: northstar in a camaro!



eyekandyboats.inc
12-04-09, 09:11 AM
link to the page
http://www.hpsalvage.com/projects.htm
images
http://www.hpsalvage.com/NStar.jpg
http://www.hpsalvage.com/engine_bay.jpg
http://www.hpsalvage.com/NStarCamaro.jpg

spin
12-04-09, 11:04 AM
Cool project!, but I wonder why?

Also, It looks like you would still have to pull the motor to do headgaskets, take a valve cover off, or replace the water pump. Nothing makes these motors easy to work on.

Submariner409
12-04-09, 02:20 PM
With that much time and trouble, why in the world would anyone put a little 280 c.i. engine in the Camaro when it would be quicker, cheaper, more powerful, and easier to drop in a built 350 ++++ or any larger variant package ?? Compared to more conventional pushrod engines, the aftermarket support for Northstar is zilch, custom, and expensive.

A RWD setup loves torque, and the Northstar will never have any. It's a tiny engine by today's RWD crate and built standards. It's not much bigger than a late 50's Chevy 262, and that engine, as a 327, can make power and torque which a Northstar will never come close to. (Even with the CHRFAB RWD conversions.)

Heck, you could even go with a new helix supercharger on a 350 and not need a new Camaro hood...............

97EldoCoupe
12-04-09, 09:24 PM
A 32 valve quad cam Camaro? I'm very much on the fence about a conversion like this. I absolutely love Northstars. But Olds is Torque. The best of both worlds? The experimental 32 valve Olds 455 between those fenderwells. Now that would be one hell of an engine.

I really like Chevy engines. I love the Northstar design. But Oldsmobile V8's will always have my full respect. My dad had a Delta 88 with a 307. Not the most powerful engine out there, but nothing was ever done to that engine. Not so much as a valve cover gasket. Basic tune-up stuff and a carb rebuild after 10 years was all that thing needed to last about 13-14 years. The engine outlived the car and was eventually sold for $100, still ran like a clock.

cadillac_al
12-05-09, 08:43 AM
The LS1 in the Camaro must have been too powerful for him.

Submariner409
12-05-09, 10:36 AM
Jake, Weren't there only 5 32-valve 455's built ? Must have been one hell of an engine back in '73. Rare bird..........

Olds 455's are fun to build, bulletproof, incredible power and torque, and there's still a staggering amount of everything from stock to wild parts available BUT, especially with iron heads, they're extremely heavy. With Edelbrock aluminum heads and a bit of cam work you can build a 600+ hp street engine that runs on pump gas through a Quadrajet, and it does it all at less than 5,500 rpm.

BTW, there's a long technical article on what, how, and why with several types of superchargers (not turbochargers) in the December or January CAR CRAFT.

Destroyer
12-05-09, 10:56 PM
A 32 valve quad cam Camaro? I'm very much on the fence about a conversion like this. I absolutely love Northstars. But Olds is Torque. The best of both worlds? The experimental 32 valve Olds 455 between those fenderwells. Now that would be one hell of an engine.

I really like Chevy engines. I love the Northstar design. But Oldsmobile V8's will always have my full respect. My dad had a Delta 88 with a 307. Not the most powerful engine out there, but nothing was ever done to that engine. Not so much as a valve cover gasket. Basic tune-up stuff and a carb rebuild after 10 years was all that thing needed to last about 13-14 years. The engine outlived the car and was eventually sold for $100, still ran like a clock.I ever show you my Oldsmobile's Jake? Just a few, past and present:

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z251/AstrocreepVIII/PB210201.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z251/AstrocreepVIII/PB210204.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z251/AstrocreepVIII/Carrsidefront.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z251/AstrocreepVIII/misc/67passengerside.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z251/AstrocreepVIII/misc/67and66res.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z251/AstrocreepVIII/misc/66and672.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z251/AstrocreepVIII/misc/84Olds2sideandback.jpg

Submariner409
12-06-09, 10:03 AM
The picture of the Cutlass with the top up............those wheels look like the stamped steel chrome/black Buick wheels from the mid 60's. I had a set on my '65 Malibu SS 327/350. 7.75x14 Firestone Wide Ovals, IIRC.

