: A list of factory stock quarter mile times?



stngh8r
09-26-08, 05:56 PM
Does anyone know of a link to quarter mile times for N* or all Cadillacs? I have been searching all day with no results. You know, just like a list of factory stock cars and the acceleration results via magazine testing or whatever. I have found several lists that include a few different models, but for the Seville for example, it only shows the STS.

My primary reason for searching is I want to find out if in fact a SLS is really all that much slower than a STS?

I have seen a list that was very complete (e.g. all years and models), but though I have searched and searched, I cannot seem to find it again or remember how I got to it.

It seems just from scanning this board in the past that the 275hp cars do just as well as the 300hp cars at the drag strip. Can anyone confirm this theory?

CadillacSTS42005
09-26-08, 06:02 PM
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html
http://www.exoticcarsite.com/0-60-quarter-mile-times.html

stngh8r
09-26-08, 06:51 PM
Thanks for the links. The first one you listed I did find in my searching, but it only lists STS's?

The second link said Error?

Ranger
09-26-08, 09:26 PM
I don't know of any lists, but I think you'll find them pretty close.

MisterBlue
09-27-08, 10:11 AM
Having owned both, I can tell you the STS is around a half-second faster 0-60 than the SLS or plain Seville. This is due more to the transmission gear ratios than it is the horsepower difference. The STS is geared for acceleration, and the others are geared for cruising. Difference in the 1/4 mile times would similar, close to 1/2 second. Earlier models (the late '90s thru 2001) are slightly faster than the 2002-2005, probably due to cam timing changes.

The same sort of thing carries over in the Deville and Eldo line, with the touring versions (xTx) being faster in both 0-60 and 1/4 mile times than the non-touring models. Again, the lower gear ratio gives the T's a major advantage in acceleration.

The gears, I'm told, can be changed, and this would likely be the best performance mod for one of the "non-touring" models.

Submariner409
09-27-08, 10:23 AM
stngh8tr, On the second link just go over to the lower left column and click on 0-60 times in the box.

mighty_quad4
09-27-08, 01:06 PM
take that list with a grain of salt. nearly all of those times are ripped from magazines and most are WRONG.

1990 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais Quad 442 7.7 16.1
1991 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais Int. HO Quad 4 7.5 16.0
1990 Chevrolet Beretta GTZ 7.7 16.1
1991 Chevrolet Beretta GTZ 7.7 16.1
1990 Pontiac Grand Am Quad 4 7.3 15.8
1992 Pontiac Grand Am GT 7.5 15.9

every single one of those times is flat wrong. how do i know? ive owned a version of each car. how far off are they? on average, theyre about .6 of a second off. my 90 I-Series Calais has run a 15.40 @ 92mph bone stock. my GTZ ran a 15.6 with a 130k mile slipping clutch and ive yet to take the GA to the track but it doesnt count since the engine is FAR from stock but it perform similar [ stock ] to the other cars since the drivetrain is identical and the weights arent far off.

what kills me is that back in 91, a few mags got ahold of the Calais 442 W41 car. it ran a 14.7 @ 97 mph in the mags and that is backed up by members of my mailing list running 14.60s and 14.70s with thier cars. now, realistically the W41 only differs from a HO car by 10hp and a 3.94 final drive vs a 3.61 [ there are a few more differences but for this discussion these 2 are all that need to be mentioned ] . those 2 differences are NOT enough to cause a 1.4 SECOND difference in qtr mile times and mph to differ by 9 mph.

all im trying to say is that while you read that list, dont take the times listed as gospel as magazine test drivers as a whole SUCK. most times are pretty close but some are so far off its embarassing.

a much better way of determining the times of a car is www.dragtimes.com. most times come with timeslips as proof. the site isnt foolproof but its much closer to what a car would actually do.

stngh8r
09-29-08, 07:38 PM
take that list with a grain of salt. nearly all of those times are ripped from magazines and most are WRONG.

I agree. I was primarily interested in the difference between the two, rather than the exact time claimed

Thanks guys

Eric

Submariner409
09-29-08, 08:40 PM
Don't lose sight of the fact that any 5 of us driving the same car on the same track on the same evening will all have different times/speeds. The fact is that my reaction time(s) are now quite different from those of an 18 year old, and both our times are different from those of a 28 year old professional racer.

mighty_quad4
09-29-08, 09:16 PM
reaction times dont affect quarter mile times. number one misconception in drag racing. considering teh vehicles were talking abotu here are autos as well and the driver is taken out of the equation past the launch.

if the STSs were sticks then id agree. bad drivers can "add" anywhere from .1 to nearly a full second to pretty much any car vs a competent driver. age doesnt have as much to do with it either. Warren Johnson still drag races and he is 65 years old.

stngh8r
09-30-08, 08:13 PM
-I will gladly accept ANY information. E.G. Dadillac has informed us that his 02 SLS ran a 15.2 on a cold night, thats great 1st hand info and I've gladly made note of it.

-However, pertaining to the O.P., IMHO mag comparisons are going to be about as unbiased and standardized as you can hope for.

-Maybe we could start our own list! since there doesn't seem to be a good source available for us to refer to.

-I think a list that includes various details concerning the car, mods, conditions, track, and as much timed info as possible would be great. What do you guys think?

codewize
09-30-08, 10:40 PM
www.dragtimes.com. Not all are stock but it's good information