http://www.uniquekind.net/caddypage/Images/3pedals.jpg

A HUGE thanks to Mike and Jon for all their help today!!!! I did a little bit, but they did the majority of the work! :D I definately could not have done it without them!

Started at 9am. Done by 6. :) All in a ways work. :)

I still have a few odds and ends to tie up, but you're now looking at the world's first T56 Caddy Fleetwood!!!!! :cool:

Oh, and it's a BLAST to drive!!!!!!

Congrats Bill. I know you've been wanting this for awhile. What kind of shifter are you using?

so when do we get to see the shifter and center consol??

Hey, did I get this right? Your Fleetwood now has a stick?!!

If so, I guess BMW can no longer claim that their Fives are the only four door, vee-eight, rear-wheel, standard transmission cars in the world.

All in an afternoon? That's impressive. Can you post more pictures of the installation? I'd love to hear more about it. Congrats, and enjoy that ride.

Scott

Kewl!

Hey Guys,

Sorry it took me so long to repost... I've been busy...uh... DRIVING!!!!!!!
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/images/smilies/peelout.gif

Heh heh...

Thanks for all the props guys! This is by far the MOST AWESOME mod you can do. It TOTALLY transformed the way the car drives!!! YEEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAA My plates REALLY fit now! :D

Can you tell I'm excited? ;)

See my website for more pics. Here's a link (http://www.uniquekind.net/CaddyPage/T56SwapPage.htm) to the T56 Swap page.

I'm undecided on a console now. I was pretty gung ho about getting one, but now I really like where the shifter comes up. There's plenty of room in front of the seat. I'm going to get a Hurst boot and run it like that for a while to see if I like it...


I'll take more pics once she's all buttoned up.

Dude, thats cool!

I like the bench seat floor shift idea too.

Sweet!!! Im sure that makes that big hoss a demon :mad:

How about this?

http://www.uniquekind.net/caddypage/Images/hurstemblemfull.jpg

http://www.uniquekind.net/caddypage/Images/hurstemblemclose.jpg

I'll take some more pics of the interior after I get it all buttoned up. :)

(I'm actually kind of surprised this didn't make more of a splash here... :confused: :disappoin )

everyone is just in awe and cant type anything yet.

still in a state of shock :eek:

I dont think ive ever seen and install like that, that is awesome

Hah hah. That's funny. :) Everyone's in a state of shock. :)

Well, if the weather holds out, I'll have some numbers from the track tomorrow! :D

I seriously doubt the 6-speed is going to give you any better ET's. Matter of fact, unless you put some slicks on it, you may have a problem getting a decent 60'. Unfortunately, these cars are rather limited as far as rear tire room so I'm sure you'll have no problem breaking traction with the manual trans. That's the main reason I never changed my torque converter, I'm already able to break the tires loose at the line so there's no reason to give me more power to launch with unless I can increase my car's ability to handle it.
Then I'm thinking that with the engines broad powerband, all the shifting isn't needed to help keep it on the pipe since the pipe's so wide. Usually a 6-speed is behind a more "peakie" motor and is there to help keep it in it's powerband.
I'll be very interested to see how it plays out.

well... I didn't exactly build it as a drag car, Kev. :) It's an all around daily driver that occaisionally makes it to the track. For that purpose, the T56 suits me just fine. :) (And I can't WAIT to autocross it this year!!!!!)

Besides, at the track, I run it how I drive it. No airing down the tires, no taking off the belt, no icing the intake, none of that BS. It runs at full weight and in full street trim. :)

To me it means more to get a good time that way anyways. :)

But I'll keep you posted on how it does.

If it was all about ET's you may not have started with a fleetwood in the first place. I think its awesome, definitely a one of a kind.

You don't even want to know what I think!

I definately agree with running the car in FULL STREET trim. That way I know what it'll do at any given moment. I don't want to know that in order to get the same times, I have to do a half-hours worth of work. I do lower the tire pressure slightly though. Plus I figure that if I pulled a 14.5 WITHOUT doing anything special, that means that I still have some better times possible with a couple more little things like pulling the belt, fresh set of plugs, better fuel, etc.

And I'm sorry if I incorrectly assummed that you were doing these mods for better performance. I could swear I remember you making statements about how these mods would be making the car much faster/quicker. If not, sorry.

Kevin, I have modded it for performance, you;re right. But not all for straight line stuff. :) Where's the fun in that? :D

KC... Why don't I want to know what you think? :confused:

Personally, I think you ruined a perfectly good Cadillac....But it yours so ruin it!

Will this affect the resale value or not. Maybe because it is like one of a kind, the value will go up?

NOT!

Unfortunately, as soon as you start substantial mods like that, the average resale value goes in the toilet. The only chance you might have is to find that one in a million guy that's as into these cars from a customizing aspect as Bill is. And I would say it's pretty obvious that there's little chance of that

It really doesn't matter anyway since anyone that's ever done serious customizing will tell you that they're not doing it for resale. They're doing just "because". You CAN make money on some cars with subtle mods but the best bet for resale is always keeping it stock.

The only way to make money modding cars is to do it to "other people's" cars for money. Let them worry about the resale, and you still get paid. As soon as it's YOUR money, you're done. It's just for love.

I agree with you Kevin, And THAT'S why I say, It's your car....if you want to do that to it.....Knock yourself out! I certainly wouldn't! BUT, It's not mine.
I do mods on other peoples stuff every day that I wouldn't even dream of doing to mine. (some of it's pretty horrible) I just hold my mud and tell them it looks great ( No matter what I really think ) and then I get PAID! If they take a $ 20,000 vehicle and spend another $15,000 on it to make it worth $5,000, What do I care? I get paid to do what they want....Not to be a critic! If I said what I really think of a lot of the stuff that gets done in my shop....I wouldn't be as busy as I am right now!:D

You can tell who's in the business and who's not huh?
I can only speak for myself but I'd be willing to bet that KC also speaks from EXPERIENCE on this topic. I know I've lost money on cars like that before.

Also Kevin, Pertaining to this particular situation, I think the desired effect is going to prove evasive. We want to improve our E/T's and 0/60's So we put a tranny in that can't possibly shift as quickly as an auto with the right setup. I just think that the whole thing is going to be counterproductive. As well as devaluing the car. That's my opinion and I'll be interested in seeing the results when they get here....It would be interesting to be proven wrong here. But with all I know about transmissions with the current technology available the automatics just shift faster than you can without the momentary release of the throttle that's generally associated with a manual shift.....

I TOTALLY AGREE!
The LT1 in the Caddy is totally wrong for a 6-speed manual. It might prove fun but in the end, all you did was slow the car down. A "properly" setup automatic will dog a manual everytime. On the upside, it MAY make it a little better on an autocross course. since the trans could help make-up for the terribly inadequate brakes.
But realistically, why anyone wants to autocross a 4400lb. car is beyond me.

But c'mon guys... How fun is it to drive an automatic? Really?

BO-Ring!!!!

And I'm personalizing the car the way I want it. Doesn't make it wrong or right, but I did it. So there. ;)

Resale value went through the shitter with this mod, but who cares? Not me. I didn't build it to increase the resale value, I built it to increase the fun of the driving experience!!! And it did just that.

And KC, I can respect your opinion, but I do have to let you know that of all the people who know of me doing this, you are the only one to say anything negative. Not that I care, or that you care that I care... :) But I just thought you should know. :p

All you have to do is take a look at the monster smile on my face every time I get out of the car to know that this was the right thing for ME.

:D <---- I've looked like that since Saturday!

And that was my point! I ain't slammin' you....But you asked me what I was thinkin.....

Be careful what you ask for.
Bill,
Actually, I think you're looking at the issue VERY optimistically. Obviously neither cost, nor technical complexity are the reason nobody has done that mod to a Cadillac. I think the reason is common sense. I think it's just that nobody WANTED to. In a round about way, I've made mention of some of your mods being counter-productive and a little extreme. But since I've been talking to you about Caddys for awhile, I figured I'm not gonna pee on your parade. KC said it like it is, but even though he's scratching his head (as am I) over WHY you did it to a Caddy, I'm sure he's MORE than supportive of your right to do it.
Hey that's what it's all about, having fun in your own way with your car. It doesn't have to make sense to anyone other than you.

MT = better burnouts.

Originally posted by Elvis
MT = better burnouts.

Agreed. So?

Momma always said, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

SO, that's about all I could come up with.

Doubt it, she looks more like a Buick Reatta.

Looks like RICE to me!

How did this turn into a right or wrong thread? Guys, lighten up. :) If ya don't like it, fine, I don't care, cuz I love it. :)

What's wrong with a 6 speed (standard tranny) in a luxury car anyways? BMW does it. Mercedes does it. Acura does it. Infiniti does it... Need I go on? :D Hell... even the CTS is available with one. So what if I prefer to row my own gears. :)

Yeah, automatics are more consistant at the track. Big deal. I didn't build it as a race car, as I said before. And resale? Resale smeeshale. I could care less. I'm keeping this thing. :) But, why beat a dead horse? :p

And if you'd rather be driving an automatic, then I'm sure Miss Daisy will be needing a ride somewhere... :)

Originally posted by kcnewell
Looks like RICE to me!

And KC, his prelude is NOT rice. It's an Import, yeah, but not rice.

There IS a difference!

This is an example of rice:

http://spankdog.dyndns.org/albums/album45/acr.jpg

Take off those dark glasses so you can see a bit better. ;)

Dude!.......Inhale deeply.......Exhale all the way.......OK, Are we relaxed now? I said what I thought about the thing and dropped the subject! I always tease Wes about his rice and I always call Jap cars rice! (Even Elvis's) It's HUMOR.....You need to go easy on yourself or you'll blow a fuse! Relax man.....You're startin' to sound like some of these other humorless youngsters around here! Glasses are off!.....Still looks like rice to me!

Everyone needs to stop bitching its pissing me off (get it??)

KC... These have all been lighthearted replies. :) (that's what all the smilies were for) I don't take anything serious. :D Don't worry about me. :)

And BUILD... Who's bitching? :confused:

KC & Bill,
Calm down boys.
Bill,
you don't hang here much so you're not quite up to par on how to take KC. He's a straight-shooter, calls 'em like he sees 'em, and ain't afraid of hurting anybody's feelings. That said, he also doesn't go out of his way to trash somebody either. You don't have to worry about him and Wes either, it's just kind of an inside joke for "regulars" here. Wes knows we love him. Ok, maybe not LOVE, but we like him, Ok maybe not LIKE.......
You getting the jist of it yet?
Wes is cool and is MORE than capable of jabbing back.
And as for comments about your car, as we've said, we might be scratching our collective heads about WHY you're doing what you're doing to it but we ALL agree it's your car and we support your creativity and your right to mess-up a nice car ;)
You also have to remember that we're (at least me and KC) long-time gear-heads, mechanics, you know, and that means we're going to have a little more "technical" view on your mods than you would. Sorry if that causes us to have the "less than" desired reaction to your car's mods. I guess in our minds, the mods you choose sometimes, are hard for someone like us to "rationalize". That shouldn't bother you though. It's YOUR car, and as long as YOU like it, that's all that SHOULD matter. You don't have to defend your car, or your mods to anyone. Drive it and enjoy it ;)

Well said Kevin, I can't add to it except to say that......It's like my job here to tease Wes about his ricer......It doesn't pay very well but it has perks! Bill, I could tell that your remarks were lighthearted.....But I couldn't resist pushing the buttons once more! Good luck with your 12 speed or whatever it is!:D Damn! I did it again....

I don't think I needed an explaination. I know the site. I understand who you guys are and where you come from. I lurk here more than I post. I know how it works here. You guys just seem to think I have issues or a problem, and I don't. So I'm not going to post about it anymore, it's getting tiring. :)

Can't we just talk cars? ;)

I still think the 6-speed is cool :)

Originally posted by kcnewell
You don't even want to know what I think!

I bet I know....:histeric: :rofl:

Can't we all just get along?

Thanks, TMToyz. I appreciate your support.

KC, I'm not offended. Any self-respecting panhead MUST refer to anything Japanese as "rice". Isn't that in some kind of a Harley oath you took?

as for the comment at the end of my previous signature, I meant that it will someday be REPLACED by a DeVille, not metamorphosized into one. I can't wait to get back behind the wheel of some American iron again. (even if they ARE made of plastic and aluminum these days)

If you wanna wear out your left knee and shift gears, go for it! I just don't want to any more. I still covet your Fleetwood.:worship:

First thing, resale value. We are talking about a used Cadillac here. The resale value already sucks! They are twice as cheap as an Impalla SS, even though they cost twice as much new.

Second, no one has a 'properly-tuned' automatic in their Fleetwood on this board, so my guess is that my 85 year old crippled grand-pa could shift a 6sp faster than the stock FW tranny shifts.

It will be harder to sell, but so would any chopped, channeled, and hot rodded car. But the easy way around that is don't sell it!! Drive it until it's junk, then chop, channel and hot rod it again!!

It's cool, I like it, I want it. But I'm going to screw up my resale value with some other mod's first!

Stay tuned...(Hehe, get it?)

Originally posted by HotRodSaint

Second, no one has a 'properly-tuned' automatic in their Fleetwood on this board, so my guess is that my 85 year old crippled grand-pa could shift a 6sp faster than the stock FW tranny shifts.

Say WHAT?!
Dude I'll have you know that I've spent a lot of time with my laptop and LT1-Edit software while "properly tuning" my trans both on and off the track and the improvements in both driveability and ET's are dramatic. If you think a manual trans can be shifted faster and more reliably than an automatic commanded by a PCM, you are surely out of touch with reality.

Katshot, He's pushin' your buttons!..........I'm startin' to like him!

Um can i mention i dunno how to to drive a stick, it pisses me off, never had a car around with one....

That's not an unusual situation these days.....I know a few people that don't know how since there are so many cars with autos and some people never have access to a stick. I taught my son how to drive on a car with a stick and wouldn't even let him try a car with an automatic until he could drive the other one smoothly and without thinking about it. I felt that if he could drive a stick then the rest would be easy!

Funny you say that KC. My father felt the same way when it was my turn to learn how to drive. Nothing but stick shift for my first 2 yrs of driving.It was a huge help!!!14 yrs of driving now. The only ones I still have some problems with are the old collum shift trucks. Not likely to bump into one of those anymore though.
I still prefer a auto tranny ;) Except in my next Mustang. Gotta have a stick shift in there.:burn:

My long legs and big feet make it hard enough to work 2 pedals, i've always had problems getting comfortable with a stick shift. Although im sure a stick in a fleetwood, would be nice and roomy.

Originally posted by Katshot
Say WHAT?!
Dude I'll have you know that I've spent a lot of time with my laptop and LT1-Edit software while "properly tuning" my trans both on and off the track and the improvements in both driveability and ET's are dramatic. If you think a manual trans can be shifted faster and more reliably than an automatic commanded by a PCM, you are surely out of touch with reality.

Ok, so you got a program to 'properly tune' your transmission.

Now tell me why every magazine posts better 0-60 and 1/4 mile times for the manual version of the same exact car? (I know, they aren't properly tuned.)

Then tell me that you can out run him in a 50-108mph race on the freeway.

Then tell me how many processes that PCM must go through before I've already selected the proper gear. I don't have to drop done one gear at a time to get to 2nd, I'm already there.

Yes I might miss that shift. But if I don't, you are at a disadvantage.

Take it one step further (because I know you will try to bring it back to drag racing) a properly set-up manual shifter would give you a run for the money too. It would be a stupid set-up for the street.

Originally posted by kcnewell
Katshot, He's pushin' your buttons!..........I'm startin' to like him!

I'm just a Push Button Transmission! :D

If you REALLY want to know the answer to any of your questions, I could tell you, I'm just not sure you would either understand the answers or wish to believe them.

OOOOH! This is startin' to get good!

Originally posted by Katshot
If you REALLY want to know the answer to any of your questions, I could tell you, I'm just not sure you would either understand the answers or wish to believe them.


I would be interested in knowing. I know very little about fleetwoods. But what is the explanation on Vettes, Camaros, Stangs etc. being faster with stick.

Originally posted by Brett
I would be interested in knowing. I know very little about fleetwoods. But what is the explanation on Vettes, Camaros, Stangs etc. being faster with stick.

