1940s cadillac top speed?

[Dynaflash8]

Well guys, at least you can't say that the President of AACA is too chicken to come on here with an opinion.... <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> And sometimes, he can even admit that he's wrong <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> But he's also here to tell ya that he is a "true believer" in the fact that the '41 Buick was the first real "muscle car" in America, meaning to combine speed, power, daring, innovation and youth....oh well, as Howard says, that's only my opinion <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> I'd better get off of here and go back to being good, as well as more demure. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Sometimes I like to have some fun too.

[Jack Harlin]

Dyna flash8 as in "Fireball". Nothing wrong with your memory, trying to remember pioneer days of racing. After thinking about all the Indy drivers names you recalled, I believe it was a AAA race, not NASCAR. They were not permited to jump ship. So it could be AAA banned the Buick, as they were King of the Hill back then. I have a list of money won at Indy till 1965 & Teds name not listed. Gee, I sure wish I still had that 40, so how am I going to prove who's the best? Mabe its not a good idea to beat the President, any way. Jack

[Dynaflash8]

First, I don't want anybody to get mad here, just having some rib-poking fun like all of the Ford-Chevy guys do to each other here where I live. Okay? Sometimes we get too serious about all this stuff. It would be fun, wouldn't it, if there could be a "showdown race", but of course it would be a bad thing to race our beautifully restored cars. Call this discussion being about the "fantasy race." It's even good that none of us can ever know the true outcome.

Jack, things seem to come to me in my sleep! I believe that Ted Nyquist, who finished the 1939 Langhorne race 4th, 5th or 6th (I can't recall which) in a 39 Oldsmobile, went on to be the builder or owner of the 1950 Indy car that Johnny Parsons drove to victory in 1950.

You have to be right that NASCAR came later than 1940. When I think auto racing I just think NASCAR because I'm not a true racing fan. Again, stretching my memory, another driver in the Langhorne race, Henry Banks (driving a 38 Buick), had something to do with founding or being President of NASCAR and/or Daytona or a NASCAR Museum later in his life. One of you guys know the correct answer to that. I can't lay my hands on the Special Interest Autos article I wrote, although the magazine is here somewhere.

I am not a race fan, and wrote this article only because the MoTor Magazine article about a 39 Buick winning the Langhorne race peeked my interest because I am a 39 Buick fanatic. The funny/odd thing about that race is that it was hotly disputed. Mark Light ran out of gas a lap or two before the race was over, and Bill Shoop, driving a 39 Buick Special convertible went on to win. Then, they recounted the laps and determined that Mark Light's Century coupe ran out of gas just past the end of the 100th lap of the 100 lap race and gave him the victory. When I wrote the article in the early 1970s I tried to contact Mark Light but he did not respond to my request. Somewhere in the archives of AACA magazines there is a photo of his 39 Buick Century coupe.

This is off the subject, but I think it's too bad the laps weren't miscounted last Saturday when that Dodge blew a tire and hit the wall. I could have spent all week poking fun at my body shop owner buddy here who is a Ford and NASCAR racing fanatic! I never watch NASCAR races, but it happened to come on TV and I couldn't believe the way that Dodge was running away from the pack and watched until he wrecked.

Finally, why is my handle Dynaflash8? Dynaflash8 was the name of the 1938-1940 Buick engine and then they changed the pistons and renamed the engine the Fireball8 in 1941. Although I think the 1941 Buick was probably the pinnacle year of excitement for the straight 8 Buicks for many reasons, and I've owned two and would like another, the 1939 Buick is my favorite for both sentimental and styling reasons. So, hence, my handle --- Dynaflash8

[Jack Harlin]

Dynaflash8

I know you were kidding, thats why I said I could beat your Buick. Some times I tease too much, and is taken the wrong way. My Dad was no slouch when it came to driving fast, and he drove the wheels of the 41. I miss understood about Ted. I thought you meant Indy 500. He did own an Indy car. I think it was a Kurtis-Kraft. Henry Banks was director of racing, later on. Other than that, I don't know about the rest you mentioned. Mark Light had a garage in Lebanon. Some times when we went to Toby Tobius shop we stopped at Marks garage. and raced a few laps with him. I've become less of a NASCAR fan last few years. I'm lucky enough to be able to get garage passes, except for Daytona 500. They don't interrest me any more, so I stay home. Jack

