRocker111589]

Those HT 4100's weren't great for power or reliability, least those caddys have enough room for a big engine swap!

[aldaloo3]

i used to have the same car it was 85 when i floor it my father tells me its like the L-1011 Tristar!!

[midnitesquirldog]

cam is going bad now that i have seen this clip again yeah the cam is walking off the distributor bearings are bad because of oil mixing with small amounts of coolant !

[Testdrive98]

I love the horizontal speedometer.

[NDrLoR]

0-60 in 24 seconds! A '50 Chevrolet with Powerglide is faster than that! This car has 125 HP from 249 CID, no torque, driving through a 3.15 axle ratio--that's why it screams like it does, but isn't giving any performance.

[dstarks80]

@NDrLoR 82 was the only year with 125hp and 190 lbs torque. 83-85 used a different intake for 135hp and 200 lbs torque. These had the 3.42 axle ratio while Eldos and Sevilles had the 3.15's. They're all slugs. But this one seems a bit too sluggish-even for a 4100.

[NDrLoR]

@dstarks80 That's right about the ratios--I was think Eldo when this is a Fleetwood! Lots of revin' without much action! The '80 with the same body but the 368 had a 2.19 and straight 3-speed!

[thekidrocks72]

Just one more reason that engine was known as the Hook'n Tow 4100. A tow truck could pull that boast faster to 60 than that engine can push it to 60!

[MercuryMorrison1]

I've only seen a handful of cars that are this slow.

[wranglersnmt]

@MercuryMorrison1

In it's defense I think it was suffering from major engine problems when this video was shot as the engine self destructed about 200 miles later....lol

[cadrolls]

@MercuryMorrison1 I had a 4.1 DFI too and it was pretty slow. It was because of the gas situation.

[midnitesquirldog]

these cars were made for mileage not power. like the diesel for mileage . to compete with the foreighn cars ! back then

[WhoSaidTyler]

I like the big GM's. 4100's were usually not long lived....this one sounds...."healthy".

[fillmore593]

Damn!

[smokey1858]

0-60 in 2 days haha cool car though

[TheTrihorn1]

wow thats really slow

[NathansBackwoods]

if you got a 70 or older the 500s had 550 ftlbs torque, and the 472 had 525 ft lbs, not sure what the 429s made, but they all had good power...i wouldn't mind having one, but im more of a fan of the Lincoln's and imperials.

[fsjfanatic]

@NathansBackwoods your a fuckin tard fish cadillacs in the 70s were gutless hogs i own 3 sixty"s caddys they dont have this power if u could read u shuld prolly resaerch this b4 making urself look like a ten year old kid. the 472 an an 429 only had like 400 torque an that was at the crank not wheel horsepower

[NathansBackwoods]

@fsjfanatic, crank torque 525 to 550, no alternator, water pump, likely no air filter, or muffler, but the engine still made that much power at the crank.

[NathansBackwoods]

@fsjfanatic, By the way, you sound more like a ten year old right now just talking to me the way you are, I bet if we were face to face you would have some nice ways of saying thing. Why can you just come at me more friendly.

[fsjfanatic]

@NathansBackwoods no cadillac until recently made this power look thing up b4 u post dumbass comments people like u know just enough to seem like u know car stuff butt really dont know ur ass fron a hole in the wall

[fuseli]

Dude, seriously? It accelerates like a 240D. Lol... cool car though.

[wranglersnmt]

@fuseli

 Yeah it's one of the slowest cars I've driven. But it's a blast to drive:-)