Borrowing a 1976 Eldorado convertible tomorrow

[MCGARRETT]

Remember that the first drop from 1970 to 71 was from the low lead/no lead requirements, then came the switch from gross to net in 1972.

[F14CRAZY]

but say, if you dragged a stock '70 against a stock '76, its not like the '70 is gonna spank the older car, right? Since most of the hp/torque was lost simply in the switch between gross and net, so no real power was lost, just on paper...um right?

[91 s-10baja]

Originally Posted by bradyholt

I noticed no torque steer, and I'd say it's because the steering is so loose. When you can spin the steering wheel nearly 45 degrees in either direction before the wheels turn, you're not going to be feeling much of anything.

no. You need to listen to the others that are trying to tell you here. The engine sits, runs from front to rear (north to south), the transaxle is attached like any other front/rear layout would, behind the engine, however the axle's (equal length) run from center to both sides wheel hub. Easy peazy no torque steer. The steering being loose is either a characteristic of the ero, or the actual age of the car.

[bradyholt]

Originally Posted by 91 s-10baja

no. You need to listen to the others that are trying to tell you here. The engine sits, runs from front to rear (north to south), the transaxle is attached like any other front/rear layout would, behind the engine, however the axle's (equal length) run from center to both sides wheel hub. Easy peazy no torque steer. The steering being loose is either a characteristic of the ero, or the actual age of the car.

Sounds good, thanks.

[MCGARRETT]

but say, if you dragged a stock '70 against a stock '76, its not like the '70 is gonna spank the older car, right? Since most of the hp/torque was lost simply in the switch between gross and net, so no real power was lost, just on paper...um right?

See, these are the things that make you sound a little bit like a douche that knows jack about cars, I know your like 16 or something right? Try to work on reading comprehension,

Remember that the first drop from 1970 to 71 was from the low lead/no lead requirements- this was an actual loss in HP, since the engines were now lower compression so they could run on low lead gas, cylinder head designs were changed, etc.

71 and 72 engines were the same, but there is the change from gross to net, there were more changes through out the decade that did result in lower hp, the next change came in 1974 when catalytic converters were required.

I never said the loss was all on paper, there was an actual loss of course, what I was trying to explain was that the change from gross to net makes the loss seem that much more extreme.

[F14CRAZY]

Originally Posted by MCGARRETT

See, these are the things that make you sound a little bit like a douche that knows jack about cars, I know your like 16 or something right? Try to work on reading comprehension,

Remember that the first drop from 1970 to 71 was from the low lead/no lead requirements- this was an actual loss in HP, since the engines were now lower compression so they could run on low lead gas, cylinder head designs were changed, etc.

71 and 72 engines were the same, but there is the change from gross to net, there were more changes through out the decade that did result in lower hp, the next change came in 1974 when catalytic converters were required.

I never said the loss was all on paper, there was an actual loss of course, what I was trying to explain was that the change from gross to net makes the loss seem that much more extreme.

I'm 22. I don't know about these things, my generation never knew of an era of leaded gas, or not having catalytic converters, or compression ratio changes. I frankly just don't know this stuff that well but would like to participate in discussion.

I was basing my assumptions, which I was not confident in at any rate, from this data:

http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-and-...orsepower.html

The result of the new rating system was a dramatic drop in advertised power. The Cadillac Eldorado's mammoth 500 cu. in. (8.2L) V-8, for instance, dropped from 400 gross horsepower in 1970 to 360 gross horsepower in 1971, a drop of about 10%. The rated horsepower of the 1972 version was only 235 net horsepower, even though the engine itself was basically unchanged. (Although GM did not quote a net horsepower rating for the higher-compression 1970 engine, it was probably 275-285.) On paper, though, output had been cut by 35%.

Because of the vagaries of the old gross standards, there is no precise formula for converting gross to net or vice versa. Some 1971 engines carried both gross and net ratings, but for earlier or later years, the best you can do is make an approximation based on state of tune and real-world performance testing.

Why was this change made? The most obvious reason was as an inexpensive PR gesture; overnight, the carmakers made it clear that they were no longer offering irresponsible levels of horsepower, without making any expensive engineering changes whatsoever. Beyond that, the switch in ratings made it easier for salesmen to obfuscate the actual loss of power caused by reduced compression and smog control hardware -- useful when trying to explain to a customer why the 1972 Cadillac he's looking at seems to have 40% less power than the 1970 he's trading in.

[bradyholt]

[F14CRAZY]

at any rate, did you enjoy the experience?

[MCGARRETT]

The comment sounded a little snarky.......I was in a low snark mood. No problem. Remember that many of those gross rating are sometimes over rated and sometimes under rated, I have always thought that the 450hp gross rating on an LS6 454 was a bit on the high side, and that the gross rating on the 360hp 455 Buick Stage 1 was under rated when you compared to how the cars actually performed(Buick always had an under rated "rep" which continued all they way into the 80's or how else do you explain how the Grand Nationals were so darn fast), plus that same non-Stage 1 455 was 350hp in a GS, but 370hp in an Electra, Rivera and Estate Wagon? With essentially no changes(sadly the 455 was down to only 205hp by 75-76, emasculated much like the Cadillac 500)

Lets see some more Eldorado pics!

[bradyholt]

The full review and extensive photo gallery went up overnight:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1017-DC-Ca...do-convertible

[bradyholt]

Originally Posted by F14CRAZY

How's the torque steer?

Be sure to document the "scissor" action convertible top.

[MCGARRETT]

Wow, it's an injected car, which is pretty rare, Fuel Injected 500's were rated at 215hp when the regular Cadillac 500 was 190hp. I dont think that you mentioned that it has 4 wheel disc brakes, first year for them on Eldorados.

[F14CRAZY]

don't forget towing capacity

[F14CRAZY]

Originally Posted by MCGARRETT

Wow, it's an injected car, which is pretty rare, Fuel Injected 500's were rated at 215hp when the regular Cadillac 500 was 190hp. I dont think that you mentioned that it has 4 wheel disc brakes, first year for them on Eldorados.

would that system be similar to like a Holley Pro-jection system?

[MCGARRETT]

Is the Holley Pro-Jection like a throttle body system or a multi-port?