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.
15.9
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
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.....
1995 ETC, 75 Deville, Cad500 powered 73 Apollo, 94 Mark VIII
Joined
·
7,979 Posts
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*...
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.
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
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 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 ([email protected]) 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.
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 ([email protected]) 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!
I'll check out the website!
BCs71 said:...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
N0DIH said:
Just some info for you on that thought:
1980 Olds 350(R) - [email protected]/ 275lb/[email protected]
Your '80 T/A Turbo - [email protected]/ 280lb/[email protected]
Standard '80 Corvette - [email protected]/ 280lb/[email protected]
Opt. '80 Corvette - [email protected]/ 275lb/[email protected]
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.
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.
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.
Katshot said:
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.
'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.
ShadowLvr400 said:
G
Guest
·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 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?"
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.
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.
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
