Page 11 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 341

Thread: "The 10 Worst Muscle Cars Of All Time"

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by hightower99 View Post
    Does that mean that you haven't actually run a 1/4 mile yet?
    No. I've done the easier things like 40-60 mph (4.0 seconds) and 50-70 mph (4.8 seconds).

    A few of the car guys I hang around with have taken their cars to the track where they run the 1/8th mile (in which the 1/4 mile is calculated), so that may be a good idea. Running the 1/8th mile is less stressful on the car than a full 1/4 mile.
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,775
    ?
    How do they calculate the 1/4 from the 1/8th ?
    Gearchanges may or may not occur - that can lose 0.5-1second easily !
    So maybe worth while in the future telling which numbers you cite are estimates from the 1/8th as they clearly cannot hold as much authority as an actual measurement
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    ?
    How do they calculate the 1/4 from the 1/8th ?
    Gearchanges may or may not occur - that can lose 0.5-1second easily !
    So maybe worth while in the future telling which numbers you cite are estimates from the 1/8th as they clearly cannot hold as much authority as an actual measurement
    Actually, I've wondered about that, too.

    I'll ask one of those who has done it. I do have the email address of one of them so I don't have to wait until next Friday (the day of the weekly car gathering).
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    I've noticed that many of the drag racing related websites list both 1/8 and 1/4 mile times and speeds.
    Like this one (scroll down):
    Muscle Cars Featured - Muscle Car Pictures - DragTimes.com
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    ACT,Canberra Australia
    Posts
    6,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet 500 View Post
    I've actually thought of taking my '69 to the track to see what it runs in the 1/4 mile. But considering that the 39-year-old engine in my car is the original (not rebuilt), I'm not sure if I want to keep it at full throttle for 16 or so seconds.

    But who knows? I may do it anyway!
    All provided it isnt blowing any smoke and is running fine well tuned itll be fine. But its plenty of fun and you can also do "dial your own" and handicap racing so you can race against faster cars and even have a chance. We once took the 120Y datsun tot he strip and knocked off some fairly ordianry american and australian and a N/a rotary that way even though we where lucky to do 18sec 1/4s in it.
    Lifts heavy things and hits hard......also eats as much as 2/3 people and sleeps 10 hours a day!

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet 500 View Post
    Again, I don't recall deleting another person's post...
    You don't recall having driven a fast car either, since you've clearly never driven one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet 500 View Post
    My Cad weighs about 300-lbs more than the test car I posted, but mine has dual exhaust which that other car didn't have and a shift kit. So the 1/4 mile time would be about the same, and probably a little better.
    You mean the test car I posted - right?
    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/783677-post16.html

    What is your basis for your claim that "dual exhaust" by itself would compensate for 300 additional pounds of weight?

    Also, the '69 MT test car had the benefit of being able to run a full spark advance due to the availability of 100 octane leaded gasoline, which that engine required.

    Also, how many miles are on your engine? Chances are the accumulated wear has produced a significant reduction in output.

    Summarily, your claim that you boat is faster than the new boat is purely speculative and likely erroneous.
    Last edited by harddrivin1le; 02-19-2008 at 07:44 AM.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by harddrivin1le View Post
    You don't recall having driven a fast car either, since you've clearly never driven one.
    So you know all about every car I have ever driven?


    You mean the test car I posted - right?
    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/783677-post16.html
    Yes, I am comparing my car with the Motor Trend test car ('69 Coupe de Ville). The M/T test car weighed 4,780 lbs; mine weighs 5,060 lbs. My car has dual exhaust and a shift kit. The test car also had those skinny bias ply tires, while mine has modern radials. And my car is certainly more than broken in, while many magazine test cars were not or barely broken in which means they were not running at full potential.