97EldoCoupe
12-06-09, 08:30 PM
Sub- I have no idea how many of thoes 32 valve 455's were built. All I know is I want one!!!!

Destroyer.....those Oldsmobiles are absolutely gorgeous. I'm still sorry you had such bad luck with your Deville, I wish you could have been as proud of that car as you are the rest of your fleet. I'm serious when I say: If you ever find a real cheap Caddy, even with your hatred toward the Northstars, let me do some work to it. It won't let you down again.

Sorry to get your thread off topic here EyeKandy....

Sub- if money was endless and engineering resources were easily available- you and I would have to design and build an engine for a modern car, or even resto-mods. To save weight, an all aluminum version of the 455 Olds block with iron cylinder liners. Of course, 455 cubic inches. 32 valves and four cams. Roller followers. Variable valve timing. Direct injection. Coil on plug ignition. Maybe dual four barrels? LOL the possibilities are endless.

I have a hard time somtimes choosing between the proven methods of yesterday (with no electronics to fail) and the modern technology that makes everything work so smoothly.

97EldoCoupe
12-06-09, 08:44 PM
Whoops- Oldsmobile did it again. It was all aluminum. Why on earth was that engine never mass produced? Why? Why? The OW-43. 700 horsepower and 8500 RPMs was the redline.

Destroyer
12-06-09, 11:25 PM
The picture of the Cutlass with the top up............those wheels look like the stamped steel chrome/black Buick wheels from the mid 60's. I had a set on my '65 Malibu SS 327/350. 7.75x14 Firestone Wide Ovals, IIRC.
I got the car with those but decided to put some 18's on it instead. I think those wheels were used by every GM division sans Cadillac with different center caps.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-06-09, 11:53 PM
Ugh, a Northstar powered Z-28 Camaro. :bigroll: Like the LT-1 wasn't hard enough to work on in it. :lol:

I appreciate the hard work, ingenuity and thought that went into it, but man that would be one PITA to do any work on.

ga_etc
12-07-09, 12:55 AM
If you click that link you can see that the car was originally a V6, which is what I suspected. I love the N* and can see the allure of stuffing it between the fenders of a Camaro, but like Chad said OMG what a PITA to work on. If I was going to do all of that to the car, it would have to be a straight shift.

ewill3rd
12-07-09, 05:25 AM
I saw those pictures somewhere else and I got lambasted for saying the exact thing most of you said.
While I agree the work is impressive, this person must be a masochist.

Destroyer
12-08-09, 07:50 AM
Destroyer.....those Oldsmobiles are absolutely gorgeous. I'm still sorry you had such bad luck with your Deville, I wish you could have been as proud of that car as you are the rest of your fleet. I'm serious when I say: If you ever find a real cheap Caddy, even with your hatred toward the Northstars, let me do some work to it. It won't let you down again.

Thanks Jake. The Deville, even if reliable would have been nothing more than a DD, albeit a nice one. Classic cars are a different ball game for me and Oldsmobiles are amongst my favorites.

Papi_MaC
12-12-09, 05:04 PM
:gah: why?!

Reminiscent of the Mosler TwinStar project.
Mosler Engineering's Twinstar V16 Eldorado (http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1269501.html)

32vmonte
12-13-09, 12:48 AM
As for the person who said you would have to pull the motor to change the water pump if you look they did a remote setup possibly or something. The water xover is not back there.

95caddykid
12-17-09, 03:08 AM
i think this would be a camaro that i would actually be interested to look at. to me seeing one camaro is basically seeing all other camaro's.

im all for american muscle and such but the reason i got myself a kick ass northstar deville is to wipe the streets with kids in camaro's

Aron9000
12-17-09, 05:34 AM
i think this would be a camaro that i would actually be interested to look at. to me seeing one camaro is basically seeing all other camaro's.

im all for american muscle and such but the reason i got myself a kick ass northstar deville is to wipe the streets with kids in camaro's

How about you STFU and know what you are talking about first . . . .

Seriously, any 4th gen V8 Camaro, LT1 or LS1 would wax your ass in a Northstar powered Cadillac. Hell a 350 or 305 TPI "IROC" Camaro would decimate you from a dead stop. You MIGHT catch them above 80mph since they have no top end, but they'd have a pretty good lead that you'd have to close the door on.

