Alright, so we're sitting at lunch one day talking about my friends' 97 Buick LeSabre, and my friend Austin asks me what kind of motor it's got so i tell him "the 3800V6, with 205hp, more hp than my car makes." so then my friend kevin says "your cars only got 200hp?!?!?!?!?" to which i reply "yeah, what did you think?" he says "about 240-250" i laughed, then said "uhh no" but then my friend Maki (who drives a nissan :tisk:) but enjoys the "cadillac power" asks how much torque it makes to which i reply "275 foot pounds" then i told kevin thats how it felt so fast. He said "when it's W.O.T., it feels like your old LT1 Roadmaster" then i said "the roadmaster weighs about 600lbs more than the deville does, so the 200hp goes about as far as the 260 did" the pounds per hp and pounds per each foot pound of torque are about the same in each car. The cadillac has about 17.95 lbs for each hp to push as oppossed to the 16.32 the buick had. And the Cadillac shoves around 13.05 pounds for every lb/ft of torque made as oppossed to the 12.86 the buick had to do. So the lesson of the day is the 4.9 is underrated, and the Impala SS, Roadmaster, and Fleetwoods LT1 is kinda over rated. But there are WAY more mods available for the LT1. But i gotta like the 4.9 more because it's exclusive, rare and sounds WAY COOL!

Tell your buddy the 4.9 also has the SAME amount of torque as a Ferrari 360. ;)

Tell him you can run the 1/4 mi in 16 seconds with the climtate controll set at 68 degrees in leather oppulance .....

at the end of the day that is why i dont mind not being able to run 14 or 13 second 1/4 mi times or being able to corner ....im confortable ....thats whatmatter to me anymore ....no place to really enjoy a "sporting" car in florida anyway

The Fiero guys say a 4.9L Fiero vs a SC3800 Fiero are about dead even in the 1/4mi. Classic argument, HP vs Torque.....

Next thing they will argue is rod length and big bore vs long stroke.... Dang, already been done.....

I'll take my LT1 over a 4.9L anyday! I have had both, I like the LT1 better, much smoother....

Alright, so we're sitting at lunch one day talking about my friends' 97 Buick LeSabre, and my friend Austin asks me what kind of motor it's got so i tell him "the 3800V6, with 205hp, more hp than my car makes." so then my friend kevin says "your cars only got 200hp?!?!?!?!?" to which i reply "yeah, what did you think?" he says "about 240-250" i laughed, then said "uhh no" but then my friend Maki (who drives a nissan :tisk:) but enjoys the "cadillac power" asks how much torque it makes to which i reply "275 foot pounds" then i told kevin thats how it felt so fast. He said "when it's W.O.T., it feels like your old LT1 Roadmaster" then i said "the roadmaster weighs about 600lbs more than the deville does, so the 200hp goes about as far as the 260 did" the pounds per hp and pounds per each foot pound of torque are about the same in each car. The cadillac has about 17.95 lbs for each hp to push as oppossed to the 16.32 the buick had. And the Cadillac shoves around 13.05 pounds for every lb/ft of torque made as oppossed to the 12.86 the buick had to do. So the lesson of the day is the 4.9 is underrated, and the Impala SS, Roadmaster, and Fleetwoods LT1 is kinda over rated. But there are WAY more mods available for the LT1. But i gotta like the 4.9 more because it's exclusive, rare and sounds WAY COOL!

holy numbers batman!

The Fiero guys say a 4.9L Fiero vs a SC3800 Fiero are about dead even in the 1/4mi. Classic argument, HP vs Torque.....

this is more true than you think ...i raced a 95 Superchanged Rivera last week ...it was dead even till around 90 , then he started making ground on me .....

well, 1995 was the Series I.... 205hp (super charged)

had it be a Seires II..... then it woudln't be a race :)

I know the Series II NA 3800 (205 hp) came out in 95, I drove one in a 95 Bonneville, was impressed.

Did the Series II SC V6's come out the same year?

2.73 gears and torque, 3.06 gears and HP. Sounds like a level playing field... Now, someone go get a 91-93 Deville Touring Sedan and go again.... Factory 3.33's....

The DOHC 3.4's in the Z34 Luminas were 3.43 geared, and the pace car Monte Carlo (the real one, not the one sold to the public) was 3.73. 215hp, but power isn't till high in the revs.

it might have been a tighter race ..but i couldnt get the power down since he nailed it halfway thru a turn to start things...so i had to backpedal to keep the car turned ..once we boath got stright it was about dead even till around 80 like i said before ...my car has nothing up top

Because he is boosted and the 4.9L has a lame cam, and likely lousy head flow, you have great bottom end, bit lack a lot on high end.

