Submitted by FranklinDRoosevelt32 t3_107j100 in todayilearned
Reply to comment by bettinafairchild in TIL that in 1947, U.S. House Minority Leader Sam Rayburn was gifted a 1947 Cadillac Fleetwood Series 62 from 142 Democratic congressmembers and 50 Republican congressmembers. Each congressmen donated $25 to circumvent Rayburns personal rule of not accepting gifts more than $25. by FranklinDRoosevelt32
>Adjusted for inflation, that car would be $66,465.71 today.
and this is a perfect example of why official inflation numbers are so fucked.
The Fleetwood, in its day, was the absolute top model luxury sedan from the absolute top brand luxury car manufacturer. You couldn't get any more car than that without buying something bespoke.
The second-top model sedan Cadillac currently sells is the Blackwing, which tops out at $117,000 if you select all the trim upgrades. Their most expensive car, the Celestiq, has its price listed as "By Inquiry Only". They literally will not tell you how much the car costs, because it's in the "if you care enough to ask, you can't afford it" range.
What's your point? Obviously you shouldn't compute inflation rates by just looking at top end products.
If you compare like to like from any given period, the result is very often a much steeper increase than the official number. Especially on vitals such as food, transportation, and housing.
lol, ask me what my point was, then downvote me when I spell it out for you. O.K.
> Especially on vitals such as food, transportation, and housing.
Food? Food is a much smaller portion of income today than it was in the 1930s. Even after recent inflation. Clothing is much cheaper, too. Housing and medical care have certainly gotten more expensive over the long-term (though they continue to get fancier, too), but not food.
Here is a 2014 article that references income spend on food. I can point you to a 1941 publication with estimates on percent on income spent by category for 1935-1936, too.
Bit of a false comparison. The Blackwing is not the top model luxury sedan. It's the top model luxury sedan with a top model powertrain and performance upgrade
The fleetwood was a luxury car, but it wasn't going toe to toe with NASCAR cars like the blackwing would compete against GTE cars.
https://www.conceptcarz.com/s18626/cadillac-series-60-special-fleetwood.aspx
>Weight : 4375 lbs | 1984.467 kg
>
>V 8 | L-Head
>
>Displacement : 5670 cc | 346.0 cu in. | 5.7 L.
>
>Power : 150 BHP (110.4 KW) @ 3600 RPM
>
>Torque : 274 Ft-Lbs (371 NM) @ 1600 RPM
For comparison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_125_S
>Curb weight 650 kg (1,433 lb) (dry)
>
>1.5 L (1497 cc/91 in³) 60° V12
>
>This engine produced 118 bhp (87 kW) at 6,800 rpm
The Fleetwood would not have beaten the Ferrari at the track due its weight, but it absolutely had a top model power train.
A V-12 that limits at 6,800 is the same as a V8 that limits at 3,600? Lets not even get into fit and finish on a Ferrari vs a Cadillac engine.
I bet you assume a GT2RS 996 and a Ford F-250 powerstroke have similar tier engines because they both put out ~475 horsepower? (lets ignore the fact that the engine on a 996 costs more than the entire truck)
A V8 that outputs 150 HP is in the same league as a V12 that outputs 118, yes.
Gotcha. Friendly advice, when you are this comically uneducated on a subject, don't try and argue it.
lawl. When you have no argument, attack the arguer. classic.
Fine:
No, a Ferrari hand finished performance engine is not the same as a mass produced american big block.
Literally my previous point: The Ford F-250 powerstroke has 475 horsepower. So does the 996. The 996 engine alone is worth more than the F-250. Horsepower alone is a horrible metric to compare engines, and doing so demonstrates a critical lack of understanding to participate in any conversation in an educated manner.
I am not sure about the current Blackwing, but at least the previous generations of the V literally used a variant of GMs top tier racing engine, the one they'd field at LeMans. This is simply not the case for the Fleetwood. It had a very typical engine for it's era.
Just because you aren't educated enough to understand my argument doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't argue calculus problems with a first grader.
>No, a Ferrari hand finished performance engine is not the same as a mass produced american big block.
You're right, it's a lot more expense and complexity for less power output.
This is it, right here. I am trying to talk calculus with a first grader. You simply lack the necessary base knowledge to actually have a conversation on the topic.
Enjoy taking your Toyotta Tundra out to drag race a Lamborghini and wondering why you lost.
>This is it, right here. I am trying to talk calculus with a first grader
keep attacking the arguer because you know you don't have an argument.
or is your argument really "ItS BetTeR BeCaUsE ItS hAnD bUiLt!"?
only things that matter in an engine are performance and reliability.
I'll go ahead and predict your response: "YoU cOulDn'T PoSsIbLy UnNeRsTaNt!!!"
> performance
Exactly. Performance isn't just Horsepower. Which is what you don't understand. That's literally the entire point.
Weight
RPM
Lag
Efficiency
Stability
All of these are important factors in engine performance. Many much more so than raw horsepower. ALL of these you neglected. ALL off these you seem to pretend deosn't exist.
​
A big, heavy, slow, inefficient low RPM engine (Like the Cadi has) is not a top tier engine, even if it has more horsepower than a top tier engine.
>That's literally the entire point.
Then you should try and make that point, instead of saying "YoU cOuLdNt UnTeRsTaNn, mAnN"
I mean, I brought up RPM right away. I also brought up the comparison of a 996 V power stroke engine.
Instead of just ignorantly sticking to your guns, you could have admitted you were wrong and asked a question. you were confidently incorrect, and it's taken like 6 comments deep to breach your ego.
>I mean, I brought up RPM right away
yeah, because more revs == more better? So, my CX500 has a better engine than the Ferrari, right? it goes all the up to 12,000
Exactly. Performance isn't just RPM. Which is what you don't understand. That's literally the entire point.
Weight
Horsepower
Lag
Efficiency
Stability
Displacement (forgot this one, oops)
​
But RPM is a massive component, or better yet, an indicator. Of course, comparing a bike engine to a car engine is sort of comparing apples to oranges, but that's pretty par for the course for this "discussion"
>But RPM is a massive component, or better yet, an indicator.
and this is the other item, aside from your attacking me instead of actually making and argument, which tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.
The function of an engine is to produce mechanical power in a rotating format. The power out the shaft is all that matters. We invented this thing called a "gearbox" which can be used to turn any combination of torque and RPM into any other combination, provided it adds up to the same power as seen by the input shaft (minus the losses in the geartrain).
Cars are do not drive their wheels directly from the crankshaft of the engine. Displacement is irrelevant. RPM of the engine is irrelevant. Torque of the engine is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how much power the engine can output. The gearbox takes care of the rest.
Have a pleasant life, I won't receive whatever reply you care to make.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments