at 85 mph, on a 0.090 r/t... Yea, I was trigger happy, and ON. Nearly perfect launch. 2.2 60', which is .2 quicker. the 15.9 is between .5 and .6 quicker. I might have been able to tweak a bit more from the launch. Only got 1 run, was busy as hell.

wow not bad for 4500lbs of Cadillac! What kind of rear end do you have in there? I remember reading somewhere that the 94 fleetwood with the 2.56 rear end will run a 16.5. I wonder how my '92 Sedan deVille would stack up against your car. That car will run high 15's- mid 16's. I wonder I wonder I wonder.....

Not too bad. Definately need to know what rear you're running. Hell of a reaction time too.

Who was it I was discussing this with, NODIH? I'm not entirely sure that'd outrun a N*...

I know the Fleetwood won't outrun a Northstar. It'll beat it off the line, but up top, she just doesnt have the legs. The rear end is a 3.42 with posi.

You only ran a 15.9 with 3.42's? That doesn't sound right either. Seems slow to me. I was hoping to get to the track this year, but there just isn't enough weekends that I can get free to get to one (they all are 1 hr or more away).

Maybe I will have to get some of these farm back roads and mark off an accurate 1/4 mile and try a few stopwatch times and see what the ballpark is.

Scott Muellers 95 Impala SS ran a 15.0 with stone stock ECM (it wasn't cracked yet), S10 converter and 3.42's. I don't remember if he had a CAI on it or not.

15.9 sounds about right to me. The car is a good 200-300 pounds heavier than a Caprice/Impala/Roadmaster, which is .3 second right there.

My first trip to the track with my bone stock 96 LT1 Caprice two weeks ago I managed a 15.3 @89mph. First run was 15.7 (I'm a rookie!), then 15.5, then 15.4, last a 15.3. That's with a 2.93 posi rear.

Now my caddy has a posi 3.42, cammed, roller rockers, PCM upgrades, exhaust, mini-headers. I'm hoping for mid-14's, despite being heavier it feels light years faster than my Caprice. Been in the body shop, so hasn't made it to the track yet.
A fellow club member managed a 16.4 I think on his stock Fleetwood, I think it's a Brougham so it should have 2.93s.

N0DIH, I see you're in SE WI, I'm sure you're familiar with Da' Grove. This is where our club was at a couple of weeks ago, You should hook up with us sometime in the spring when we have another track day, I'd love to race against another 'land yacht'. :)
www.badbodies.com , we have a message board

I think it's a little slow too. I'm running 14.5's with my '95 Fleetwood Brougham. No, it's not stock but it's really only a few bolt-ons and some PCM tuning.

I think I have issues on my intake, the car seems to be running out of steam up top. Not insanely high uptop either, like 70+ on full throttle... I have a feeling, it's my current cheap intake not helping me. It's sucking hot air, and probably not a lot of extra air, so going to have to do some more work on it. Or really, I need to get off my a$$ and build the heat shield for that thing I had been planning to for ages. So, give me some time to work a few kinks out folks, it'll come down, I'm sure.

I found I had the home plate clamp loose, that hurts some, and it hard to figure out that is what it is.

With GM stating the car runs 16's stock even sounds slow, but I don't have a 2.56 geared car to compare to, only a 1991 305 Caprice I drove that was a dog for power. But, it IS only a 305.... I would expect that to pull mid 16's.

Maybe I can do some trials to see time to 90 mph and see what I get. Try like 3-6 hand stopwatch runs and average them should be reasonably close. Anyone want to give it a try and we can compare times? Find a safe place to do it, I am not advocating breaking the law for anyone if you are wondering.... But if someone was to post times for comparisson....

I am thinking to do 10-90, to help prevent wheelspin being a factor. 15's should end up in the 90 mph range.

My sotp is my 1980 Turbo 301 Trans AM that pulled low 14's (14.21@97) with a 4030 lb car. So weight is not far off, and it is ONLY a 210 hp engine.... Right. Maybe as delivered, but not as driven!

What I have found is the LT1 included, 350's are dogs for power unless you have a lot of gear to work with them and make them rev, else they don't have the torque to get out of thier own way. So maybe with 2.56's, they are that slow. I am used to Pontiac and Olds V8's with tons more torque.

Man! I wish I knew! I work in Libertyville, and live in Darien, WI. We will have to try to hook up next time you are at the track. I have been wanting to get out to Byron, but haven't had the time, and I think it is all closed up now.

I'll check out the website!

...N0DIH, I see you're in SE WI, I'm sure you're familiar with Da' Grove. This is where our club was at a couple of weeks ago, You should hook up with us sometime in the spring when we have another track day, I'd love to race against another 'land yacht'. :)
www.badbodies.com (http://www.badbodies.com) , we have a message board

I found I had the home plate clamp loose, that hurts some, and it hard to figure out that is what it is.
With GM stating the car runs 16's stock even sounds slow, but I don't have a 2.56 geared car to compare to, only a 1991 305 Caprice I drove that was a dog for power. But, it IS only a 305.... I would expect that to pull mid 16's.
Maybe I can do some trials to see time to 90 mph and see what I get. Try like 3-6 hand stopwatch runs and average them should be reasonably close. Anyone want to give it a try and we can compare times? Find a safe place to do it, I am not advocating breaking the law for anyone if you are wondering.... But if someone was to post times for comparisson....
I am thinking to do 10-90, to help prevent wheelspin being a factor. 15's should end up in the 90 mph range.
My sotp is my 1980 Turbo 301 Trans AM that pulled low 14's (14.21@97) with a 4030 lb car. So weight is not far off, and it is ONLY a 210 hp engine.... Right. Maybe as delivered, but not as driven!
What I have found is the LT1 included, 350's are dogs for power unless you have a lot of gear to work with them and make them rev, else they don't have the torque to get out of thier own way. So maybe with 2.56's, they are that slow. I am used to Pontiac and Olds V8's with tons more torque.


Just some info for you on that thought:

1980 Olds 350(R) - 170hp@3800/ 275lb/ft@2000
Your '80 T/A Turbo - 185hp@4000/ 280lb/ft@2000
Standard '80 Corvette - 190hp@4400/ 280lb/ft@2400
Opt. '80 Corvette - 230hp@5200/ 275lb/ft@3600

Sure doesn't sound like the Chevy 350's were slouches to me.

96 Fleetwood, 350 LT1 with the 2.56 rear end claimed a 16.5. I ran 16.4 before. Now, I have a cheapo intake, which isnt great at all, but the gears helpin a lot on launch. Dropped to a 15.9. Give me time to get the intake situated.