I would love to be able to do some serious head work on a 4.9L and see what sort of power you can get out of it. A cam with specs more like the LT1 (before you flame me telling that is too much, the L99 uses the same B/D cam as the LT1), it is pretty tame, and has great lobe separation, something the 4.9L would appreciate.

Has anyone ever flowed the 4.x heads?

i wasnt gona flame you dude ....why would i do that ? i know nothing about the cam profiles for either engine ...

ive heard something about you couldnt put too much lift int he motor but couldnt that be overcome thru diffrent rockers ?

whats the L99?

IIRC '91-'93 Toruing Sedans have a 2.93, not 3.33, my base DeVille has a 2.73.

The fasest 4.9 car is the 1992 Seville STS/ Eldorado ETC.

Stoney.... when I bring the Caddy do FL, we are gonna have to race! '93 base DeVille vs. '94 base DeVille :)

I saw Gainesville raceway, which is nice since my mother and her fiancee will be in Gainesville... give me something to do ont he weekends...

According to my 1991 FSM, 3.33's were the touring sedan gear. Unless they changed it for 1992-1993.

IIRC '91-'93 Toruing Sedans have a 2.93, not 3.33, my base DeVille has a 2.73.

The fasest 4.9 car is the 1992 Seville STS/ Eldorado ETC.

Stoney.... when I bring the Caddy do FL, we are gonna have to race! '93 base DeVille vs. '94 base DeVille :)

I saw Gainesville raceway, which is nice since my mother and her fiancee will be in Gainesville... give me something to do ont he weekends...
well have to see , ive never drag raced on a track ...never drag raced perioid , just a occasional stoplight flog ....

ive always been a bit intimidated by the chirstmas tree .....i dont think i have what it takes as far as that goes ...

oh its fun!

I raced my car at the track not even 3 weeks after i got my license :)

my best time last year was a 15.9 @85mph.... but she is running *much* better now...

the tree is fun too, for test and tune it is on "easy" mode so to say... it counts down.... just remember, the last amber is GO, don't wait until green, my first time I waited until I saw the green, and my reaction time sucked...

Hell, you could come along and ride in my car to see what it's like.... more weight, but who really cares... you can be the camera guy taping the whole thing :)

Here was my first time.... Augest 23rd, 2003 :) man, that was a while back (look at the wheels/tires! :) ) all origanal, stock, un-Rick-lested condition :) around 82k miles or so :) Only it had was a drop in K&N air filter. My best time that day was 16.0 @ 85mph....

The fasest 4.9 car is the 1992 Seville STS/ Eldorado ETC.

I'd think the 91 Eldorado at 3470 pounds would take that honor even though its coefficient of drag is a bit higher. Both had 3.33:1 final drive ratio.

The Fiero guys say a 4.9L Fiero vs a SC3800 Fiero are about dead even in the 1/4mi. Classic argument, HP vs Torque.....

The SC series 1 3800 was rated at 205/225hp and 260/275ft.lbs. The L67 series 2 SC 3800 has 240hp and 280ft.lbs. and is probably comparable in weight to a 4.9 so I see no reason any 3800SC wouldn't outrun a 4.9 in the same car. The engines make peak torque at similar RPMs as well.

oh its fun!

I raced my car at the track not even 3 weeks after i got my license :)

my best time last year was a 15.9 @85mph.... but she is running *much* better now...

the tree is fun too, for test and tune it is on "easy" mode so to say... it counts down.... just remember, the last amber is GO, don't wait until green, my first time I waited until I saw the green, and my reaction time sucked...

Hell, you could come along and ride in my car to see what it's like.... more weight, but who really cares... you can be the camera guy taping the whole thing :)

Here was my first time.... Augest 23rd, 2003 :) man, that was a while back (look at the wheels/tires! :) ) all origanal, stock, un-Rick-lested condition :) around 82k miles or so :) Only it had was a drop in K&N air filter. My best time that day was 16.0 @ 85mph....
Ive done autocross and all sorts of things but neevr drag racing ....all because of that tree ..cuz 3/4 of the race is that stupid tree ...ill make a couple runs for sure ....

of caorse autocrosses were done in NMC's (Not My Car)..the last of which was a brand new Mazda 3 ...its tranny didnt make it to the end of the day ....

It is amazing that this make/model (Cads of '88-92 vintage) are so underrated. On the other hand I have incredible enjoyment with this car ('90 eldo w/4.9 and ETC sway bar and sensa-trac struts) humiliating what are purported "performance sedans" or "touring sedans" on long mountan climbs, and cornering on twisties. Pick-em-up trucks with #3 or #8 in back window are my favorite snack. I have never believed the factory HP ratings since the day I first drove the Eldo Coupe. Keep in mind that the fifteen sec 1/4mi bracket is as good or better than many of the 60s muscle cars did in factory trim. And full independant susp, disc brakes, 16" wheels and good tires, it outperforms almost anything except the German sports sedans.

Bill C, Nashville

It is amazing that this make/model (Cads of '88-92 vintage) are so underrated. On the other hand I have incredible enjoyment with this car ('90 eldo w/4.9 and ETC sway bar and sensa-trac struts) humiliating what are purported "performance sedans" or "touring sedans" on long mountan climbs, and cornering on twisties. Pick-em-up trucks with #3 or #8 in back window are my favorite snack. I have never believed the factory HP ratings since the day I first drove the Eldo Coupe. Keep in mind that the fifteen sec 1/4mi bracket is as good or better than many of the 60s muscle cars did in factory trim. And full independant susp, disc brakes, 16" wheels and good tires, it outperforms almost anything except the German sports sedans.

Bill C, Nashville

Yup, I agree, but the 90 Eldo did not come with the 4.9L from the factory, it was the 4.5L. The 4.9L was introduced in the 1991 model year. And yes, my new, stock 1967 GTO never ran below 16 in the quarter mile, nor will my current stock 1965 Mustang GT or the stock 429CJ 72 Torino. They are fast and can boil a lot of rubber, but my old girls are no competition these days. They could be with a few mods, but they are virgins (more like old maids) and I don't want to change that. Oh, by the way, I have a fresh crate 530HP 460 in an old farm truck that you might not want to "snack" with, but I seriously doubt you will ever see it on the street, unless it is stolen! It won't get too far away with only a 5 gallon fuel cell, especially if it has a couple passes on it :-) But on the other hand, if you would like to give it a shot, I'll arrange to meet with you at one the tracks here in Houston.

The 4.9L Cadillac's never were, and never will be performance cars at the drag strip. Sure you can mod one, but why? Although the Cadillac is not the slug that it once was, even with the improved acceleration, the low end was "moderately" engineered for the street. You will never dump a 4.9L Cadillac from 2K RPM into gear, and expect it to launch, it just won't happen. They were never designed to be muscle cars and therefore never will be. To run a 16 in a quarter mile with a 4.9L Cadillac is quite admirable. Many imports can do the same these days with less weight, less engine, and less cost.

The 1992 model year was the "world class" of design (Eldorado/Seville) which changed very little from 1992 to 2002. Although the drivetrain did make some significant changes over the years, the cars themselves changed very little.
The 4.9L and the 4.6L Cadillac (Eldorado/Seville) are a blend of all the best features of the time. Good acceleration, good fuel economy, and very reliable. What else could you want from a luxury car that is now a decade behind the times?

The new generation Cadillac is a different story! Cadillac has done it again! There is no domestic car to compare with it neither in price nor performance.

oops

Tell him you can run the 1/4 mi in 16 seconds with the climtate controll set at 68 degrees in leather oppulance .....

at the end of the day that is why i dont mind not being able to run 14 or 13 second 1/4 mi times or being able to corner ....im confortable ....thats whatmatter to me anymore ....no place to really enjoy a "sporting" car in florida anyway

In 1999 Ford re-introduced the Lightning which ran the quarter mile in the 13-14 second range, right off the dealer lot. It was hands down, the fastest domestic production vehicle with an automatic transmission. I find it very difficult to even think of a DeVille with the same quarter mile times as a supercharged 5.4L SVT. 16 to 17 second quarter mile times would be more in line for a DeVille and yes, those are quite acceptable times for that vehicle.

And on the other hand....*grin! Who wants to show up for a funeral driving a Lightning? It just doesn't fit anywhere, like a Cadillac!

Tell your buddy the 4.9 also has the SAME amount of torque as a Ferrari 360. ;)
__________________
"I've had to punch people-including an ex-boyfriend. Don't get me wrong, I'm polite, but I'm not going to roll over!"

"When I started doing Shotokan and kickboxing, I would walk down the street and I could envision beating the crap out of people." - Victoria Pratt


Hi Vicky,
Still shaving your nuts?:confused:

The 4.9L Cadillac's never were, and never will be performance cars at the drag strip. Sure you can mod one, but why? Although the Cadillac is not the slug that it once was, even with the improved acceleration, the low end was "moderately" engineered for the street. You will never dump a 4.9L Cadillac from 2K RPM into gear, and expect it to launch, it just won't happen. They were never designed to be muscle cars and therefore never will be. To run a 16 in a quarter mile with a 4.9L Cadillac is quite admirable. Many imports can do the same these days with less weight, less engine, and less cost.




I dunno, I will beg to differ... while no NorthStar, the 4.9 is a very peppy engine.

My 1993 Coupe DeVille ran a 15.9 @85mph, that was when it was 11 years old with 95k miles, half a tune up (had the origanal dist. cap and rotor, that made a nice difference, and the injectors have since been cleaned, that helped too...few other things were done sice then) not to mention a cat. conv. that was broken in about a dozen different pieces inside, causing the engine to stall, idle real bad, get horible gas mileage and a few other things...

empty trunk, 3/4 tank of gas, simple power brake got me that 15.9, enigne is stock, except for a K&N drop in panel filter.

Since then I have done alot more tune up work and she is running better then ever.... when I take it to the track next month, I know she'll run better too.... not too bad from a "base" DeVille with 2.73 gears.

I wouldn't say all Cadillacs were slow (of the yesteryears) in fact for any given time period, Cadillacs were some of the fastest non-performance cars around, my '79 DeVille with the stock 425 with the pathetic compression ratio and all the emmissions junk still movbes around very well.... I think it was the origanal buyers of these cars.... older people... that just drove them very slowly, then people never saw them moving fast, and they thought they were slow..... but Caddys have always had the power to back up the nameplate...

In 1999 Ford re-introduced the Lightning which ran the quarter mile in the 13-14 second range, right off the dealer lot. It was hands down, the fastest domestic production vehicle with an automatic transmission. I find it very difficult to even think of a DeVille with the same quarter mile times as a supercharged 5.4L SVT. 16 to 17 second quarter mile times would be more in line for a DeVille and yes, those are quite acceptable times for that vehicle.

And on the other hand....*grin! Who wants to show up for a funeral driving a Lightning? It just doesn't fit anywhere, like a Cadillac!Didnt the 87 Buick Grand National beat that time, right off the showroom floor. They have automatics.

Blaze

Didnt the 87 Buick Grand National beat that time, right off the showroom floor. They have automatics.

Blaze

Good question, I really don't know the stock times for the 87 Buick GN.

I dunno, I will beg to differ... while no NorthStar, the 4.9 is a very peppy engine.

My 1993 Coupe DeVille ran a 15.9 @85mph, that was when it was 11 years old with 95k miles, half a tune up (had the origanal dist. cap and rotor, that made a nice difference, and the injectors have since been cleaned, that helped too...few other things were done sice then) not to mention a cat. conv. that was broken in about a dozen different pieces inside, causing the engine to stall, idle real bad, get horible gas mileage and a few other things...

empty trunk, 3/4 tank of gas, simple power brake got me that 15.9, enigne is stock, except for a K&N drop in panel filter.

Since then I have done alot more tune up work and she is running better then ever.... when I take it to the track next month, I know she'll run better too.... not too bad from a "base" DeVille with 2.73 gears.

I wouldn't say all Cadillacs were slow (of the yesteryears) in fact for any given time period, Cadillacs were some of the fastest non-performance cars around, my '79 DeVille with the stock 425 with the pathetic compression ratio and all the emmissions junk still movbes around very well.... I think it was the origanal buyers of these cars.... older people... that just drove them very slowly, then people never saw them moving fast, and they thought they were slow..... but Caddys have always had the power to back up the nameplate...

That was only a partial quote from my posts!

My (wifes) 500 C.I. 1976 Coupe DeVille was a horrible pig in 1976 (the car not my wife). But on the other hand, the stock 1976 Corvette was a dog too. Cadillac's are typically not performance cars period. Your Cadillac is performing much like it did when it was new. There is nothing wrong with a 15.9 second time in the quarter mile, in fact it is quite admirable, all things considered. Place a 1991 Sedan Deville on the line with a 1991 Lincoln Town Car, is there and doubt which one will make the quarter mile run quickest? Place a 91 Eldorado on the line with a 91 Lincoln LSC, and the story changes. I don't intend to slag Cadillac, because I love them all. Yes, even the 76, because it was truly a land yacht, and my ugly little 91 Seville that could leave a significant stretch of rubber from any stop sign. They were good in their own respect, but never did I consider them, or my Eldorado as performance cars.

