Thank you Thank you Thank you! I've been waiting for somebody to upload the MotorWeek video for the 1993 Cadillac Allante. I remember watching these videos growing up and are still incredibly more entertaining than anything else. I have been driving a 1993 Allante practically every day since about 2016 and has been excellent with hardly anything besides normal maintenance.
The production 1993 Allante had a 295hp 4.6 liter Northstar V8(not 290hp). Torque was correct at 290 lb-ft. Unfortunately, that engine wasn't enough to keep the Allante in production after 1993.
It was a good engine from the start but had it cooling problems, head gasket issues, and starter inside the engine making that a pain to replace. This was a good looking convertible for the time.
People waited for a V8 for the Allante, GM gave them the V8 and then killed the car after just one year. At least they kept the Northstar in one form or another for almost 20 years.
Yeah because they car had been on sale for years already. Classic GM, introduce a half-baked car and try to fix it along the way and as sales/interest dry up, it finally becomes the car it should have been from the start, then it is cancelled because it is no longer selling. That's GM.
I own one now at 125k and have had my '93 for 5 years now, and have had few problems. These are unique & very hi-tech cars, which is good & bad. Parts can be hard to find but there is a strong Allante community, who have the parts & know-how to keep them running well. The Northstar is not as bullet-proof as the 4.5 (the 87-88, 4.1 is too slow for my tastes, i.e, about neck & neck w/ the heavy convertible XJ-S but is reliable) but it is not as bad as its rep. either. If you maintain the cooling system, this requires ongoing, preventative maintenance (change the coolant every 2 year regardless of mileage), plus all the other routine maintenance expensive cars require, the Northstar can live. One other upside of the 93's is that they used the Bosch II ABS rather than the troublesome Bosch III used in the earlier cars. Any Allante handles & rides well & is either fast (the 93 cars) or quick (the 89-92 are as quick, as a 300SL & faster than a 5.3 liter XJS). I get positive comments all the time on the (still) beautiful Italian coachwork. Finally, you can fix/adjust the auto-manual top yourself (mostly) something you can never do on the 129's top (also no self-recycling wiring). For well under 10k it is a steal.
I had one of these. I can’t say that it was really a blast to drive, but it definitely drove much different than other Cadillac models. The ride and steering was a little more firm and didn’t feel too over boosted
This, to me, was what I call the last of the "classic" Cadillacs. A gorgeous car with Italian styling, too bad it fell short of what GM hoped it would be, only now is it getting its moment in the limelight. Whether or not if I would want to own one would generally depend on many factors such as changes in pricing and value since its heyday, upkeep, overall build quality, etc. As I have found out, wanting one and actually having one are two entirely different things.
ah yes the Oldsmobile Quad 8, cadillac engine my foot. It was developed by Oldsmobile for Caddysmack. So why did they show the rear wheels for the traction control system? LOL. Still a handsome car, but Ill take a 92 with the pushrod 4.9. Early northstars had too many problems.
@@Butchcub75 What facts? Are you not able to grasp that Cadillac and Olds used the same engineers? This is stupid to try to point out that Olds somehow was different from Cadillac or that they used a different set of engineers or they were a separate entity. It was all the same incompetent people. Ask yourself what difference it makes on a long since failed brand and junk cancelled car from Cadillac. You're the one trying to make some distinction here, not me.
Honestly any of these engines (4.1, 4.5, 4.6) are all good in their own way. Proper maintenance along with the right person that knows what they are doing, goes a long way. The Northstar is really a robust high-performance engine and its great at that. And actually, they had much lees issues in the early years than later when GM introduced Dexcool antifreeze. I drive a 93 Allante practically every day and it's been excellent.
@@starxlr7863That is most delusional post ever. Good in their own way but yet you need a mechanic that knows what he’s doing? You can’t make this foolishness up if you tried. These cars are junk and their engines were junk. These cars are why Cadillac became a joke in the market next to the competition.
I remember seeing this car being very heavily advertised when it was released. I remember my grandparents talking about it. Then I saw it myself. I couldn't figure out why it looked so boxy and outdated when it was supposedly new... it just looked like it was from 1985, not 1993.
Purchased a ' 93 one owner two years ago . Car was taken care of well & Not driven in MN Winters ! Car runs well , starts well & gets the MPG as Suggested ! Have had some Electrical issues : One horn failed, Cass . player failed ( Have Replacement ) CD Player Not Ejecting , dash lights seem a little week , but issues will arise on any 30 + Year Old Car ! Enjoyable car to drive in nice weather , top down , & handles well ! Think I' ll Keep It ! ! ! ( Had a One Owner Caddy Coupe DeVille Before This , Only 45 K Miles since New , Very Trouble free car for 45 Years I owned it ! But just wanted to get a smaller sportier Car ! ! )
Trust me the 4.5 upgrade in 89 made up for it. Almost as powerful as a Northstar without the head gasket/head bolt issue and the sound...Chubacca as an opera singer lol.
A monument to GMs (early)blunders.Lots of micro details.It’s a bland twin to a VW scirocco (a Volkswagen)but in convertible form,Pass the No doze.Yes it finally got a better engine until its foibles appeared the (now dreaded)Northstar.The biggest failing that everyone knew at the time (except the so called buff books and GM)was that it was saddled with front wheel drive!Some attempt at returning to “standard of the world”Econo box drive train for the price of Euro luxury sedans and convertibles.At least they didn’t give it the Reata vent windows.
@@bernarddavis4350 it’s design.It’s front end and side styling is nearly identical to a 75 VW scirocco.It also shares the basic drive train layout-(econobox front wheel drive).Though Cadillac did best VW by including a V8 it was pitifully under powered-partly because of Cadillac’s laziness partly so as not to overwhelm its delicate FWD transmission.
The engine was brilliant at first, but it turned out to be junk. The car itself was good looking, but a mess. A manual top in the era of the R129 SL's fully automatic time? Body shudder/flex? Just a pretty piece of junk. No mystery as to why it failed, but I still have a soft spot for the 93 model. They should have dramatically facelifted the car fixing these things while adding the northstar. No one cared about what car paced the Indy 500 and that 30K difference was felt in the SL the moment you grabbed it's door handle - quality, engineering that shamed this heap.
Don’t forget the ridiculous way it was made. Designed in Italy. Built the body there and shipped it to the states to get finished. Stupid. Expensive. Dumb.