The car can DEFINATELY do better, that was my point.

Try again in 1980 Turbo T/A. 210 hp/345 lb ft torque. And it still beat the 80 Vette down the 1/4 mile.

Yes, they are slugs in my book. Granted, most of my Pontiacs are 400's and 455's. Call me biased....

I have always heard about launch and bogging the engine off the line. Those are Chevy stories. My 455 NEVER bogged, no matter what I did. Even my 400 doesn't, at all. And that is with 3.08's and a stock cam. Chevies likely had cams that were better for top end and were just lame in the low rpm, which would explain much of it.

So, in my book, they are. Even my Cad, if I allow it to go to second at all, and try to lean heavy on the gas (but above 25-30 mph), it won't shift to first (like my T/A would and everyother car I have owned), and it just seems sluggish until it gets way up in the revs, but if I run it hard through first, then it is a rocket. I'm not saying it runs poorly, it does ok, but you can tell, the engine is still a torquless wonder.

No 301 Turbo ever made 185 hp, the 301 HO (non turbo) was 170 hp. Those numbers are identical to the 403 though. Stone stock mine was "rated" at 16.0, but it was always faster than that, and with a simple adv timing to 16 initial from 10, and lighter springs, and no cat converter, I was at 14.2.

Just some info for you on that thought:

1980 Olds 350(R) - 170hp@3800/ 275lb/ft@2000
Your '80 T/A Turbo - 185hp@4000/ 280lb/ft@2000
Standard '80 Corvette - 190hp@4400/ 280lb/ft@2400
Opt. '80 Corvette - 230hp@5200/ 275lb/ft@3600

Sure doesn't sound like the Chevy 350's were slouches to me.

So this from a guy's sig on badbodies.com

'94 LT1 9C1, 14.75 corrected Stock except for...
TB bypass, 99 cent hocky puck, sewer pipe, swiss cheesed filter housing"

That isn't much to respond like that. Something seems missing, if his car responded that well and got solid into the 14's, what gives for our cars? The weight won't slow them that much.

96 Fleetwood, 350 LT1 with the 2.56 rear end claimed a 16.5. I ran 16.4 before. Now, I have a cheapo intake, which isnt great at all, but the gears helpin a lot on launch. Dropped to a 15.9. Give me time to get the intake situated.

cheapo intake? Like a first base delete?

96 Fleetwood, 350 LT1 with the 2.56 rear end claimed a 16.5. I ran 16.4 before. Now, I have a cheapo intake, which isnt great at all, but the gears helpin a lot on launch. Dropped to a 15.9. Give me time to get the intake situated.

I've owned many a 350 sbc and the words "torqueless wonder" never came to mind. I have owned several big block BOP and Caddy cars but at the end of the day, the small block Chevy is my sweetheart. When you are dealing with heavy cars like a Caddy then yes a big block would be the best choice but in lighter cars with small blocks, bogging was never an issue. Even several 5.0 Mustangs I owned never had a bogging problem. My buddy however has an '04 Mach 1 and that thing bogged down real bad until he installed 4.10 gears. I guess 4.6 liters and 4 cams will do that to you though. My Olds 468 was a lot of fun though but she could not be revved high, I kind of like the whine of a small block screaming full bore at 6000+ rpm's.

I guess I am used to not needing to rev the snot out out of it to make good power. On the track, yeah, rev it, but on the street I would rather have a ton of torque.

Compare a 350 Pontiac, say, 1969 350 HO to a 1969 350 Chevy. What is the torque like?

I have pondered and pondered which is better. gears and a high revving engine, vs taller gears and a torque monster. For overall power and fuel economy, and driveability. Being I haven't really had the high revver (the LT1 isn't that much of one in my book, although it isn't too bad, what, 5700 rpm redline??), the 1991 Z34 Lumina revved to 7000ish, and was a dog and sucked off the line (I always felt an LT1 and 4L60E was the proper drivetrain in it) and wasn't enjoyable at all on the street. The 300 HP N* was ok, again, not great until you got on it. Then it was pretty decent. (1996 STS). But honestly, overall of all the engines I have ever had, the 1970 455 with stock 067 cam, Q-Jet and 3.08's in my T/A has been the most enjoyable. Power everywhere. But it needed to breathe better at high rpm, it was so powerful down low, who cared? It was just a joy to drive, and I miss that. A lot. Enough I have been looking at how to drop in the 455 in the Cadillac with an OptiSpark (or something to replace it that would appease the ECM) and the LT1 computer and EFI. It would be a fun car...

Like GM says "was customer's old car much more powerful?"

Compare the 1/4 mile times of those cars, you will find they don't jive well with the hp ratings.

Just some info for you on that thought:
1980 Olds 350(R) - 170hp@3800/ 275lb/ft@2000
Your '80 T/A Turbo - 185hp@4000/ 280lb/ft@2000
Standard '80 Corvette - 190hp@4400/ 280lb/ft@2400
Opt. '80 Corvette - 230hp@5200/ 275lb/ft@3600
Sure doesn't sound like the Chevy 350's were slouches to me.

When comparing a '69 Pontiac 350 to a '69 Chevy 350, you're comapring apples to oranges. The Pontiac was a big-block and the Chevy was a small block. As for the current (say '94 -'96) LT1, the engine is VERY flexible, that's why they used it in such a wide variety of applications. In the B & D bodies it was setup for mostly low and mid-range power, and on the F & Corvette, it was setup for more top end power.
The LT1 in stock trim, in our Fleetwoods has great bottom end and mid range power but you're wasting your time revving it. There's just no power up top.
You can re-cam it and then it does a little better but at that point, top end flow is a problem (that's why the F & Corvette have different heads too).
Sorry but in my book, you'd have a hard time convicing me that the LT1 was bad motor or a "dog" in any way.
With just some simple tweeks and some bolt-on's my totally stock LT1 pulls my 4600lb Fleetwood through the 1/4 in 14.5 seconds and even with 255/55R17 rubber, will smoke both rear tires at will from a dead stop.
If that sounds like a "dog", I guess you're right.

Agreed, I am not saying it is slow, never said that, just lacks torque. In comparisson.

Now, comparing an LT1 Caprice or Fleetwood to say even a 1969 396 BBC Caprice or Impala, the LT1 would probably win. Definately against a 350 Caprice. (Anyone have Impala/Caprice/Bel Air/Bisqane 1/4 mile times with 350's and BB's over the years? It would be an interesting look back)

The LT1 has a decent dose of hp, just not the torque in the low rpm (2000 rpm and below, you know, launch power). If you gear it right (3.42's, 3.73's, etc), the LT1 is a good running engine. It is hands down better than my 96 Vortec 350 Suburban, which is decent in its own right. Just it lacks down low power. The vortec doesn't do too bad there, but lacks upper end. And in comparisson to a same geared Suburban w/454, the 454 isn't much more, almost to the point of not worth it. (Were the 96 Vortec 454's that lame??)

My point. Take a 350 Pontiac with 2.56's and it is a nice driver, and push those gears like a freight train. Take a similar setup 350 Chevy with 2.56's and it is a doggy car until you are up in the revs, car isn't enjoyable to drive. All else being the same (similar weight, cam, etc). Technically the Pontiac isn't a BB or SB, just a Pontiac, cubes are cubes. They just happened to be bigger blocks with good heads for the most part (we will forgo the 4X heads...) and longer runners, with long strokes (350 is a 3.88 x 3.75" engine), and excellent low lift flow (coupled with the long stroke is the makings for great low speed power), so low end torque is quite nice. The LT1 is a revolution in SB history, probably the flattest torque curve and fattest of any 350. Which brings it up to old Pontiac standards.

Low end torque is a comprimise to upper end HP. That is why you didn't see Pontiac, Olds, Cadillac and Buick out there with higher hp numbers than the BBC. They were marketing the big engines in 4500#+ cars. Engines like the LS6 went into "lighter" (ok, if you call the 70 Chevelle light...) cars.

Back to my point in all of these rabbit trails. I feel with the power the LT1 has, as long as you don't bog it off the line, should be deeper in the 15's, if not lower 15's with 3.42 or lower gears. The area that hurts is the 1-2 shift where it bogs down some (that is a steep rpm drop 1-2 shift) and it takes time to recover, if it truly had lots of torque, it wouldn't take near that much time. I almost wish it did have a THM200 4R for the ratios.

I can see we're going to just have to agree to disagree on this topic huh? It's obvious you like big-blocks and aren't all that taken with small-blocks. That's okay, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. I've never been taken with big-blocks myself.
Unfortunately I have to go now. I'd love to talk more about this. Maybe later.

I'm a little perplexed by your comments. On one hand you seem to be calling the LT1 (along with all Chevy small blocks) a dog and say it has no bottom end, and then you mention that it has the best (widest) torque curve of any small-block. That sounds a little contradictory to me.
Also, you mention that the engine has terrible power (launch power) below 2000rpm. I'm going to have to go look at the dyno charts again but I swear the LT1 has most of it's torque available below 2000rpm. Besides, as I said, my LT1 has no problem lighting up some pretty big tires from a punch. If that's not enough bottom end, I'd like to know what would be.
To be quite honest, I feel the LT1 in the B & D bodies have great bottom and mid range power. Where they fall a little short is their top end. They run out of steam at the higher revs. Again this is due to the tuning of the engine. Intake and exhaust flow characteristics, cam profile, etc. are what's the controlling factors here. The LT1, as with any Chevy small block can easily be re-configured for low-end power or top-end power.
Oh, also you mentioned something about the LT1 having pretty good HP but low torque. I think if you look at the numbers, you'll see that just the opposite is true.

I guess I am not clear (me? naww.....)

The LT1 is best in class for SBC torque. Yes, it is pretty decent. BUT, it can't handle it well with a high gear. So say with my car (yours may be less sensitive with 3.73's and the mods you have), 3.42's, and stock ECM programming, I get into a situation all to often that it is in second, and it is too much rpm for first gear shift, but second is lacking. On a 2.56 or 2.93 gear, you would have easily got first and got it going well, with 3.73's, the ratios are closer, and it may be less noticeable. All my other cars have been 3.08's and numerically lower.

Try this, start going, normal acceleration to say 25-30 mph, then nail it. It won't shift down (well, mine won't), and it will stay in 2nd, and it takes (seemingly) forever to get moving fast, whereas a 2.56 car would probably leave me as it would have dropped to first with no problems and got up in the higher HP range much easier.

So, from a dead stop, the LT1 is great, I enjoy it well, but I get that 25 mph and nead to get on it hard a lot in traffic (lameo weak kneed yuppie mobiles....) and it is sort of frustrating. I keep thinking that 4.10's would be better! But, that is a bit much too.

You know, it all may be more the trans really than the engine, maybe I am just all way off. I like the THM400/350/250 gearing, even the THM200C/THM200 4R is tolerable (2.74/1.57/1.00/.67). It is just more matched to the engine, at least the engines I have owned and driven daily.

I was looking at the 2006 5.3L Chevy in a mag, 325 hp, great! 300+ lb ft torque, cool. BUT, at 4000 rpm??? Jeez! In a truck? The 4.7L Toyota had more torque at a lower rpm than the LS1 Chevy. The Chevy did rev to 6000 rpm vs 5750 for the Toy (and it was 4 valve too). The Chevy didn't reign on much, save fuel economy. It smoked everyone there. 16/20 for a FS Truck. Not bad. Everyone else was worse, and significantly so. Most were 13 city... So, in reality I should just suck it up and accept it, until I get a way to get my 455 in the car.... Or a turbo....

I guess the 350 is still overall the best all around engine for economy, power, etc. But I have been bitten by the power of the 455 and it is hard to forget.... Ooohh the power! The Caddy 472/500 guys probably know what I mean too. The 455 revs higher (5700 rpm) and the 400 even more, at 6400 rpm. Look at the Edelbrock Performer and Performer RPM package for the 400 Pontiac. The torque curve is impressive.