My idea of performance is Corvette. My idea of comfort and style is Cadillac. When the 4.9L Cadillac engine was introduced, it was an instant success. The 4.6L NorthStar carried on the tradition and improved the Cadillac motoring experience to a new level. The 05 Cadillac XLR (XLR is advertised and sold as a performance car) is another step up but still no competition for the Z06 Corvette.

Of course you are always entitled to your opinion. I just stated mine. My opinion is not a disputable fact, it was just my opinion.

Good question, I really don't know the stock times for the 87 Buick GN.

I remember 14.21@94ish. As my 80 TurboT/A ran 14.21@97 mph. So being I had stock 210hp / 345 lb ft torque and a 4030 lb weight and the GN has a 245hp stock and 345 lb ft torque with around 3300 lbs weight, I wasn't doing half bad. Granted, my only mods were K&N, recurved timing to faster (all in by 2000 rpm), and more initial, but not more mechanical, no cat and else full factory exhaust. But a GN starts at where I finished, tweak a little like I did on a GN and you are instant 12's. I never added more boost, but calculated, I was putting 290 to the ground.

Oh, GN, 3.42 gears, 80 T/A, 3.08's. I just shifted into 3rd at the end. I needed 3.73's with my little 301.

"Its a turbo thing, you wouldn't understand..."

The 4.9L Cadillac's never were, and never will be performance cars at the drag strip. Sure you can mod one, but why? Although the Cadillac is not the slug that it once was, even with the improved acceleration, the low end was "moderately" engineered for the street. You will never dump a 4.9L Cadillac from 2K RPM into gear, and expect it to launch, it just won't happen. They were never designed to be muscle cars and therefore never will be. To run a 16 in a quarter mile with a 4.9L Cadillac is quite admirable. Many imports can do the same these days with less weight, less engine, and less cost.

15.33 @90 mph...With 2.97:1 gears.

If I can just find a tranny that has 3.43:1 gears, I'll post better times...Much better times :devil:

15.33 @90 mph...With 2.97:1 gears.

If I can just find a tranny that has 3.43:1 gears, I'll post better times...Much better times :devil:

Sheesh, I'd be happy witht he 2.97 :D

<----- 2.73

man, even us "Small block Caddy" guys have the high amount of low-end torque.... no where else do you see this high of a gear being used, and the car still hauling ass :)

All those little imports with turbo and 5 speeds need to have 4.11 final drives to get the damn things moving...lol... I love V8's

That was only a partial quote from my posts!

My (wifes) 500 C.I. 1976 Coupe DeVille was a horrible pig in 1976 (the car not my wife). But on the other hand, the stock 1976 Corvette was a dog too. Cadillac's are typically not performance cars period.

First of all, that Deville should've run a mid 17 or so, which wasn't bad at all for 76. Remove the cat and you shave off at least several tenths...

Anyway just about every Cadillac since 93 and every one since 96 runs a lower 15 or better, so I'd qualify them as performance cars.

The 3800 powered Bonneville LE up til 91 had 2.84's, SE had 3.06's, and the SSE had 3.33's. Later they dropped the 2.84's and went 3.06's on all but the SSE. SSEi's had the 3.06's also.

The Pace car Monte Carlo SS in the late 90's had 3.73's, but likely that wason the REAL pace car, not the public released. I did get to look at them when they were being stored out in Oshuwa, Ontario. This was the DOHC 3.4L cars. They all will have likely your best choice in gears to make up for the dog power the DOHC motors have in low rpms. Look for those cars or parts from those. Lumina Z34's, Monte Carlo's Z34, Olds Cutlass 3.4L DOHC "I series"

Now, the magic. Take your existing 4T60/4T60E and pull it, sorry, only way, and change the gears inside, most were 37/33 "overdriven" insternally before you even got to the transmission gears. Known as the Drive Sproken and the Driven Sproket. So if you have 2.97's now, and swap out the drive and driven sprokets (each around $200 from GM) you can go up to 3.33.

Of course it might be easier to just go get a new final drive from Thrasher and go to posi and nearly anything you want.... I think the final drive can be replaced in the car, but I don't know for sure.

Sheesh, I'd be happy witht he 2.97 :D

<----- 2.73

man, even us "Small block Caddy" guys have the high amount of low-end torque.... no where else do you see this high of a gear being used, and the car still hauling ass :)

All those little imports with turbo and 5 speeds need to have 4.11 final drives to get the damn things moving...lol... I love V8's