Ask the Car People.SM


The Best Cars From The '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s

118 messages,  Last post on Oct 02, 2011 at 9:47 PM

You are in the Classic Cars Forum.

What is this discussion about? Classic Cars

Messages Page 11 of 12

#99 of 118 Re: How's this for a slow 'Colonnade'? [bhill2] by andre1969

Sep 30, 2011 (5:45 am)

Replying to: bhill2 (Sep 29, 2011 9:43 pm)
I wonder how slow a '73-era Colonade wagon would be with a 6-cyl? I've heard that in the sedans and coupes, it could sometimes take 20 seconds to get from 0-60, and CR tested a 1977 Cutlass Supreme sedan with an Olds 260 V-8 (probably no faster than a 6-cyl) and got 0-60 in around 21.6 seconds.
 
I guess in a lot of "normal" driving, a car like that might not have been too bad. A lot of those weak engines were often okay in normal driving conditions, but the only problem is that when you really needed to stomp it, you didn't get anything more out of them. So, pulling away from a green light, you might not hold up traffic, but if you really needed to stomp on it to merge onto the highway, or pass a slower car, that's where you'd run into problems.

#100 of 118 Re: How's this for a slow 'Colonnade'? [andre1969] by uplanderguy

Sep 30, 2011 (5:53 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Sep 30, 2011 5:45 am)
To be honest, I don't remember it being ridiculously slow, but then I was 16 when I drove it. We had a 3-speed Nova at the time, and I drove that Deluxe wagon before I drove the Nova. In Aug. '74 we bought a new Impala Sport Coupe and at that point I drove the Impala and the Deluxe was relegated to the back of my (driving) mind. The Deluxe was traded in on a new '75 Buick Century Special Coupe. I do remember that V6 felt really rough compared even to the Chevy six.

#101 of 118 Re: How's this for a slow 'Colonnade'? [uplanderguy] by andre1969

Sep 30, 2011 (6:09 am)

Replying to: uplanderguy (Sep 30, 2011 5:53 am)
I think sometimes, we just get used to faster and faster cars, and end up forgetting just how slow some of those old cars really were. For instance, I remember when I first started driving, I thought my grandmother's '85 LeSabre, with its 307, or Granddad's '85 Silverado with the 305 were pretty fast. Compared to my '80 Malibu with the 229 V-6, they were! And compared to what most of my friends drove at the time, the Malibu was even pretty quick.
 
But now, I still have that same Silverado, and today it seems slow. Part of it could be due to aging, but I've taken a stopwatch to it, and 0-60 comes up in around 12-13 seconds, which probably isn't too far off the mark from when it was new.
 
But, over the years, I've also gotten used to faster and faster cars, and as you get used to them, suddenly those faster times seem like no big deal. For instance, most times I've seen quoted for my 2000 Park Ave are around 7.6 seconds, which would make it the fastest car I've ever owned. Yet, when I punch it, it doesn't really feel THAT fast. But then when I get behind the wheel of the Silverado, or any of my other cars, I think man, what a dog. Except for the Catalina. It's pretty quick from a standstill, but out on the highway, when you need to accelerate, it seems a bit sluggish. I guess that's where newer cars, with 4+ speed automatics, really start to show their advantage.

#102 of 118 Re: How's this for a slow 'Colonnade'? [andre1969] by au1994

Sep 30, 2011 (6:33 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Sep 30, 2011 6:09 am)
Gosh yes, we are spoiled now. When I turned 16 I had a Mustang with the 289. No emissions to strangle it and I thought it was crazy fast. It had nice torque and was an automatic so off the line it did provide a bunch of 16 yr olds a nice seat of the pants feel when I took off.
 
Now a V-6 Accord would absolutely eat its lunch in a drag race.

#103 of 118 Re: The best Cavalier ever built [fintail] by isellhondas

Sep 30, 2011 (6:58 am)

Replying to: fintail (Sep 29, 2011 6:19 pm)
Cadillac reallly killed themselves in the 80's as they struggled to meet emission and MPG standards. they made some lousy cars and made some dumb mistakes. te put underpowered V-6 engines in full sized cars. They took a Chevy Cavalier and turned it into a Cimerron.
 
Then in 1981 they produced the one year only 4-6-8's. The engines themselves weren't bad but the primitive cylinder switching systems simply didn't work right. The Cadillac mechanics hated them and the "fix" was to snip a wire that caused them to only run in 8 cylinder mode.
 
Then in 1982, they REALLY outdid themselves with the 4100 engines. These were terrible engines that didn't get better until 1988.
 
The damage by this time was done. Loyal Cadillac owners left in droves and Cadillac was no longer the "Standard of the World"

#104 of 118 Re: The best Cavalier ever built [isellhondas] by andre1969

Sep 30, 2011 (7:14 am)

Replying to: isellhondas (Sep 30, 2011 6:58 am)
I think Cadillac would have been better off in 1982 if they simply started using Olds 307's rather than that aluminum 249 V-8. But initially, I guess there was some "prestige" to having a Cadillac-only engine, even if it wasn't too long before people found out how bad it was.
 
FWIW, the city rating of a 1982 Electra or 98 with the Olds 307 was 16, while it was 17 for the Deville with a Caddy 249. Those were raw laboratory numbers, so don't expect to be able to repeat them! In those days though, I guess every MPG mattered.
 
The Buick 252 V-6 was rated at 18 city, in the DeVille, 98, and Electra. Both it and the 249 had the same hp, 125, but a nasty little secret was that the Buick engine actually had more torque...something like 200-205 ft-lb versus 190-195 for the Caddy 249. So, the Buick engine might have been the better performer of the two! I wonder if the Buick engine was lighter, as well? The Buick V-6 only weighed around 375 lb, which was pretty lightweight for its displacement. I think the Chevy 229 was around 425 lb, and the old 250 inline-6 was around 450, and the Mopar 225 slant six topped the scales around 475 lb.
 
The Caddy V-8 was aluminum though, so there was some weight savings there no doubt.
 
Still, shame they couldn't have just taken an Olds 307, and maybe put fuel injection on it to get a bit more power, versus the 4-bbl, and then make that a Cadillac exclusive? They were fuel-injecting Olds 350's ever since the '75 Seville, so I'm sure that was feasible.

#105 of 118 Re: The best Cavalier ever built [isellhondas] by fintail

Sep 30, 2011 (8:15 am)

Replying to: isellhondas (Sep 30, 2011 6:58 am)
And in 1982 we were blessed with the Cimarron, a real 3 series competitor it was
 
It was also a continuing age of faux Rolls grilles, padded tops, faux wire wheels, etc.

#106 of 118 Re: The best Cavalier ever built [fintail] by andre1969

Sep 30, 2011 (8:40 am)

Replying to: fintail (Sep 30, 2011 8:15 am)
I'm not trying to defend them too much, but I think Cadillac really was caught between a rock and a hard place back in those days. There were still plenty of people who really WANTED a big, beefy Cadillac, at any cost. Unfortunately, GM couldn't keep building them with big 425 or even 368 CID engines, not without torpedoing their CAFE ratings and paying fines. So, they resorted to things like the V-8-6-4, Buick 252, Caddy 249, and widespread use of the Diesel. As for the Cimarron, that was probably forced onto the market because dealers were pushing for a small car to compete with the likes of BMW and Mercedes. Plus, it did help get those CAFE numbers back up a bit.
 
People still bought a lot of those big RWD DeVilles and Fleetwoods, even in the dark days of 1980-83. Sales did taper off in 1984, as the 1985 FWD model rolled out early in the model year. Or I guess it could be argued that it was late, as it was originally intended to be a 1984, but things were delayed as GM tried to work the bugs out of the transverse 4-speed automatic.
 
They got the Brougham more or less right again in 1986 when they dumped the 249 for an Olds 307, but by then they were cutting back production and focusing on the FWD models.

#107 of 118 Re: The best Cavalier ever built [fintail] by berri

Sep 30, 2011 (8:42 am)

Replying to: fintail (Sep 30, 2011 8:15 am)
It was also a continuing age of faux Rolls grilles, padded tops, faux wire wheels, etc.
 
In all fairness that was probably even more attributable to Ford and Lincoln. And Iaccoca also brought his pimp styling and marketing over to Chrysler.

#108 of 118 Re: The best Cavalier ever built [andre1969] by isellhondas

Sep 30, 2011 (9:49 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Sep 30, 2011 8:40 am)
Yeah, that is exactly what happened. The early 80's were dark days for all of the manufacturers but I think Cadillac got hit the worst.
 
Trying to sell a Sedan De Ville with an Olds engine may not have set well but didn't Cadillac sell a few with the Olds diesel engines?
 
Those Olds diesels were another mistake.
 
Then Cadillac came out with the Northstars. A VERY complex engine that had a lot of plusses. Soon it was discovered that they would develop the dreded "Northstar Leak" that requires the engine to by pulled. About a 4500.00 job that will total an older Caddy. They had serious head gasket problems too.
 
In spite of all of this, they continue to survive somehow.

Messages Page 11 of 12

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement