History, well Its not an ex cop car. It was used in the Secret Service Dept. In Arlington TX. Then my dads company bought it. Its in showroom condition, and the engine is so clean you can eat off of it. Ive had the car Since January, and bought it for a six pack of beer. It has been very very well maintained, and has only the go fast goodie, no frills. The only thing it lacks is the G80. From what I have seen the engine doesnt apear to have been opened. The covers look stock and I see no gasket maker.

When I got the exhuast done, they removed all the smog crap, but i doubt that would make a difference that large.

Being that its a Texas car who knows there crazy in Texas maybe the cam has been swapped it doesnt sound like it. I havent looked at all the casting numbers. My thought was that its a factory freak.

 

ka-ching!It's not uncommon for the Secret Service to have their cars modified by reputable firms to have enhanced performance... and they don't publicize this much. And btw I saw your post on the NAISSO forum so I saw that it was a TX car.

Ok, did you add the exhaust mods yourself? If not, then I'll wager that the people that did the exhaust also did the cam, and possibly cleaned up the heads too. And all of that would explain where the extra performance cam from.

Ahh, you had the exhaust done. Ok well we still don't know about the cam/heads.

Not with that kind of performance --- like I said, 16.0 is reasonable for a only modded exhaust on a Bcar with LO5, but 15.1 is not. Have you decoded the full SPID

 

Hey Im gonna get on AIM Godspeed325. IM me so we can figure this out.

I have decoded all of the SPID and I have a few goodies but nothing that would cause almost a full second of time. No mention of cams, or heads. It's just things like external oil, and tanny coolers. Its got bench seats, oversized alt, battery and radiator. The afore mentioned 1st gear lockout. 235/70R15's (nasty ones too). Someone said that it has a electric fan, but I really don't think so. They said that simply cause the electric schematic sticker on the fan shrowd, but you can plainly see its connected to the crank pully.

I don't know. Maybe the best times you've seen are from people who were bad drivers? Maybe our base level performance numbers are skewed. I havent found much info on the 90 and earlier 9C1's. I don't know but it would be nice to explain why I can run times like this, with such minor amounts of mods.

 

I used to use AIM -- but no longer. We can continued this on NAISSO rather than here since it's drifting far away from 3rdgens.

There wouldn't be anything that obvious.... it would be a code that's very unique (if it were from the factory). It's probably not modified at the factory though, and more likely that it's a shop that performs specialty mods. Do a search on the web for shops that do bullet-proofing on vehicles, and you'll find that they also do high-performance mods to handle, and more-than-handle the excess weight of Kevlar & thicker window glass.

A secret service car wouldn't be setup for that kind of protection (though a limo might), but it might have engine mods. Adding duals to your car probably reduced the quarter mile by a half second, so you probably had a mid 15s car there before the exhaust mod..... and that could easily be head porting, stock cam, and 1.6 rockers. It would be something simple so that it would be very reliable. Actually, the cam swap would be easier for a shop to perform than head porting (less time). Hummm, an aftermarket high stall converter would help too, but it would give you the 89+ mph trap speed that you're seeing.

It might be useful to test the stall speed on your converter, and verify (by the pns in the casting) that you do have a stock intake manifold.

See http://www.capricess.com and look for the 9C1 brochures. I think 1989 and 1990 are both in there.



Nope, trust me when I say - that ain't it. And a bad driver in a good car will still get a decent trap speed, and trap speed relates to engine peak power. 89+ mph in a brick Caprice means 250+ fw hp, no matter how good/bad the driver is.



I've been at this longer. Michigan State Police tests copcars annually (in the late Summer, early Fall). I have the data for all the TBI 9C1s, incl the LO3 and LO5 versions. When MSP tests, they do it with driver, passenger, full gas load... so all the tests are slower than what you'd get on a track, AND they run their acceleration tests twice in each direction -- then average the data to nullify any wind effects. It's very non-optimum to compare with solo run track data, but it is very useful to use with a acceleration sim tool (Quarter Jr, or Cartest) because you need only add weight to the car and then confirm the sim results with the test data for acceleration (0-30, 0-40, 0-50 etc up to 0-120 mph). Then remove the weight (in the simulation) to see what it would run on the track.

MSP testing of a 1994 LT1 9C1 had an average quarter mile of around 16.1 sec @ 88 mph (loaded, 4600+ lb weight) but on the track it runs 15.0 to 15.2 @ 90-91 mph (with only the driver, closer to 4200 lbs). The sim tools get the same answer.

So that's how I know what an 89-90 LO5 9C1 will run, and that's been confirmed with the handful of real timeslips posted to the 9C1 digest, plus my neighbor with his 89, or the NAISSO digest (as far back as 1996), and any of the more recent web-based forums. My neighbor's 89 now has an LT1 in it so it doesn't run 16s anymore...

It would be interesting to find out, yes. The only other suggestion I have is to run at a different track (to see if you still get low 15s) and that would confirm whether the track is legit. I recall someone in LA (the state, not the city) a few years ago that believed his high-mileage stock LO5 91 9C1 could run 9.6 in the 1/8th mile @ 65+ mph at one track, but only mid 16s in the quarter mile at a different track. I told him that the 1/8th mile track he was using was timed short (one second was missing from the timeslip, timer probably set at the 550' mark instead of 660') and not to believe the results. The quarter mile track numbers were accurate.

I'm not saying that you have the same problem, because your timeslip data is consistent, but a second track would confirm/deny this and it does happen. If it's too hard to get to another track, then compare timeslips with someone you know that has run at more than one track.

Let's take this elsewhere. I'll find you on NAISSO on the 91-93 forum.