Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looked like about a 9.5 second 0-60. Slightly faster than a Prius, but slow as a snail. Overall, pretty close race, really. The Prius is one of the few modern cars that it actually would be in a straight line. Prius has faster, firmer shifts since it well, doesn't shift.
It is capable of 8.5 or better 0-60 mph times for three reasons:
1. I did not use full throttle, as mentioned in the video, because I was holding the camera, steering and accelerating at the same time.
2. If I did use full throttle, the wheelspin would have slowed the 0-60 mph time by about 1 second.
3. It now has a 3.21:1 axle ratio instead of the stock 2.94s.
It's surprising how many other "fast" cars I can pass with this "slow as a snail" '69 Fleetwood. BTW, with the 3.21s, it can run 40-60 mph in about 3.8 seconds... about the same as a '67 Ferrari 330 GTC.
It is capable of 8.5 or better 0-60 mph times for three reasons:
1. I did not use full throttle, as mentioned in the video, because I was holding the camera, steering and accelerating at the same time.
2. If I did use full throttle, the wheelspin would have slowed the 0-60 mph time by about 1 second.
3. It now has a 3.21:1 axle ratio instead of the stock 2.94s.
It's surprising how many other "fast" cars I can pass with this "slow as a snail" '69 Fleetwood. BTW, with the 3.21s, it can run 40-60 mph in about 3.8 seconds... about the same as a '67 Ferrari 330 GTC.
Back when I drove am S2000, 0-60 below 6 seconds, one time I was passed up by a Toyota Prius. It doesn't mean the Prius is a faster car. It just means I was lollygagging. 8.5 is more typical of a normal slow car rather than a slow as a snail car. Eg, it's slower than a Camry/Accord type car (4 cylinder) but faster than a Corolla.
A '67 Ferrari 330 GTC while a beautiful car does not perform well by modern standards. A V6 Camry, for example, is pretty pedestrian. It's also faster than a Ferrari 330 GTC.
Back when I drove am S2000, 0-60 below 6 seconds, one time I was passed up by a Toyota Prius. It doesn't mean the Prius is a faster car. It just means I was lollygagging. 8.5 is more typical of a normal slow car rather than a slow as a snail car. Eg, it's slower than a Camry/Accord type car (4 cylinder) but faster than a Corolla.
A '67 Ferrari 330 GTC while a beautiful car does not perform well by modern standards. A V6 Camry, for example, is pretty pedestrian. It's also faster than a Ferrari 330 GTC.
I have been able to keep up or pass other cars which are supposedly faster. How do I know they were trying? Because we were both going 70+ on a street with a 40 mph speed limit! If someone is still next to me or slightly behind me when I am going 70 mph, they are trying to pass me up!
What is the 40-60 mph time for a Prius? Or the 40-60 mph time for a Camary/Accord?
Of course, if I wanted to, I could also mod the Cads engine and put in lower gears. Then it would run sub-7 second 0-60 and an estimated high-14s @ 95 mph in the 1/4 mile. Even with its current 5,060-lb curb weight.
A Motor Trend test of a '64 Cadillac Sedan de Ville showed 40-60 mph in 3.7 seconds. Compare that with a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu LTZ in a Car & Driver test. It ran 0-60 mph in 6.5 seconds but took almost as long to run 40-60 mph (3.1 seconds).
A '67 Ferrari 330 GTC while a beautiful car does not perform well by modern standards. A V6 Camry, for example, is pretty pedestrian. It's also faster than a Ferrari 330 GTC.
Exactly. A lot of old exotics (and even some "muscle cars") can be dusted by a new V6 Camry or the occasional minivan, even on a twisty road. Not a knock against the older cars, it just that technology and engineering have advanced that much in 40-50 years. You can have a modern car that's more ergonomic and safer, with more horsepower and torque using far less fuel, with better grip and handling capabilities, with satellite radio, bluetooth, and internet connectivity, and usually less weight.
Now cars from the early to mid 80s were pretty light, but a lot of them were like a tin can on wheels. Look at the Honda CRXs. Those things weighed sub 2000 lbs IIRC. I sure wouldn't want to get hit by an F150 in one of those things however.
I just got a Ford Fiesta ST last weekend and got 38 mpg on the way home! 200HP, 0-60 in about 6 seconds. Gotta love great technology and engineering!
I really like both the Fiesta ST and the Focus ST. I actually like the Fiesta ST a little more. I just don't understand why they didn't offer it as a 2-door in the US.
I have been able to keep up or pass other cars which are supposedly faster. How do I know they were trying? Because we were both going 70+ on a street with a 40 mph speed limit! If someone is still next to me or slightly behind me when I am going 70 mph, they are trying to pass me up!
What is the 40-60 mph time for a Prius? Or the 40-60 mph time for a Camary/Accord?
Of course, if I wanted to, I could also mod the Cads engine and put in lower gears. Then it would run sub-7 second 0-60 and an estimated high-14s @ 95 mph in the 1/4 mile. Even with its current 5,060-lb curb weight.
A Motor Trend test of a '64 Cadillac Sedan de Ville showed 40-60 mph in 3.7 seconds. Compare that with a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu LTZ in a Car & Driver test. It ran 0-60 mph in 6.5 seconds but took almost as long to run 40-60 mph (3.1 seconds).
No clue. I'm too busy getting almost five times as many miles out of a gallon of gas to care
I have been able to keep up or pass other cars which are supposedly faster. How do I know they were trying? Because we were both going 70+ on a street with a 40 mph speed limit! If someone is still next to me or slightly behind me when I am going 70 mph, they are trying to pass me up!
What is the 40-60 mph time for a Prius? Or the 40-60 mph time for a Camary/Accord?
Of course, if I wanted to, I could also mod the Cads engine and put in lower gears. Then it would run sub-7 second 0-60 and an estimated high-14s @ 95 mph in the 1/4 mile. Even with its current 5,060-lb curb weight.
A Motor Trend test of a '64 Cadillac Sedan de Ville showed 40-60 mph in 3.7 seconds. Compare that with a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu LTZ in a Car & Driver test. It ran 0-60 mph in 6.5 seconds but took almost as long to run 40-60 mph (3.1 seconds).
I love old cars for the looks, and quality, but I don't like the power train efficiency. My Audi does 0-60 in 6 and change seconds, but gets 30 mpg. I like the look of my car, (Not as much as a '60 Series 62 though)so I'm happy.
I love old cars for the looks, and quality, but I don't like the power train efficiency. My Audi does 0-60 in 6 and change seconds, but gets 30 mpg. I like the look of my car, (Not as much as a '60 Series 62 though)so I'm happy.
But your Audi does not have the weight of a '69 Cadillac. It also can't comfortably seat 6 people or have a 20-cu-ft trunk.
Your Audi also probably has a 3- or 4-series 1st gear ratio whereas my '69 Cad has a 2.48:1 ratio. Also the redline... it's only 5200 rpm for my Cad and probably at least 6500 rpm for an Audi.
Whereas I have absolutely no interest in driving one even if it got the same mileage a Prius does. Different strokes for different folks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
