Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
1992 Town Car Cartier & 2014 Accord LX MTX
Joined
·
34,087 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi, I was wondring if Cadillac under rated the 4.9's horsepower. I was wondring because i went to a site that calculated horsepower based on the car's weight and 1/4 mile time. So i put in the weight and 15.9 1/4 mile time of nightwolf's 1993 CDV, and i got that that 3519 car would need 227hp to run a 15.9 Plus it always seemed that my 92 SDV was a very fast car for only having 200hp. It can almost keep up with that LT1 Roadmaster i had.
 

·
Registered
'98 Buick Regal LS - '91 Caddy Seville - '87 Caddy Seville!
Joined
·
4,425 Posts
I~LUV~Caddys8792 said:
Hi, I was wondring if Cadillac under rated the 4.9's horsepower. I was wondring because i went to a site that calculated horsepower based on the car's weight and 1/4 mile time. So i put in the weight and 15.9 1/4 mile time of nightwolf's 1993 CDV, and i got that that 3519 car would need 227hp to run a 15.9 Plus it always seemed that my 92 SDV was a very fast car for only having 200hp. It can almost keep up with that LT1 Roadmaster i had.
Those calculators are a load of bull. There are many more factors that will decide a quartermile time other than weight and advertised horsepower.

For instance, it say 227 hp is needed to get the 15.9 times? But they don't include the profile of the camshaft that would determine the power curves for the engine. They also don't include tire size, transmission gear ratios, and even the car's pitch from a stop.

The above paragraph explains only a few things that factor into quartermile times and the like.

The best tools for determining actual horsepower is the dyno. If you want as near accurate as possible 0-60 times, then a G-Tech or like device would be the way to go. For quartermile times, drop $20.00 and have a nice day at the track.

That said, take my word for it, the 4.9 liter is at or around the advertised 200 horsepower. There may be a slight variation in the individual engine by 5 or so hp on either side of the advertised 200. In some cases, there might be more, or even less. But for the most part, it's at 200.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
How fast a car is is a funny thing. My mom has an 02 Mustang V6 that has a 3.8 pushrod making around 195 hp. My dad has an 04 Monte Carlo SS that has the tried and true pushrod 3.8 making 200 hp. The Monte is MUCH quicker. Period. The Mustang is actually kinda heavy for the size. But GM's engines are geared much better IMO. Or the trannies are better or something. I don't really go by horsepower. It's overrated. The driver also has alot to do with it. Driving technique and especially if the car is a stick. I mean...anyone can go punch the gas pedal and go fast. That's not hard. I've driven a few 4.9's as a valet and don't find too much difference to my 4.5. The torque is the same (maybe like 5 more for you). but torque plays a much bigger part than people think. So for your answer...I'd say probably not. 200 hp is still pretty good. 250 some torque certainly doesn't hurt either.
 

·
Registered
'91 Sedan DeVille Silhouette Special
Joined
·
439 Posts
Desktop Dyno 2000 says the 4.9 makes 230bhp and 275ft/lbs, and it's supposed to be extremely accurate, although I'm not saying it's perfect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Ralph said:
The torque really fools people over the mere 200 hp. It feels a LOT stronger!
Horsepower is good advertising, but it's TORQUE that pins you to the seat! Another way to look at it is: Horsepower = full speed, torque = how quickly you get to full speed.

My brother owns a bonified "torque monster" car: 69 Dodge Coronet 500 station wagon. 493 CID big block (stroked 440) that makes over 400 lb/ft from 2000 to 6000 RPM & peaks at around 590 lb/ft. What this means is, it doesn't matter how fast or slow the engine is turning, it'll plant you in the seat when you push the skinny pedal. This thing goes from 20 to "HOLY (expletive deleted)" in 4 seconds flat! :D Attached be pics of the wagonm & it's engine from Friday's Freeehold Outlet Mall cruise.
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
dbdartman said:
Horsepower is good advertising, but it's TORQUE that pins you to the seat! Another way to look at it is: Horsepower = full speed, torque = how quickly you get to full speed.

My brother owns a bonified "torque monster" car: 69 Dodge Coronet 500 station wagon. 493 CID big block (stroked 440) that makes over 400 lb/ft from 2000 to 6000 RPM & peaks at around 590 lb/ft. What this means is, it doesn't matter how fast or slow the engine is turning, it'll plant you in the seat when you push the skinny pedal. This thing goes from 20 to "HOLY (expletive deleted)" in 4 seconds flat! :D Attached be pics of the wagonm & it's engine from Friday's Freeehold Outlet Mall cruise.
Nice. Back in the early '80's my buddies dad had an early 1970's Chrysler Town and Country station wagon with the 440 and it was so damn torquey. It came on super smooth and it felt like it would raise the front wheels off the ground when his dad pinned it.

Those wagons with fake wood from the late '60's and early '70's are becomming quite collectable now!! Check some of the prices on ebay!
 

·
Registered
1989 Sedan DeVille is now just a fond memory ....
Joined
·
10,429 Posts
Ralph said:
Nice. Back in the early '80's my buddies dad had an early 1970's Chrysler Town and Country station wagon with the 440 and it was so damn torquey. It came on super smooth and it felt like it would raise the front wheels off the ground when his dad pinned it.