I'd be interested in learning why these manual car's are faster than their automatic siblings too.:suspense:

Ok, it goes like this; Most cars that come with a stick like the ones we've mentioned here, have been designed with that transmission in mind "primarily", rather than "secondarily". This means that the engine, final drive, suspension, even the engine management system have all been designed and calibrated to work in conjunction with the manual trans. In an effort to answer the question as quickly as possible, we'll limit the discussion to the engine calibration and final drive.
In order to "optimize" the performance capabilities of any given drivetrain combination, you need to assemble and calibrate the engine in such a way that it can work best with the associated componentry. In the case of the Cadillac Fleetwood, the engine was setup with a very broad power curve, favoring the lower rpm range. This was done via a unique combination of:
1. MAF
2. Throttle body
3. Intake
4. Heads
5. Cam
6. Exhaust
7. PCM calibration

All of these items are different on the F-Body cars which were setup to optimize the 6- speed manual trans. They have a higher output mainly because the engine can be tuned for a tighter, higher power band that can be utilized due to the fact that the 6-speed allows for the driver to keep the engine in that smaller rpm range. This allows higher flowing engine components that can breath better at the higher rpms. You'll notice that the Fleetwood still has superior power to the F-body cars in the lower rpm range (better bottom-end).

In the case of the Fleetwood, all the above items would have to be reset in order to get the most out of a 6-speed manual trans.

Originally posted by Katshot
Ok, it goes like this; Most cars that come with a stick like the ones we've mentioned here, have been designed with that transmission in mind "primarily", rather than "secondarily". This means that the engine, final drive, suspension, even the engine management system have all been designed and calibrated to work in conjunction with the manual trans.

The sales figures for automatic verses standard on all the models mentioned would seem to sink that argument.

But even if GM did use a 6speed (When did that transmission arrive at GM?) as the basis for the F-Body development, they would certainly tune all the other componants before installing an automatic. I think we can at least give GM this much credit.


In the case of the Cadillac Fleetwood, the engine was setup with a very broad power curve, favoring the lower rpm range.


Why was the LT-1 tuned this way for the Fleetwood? Was it maybe because it weighs a over 1000lb more than the F-Body?

Whats the differnce between a Fleetwood automatic and an F-Body? The F-Body auto should be optimized to better utilize that unique power curve, right? Or did they just swap out the rear-end?


All of these items are different on the F-Body cars which were setup to optimize the 6- speed manual trans. They have a higher output mainly because the engine can be tuned for a tighter, higher power band that can be utilized due to the fact that the 6-speed allows for the driver to keep the engine in that smaller rpm range.

So even though the F-Body car was sold with more automatic transmissions, they optimized the whole model line-up, including the V6 for the 6speed V8?

The fact that it weighed less then an Impalla or Fleetwood, didn't factor into the reasoning why the engine was calibrated differently? It was solely based on the least likely to be purchased transmission option? (Like the Mustang currently does, didn't the F-Body sell more auto V6's?)

This allows higher flowing engine components that can breath better at the higher rpms. You'll notice that the Fleetwood still has superior power to the F-body cars in the lower rpm range (better bottom-end).

In the case of the Fleetwood, all the above items would have to be reset in order to get the most out of a 6-speed manual trans.

So basically what you are saying is that a Fleetwood 'properly-tuned' to utilize the 6speed would beat your 'properly-tuned' automatic Fleetwood at the drag strip.

That's all we wanted to know.

What the heck do sales figures have to do with the way a car was designed?
The Fleetwood was tuned with the powerband it has to satisfy the kind of driving the average owner does. It has little to do with the weight of the car.
The F-body auto has a totally different calibration, different shift points, firmness etc. not to mention it also utilizes a "performance shift mode" that the B&D body cars do not.
The weight of the car does not have any effect on how the powertrain calibration is done really. The main items considered are engine construction (mainly airflow etc), trans type, final drive, and what the expected driver type would be (what kind of driving they do). In the case of the F-body cars, the calibration was set for a higher overall level of performance as compared to the B&D body cars.
Your final question would have to be answered yes. If you were to setup the engine with a higher, tighter powerband that could be exploited by the use of a 6-speed trans, and give it the ability to breath as deeply as it needed to at the higher flow rate, it should outpower the standard tune engine with an auto.
There is just one last issue that you overlooked. The issue of traction. In another post, I had pointed out that I had foregone the addition of a higher stall-speed torque converter because I was already able to overwhelm my tires as is. This will also be a MAJOR limiting factor on a Fleetwood when it comes to drag racing. The rear wheel wells are VERY small and therefore severely limit the amount of rubber you can have back there. That would also severely limit the advantage a manual trans would have on that car as far as it's "launchability" shall we say. There won't be any "rev it to the peak power rpm and dump the clutch" launches, since all that would accomplish is breaking traction at the line and loosing the race. On any F-body car (or most any other car that is "designed for a manual trans w/big engine"), there's plenty 'O room back there for mucho rubber to be mounted so that you CAN do a high-power launch and maintain traction.
Again, as I said before, it basically boils down to the fact that the Fleetwood and it's drivetrain do not lend themselves to the addition of a manual trans, especially a 6-speed. The more gears, the worse it will be.

Kat, you think a fleetwood with slicks would be faster with a 6 speed?

Originally posted by Katshot
What the heck do sales figures have to do with the way a car was designed?

Sales figures play a factor in everything an OEM does.

But we aren't talking about design, we are talking about engineering. You stated that the car is engineered to be a V8 6speed. Since drive train and chassis engineering are seperate departments, then the chassis was engineered first (How old is an F-Body chassis?).

You seem to be saying that basically the computer is reprogrammed. No argument here. I would only argue that the engine is engineered first with emphasis on the power then the transmission is tuned to utilize that power.

The Fleetwood was tuned with the powerband it has to satisfy the kind of driving the average owner does. It has little to do with the weight of the car.

You need low-end torque to move a heavy car in order to satisfy the 'off the line' power the average Fleetwood buyer desired. The weight of the car played a very large (no pun intended) role in that decision. If it the car was lighter, then it would have been tuned differently.