[Dynaflash8]

Jack, Those three or four scrapbooks that Mrs. Nyquist graciously loaned to me to write that article were filled with wonderful racing history. It's over 30 years ago now and who knows where the scrapbooks might be...maybe still in the family. When I was finished with them, I returned them to her with my many thanks. The only name with a lot of coverage in the scrapbooks that I remember was, I think, from the midget circuits. I can't spell the name now, but it was something like Tommy Heinnersmitz or something like that. I forgot to mention that Bill Shoop was from York, PA. Well, we've kicked this subject around and out the door, huh? Kinda off the subject of how fast a flat-head Cadillac would run. Saw my Dad put a 39 Buick Special at 105 on the speedometer once when I was a kid, and I put a 52 Plymouth on 90 for 8 miles once when I was about 18. All it would do too, and after that the Plymouth used a quart of oil every 30 miles....that sort of cured me of trying to see how fast they could go. Now, how fast will a 40 Cadillac flathead V8 go? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Earl ~ As I said before, I pegged the speedomoter on my '41 Cadillac Conv. Sedan at 100, many years ago. Straight stick, high speed rear and flapping canvas. I will attest to the fact that it would also do 55 in 1st. You know that car well.

I also owned a '40 Cadillac Conv. Coupe back in the mid '70s, but that car was so loose that anything over 70 was frightening. But since the '40 engine was rated at 135 HP whereas the '41 was 150, there must have been a performance difference favoring the '41.

That's all I have to add to the discussion.

hvs

[Dynaflash8]

Yeah Howard, I know that car well...even drove it once...quite a thrill. Bet that canvas top was like a sail and probably took off a few mph too. I also remember the 40 Cadillac convertible you had and for that matter the 56 Buick 2dr hardtop. We've only known each other 41 years.

[Ed Miller]

Saturday my wife and I leave for a 1,000 mile tour in our 1932 Cadillac V8 All Weather Phaeton. About 30 cars will join us and all will be of pre-WWII vintage. Chances are, even though ours does not have the highest top speed or cruising speed, it will nevertheless be one of the fastest cars on the tour, including the 1941 Cadillacs. Part of the reason will be that our Cadillac has overdrive. But just as important is its perfect mechanical condition and my willingness to drive at more than a sedate speed (without being foolish). Today most owners drive of pre WWII vehicles drive at relatively slow speeds out of respect for their vehicle, the age of the vehicle, the mechanical condition and the fear that something may break and leave them stranded. Top speed is merely a theoretical question that has little or no practical application for these great machines. But it is fun to talk about it.

[1607]

For Burgesss and Clipper '47:

I AM here. But I had nothing to contribute to this particular discussion. I simply do not have any hard info. on the top speeds of these particular cars.

At one time or another, I did own both 40's era Cads and Buicks of various series, but

1) While I do have personal experience with these cars, I am not suicidal; it would not have occured to me to try and take any of them much over 70 mph, given the tires of the day.

Let me explain - there is a "standing wave" phenomena that can tear a old style "bias" tire apart at anything much over 80 mph. As other "posters" have noted, speedometer errors of 8-12 mph or MORE were typical of those days.

Also, the Buick was a long stroke engine, meaning extremly high shock loads on the rods and cranks in the upper rpm ranges. Buick straigt eights did not get "insert" rod bearings until the early 1950's. If you want to know what happens to the straight eight Buicks when you REALLY "stand on them", take a look at the news articles of what happpened to people with "poured babbit" type rod bearings when they "went at it" on the then new Pennsylvania Turnpike. I did NOT make this stuff up, nor do I want to hurt anyone's feelings.

Secondly, I dont have any literature that would shed light on the subject. The old Floyd Clymer / Motor Trend road tests that I have do not go that far back (I havnt seen any that go back past 1949).

Thirdly, I see no point in aggravating people in the chat room. Some of these guys have a real "need" to "believe" in their cars, with "belief systems" that are so fragile, that if you so much as question some of their beliefs by discussing technology that conflicts with them, they go running to the Administrator and ask for conflicting views to be "banned". What's the point in upsetting them ?

Some time ago, we had some people who insisted their stock '47 Buick Super would go over 100 mph, and (cant recall if it was the same guy) that his '47 Buick Roadmaster would go over 120. The mere suggestion that these fellows were being a bit over-enthusiastic in their claims caused a lot of bad feeling.

Bottom line - again - I do still come in now and then to look around, but see no point in "jawing" when we KNOW it is going to upset people. If and when I have useful info. that will benefit people, and if and when I have the time to come in, I will.

Hope you have a mild winter, and glad you decided to keep the '47 Super Clipper!

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Good points, Packard Blue...

Personally, I'm pretty happy that replacing some u-joints and a bent rim has boosted the practical cruising speed of my '41 De Soto from about 45 mph to at least 55 mph...

Guess I'd better invest in some of those $300 Michelin "racing" tires when I take the De Soto out to the Salt Flats for "speed runs"...

Cheers!

[1607]

Hey Desoto:

Dont let anyone make fun of those little Chrysler product engines - they used them clear into the 60's. Tough little buggers - we had them in some of our fleet trucks - couldn't kill em no matter how rotten we were to them.

As I am sure you know, Chrysler Corp. early on adopted "insert" connecting rod bearings thru out the line - which explains why you could run em wide open all year long without breaking them. Assuming you have everything reasonably in balance, I dont think even a steady 55 mph would hurt anything, depending, of course, on what your rear axle ratio is.

I dont think you are going to have much of a chance winning any speeding trophies, but I have to admit, I truly ENVY the durability of those Chrysler Corp. engines of that era.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

4.1 rear and 6.50 x 16 tires...and this poor example is TIRED !

I hear "Blowby" from one cylinder puffing through the crankcase breather on hard pulls; sounds like a hit'n'miss engine.

But at 97,000 miles, it's still mostly just a "gas & oil" daily driver.

I have a spare engine that I'm readying to drop in; I'm very curious to see how bad things really are on the inside of my 228; a lot of guys on the P-15/D-24 website have remarked that their car "ran fine, but it smoked a bit", then discovered one or more piston rings broken in each cylinder when they pulled them down for rebuild...these engines seem to be capable of running far longer than "they should".

When I was in college (late 1980's), I had a '48 New Yorker straight-8 for my daily driver; that too had a tired engine, but it was a reliable ride, to be sure.

[gearboy]

Getting back to the initial poster's opening question, "1940s Cadillac top speed?" GM Proving Grounds' figures for 1941-47 Cadillac Series 62 were 96 mph. The range was slim, 96 mph with manual transmission and the optional 3.36:1 "economy" rear axle, which was standard on the Hydra-Matic cars. Frictional losses in the Hydra-Matic cars netted a top speed a few tenths of a mile an hour slower.

A factory publication on the 1941 Cadillacs issued to dealers admitted the '41 Buick Century/Roadmaster (Series 60 & 70 same wheelbase that year) was "....four miles an hour faster." That would put a new, stock, razor-tuned '41 Buick Century/Roadmaster with stock Compound Carburetion and the no-cost 3.6:1 "economy" rear axle instead of the stock 3.9 cog at an even 100 mph.

Top speed is the result of horsepower, overall final gearing and coefficient of drag; CD rating or "aerodynamics." It has nothing to do with the hood ornament, brand name, speedometer reading, marketing or what Uncle Bob recollects.

We've never seen factory, fifth-wheel or AAA-sanctioned, or reliably observed timed speeds (Autocar, Motor Trend, The Motor, etc.) for 1940-47 Packard Super-8 160 in either traditional body or the 1942-47 Clipper equivalent. However, we'd think that the 1942-47 Super-8 One-Sixty Clipper/Super Clipper would be slightly faster than the Compound Carburetor Buick. The Buick's listed equal hp came at 200 higher rpm, but the Clipper was a shade cleaner aerodynamically, including a more raked windshield (45 vs. 49 degrees), and an overall final drive of 2.95:1 in overdrive against 3.6, which is still fairly trucky.

Acceleration is the result of torque, gearing and weight. Packard torque was 292 ft. lbs. vs. 283 for the Cad, 274 for the Buick. The Packard weighed anywhere from 60 or so to 185 fewer pounds than the corresponding 1940-47 GMobiles, and had better gearing for acceleration from rest, as well as from a 5 mph rolling start, which is how acceleration was usually tested in the '40s.

The posters who typed "the '41 Buick was fastest ....claimed by the factory to top 108 mph, or 112 with the 3.60 gear" and that it was "....published somewhere by Cadillac....top speed somewhere around 106 or 107mph" are dreaming or confused. The best the respected, terribly precise magazine The Motor could extract from a supercharged '37 Cord 812 was 102 mph, and these had a dead minimum 170 hp, some later in the production year 180-185hp thanks to less blower inlet restriction. The Cord had much less frontal area than any of the aforementioned '40s cars and a final drive of 2.95:1. Ab Jenkins managed 108mph with a blown '37 Cord sedan at Bonneville, but that car may (there's still discussion) have been stroked.

Motor Trend fifth-wheeled the new 1951 Chrysler Saratoga, carefully broken in with the 180-hp hemi-V-8 at 108 mph. This engine put out its peak hp at 4,600 rpm. The best R-R could do with their new 1952 Bentley R-Type Continental, again, less frontal area than '40s GM or Packard, 158 hp at 4,200 rpm through a 3.08:1 final drive, was 116.7 mph. The buff books enthusiastically round this to 120mph, but endlessly repeating does not make it so, just as 96mph does not magically, wishfully become "around 100 mph."

So, let's enjoy our cars, but stick to facts. We have no idea what the poster was trying to get at by bringing up the '39 Langhorne, Pennsylvania stock car race on a dirt oval track. That's the province of acceleration and cornering, among other factors. Railroads used to test express steam locomotives in the '30s, with speeds to 110 and 120 mph, but it took eleven miles or more to get there.

The poster's original question was "top speed." By the way, when Jaguar tested their new XK-150S, they not only removed the rearview mirror, but the radio antenna---how many square inches of frontal area was that? [color:\\"black\\"]

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The posters who typed "the '41 Buick was fastest ....claimed by the factory to top 108 mph, or 112 with the 3.60 gear" and that it was "....published somewhere by Cadillac....top speed somewhere around 106 or 107mph" are dreaming or confused. </div></div>

Good answers and the facts are always appreciated. And I agree with you on most points--it's really hard to know what's true and what's legend. However (and you knew there was one coming...) I am now holding in my hands an <span style="font-style: italic">original</span> (not reprinted, not photocopied, not Internet-based) <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">1941 Buick Master Salesman's Fact Book. </span></span>It lists the following:

Fuel Economy:

At 70 MPH:

Special (single carb): 13.5 MPG (OK, I'll admit this seems suspect compared to the other models)

Super (dual carbs): 15.0 MPG

Century/Roadmaster (dual carbs): 14.3 MPG (yow!)

Power used:

at 20 MPH: Super (9% used) / Century & Roadmaster (8% used)

at 50 MPH: 19.0% / 16.5%

at 80 MPH: 49.0% / 38.5%

And (drum roll please...) <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">Top Speed:</span></span>

Special (single carb): 87 MPH (4.4 rear gear) / 91 MPH (3.9 rear gear optional)

Super (dual carbs): 96 MPH (4.4 rear gear) / 99 MPH (3.9 rear gear optional)

Century/Roadmaster: 108 MPH (3.9 rear gear) / 110 MPH (3.6 rear gear optional)

Now whether these are accurate numbers is anybody's guess. Like I said earlier, I'm as curious as anybody as to the true top speed, so I'll run mine until it stops pulling as soon as it's back together. However, it'll have some tricks inside it; but <span style="font-style: italic">if,</span> with tricks, it only pulls 105 MPH, then we'll know the numbers in 1941 were wildly optimistic (and vice versa--perhaps it'll go 120! <span style="font-style: italic">Ha!</span>)

It's all academic, I guess, but now I'm REALLY curious.

[Guest bkazmer]

"salesman's fact book" may be an oxymoron

[Guest]

Amen to that!

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"salesman's fact book" may be an oxymoron </div></div>

Yeah, that part with the fuel economy numbers kind of gave me that impression, too. They are, after all, <span style="font-style: italic">car salesmen.</span> (No offense intended to those who share this profession!) But at least I'm not the only one drinking the 1941 Buick Kool-Aid...

At least the paint chips and upholstery samples in the back of the book are authentic!

[Guest]

Matt ~ I have the '41 Cadillac "Salesman's Data Book" and view it with the same skepticism.

hvs

[Dynaflash8]

I don't know if the speedometer was anywhere near accurate, but I was with my Dad in 1948 when I actually witnessed the speedometer needle of his 1939 Buick Special bouncing between 100 and 105 mph. Of course, last week I also witnessed the speedometer needle on my 1939 Buick Special bouncing between 75 and 80 and the guy in the DeSoto following me told me later I never got over 55 mph. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> So who knows?

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Hmmm,

Unless Mr. De Soto was one of those early Hemi models, he would've been hard pressed to keep-up at "75-80 mph"...

Strictly crunching numbers, my '41 De Soto, with 6.50 x 16 tires (29.13" outside diameter) and a 4.1 :1 rear end, at max engine output of 105 hp @ 3,600 rpm should be moving at 76 mph.

I have had it up to that speed briefly; don't know what it's "ultimate limit" would be...

I've noticed "bouncy" speedo needles in a lot of my older vehicles... I think that is a product of stiff/sticky lube (or rust) in the speedo cable...

When I get my front end overhauled, my R-7 overdrive installed, and a fresh engine under the hood and broken-in, perhaps I'll "put it to the wood" and see what we get...

[Dynaflash8]

Yes, the owner knew how to say "Hemi"; but, I held my 52 Plymouth wide open for 8 miles in 1957 and achieved and held 90 mph. After that, I achieved one quart of oil every 30 miles also. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Let's hear it for "achievements" !

Around 1960 or so, my uncle managed to roll my Grandad's'52 Plymouth Cranbrook...don't know how fast he was going...

[1607]

For Dynaflash:

Regarding excessive oil consumption on a '52 Plymouth after going 90 mph.

Dynaflash - I disagree...I dont think it would hurt the engine on a '52 Plymouth at all if it went 90 mph. Simple reason. Given the wind resistance of that body, the gearing, and the low power, NO way you could get a stock one to go that fast unless you shipped it UPS or Fed Ex. Typical shipping regs. require that the gasoline tank be drained. So.......there you are.

Seriously, running wide open, assuming reasonable oil changes, shouldn't hurt those tough Chrysler Corp. six's one bit. Those were DAMN tough engines, serving well in all kinds of applications, not just cars, were they were run hard year after year.

Given the outrageously optimistic speedometer errrors typical of that era, I am not surprised you saw 90 mph on the speedomter. As for your actual top speed, again, depending on the "final drive" diff. gear ratio on that particular car, I would venture a guess that you were actually doing somewhere between 78 asnd 85 mph ( that is....IF the wind was right !).

[Matt Harwood]

OK, one last follow-up and this one has some real credentials. Fellow board reader Cliff Herold sent me the attached photo of an actual test data sheet from the Milford Proving Grounds circa 1941. It pretty much corroborates the speed figures in the "Fact" book, particularly the Century and Roadmaster numbers which are exactly as quoted. It also includes acceleration figures, as requested earlier.

Just another log on the fire? <span style="font-style: italic">You decide.</span>

[Guest]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seriously, running wide open, assuming reasonable oil changes, shouldn't hurt those tough Chrysler Corp. six's one bit. Those were DAMN tough engines, serving well in all kinds of applications, not just cars, were they were run hard year after year. </div></div>

Right on. I had one in my 1957 Seabird mahogany launch in the 1970's and that poor little Buchanan marine engine (actually a Chrysler 6) was under a load the whole time propelling the boat which must have weight 3tons. Burned a bit of oil but always started and ran fine.

[Dynaflash8]

Matt, this sounds like a really interested piece of literature. I wanted to bring this fun thread back to the top anyway, for a couple of reasons. One is, I just told Buick historian and writer Terry Dunham he should read it, so I wanted him to be able to find it <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. But also, reference my high school 1952 Plymouth Belvedere hardtop. Fellows I won't argue the feats and faults of the Chrysler/Plymouth Six Cylinder engine with you, but two things remain undisputably true ... well three actually. FIRST, yes I did change the oil regularly until it began changing it it's own self <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> and SECOND, yes I really did hold it to the floor for 8 miles between Fredericksburg, VA and King George, VA in 1957 while the speedometer read 90 mph, after which it did, (and this is my THIRD undeniable truth), use a quart of oil every 30 miles <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> It was a cute little old car though <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[R W Burgess]

Earl, If you held the pedal to the floor on that same road today and didn't get "over" 90 miles per hour, you would probably get run over by the commuters. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Wayne

[Guest ralphk]

