http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/SURVIVOR-1991-Cadillac-Brougham-dElegance-Never-Used-/110702105400?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item19c65c1338#ht_8645wt_1165
GJ
At that price, he'll own it for another 20 years too. Sweet yes. But I'm afraid if it never ran through the gears, the axles never turned the brake system and other systems were never used, it would take a good amount of money to get it roadworthy again.
Make offer
Warning - while you were reading a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Why? I don't want it. I don't fit into those little Caddys. Then again, I don't fit in my '59 either. No leg room for the driver. The back seat has it all. I'd be happy to move the seat back about 6 more inches.
Are you 7 feet tall?
GJ
Not you Fins, reply #1 wasn't seen yet when reply #2 posted.
Notice the "flat" paint, especially on the decklid? :scratchhead: :chin:
Quote from: EXCRUISERGUY on June 21, 2011, 01:27:43 PM
Are you 7 feet tall?
GJ
No !!! 6' even. (1.9 meters) Just long legged. I like to stretch out when I drive, not have my knees hit the dashboard.
And look at the '59 pedal set up. This tiny little accelerator pedal, and this huge brake pedal. I wonder if that was for panic stops with both feet. :scratchhead:
Quote from: Big Fins on June 21, 2011, 01:44:04 PM
And look at the '59 pedal set up. This tiny little accelerator pedal, and this huge brake pedal. I wonder if that was for panic stops with both feet. :scratchhead:
Did you even notice the pedals on 42? Tiny brake pedal - have thought a couple times how to modify to make it bigger.
I'm 6'2 and have no trouble driving one of those cars. The only problem I have is whacking my head when getting in.
Quote from: Denrep on June 21, 2011, 01:32:52 PM
Notice the "flat" paint, especially on the decklid?
Flat paint? It looks quite reflective to me. In the photo taken directly at the rear of the car you can see the reflection of the roof in half the trunk lid.
I do however see something that may be a scratch.
GJ
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Popular post.............
You think you bang your head on your car?? :speechless:
Jump into the '59 with the low slung roof a few times without thinking about it. You'll damned sure remember the next time. And the back is even worse.
Also, the doglegs at the lower ends of the A pillar. I've banged my knees more than a few times on them.
That Eldorado was the best car for room that I've ever had. Damn, why did I sell that car? :screwy: :curse: I'll be kicking myself for years to come on that one. One of the biggest automobile mistakes I've ever made.
Quote from: Denrep on June 21, 2011, 01:32:52 PM
Notice the "flat" paint, especially on the decklid? :scratchhead: :chin:
Quote from: EXCRUISERGUY on June 21, 2011, 01:51:04 PM
. . .Flat paint? It looks quite reflective to me. In the photo taken directly at the rear of the car you can see the reflection of the roof in half the trunk lid. . . .
[lightbox url=http://cadillacmisfits.com/gallery2/main.php/d/6960-1/05-passenger-side-panels.jpg?g2_GALLERYSID=6f740b17f984d442b8159a3adfd9f0d2 caption="05-passenger-side-panels" set=g2image](http://cadillacmisfits.com/gallery2/main.php/d/6962-2/05-passenger-side-panels.jpg?g2_GALLERYSID=6f740b17f984d442b8159a3adfd9f0d2)[/lightbox]
Flat, or no? :chin: :scratchhead:
Looks like the standard shitty paint job of an 80's + car. More orange peel than Florida growers can produce.
I was looking at a 2011 CTS Coupe' the other day. It looked like a MAACO $99.00 special.
They quit painting and building cars, and I mean REAL cars, in 1970.
I'll put my 94 up against your 59 any day. It is a REAL car.
I'll watch you get smaller and smaller in my mirrors too, and get better mileage. :pot:
GJ
Quote from: EXCRUISERGUY on June 22, 2011, 12:31:39 PM
I'll put my 94 up against your 59 any day. It is a REAL car.
I'll watch you get smaller and smaller in my mirrors too, and get better mileage. :pot:
GJ
In the famous words of Pooter.......DILLIGAFF
Keep your little cheesebox. You like them, I don't. WTF is the problem? I don't care about speed, I don't care about mileage. If I did, I wouldn't ride around in a 5000 pound hunk of steel. The people of that era were short in stature. Go back a few years to the 56 and there was loads of room. The 59 is a big car with no room for the driver, that's the point I'm trying to make.
Quote from: EXCRUISERGUY on June 22, 2011, 12:31:39 PM
I'll put my 94 up against your 59 any day. It is a REAL car.
I'll watch you get smaller and smaller in my mirrors too, and get better mileage. :pot:
GJ
One question EXG, before I put the money up... What axle ratio you runnin'?
I don't know about Fin's '59, but I know that a basically stock '60 would definately leave a stock Fleetwood getting smaller at the top end. That's a definite. On the climb, a Hydro loses a little on the shifts but recovers fast.
Now with the fair disclaimer and surgeon general's waring about smoking, would you put it up against a '60? :chin:
You wanna talk about small cars??? We just took a Lotus Elise in on trade. Sitting next to a late model Corvette it makes the Corvette look like a bus. You think a 'Vette is hard to get in and out of?? :rotfl: Try getting out of the Lotus!! OMG!!! It sure isn't a fat boy's car. :eating:
There's a guy around here that has one. It makes a Mini look like a Suburban.
Mike
Quote from: Big Fins on June 22, 2011, 04:44:05 PM
In the famous words of Pooter.......DILLIGAFF
Keep your little cheesebox. You like them, I don't. WTF is the problem?
Little cheesebox? It ain't little and it ain't no cheesebox. It's extremely luxurious, easy to get in and out of and soooo comfortable.
