hey all, my 1991 caprice is in good shape only 50,000 miles and everything like new. i have had it to do a burn out but it just wont do it any more. all it does is rais up in the rear and rev up no tire spin at all? does any one else have this problem if so do you knoe y it wont do it?


thx,,, Sean

I'm not sure why you would want to do a "burn out", especially at these gas prices. :2cents:

However, it sounds like your rear brakes are working properly and/or your just not giving it enough gas.

:rolleyes:

P.S. - these cars weren't exactly designed for H.P.

Lets not bust on a man wanting to smoke the tires on his ride, theres nothing wrong with that. :evillol:

First some questions; #1 what engine do you have? #2 what problems do you have with the car, if any? #3 what were the circumstances when you got it to burn out the first time.

My caprice burns out with out power braking and its stock, 350 with posi-rear. :icon16:

Maybe your on the brakes to hard. Maybe your tranny is headed south. Maybe you have a 4.3 liter wich is not the ballsiest of the egines. :biggrin:

I've had a '79, '82 and now an '84 wagon and NONE of them would do a burnout. This is from a dead stop just stomping the gas to the floor. Maybe it has something to do with the gearing. Not that its that important to me, and I won't try to powerbrake it. Of all the wagons I has, the 5.7 L '79 was the ballsiest.

Bob

fuck my will burnout, with a slighty modded 305 tbi and a 3.42 posi

the motor i have is the 305 5.0 there are no problems with it my uncle is good with that stuff so i stay on top of the game.


does any one know the best a fastest way to get some more hourses out of the 305 there only rated at 180 hourse now i think..

Okay, my caprice used ta be able to light up the tires effortlessly (as you may have seen in the forum titled Caprice: Burnout) I'll post the picture again here, anyway... it stopped doing it. It only did as u said and revved up and lifted the rear end. Turns out I burn up the bands in the tranny (the tranny was shot to begin with, but I finished it off) Once I dropped in the new tranny it was able to do it again, but I only did it once more just ta test it out... don't wanna ruin this one too.

Heres the pic:
http://www.freewebs.com/petea/capriceburnout.JPG

As for horsepower... theres a few little tricks you van do to give yourself a couple of horses... replace your PCV system with breathers, disable your EGR valve, and the big one that'll give you the most difference is to hollow out your catalitic converter. All this together will probably only give you 5 more horses at the most, and the PCV system and EGR valve will only add to the responsiveness of then engine, it wont really give you horses. If you want to get more in dept and expensive, get a K & N air filter, dual exhaust, flowmaster mufflers, possibly headers, an Edelbrock intake manifold, a high volume fuel pump, possibly a larger CFM T.B.I., and then roller rocker arms... alltogether that will all give you an estimated 50-70 horsepower, which could total you at up to 250 horses. But a lot of power isn't cheap, and will destroy your gas mileage.

mine stock....305 nothing at all...removed the muffler and stripped out the interior + trunk, will do a burnout for 2 seconds then 1 wheel peel for like 25 ft or more...lol

so it sounds here like my tranny bands are bad and i need to change them. how hard of a job is this and how much will it cost me for parts ill just do it my self im not a stranger to tools so that wont be a problem. if some one can get me a web site link for new parts that would be great

You can get a tranny rebuild kit at most local auto parts stores.... you'll also need a couple of special tools that the auto parts store should also carry. It shouldn't cost u more than $120. For a fresh tranny its around $800, so doing it yourself will definately save you some pennies. I happened ta get lucky and bought a parts car for $250 and it happened ta have a freshly rebuilt tranny in it. Let me know how it works out for yah, and If you have any other questions just post em.

Good luck. My '89 305 Caprice will burn out no problem (w/brakes)... all I've done is replace the stock air cleaner with an open element filter. If I stomp the gas from a dead stop, it will squeal and if it's on a turn it will burn. Part of the reason it's easy on my car is because it has an open-rear and the tires are stock P205/75R15's.

