[CadillacSTS42005]

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?

 

[davesdeville]

Probably is just you. In reality they should be too close to tell a difference even at the track.

 

[CadillacSTS42005]

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

 

[EcSTSatic]

What's the weight difference? I would imagine that the '97 is flabbier. That's why it is or feels slower.

 

[CadillacSTS42005]

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

 

[davesdeville]

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...

 

[CadillacSTS42005]

alright thanx alot man