Those wagons with fake wood from the late '60's and early '70's are becomming quite collectable now!! Check some of the prices on ebay!
Speaking of torque and ancient history; when I was a wee laddie, the tender age of 7 my Dad traded our 1961 Ford Falcon station wagon for a 1964 Ford Galaxy 500 (fire engine red because it was intended for FD service but brake drums weren't large enough) with the 390.

The first time my Mom got on the freeway with it was a blast for my brother and I. She was used to the gutless 200cid 6 in the Falcon so she floored it as usual at the bottom of the on ramp. Needless to say, she lost about 500 miles off the tread of the rear tires and 5 years from her lifespan! That car had no trouble getting on the freeway!
:burn:
 

·
Registered
1992 Town Car Cartier & 2014 Accord LX MTX
Joined
·
34,087 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
LOL, i love torque! I wonder how a 460 feels in a mid '70s Town car? Or like a 76 FWB with the 8.2 FI, 400lb/ft!!!
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Kev said:
Speaking of torque and ancient history; when I was a wee laddie, the tender age of 7 my Dad traded our 1961 Ford Falcon station wagon for a 1964 Ford Galaxy 500 (fire engine red because it was intended for FD service but brake drums weren't large enough) with the 390.

The first time my Mom got on the freeway with it was a blast for my brother and I. She was used to the gutless 200cid 6 in the Falcon so she floored it as usual at the bottom of the on ramp. Needless to say, she lost about 500 miles off the tread of the rear tires and 5 years from her lifespan! That car had no trouble getting on the freeway!
:burn:
My dad had what I think was a 1961 Falcon (just unsure about the year) and I've posted that pic. did you see it?? If I can remember tomorrow I'll scan it and see what you think.....He also had a white Falcon station wagon in 1970 or so (don't know the year but I also have a pic of it) and I remember always standing in the middle between them in the front seat!! People didn't seem too concerned about safety back then, LOL!

Question, when did they start/end making Falcons?
 

·
Registered
1989 Sedan DeVille is now just a fond memory ....
Joined
·
10,429 Posts
Stoneage_Caddy said:
they still make falcons , in austraila

American Falcon :
1960-1965
1966 it became a short "Fairlane" and ran untill about 1970 when the "Maverick" replaced it
1966 was still Falcon, I know casue I had a four door gutless wonder that I drove in my senior year of HS. :banghead:
 

·
Registered
Unicycle
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
Here is a question....

people say that 4.9 dosn't feel like 200hp

what exactly does 200hp feel like?

how many 200hp cars hav they drove?

It is just something stupid someone says that has no idea about anything mechanical...

but I do not know what 200hp feels like, I have not driven another 200hp car... I was in my cousins Stratus with the 2.7 V6, that is 200hp and 193 tq, it seems quick, but I woudln't know whos is faster.

My Oldsmobile is 165hp/220tq. and slower, the '79 is 180hp/320tq. and slower, my fathers '99 GTP is around 275hp/300tq. and faster...

BTW, the curb weight of my car is somewhere around 3,500lbs... add in 215lbs (me w/ cloths and shoes), 80lbs in gas (had alot in there) and about 100lbs from the dynamat in the doors and other crap in the car, plus other various stuff, and my race weight was right around 4,000lbs.

But yeah, it is the 275ft-lbs of torque that make the 4.9 a peppy engine.
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Night Wolf said:
Here is a question....

people say that 4.9 dosn't feel like 200hp

what exactly does 200hp feel like?

how many 200hp cars hav they drove?
How about a comparison between an Impala LS with 200hp and less torque. The 4.9 will pull harder BECAUSE of the torque, right?? Same hp perhaps at a different rpm...

They also say that hp is for top-end and torque is for low-end, so where does the best balance come in...
 

·
Registered
Unicycle
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
ok, so to compare what a "200hp" engine "feels like" we need a baseline.

So our baseline will be a current generation Impala LS with the Series II 3800 V6 producing 200hp and 240ft-lbs tq.? ok....

So what times do one of those Impala's run?

I know a stock 2001 Grand Prix GT runs a 16.4 or so... that is similar to the Impala, though a little more heavy.

And, while my [email protected] is true, that is honestly the fastest I ever seen a stock 4.9 Caddy do the 1/4 in, the rest seem to be around 16.3 or so... so do we use my speed, or the average?

So lets say the Impala is the baseline 200hp, so the Caddy 4.9 "feels" more then 200hp.... what car "feels" less then 200hp and what are more examples that feel more etc...?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can't get in a car and say "this car feels like it has XXX horsepower" it is just a stupid statement, you can get in a 4cylinder Jeep Wrangler, put it in 4WD Low, floor it, and I bet it'll pull harder then a Northstar Caddy would, from a stop... until 30mph.... so what I am getting at is, so many factors come into play... my '79 DeVille is 180hp... I don't know how much it "feels" though, I know that if I was to get a 180hp Honda 4banger and put it in the Caddy, it would never move with that weight and the gearing...

ah well....
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top