Ever wonder if the 4.3L V8 in the 4,090 pound, 1996 Chevrolet Caprice Classic, is gutless or powerful? I tend to think it's era appropriate, but you be the judge.
9.5 seconds is pretty good. One must keep in mind that throughout the 1980s many mainstream cars were in the 12 second range for 0 to 60. When the Mustang GT with automatic transmission was doing it in 8 seconds that was considered fast! It wasn't until the 90s that some of the bigger cars started to dip below 10 seconds.
In Australia, the box standard Holden Commodore released in 1994 could do 0-60 in 8.5 seconds (automatic) and 7.6 seconds for the 5 speed manual. That was fitted with the Buick 3.8 V6. The entry level V8 could do it in 7.5 second. mind you, those cars weighed only about 1.4 -1.5 ton, but we're quite large vehicles for Australian standards.
@@detonater1348 You could get the caprice with the 4.3 L99, or the 5.7 LT1. Some people who didn't care about performance and wanted good gas mileage got the smaller one. Looks exactly like an Lt1 from the outside however. The caprices with the B4U and 9C1 Packages came with the LT1.
This may not be fast compared to cars today, but allow me to add some perspective. My father used to have an ‘82 Caprice back in the 80’s and I drove it many times back then. I’m pretty sure you would have to wait another 2-3 seconds to get to 60 in that heap, so a low 9 second run for a mid 90’s Caprice is a sure sign of progress between the 1980s and 1990s.
41 year old American here. My pet peave is burn outs and doughnuts. Yes lets blow up a rear axel and transmission going on circles. Yes let's show how I can make my tires smoke. Any one who knows anything looks at burnouts and spinning the tires from a launch just means time lost instead of forward acceleration. This dude in this video would have done a tad better had he not been spinning what was probably his rear right tire before launching. Should have reved up but not enough to break traction while holding the brakes. Oh well.
Is this the civillian spec of the old interceptors? (I'm from Holland and Dutch police stopped using GMC Sierra's and Chevy C10 (or similar) around the 90's (just as the 911's from highway police)
You need some better tires on that thing. And a Torsen. I used to have an LT1 9C1 with a Torsen and it was epic. The 9C1 suspension package combined with the LSD completely changes the ride and handling characteristics of the car. It turns into more BMW than barcalounger. I'd be inclined to keep that body, but get the 9C1 springs and Bilstein shocks as well as an LT1 bored to 383. It'll transform the car in a way that you wouldn't believe!
Good evening my friend. I had a 94 Chevy Caprice police package. It was an ex police car from the Department I work for. In fact it was my car. It was an awesome driving vehicle period had the highway Interceptor chip and I was told top-end with 140. Never took it there myself. But I have given it fast. I hope you had a good holiday sorry I didn't send you a Merry Christmas. Stay safe see you in the next video
I had for a cruiser a 1991 Caprice 91C that came with the 5.7. I always got the best acceleration by gently rolling on to the accelerator until it was to the floor. Just mashing it never seemed to work well. Either spun to much, or bogged down from the start.
Thats actually better than I thought it would be. Not going to win races but for the type of car it is I consider that to be adequate acceleration. Also, with that economy final drive ratio I am surprised it accelerated like it did. I wouldn't even put a higher ratio rear end in it as it is adequate the way it is.
i think if you lower the rear tire pressure it would grip more. I just wonder how comfy of a car that is, I remember riding car service as a kid and the driver either had a Box Chevy with a lifted rear or a Carpice wagon. The Caprice wagon was the best, back seat super comfy and soft like a couch :)
A 96 with the 263 V8 would have come with a 2.93 rear end. The optional 350 of that year came with the 2.56 like the 91-93 did with the 305 as standard.
4.3l ? My 95 fleetwood brougham got 5.7l LT1 and I thought the caprice came with it too. Even The L05 engine that came before the LT1 was 5.0l engine. I think u gave us a wrong info about the engine size but I might be wrong which I doubt. Never heard a gm 4.3L. did u put in a 1UZ FE 4.3 from a Lexus in it lol
@@mph5896 In the description of this video, he wrote “4.3L” as the engine in this 1996 Chevrolet Caprice, in 1996 there were two engine options, the 5.7L V8 and the 4.3L V6. He wrote 4.3L, so I assume he mistakenly wrote “V8”, but most should know that GM engines of that displacement are a V6. And, the 5.7L probably would have been faster in achieving 60 mph.
Umm…It’s a cruiser, not a racer. I’m sure it’ll last indefinitely if you drive it nice. Your Caprice is probably one of the nicest examples on most any road in America.
I don't think you're correct on the gear ratio. A most likey 3.23 with a 4l60e, maybe a 3.08. The mid 2.00 gears were used pre overdrive. That 3" stroke 4.3l wouldn't have enough low end torque to pull itself at 1,300rpm at 57mph and get horrible fuel mileage much less only 1,600rpm at 70mph.
...oh, Chris, Chris, Chris...you motorhead geeks... ...this '96 Caprice was profoundly NOT designed to win ANY 0-60mph competition...it WAS designed to convey you from point A to point B in spacious comfort and style...full stop...🤔😲⚠️😳😖
96 caprice with 4.3 engine has 2.93 rear gear not 2.57,they never came with 2.57,from 94-96 they had only 240 TORQUE and 200 HP,so 2.57 wouldn't move the car
These are pretty good times considering everything...4,000+ lbs, 200 hp only, from a 4.3L engine, not the greatest torque either, an old school 4-speed auto, long gears plus not built for fast shifting. To be honest, I think this thing *pulls*...🙂
