Robyn Lyons wrote: > I didn't remember the specs on the '78 DeVille, but I seem to remember > both it and the '79 year as being the biggest passenger car ever made > and also has the honor of having the most powerful engine ever put into > a production passenger car. The mileage is better than I thought it > would be, but does it have an EPA emissions (smog) system? My '85 Chevy > Caprice got 23 city after I took out the smog system. Of course we > didn't have emissions testing where I lived at so I could do stuff like > that and not get into major trouble. > > Any officers reading the previous paragraph please ignore the last 2 > sentances, they neevver existed, they were all in your > imagination.....yea, that's it.... > ;) > > As for mounting the C500 board in it, you could just install a cray > into the backseat and still have room left over for half the people at > a family reunion. > > -Robyn > > On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 11:46 PM, Bolton Peck wrote: > Actually, believe it or not, the 77-79 DeVilles were downsized! They were 9 inches shorter, 900 pounds lighter, and had 1.2 liters less displacement than the 71-76 Caddies which had 472 and 500 cid engines (7.8 and 8.2 liter) these were the largest passenger car engines ever used. Not counting some pre-WWI antique with a 700 CID straight six! As for the 'most powerful production car engine' honor, I can think of several cars which had bigger numbers than any Cadillac, however none of them could be made into limousines or hold more than two people in varying degrees of discomfort :-) The 74-76 boats were the biggest production passenger cars ever made as far as I know. Comfortable and spacious don't really do them justice as adjectives describing their interior dimensions, or the number of bodies which can be stacked in the trunk. A whole mob war could be fought inside one ;-) Critics did however like the new, lighter 1977 Caddy for its greatly improved handling and gas mileage, while it maintained most of the interior room of its forebearer. It was equipped with Catalyst, EGR and optionally AIR pump emissions control, these were computer controlled in the fuel injected cars. California EFI cars had an oxygen sensor/closed loop mode as well. It was a bright spot for GM in the 70's, not suffering from most of the quality control foibles experienced by GM owners of that era. (I can admit it, and I'm even a GM man) however even un-correcting the weak 'SAE net' numbers that only american cars seemed to use, which made them seem even less powerful than they already were, the 425 made only maybe 280 HP at best, but did have something like 410 pounds foot torque. At 2000 RPM. Taking one of these cars, and giving it a set of steel guides, new rings and a modern camshaft/Edelbrock intake manifold combo will easily net you 75 more horsepower and similarly improved torque with a silky smooth idle. Plus two or three MPG if you keep your foot out of it (yeah right.) The 425 is one of the most overlooked hot rod motors out there-it weighs 50 pounds more than a 350 Chevy but makes literally hundreds more pounds/feet of torque! The earlier 500 cid motors are good to go for over 600 pounds/foot torque-more than some stock truck diesel motors I could name-yet weigh 150 pounds LESS than the over-rated and under-reliable 454 big block Chevy. These engines were also made from a much higher nickel content alloy than other GM engines, making them lighter, stronger, and more overheat-resistant than just about any other V8 out there. The 425 was good enough for Rolls Royce to buy from GM and base its Rolls and Bentley V8 engines upon. A Twin-Turbo Bentley, weighing in at over 5800 pounds, can get to 60 in less than five seconds. I bet the 5 liter BMW V12 they are now gonna use won't ever be able to do that! Having driven one in a BMW 850, I can pretty much PROMISE that gutless turd of a V12 won't ever match the real world performance or reliability of the previous Rolls Royce engine. Cadillac knew how to adequately power large, heavy cars, that is why their engine was good enough for Rolls. I'm sure that the new Rolls will handle pretty good though. They always did in the past. As an excellent real-world example consider the 500 CID Cadillac engine in my 14,600 pound converted school bus. Which keeps up with car traffic, up to about 68 miles an hour when the gearing runs out. That's an empty weight for the bus, not counting people, mountain bikes, beer, food and other gear. Of which it will hold plenty! Taller gears and radial tires will take the bus safely to 75mph with some headroom for passing. Since it is a school bus, it has gigantic, power assisted brakes so stopping is not a problem. 15x5" drums rear, 14x2.5" drums front, thats a lot of swept surface area! SO, take that 500, go a few steps further with the buildup, and stick it in a Chevelle. Streetable, repeatable mid 10's all day long-then drive it home with the A/C on! It'll also neatly replace that valve-eating Leland six found in Jaguars, and it weighs less too. Anyone need a conversion? ;-) OK, massive off-topic rant over now. Sorry about that.. Bolton -- SuperMacs is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | Service & Replacement Parts [EMAIL PROTECTED] | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> SuperMacs list info: <http://lowendmac.com/supermacs/list.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/supermacs%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
