Jump to content
CaddyInfo Cadillac Forum

GS400 vs STS


Cadillac STS

Recommended Posts

A classmate of mine drives a 1998 GS400...he was pretty much telling me that my car doesn't stand a chance… when he told me i didn't stand a chance ! :D

Well i didn't mind but he went on to say it to all of my friends and has completely blown it out of proportion, so my question is can he beat me?

My 94 STS w/300hp that’s with the K&N or his 98 stock 300hp GS400

he does have more torque and without a doubt he will take me off the line...but would i catch him and pull away? i need info thanks guys

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The GS400 can do 0-60 mph in around 5.8s. On the street it would just depend on the drivers, condition on the cars. But all else equal the GS400 is quicker.

Bruce

2016 Cadillac ATS-V gray/black

Follow me on: Twitter Instagram Youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just tell him your car will attract classier women than his. Now who is the winner? B)

2001 STS Mettalic Otter Grey, Black Leather, 213,000 kilometers - miles - ? Still running strong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah i knew that, i don't know why i even asked...oh well better go down into the basment now and hang myself :(

Oh no, it's worth seeing who would actually win. Some people have reported racing and winning against GS400's. Lots of things happen in the streets.

Bruce

2016 Cadillac ATS-V gray/black

Follow me on: Twitter Instagram Youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the races just like anyone else but please, if you must race, please take it to a track.

If you really want to make people safe drivers again then simply remove all the safety features from cars. No more seat belts, ABS brakes, traction control, air bags or stability control. No more anything. You'll see how quickly people will slow down and once again learn to drive like "normal" humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quit being a weenie and blow his doors off.

Ah, yes...true words of wisdom. Thank you bb, for keeping this string in balance...

PS, thanks too, for the iced tea out the nose....just what I needed after a long day out, and finally sitting down to relax... B)

'93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast.

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd mention that I left a GS400 dissapearing in the rear view mirror one sunny weekday afternoon, on an open rural highway, the number I won't mention. The guy in the 400 came up on me, and tailed me at 90 mph for a bit. No one else around, so I moved over, stayed with him to about 100, when we both nailed it. I got the jump, shifted from third to forth at 130, and kept on going. That guy was really trying, but all he ever saw is what's in that little picture down below this post...

I backed off a little later, down to about 85, and the turkey came wizzing past, not looking anywhere but straight ahead...It was a serious look too...Hmmm..I wonder what was bothering him. ;)

'93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast.

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this may sound stupid, but what is a GS400?

Lexus GS 400

http://www.fantasycars.com/sedans/html/gs400.html

If you really want to make people safe drivers again then simply remove all the safety features from cars. No more seat belts, ABS brakes, traction control, air bags or stability control. No more anything. You'll see how quickly people will slow down and once again learn to drive like "normal" humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, apparently you will win a free GS400 if you go to the link posted in the reply above mine. I went to it and they told me that I won one. Try it!! I'm gonna love driving that car into the ground when I get mine.

--Flyer

'99 'Vert 'Vette 45k

'97 SLS 55k

Deceased: <'68 Mustang 200+k>, <'86 GMC S-10 180+k>, <'86 VW GTI 180+k>, <'86 Seville 195+k>, <'93 Seville 175+k>

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, apparently you will win a free GS400 if you go to the link posted in the reply above mine. I went to it and they told me that I won one. Try it!! I'm gonna love driving that car into the ground when I get mine.

Oh yeah, I just won one too...No kidding..Along with that what we both won, (and so will you others out there) is an onslaught of spyware being downloaded onto your harddrive. My "SpyBot, Search and Destroy" spyware warning program stopped the attempt and warned me.

'93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast.

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, apparently you will win a free GS400 if you go to the link posted in the reply above mine.  I went to it and they told me that I won one.  Try it!!  I'm gonna love driving that car into the ground when I get mine.

Oh yeah, I just won one too...No kidding..Along with that what we both won, (and so will you others out there) is an onslaught of spyware being downloaded onto your harddrive. My "SpyBot, Search and Destroy" spyware warning program stopped the attempt and warned me.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I didn't post that URL for people to end up clicking on the YOU JUST WON icon. I posted that URL just so people would get a basic idea of the car in question.

"Sorry you made the trip for nothing, have a nice day" ;)

If you really want to make people safe drivers again then simply remove all the safety features from cars. No more seat belts, ABS brakes, traction control, air bags or stability control. No more anything. You'll see how quickly people will slow down and once again learn to drive like "normal" humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marika, count yourself lucky..

Until your post I was thinking of a 400-cubic inch, 70's era Buick GS-400 ! I even went back and tried to figure if Buick (or some speed-shop sub-contractor) were still making that model in 1998.

Oh a 1998 Lexus...Duh!

Here I was amazed how anyone would recall a 70' era muscle car's 0-60 time??

But then again, I'm also when amazed that I still wake up evey morning.

So, what about 0-60 times or top end for those factory muscle cars? In case one should happen to be alongside...

Thanks again for a hearty laugh !

Add power to leave problems behind. Most braking is just - poor planning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, apparently you will win a free GS400 if you go to the link posted in the reply above mine.  I went to it and they told me that I won one.  Try it!!  I'm gonna love driving that car into the ground when I get mine.

Oh yeah, I just won one too...No kidding..Along with that what we both won, (and so will you others out there) is an onslaught of spyware being downloaded onto your harddrive. My "SpyBot, Search and Destroy" spyware warning program stopped the attempt and warned me.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I didn't post that URL for people to end up clicking on the YOU JUST WON icon. I posted that URL just so people would get a basic idea of the car in question.

