Printable View
This is just the pic part of the 1969 Hurst ad promoting the new Shifters with Miss Hurst Shifter lady, Linda Vaughan as the model.
I do not think that Hubert Platt is smiling so broadly because he likes the shifters as much as he likes beautiful Linda's assets. :D
[quote=jcp123;989358]'64 Cads were pretty quick for their day, somewhere I have another road test on a '64 which matches these figures nearly number-for-number. '58 or perhaps '59 Lincolns (I forget which) were pretty speedy for their time too, until Lincoln choked that fabulous 430" motor off with a 2-bbl carb.[/quote]
Both Motor Trend and Car Life magazine got 8.5 seconds for 0-60 mph with a '64 Cadillac Sedan de Ville. 1/4 mile was 16.4 and 16.5 seconds, respectively.
Mechanix Illustrated got 8.0 seconds (no 1/4 mile listed). Tom McCahill (of Mechanix Illustrated) said removing some weight would probably chop off one full second and "dragster" (a street dragster, no doubt).
[quote=dog ear;983310]I prefer the 64 Caddy with a transplanted 500 lightly modified. 3.23.1 gearing and a switch-pitch turbo 400 tranny. Those mods should make the old girl really situp and be noticed. Fat P245-ish type tires and some classic aftermarket ''mag'' type whees would set off the clean (for its time) lines of the Cad quite well.
I knew a guy who hopped up his '64 back in the early seventies and you would be quite surprised with the performance he got out of the package. He used the original 429 with fabricated headers, 2.5'' exhausts, 2'' throttle plate under the re-jetted carb, and an open element air cleaner housing, and re-curved ignitiion timing. With H-70-15 Firestone tires he screached to 60 mph in a hurry. I was with him at speeds approaching 130 mph top end several times. We beat lots of mid-seventies Camaro and Trans-Am in stop light races. LOL![/quote]
I have been tempted more than once to do some extensive mods to my '69 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. A few minor mods have been done already... dual exhaust, a shift kit and 3.21:1 axle ratio replacing the original 2.94s.
It pings at full-throttle, even with premium fuel and octane boost. I'll try putting in some colder spark plugs. Even with the ping (and at maybe 90% throttle), I've timed 0-60 mph in about 8.5 seconds. 40-60 mph is very good at only 3.7 seconds. That is probably all the power I would need, especially in that type of car.
Still, it would be fun to add headers, even lower gears, like 3.73s and an aftermarket cam. That would put 0-60 at around 7 seconds, maybe high 6s and low-15s/high-14s in the 1/4 mile.
But I doubt I will have all that done. And, yes, a '64, even in stock condition, could outdrag most stock mid-'70s Camaros (which were certainly not at their peak in horsepower!) and most stock Firebirds except the 455 'Bird.
Try some of that lead additive you can buy at the parts house. Might take care of some of that pinging. Probably not a bad idea especially if your valve seats have never been hardened.
Fleet;
Best thing to do is take it to one of chassis dyno centers and have them go through the ignition and carb. They will put the distributer on a timing machine and recalibrate it properly. They will also re-jet your exisiting carb and dail in the correct settings. These minor mods makes a huge difference. You will probably pick up some horsepower too.
Remember your Caddy is very heavy, and the new exhausts and gearing and shift kit is not ''right'' for your otherwise stock engine. You need the package dailed in.
My pal with the 64 Caddy 429 done this himself and it made a big difference in the total package. He took the heads off and had them re-done; multi-angle valve job, and the valve pockets touched up. He polished the combustion chambers himself. Nothing exotic.
Putting it back togther he used modern gaskets and a lot of attention to detail. Colder plugs helped out.
I would say his total package was in the mid-to-high 15s in the quarter. 0-60 in the high 7s - very low 8s.
Stock 400 Pontiac Trans-Ams of the period and the odd 455 were no match for the Caddy. Remember the standard 400 was only rated at 185 HP. With typical 2.41.1 gears they were very slow. 403 Olds were rated at 180 HP. Slightly slower than the Pontiac 400.
455 HO was rated at 200 HP in 1975-76. Low end torque off the line made them seem faster than they really were. Typical unmodified cars rigt off the dealers lot were true high 15 - low 16 sec movers. Tuned proerly using absolute stock parts you could get them into the mid-15s. Maybe 15.40 - 15.6 around 90-94 mph. Tops!
Later 78-79 400 WS6 cars with the 400-220 HP package were quicker than the 455 HOs. With timing and carb adjusted ''right'' you would be in the low - mid 15s. Just a few tenths quicker than the earlier smog-controlled 455 of the 75-76 period.
Stock Camaro anythings were not fast. Even the late 77-78s. 79-80s were faster by a long shot, but, still not as quick as the late Firebird 400-220 cars.
To put things further into perspective, even the (stock) 4-bbl 350 (non-Z28) 1972 Camaro, 351C Mustang, 360-4V Javelin, 340 Challenger, and 340 Cuda fell prey to Lester's modified 64 Caddy.
They would usually get him off the line if they were half decent on the green light, but, a few car lengths out through the intersection was another story. Talk about being surprised. LOL!
Many other luxury cars could do the same thing nearly stock. How about your 1968-70 (W-34) 455-400 HP Olds Toronado? Theses brutes had cold air induction and a better high speed cam than the standard 455-4Vs. If tuned properly they were low-to-mid 15s stock.
1969-70 Mercury Marauder X-100 with the 429-360 HP Thunderjet was another. Very low 16s stock and even the odd high 15-sec run could be had if you knew what you were doing.
Buick Rivs of all years through 1973 were capable of startling performance. I like the 1970 GS Stage 1 myself. Same engine as the smaller GS 455 derived Skylark. With 3.23.1 or a lower 3.42.1 they could really pin you in the seat.
1970 Caddy Eldo and 68-71 Lincoln MKs were also fairly quick. Low 16s stock. Easy to get them into the high 15s with just a few well chosen mods.
Then there were the various full-size 440-375 HP Commando and TNT Chryslers, Dodge and Plymouths from 1967-1971. They offered alot of zip. They were generally lighter than Ford, Chevy and other GM models. Most had 3.23.1 gearing standard.
I knew a guy with a 1969 Dodge Polara 500 with the 440-375 Magnum and 3.23.1 limited slip combo back in the 70s. It hauled butt, man. B5 Blue, white interior, Cragar S/S wheels, and G60-15 Goodyear Polyglass tires made itself known on the street.
Wally had the 440 set up with headers, Edelbrock DP4B intake and an electronic Mallory ignitiion. He also used an open element air cleaner and a larger 800 Carter Thermoquad from the 1971 line. Chrome valve covers made it look nasty nice under the hood. This was a low, low 15-sec car. Maybe even high 14s on a good day. Maybe better!
There were plenty of other combos that I liked in the full-size line that could smoke alot of mid-to late 70s cars at the light, in the quarter or at 0-60.
Big 396-325 and 427-390 rat Chevies come to mind. 428 Ford and Mercs from 66-70. Big Pontiac Grand Prix and other 400-428-455 full-size babies were awesome.
Here is a grainy pic of my Uncle Len's 1968 Chevy Impala Custom with 396-325 HP and 3.08.1 combo. He put on the 427-425 HP exhaust system and supertuned the package. Otherwise it was stock. But, it hauled ass up to about 130 mph. Mid-15s and low 90-mph times in the quarter. Car was bright yellow with black interior.
It was not quite as fast as the big guns in the second pic but you get the idea. LOL!
Well, the former owner had the dual exhaust installed. But I would have had that done anyway. It's always good to pick up an extra 15 or 20 horsepower. I did notice that it does not have a crossover pipe. I will have that added since it increases low-end torque.
The carb was re-jetted and it did help. The distributor was also re-curved. And I do add lead substitute.
I don't really want to have half the engine taken apart just to have hardened valve seats. However, if I ever have the engine rebuilt, that will certainly be done.
Yes, it would be interesting to take it to a dyno place. Not only to power-tune it but to see how much horsepower it's making.
The shift kit makes the transmission shift firm and quick. It was much too mushy-shifting before. The shift kit helps acceleration and, of course, fuel economy and longevity.
Your estimate of your friend's Cadillac's times seem accurate.
You can also buy Toluene as both a solvent and octane booster in industrial quantities. I believe it is an active ingredient in most octane boosters, and bought alone is available in a minimum of 5-gallon quantities. A few oz per tank helps the octane rating and burn efficiency of the motor tremendously while ultimately costing only a few cents per gallon. Similar running alcohol as a fuel, though, you may need to re-tune the carb and re-curve the dizzy for it depending on how much you run. Use no more per tank than you would a parts house bottle of fuel additive, though, and you should be fine.
My friend had a song to remember toluene in high school. Toluene, toluene, methyl-benzene toluene... Yeah, we were losers.
Incidentally..I have been semi-obsessed with Ferrari V12s of the era. Even back then they were revvers, much preferring 4500-plus RPM. It's not surprising that the Ferraris showed poorly vs. the Cadillacs in the passing tests. The Ferrari is a glorious motor in its sound, smoothness, and 4500+rpm performance, though. As I said before, though, that vintage Cadillac was labelled as a muscle car wearing a bow tie given its rather surprising performance. Most testers were loth to call it a handler, but almost all were stuck by its surprisingly good cornering balance. Brakes were generally lambasted. Comfort was labelled second-to-none. After around '68, testers generally disliked the interior materials, but were before known as top quality. Fuel economy was not stellar even for the 60s but was known as competent for a vehicle its size. Dig back to the 50s and Cadillac was a top contender along with Lincoln for ton-miles-per-gallon. Some models back then were capable of over 20mpg (better than ~11,75l/100km). The 429 Cad was a very good motor when it came out in '64 and rather furthered Cadillac's place in the "fine-car" field, as it was known back then.
A lot of mechanics today warn against running toluene since stock ECU's can't compensate for its chemical structure. In carbs, you have the power...
[quote=jcp123;990029]You can also buy Toluene as both a solvent and octane booster in industrial quantities. I believe it is an active ingredient in most octane boosters, and bought alone is available in a minimum of 5-gallon quantities. A few oz per tank helps the octane rating and burn efficiency of the motor tremendously while ultimately costing only a few cents per gallon. Similar running alcohol as a fuel, though, you may need to re-tune the carb and re-curve the dizzy for it depending on how much you run. Use no more per tank than you would a parts house bottle of fuel additive, though, and you should be fine.[/quote]
I will just try changing to colder spark plugs and see what happens. Remember, it only pings at or near full-throttle. Meaning about 98% of the time, it's okay. (No, I don't use full-throttle that much. It's temping but I want to get more than 8 or 9 mpg!)