"The 10 Worst Muscle Cars Of All Time"

[harddrivin1le]

Here is an article from MuscleCars magazine (Jan., 1990).
The 10 Worst Muscle Cars Of All Time.

(1976-'81 Chevrolet Camaro Rally Sport)
"... With a hurricane-like tailwind, a 16.8-second 1/4 mile was within the realm of possibility..."

So a 16.8 second 1/4 mile is laughably slow per your own thread.

This 4,780 pound 1969 Cadillac Coupe Deville ran a very comparable 16.5 second 1/4 mile:

http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles...Trend6-reg.jpg
http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles...Trend7-reg.jpg

Yet you continue to attempt to convince people that your 280 pound HEAVIER (5,060 pounds per you) 1969 SEDAN Deville is a fast car..

[Fleet 500]

So a 16.8 second 1/4 mile is laughably slow per your own thread.

This 4,780 pound 1969 Cadillac Coupe Deville ran a very comparable 16.5 second 1/4 mile:

http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles...Trend6-reg.jpg
http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles...Trend7-reg.jpg

Yet you continue to attempt to convince people that your 280 pound HEAVIER (5,060 pounds per you) 1969 SEDAN Deville is a fast car..

Come one, harddrivin, I thought you were smarter than that!
The Camaro was supposed to be "high-performance" car and the Cadillac was a full-sized, luxury car.
Don't you realize the difference?
And when did I say that my '69 Fleetwood (not Sedan de Ville) was fast? (I did say that it is faster than henk's Citroen.)

[harddrivin1le]

Come one, harddrivin, I thought you were smarter than that!
The Camaro was supposed to be "high-performance" car and the Cadillac was a full-sized, luxury car.
Don't you realize the difference?
And when did I say that my '69 Fleetwood (not Sedan de Ville) was fast? (I did say that it is faster than henk's Citroen.)

I see that BOTH cars were equally SLOW - regardless of what they were "supposed" to be and going purely by objective, EMPIRICAL data.

Cars struggled with ever tightening emissions American emissions standards from '72 on up and technology didn't begin to get the upper hand on that until the mid 80s. Everything from that era was a pig as a result.

Your boat had no such restrictions, used a much larger engines, required premium leaded gas (to truly run properly) and it was still no faster than that pathetic, emissions-burdened Camaro.


This entire thread is stupid because EMISSIONS compliance and low octane gasoline were responsible for the poor performance of the cars on that list.

[Fleet 500]

I see that BOTH cars were equally SLOW - regardless of what they were "supposed" to be and going purely by objective, EMPIRICAL data..

Then what would you call a typical Rolls-Royce or the larger 6-cylinder Mercedes from that era... super slow? The Rolls did no better than mid-17s and the Mercedes was usually in the 18s.
Keep in mind that for the average Cadillac buyer back then, mid-16s 1/4 mile times were fine with them and provided them with probably more power than they would ever need. In fact, a stock late-'60s Cadillac was faster in the 1/4 mile than the majority of "family cars" with small V-8s, like the 318 Plymouth Fury, 327 Chevy Impala, 302 Ford Galaxie, etc.
The point is that when a stock Cadillac could beat what was supposed to be a "high-performance" car (the Camaro), it shows just had bad things got.

Cars struggled with ever tightening emissions American emissions standards from '72 on up and technology didn't begin to get the upper hand on that until the mid 80s. Everything from that era was a pig as a result.

I already know all that.

Your boat had no such restrictions, used a much larger engines, required premium leaded gas (to truly run properly) and it was still no faster than that pathetic, emissions-burdened Camaro.

Isn't it kind of obvious why? (Hint- 5,060 lbs.) And it was better (faster) than that Camaro (a 16.5 1/4 mile second beats a 16.8!).

This entire thread is stupid because EMISSIONS compliance and low octane gasoline were responsible for the poor performance of the cars on that list.

This thread didn't become "stupid" until you started posting in it.
Seriously, it is just an article confirming how far the muscle cars sank after 1972. What is stupid about that? What is stupid about posting history?

[harddrivin1le]

Isn't it kind of obvious why? (Hint- 5,060 lbs.) And it was better (faster) than that Camaro (a 16.5 1/4 mile second beats a 16.8!).

Your boat is 300 pounds heavier (and 39 years older) than the coupe example that ran a 16.5 in MOTOR TREND back in 1969.

I doubt you car will do any better than a 17.0.

You would have a hard time finding a 2008, 6 cylinder pick-up truck that isn't faster than that.

