[N0DIH]

I did have fun with some geezer in a 4.0L HO Jeep last night, I let him get 2-3 car lengths and then nailed it, he was ticked! I just whizzed passed him, at least 20 mph faster by the time I passed him. He was on it, could see his exhaust reflecting with the headlights behind him. He stayed on it till he passed me honking with his brights on. Dweebs will be dweebs....

I honestly haven't driven a 2.56 or 2.93 geared car, but I can't imagine it would be as slow as 16.6. Makes me wonder if they had an L05 car for testing.... That is where I would expect the L05 to be with similar gearing.

I would expect a 2.56 to be closer to 16.0, and a 2.93 closer to 15.5. But, can't say for sure, but the low end of the LT1 should push those gears like the old Pontiac V8's did, like a freight train. It was common on those old 400's and 455's to push a 2.56 geared car to mid 14's and 4500#. Well, till the smog police really screwed things up.

But with the 4L60E's 3.06 first gear, and a 2.93 rear end, that is nearly 9:1 gear ratio, and with a 2.5:1 converter stall ratio (that was what GM listed on all the Olds 350 and 455 cars with THM375/400's in 1976, aka, 88, 98, Wagon)
, that is 22.4:1, with 300 lb/ft torque at converter stall, that is 6700 lbs/ft starting line torque (at converter stall). Compare that to a 71 Cad with 500 lb/ft torque, THM400 and 2.56's and it only has slightly less the line torque than the LT1 cars with 2.93's. 400 (at stall speed)*2.56*2.48*2.5=6350 lb/ft torque.

 

[caddycruiser]

All this talk of gear ratios, quarter miles, etc., is quite entertaining to read

Actually, what it really makes me want to do is to drive someone else's here LT1 car, because my '95 still doesn't seem THAT powerful to me...seems a lot like our 5.3L 2wd Suburban, which is quick and revs nicely when pushed, but has some dead spots while driving. Either I'm babying it too much or I'm hallucinating, but I'll just have to get used to it I guess.

Of course, with a new EGR valve in place of the previous cut & re-route "mod" it had, that might have made a bit of a change, but I'm not sure.

 

[N0DIH]

Mine pulls flat out hard at WOT when you get on it, flat out fun. And cornering is very fun too, she settles nicely into corners at higher speeds, you don't enter a super fast, but you can go through them quite fast.

Stock 3.42's. Maybe the stock 3.42 programming is different. Heck, mine could have been preprogrammed with one of those handheld thingy's or by a tuner for all I know, I haven't got my cable in the mail yet to see what it has. But it isn't a slug at all. 100 mph comes up quite fast when needed....

 

[caddycruiser]

Yeah, now that I remember way back when rolleyes: ), when I first took the car on a test drive, I was more forceful with the accelerator and it really would pull hard and smooth...I was on a highway with lights, and kept getting first in line and smoking the person next to me.

Guess I'm just being too easy on it anymore...I'm just afraid of toasting the trans or blowing something else up.

This coming from a person who has WOT'd the '93 every day I've driven it for the past 2 years...

 

[I~LUV~Caddys8792]

1995 Fleetwood with the 2.56:1 rear axle:

0-30: 3.4
0-60: 8.5
0-100: 22.6 (26.7 in 1992 DTS)
Standing 1/4 mile: 16.6 @ 86.6 MPH
30-50 passing: 5.4
50-70 passing: 5.5
Skidpad: .77G ('92 DTS is .76G!)

Source: 1995 Cadillac official road tests.

 

[Katshot]

The Roadmaster sedan is capable of 15 second timeslips. Even low 15 sec slips in stock form. Especially if equipped with a 2.93 gearset! Believe it or not the RM weighs as much as the Impala SS...... I was surprised at the track recently when my street trim Caprice weighed a good eal more than a buddy's street trim RM sedan.

The only RM that performs in the 16 sec range would be the girthy wagon.

I don't buy that for a second. I've seen too many B&D body cars at the track to believe a stock one can run a low 15 sec. ET while being totally stock.

 

[BCs71]

The Roadmaster sedan is capable of 15 second timeslips. Even low 15 sec slips in stock form. Especially if equipped with a 2.93 gearset! Believe it or not the RM weighs as much as the Impala SS...... I was surprised at the track recently when my street trim Caprice weighed a good eal more than a buddy's street trim RM sedan.
The only RM that performs in the 16 sec range would be the girthy wagon.

I don't buy that for a second. I've seen too many B&D body cars at the track to believe a stock one can run a low 15 sec. ET while being totally stock.

Which part don't you believe? I've hung around quite a few B&D body enthusiasts since I bought my Caprice in 2002, and read forums daily. At the track this year I witnessed with my own eyes a 2.93 geared Roadmaster weighing in at 4050 lbs. My Caprice with 2.93 gears ran a 15.3 into a stiff headwind. My Caprice weighs 4230#s. You do the math and you can figure out that my pal's Roadmaster went faster than I did....
Maybe our altitudes are that different between Union Grove, WI and Pennsylvania?

I dunno about that, my '95 Roadmaster Limited Sedan with the trailer towing package and the 2.93:1 Posi rear end wasnt that fast. If my deVille is good for a 8.0 0-60, then I would say that the Roadie was good for about a 7.5 or so. It was noticeably quicker in 2nd gear. I had read that Car and Driver had got a '94 Limited Sedan to run a 7.8 to sixty, but I'm not sure if that was with the trailer towing package.

I would say that my Roadmaster, with 148k miles is capable of a 15.6-15.7. Where as a LT1 Fleetwood with the 2.56:1 is a 16.6 @ 85 as quoted by Cadillac in their '94 Full Line Brochure. Someone on here got a 15.9 with their 3.42:1 geared FWB..which in all honestly isn't that great. I would expect like a 15.5 with the 3.42:1's.

How do you know you couldn't do 15.5 or lower with your RM if you never took it to the track?

 

[I~LUV~Caddys8792]

How do you know you couldn't do 15.5 or lower with your RM if you never took it to the track?

Good point. It just never felt like a 15.5 car. I raced a '97 Talon TSI AWD once, and by 40, he was way ahead of me, now thats a car thats good for a 15.1 stock or so.

Maybe my car was a solid 15.5, i dunno.

 

[Katshot]

Which part don't you believe? I've hung around quite a few B&D body enthusiasts since I bought my Caprice in 2002, and read forums daily. At the track this year I witnessed with my own eyes a 2.93 geared Roadmaster weighing in at 4050 lbs. My Caprice with 2.93 gears ran a 15.3 into a stiff headwind. My Caprice weighs 4230#s. You do the math and you can figure out that my pal's Roadmaster went faster than I did....
Maybe our altitudes are that different between Union Grove, WI and Pennsylvania?


How do you know you couldn't do 15.5 or lower with your RM if you never took it to the track?

I guess it's just you man. I know guys with bone stock Impala SS's that don't run low 15's. Mid to high 15's at best usually, and that's an SS! SOrry, I just don't believe you on this.

 

[N0DIH]

Last time I checked, the Talon TSI's were good for low to mid 14's stock. At least that is what Hot Rod/Car Craft was getting out of it stone stock. It wasn't a 97, but I doubt they would get slower over the years...

Good point. It just never felt like a 15.5 car. I raced a '97 Talon TSI AWD once, and by 40, he was way ahead of me, now thats a car thats good for a 15.1 stock or so.

Maybe my car was a solid 15.5, i dunno.

Edit: According to this 15.1 is correct, but honestly, these cars are so easy to modify, I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't up against a modified car.
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html