Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Banned
2005 STS4 1SG: GM Acc Lights, Corsa, Platnium Grille, Volant
Joined
·
15,987 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My dad had a 1993 ETC and i loved the car so much that i bought a 97 ETC. Now ive read here that the 97 has 5 more hp but it seems alot slower than the 93. Both had Z Packages. Is it just me?
 

·
Banned
1995 ETC, 75 Deville, Cad500 powered 73 Apollo, 94 Mark VIII
Joined
·
7,971 Posts
Probably is just you. In reality they should be too close to tell a difference even at the track.
 

·
Banned
2005 STS4 1SG: GM Acc Lights, Corsa, Platnium Grille, Volant
Joined
·
15,987 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
ive herd clames tho of 1st gen n*s in ETCs goin 0-60 in about 6 seconds. According online my 97 does it in 7.1
 

·
Registered
1999 STS - diamond white
Joined
·
5,229 Posts
What's the weight difference? I would imagine that the '97 is flabbier. That's why it is or feels slower.
 

·
Banned
2005 STS4 1SG: GM Acc Lights, Corsa, Platnium Grille, Volant
Joined
·
15,987 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
i have no clue... i would think theres less weight due to the mods of the 2nd gen N* in the 97 ETC rather than the 1st gen N* in the 93 ETC
 

·
Banned
1995 ETC, 75 Deville, Cad500 powered 73 Apollo, 94 Mark VIII
Joined
·
7,971 Posts
The 97 is slightly heavier. Shouldn't be enough to make a difference.

As for published 0-60 and 1/4 mile times... they're a good GENERAL reference. But don't take them as exactly what your car should do. The drivers who test the cars for magazines aren't really used to them, you are, different elevations of the test area vs your elevation... all kinds of crap will skew the times. This applies to different tests as well...
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top