The F-body auto has a totally different calibration, different shift points, firmness etc. not to mention it also utilizes a "performance shift mode" that the B&D body cars do not.
The weight of the car does not have any effect on how the powertrain calibration is done really.

The B and D car's weren't really supposed to be performance car's, so it's not a surprise that the auto on the F-Body is tuned for sport mode.

Certainly the F-Body V8 engine was tuned for a broader powerband because of the car's performance nature, and the transmission was calibrated to shift faster at a higher RPM for the same reason. Add those to a lighter weight car, and you have a performance combination.

Ok, here's where you start to stray because you aren't giving weight an important place in the tuning. If you take a stock Fleetwood and a Fleetwood fitted with a F-Body LT-1, the stock Fleetwood will do better in a quarter mile race.

This is also the place you stray with your 6 speed transmission argument. The engine isn't tuned for the transmission, so much as the desired performance of the vehicle, taking weight and the intended users driving style into consideration.

The main items considered are engine construction (mainly airflow etc), trans type, final drive, and what the expected driver type would be (what kind of driving they do). In the case of the F-body cars, the calibration was set for a higher overall level of performance as compared to the B&D body cars.

Setting breathing aside (intake and exhaust). To adjust the power curve, that's more the job of the cam and PCM.

But, on a heavy car you want lower end torque to move it. After that, the transmission just effects the drivability. A rear end change can adjust most of that.

Your final question would have to be answered yes. If you were to setup the engine with a higher, tighter powerband that could be exploited by the use of a 6-speed trans, and give it the ability to breath as deeply as it needed to at the higher flow rate, it should outpower the standard tune engine with an auto.

Again, this is where you seem to stray. If I made my car breath better, I'm not adjusting the power curve. I can tune it with the PSM to a certain degree. But my guess, is the F-Body has a different cam.

But, setting that aside. Stock FW LT-1 to stock FW LT-1. You tune the auto to shift optimum. I use a 6 speed, I will be faster. I can adjust my shifts to the power curve using a tach to optimize my shift points.

There is just one last issue that you overlooked. The issue of traction. In another post, I had pointed out that I had foregone the addition of a higher stall-speed torque converter because I was already able to overwhelm my tires as is. This will also be a MAJOR limiting factor on a Fleetwood when it comes to drag racing. The rear wheel wells are VERY small and therefore severely limit the amount of rubber you can have back there. That would also severely limit the advantage a manual trans would have on that car as far as it's "launchability" shall we say. There won't be any "rev it to the peak power rpm and dump the clutch" launches, since all that would accomplish is breaking traction at the line and loosing the race. On any F-body car (or most any other car that is "designed for a manual trans w/big engine"), there's plenty 'O room back there for mucho rubber to be mounted so that you CAN do a high-power launch and maintain traction.

I agree about the traction. But as you said, your auto experiences loss of traction. This is where the ability to find the proper launch RPM turns that manual into an advantage.

Again, as I said before, it basically boils down to the fact that the Fleetwood and it's drivetrain do not lend themselves to the addition of a manual trans, especially a 6-speed. The more gears, the worse it will be.

Personally, I didn't buy a Fleetwood to drag race. I bought it for it's body style, Chevy Impalla roots and towing capacity. So only Bill can prove you wrong at this point. I think he will.

At least you aren't like that Scourge guy, who didn't use an ounce of logic or thought to make his argument.

A Fleetwood (notice the CAPITOL "F" Brett) with ANY trans would be quicker with slicks. That goes without saying. Virtually ANY car would be quicker w/slicks. Unless it's such an enemic POS that it can't spin the tires in stock trim of course.

Originally posted by Katshot
A Fleetwood (notice the CAPITOL "F" Brett) with ANY trans would be quicker with slicks. That goes without saying. Virtually ANY car would be quicker w/slicks. Unless it's such an enemic POS that it can't spin the tires in stock trim of course.

Or it's raining! :D

Or snowing! :D

Yeah, No Kidding. My question was do you think a six-speed fleetwood :D would be faster than the same car with an auto, if it had slicks. i do realize slicks make most any car faster. i was more interested in what you thought about this particular scenario.

The only thing left in my PCM program from the original FW programming is my traction control and climate control interface. The rest is a F body (Camaro) program. :D

So there goes that theory. ;)

And Kevin, you are right, I DO agree with you about the autos being the more consistant of the two types of tranny. It eliminates the possiblity of human error (unless it's a manual valvebody auto), so you are correct about that.

But, more consistant doesn't always mean quicker. ;)

I know more power is now getting to the rear wheels than before. The t56 has less of a parasitic loss than the 4l60 does. I think I picked up like an 8% gain at the rear wheels if I'm not mistaken. And I can feel the difference too. :)

I assume at the track that my ET's will be quicker, but I'm sure my 60 foot times will be about the same as before, as it's a bit tough to get it to hook. Maybe a set of drag radials is in my future? :)

So... Where was I going with this again???? :confused: :D

Oh yeah, it's still a hell of a lot more fun to drive now than it was before. :D

Take two "stock" Fleetwoods, add a 6-speed and drag radials to one. Is that the scenario? If so, yeah, probably. But if your scenario was that "both" should have the drag radials, then I'd say it's a toss up since the T56 WILL net a slight increase in itself as Bill said through a reduction of parasitic loss, but the engine and drivetrain will hinder it (especially since the "stock" Fleetwood would have an open rear). The auto Fleetwood "might" be close. I think the big reason here is that the stock transmission flash for the Fleetwood leaves a lot to be desired.