Now I get what you're saying. And yes, I think your issue IS more trans than engine. I'll tell you why. First of all, I must say that I PERSONALLY have no experience with 3.42 gears in these cars but over at the Impala SS Forum, I know many who believe those gears to be the BEST for the LT1. I too think there MAY be some truth to it. THe reason I think they MAY be right is that my 3.73's "seem" a little short at times. Out on the highway, it runs out of steam, and on the track it forces me to 3rd gear just before the end of the track. And as for your issue about the 1-2 shift, I find it damn near perfect on mine, it's the 2-3 shift that allows the engine to drop too far out of the powerband. And that coupled with the fact that I can't get through the 1/4 without a 2-3 shift basically limits my ETs severely.
You also mentioned about how the shorter gears would help the individual gearing. I don't see how since the shifts are programmed by the PCM to happen in coordination with road speed, throttle angle, and RPM. All these ARE able to be custom programmed but you won't vary them much (I know, I've tried). So in the end even though you have higher or lower final drive ratio, the shifts will still happen at the same relative times, just at higher or lower road speeds. If there's a big gap between two gears, it's going to be there no matter what final drive ratio you use.
As for your comment about the downshift, that is DEFINATELY changable via PCM programming and if you look at the original program, you can tell what points it "should" downshift at. Your trans "may" need a little work, or maybe even a re-flash for the PCM. I agree there's NOTHING more annoying than punching it during an impromptu race and not getting the downshift. Happened to me a few months ago actually.
I was going out with my wife to dinner and came up next to this car load of guys in their hot modded Lexus at a light. It had a 2-lane left turn and we were both turning left. The light turned green, we both pulled through the intersection and around to the left. He hit it, and I hit it. He had a stick and pulled away while I sat there with egg on my face because my 3.73's cause me to not get a 2-1 downshift past something like 25mph or so and I was JUST past that. I caught up to them at the next light and they were all laughing like crazy. So I put down my window and yelled over to them, "you wanna try that again?" They were all too happy to oblige. The light turned green and I SMOKED that Lexus BAD! Ah, there IS a God!!!!!!!

Max torque at 2400 actually is pretty nice if you ask me. I'm a fan of SBC's, but the classic no replacement for displacement, means more cubes make me happier. And right now I'm looking for a better intake for my car. Way too lazy and busy to fab one up.

As in intake before the throttle body? Or the actual intake manifold? I think the manifold, the only one out there is the LT4 intake. But for the first base delete, I have compared SOTP and fuel economy (check my thread) and the first base delete is well worth it. BUT, I can't pull home plate yet, can't find a darn hockey puck! No sports stores near that I can find open. I'll keep trying... But for first base, kill it! I did a straight pipe and reoriented the air box and added 3 1.5" holes in the box. So it looks like I just added the pipe. I added the holes to pull air out of the inner fender.
Congrats on the kill! So you see what mine is doing too. I agree, shift points have a LOT to do with it. But with my bigger engines, is is less noticeable.
Odd thing, my 96 Burb with Vortec 350 (similar power to LT1), shifts entirely different. I mean different. It has 3.73's, 4L60E, and 255hp Vortec with 5000#. My Cad is 4400#, with 3.42's and 4L60E with shorter tires. Overall effective ratio is about the same, yet they drive 100% different. The Vortec actually seems to rev more, but has less power on top, decent power low end for a 350, the gears (edit: the trans 3.06 first that is) make up for a lot. But the 1-2 shift rpm drop is much less a power issue compared to the Cad. Maybe in heavier vehicles you are just on it more and it is not so much a "problem". It shifts into OD by 32 mph. My FWB, no OD until 44 mph, 45 with AC on. I mean no go. If I exceed 44 mph and slow, it will stay in, but once it is kicked out of OD, it won't go back in until 44 again. The Burb, tries to get in OD ASAP. And it isn't too big deal odd enough.

The burb is common under acceleration to hit 2700-3000 rpm for next gear shift point. I think the Cad has a tighter converter too. The burb is quicker to jump up in the revs at a stop. Or, feels like it, I don't have a tach on the Cad.

The 'burb as you call it has a totally different power curve. Most OEM's generally cam their trucks for low-end grunt, and tune everything else to match. Intake, exhaust, PCM calibration etc. ALL airflow tuning. Obvious exceptions being the Chevy SS 454, Mopar SRT-10, and Ford Lightning. The Caddy uses a similar strategy. To be honest, the Northstar (mainly the STS) was the first Caddy to favor top-end power.
If you REALLY want proper airflow in your LT1, don't waste your time with a hockey puck. If you must save, save for a proper CAI. Personally, I like the K&N with the 1LE (Z28) elbow. Makes for MUCH better flow. Not the cheapest way, but IMO, the best this side of a ram air system.

A lot of this also has to do with personal preference. There are 2 schools of thought here, neither wrong. There are a lot of guys who love the way a low-rpm peak torque engine feels, especially around town. And there's an equally large, and correct group of those who love the way a top-end horsepower monster feels when the powerband hits at 3000 rpm.

Both feel good, it's just your personal opinion. When you're cruising around town or on the highway, it's a nice thought to know that the engine is within a few hundred rpm of the peak torque. But the engine runs out of breath very quickly. By the time 4500 rpm comes around, you'd better have another gear to go to or the rate of acceleration is gonna drop like a brick. Then again, being in a horsepower-monster with a loose converter and quick gears is a lot of fun. After all, the engine's true muscle becomes apparent when the wheels are spinning. As to the flat torque curve, I thought the LS2 had the flattest SBC curve, or maybe you just meant generation 1 SB.

But calling a 350 a slouch or doggish is just not proper. Like I've said before, it's not like we're comparing an I4 Honda and a Cummins Turbo-Diesel on torque here. The 455 POB engines are fantastic engines for torque. But let's remember, they're big blocks. This means larger intake runners, better exhaust, a stronger cam, and a larger bore and stroke. It's difficult to compare SB and BB. Would you compare Lance Armstrong and the neighbor's 8-year old riding training wheels? The difference is not this polar, but you get the idea. If you really miss the torque of a 455, then swap a 455 into the Fleetwood. But if you can live with the miserable 320 ft. lbs. of a 350 Chevy, then we're good to go. Either way, you're not wrong, it's just a matter of personal preference of where you want your engine's power to come into play.

Odd that the only reference to Chevy motors is the small block and its seems accepted here that the Caddy/BOP's were the best big blocks. Do we really have to whip out the BB Chevy and stomp all the other hp and torque numbers away once and for all?. :bouncy:

Oh, I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but I guess it's the nature of things. ;)

http://hotrod.com/techarticles/p116307_image_large.jpg

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/50997/

96 Fleetwood, 350 LT1 with the 2.56 rear end claimed a 16.5. I ran 16.4 before. Now, I have a cheapo intake, which isnt great at all, but the gears helpin a lot on launch. Dropped to a 15.9. Give me time to get the intake situated.

The cheapo air intake actually does a great job for the price.

I think where you're having problems (when you fall flat as you said in high RPMs) is the problem with the B/D body and their crappy valve springs. They are really terrible above 4500-5000 RPMs, let alone 5500 and up. With a few miles on you car, they ar dog tired. Brand new they are marginal at best.

I'd recommend new aftermarket valve springs, they are great additions over the stock pieces, and will actually allow you to get the PCM reprogrammed to change the rev limiter and get a few more RPMs out of her.

Agreed, I am not saying it is slow, never said that, just lacks torque. The LT1 has a decent dose of hp, just not the torque in the low rpm (2000 rpm and below, you know, launch power).
That's something I've never heard from an LT1 owner before...

The LT1 is a revolution in SB history, probably the flattest torque curve and fattest of any 350.


But I've heard that plenty of times. The torque curve is GREAT, especially below 2500RPMS. In fact, I'm not sure sure there is a better cam for the B/D vehicles (4000+ lbs) than the stock cam when torque is desired.
It's a great compromise for highway gears (2.56 & 2.93 for gas mileage) and great power to get off the line and crusing.

Aftermarket cams that change the torque curve but add HP and more RPMs benefit from 3.42 and bigger numerically gears for that off-the-line kick.

The cheapo air intake actually does a great job for the price.
I think where you're having problems (when you fall flat as you said in high RPMs) is the problem with the B/D body and their crappy valve springs. They are really terrible above 4500-5000 RPMs, let alone 5500 and up. With a few miles on you car, they ar dog tired. Brand new they are marginal at best.
I'd recommend new aftermarket valve springs, they are great additions over the stock pieces, and will actually allow you to get the PCM reprogrammed to change the rev limiter and get a few more RPMs out of her.


I dunno,the issue has actually only come up recently. For some reason, in 3rd especially, it just starts to fall over higher in the rpm band. If it's the valves, they'll probably just have to live with it. Essentially too lazy to do that sort of work, when the motor will get yanked eventually anyways. New valve springs are some moderate money, and getting them put in? How much wold that run me? Though if I had a garage and a backup car, I might be able to manage something as well.

So this from a guy's sig on badbodies.com

'94 LT1 9C1, 14.75 corrected Stock except for...
TB bypass, 99 cent hocky puck, sewer pipe, swiss cheesed filter housing"

That isn't much to respond like that. Something seems missing, if his car responded that well and got solid into the 14's, what gives for our cars? The weight won't slow them that much.

I raced with Jeff the day he pulled those times. Along with MANY years of racing experience he has a 9C1 Caprice, which is the police and fleet issued vehicle, meaning less gadgets (lacks carpet, power seat motors, etc.) that weigh down many vehicles that are more 'comfy'. So weight is a decent factor.
For instance, my B4U 'civilian' Caprice that I raced against him that day has full leather interior, dual power seat motors, mirror motors, trunk carpet and othr stuff. I pulled a 15.3, maybe a 15.2 or 15.1 corrected to match his 'corrected' time of 14.9 non-corrected.
So his experience and 150 lbs car weight difference probably could account for the difference of .4 in our Caprices, not to mention his 60' time was much better (2.2 me vs his 2.0). Also, he has 3.08 rear gears and I have 2.93, slight difference.

Now, a Fleetwood vs. a 9C1 Caprice is aquite a bit of weight. 4400+lbs vs 4050 lbs, that's 3-4 tenths right there. 2.93 (2.56) gears vs a 3.08 gearset makes a difference.
The launching affect of different suspensions and vehicle length (weight distribution) will come into play also. Caprices don't have air-ride.
I could see a Fleetwood being a full second slower in the 1/4, even more with the 2.56 geared non-Brougham models.
It's too hard to compare also with different drivers, different tracks, different weather conditions, track prep, etc.....
Apples and oranges IMO, even though the drivetrains are the same (among other things), a Fleetwood and Caprice are two different animals.

One thing no one has been able to confirm or figure out is that some LT1 vehicles are just plain faster than others. Some can open a can of whoop-arse on the same identical vehicle. It seems there may be tolerance differences in the engine manufacturing process or different break-in proceedures that allowed any certain LT1 engine to pull 14s bone stock (like Jeff's 9C1) when an identical weighing 9C1 could only be a low-15 sec car.
That's a mystery, and luck of the draw I'm afraid. Some guys own a 'freak', which is a good thing for them.

I dunno,the issue has actually only come up recently. For some reason, in 3rd especially, it just starts to fall over higher in the rpm band. If it's the valves, they'll probably just have to live with it. Essentially too lazy to do that sort of work, when the motor will get yanked eventually anyways. New valve springs are some moderate money, and getting them put in? How much wold that run me? Though if I had a garage and a backup car, I might be able to manage something as well.

My valve springs from Combination Motorsports (www.cmotorsports.com) -brand is actually EX Components - were only $100 and in the B-body world have been proven to be reliable. Guys with the Comp valve springs have pretty good luck with them, but I think they are quite a bit more $$ and a few people have managed to break a spring here and there, and I think they had relatively low lift with their aftermarket cams.

So I went with the EX Component spring due to a better track record even though hasn't been used as long. But about 8K miles later and two years, no problems. :cool2: I shift at 5800rpms comfortably.

Install can be cumbersome, I'll admit it. Not sure what a shop would charge, probably two-three hours of labor. Setting valve lash is good experience to have, and like you said without a back-up vehicle, this may not be the best time to gain that experience. :bonkers:

Good luck! You gained .5 sec in the 1/4 mile with your gear install, which seems about right to me.

Man! I wish I knew! I work in Libertyville, and live in Darien, WI. We will have to try to hook up next time you are at the track.



Where at in Libertyville? I actually work there as well...... where would I run into you?
As of this Friday when the body shop releases my Caddy, you can spot me as the Grey Fleetwood with Ghost Flames. :2thumbs:

The cheapo air intake actually does a great job for the price.
I think where you're having problems (when you fall flat as you said in high RPMs) is the problem with the B/D body and their crappy valve springs. They are really terrible above 4500-5000 RPMs, let alone 5500 and up. With a few miles on you car, they ar dog tired. Brand new they are marginal at best.
I'd recommend new aftermarket valve springs, they are great additions over the stock pieces, and will actually allow you to get the PCM reprogrammed to change the rev limiter and get a few more RPMs out of her.

I don't think the valve springs have anything to do with it. The torque curve for those motors just runs out of power up top. There's no point in revving a stock B or D body LT1. They're just not built for high rpm power. It would be like revving a Diesel. Hell max. torque is at 2400rpm.

I don't think the valve springs have anything to do with it. The torque curve for those motors just runs out of power up top. There's no point in revving a stock B or D body LT1. They're just not built for high rpm power. It would be like revving a Diesel. Hell max. torque is at 2400rpm.

Well, I'm suggesting it since he is obviously winding her out since he's raced it on more than one occasion. If he's going to continue to race it, then he should probably eliminate one of the weak links - those darned valve springs.

Just one man's opinion!