Problem? No problem, I'll just have to :pot: when someone says my car ain't real.
Quote from: Denrep on June 22, 2011, 05:16:05 PM
One question EXG, before I put the money up... What axle ratio you runnin'?
2:93
Quote from: Denrep on June 22, 2011, 05:16:05 PM
I know that a basically stock '60 would definately leave a stock Fleetwood getting smaller at the top end. That's a definite. On the climb, a Hydro loses a little on the shifts but recovers fast.
Now with the fair disclaimer and surgeon general's waring about smoking, would you put it up against a '60? :chin:
Any day, any time.
An LT1/4L60E= YEE HA
GJ
I have driven both. I have no doubt in my mind an LT1 powered Fleetwood will trounce any '60.
Mike
Quote from: guidematic on June 23, 2011, 02:19:35 PM
I have driven both. I have no doubt in my mind an LT1 powered Fleetwood will trounce any '60.
Mike
:yes:
However, the speed limiter will have to be disabled. It cuts in at 115 MPH. I suspect a '60 may go a bit faster than that. But the Fleetwood should touch at least 140 MPH if allowed to run.
Mike
I do know that the LT1 powered Caprice will hit 155MPH with a 3:08 rear end (drag limited) The Fleetwood with 2:93 might hit just shy of 150MPH and it gets up there real quick.
GJ
You also need to conside the final drive of the transmission into the equation. I too, have no doubt that a 94 would kick a 59 or 60's ass in a top end race. But I'd stay right with you in a 1/4 mile run.
'59 specs...though my engine and trans are '61's, it's .030 over, heads and blocked decked .010, so a small increase in compression, mild cam, conservatively saying 5000 rpm, Hydro-Matic, with a 1:1 final drive, and a 2.94:1 rear gear.
I'm sure there are some spec somewhere on the net you could compare, but I ain't digging for them.
I've also driven both, and I just don't like the smaller Cadillac. It's personal preference. You can buy those cars here all day long for next to nothing. And really nice low mileage cars too, that have been serviced by the dealer since new. Remember, I do live in Gods Waiting Room down here.
I'm still not sure I like the idea of being in a 50+ year old car running over 100 mph. :yikes: They were just not designed to do that. One wrong move, and you're sliding down the road on the roof. Way too much oversteer for those speeds.
Here is a link to the Fleetwood specs. I'll see what I can dig up on the 59.
Bad link removed.
And a close match . This uses a 59 Coupe'. Standard single 4 bbl carb.
Bad link removed.
I changed the link for this one. I previously posted the European export specs, which are considerably lower than American sold cars.
Both links go to a BMW 850i.
Your car has somewhat more power than stock, which I'm certain makes for some more impressive acceleration times. I agree a 50 year old car in stock trim should not be run over 100 MPH. They tend to get very light on the front end. I even notice that on my '70 which I have never let run to see what the top end is, however I have had it to 115 MPH.
Granted, the LT1 has 40 fewer cubic inches. Power is 260 HP net whereas the stock spec for the 390 is 325 HP gross. Conversions would show that the LT1 has the edge in power, more in the range of 350 HP gross. Plus it will run to almost 6,000 RPM where the 390 is pretty much used up by 5,000 RPM if you dare to spin it that fast.
Final drives are almost spot on. Weights will show the '94 weighs a bit more than the '59/60. However the '94 has vastly superior aerodynamics over the '59/60. The '95 has an O/D of .70:1 and the top end power to pull it.
These LT1's pull hard at almost any engine speed. They make considerable power throughout the RPM range. It really is astounding how hard these really big cars will pull, and they just keep pulling so long as you keep on the gas.
The only full sized Cadillac that I have seen that will pull like that LT1 is the big high compression 472/500's. My '70 will keep up to an LT1 up to about 110 MPH when the LT1's top end will allow it to pull away on up to the top speed. The 472 is all done by 5,000 RPM.
On acceleration up to about 100 MPH I can see a 429 with a switch pitch taking an LT1 for a run as well. I have driven a couple of these cars and they can move out as well.
The later boxy Cadillacs of the late 70's and 80's are bigger than most seem to realise. I park my '90 beside my '70 and there is only about 4" differance in length. They really are quite roomy, but lack the berth of the older cars. Shoulder room is somewhat reduced. As far as trunk space, they are absolutely huge.
Again, you have to take in the context of the time in which they were built. As much as the '59 was a car of it's time, these 80's Cadillacs were cars of their time as well. All cars were way down on power, and they remained competitive. Cadillac was at the beginning of the return to decent power curve in '88 with the 4.5. By the early 90's and then with the release of the N*, they were some of the world's most powerful cars again.
Mike
That page screwed me on the links. :curse: I Googled 59 Cadillac 1/4 mile specs. I did the same for 94 Fleetwood. Let me try again.
But when all is said, I still don't see me racing anyone. But off the line with that rediculously low 1st gear, it's make any European sports car look over. I did that once since I had it. I hate the thought of putting a new rear end in it, and when I did a dead start hit, I twisted the original driveshaft out of phase.
I don't think that rubber bushing holding the 2 sections together was made to handle that kind of torque. ;D
1994 Cadillac Fleetwood Sedan specifications & performance ...Specs and full detailed performance data of 1994 Cadillac Fleetwood Sedan. All versions top speed, 0-60 mph, 1/4 mile times, 0-100 km/h accelerations, ...
1959 Cadillac Series 6200 Coupe specifications & performance in ...Detailed specifications, performance, top speed, accelerations, 1/4 mile ...
If you're interested go look for yourselves. But a neat site just the same.
More useless links.
THAT"S IT. I GIVE UP. :dwarf: :curse: :taz: :fu: