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.
Last edited by harddrivin1le; 02-14-2008 at 08:28 AM.
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)Originally Posted by Fleet post # 27
What's next? the 472cid Cadillac vs Rover 2000cc? Oops, already done that. Citroen 4cyl diesel? Nope, loser. How about DKW 2-stroke?
Don't hold back now hdd .. tell us how you really feelThe 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!
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.that handles poorly,
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.has lousy brakes,
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,
? 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."terrible performance
About the same mpg as the larger SUVs.and abysmal fuel economy.
Except for the hundreds of thousands of Cadillac fans.NOBODY CARES ABOUT IT
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.I would rather have a brand new, stripped down Kia!
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.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.
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.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.
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!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.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Don't blame me that some Mercedes were underpowered.
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."amusingly he's now resorted to using the 2800cc version after finding out the V8 M-Bs were heaps faster than his behemoth)
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
That's right, a METAL dashboard is more preferable.
Hitting one's head on it enough times in a collision might be enough to alter sensible thinking to the point where one might actually wanted to drive a 40 year old boat that was slower than a new Kia and got worse mileage than any currently sold SUV.
Which "muscle cars?"
The specially prepared/modified/optimally tuned "test fleet" examples that most of the magazines tested/reported on or the ACTUAL PRODUCTION CARS that customers got suckered into buying by the misleading advertising, "road tests" and hype of the era?
Here it is nearly 40 years later and some people (like you) are still buying into it.
Jay Leno isn't buying into it, though. He owns fast cars and he knows that his production line stock 1970 Hemi Challenger (one the "ultimate" musclecars) isn't one of them.
Last edited by harddrivin1le; 02-14-2008 at 03:00 PM.
I was referring to the Car Life road test... know the one I'm talking about?
Many muscle car enthusiasts would strongly disagree. But I do realize how much you hate classic cars. What happened, did one run over your foot or something about 40 years ago?Jay Leno isn't buying into it, though. He owns fast cars and he knows that his production line stock 1970 Hemi Challenger (one the "ultimate" musclecars) isn't one of them
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)