"Sorry you made the trip for nothing, have a nice day" ;)

No prob Marika, it was actually good information with a nice pictorial. BTW, you "Won" just by opening that link, you didn't have to voluntarily try for anything.

You never know what might come along with a simple 'visit' to a URL..That's why I keep a spyware warning program running at all times. The less uninvited 'guests' learn about me the better. It's a "Need To Know" kind of thing... :ph34r:

'93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast.

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TDK Posted on Feb 22 2004, 01:58 PM

So, what about 0-60 times or top end for those factory muscle cars? In case one should happen to be alongside...

Depends on the car in question. Some were PDQ in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile. With better tires of today they might even turm better times. But then again, the gas that these cars needed simply is unavailable for street use. Again still, if this is true, the manufactures were known to tweak the cars for magazine testing. All in all though, those cars had a lot of power and plenty of torque. Anyway, some of those cars could get down in the low to mid 13 second range, but in reality I think it would be save to say a 14 second car was darned good in that day. And I believe they were all "naturally aspirated" (no turbo/super chargers etc ...). Something worth mentioning and interesting would be the TQ curves for these older muscle cars.

Obviously, not every car was a muscle car but most had very large CID engines by today’s standards. Even though the specs of the day would say different I think there were more engines that produced 1 HP per CID than people realize. In that era some manufactures would give a "correct HP/TQ value but, what some of them did was to publish a "non-peak" reading to appease the insurance companies. The only way to know for sure is to have them dyno’ed.

As far as top end. I doubt many ... if any, would touch cars that are made today. Since there are no free lunches ... most of these cars had tall rear ends (numerically higher) ... usually 3.70:1 or higher with a 3 speed auto or 4 speed manual, without over drive. Great for coming out of the hole, but ya' run out of steam on the top end. A lot of these cars had CAMS with a lot of duration, valve overlap and lift and quite frankly needed the tall rear ends just to make them streetable. For example I have a 1970 Trans Am with a cam that has 308/320 duration, with a .527 lift. When driving around town I usually have to keep it in 2nd or 3rd gear because if I don't ... it will hardly run.

If by some chance you came across on that had a updated 5 or 6 speed transmission ... well that significantly levels the top end playing field or tips the scale to their side of the fence.

Also, by muscle cars I am referring to the mid 1960's to say... 1970 (GM) and 1971 Ford & Chrysler). Also, keep in mind that the HP/TQ numbers were different in those days so by today’s standards there numbers would read lower. I found this on the web IRT horsepower/torque readings of today as compared to yester-year:

Horsepower Ratings.

Todays standard:

"From the early '70s until today, this is the automobile manufacturer's standard for advertising Horsepower. This is a HP measurement taken on an engine dyno at the flywheel. The engine has a complete exhaust system; air cleaner assembly, all belt and electrical assemblies as it will be installed in the intended vehicle. The actual dyno figures are corrected to a specific standard for atmospheric conditions".

Yesterdays standard:

"In the 60?s and early '70s, this was the automobile manufacturer's standard for measuring advertised HP. This was a HP measurement taken on an engine dyno at the flywheel. There was no air cleaner assembly, exhaust system, and belt driven accessories installed. The actual dyno figures were corrected for atmospheric conditions, but the standards varied for this "correction".

Wheel Horsepower

"A HP measurement taken on a chassis dyno at the drive wheels. The actual dyno figures are corrected for atmospheric conditions. Due to drive train and wheel/roller friction losses, these HP figures will be approximately 10% to 15% less than net HP on a manual transmission vehicle and 15% to 20% less than net H. P. on an automatic transmission vehicle".

As I mentioned earlier IRT manufacturers playing with the numbers ... here is a good example:

INFLATED/DEFLATED HORSEPOWER RATINGS.

"Prior to the early '70s' the auto manufacturers were advertising gross HP, more or less. Some were deflating the actual HP so the buyer could afford insurance, or for race classification rules and some were inflating for market appeal. One example of this is that in 1969 Ford marketed a 428 C.J. rated at 335 HP; and Chevrolet marketed a 427 Tri-Power rated a 435 HP. They both put out approximately the same HP. Often we try to compare today's net HP, to "the good old days" creative gross HP. As you can see this is a very difficult task".

This information was obtained from the following web page:

John's Camaro page at: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Track/3120/

Jim White

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the few things I can actually remember are Tim Rogders doing 2nd gear wheelies with his brother's '67 Chevelle 396SS +. His brother was in Nam and would have killed Tim and his buddy Calvin for the things they did to that car. Like the time they rolled it a few hundred feet sideways and Calvin had "street rash" on the side of his face from holding on inside.

My friends '69 Falcon (was actually a Torino or something) with a Super CobraJet 429 was downright scary. No carpet, but did have a functional hood scoop, 2.5" dual exhausts, Hurst shifter (only 4) RPM limiter, .460 rear end etc. He had me "punish it", when it was bad... Went broke keeping it in tires.

All said, I agree w/Guru and Tijmtd (sorry, can't look back now for spelling) regarding funny hp numbers (considering insurance) but awesome straight line numbers with "high drama".

I'd still put the Big Red Dog ('94 DCS) against any of 'em in a no-holds run across town at 3am. Of course in those kind of situations, even my humble '62 Nova won - if lawns, curbs and sanity were no impediments - to the truely committed.

Whoa, hold back the Margaritas - went all the way back to the early '70's that time...

Thanks for the trip

Add power to leave problems behind. Most braking is just - poor planning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...