And to some it all up, a stock manual car will be faster than it's stock automatic sibling, all other things being equal. :D

Originally posted by toomanytoyz
I know more power is now getting to the rear wheels than before. The t56 has less of a parasitic loss than the 4l60 does. I think I picked up like an 8% gain at the rear wheels if I'm not mistaken. And I can feel the difference too. :)

This is why the manual version of those previously mentioned 'sporty' car's, post faster times than their automatic siblings.

Have you been SLEEPING through this whole thread?

In a stock vs. stock scenario, it's going to depend on which transmission the car design favors, that's it.

Multi-speed transmissions were originally designed to make it easier to keep an engine in the meat of it's powerband through the broadest amount of it's operational envelope. PERIOD.
Designing, building, and tuning for a broad power curve is more expensive and requires many trade-offs.

Keeping this in mind, understand that as the number of gears "increases" in the transmission, the more freedom it gives the powertrain engineers to "optimize" the engines output by tuning it to a tighter power curve. Understand that in any given engine, the power curve is generally either a tall sharp curve, or a low, broad one. The lower, broader curve makes it less of a requirement to have a lot of gears. And the taller, sharper curve is dependant on more gears. It's a REAL simple equation actually.

So to sum it up again for all you non-believers.........
A vehicles choice of transmission does not in and of itself determine how well it will do in a drag race, or even a road race. Case in point would be the Ford SHO which posted a better lap time with the automatic than the stick.
As I said ORIGINALLY, a properly tuned and setup automatic will beat a manual in a drag race any day.
BTW, what kind of transmissions do you think are in the top drag racers cars in the country? That's right, you'll see more 2-speed automatics in those cars ;)

Originally posted by Katshot
Have you been SLEEPING through this whole thread?

Yea I kinda got tired talking to myself. :rolleyes:

I agree with Katshot....If you have an automatic tranny set up right, you WILL be faster than a manual transmission. Just think about it...it is a machine that is shifting the car, not you. Like everything else, the machine is faster than the man. And yes, Katshot is right, there are mostly 2 speed automatics out on the drag strips these days, and guess what they're running........high 4's low 5's......thats fast!

Originally posted by STSFreak
I agree with Katshot....If you have an automatic tranny set up right, you WILL be faster than a manual transmission. Just think about it...it is a machine that is shifting the car, not you. Like everything else, the machine is faster than the man.

The unaddressed fact remains that the street going manual versions of the Mustang GT, Corvette and Camaro post faster 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times.

What you are saying is that Ford and GM aren't tuning their automatic transmissions properly. Kat says it's because the engineer it to be a manual and don't take the time to rengineer the automatic. Poppy cock!

And just what does a 2 speed drag racing transimissions with 1000+hp going through it have to do with any street car? No one is talking about putting a 1000+hp motor in their Fleetwood.

LOL.. i didnt imply that anyone was putting a 1000+ hp engine in their Fleetwood i was just stating that an automatic tranny is capable of fast times. Also, I didnt say that FoMoCo and GM are not tuning their trasmissions right I am just saying that they arent tuning them to go as fast as they can. These cars werent meant to race you know?

Don't waste your time STSFreak. The dude's NOT LISTENING!

"The unaddressed fact remains that the street going manual versions of the Mustang GT, Corvette and Camaro post faster 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times."

It's not that it was "unaddressed" it's like I said, you just choose to not believe the truth.

"What you are saying is that Ford and GM aren't tuning their automatic transmissions properly. Kat says it's because the engineer it to be a manual and don't take the time to rengineer the automatic. Poppy cock!"

It's not a matter of them being tuned "properly". They're just not tuned as good as they could be, and as I stated before, the engines are not setup for automatics, they're setup for manuals.

"And just what does a 2 speed drag racing transimissions with 1000+hp going through it have to do with any street car? No one is talking about putting a 1000+hp motor in their Fleetwood."

That's not the point, you claimed a manual is faster than an auto. If that were true then why wouldn't the pros be using manuals? Even if the manual could save them a tenth or two in the shift, they would do it, don't you think? And within this thread, the claim has been made that manuals have it all over autos in everything from weight, to less parasitic power loss, to greater power-handling capability. If all this were true, then why don't you see them on the pro cars more than autos?

Face it dude, you're wrong and you have zero proof to substantiate your arguement.

Originally posted by Katshot
Even if the manual could save them a tenth or two in the shift, they would do it, don't you think?[/B]

Yes, they would. in the drag racing world, 1/10 of a second is like a minute in the real world. That is a lot of time. Thank you Kat for trying to explain to him AGAIN what you and I and anyone else has been trying to tell him. But, I guess you're right....he just wont hear it.

STSFreak:
Thanks man, I know you're new here, but I like your style.
(especially since you agree with me) :thumbsup:

Sometimes, trying to get a point across on a forum is tough :banghead:

LOL.....trying to get in good with the crowd. I don't wanna end up like Wes. How do you put those smileys in?
lol

Originally posted by Katshot

"The unaddressed fact remains that the street going manual versions of the Mustang GT, Corvette and Camaro post faster 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times."

It's not that it was "unaddressed" it's like I said, you just choose to not believe the truth.




So, are you saying that is not true, or that it is true?

ummm yeah guys thats all over my head....i just like the mod.....its has a stick and a clutch and its probably more fun to drive.....

Originally posted by Katshot
STSFreak:
Thanks man, I know you're new here, but I like your style.
(especially since you agree with me) :thumbsup:

Sometimes, trying to get a point across on a forum is tough :banghead:

The quizz is over. All the answers have been received and now it's time to reveal the correct answer.

The reason those car's are slower with their automatics verses the manual version, is that inherit in the automatic design is a loss of 15% of it's hp. It simply isn't as effecient delivering the power to the rear wheels. There is no amount of tuning it that will bring that power back.

