[N0DIH]

On this page: http://www.cadillacforums.com/cadillac/fleetwood/94flt.html

You know, one of those hard to find pages on this site that nothing links TO it....

It says:
(350 cid)
260HP
@5000
335 lb-ft
@2400 Same as '94 less 5 lb-ft torque

So, assuming the mechanical engine is the same, what changed to have less power? Did it really? So the 94's are the faster ones?

 

[caddycruiser]

I've wondered about that too, after seeing it some time ago.

Only think I can think of was this, starting in '95:

* The GenII 5.7-liter V-8 that powered the Fleetwood sedan and its upscale optional Brougham package model was upgraded for 1995.

* In addition to the aforementioned PG260 starter that all Cadillacs received, the rear-drive Fleetwood's V-8 now also featured Quiet Cam.

* This revised camshaft design, in conjunction with new sound and vibration reducing composite rocker arm covers, decreased engine mechanical noise and eliminated valve noise on the outside of the car.

* Again, the 4L60-E electronically controlled four-speed automatic transmission saw service with the GenII V-8.

* For 1995, the 4L60-E featured a 298mm torque converter clutch assembly that had a higher torque capacity, which enhanced the unit's durability.


Not sure why that would have changed the ratings, but having a different "quieter" cam design might have done something.

 

[N0DIH]

Sounds like you have the same "new for 95" booklet too! Mine is just at home.

They may have made the ramps on the cam gentler. I have often wondered too, how much of that booklet is legit, as many items in it show new for 95, but my 94 (a late 94) had also. It is puzzling.

I still want the LT4 cam with the lobe sep of the LT1 B/D cam. That should prove a very powerful cam.

 

[Katshot]

My literature from Cadillac shows 260/330 for all three years.

 

[BCs71]

On the ISSF this topic was covered two weeks ago, I think, in the Fleetwood section.

I didn't check back into it and see what others had to say about it and whether or not any concrete evidence was discovered.
But I must have a real piece of "performance" sitting in my garage: my 94 Caddy stock camshaft!

Starting bid at $500! Any takers? :cookoo: :golden:

 

[N0DIH]

Being you have the cam, we nominate you to do the testing with it....

All in favor??

On the ISSF this topic was covered two weeks ago, I think, in the Fleetwood section.

I didn't check back into it and see what others had to say about it and whether or not any concrete evidence was discovered.
But I must have a real piece of "performance" sitting in my garage: my 94 Caddy stock camshaft!

Starting bid at $500! Any takers? :cookoo: :golden:

 

[BCs71]

Being you have the cam, we nominate you to do the testing with it....

All in favor??

LOL :bonkers:
I've done a few LT1 cam swaps now and they aren't all that fun. I'll sell my stock cam and leave it up to someone else to do the dyno testing or lobe measuring or whatever.....

I'm far more interested in the power I'm making with the aftermarket cam! :thumbsup:

 

[ocjmakaveli]

regardless though i believe they measure the hp at the flywheel and the trans is accounted in these tests so it would be purely an engine hp rating

Who knows though if all stock and new if the 95's had less hp at the wheels or if htey had more possibly more effiecient?

It'll be a hard question to answer now......