My father bought a used 1947 Chrysler New Yorker Club Coupe w/fluid drive in 1947. I think it was 1949 when we were on a trip to the West coast and happened be traveling past the salt flats and Dad decided to see how fast the Chrysler would go. He took it through the traps at 115.2 mph with the trunk full of luggage. Back then you did not even need a helmet, you just paid your money and hit the gas. I know my dad was disappointed by how slow the car was because the pre-WW2 New Yorkers would easily top 120 (on the other hand, Chrysler claimed the post war ones topped out at 88). I do know that 47 Chrysler with over 200,000 miles on it (used by me as a patrol car) could still outrun my dad's 1951 baby Cadillac Coupe even after it had the 1957 Caddy V8 & Hydramatic installed but the hopped up Caddy had immensely quicker pickup. That much maligned fluid drive was definitely the sturdiest automatic on the market back in the 40s and 50s but if something did go wrong you couldn't find anyone to work on it. Our 47 New Yorker was finally sold out of the family with over 400,000 miles on it without ever having had the transmission worked on.

[Rusty_OToole]

January 1951 at the Daytona Beach Speed Trials the fastest stock car was a 1951 Chrysler New Yorker 4 door sedan with hemi head V8, 180HP engine and Fluid Drive. Top speed, 100.13MPH electrically timed both ways on a course surveyed by Florida state highway department surveyers.

This was not down hill, with a tail wind, on an uncorrected speedo, or on an oval speed track where you can get a boost by coming down off the banked turns. It was certified stock and independently timed before witnesses, a newly introduced model off the local dealer's showroom floor with 400 miles on it.

It was the first certified stock car to officially exceed 100 MPH in the speed trials since the prewar supercharged Cord V8.

Most powerful cars of the forties would top out around 90. Some might do a little better depending on model. None would break 100 MPH "for real".

Edited May 18, 2012 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

As for those who claim their prewar car goes over 100 MPH how can you tell? What car of that vintage has a speedo that reads over 100? The more expensive forties cars I have seen, have a speedo that only goes up to 100. Cheaper cars were clocked for 80 or 90.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest bkazmer]

41 Packard 160 reads to 110 (actually to "11")

[Guest ralphk]

January 1951 at the Daytona Beach Speed Trials the fastest stock car was a 1951 Chrysler New Yorker 4 door sedan with hemi head V8, 180HP engine and Fluid Drive. Top speed, 100.13MPH electrically timed both ways on a course surveyed by Florida state highway department surveyers.

This was not down hill, with a tail wind, on an uncorrected speedo, or on an oval speed track where you can get a boost by coming down off the banked turns. It was certified stock and independently timed before witnesses, a newly introduced model off the local dealer's showroom floor with 400 miles on it.

It was the first certified stock car to officially exceed 100 MPH in the speed trials since the prewar supercharged Cord V8.

Most powerful cars of the forties would top out around 90. Some might do a little better depending on model. None would break 100 MPH "for real".

So, Rusty, I gather that you are saying that the folks operating the Bonneville Speed Trials do not know how to set up their traps nor how to interpret the readouts. Or are you trying to say that the salt flats are actually a hill.These are the same people at roughly the same place that timed a 57 Chrysler at 171+ 2 way (one run had been in excess of 186 but they had to redo it because a piece of chrome blew off). By the way, my reference to the prewar New Yorkers came from a Highway Patrolman friend of the family complaining that none of their cruisers could come close to catching a New Yorker and that one could easily outrun their spotter plane.

[Guest Water Jacket]

Packard Blue's preceding comments on page # 49, page two of this thread sum the situation well, as does

Gearboy's post # 53 this page, and Rusty O'Toole's, post #69.

We should remember there was fierce intramural rivalry between Cadillac and Buick during 1941, when we read some of the figures Matt quotes ( thank you) from the '41 Buick Salesman's Book. When Buick offered a line of Brunn-bodied Series 90 Limiteds, Cadillac finally raised enough fuss for GM's execs to reign in Flint.

Getting back to the poor fellow who asked a simple question three pages ago before all this armchair testosterone was unleashed, Maurice Hendry and others unearthed GM Proving Ground figures of various 1941-47 Series 62 Cadillacs with the optional "economy" 3.31:1 rear axle in place of the standard 3.77:1 coming in at 96 and a few tenths of a mph. The

same cars with HydraMatic, which of course came standard with the 3.31 rear cog, were a few tenths of a mile an hour slower due to losses in the automatic transmission, as Gearboy mentions. The sedans were about half an mile an hour faster than the convertibles as airflow over their steel tops was smoother than over canvas. But all this is hair-splitting.