So while the 0-60 times may be about equal due to consistancy of launch with an automatic, the manual has 15% more power to use at every shift point in the 1/4 mile.

Now that thats answered. What about his assertion that it's inefficient is the use of a 6speed with the Fleetwood LT-1? Even if it's 15% less efficient, then it's equal to his properly tuned automatic.

But the question is, what does the shift point have to do with the engines power curve? If I'm redlining in 1st gear, I shift my gear. If I'm not at redline, then I wait. In this respect, the manual is more adaptable to a variety of power curves. They don't make late model manual tranny adapters for flathead Fords (and about 20 other '40's-'50's V8's) to make them perform worse, do they? (Please don't attempt to answer that Kat!)

Originally posted by deanstud
So, are you saying that is not true, or that it is true?

It's because the automatic in those car's aren't properly tuned. You can gain the inherit loss of 15% hp magically by plugging it into a laptop, but the OE's haven't figured that one out yet. So SHHHH...it's our little secret on this board.:helpless:

Originally posted by deanstud
So, are you saying that is not true, or that it is true?

I said it already but here one more time. Yes, of course it is true. Those cars have been optimized for the manual trans.

HotRodSaint:
Sorry you just refuse to believe the truth man. It's ok though. I can only give you the facts, it's up to you to believe them or not.

Originally posted by Katshot
It's not a matter of them being tuned "properly". They're just not tuned as good as they could be, and as I stated before, the engines are not setup for automatics, they're setup for manuals.

Where's the proof to substantiate this? Where's the logic to support this? I'm not listening? Your brain has ceased to function. You sound like a liberal trying to defend their political position.:boring:

The only frickin' way the car could be tuned to HELP the automatic transmission, would be to give that car with that transmission a 15% boost over the manual car. So yes, if you want to use that logic they were unfair to all the automatic owners of the world because they didn't give you a handycap.

But you start with a flaw in your basic arguement. They initially engineer their engines for a targetted HP (and/or torque) rating on the dyno with little regard to the transmission they will likely use. They then tune the transmission for use with said engine.

What you are admittiing in your statement without the balls to come out and just say it, is that the automatic is less efficient than the manual at delivering power to the rear wheels.

Just say it and stop arguing about it.:helpless:

I don't listen. You don't even listen to yourself, or you'd not have made some of the comments you made.:banghead2

Originally posted by Katshot
I said it already but here one more time. Yes, of course it is true. Those cars have been optimized for the manual trans.

HotRodSaint:
Sorry you just refuse to believe the truth man. It's ok though. I can only give you the facts, it's up to you to believe them or not.

When you start giving facts, then I will listen. So far, you have stated opinion and half truths mixed with a flawed understanding of how a car is designed and engineered.

No one designs an engine with the transmission. Hell, they buy the transmissions elsewhere anyway.

At least you have convinced your loyal followers of your infalability.

Originally posted by Katshot
Those cars have been optimized for the manual trans.

These car's have been optimized for their HP. The manual transmission is the opitimum choice to deliver it to the rear wheels.

It is these statements where your misinformed view of the OEM engineering is most evident.

I know it's unusual.......But I'm just sittin' back and lettin' this thread go nuts without me! I'm kind of enjoying the show. You guys are rippin' it up though!.......Gotta love it!

Originally posted by kcnewell
I know it's unusual.......But I'm just sittin' back and lettin' this thread go nuts without me! I'm kind of enjoying the show. You guys are rippin' it up though!.......Gotta love it!

Now who's pushin' who's buttons ;)

:D :histeric:

Originally posted by Katshot
Those cars have been optimized for the manual trans.


Not to throw fuel on the fire, but Kev you want to explain that one to me? That sounds like something I would say:p . Not really but you get the point;)

Shaun,
The cars have been designed from the ground up with a manual trans in mind. The engines and all other drivetrain components have been spec'd so as to work "properly" together. In those cases, the components were spec'd for optimal performance when utilizing a manual trans.
Remember when we were always "trashing" Ford for using the engine they did in the Marauder? Perfect case in point of how they totally missed the mark on the components chosen. That particular engine is TERRIBLE with a normal OEM auto trans. It has NO BALLS down low so the car can't come out of the hole without bogging it's ass off. That same car with a stick would probably be quicker. Plenty of power up high in the rev-range and a stick would be the "optimal" trans for that engine, in that car. The only problem them, might be tire size but since the wheel wells have plenty of room for bigger rubber, even that wouldn't be a problem.

Listen all of you.......! Here it is plain and simple. You have to think of the little things when it comes to these types of situations. If you have an automatic, it is just easier to eat and drive. Now I dont know about the rest of you but I like to eat. Also, I dont know much about all of this %15 power boost, but to me it is starting to sound like it would be equal, the stick has the power boost, BUT, the automatic will shift faster.

Automatics wont necessarily shift faster, it would have to be properly tuned for that. I dont even think kev would argue that a stock auto shifts faster than a stick, well on second thought he may argue that. :)

Heh...I didnt say that a stock auto will shift faster than a stick. If it is built up for a semi-race scenario, then it will. Obviously, money needs to be spent on a new manual transmission. Instead of that, one could tune up an auto and be on his way. Get it?

Of course money would need to be spent on building up the auto as well. I had an 88 Mustang auto, put 2500 into the trans and it was pretty much as fast as a stick, but if i had the stick i could have saved 2500

And how much would the stick cost you?

well if i had bought the car with a stick....nothing. If i were to change it to a stick probably not much more than the 2500. In this case the fleetwood came with an auto that was then changed to a stick so it did cost him. However, Lets say you go out tomorrow to buy a new mustang, the stick will be 1k cheaper and faster. so spend the 1k on the auto option and another 2-3k to get it up to snuff, and you got an auto mustang as fast as a stick mustang for 3-4k more.

OK, I get that to a point. But GM never intended for the B&D bodies to run a manual. SO they kinda did tune the car for the fact that it was gona use an auto in a heavy car. Lower torque band, etc. I'll be the first to comment on GM's design practices. They seem to have that idea of getting the basics in place and bolting the rest of it on after words where ever it'll fit. Also considering the fact that the original engine config was designed for the Vette you may have a point but if you look at the progression of what the LT1 was used in, Vette- F boddy- B/D body GM continualy detuned/retuned the engine for its apropriet intenstions. But it is still just a jumble of part that were laying around.

No, No Brett....what that says is completely irrelevant, this isnt about buying the car with a stick in the first place. What he did was buy a stick for a car that was set up with an auto. He had to spend the money anyways to get the stick. What I am saying is, he could have used that money to fix up the auto that he had in it in the first place. I am not saying that a stock automaitic will be faster than a stick, it won't. I am saying that with approximately the same amount of money you could use to put a stick into an auto car, you could fix the auto to be just as fast or faster than the stick.

Originally posted by STSFreak
the stick has the power boost, BUT, the automatic will shift faster.

I took that to mean all cars not just the Fleetwood in question.



No, No Brett....what that says is completely irrelevant, this isnt about buying the car with a stick in the first place. What he did was buy a stick for a car that was set up with an auto. He had to spend the money anyways to get the stick. What I am saying is, he could have used that money to fix up the auto that he had in it in the first place. I am not saying that a stock automaitic will be faster than a stick, it won't. I am saying that with approximately the same amount of money you could use to put a stick into an auto car, you could fix the auto to be just as fast or faster than the stick.

I AGREE, like i said your original statement seemed to be more of a blanket one. Covering more than just this application. In this case he could have built up the auto like you said to be as good or better.

Yeah! Then you can eat with one hand,Drive with the other, And shift with your butt!

Damn, are we getting near a resolution here?

Bottom line, as soon as Bill gets some ET's on the new setup, I think we'll see that the 6-speed was a bust at the track. It may be more fun to drive but as for improving ET's......
Maybe that's why we haven't heard anymore from Bill, he said he was taking it to the track over the weekend ;)

Maybe we WILL just have to wait.....

PROZAC!.......When he gets the Prozac, He'll check in!

Originally posted by Katshot
Shaun,
The cars have been designed from the ground up with a manual trans in mind. The engines and all other drivetrain components have been spec'd so as to work "properly" together. In those cases, the components were spec'd for optimal performance when utilizing a manual trans.
Remember when we were always "trashing" Ford for using the engine they did in the Marauder? Perfect case in point of how they totally missed the mark on the components chosen. That particular engine is TERRIBLE with a normal OEM auto trans. It has NO BALLS down low so the car can't come out of the hole without bogging it's ass off. That same car with a stick would probably be quicker. Plenty of power up high in the rev-range and a stick would be the "optimal" trans for that engine, in that car. The only problem them, might be tire size but since the wheel wells have plenty of room for bigger rubber, even that wouldn't be a problem.

Thank you very much for proving my point!!

They put an engine from a lighter car into a heavier car. It has nothing to do with the transmission. It's that it's a heavier car!! If what you are saying was true, then the automatic Mustang would also be a dog.

Unbeleivable. You're a Northeastern liberal, aren't you?

Originally posted by kcnewell
PROZAC!.......When he gets the Prozac, He'll check in!

Prozac? Is that how one properly tunes an automatic? :banana:

Originally posted by HotRodSaint
Thank you very much for proving my point!!

They put an engine from a lighter car into a heavier car. It has nothing to do with the transmission. It's that it's a heavier car!! If what you are saying was true, then the automatic Mustang would also be a dog.

Unbeleivable. You're a Northeastern liberal, aren't you?

I can't believe that you're THAT CLUELESS

Heavier car, lighter car? :banghead:

Originally posted by Katshot
I can't believe that you're THAT CLUELESS

Heavier car, lighter car? :banghead:

Yea, you're right. It's all about the transmission. The transmission is the only thing the auto maker ever thinks about. They never ever consider the weight of the vehicle. Because that would be too much physics to contemplate. They just design all their engines to be used in a lighter weight manual transmission vehicle and hope they work in other applications.

I'm clueless? You should be asking Regis for a lifeline! :eyebrow:

Originally posted by Katshot
Maybe that's why we haven't heard anymore from Bill, he said he was taking it to the track over the weekend ;)

nah... you haven't heard from me anymore because I was tired of hearing (reading) you girls bitch and moan... Can't we just agree to disagree and freakin move on??? :banghead:

Everything on this list turns into a pissing contest and it has me coming over here less and less. I have better things to do than read this junk.

No times yet. Broke a rocker arm stud on Friday. That sucked.

Want me to start another thread about that so you can compare notes on how GM should have used better materials for the pressed in stud, or should have used the screw in rockers instead on the iron head LT1's....??? No thanks :rolleyes: ;)

Who is this Bill guy anyway? Oh yeah, he started this mess


LOL...there are a lot of guys on here who wont accept defeat. I still think the 6 spd is cool regardless of ET's.

Originally posted by toomanytoyz
Everything on this list turns into a pissing contest and it has me coming over here less and less. I have better things to do than read this junk.

I'm done pissing in the wind. I'm sorry for my contributions of turning your thread into a dead end debate. :(

Okay....I agree with toomanytoys, I think we should all just agree to disagree and end this thread..(although it has been kinda fun, yeah?)

Consider this thread closed :D