As you all probably know already, the old 472 Cadillac engines had more than enough power as the photo below shows! This was my family's '74 Coupe de Ville, completely stock engine and drivetrain.

Cars with skirts do the best looking burnouts.... :thumbsup:

Got the limited slip option?

I've never thought of that... fender skirts VS no fender skirts for burnout pics!

No limited slip. It's only the right rear tire spinning. A few more details:
A friend was driving and I took the pic. The car is going up a hill and I poured some water at the starting point. My friend said he actually let off the throttle- the tire was still spinning as he was reaching the top of the hill! Let's see a Le*us do that!
This photo was taken in Sept., 1988.

Here is the mark it left on the street. :D

I bet the neighbors thought it was done by a Camaro or Mustang... not this time! ;)

nice dark stripe. Almost makes me want to go snap a few pics.... :D

Let's see a Le*us do that!

A Le*us is engineered NOT to do that, precisely why it would leave our hulking boats in the dust. However whats the fun without burnouts?!?!

compare a 1974 Lexus to a 1974 DeVille...

oh, wait... nm, there was no Lexus...

compare a new Lexus to a new Cadillac... then make a fair statement

But...

you don't know how long those pics (first 2) have been going around the internet.. I had had them both on my computer for about 1-2 years now.. don't remember where I got them... but i can't believe I have them, and now they are posted....

Anyway.... nice... that is sweet.... makes me want to post a pic of the rubber from the '79....

ok, heres a pic.. it was just me, so no outside pics...

what you don't see is that the rubber is pretty much the length of the strightaway, it was only the right tire, but when it shifted into 2nd, the left tire also left rubber, then cought... then when it shifted into 3rd, the left tire left rubber again... the speedo was burried and I had to let off to slow down for the turn (car was only doing like 35mph or so)

That was just making the turn and flooring it.... even with the hesitation form the carb that needs a rebuild

big blocks have big torque :)

I took a video, no brakestand, loads of smoke, or anything cool, simple flooring it. But you can see both tires smoking a bit. I tried to have a bit more fun, but a car was cutting through the lot I was trying to use......

you don't know how long those pics (first 2) have been going around the internet.. I had had them both on my computer for about 1-2 years now.. don't remember where I got them... but i can't believe I have them, and now they are posted....

Anyway.... nice... that is sweet.... makes me want to post a pic of the rubber from the '79....

I posted those first two pics on some "burnout" website, along with some of my former '66 Dart GT V-8.

Yeah, go post your '79... always fun to look at burnout pics! :D

ok, heres a pic.. it was just me, so no outside pics...

That was just making the turn and flooring it.... even with the hesitation form the carb that needs a rebuild


That was a nice footprint (burnout).

It's amazing that a heavy car like that can do that.
With the pic I posted, my friend just released the brake and hit the throttle- no power braking.

Not to be an @ss or anything but.....
burn-out pics are cool and all but I'm more impressed by 0-60, 0-100 or 1/4 mile times than I am by tire smoke and black marks. After all, if the tires are smoking, the car's not going as fast as it could be.
I've got a 4cyl. Ranger that'll smoke the tires but it's by no means a powerhouse.

Not to be an @ss or anything but.....
burn-out pics are cool and all but I'm more impressed by 0-60, 0-100 or 1/4 mile times than I am by tire smoke and black marks. After all, if the tires are smoking, the car's not going as fast as it could be.
I've got a 4cyl. Ranger that'll smoke the tires but it's by no means a powerhouse.