So, in answer to Imported_Joe Werner's question, 96 mph.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Water Jacket (see edit history)

[mrspeedyt]

i took my '41 cad up to 70 and scared the cr@p out of me when i encountered a rut...time for fixing the front end.

[K8096]

One minor correction Water Jacket - the economy axle ratio in the 1940's Cadillac's was 3.36, not 3.31. The standard shift cars came standard with the 3.77, the hydramatic cars came with the 3.36. But what many folks do today is put a 3.36 in the standard shift cars in order to lower engine rpm's.

Edited May 19, 2012 by K8096 (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

By the way I am willing to accept that a prewar Buick Century would top 100 especially the compound carburetor 1941 model. Also the supercharged Cord, certain models of Duesenberg, perhaps a Stutz or 2. But such speeds were way beyond the ordinary car of the time.

I suppose it would be possible for a 16 cylinder Cadillac coupe to do likewise but that would be a very unusual Cadillac indeed.

Remember the original question was how fast would a Cadillac of the forties go? No model, year or body style specified. I would say the typical V8 Cadillac sedan or coupe would top out at 92 to 96 MPH and hold that speed all day, as serene as the smile on the Mona Lisa.

A genuine 100MPH was a lot harder to achieve at that time than people of today would think. I don't mean on an uncorrected speedometer, in one direction with no allowance for wind and grade. People don't realize that air resistance, and therefore horsepower required, goes up as the square of speed. In other words to get from 50 to 100 MPH does not require double the power, it requires 4 times the power. Once you get up to 90 to 95 that last 5 or 10 MPH is awfully hard to come by.

I would like to see a timing done by an independent expert preferably in some kind of official setting before I take it for gospel.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

A Chrysler Airflow model CU coupe set the following records at Bonneville in 1934, racing driver Harry Hartz behind the wheel:

AVERAGE SPEED TOTAL MILE RUN

95.70 MPH.......................1

90.04 MPH....................500

84.43 MPH..................2026.40(For a 24 hour run)

So far as I know this is the only time a flathead Chrysler was timed in this way, officially certified by independent experts (in this case the AAA contest board).

This was with a 299 cu in 122HP flathead straight eight, certified stock but no doubt prepared by Chrysler engineering to give of its best.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[john2dameron]

I just found this thread. In 1965 my brother ordered a new Chevrolet pckup with a 283 V8, 3-speed overdrive transmission and 4.11 rearend. He thought it would be a class winner at the drag strip but could never compete against the Ford pickups running V8's. He soon gave up the drag game and traded the pickup to me. The speedometer, probably because of the low-speed rearend, was wildly optimistic. It was a minimum of 10 mph fast at 60mph and I was never happy that it was actually faster out of O.D. than in it.

Since this thread was so deeply involved in racing I'm going to cite some Indy 500 winners but first I want to state that Henry Banks was involved in AAA which sanctioned Indy, Ted Linquist never won at Indy, and although Bill France was sponsoring races at Daytona as early as 1947, there were only six NASCAR races run in 1949 and Red Byron won the first championship with 2 wins.

Indy winners: '46--George Robson, '47 & '48--Mauri Rose, '49--Bill Holland, '50--Johnnie Parsons, '51--Lee Wallard, '52--Troy Ruttman,'53 & '54--Bill Vukovich, '55--Bob Sweikert, '56--Pat Flaherty, '57 Sam Hanks, '58--Jimmy Bryan, '59--Roger Ward. I'm probably boring half of you so I'll stop with that.

[Oldtimer 11]

The 41 Buick Century of 41 was faster yjan the 42 to 51 models because the dual 2 barrel carbs were not offered after the war.  It would have been too embarassing for GM to have a straight eight that was faster than the Rocket 88 49 Olds V8

[8E45E]

10 minutes ago, Oldtimer 11 said:

 It would have been too embarassing for GM to have a straight eight that was faster than the Rocket 88 49 Olds V8

That was the problem GM had with the Typhoon and the Syclone.  Both ran faster than the Corvette, but the small truck S-series had the only chassis that could handle the torque.

 

Craig