...I think I'd actually prefer an Olds 98 or a Buick Electra over a Caddy DeVille. Somehow, the interiors of those Buicks and Oldses almost end up looking ritzier than the Cadillacs!
I know that nobody buys these kinds of barges for performance, but it also seems that an Electra or 98 with its corresponding 455 V-8, and lighter mass, might be a slightly better performer than Caddy with a 500. But then, you still lose the snob appeal!
The Cadillac 500 was kind of a dog, at least in relation to its CID. I think it was only pumping out something like 190HP (Class, compare and contrast to HP per cubic inch of a '57 Chevy fuelie). It had lots of torque though, as befits anything with large displacement.
...a 1975 Cadillac Sedan DeVille in Georgian Silver with a dark blue top and dark blue leather interior. It had the 500 cid V-8 (8.2 litre). It was rated at 210 hp, still a dog for its displacement, but the car still had a lot of power and accelerated quickly. It did have enough torque to tear a giant redwood out by its roots.
#636 of 650 speaking of Chevies compared to Caddies...
Dec 02, 2002 (10:57 am)
...anybody know how fast a '77-'79 DeVille with the 425 would do 0-60? I vaguely remember Motortrend's 1977 Car of the Year, a '77 Caprice with a 350, doing it in 10.8 seconds.
I wonder if any of GM's downsized full-sizers in the late '70's would've been able to break the 10-second barrier? My guess is that a Catalina with a 400 or an Olds Delta with a 403 might have the best shot. But then they tended to play with gearing back then, to give weaker engines an advantage, and hold back the bigger engines in a lame attempt at improving fuel economy.
I've noticed that in some cars, to compensate for a tall rear gear, they put a shorter ratio for first gear in the transmission.
Let's suppose you had one car with a 2.94 rear and 2.45 first gear, and another with a 2.45 rear end but a 2.94 first gear. All other things being equal, should they both take off about the same? At least until they hit 2nd gear?
I think first gear on most GM trannies was 2.48:1, until they came out with really tall rear gearing. Then they went to a 2.73 first gear. At least, I've seen both first gears mentioned on that Caddy website I posted earlier. They also listed a variety of rear ends, from something like a 2.24 on up to a 3.08.
I'd imagine if you could get a 2.73 first gear with a 3.08 rear end, your typical smogged '70's cruiser wouldn't be too bad, would it?
I don't know what the gearing was, but my parents' 1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88 had a 350 V-8. That car was a dog in the acceleration department (although it was very reliable). They traded it in on a 1982 Oldsmobile Delta 88 that was just as slow. (I think it had the 307 V-8; it definitely was not equipped with a V-6 or the infamous diesel.) People say, "They don't make them like they used to." When it comes to cars of the mid- to late-1970s and early 1980s, I say, "Thank goodness!"