Hey, i currently own a 1992 5.0L mustang, but i think i wanna buy a caddy. I have always liked big cars, smooth ride, confort, its like you are bringing your living room with you everywhere you go. I was looking at late 70s and early 80s caddys but i wouldnt mind the 72 and older because that would get rid of my problem. Here is my problem, yes i like big cars, for the reasons i named before but the thing is, those years (late 70s and early 80s) are horrible performance wise. I mean a big 7.0L v8 that produces next to nothing and burns gas like there is no tomorrow isn't too appealing. So if i were to get one, i would obviously bug a more decent engine in it, i was thinking about maybe a 1969 455cu, would that work? Or what engines do you guys recommand to put in a caddilac? I wont be doing the work myself because i dont have the knowledge to do so...will putting a new engine and tranny will do it or do i have to messs around with suspensions and stuff like that?Give me some recommandations and some prices to go with that....

thanks

Hey, i currently own a 1992 5.0L mustang, but i think i wanna buy a caddy. I have always liked big cars, smooth ride, confort, its like you are bringing your living room with you everywhere you go. I was looking at late 70s and early 80s caddys but i wouldnt mind the 72 and older because that would get rid of my problem. Here is my problem, yes i like big cars, for the reasons i named before but the thing is, those years (late 70s and early 80s) are horrible performance wise. I mean a big 7.0L v8 that produces next to nothing and burns gas like there is no tomorrow isn't too appealing. So if i were to get one, i would obviously bug a more decent engine in it, i was thinking about maybe a 1969 455cu, would that work? Or what engines do you guys recommand to put in a caddilac? I wont be doing the work myself because i dont have the knowledge to do so...will putting a new engine and tranny will do it or do i have to messs around with suspensions and stuff like that?Give me some recommandations and some prices to go with that....

thanks
I am a big Cadillac fan and own three... '69 Fleetwood Brougham, '70 Sedan de Ville, '76 limo.
The '68-'70 472s (375 hp, 525 ft-lbs torque) and the '70 500 (400 hp, 550 ft-lbs torque) had the most power. The '71 472 wasn't bad, either (345 hp, 500 ft-lbs torque).

Motor Trend printed these specs for a '69 Coupe de Ville:
Rear axle ratio------------ 2.94:1
Curb weight-------------- 4,780 lbs
0-60 mph----------------- 9.4 secs
0-75 mph----------------- 13.9
1/4 mile------------------- 16.5 secs @ 83.8 mph
Passing:40-60 mph-------- 4.9 secs
------- 50-70 mph-------- 5.6 secs
Fuel mileage-------------- 9.2-11.8 mpg

Car Life got even faster times for a '64 Sedan de Ville, but the 472 engine in the '69 is better-built...
'64 Sedan de Ville
Engine/hp----------------- 429/340
Torque-------------------- 480 ft-lbs
Rear axle ratio------------- 3.21:1
Curb weight--------------- 4,900 lbs
0-60 mph----------------- 8.5 secs
0-80 mph----------------- 14.1
0-100 mph---------------- 23.5
1/4 mile------------------- 16.4 @ 86 mph
Passing: 40-60 mph-------- 3.7 secs
-------- 50-70 mph-------- 4.5
Fuel mileage--------------- 9-12 mpg

Motor Trend also tested a '70 Eldorado (but I prefer RWD)...
0-60 mph----------------- 8.8 secs
1/4 mile------------------ 16.3 @ 87 mph

A '71 (very similar to a '72) still had a pretty good power output:
0-60 mph----------------- 10.2 secs
1/4 mile------------------ 17.8 @ 82 mph

Remember... those specs used '60s and early '70s-era tires. Some modern tires would cut those times down even more.

I suggest a '68-'70 DeVille or Fleetwood (DeVilles are lighter). Second choice a '71-'72 DeVille or Fleetwood.
My '69 and '70 Caddys (especially the '69 because I had dual exhaust installed) can light the tires at will. My '71 can, too, but it's not quite as powerful as the '68-'70. Even my '76 limo has burned rubber a few times.
BTW, the compression ratios:
'68-'69 472-------- 10.5:1
'70 472------------ 10.0:1
'71-'73 472-------- 8.5:1
'74 472------------ 8.25:1
'75-'76 500-------- 8.5:1

'70 500------------ 10.0:1

My classic Caddys are fun to drive... big, roomy, comfortable, large trunk (20-cu-ft), nice styling (they actually look like a Caddy, unlike the modern ones) and a tough and reliable engine with tons of low-end torque.

they actually look like a Caddy, unlike the modern ones

What do you think of the 2003 Cadillac Sixteen concept?

What do you think of the 2003 Cadillac Sixteen concept?
Interesting, but super-expensive.
I prefer Cadillacs with a Cadillac look... long hood, roomy interior, long rear overhang, lots of chrome and real metal.