My 91' 5.0 caprice wont do burnout neither. I think 5.0 engine without any mods or tuning is too poor for burnouts in such heavy car.
Lot of my friends have caprices and they all said that this car is not fot this kind of fun. Only time I saw caprice to do burnout is when my friend with 5.7 STW was forcing against Mercury Grand Marquis :) And he won :)

Just venturing a guess, but maybe the reason for the 5.0L 305-cid having a problem of doing a burnout is matter of gearing and power.

The 5.0L 305-cid was considered an economy version of the 5.7L 350-cid. Hense, the 305 also got numerically lower gearing than the 350 in addition to being a smaller displacement. Check this out:

In 1989 305-cid (first year of L03 in Caprice) got a 3.08 final gear ratio, the same ratio shared by the 4.3L 262-cid V-6.

In 1989 350-cid (first year of L05 in Caprice) got a increase over previous years. Final gear ratio was increased from 3.08 to 3.42 ratio.

In 1990, the 305-cid came with 3.08 or 2.56 "economy gears" (which gives you an idea of Chevrolet's though as to the intended function of the 305-cid in the Caprice).

The 305-cid Caprice would retain the 2.56 "economy" gearing until its replacement in 1994. On the other hand, the L05 would retain the higher 3.42 gear ratio until the demise of the L05 in 1994.

Now, that aside, I image the numerically higher gear ratio means more torque at the rear wheels quicker which I believe leads to an easier chance of peeling out. So maybe you just need to change your gearing.

Hope this helps and good luck

While the 3.42 gears were only available with the 350 engine powered Caprice, both options were only available as a part of SEO 9C1 and were not to be sold direct to the public. Oddly enough, the LM1 (350 carb'ed) and L05 (350 TBI) were both in the group of "do not sell to public", although the more torquey LT1 engine was available to the public. 12 years later and I am still scratching my head over that one. Perhaps because of the Impala SS (though the standard Caprice could have one too) - the Buick Roadmaster beginning in 1994 was ONLY available with the LT1.

However, the 3.08 can still tear it up with a 350, and you get better economy to boot ...

I think the reason for not selling the L05 and LM1 to public had to do with emissions, not because it was a SEO.

If I'm not mistaken, emergency vehicles are excluded from a company's CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) ratings. CAFE takes the average of all the vehicles a company makes or that class of vehicle the company makes, and these ratings have to meet certain federal standards. Thus, you can sell vehicles that have less fuel efficiency if you balance that out by selling a certain amount of more fuel efficient vehicles to "bring up" the average. The short and the long of it is a company can sell a less fuel efficient (but maybe more powerful) vehicle in large quantities for emergency vehicle use, and these vehicles are not part of the CAFE rating of that company.

The LT1, while more powerful than the L05 or the LM1, had a higher fuel economy than either the L05 or the LM1 (LT1 in Caprice had 16/17 city mpg, 25 highway mpg; L05 in Caprice had 14 city mpg, 20 highway mpg; I don't know ratings of LM1 but I know they're lower than the L05).

I think the reason for not selling the L05 and LM1 to public had to do with emissions, not because it was a SEO.

If I'm not mistaken, emergency vehicles are excluded from a company's CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) ratings. CAFE takes the average of all the vehicles a company makes or that class of vehicle the company makes, and these ratings have to meet certain federal standards. Thus, you can sell vehicles that have less fuel efficiency if you balance that out by selling a certain amount of more fuel efficient vehicles to "bring up" the average. The short and the long of it is a company can sell a less fuel efficient (but maybe more powerful) vehicle in large quantities for emergency vehicle use, and these vehicles are not part of the CAFE rating of that company.

The LT1, while more powerful than the L05 or the LM1, had a higher fuel economy than either the L05 or the LM1 (LT1 in Caprice had 16/17 city mpg, 25 highway mpg; L05 in Caprice had 14 city mpg, 20 highway mpg; I don't know ratings of LM1 but I know they're lower than the L05).

You know, that's a point taken. I never thought about the CAFE thing - makes sense. The LM1 in my '88 gets about 12-14 in the city and about 22 on the highway. I did know the LT1 was a more efficient engine but I never added 2 and 2 on that one. :)