...especially with an open diff. My 4cyl auto trans S-10 is the same way... (though the factory 4.10 rear gives it a little help, while stimultaneously making it absolutely useless in the snow)

...especially with an open diff. My 4cyl auto trans S-10 is the same way... (though the factory 4.10 rear gives it a little help, while stimultaneously making it absolutely useless in the snow)
I know this is way off topic but.......put a little weight (couple hundred pounds) and a GOOD set of snow tires (Glacier Grip II....made by MasterCraft?.....I think) on it. It'll go great. Put the snow tires all the way around and you'll think you're driving something that was designed to be driven in the snow. :thumbsup:

Not to be an @ss or anything but.....
burn-out pics are cool and all but I'm more impressed by 0-60, 0-100 or 1/4 mile times than I am by tire smoke and black marks. After all, if the tires are smoking, the car's not going as fast as it could be.


I like both! (Burnouts and acceleration times.)
Burnouts do come in handy sometimes. For instance, they are good for scaring away import drivers. When I come off the line at a traffic light with the tire screaming, 9 times out of 10 the import drivers will stay well back!

But, to satisfy your interest in times...

'64 Sedan de Ville:
0-60 mph..... 8.5 seconds
0-100 mph... 24 seconds
1/4 mile....... 16.4 sec @ 85 mph.

'69 Coupe de Ville:
0-60 mph.... 9.4 sec.
1/4 mile...... 16.5 sec @ 83.8
40-60 mph.. 4.9 sec
50-70 mph.. 5.6 sec

And both cars can burn rubber as well! :D

I like both! (Burnouts and acceleration times.)
Burnouts do come in handy sometimes. For instance, they are good for scaring away import drivers. When I come off the line at a traffic light with the tire screaming, 9 times out of 10 the import drivers will stay well back!

But, to satisfy your interest in times...

'64 Sedan de Ville:
0-60 mph..... 8.5 seconds
0-100 mph... 24 seconds
1/4 mile....... 16.4 sec @ 85 mph.

'69 Coupe de Ville:
0-60 mph.... 9.4 sec.
1/4 mile...... 16.5 sec @ 83.8
40-60 mph.. 4.9 sec
50-70 mph.. 5.6 sec

And both cars can burn rubber as well! :D

I know what the cars are capable of and find their numbers quite impressive. Not bad numbers at all for a 4500# (or so) lux-o-barge that was built 35+ years ago. That's why I'm putting a mildly built 500 in my '84 Deville. :thumbsup:
As difficult as it may be, I plan to limit my tire smoke with sticky tires and a posi. :coolgleam

I can't imagine driving mine without the posi actually.... it loses traction enough with it, without it must be difficult to not spin. Heck, it chirps second with a jumper wire going to the detent solenoid to force a redline shift.

That truck does do OK witht he bed full of compacted snow, and its got pretty decent tires on it now. ill have to look into snow tires though. But without anything specific... an empty mini truck bed, and an open 4.10? It can't make it up the driveway without momentum in anything more than an inch.

I know what the cars are capable of and find their numbers quite impressive. Not bad numbers at all for a 4500# (or so) lux-o-barge that was built 35+ years ago. That's why I'm putting a mildly built 500 in my '84 Deville. :thumbsup:
As difficult as it may be, I plan to limit my tire smoke with sticky tires and a posi. :coolgleam

True, they are not light cars. That '64 weighed about 4,900 lbs and the '69 weighed 4,780 lbs (I have the actual road tests somewhere- the figures I'm quoting are from memory.)

As for tire smoke, don't be surprised to one day see pics of my '69 Fleetwood Brougham burning rubber!

'64 Sedan de Ville:
0-60 mph..... 8.5 seconds
0-100 mph... 24 seconds
1/4 mile....... 16.4 sec @ 85 mph.

'69 Coupe de Ville:
0-60 mph.... 9.4 sec.
1/4 mile...... 16.5 sec @ 83.8
40-60 mph.. 4.9 sec
50-70 mph.. 5.6 sec


Uhh i dont understand how the '64 outperforms the '69 :hmm:

Uhh i dont understand how the '64 outperforms the '69 :hmm:

I'm pretty sure it's because of the rear axle ratio. The '64 has an advantage with its 3.21:1 gears while the '69 has 2.94:1.
I've often wondered what the times would be if the '69 had a 3.21 axle.

It's also possible that the '64 was well-broken in and the '69 has less than 500 miles on it.

eh.... times are good... and give you something to base the car agasint other cars with...

... but burnout pics and tires smoking... on Caddys... is great... :)

16.5 @ 85mph? wow.. that is really good considering... not too bad...

I need a 2.73 Posi... this 2.28 open isn't any fun....

... the tires (well, right tire) likes to spin alot when pulling out on to roads...

I'm really gonna miss RWD.

eh.... times are good... and give you something to base the car agasint other cars with...

... but burnout pics and tires smoking... on Caddys... is great... :)

16.5 @ 85mph? wow.. that is really good considering... not too bad...

I need a 2.73 Posi... this 2.28 open isn't any fun....

... the tires (well, right tire) likes to spin alot when pulling out on to roads...

I think, when I get a chance, I'll post some times to compare (I have a lot of '50s-'70s car mags).

I agree... burnout pics are good for the soul! :D

2.28s, I think, are too high a gear. For the average driver, at least 50% of driving is done on streets and high gears like that really lugs the engine. I wasn't thrilled, either, when DeVilles and Fleetwoods went from 2.94s in '74 to 2.73s in '75. But Cadillac was smart to used lower (3.15s) in the heavier limos. My '76 limo actually moves out pretty good for a 6,040 lb car with a lot of anti-smog equipment.

It would be fun to change the rear axle ratio on my '69 Fleetwood from 2.94 to around 3.55! I bet that would lower its 1/4 mile from low 16s to probably low 15s! (at about 94 mph).

I'm really gonna miss RWD.

Dave, I have a test of a '75 Sedan de Ville from Mechanix Illustrated (July, 1975). Here are some specs:

Engine/hp........ 500/190
Weight............ 5,146 lbs.
Rear axle ratio.. 2.73:1
0-30 mph........ 3.9 secs.
0-50 mph........ 8.1
0-60 mph........ 10.6
1/4 mile.......... 18.6
Top speed....... 120+ mph.
Base price....... $8,814
Price as tested. $ 10,600

Fuel mileage was not listed.

believe it or not, the 2.28 dosn't tax the engine at all...

I am surprised... if I am going 45mph or slower and floor it, it downshifts into 1st and literally throws you into the seat, anything above 50 and it downshifts in to 2nd and it pushes you in the seat....

I just did some more tune up work, and some other things... still have the carb problem, but she is running *real* good now... I can't believe it!... and it is all stock too.... I am sticking with the 425 for a while :)

believe it or not, the 2.28 dosn't tax the engine at all...

I am surprised... if I am going 45mph or slower and floor it, it downshifts into 1st and literally throws you into the seat, anything above 50 and it downshifts in to 2nd and it pushes you in the seat....

I just did some more tune up work, and some other things... still have the carb problem, but she is running *real* good now... I can't believe it!... and it is all stock too.... I am sticking with the 425 for a while :)

Well, Car & Driver tested a '78 Coupe de Ville in their June, 1978 issue and got a 10.6 sec. 0-60 mph. time and an 18.2 @ 78.8 1/4 mile which is pretty good. I guess its relatively low weight (4,270 lbs) compared to the '75 SDV means that the high axle ratio doesn't make much difference.

Fuel mileage was not listed.

Ah, that made me smile. In a couple years I hopefully will have the only 75 Deville in the 12s.

Ah, that made me smile. In a couple years I hopefully will have the only 75 Deville in the 12s.

Even though that article didn't list mileage, it was probably around 11-13 mpg.

I have some muscle car magazines and in one issue, they had an article about street racing in New York. For a while, the popular thing to do was race with big 1969-1970 Cadillacs and Buick Electras with nitrous oxide. These cars would run in the 12s and 11s and would really surprise unsuspecting street racers! Looks like you want to become one of those! That's good! :)