Sorry, a mid 15 second quarter mile et is not fast in this day and age. A base 96-2002 3.8 V6 Camaro was no slouch, it ran a similar 1/4 mile et to your Northstar Cadillac, but your Cadillac does pull like a train above 60mph that might give it the ultimate advantage against a V6 Camaro.

Even the new 2010 V6 Camaro would put the hurt on your Cadillac.

eyekandyboats.inc
12-17-09, 07:28 AM
actualy for being a over weight car and about 25 less Cubic inches i can clean the clocks of a 305 camaro.
two of my buddies have 305 camaros and i got to tell ya they aint nothing special.
and one is in really good condition. like showroom floor condition.

But on the other hand i totally agree with you Aron... any LT1or LS1 would EAT our cars up!. 350 maybe. The only 350 experience i have had was in a truck.. and that was pretty pathetic. but in a camaro thats a lot lighter well.. probably!

95 caddy kid.
you have to remeber our cadillac platform was built in 1993 its is a very old design that is still better designed than most cars today. i mean 300 hp out of a 281 cubic inch engine.. thats over 1 hp per cubic inch... in 1993

ryannel2003
12-17-09, 06:29 PM
Yeah a V8 powered Camaro would pretty much rape any Northstar powered Seville and Deville (excluding the S/C variants). My buddy had a '95 LT1 Camaro Z28 and I didn't even have to drive the thing to realize that it would completely put a hurting on my car. Two different classes of cars that cater to two different kind of buyers... if I wanted a cheap, fast car a 4th Gen F-body would be my first choice. But since I'm driving a Cadillac it's really not all about the speed, it's about having a luxury car with the ability to be pretty quick for a 4000lb car. Now a CTS-V can provide you with both, but that's in a completely different league.

ga_etc
12-18-09, 12:22 AM
95 caddy kid.
you have to remeber our cadillac platform was built in 1993 its is a very old design that is still better designed than most cars today. i mean 300 hp out of a 281 cubic inch engine.. thats over 1 hp per cubic inch... in 1993

Not to nit pick, but the '95 Concourse was 275hp. Which is still no slouch.

I actually traded in my 1998 Camaro with 3.8 and auto for my '99 ETC. The ETC will eat up that 3800 without trying hard. But, as said, they are two TOTALLY different types of cars. The Camaro handled better and was more fun in the curves, but it also didn't have anywhere near the comfort and conveniences that the Caddy does. I can be on the interstate in the Caddy doing 75 mph with my phone on speaker and whoever I'm talking to can't tell I'm even in the car. You could never pull that off in an older Camaro.

I know the NorthStar powered cars aren't remarkably fast or heart-stopping thrill machines, but they excel at what they were built to be.

Aron9000
12-18-09, 01:15 AM
I know the NorthStar powered cars aren't remarkably fast or heart-stopping thrill machines, but they excel at what they were built to be.

I agree, they are great cruisers and have enough power to make things "interesting".

Papi_MaC
12-18-09, 07:34 AM
It should tell you something in that the GM Performance Division didn't exist until 2001. These 1993-2002 N* powered cars are quick on their feet, but weren't made or marketed as being drag-worthy against true performance cars. Love your N* Cadillac because its far more luxurious than the muscle cars that can leave your Cadillac trailing in the dust. If that's too hard to swallow, get a V-Series.

Cadillac:
Ca·dil·lac (kad′'l ak′)
noun
Informal/ Something that is the most luxurious or highest quality of its kind.

ga_etc
12-18-09, 02:54 PM
The only reason a North* car isn't "drag-worthy" is because they are so heavy. Look at the videos on youtube of N* powered Pontiac Fieros.

Papi_MaC
12-19-09, 07:45 AM
The only reason a North* car isn't "drag-worthy" is because they are so heavy. Look at the videos on youtube of N* powered Pontiac Fieros.

Fiero: 2,590 lbs - 2,790 lbs
4th Gen Camaro: 3,521 lbs


8th Gen Eldorado: 3,843 lbs
9th Gen Deville: 3,959 lbs
10th Gen Deville: 3,800 lbs
11th Gen Seville: 3,689 lbs
12th Gen Seville: 3,972 lbs

Papi_MaC
12-19-09, 10:32 AM
More specifically:

Model------------Weight--Year-Model----------Engine/HP/0-60/.25mi

Fiero: 2,590 lbs - 2,790 lbs
--------------------------1988 Pontiac Fiero GT/L44/140/8.7/16.4
4th Gen Camaro: 3,521 lbs
--------------------------1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS/LS1/350/5.2/13.6

8th Gen Eldorado: 3,843 lbs
--------------------------1995 Cadillac ETC/L37/300/6.6/14.8
9th Gen Deville: 3,959 lbs
--------------------------1998 Cadillac DeVille Concours/L37/300/6.9/15.1
11th Gen Seville: 3,689 lbs
--------------------------1996 Cadillac STS/L37/300/6.4/14.7
12th Gen Seville: 3,972 lbs
--------------------------2001 Cadillac Seville STS/L37/300/6.5/14.8

97EldoCoupe
12-19-09, 02:18 PM
actualy for being a over weight car and about 25 less Cubic inches i can clean the clocks of a 305 camaro.
two of my buddies have 305 camaros and i got to tell ya they aint nothing special.
and one is in really good condition. like showroom floor condition.

But on the other hand i totally agree with you Aron... any LT1or LS1 would EAT our cars up!. 350 maybe. The only 350 experience i have had was in a truck.. and that was pretty pathetic. but in a camaro thats a lot lighter well.. probably!

95 caddy kid.
you have to remeber our cadillac platform was built in 1993 its is a very old design that is still better designed than most cars today. i mean 300 hp out of a 281 cubic inch engine.. thats over 1 hp per cubic inch... in 1993


Actually Taylor these are 279 c.i. engines. I've seen 281 before as well but that is incorrect.

305s? Absolutely right. I've owned a few reasonbly fast 305's but they could never compare to the Northstar in stock form. 350's aren't as fast as everyone wants everyone else to believe. Even the Vortec's aren't super special. The LT1's and LS1's really move. They should have put those in the trucks..... The LS1 was 346 c.i. and the LT1 was actually a real 350 with reverse flow heads, centerbolt valve covers, multi-port injection and a forward facing 2 barrel throttle body. The distributor was, if I'm correct, on the front of the engine by the water pump. Very unusual setup. I bought an ex-NYC police cruiser with an LT1 with the intenions of throwing that setup in my '89 Sierra truck. The LT1 was probably the best designed 350, ever.

97EldoCoupe
12-19-09, 02:34 PM
How about you STFU and know what you are talking about first . . . .

Seriously, any 4th gen V8 Camaro, LT1 or LS1 would wax your ass in a Northstar powered Cadillac. Hell a 350 or 305 TPI "IROC" Camaro would decimate you from a dead stop. You MIGHT catch them above 80mph since they have no top end, but they'd have a pretty good lead that you'd have to close the door on.

Sorry, a mid 15 second quarter mile et is not fast in this day and age. A base 96-2002 3.8 V6 Camaro was no slouch, it ran a similar 1/4 mile et to your Northstar Cadillac, but your Cadillac does pull like a train above 60mph that might give it the ultimate advantage against a V6 Camaro.

Even the new 2010 V6 Camaro would put the hurt on your Cadillac.

High 14's with some of our stock Northstar cars.

As EyeKandyBoats said: Our VIN 9 Northstar Caddys (STS, DTS, ETC) would clean the clocks of any stock 305 camaro and most of the older 350's. The LT1's and LS1's are fast but the Northstar can be made to keep up. You've got the cubes, we've got the extra set of valves.

Watch me this spring pull E.T.'s in the mid 13s.... with a 4000 lb. STS. Just for this quote I'll have to locate someone with a bone stock LS1 F-body and wax his ass with a '98 STS :D (lol all in fun!)

Taylor when I get the grind figured out for the 00+ Northstars we've gotta throw a set of cams in your DTS....

I was determined to soup my Caddy up when a 300C (Hemi) passed me. We were close but he still had the edge. Not anymore.. :cool:

Papi_MaC
12-19-09, 03:01 PM
How about you STFU and know what you are talking about first . . . .

A base 96-2002 3.8 V6 Camaro was no slouch, it ran a similar 1/4 mile et to your Northstar Cadillac

1995 Chevrolet Camaro/3800/205/7.4/15.7
1995 Cadillac ETC/L37/300/6.6/14.8

If I was almost a full second ahead of you it sure wouldn't feel like it was so similar.

97EldoCoupe
12-19-09, 05:05 PM
Yeah 95 HP over the V6 camaro should more than make up for the weight difference. Power-weight ratio, gearing, and traction is really what it's all about.

I had a V6 Olds LSS. 205 HP 3800 Series II V6. 3.06:1 final drive. 0-60 in about 8.5 sec. Not bad for the car, I was content with it. This is the same engine (minus the transverse to longitudinal difference). It would never compare to the Caddy. Now that same V6 with a stick shift, well that's another story.

Papi-Mac - do you have a performance tune on the 'Lade? There's an '03 Sierra with a 5.3 in my driveway that I've been considering buying a tuner for. Just wondering if anyone has done this to a 5.3 and what the gains were..

ga_etc
12-20-09, 01:49 AM
Fiero: 2,590 lbs - 2,790 lbs
4th Gen Camaro: 3,521 lbs


8th Gen Eldorado: 3,843 lbs
9th Gen Deville: 3,959 lbs
10th Gen Deville: 3,800 lbs
11th Gen Seville: 3,689 lbs
12th Gen Seville: 3,972 lbs

What exactly are you trying to prove with those two posts?

Destroyer
12-20-09, 09:41 AM
Actually Taylor these are 279 c.i. engines. I've seen 281 before as well but that is incorrect. That would be the Ford 4.6 as they are 281 cubic inches.


The LT1's and LS1's really move. They should have put those in the trucks..... The LS1 was 346 c.i. and the LT1 was actually a real 350 with reverse flow heads, centerbolt valve covers, multi-port injection and a forward facing 2 barrel throttle body. The distributor was, if I'm correct, on the front of the engine by the water pump. Very unusual setup. I bought an ex-NYC police cruiser with an LT1 with the intenions of throwing that setup in my '89 Sierra truck. The LT1 was probably the best designed 350, ever. All Cadillacs should have been RWD with an LT1 or LS1.

eyekandyboats.inc
12-20-09, 10:16 AM
279 eh, I knew it was one of the two 50/50 shot LOL.
One thing that comes to mind when I am thinking of displacement is in the marine field I learned that our engines are rated for the block cubic inches... so if your heads were perfectly FLAT and there was no hemi/ concave design that is your "sticker: cubic inch.. SO really if the heads of a car have a concave design there is actually more cubic inches then what is on the sticker... see what i am saying.
Now the piston can only travel so far so that is where they got the 279... The piston takes up 34.875 CI from BDC to TDC leaving a bit of space at the top.
Well shave those heads down and you will now be throwing out higher compression because the compressed space at the top end has less room to well... compress.
In our northstar, how much room is there? I mean with 4 valves moving there is ALOT of stuff going on in that cyl! So maybe it wouldn’t even be worth it from a destruction stand point! LOL.


Another then when you are comparing these cars with... other cars LOL is the torque curve and h/p curve.
Well comparing it to a Pontiac grand prix. The hi end model NON s/c I find that (buddy has one) it runs out of steam in the hi revs... its got a lot of pep ( more then our cars ) down at around 1-2500 rpm ( could be just how the trans is built) but after that it feels like it stops pulling.
Well I think one of the comments I get on my car is mostly how after 3K it pulls harder. And harder and harder right until it revs up to 6500 and occasionally I have seen it bounce off of 7K.
where other cars acel other cars fail.
Driving my car and then driving others feels different, not only because our cars have RSS and magnetic steering which makes them more beautiful to drive. But our cars aren’t jerky through the low end. It is suttle... inorder to get alot of juice flowing you need to rape that gas peddle, mean while sit in a 3800 car and tap the gas briskly and it will jerk you around.
What I am trying to say is. Every car has its weakness and strengths. The designers obviously were smoking something good when they made our engine. Being the PITA it is to work on but the wonderfull piece of art it can be when it’s working.

97EldoCoupe
12-20-09, 10:22 AM
Yeah the Ford is the 281 but I've even seen 281 stamped on head gasket packages for the Northstar (go figure, they don't know what they're making a gasket for). I've seen Cadillac refer to the 4.9 as a 300 c.i. V8 but when I did the bore vs. stroke math calculation I didn't come up with 300 c.i. I forget what it was but something in the 1991 owners manual didn't add up- it was either the bore size they messed up with or the 300 c.i. calculation.

Destroyer, as much as I should argue with you because I like the Northstars so much, I simply can't. But LS1s are made with aluminum blocks too, don't forget. For some reason they don't have the wonderful bolt/HG problem as much as the Northstar. Maybe the closed deck and the different thread pitch.

A 346 c.i. LS1 pushing 375 HP and 400 ft. lbs. of torque to the rear wheels through an LSD with 3.73:1 final gears, in a car like the Eldo or the STS, or even the Deville, would have been the ultimate Caddy. It wouldn't take much to get the LS1 to those performance levels.

The Northstar would be fine if it was RWD. Glad the newer ones finally are :D

97EldoCoupe
12-20-09, 10:27 AM
I still, and always will, stand behind the Northstar. Not much goes wrong with these engines other than head bolts and gaskets. The odd time, a chain tensioner, or a camshaft/lifter after 10 years of operation. Minor stuff.

97EldoCoupe
12-20-09, 10:34 AM
Taylor - totally correct. These engines breath with the higher RPMs like CRAZY. I can hit 100 MPH in no time. 110. 120. 130.

I intend to pull that off this spring - run a mid 13 second 1/4 with a 4000 lb. STS. Mind you it will be modified, but at least it will prove the potential in those 279 inches is all there- even in the heavy cars we drive. Taylor you have to come to the strip in the spring when I run the car again. Heck, run your Caddy too - it's a lot of fun.

My question is, with the cams I'm running now, will I need the intake/exhaust opened up at all or will it still flow enough without restriction? GM made it adequate for stock performance levels, I know this...

eyekandyboats.inc
12-20-09, 10:45 AM
i think what has to be done is to get that damn exhaust system figured out. An engine is only a air pump. if you have a restirction ( front bank exhaust manifold crossover) then that is whats holding the car back. i am sure there is enough room to manufacture a set of headers to run not under but over top and down. there is SOME room so if you could fabricate a set that run up and over well why not. pull out that AC system and i am sure you can fab up something to run down the right side of the car! LOL.

Submariner409
12-20-09, 11:03 AM
Cubic inch or liter displacement in an automotive engine is rated by the total swept volume of the cylinders: head combustion chamber volume does not enter the equation = that determines CR.

Because the Northstar combustion chamber is a pent-roof (semi-hemi) design, there's precious little to be done with reshaping the chamber - that was already done when the 4-valve system was designed in.

If you plan to take a cut on the heads, you need to do some valve clearance checking with modeling clay in order to keep enough clearance so the valves don't hit the piston tops at high rpm - one weak valve spring and a valve will float with disastrous consequences. The FWD Northstar pistons are already flycut for valve interference, so I would assume there's not a lot to work with as far as compression goes. These things are around 10:1 already.......you might be able to fudge compression a bit with a thinner (compressed) head gasket.

For more power above 5,000 rpm (high exhaust gas flow conditions), manifold/pipe work is necessary.

Papi_MaC
12-21-09, 09:10 AM
Papi-Mac - do you have a performance tune on the 'Lade?
I considered it but never got around to it. The only "performance" modification I've made to the Escalade was a Gen II K&N 57 series; which I did more for the sound than the HP gain. They make a lot more performance mods for the 6.0 that the 5.3 which is probably the only thing I didn't take into consideration before buying it.


What exactly are you trying to prove with those two posts?

Model------------Weight--Year-Model----------Engine/HP/0-60/.25mi

Fiero: 2,590 lbs - 2,790 lbs
--------------------------1988 Pontiac Fiero GT/L44/140/8.7/16.4
4th Gen Camaro: 3,521 lbs
--------------------------1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS/LS1/350/5.2/13.6
11th Gen Seville: 3,689 lbs
--------------------------1996 Cadillac STS/L37/300/6.4/14.7


The only reason a North* car isn't "drag-worthy" is because they are so heavy. Look at the videos on youtube of N* powered Pontiac Fieros.

Of course a N* powered Fiero would fly, it weighs half a ton less than anything built with a N* engine as well as more than doubling its original power. But, to say the only reason these cars aren't "drag-worthy" is weight, are you suggesting that a 168lb weight difference makes for over 1 second difference from a factory performance car? Or is it that the more powerful LS1 made all the difference in what is "drag-worthy" or not. These cars are not that heavy compared to "drag-worthy" cars with more powerful engines, they simply weren't made to BE drag-worthy. If you still don't understand the posts in comparison, you're SOL.

ga_etc
12-22-09, 02:25 AM
My point is that a Cadillac, powered by the N*, is too heavy as it comes from the factory. You made it sound like you are saying that the N* itself is the weak link.

Papi_MaC
12-22-09, 06:25 AM
If they intended these cars to be drag-worthy they would have dropped an engine with a power-to-weight ratio comparable to that of production performance cars. 90's Northstars are sophisticated engines for sophisticated cars built for those who want a comfy ride with a little pep in its step, not to dominate the track. An LT5 or LS1 in RWD configuration would have made more sense if their focus was power over luxury, which it wasn't. They were built in competition with the likes of Mercedes and BMW, which the Northstar-equipped Cadillacs dominated over for the most part.

tateos
12-22-09, 09:35 PM
279 eh, I knew it was one of the two 50/50 shot LOL.
One thing that comes to mind when I am thinking of displacement is in the marine field I learned that our engines are rated for the block cubic inches... so if your heads were perfectly FLAT and there was no hemi/ concave design that is your "sticker: cubic inch.. SO really if the heads of a car have a concave design there is actually more cubic inches then what is on the sticker... see what i am saying.
Now the piston can only travel so far so that is where they got the 279... The piston takes up 34.875 CI from BDC to TDC leaving a bit of space at the top.
Well shave those heads down and you will now be throwing out higher compression because the compressed space at the top end has less room to well... compress.
In our northstar, how much room is there? I mean with 4 valves moving there is ALOT of stuff going on in that cyl! So maybe it wouldn’t even be worth it from a destruction stand point! LOL.


Another then when you are comparing these cars with... other cars LOL is the torque curve and h/p curve.
Well comparing it to a Pontiac grand prix. The hi end model NON s/c I find that (buddy has one) it runs out of steam in the hi revs... its got a lot of pep ( more then our cars ) down at around 1-2500 rpm ( could be just how the trans is built) but after that it feels like it stops pulling.
Well I think one of the comments I get on my car is mostly how after 3K it pulls harder. And harder and harder right until it revs up to 6500 and occasionally I have seen it bounce off of 7K.
where other cars acel other cars fail.
Driving my car and then driving others feels different, not only because our cars have RSS and magnetic steering which makes them more beautiful to drive. But our cars aren’t jerky through the low end. It is suttle... inorder to get alot of juice flowing you need to rape that gas peddle, mean while sit in a 3800 car and tap the gas briskly and it will jerk you around.
What I am trying to say is. Every car has its weakness and strengths. The designers obviously were smoking something good when they made our engine. Being the PITA it is to work on but the wonderfull piece of art it can be when it’s working.

My wife has a 2004 GP GTP (so with the SC 3.8 and performance axle ratio). It has about the same mid 6s 0-60 and 15 second 1/4 mile as my '97 ETC, but the feel is very different. The GP is very quick off the line (too torquey almost - hard to get traction) but the engine does run out of steam even before red line; it feels just like an old school GM V-8 of the 60s, as I remember them. We all know how the N* feels, so I won't go into that. Both engines are good, but overall, the N* feels and sounds better and much more refined.

My 2000 DTS is very nice, but not quite as peppy - definitely 1/2 notch slower - can't really figure out why, unless it's the regular gas I run in it, and that's what it calls for...??? Oh, and it gets around 10% worse mileage too. Going to and from work, my ETC this time of year is getting 22+ MPG - the DTC 20+ - in the summer, they're both 2-3 MPG better

eyekandyboats.inc
12-23-09, 02:30 AM
it must be a hit or miss on these cars.
my friends mother just got a 98 sts and it had shit load of codes and SES lights such up on it. so she asked me to look at it and see what i thought.
her car is SLOW. slower then my eldo and my DTS.
its strange. Jake's 98 sts is crazy fast. its werid

ga_etc
12-23-09, 05:22 AM
The performance quality of these motors appears to be very directly related to maintenance. More so than the average GM or Honda engine.

ga_etc
12-23-09, 05:23 AM
If they intended these cars to be drag-worthy they would have dropped an engine with a power-to-weight ratio comparable to that of production performance cars. 90's Northstars are sophisticated engines for sophisticated cars built for those who want a comfy ride with a little pep in its step, not to dominate the track. An LT5 or LS1 in RWD configuration would have made more sense if their focus was power over luxury, which it wasn't. They were built in competition with the likes of Mercedes and BMW, which the Northstar-equipped Cadillacs dominated over for the most part.

I agree totally with that.

NHRATA01
01-08-10, 11:12 PM
High 14's with some of our stock Northstar cars.

As EyeKandyBoats said: Our VIN 9 Northstar Caddys (STS, DTS, ETC) would clean the clocks of any stock 305 camaro and most of the older 350's. The LT1's and LS1's are fast but the Northstar can be made to keep up. You've got the cubes, we've got the extra set of valves.

Watch me this spring pull E.T.'s in the mid 13s.... with a 4000 lb. STS. Just for this quote I'll have to locate someone with a bone stock LS1 F-body and wax his ass with a '98 STS :D (lol all in fun!)

Taylor when I get the grind figured out for the 00+ Northstars we've gotta throw a set of cams in your DTS....


Mid 13s isn't going to was a bone stock LS1 Fbody, considering I went 13.3@108 bone stock.

And high 14s is even a bit slower than an 80s L98 TPI 350 car, which were good for mid-low 14s. LT1s were right around 14 flat. 305 5-speed TPI cars could also crack 14s easily.

The Northstar is a nice motor and works well for these cars, but other than giving up a minor bit of NVH, the LS1 (which itself has been out of production for 5 years) is better in virtually every facet. Power, durability, fuel consumption, manufacturing cost, ease of repair, mod-ability, physical size and even weight.

About the worst problem LS1s are known for is piston slap during cold start, which is a nuisance, not a detriment. That's a far cry from common head sealing issues that are a result of threads pulling from the block.

NHRATA01
01-08-10, 11:20 PM
Actually Taylor these are 279 c.i. engines. I've seen 281 before as well but that is incorrect.

305s? Absolutely right. I've owned a few reasonbly fast 305's but they could never compare to the Northstar in stock form. 350's aren't as fast as everyone wants everyone else to believe. Even the Vortec's aren't super special. The LT1's and LS1's really move. They should have put those in the trucks..... The LS1 was 346 c.i. and the LT1 was actually a real 350 with reverse flow heads, centerbolt valve covers, multi-port injection and a forward facing 2 barrel throttle body. The distributor was, if I'm correct, on the front of the engine by the water pump. Very unusual setup. I bought an ex-NYC police cruiser with an LT1 with the intenions of throwing that setup in my '89 Sierra truck. The LT1 was probably the best designed 350, ever.

Nah, the orginal LT-1 of the '70s was far better. The LT1 was a motor of compromises. The design team needed 300hp for the Vette to stay on top of the performance world in the early 90s. They knew the Gen 3 (LS1) wouldn't be ready in time. So they used the reverse flow setup to run a bit higher compression by cooling the heads first. Problem is it is extremely susceptible to localized boiling in the heads if there's any air in the cooling system. And the opti-spark was a disaster, placing the ignition equipment lower in the chassis so it gets splashed more often, along with behind a water pump that leaked on it, was just a poor design. A lot of LT1 guys swap over to the Delteq coil packs now.

The major problem with the LT1 is it's just different enough from a traditional SBC such that you can't use most SBC parts like heads or cam, and the LT1 aftermarket is puny these days.