Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

HP dellusions

Expand Messages
  • Tommy Pierson
    I think I know where my confusion derives from I keep seeing these HP ratings for the 1970 500 as 400, and later years drop down to as low as 210. In 1791,
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 25, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I think I know where my confusion derives from I keep seeing these HP
      ratings for the 1970 500 as 400, and later years drop down to as low
      as 210. In 1791, horsepower was no longer rated as gross, but net.
      Sounds like it's not as much of a difference between the 1970
      Eldorado and the later 500's. Am I way off here?
    • Daniel Green
      I think the gross/net difference was in 1973, not 1971. There is a big difference in HP between those engines. I ve owned a 68 Coupe with a 472 rated at 375bhp
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 26, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I think the gross/net difference was in 1973, not 1971.
        There is a big difference in HP between those engines.
        I've owned a 68 Coupe with a 472 rated at 375bhp gross and a 1975 Fleetwood Brougham (not the limo) with a 500 rated at around 210 net.
        The wheels would easily spin on the first, but gentle accelleration was all you got on the second.  

        Tommy Pierson <tompierson@...> wrote:
        I think I know where my confusion derives from I keep seeing these HP
        ratings for the 1970 500 as 400, and later years drop down to as low
        as 210. In 1791, horsepower was no longer rated as gross, but net.
        Sounds like it's not as much of a difference between the 1970
        Eldorado and the later 500's. Am I way off here?



        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        Cadillac_Performance_Association-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger

      • hottrod41
        ... Fleetwood Brougham (not the limo) with a 500 rated at around 210 net. ... was all you got on the second. ... HP ... low ... Hey everyone, The cutoff it
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 28, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Cadillac_Performance_Association@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Green
          <frogdada@y...> wrote:
          > I think the gross/net difference was in 1973, not 1971.
          > There is a big difference in HP between those engines.
          > I've owned a 68 Coupe with a 472 rated at 375bhp gross and a 1975
          Fleetwood Brougham (not the limo) with a 500 rated at around 210 net.
          > The wheels would easily spin on the first, but gentle accelleration
          was all you got on the second.
          >
          > Tommy Pierson <tompierson@s...> wrote:
          > I think I know where my confusion derives from I keep seeing these
          HP
          > ratings for the 1970 500 as 400, and later years drop down to as
          low
          > as 210. In 1791, horsepower was no longer rated as gross, but net.
          > Sounds like it's not as much of a difference between the 1970
          > Eldorado and the later 500's. Am I way off here?

          Hey everyone,

          The cutoff it seems was 1971, but if you check out the specs of
          various engines in Motor's and Chilton's manuals, the initial drop of
          the gross vs net horsepower occurred in 1971. In 1970 many engines
          were still running 10.5 : 1 compression. In 1971, with the pollution
          crap just starting to get underway (yes I realize CA started a little
          earlier), a lot of engines in 1971 went to 9 : 1 compression, but by
          1973 most were down to 8.5 : 1. The high compression is what really
          gives that initial "kick". And in 1973, notorious for the bad fuel
          mileage, they tried to reduce pollution by the camshaft profiles
          which was really bad news.

          Also when comparing one engine to another on cars you may have
          had, the only way to accurately compare the performance of one to
          another is for you to have absolutely known for sure what the
          ignition timing was set at. Timing running 8 degrees advance vs 12
          degrees advance will make a lot of difference. Also the distributor
          advance curves would have had to have been the same , that is, each
          engine would have had to have the same centrifugal advance weight and
          spring combo.

          I have been able to run 10:5 - 1 compression engines ok on today's
          93 octane premium with no problems at around 8 to 9 degrees advance.
          If I want to run 12 degrees, I use a little octane booster.

          I have a 1959 Coupe deVille I had bought without an engine, I plan
          to restore it but although I have found a 390 Cad engine that needs
          rebuilding, I just may put a 472 or 500 in it.

          I put a photo in the photos section of one of my favorite body
          styles of Caddy, a 1947 Sedanette. I have always loved the cool
          styling of these. Hope to get one someday.

          Also, does anyone know where I might buy a set of chromed 390
          Cadillac valve covers? My son wants them - - he is only 10 years old
          but is starting to fix up a 1962 Cadillac coupe we have. He wants
          chrome valve covers for it so bad he can taste it - - LOL.

          hottrod
          >
          >

          > ---------------------------------
          > Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
          Messenger
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.