Acceleration measurements complied from various automotive magazines for new cars. I also wanted to include MPG figures but there was too much inconsistency between the way fuel economy was reported to be meaningful.
1949: 15.8 seconds
1950: *
1951: 16.6
1952: 13.2
1953: 12.8
1954: 11.4
1955: 11.2
1956: 10.7
1957: 10.6
1958: 13.3 (reg) 12.4 (premium) Popular Mechanics; 11.0 Motor Life
1959: 10.3
1960: 10.7
1961: 11.0
1962: 11.0
1963: 10.4
1964: 8.5 (start of THM trans)
1965: 9.2
1966: 11.1
1967: *
1968: *
1969: 9.4
* Test data N/A.
Test samples up to 1959 usually were not equipped with air; all were equipped with air 1960 and later.
So I guess my 3.6 seconds in my 73 might be considered an improvement? Stock it was about 8 seconds
Greg Surfas
10.7 according to several online sources.
1957 - 1958 seems a rather dramatic negative change given the same drive train save for lighter rear springs? (Leaf vs coil)
1/8 th mil.
e in 9.6 at 76 MPH means 0-60 just about 8 seconds
Very interesting, thanks for posting!
Yes, very interesting. Clay/Lexi
A lot of that depends on the axle ratio. The
ratio would generally change with the TH400
torque converter trans. Quarter mile speeds
would be more indicative of the power to weight
ratio.
Later years (running unleaded) would be interesting.
Bruce Roe
Would be interesting what the different engine options did in the 50s (single vs. dual or tri-carbs). Most of the Eldorado packages also had a bigger gear if I recall correctly.
With my stopwatch my 1958 does 0 to 60 in 10.2 seconds. I am also confused by the large difference between the 1957 and 1958 0 to 60 times since both cars are very similar.
I would resolve that there is a misfire in that particular record. 1957-58 additionally your own confirmation, are effectively that the models should have the same results ....of coarse, all things being equal (AC, model and carburation ect)
I checked again and found another road test for a 1958 Series 62 Sedan from Motor Life which puts 0 - 60 at 11.0 seconds.
The 12.4s & 13.3s timings for premium and regular fuel were reported by Popular Mechanics whose analysis and results were much more exhaustive which was also the only article to publish figures for two fuel grades. I'll amend the original post to include the other figure.
I would love to see this in terms of MPG per year. But I know is sensitive to many variables
Seems like the '64 was the fastest of the bunch. I can agree, the 64's are fast cars for their size and weight. The TH400 really does make a difference of off the line power, it's super smooth as well.
Plus the 429 has tons of torque and really pushes these cars easily.
I'm a bit surprised by the 65'a being a tad slower since they introduced the variable pitch stator in the 65-67 transmission which adds additional power to the cars.
I remember, 1964 models...
motor trend ?
stated
"never seen anything so big go so fast!!!"
68 time was in motor trend
69-70 times mean nothing as with the correct 97+ octane fuel 0-60 involves almost 8 seconds of wheelspin,i spun the tires yesterday in black convert at 30% throttle and it has posi rear and radials
30-50 times more indicative of power,and at 30 in high gear if you floor it even then you get a bit of wheel spin
If anyone can post a 1968 time I would greatly appreciate it. I am curious what that glorious new 472 was up to.
Quote from: Scott Nellis on May 27, 2023, 07:38:16 AMIf anyone can post a 1968 time I would greatly appreciate it. I am curious what that glorious new 472 was up to.
1969 should be similar.
Quote from: wrefakis on May 26, 2023, 09:33:30 AM68 time was in motor trend
69-70 times mean nothing as with the correct 97+ octane fuel 0-60 involves almost 8 seconds of wheelspin,i spun the tires yesterday in black convert at 30% throttle and it has posi rear and radials
30-50 times more indicative of power,and at 30 in high gear if you floor it even then you get a bit of wheel spin
That's the sign of dried rubber tires
The 1969 was tested in Motor Trend as follows:
0 - 60 - 9.4s
1/4 mile - 16.5s @ 83.8 mph
Passing 50 - 70 mph 5.6s
Road Test magazine figures were:
0 - 60 - Not provided
1/4 mile - 17.7s @ 84 mph
Passing 50 - 70 - 6.0s
Both cars were Coupe deVilles.
Thanks so much Eric for the original post and all the added information. Very interesting and impressive results for such large, heavy cars.
Quote from: Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621 on May 25, 2023, 12:15:28 PMThe 12.4s & 13.3s timings for premium and regular fuel were reported by Popular Mechanics whose analysis and results were much more exhaustive which was also the only article to publish figures for two fuel grades.
that difference was what stuck out tome.
I wonder how they did that? Did they adjust the timing between the two, or did they back off the accelerator on regular, or . . . ?
Or was there more difference in the grades at the time than just octane and more cleaners?
I do recall an article when the northstara Wass brand new that said something to the effect that Cadillac had been telling owners for years that they didn't need to use premium, yet found 90% were using it anyway. So they tuned the Northstar to take advantage of it, but with advanced knock detection to back off on the timing if someone used regular.
I found my '97 ETC was quite happy on regular, even though it said to use premium (while my '06 Miata was very much *not* happy when I opened the throttle in an emergency after absent-mindedly putting regular in the tank. I found that it was happy on mid grade, though).
Quote from: dochawk on May 27, 2023, 08:38:14 PMthat difference was what stuck out tome.
I wonder how they did that? Did they adjust the timing between the two, or did they back off the accelerator on regular, or . . . ?
Or was there more difference in the grades at the time than just octane and more cleaners?
I do recall an article when the northstara Wass brand new that said something to the effect that Cadillac had been telling owners for years that they didn't need to use premium, yet found 90% were using it anyway. So they tuned the Northstar to take advantage of it, but with advanced knock detection to back off on the timing if someone used regular.
I found my '97 ETC was quite happy on regular, even though it said to use premium (while my '06 Miata was very much *not* happy when I opened the throttle in an emergency after absent-mindedly putting regular in the tank. I found that it was happy on mid grade, though).
I can only report what was published. I have no idea what methodology evaluators used at the time.
All V8 Cadillac engines required premium from 1990 - 1999. Beginning in 2000, premium was no longer required for the reasons you mentioned however the manual stated that performance and fuel economy would be improved by the use of premium.
I've never used regular whenever a car had "premium fuel only" labeling but once when I drove a friend's 1992 Eldorado with the 4.9 (not Northstar), the engine was pinging horribly. Knowing what a cheapskate this guy was, I knew in an instant what he did and he immediately folded under questioning. Never again did he use regular in the car.
I never understood of buying into performance with both feet ...but then refuse to pay for the recommended premium fuel.
It's more common than you might think.
When I worked on the 92.5 Northstar Allante', I believe we did a spark table for up to 100 octane (it might be a slightly lower number) in an effort to achieve 300 hp. We only certified for 295 hp. The knock sensor looks for knock. If detected, goes to a lower octane table. If still detected, goes to a lower table, etc. When you put in good gas, the opposite is true. We also added a couple of degrees of spark advance when cruise control is enabled to improve the mileage.