Where at in Libertyville? I actually work there as well...... where would I run into you?
As of this Friday when the body shop releases my Caddy, you can spot me as the Grey Fleetwood with Ghost Flames. :2thumbs:

BCs71, turn PM on in your profile

What gives? BandDBodies.com is down.

Notice: This domain name expired on 10/19/05 and is pending renewal or deletion

What gives? BandDBodies.com is down.
Notice: This domain name expired on 10/19/05 and is pending renewal or deletion

Yep, sorry about that. Working on that as we speak, hopefully it will be up and running again within a couple of days. Looks like we didn't shell out the cash in time. :bomb:

BCs71, turn PM on in your profile

Apparently I don't have proper status or something, I can't PM people or even access any PM features. I can't even view other peoples' public profiles. :hmm:
Maybe my post count is too low. Darn. I dunno.....

I think there IS a post count limitation on those features. Not sure what it though. :(

Bummer, I work at the big cell phone design and manufacture company there in LV. Bet you have seen it once or twice....

We'll have to hook up for lunch, I will be out of town on Friday, heading to STL for the Emmy's, my dad was nominated for a lifetime achievement award. Cool! I have never been to a black tie affair! And I get to take my wife and Caddy!!! We will arrive in class!

Side note, I also had a FULL tank of gas, knife kit, spare tire, my usual load of junk in the trunk. I still say, street machines at the track should be run the same way they do on the street. None of this stripping the car out, pulling the headlights out, etc. Cheating, all of it. :P

I would agree on the point about stripping the car but the headlight thing is just a way to get some direct airflow to the intake. I've never tried it but I've been thinking about trying it just once at the track to see what difference it might make.
By the way, when are you going to update your Cardomain site? I thought your Eldo was long gone, yet the site is mostly about it and not the Fleetwood.

Ok, for comparisson I made some back road runs to see how my Cad compares:
----------0-60----0-85
Run#1---7.5-----14.02
Run#2---7.49----13.87
Run#3---7.63----14.53 (I tried to get into it harder and had more traction issues)
Run#4------------13.71 I lifted around 65-70 and got back on it, brain fart, forgot to write down 0-60 time.

16 sec to mph = 91 mph. I actually stopped the watch at 16.33 and was at 93 mph, so I am taking a stab at 91 being close.

I had some traction issues. TC on, tried to feather it in, preloaded suspension slightly, just to take up slack. Still felt I should have mashed pedal faster, I was at maybe 1/4 throttle when wheelspin got controllable and TC let me have the throttle back. All runs on flat ground, no hills going down, the 13.87 run was ending on a slight uphill. The 13.71 was very flat run.

Question: When was the last time you readjusted your throttle cable? This is a 6 month to 1 year adj in my book. Cables stretch over time. I would be willing to bet you aren't getting WOT. When I got my Cad mine was intolerable. I hated how it felt, was ready to get my 91 Cadillac back it was so bad. Felt sluggish. I adjusted my way, and then go tthe FSM and adjusted that way. Much better. If anyone hasn't done this, do it! It is well worth it.

So, how accurate is my stopwatching? Reasonable. Even with a +/- 0.2 sec margin of error I am a LOT faster than 15.9@85. I think yours is too, bet something is up. For comparisson, I have a couple antennas, various wrenches, hammers, pry bars, 2 gallons of 2% milk (my wife caught me at the store and had me pickup some stuff...), my heavy laptop (IBM A31p, big on, very heavy with all my junk in the bag... note, it was on the right rear!) and 20 gallons or so of fuel (just filled up, was still on full tank after 70 miles). I am not as light as I used to be, so I am likely not helping my car be fast.

Outside temp 40 degrees. Coolant temp was interesting, before run, 88-89 C, after run, 80C. Anyone else see this? I have the mechanical fan on
mine, hooked up and spinning. I just put Amsoil 75W90 gear oil in the rear, (yeah! that's worth 2 seconds down the 1/4 mile right there! :)

Only mods are throttle body bypass, homebrew CAI (straight tubes, not curvy) with 3 x 1.5" holes in airbox and just installed the hockey puck this morning and pulled home plate off, which is also in the trunk. I have a compact spare, not the full size. One of those "rare" options my car didn't get from the factory.

Senior Phil, what was the weather like that day?

My ETC dropped a good 2-3 tenths on a good day (density altitude of 7300' instead of 9000+' on previous runs.) You're much closer to sea level but I bet it's still pretty warm in FL.

It was pretty cool, about 78 degrees. And be aware folks, I do have that driveshaft issue right now, I shouldnt have been running, but it was a charity thing. As for last time I adjusted the throttle cable... unless it got done with my 100k service... I havent.

I think there IS a post count limitation on those features. Not sure what it though. :(

Yeah, I can't even have a signature or upload my own personal avatar. :thepan: Oh, the HUMANITY! I wonder if I have to get to 100 posts or something, or maybe just ask a moderator to unlock me??


It was pretty cool, about 78 degrees.
LOL, cool is 78 degrees?
I think it was 50 degrees when I ran my Caprice 3 weeks ago, that was pretty cool to us. Cool air makes more horsies. But I was racing into a stiff headwind, which certainly didn't help my case at all......probably about the same as 30* warmer Floridian weather and humid.

heheh People are freezing their butts off at 60's and 50's here. 40 degrees and below, they close schools here. Florida is warm, we don t do cold weather, except for a select few of us. People like me who spend a lot of time in a meat locker.

....Cool air makes more horsies..

You aren't kidding, my Turbo T/A LOVED cold weather. It was flat out mean. And at the time back in the 80's, I had a slew of Mustang GT's under my belt that tried to beat me, and failed! Most had such an attitude they thought they were so fast, and then a heavy T/A with a "pathetic" 301 beat them was more than most could handle! The ones with girlfriends in teh car were the best...

I still think Dave has the best avatar. Anyone agree?

I think we are around 900 feet tops here, I think the area averages 700-900 if I remember right. Some don't think it matters much, but it really does. (Take a turbo to sea level and run it!). And at high altitude, my 91 Bonneville 3800 added 2 full seconds 0-60. It matters. It felt like a Geo Metro....

Dave, do you run good gas or that ethanol crap? MBTE was the worst that I got in Colorado @ 6000 feet. We lived at the base of NORAD/Cheyenne Mountain. In 2 miles I could be at 9000 feet....

Actually the turbo is self adjusting to ambient pressure. That's why over the road trucks have used them for so long. If your car runs better or worse at different altitudes, you can thank the engine management computer programming for it, not the turbo system.

301 Turbos have no engine management, that didn't happen for another 3-4 years. On non ECM managed turbocars Boost is controlled by the wastegate.

Yes, it matters a lot.

Like the 2 different kinds of MAP sensors. Differential Map and Absolute MAP sensors. Wastegates are the same way. All depends on the design and how it worked.

Kevin, how does your car compare to mine for 0-60 and 0-85 mph?

Kevin, how does your car compare to mine for 0-60 and 0-85 mph?

To be honest, I don't know for sure. I've only had it timed at the track and they don't do 0-60 times. I CAN tell you that last year, I ran a guy with a new Dodge Magnum several times and every run we were neck and neck the whole track. I edged him out overall by less than a 10th (our ETs were usually only 100ths apart) so I can fairly safely say that my car is identical to the Magnum if not a tiny bit faster. Keeping that in mind, I would say that my 0-60 time is probably the same or a tiny bit better than the Magnum which posts a 6.1sec. 0-60 time. I know this is the LONG way around to an answer but I'd say my car does a 6sec. flat 0-60 probably.

301 Turbos have no engine management, that didn't happen for another 3-4 years. On non ECM managed turbocars Boost is controlled by the wastegate.

Yes, it matters a lot.

Like the 2 different kinds of MAP sensors. Differential Map and Absolute MAP sensors. Wastegates are the same way. All depends on the design and how it worked.

You mean "Relative" vs. "Absolute" boost control. I'm no turbo expert but I guess I've always been used to "Absolute" boost control applications like on over the road trucks etc. That's where I got my experience with turbos.
So you're saying that the Pontiac used "Relative" boost control and had no engine management system? I guess I figured that since the CCC system was out in 1980 it would've utilized it. Guess not. What kind of fuel system did it use? Just a straight non-feedback Rochester 4bbl?
And your comment about the two different MAP sensors has me wondering. Can't say I've ever heard of different types of MAP sensors. Give me a little background.

Exactly, relative (to the a sealed pressure reference) as compared to a Absolute, which is referenced to outside air pressure. I don't remember which mine had, but I would bet $ that it was a absolute.

So, with absolute MAP, it gives you x (say 10 psi) boost over outside pressure. If outside pressure is low (say 27 or less, say at high alt vs 30, which I think 30 inches is 1 bar), you get 10 psi over it, so if you are at sea level, you get the most boost you can ever get. Where Relative MAP gives you 10 psi over reference pressure. Computer controls took over wastegate duty by 1984 on most cars.

If I got that right.... Make any sense or ??

Yup, 301's in 1980 were plain jane non ECM with ESC (5 pin ESC HEI module), 1981 went CCC, but the 301 Turbo's got a limited one, timing and mixture only, but WOT power was still the std 800 CFM Q-Jet. Note these had special Q-Jets with the vacuum under the power piston referenced to OUTSIDE of th carb, not internal. So it would get vacuum from the PEVR, which (Power Enrichment Vacuum Regulator) when anytime boost was present, would kill all vacuum to the power pistion, allowing it to rise, giving full enrichment.

Boost was still controlled by a wastegate that had no ECM control (they were pretty primitive back then). Stock boost was 10 psi (according to GM FSM) but most saw less. Mine ran 7.5 psi. But still enough to propel my 4030# beast to 14.21@97. Not too bad really.

The wastegate was a 2 chamber gate, with one side boost referenced, and 1 side vacuum pre turbo referenced. Here is a pic of the wastegate: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:pvJ1huaQk7QJ:publish.uwo.ca/~agrehorn/mods.htm+Turbo+301+wastegate&hl=en&client=firefox-a
By looks of it, this one is a absolute wastegate. On mine to adjust boost you have to cut and shorten the wastegate actuator rod.

Yes, it is a pathetic turbo, look at the necked down compressor exit. And it still put nearly 300 hp to my 10 bolt 3.08's!

As I recall, the MAP sensors were all vacuum chamber types. And the ones used on Turbo cars were no different. referencing to ambient pressure would mean you would have no "control" reference. There has to be a starting place and that was always the calibrated pressure in the MAP sensor. That way it could measure a positive and negative. The way it measured was just via the deflection of the internal silicon chip. If it started with no pressure on it then it could only measure in one direction. What good would that be? Besides, early systems utilized two sensors. One for MAP and one for BARO. They were identical sensors, one was just connected to a vacuum line and one was vented to ambient pressure. Later, the BARO sensor was done away with and both measurements were supplied by the same sensor.
The turbo T/A was always nice but my heart was with the T/A 6.6 engine. That baby could really pull strong especially with a little help. Just opening up the intake and exhaust netted HUGE gains on those cars. My buddy had a '77 and I had it to the mid 14's with just an aftermarket exhaust and making the shaker scoop functional.
AHH the good old days!!!

The turbo 301 in 1980 had NO MAP sensor, I brought them up because they operate similar to a wastegate. The 1981 had a MAP, but not boost referenced. That was soley mechanical wastegate controlled. The 1981 ECM was PRIMITIVE. Even the bus speed was pathetic!

I have a 70 400 in my T/A now. The 400 revs freer and higher (like a 350 SBC) but lacks the serious torque the 455 has. The 455 with that much more torque, honestly is a better street engine, the 400 is a better race engine. I hope to get my 455 back in, it is so much fun, and driveable.

A friend of mine at Motorola in Deer Park, IL used to design part of Motorola MAP sensors (she is an Mech Eng). They are made out in the Elma, NY facility. There used to be a bunch of stuff on them on Motorola's website, but it was buried. Look for AIEG on www.motorola.com, that is the old group name.

I agree, the MAP and Baro are nearly identical, I think what they did to use only 1 sensor is to take a reading at startup, and then it became the engine MAP after that. So if you started in St. Louis and then headed to the top of Pikes Peak, and never shut if off, you might run into some problems.

But there are multiple types of MAP sensors. All depends on how the car company set the car up to use them.

Dave, do you run good gas or that ethanol crap? MBTE was the worst that I got in Colorado @ 6000 feet. We lived at the base of NORAD/Cheyenne Mountain. In 2 miles I could be at 9000 feet....

You know, I've never actually paid attention to that. I know some stations have a sticker that says "oxygenated with ethanol" or something to that effect, and I' know it makes a difference, but I've never paid attention when I'm at the pump. I'm probably just concentrating too hard on the damn price to notice :mad2:

The turbo 301 in 1980 had NO MAP sensor, I brought them up because they operate similar to a wastegate. The 1981 had a MAP, but not boost referenced. That was soley mechanical wastegate controlled. The 1981 ECM was PRIMITIVE. Even the bus speed was pathetic!

I have a 70 400 in my T/A now. The 400 revs freer and higher (like a 350 SBC) but lacks the serious torque the 455 has. The 455 with that much more torque, honestly is a better street engine, the 400 is a better race engine. I hope to get my 455 back in, it is so much fun, and driveable.

A friend of mine at Motorola in Deer Park, IL used to design part of Motorola MAP sensors (she is an Mech Eng). They are made out in the Elma, NY facility. There used to be a bunch of stuff on them on Motorola's website, but it was buried. Look for AIEG on www.motorola.com, that is the old group name.

I agree, the MAP and Baro are nearly identical, I think what they did to use only 1 sensor is to take a reading at startup, and then it became the engine MAP after that. So if you started in St. Louis and then headed to the top of Pikes Peak, and never shut if off, you might run into some problems.

But there are multiple types of MAP sensors. All depends on how the car company set the car up to use them.

455's?!
Now you're talking OLD stuff. I liked the 455's too but I think the Olds 455 was my favorite of the bunch. No doubt about the torque those 455's had, you're right.
I especially remember being amazed at how a big old Electra 225 with those tiny little tailpipes could breath well enough to run like they did. Those suckers really pulled hard. There were many a young guy in his "hot-rod" that got left for dead by some older guy in one of those deuce and a quarters!
Damn, here we go again talking about the old days. Am I getting carried away here with the nostalgia?:bigroll:

Yeah, I am stuck on them too....

There was a guy who built a 92 or so (3rd gen) T/A with a Buick 455 that ran an impressive 11.80's and knocked down low 20's in mpg on the highway. Not bad at all. I think he had the 200 4R and 3.23's. And if you popped the hood, it looked like GM put it there.... Ahh the good old days....

You know, I've never actually paid attention to that. I know some stations have a sticker that says "oxygenated with ethanol" or something to that effect, and I' know it makes a difference, but I've never paid attention when I'm at the pump. I'm probably just concentrating too hard on the damn price to notice :mad2:

Look at my fuel economy thread, there is a difinitive fuel economy with with 10% ethanol fuel vs non. I will pay more to get non ethanol "enriched" fuel. I see typically a consistent .8 mpg loss minimum with it. Love how they market it that. It hurts power and economy. So why do we want it? "They" claim better emissions, but that has yet to be proven. I can see it on an older non ECM car, but not on a modern EFI car. Any how many non computer cars are out there now? Not enough to mattter for emissions.

Some claim you can get better power on 10% ethanol, but I don't think that is true if you are getting a good burn to start with, else, you have less BTU's and less overall thermal energy (BTU's) to work with. Less bang for the buck...

The oxygenated theory seems sound, but so does synthetic oil and the turbonator. And politicians push Ethanol, not chemical and combustion engineers. Hmm.. Do the math here.

MTBE. There is no practical reason for it's use but there certainly is enough reason to NOT use it. Here's a good site that can answer a lot of your questions: http://api-ep.api.org/environment/index.cfm?objectid=9EC44CD5-E167-49C4-8EBE7B354E4B3CD9&method=display_body&er=1&bitmask=002008008000000000
If you want to know about fuel additives like MTBE, just do a Google search and you'd be surprised how much info there is out there.

Played around a little tonight, 0-100 in 18.57 seconds, TC on, trying to feather throttle enough to keep the TC from working too hard at launch.

N0DIH, do you have the 3.42:1 rear axle?

With the 2.56:1 rear axle, the FW does 0-100 in like 22.7 or so. And just for comparison, the 1993 DTS with the 2.93 FDR does it in 26.7.

I guess that goes to show how much more top end power the LT1 has over the 4.9....

Link for '94 FWB specs and road test:
http://myweb.accessus.net/~090/cfb.html

Yes, factory 3.42's (so all PCM programming is GM spec'd for it)

It pulls 0-60 in around 7.2-7.5 seconds (which TC on, and fighting traction), 0-85 in 13.5-14.5, and then 0-100 around 18.5-19. I feel that the launch is critical on this car, and can really make/break these runs.

Does anyone have a 2.56 or 2.93 FW/Caprice/Impala (3.08's)/Roadmaster than can verify that those times are legit? Seems slow to me still. Anyone know WHERE those numbers truly came from?

Well, in the 1994 Cadillac Full Line Brochure, they quote 0-60 times. For the Fleetwood, they also state 8.5 seconds. For the 1994 deVille, they state 9.3 seconds, which I think is a little high.

Does a high HP engine make a difference if it's trying to move a 4500 lbs car? I see shows on TV where they test the HP on engines when all it has hooked up to it is a fuel line and some other plugs. But when you get it attached to a transmission on a 90 fleetwood, does the max HP stay the same?

Does a high HP engine make a difference if it's trying to move a 4500 lbs car?

Yes.

A 260 horse 4400 lb 1994 FWB runs a 15.9 -16.5 depending on rear end.
A 210 hp 4000 lb 1994 T/C runs about a 17.1 with the dual exhaust.


Or go out and drive a 350 powered 90 Brougham. Then compare it to your 5.0 Brougham. You'll really see how much of a difference that 45 extra hp and 45 extra lb/ft make. :)

So yes, of course HP matters


P.S. I see you're from MN also :welcome:

ya! I am from Minnesota ya know. I knew HP mattered. I just think it's amazing that a car with 260hp can pull a 4400lb vehicle at 260hp. You would think that with things like the weight figured in that you would lose overall HP. It's like saying that I can ride a 10 speed bike at it's top speed for 3 miles straight. But with my weight and how good of shape im in factored into that equation, I doubt that it could be anywhere close to the truth, hehe.

Ohhh you mean you think the accessories and whatnot would detract from the power?

It hasn't been that way since 1971. When they switched to net ratings in '72, its compensated for all the loss through the accessories and drivetrain.

Not through the drivetrain it's not compensated... 230whp from a 300hp northstar is proof enough of that.

when Hot Rod did it, they got 215 RW out of a 300 hp ETC. I was surprised it was so low (% wise much worse than any other car, and one of 2 FWD cars, the other was a Neon SRT4). The LS1 powered cars proved most efficient to the ground, The 2002 T/A putting down >300 hp to the ground, even the 2002 Vette only did 290ish. I would say they have got efficiency down.

Assuming what info they posted is accurate....

Not through the drivetrain it's not compensated... 230whp from a 300hp northstar is proof enough of that.