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.
How good were the 1977-79 full size Cadillacs? They don't seem to get alot of mention compared to the earlier Cadillacs or the 1980s Cadillacs.
Junk.......Yes they had huge displacement motors and NO HORSEPOWER! The Eldorado had the 500 ci motor and it only made 190 hp. The big HP motors were gone by 73 I believe (72 had a 472 that was the most powerful engine GM used that year after the Corvette big block).
Junk.......Yes they had huge displacement motors and NO HORSEPOWER! The Eldorado had the 500 ci motor and it only made 190 hp. The big HP motors were gone by 73 I believe (72 had a 472 that was the most powerful engine GM used that year after the Corvette big block).
The most powerful 472/500 engine was the '68-'69 472 engine with 10.5:1 compression and rated at 375 horsepower and 525 lbs-ft torque. The '70 472 engine had 10.0:1 compression, was rated at the same hp and torque.
The '70 500 engine had 10.0:1 compression ratio and was rated at 400 hp and 550 lbs-ft torque.
The '71 472 had low compression (8.5:1) and was rated at 345 hp and 500 lbs-ft torque (net ratings: 220 hp and 380 lbs-ft torque).
The '71 500 engine also had 8.5:1 compression. It was rated at 365 hp and 535 lbs-ft torque (net ratings: 235 hp and 410 lbs-ft torque).
So the last of the big hp engines was 1971, or 1970 going by its still high-compression tune.
The '76 500-cu-in engines was rated at 190 hp, but that was net; it can't be compared to the engines with a gross rating. Also, the '76 500-cu-in engine had a torque rating of 360 lbs-ft which is how those big and heavy cars could run an acceptable (but nowhere near as good as '60s Cadillacs') 0-60 mph and 1/4 mile time. And even with "190 horsepower," a '75-'76 Cadillac DeVille or Eldorado could run 115-120 mph. (Cadillac underrated the hp of their engines.)
were the 79's as quiet as the older Cads from 5-6-7 years prior?
i ask because the 81 Imperials were getting the award of being dead silent on the road, no small feat for luxury cars that were noisier than their competitors in the 70's
BTW, 2 weeks ago i saw a restored 63 4 door Impala and last week i saw a green 73 Centurion convertible being gassed up
Never driven a late 70's Cad, but from what many people say that bought these cars when new and it is well documented, that Lincoln Continental's of the same era rode the smoothest and gave the quietest ride. I will have to agree. My 78 Continental is extremely quiet on the rode for it's age, and is the best riding luxury car I have driven, this even compares to many new cars.
I am no means a Ford guy, since I prefer old school GM products especially Chevy's and Cadillac's for their styling and liberal use of amounts of chrome trim But I really don't know what or how Ford did it back in the 70's, the Lincoln's ride so nice, are quiet, and just have a very tight feeling body structure to them that you can feel when driving. The Lincoln's interiors are rather bland in comparison to say the 77-79 Cadillac's but they sure as hell perfected what a "Truly luxury smooth ride should feel like".
The general Consensus is that those were the last of the good engines for a few years. As far as the bodies, basically no better than the Buick equilvalents. The outside plastic bumper fillers are very short lived. Those are the years when Cadillac lost it's "special identity" that was it's best sales pitch. However, you must remember that the wreath and crest still far outsold the three pointed star, as well as Lincoln. I like 'em.
Lincolns were great cars in the 60's, although they were complex cars for their time, they were highly regarded as one of the best luxury cars back then.
I believe one reason for Cadillac's dominance in the luxury car field over Lincoln was how Cadillac's cars were portrayed as. Caddys were considered flashy cars to show off in, you bought one when you were moving up in life, while Lincoln's were more "Business", someone that bought a Linc, was a man that had already "made it", he was most likely a CEO of an important company and didn't care about "Showing off".. Most people will choose the "Flashy" ride over "Businessy" any day of the week IMO but it doesn't mean that Lincoln's weren't as good as a Cadillac. It all depends on the decade and years to be exact. Some years Cadillac outdid Lincoln in looks and in overall quality, performance, and reliability. Other years, Lincoln outdid Cadillac.
Another thing to is GM had the manufacturing power to spit out over 200,000 Cadillac's per year, while Ford didn't. Cadillac was easily building over 100,000 Cad's in the early 60's, compared to Lincoln's roughly 30,000 unit's annually from 61-64. So the Lincoln Continentals were a little more exclusive due to Fords hard commitment to quality, and the fact that Continentals in those days were not shared with any other Ford vehicles at all, they were their own cars and that is why they are so special even to this day.
And even then, there were years were both makes were fairly equal to one another. The only thing that separated them from each other was styling preferences among the public.
I love both brands equally. Cadillac's and Lincolns are just such fly cars! It's hard not to like both.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,080,865 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopac1980
How good were the 1977-79 full size Cadillacs? They don't seem to get alot of mention compared to the earlier Cadillacs or the 1980s Cadillacs.
They were an electrical nightmare after they were a few years old..I remember my dad's power seat hunching up and down because of a switch shorting out...I lmao everytime I remember him sitting in that thing headed to the dealer...his head mashed into the ceiling one minute and the next he was sitting nearly in the floor..dealer said it was common..funny though....dad strung together more cuss words in a single breath that day than I have ever heard anyone else utter since
Lincolns of that era were just as bad...as dad found out many times
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,080,865 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaro69
We had a 1978 Coupe with the 425 engine. Crappy gas mileage with no real hp. But the damn thing couldn't be stopped. Sort of sorry I sold it in 1991.
My first BIL collected Eldorado convertibles and had several he kept in a super nice shop...we used to drive those things all over hell and back during the summer months...road trips were a blast in them..gas was only around .80 per gallon back then and we all had good jobs so we didn't think to much about fuel consumption during those trips,but as I remember it was horrendous as he was a 500 cu in fan...those motors make killer airboat motors too .
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.
But I really don't know what or how Ford did it back in the 70's, the Lincoln's ride so nice, are quiet, and just have a very tight feeling body structure to them that you can feel when driving. The Lincoln's interiors are rather bland in comparison to say the 77-79 Cadillac's but they sure as hell perfected what a "Truly luxury smooth ride should feel like".
.