This modern Cadillac weighs 5,676 pounds and runs 14.9 @ 93 - 94 MPH - bone stock. It can do that because it makes 403 ACTUAL (SAE NET) HP as opposed to "375" BS HP that had no basis in reality.

2007 Cadillac Escalade AWD - Long-Term Road Test / Tested by C/D / High Performance / Hot Lists / Reviews / Car and Driver - Car And Driver

[Fleet 500]

Your boat is 300 pounds heavier (and 39 years older) than the coupe example that ran a 16.5 in MOTOR TREND back in 1969.

I doubt you car will do any better than a 17.0.

My car has dual exhaust added, which gives some more horsepower. And for the typical Cadillac owner in 1969, a 17.0 second 1/4 mile was fine with them. As long as it had enough power for passing other cars (which it does) and could accelerate up freeway onramps (which it can) they were satisified.

You would have a hard time finding a 2008, 6 cylinder pick-up truck that isn't faster than that.

But there is a big difference from driving a bumpy trunk than a sleek and smooth-riding Cadillac.

This modern Cadillac weighs 5,676 pounds and runs 14.9 @ 93 - 94 MPH - bone stock. It can do that because it makes 403 ACTUAL (SAE NET) HP as opposed to "375" BS HP that had no basis in reality.

Back in the 1960s, that "Cadillac" would be laughed off the road! That is not a Cadillac; it's essentially a truck.
THIS is a (real) Cadillac:

[henk4]

(I did say that it is faster than henk's Citroen.)

looking at the figures hdd produced I would say that my bone-stock 100 kw diesel car was already faster than your Caddy. let alone my "carefully blueprinted" car as it is now.....

[Fleet 500]

looking at the figures hdd produced I would say that my bone-stock 100 kw diesel car was already faster than your Caddy. let alone my "carefully blueprinted" car as it is now.....

That depends what yours runs in the 1/4 mile.

But let's compare your "carefully blueprinted" car after I put lower gears (a 3.21:1 rear axle ratio replacing the stock 2.94:1) in my '69.

[harddrivin1le]

That depends what yours runs in the 1/4 mile.

But let's compare your "carefully blueprinted" car after I put lower gears (a 3.21:1 rear axle ratio replacing the stock 2.94:1) in my '69.

WHY DO YOU TURN THE TOPIC OF EVERY THREAD INTO A 1969 CADILLAC TOPIC?

The car is an old boat that handles poorly, has lousy brakes, poor structural rigidity, terrible performance and abysmal fuel economy. NOBODY CARES ABOUT IT! I would rather have a brand new, stripped down Kia!

That axle ratio swap might knock 2/10ths of a second off your ET while having virtually no effect on the Trap Speed. Yet, you act like it's the equivalent of bolting on a supercharger.

The axle ratio swap plus dual exhaust likely wouldn't compensate for the 300 pound difference between your boat and the lighter coupe version as tested by MOTOR TREND in 1969. Furthermore, your boat likely has to run a heavily retarded spark in order to cope with today's lower octane fuels. That would reduce power, relative to 1969 levels.

Thus, it's highly doubtful that your boat would run anything better than a perhaps a 16.8 sec. ET - WITH the 3.21 gear swap.

[nota]

WHY DO YOU TURN THE TOPIC OF EVERY THREAD INTO A 1969 CADILLAC TOPIC?

Don't forget Fleet's obligatory 7.7 litre V8 Cadillac performance-comparison against 2.8 litre 6-cyl Mercedes, to prove superiority

Then what would you call a typical Rolls-Royce or the larger 6-cylinder Mercedes from that era... super slow?

(amusingly he's now resorted to using the 2800cc version after finding out the V8 M-Bs were heaps faster than his behemoth)


What's next? the 472cid Cadillac vs Rover 2000cc? Oops, already done that. Citroen 4cyl diesel? Nope, loser. How about DKW 2-stroke?

The car is an old boat that handles poorly, has lousy brakes, poor structural rigidity, terrible performance and abysmal fuel economy. NOBODY CARES ABOUT IT! I would rather have a brand new, stripped down Kia!

Don't hold back now hdd .. tell us how you really feel

[Ferrer]

Don't forget Fleet's obligatory 7.7 litre V8 Cadillac performance-comparison against 2.8 litre 6-cyl Mercedes, to prove superiority

(amusingly he's now resorted to using the 2800cc version after finding out the V8 M-Bs were heaps faster than his behemoth)


What's next? the 472cid Cadillac vs Rover 2000cc? Oops, already done that. Citroen 4cyl diesel? Nope, loser. How about DKW 2-stroke?

I remember that topic, it was great.

DKW 2-stroke...? Nope, too fast I think.

[Fleet 500]

Don't forget Fleet's obligatory 7.7 litre V8 Cadillac performance-comparison against 2.8 litre 6-cyl Mercedes, to prove superiority

Don't blame me that some Mercedes were underpowered.

amusingly he's now resorted to using the 2800cc version after finding out the V8 M-Bs were heaps faster than his behemoth)

The 6.3 was faster but it was also about 3 feet shorter, weighed about 1,000 lbs less and had a super-low 3.98:1 1st gear ratio (compared to the 2.48:1 for the '69 Cad). The 6.3 Merc, though, was slower than many of the muscle cars Mercedes claimed it would "put a hurt on."

[Fleet 500]

The car is an old boat

If you think my car is a "boat," what would you call those Escalades? Don't they weigh something like 7,000 lbs?

that handles poorly,

It handles just fine for the typical Cadillac owner.

has lousy brakes,

The Motor Trend test Cadillac stopped from 60 mph in 148.3 feet. Not great, but not lousy... probably better than some other cars... even modern ones.
Fade resistance is good. In Consumer Reports test of a '68 Sedan de Ville, pedal effort for the 1st 1/2 g stop from 60 mph was 50 lbs, and it only went up to 55 lbs for the 10th repeated stop.

poor structural rigidity,

?

terrible performance

? The engine makes more power than the tires (even modern tires) can handle. A full-throttle start will cause a lot of wheelspin. There is plenty of power on tap and an 83 mph trap speed is not "terrible."

and abysmal fuel economy.

About the same mpg as the larger SUVs.

NOBODY CARES ABOUT IT

Except for the hundreds of thousands of Cadillac fans.

I would rather have a brand new, stripped down Kia!

Now there is a car nobody (except you) cares about! Were you abused by a 1960s car as a child? Just wondering because all you seem to do is bash them.

That axle ratio swap might knock 2/10ths of a second off your ET while having virtually no effect on the Trap Speed. Yet, you act like it's the equivalent of bolting on a supercharger.

What is that? A guess, right? It will make a noticable differnce. It did on my Dart when I changed from 2.93s to 3.23s. I didn't time a 1/4 mile but the 40-60 mph went from 4.8 to 4.0 seconds.

The axle ratio swap plus dual exhaust likely wouldn't compensate for the 300 pound difference between your boat and the lighter coupe version as tested by MOTOR TREND in 1969. Furthermore, your boat likely has to run a heavily retarded spark in order to cope with today's lower octane fuels. That would reduce power, relative to 1969 levels.

Dual exhaust adds 15-20 hp. The shift kit I added eliminates shift delay and the timing is not retarded because I use lead substitute and bigger jets in the carb. I also plan to go one range colder with spark plugs.

Thus, it's highly doubtful that your boat would run anything better than a perhaps a 16.8 sec. ET - WITH the 3.21 gear swap.

That is only a guess. BTW, they actually make headers for the 472 engine. I may put those in one day. But I guess it will only cut the e.t. by 2/10ths!

[harddrivin1le]

If you think my car is a "boat," what would you call those Escalades? Don't they weigh something like 7,000 lbs?




It handles just fine for the typical Cadillac owner.



The Motor Trend test Cadillac stopped from 60 mph in 148.3 feet. Not great, but not lousy... probably better than some other cars... even modern ones.
Fade resistance is good. In Consumer Reports test of a '68 Sedan de Ville, pedal effort for the 1st 1/2 g stop from 60 mph was 50 lbs, and it only went up to 55 lbs for the 10th repeated stop.



?



? The engine makes more power than the tires (even modern tires) can handle. A full-throttle start will cause a lot of wheelspin. There is plenty of power on tap and an 83 mph trap speed is not "terrible."



About the same mpg as the larger SUVs.



Except for the hundreds of thousands of Cadillac fans.



Now there is a car nobody (except you) cares about! Were you abused by a 1960s car as a child? Just wondering because all you seem to do is bash them.



What is that? A guess, right? It will make a noticable differnce. It did on my Dart when I changed from 2.93s to 3.23s. I didn't time a 1/4 mile but the 40-60 mph went from 4.8 to 4.0 seconds.



Dual exhaust adds 15-20 hp. The shift kit I added eliminates shift delay and the timing is not retarded because I use lead substitute and bigger jets in the carb. I also plan to go one range colder with spark plugs.



That is only a guess. BTW, they actually make headers for the 472 engine. I may put those in one day. But I guess it will only cut the e.t. by 2/10ths!

Maybe you should buy a supercharger for it, too.

With any luck it may not be much slower than a brand new 4 cylinder/automatic Accord.