    What is your basis for your claim that "dual exhaust" by itself would compensate for 300 additional pounds of weight?
    On the basis that dual exhaust adds 15-20 hp. Don't forget about the shift kit that my car has. It now shifts from 1-2 and 2-3 instantly instead of the hesitation when it was stock. The shift kit alone cut the 40-60 mph time from 4.8 to 4.0 seconds.

    Also, the '69 MT test car had the benefit of being able to run a full spark advance due to the availability of 100 octane leaded gasoline, which that engine required.
    I have the timing of my '69 at the factory setting. The carb has bigger jets and I use octane boost and lead additive.

    Also, how many miles are on your engine? Chances are the accumulated wear has produced a significant reduction in output.
    It has about 95,500 miles, yet still feels strong. Besides, Cadillac engines don't wear. That is both serious and semi-serious. Owners have reported rebuilding their engines (usually to modify it) at about 100,000 miles and finding virtually no cylinder wall wear.

    Summarily, your claim that you boat is faster than the new boat is purely speculative and likely erroneous
    You know, for someone like me, referring to it as a boat is a compliment! And what is the new "boat" you are referring to?
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Falcon500 View Post
    All provided it isnt blowing any smoke and is running fine well tuned itll be fine. But its plenty of fun and you can also do "dial your own" and handicap racing so you can race against faster cars and even have a chance. We once took the 120Y datsun tot he strip and knocked off some fairly ordianry american and australian and a N/a rotary that way even though we where lucky to do 18sec 1/4s in it.
    You're right... if it doesn't smoke (which it doesn't) the chances are excellent that the engine will be fine. Still, it is an almost 40-year-old engine.

    I like your idea of handicap racing. That would be fun.
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    I forgot to mention that I would have taken my car to a drag strip if there were some in the area.
    There used to be the San Fernando drag strip, less than 10 miles away, but that one closed a long time ago.

    The closest ones now are the Palmdale Raceway (about 45 miles away) and the one at Irwindale (about 40 miles away).
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet 500 View Post
    And my car is certainly more than broken in, while many magazine test cars were not or barely broken in which means they were not running at full potential...The shift kit alone cut the 40-60 mph time from 4.8 to 4.0 seconds...It has about 95,500 miles
    What instrumentation are you using that allows you to measure time in 1/10ths second increments and actual (vs. indicated) speeds?

    A shift kit that knocks 8/10ths of a second off 0 - 60? Boy, that must be some shift kit.

    Your blatant foolishness continues to astound me.
    Last edited by harddrivin1le; 02-20-2008 at 07:53 AM.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by harddrivin1le View Post
    What instrumentation are you using that allows you to measure time in 1/10ths second increments and actual (vs. indicated) speeds?
    I used a digital watch and put it in the stop watch mode. I allowed for speeometer error and went a little faster than what the speedo measured. It was more like up to 63 mph to allow for error.

    A shift kit that knocks 8/10ths of a second off 0 - 60? Boy, that must be some shift kit.
    Oh, it's very possible. Car Life mentioned the soft-shifting stock transmission in its Feb., 1963 issue when testing a '63 Park Avenue...
    "A 0-60 mph time of 10 seconds suffice to categorize this facet of performance. On paper, the Cadillac should be capable of even better performance but the luxury car image has more or less forced the engineers to sacrfice a second or two by design of the automatic tranmission."

    Your blatant foolishness continues to astound me.
    And your ignorance continues to astound me because you know virtually nothing about '60s Cadillacs except what you read in magazines.
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10,227
    Quote Originally Posted by harddrivin1le View Post
    What instrumentation are you using that allows you to measure time in 1/10ths second increments and actual (vs. indicated) speeds?

    A shift kit that knocks 8/10ths of a second off 0 - 60? Boy, that must be some shift kit.

    Your blatant foolishness continues to astound me.
    That seems highly suspect.

    EDIT: Well, less so, 40 mph - 60 mph is more believable.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitdy View Post
    That seems highly suspect.

    EDIT: Well, less so, 40 mph - 60 mph is more believable.
    The width of his speedo needle equates to a greater margin than 1/10th of second.

    Review is various posts over on his "under rated musclecar" thread and you'll see that he has no actual understanding of vehicle performance.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet 500 View Post
    It was more like up to 63 mph to allow for error.
    PRODUCE DOCUMENTED, THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE (e.g. before vs. after 1/8th mile time to speed results on a drag racing slip) WHERE A SHIFT KIT REDUCED TIME BY ANYTHING CLOSE TO 8/10th's OF SECOND!

    Why don't you stop SPECULATING on the "performance" of your Cadillac and go run it on an actual drag-strip?

    Shift kits buy next to nothing in terms of objective performance gains and they significantly reduce transmission life by raising line pressures and increasing internal shock loads during upshifts:

    . Yank Performance . FAQ

    "Is a shift kit required or recommended?

    Yank Performance Converters can achieve maximum performance and efficiency without the use of shift kits. Shift kits dramatically raise transmission line pressure to increase shift firmness. Increased shift firmness will not increase performance, but create unnecessary stress on the transmission and other drive-line components."


    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet 500 View Post
    ...you know virtually nothing about '60s Cadillacs except what you read in magazines.
    An interesting quotation from someone who relentlessly quotes only the fastest results in 40 year old magazines as though they're gospel and were representative of ACTUAL PRODUCTION cars (as opposed to the manufactured prepped "press cars" that tended to dominate the magazines).
    Last edited by harddrivin1le; 02-20-2008 at 03:28 PM.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by harddrivin1le View Post
    PRODUCE DOCUMENTED, THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE (e.g. before vs. after 1/8th mile time to speed results on a drag racing slip) WHERE A SHIFT KIT REDUCED TIME BY ANYTHING CLOSE TO 8/10th's OF SECOND!
    I can't do that with my car because it has not been to a track either before or after the shift kit. Maybe someone here, like Werty with his Camaro, can help you.

    Shift kits buy next to nothing in terms of objective performance gains and they significantly reduce transmission life by raising line pressures and increasing internal shock loads during upshifts:

    . Yank Performance . FAQ

    "Is a shift kit required or recommended?

    Yank Performance Converters can achieve maximum performance and efficiency without the use of shift kits. Shift kits dramatically raise transmission line pressure to increase shift firmness. Increased shift firmness will not increase performance, but create unnecessary stress on the transmission and other drive-line components."
    A mushy-shifting transmission cost many tenths of a second when changing gears. I remember watching the speedo on my '66 Dart before and after installing a shift kit. Before, it would lag slightly when shifting, after it would actually jump slightly (increase speed) when shifting. I guess now you are going to say it's my imagination.

    An interesting quotation from someone who quotes 40 year old magazines as though they're gospel and contain results that were representative of ACTUAL PRODUCTION cars (as opposed to the manufactured prepped "press cars" that tended to dominate the magazines).
    But I actually drive or have driven many of the Cadillacs I quote from road tests. And like YOU have never attached magazine articles!

    Your 472 CID V8 makes significantly less power than my Acura's 3.5 liter (212 CID) V6. Your Fatillac would be significanty quicker and faster (more power and lighter) if you could somehow bolt that Acura driveline into your boat.
    My 472 makes tons more torque than your engine. And I keep telling you, calling my car a boat is a compliment! Although I prefer "Luxury Land Yacht."
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Top 10 Worst Value Cars Ever
    By h00t_h00t in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-24-2008, 03:29 AM
  2. Commodore thrashes Falcon in October sales
    By adrenaline in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 11-07-2006, 11:34 PM
  3. top 10 worst concept cars ever!
    By Craiben in forum Classic cars
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 09-13-2006, 07:45 AM
  4. The 10 fastest current production cars.
    By 6'bore in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-26-2005, 03:20 PM
  5. V8 Supercar race 1 Albert Park
    By charged in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-04-2005, 08:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •