Sign In Join 



Can GM make Cadillac the standard of the world Again?

6098 messages,  Last post on Aug 14, 2009 at 4:43 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Cadillac Escalade, Cadillac XLR, Cadillac STS, Automotive News


Messages Page 587 of 610
1
...
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
...
610
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#5858 of 6098
Re: HP \ TQ [rayainsw] by circlew
Jan 07, 2009 (4:24 am)
Reply

Replying to: rayainsw (Jan 07, 2009 4:02 am)

My 1988 Mark VII had the mustang motor that year and did the 1/4 in 8.0 Sec. Funny how that seems slow now. The torque was real nice.
 
225 hp (168 kW) 300 lbf.ft (407 Nm) SEFI (1988 - 1992 ALL) w/ AOD 4 Speed Automatic
 
Regards,
OW
#5859 of 6098
Re: 62 [marsha7] by 62vetteefp
Jan 07, 2009 (5:20 am)
Reply

Replying to: marsha7 (Jan 06, 2009 6:21 pm)

So what were the torques? Was the V8 torque anemic?
#5860 of 6098
Re: HP \ TQ [circlew] by fintail
Jan 07, 2009 (8:47 am)
Reply

Replying to: circlew (Jan 07, 2009 4:24 am)

You mean 0-60 in 8.0, right?
#5861 of 6098
I don't by marsha7
Jan 07, 2009 (10:36 am)
Reply
remember the tork figures, but since the engibe was the same 302 I had in my 1983 Grand Marquis (listed at 130 HP, tork unknown) and the acceleration of my GM was like a "Lead Sled", I am quite sure that the "upgraded" 302 was just as anemic...we figured out that the only way we could quickly accelerate was to drive off a cliff, and even then we thought that the friction of the huge "boat" would slow down its acceleration, violating the laws of gravity...
#5862 of 6098
Re: HP \ TQ [fintail] by circlew
Jan 07, 2009 (11:03 am)
Reply

Replying to: fintail (Jan 07, 2009 8:47 am)

Correct! 1/4 was 16.0. Thanks for the catch!
 
Sounds slow now but felt quick then. Mustang was 14.0 I believe with the same engine.
 
Regards,
OW
#5863 of 6098
Re: I don't [marsha7] by circlew
Jan 07, 2009 (11:12 am)
Reply

Replying to: marsha7 (Jan 07, 2009 10:36 am)

Torque was probably 250 ft/lbs.
 
1983

5.0 (302 ci)

139 hp 3400 rpm

250 ft/lb 2000 rpm
 
Regards,
OW
#5864 of 6098
Re: I don't [circlew] by bumpy
Jan 07, 2009 (11:23 am)
Reply

Replying to: circlew (Jan 07, 2009 11:12 am)

139 hp = 215 ft-lb at 3400 rpm. So much for that "flat torque curve" myth.
#5865 of 6098
Re: I don't [bumpy] by circlew
Jan 07, 2009 (1:24 pm)
Reply

Replying to: bumpy (Jan 07, 2009 11:23 am)

I still cringe at the power destruction in those dreaded years of economy and regulation.
 
Regards,
OW
#5866 of 6098
Re: I don't [circlew] by bumpy
Jan 07, 2009 (3:55 pm)
Reply

Replying to: circlew (Jan 07, 2009 1:24 pm)

I dunno, a lot of that "power" was ephemeral to begin with. The gross horsepower rating were hilariously exaggerated by the late '60s, and the vast majority of production was boring old moderate-compression engines with rather unimpressive ratings. More than anything else, it was the disappearance of the high-end stuff which created that Atlantean mindset in the '70s and '80s.
#5867 of 6098
Re: I don't [bumpy] by circlew
Jan 07, 2009 (4:57 pm)
Reply

Replying to: bumpy (Jan 07, 2009 3:55 pm)

True, but when you knew where to look, the power was eons ahead of the next 20 -30 years.
 
Regards,
OW

Messages Page 587 of 610
1
...
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
...
610
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement