: V-6 Brougham?!



DopeStar 156
10-13-04, 12:42 PM
Apparently Cadillac offered a 4.1 liter Buick built V-6 in the 1982 Brougham?! How do you do that? Those things have problems moving with the 4.1 liter V-8! Wow do we have anyone here who has this optional V-6? I wanna hear how that thing performs.

HippieD9
10-13-04, 01:42 PM
Apparently Cadillac offered a 4.1 liter Buick built V-6 in the 1982 Brougham?! How do you do that? Those things have problems moving with the 4.1 liter V-8! Wow do we have anyone here who has this optional V-6? I wanna hear how that thing performs.

My parents had an 81 (I think) with the 4.1 6 cyl, and as I remember it was actually quicker than the HT4100.

Peace,
Darren

davesdeville
10-14-04, 05:00 AM
The 4.1 v6 actually made more torque than the 4100 and the same hp. Both were better than the diesel.

CadiJeff
10-14-04, 12:38 PM
I have driven both the ht4100 and 4.1v6 they perform about the same.

DopeStar 156
10-14-04, 01:29 PM
Wow. My Grandpa has an 84 Buick Regal with that very same 6 and I just can't imagine it powering my Fleetwood. Mine has the 307 though, I've never driven an HT Brougham.

barge master
10-14-04, 03:26 PM
Just push the parking brake 1/2 way down and hook a 3000 lb. trailer to your car Dope and you'll have a simulator.

DopeStar 156
10-14-04, 04:35 PM
Just push the parking brake 1/2 way down and hook a 3000 lb. trailer to your car Dope and you'll have a simulator. :histeric:

CadiJeff
10-16-04, 01:23 PM
bargemaster what is the major difference b/w driving your 80 vs driving 89

barge master
10-16-04, 08:12 PM
The 80 has the 368, the original Caddy block. The 89 has the 307 which is a raisin sack by comparison. The 80 is no shredder like a 472/500 car, but at least it can accelerate up a hill and has a little of the old Caddy torque. The 307 gets out of it's own way within reason if you mash it to the floor and open the secondaries, but if it's got a lot of weight in it, it's struggling. The 80 is gonna get a 472 or 500 in the spring. I've got one of each and it's time to decide which it's gonna be.

CadiJeff
10-17-04, 01:19 PM
put the 472 in your 89 and the 500 in your 80 and give the 368 to me :lildevil: LOL

Night Wolf
10-17-04, 02:20 PM
what are the hp/tq. on a 368?

I can second the comments about the 307.... it is sad...

how does the 368 compare to the 425?

CadiJeff
10-17-04, 04:26 PM
1979-425 180hp @ 4000 rpm/320 lbs.ft @ 2000 rpm
1980-368 150hp @ 3800 rpm/265lbs. ft @ 1600 rpm
1981-368 140hp @ 3800 rpm/265 lbs.ft @ 1400 rpm

barge master
10-17-04, 10:03 PM
put the 472 in your 89 and the 500 in your 80 and give the 368 to me :lildevil: LOL
I'd love to do the 89, but emissions would be a headache. Plus the mounts would have to be changed, the 89 has the 200o/d etc. The 80 is a slam dunk for the most part.
I tell you what Jeff, if the 368 is of interest to you, I'll be happy to hook you up. I don't know what to do with it,although the pan and oil pump etc. is all good stuff for inventory. WTF do you want with one of those anyway? I'm supposed to be getting a 472 as soon as I can get over to pull it. I can't certify it's condition, but I'm told it ran. If you want to take a road trip east,you can have it for a C-note.

CadiJeff
10-18-04, 12:04 AM
hmmm I might be interested, I will hopefully be getting a new job soon and if so would be quite interested. hmmm
as far as what I want w/ it.......1981 coupe deville.......always good to have a spare.

barge master
10-18-04, 12:16 AM
Aw hell Jeff, if you're gonna go to that much work you might as well get some cubes in there. Especially with a two door.

CadiJeff
10-18-04, 12:39 AM
na I wanna keep it as close to stock as I can, besides I kinda wanna try to build it up a bit, this is an underrated engine and there are some friends that I could really pi$$ off by putting a cadi motor in a 3rd gen firebird :D on top of that I think it would be good experience to work w/ one.

barge master
10-18-04, 08:10 AM
Interesting...I kinda wonder if the 368 will ever yield the kind of power that would justify the work. You've lost that monster cube/long stroke advantage. If I'm not mistaken, the head porting isn't too friendly either. It isn't a total dog in stock form so I guess if you tried it could at least feel a little better.
BTW is your 81 a fuelie? Maybe put up a picture if you have it.

CadiJeff
10-18-04, 12:51 PM
I havn't been able to get a picture to work. and yes it has the "v864 digital fuel injection" very cool. I'll see if I can figure out how to post one.

CadiJeff
10-18-04, 01:08 PM
This one isn't mine (car is currently in storage,and I have no close up pics) but mine is exactly the same except my power antenna works.

barge master
10-18-04, 09:26 PM
Wicked nice. The two doors are kind of a rarity, and most are the 4100s. I'd be driving that around with a big chubby. And a big engine.

davesdeville
10-18-04, 09:32 PM
There are plenty of 500/472s out there, there's no reason to touch a 368...

CadiJeff
10-19-04, 12:15 AM
w/ the 368 you might be able to maintain some reasonable fuel mileage and still get stupid amounts of torque.

Night Wolf
10-19-04, 12:40 AM
eh... I think the 425 is "adequite" for these cars... but it still dosn't make enough power for the size/fuel...

... the 307 is 140hp and 255ft-lbs... not too far off from the 368...

of course the big joke is the HT4100....125hp and 200ft-lbs....pffff sad part is, the 3800 V6 in my '89 Olds has 40 more hp and 20ft-lbs more torque... not to mention the 3800 is an amazing engine that will never die.... hard to say that for the HT4100...

...something to ponder... in 1985 when GM swithced to FWD... their luxury division... the highest up... Cadillac... got the HT4100 V8... ok....

... Pontiac/Oldsmobile/Buick got the 3800 V6....

why!?! the 3800 was first for distrubutorless ignition AND SFI... not to mention alot more power and torque... plus an insane relability...

So how did the lower lines get a better engine ITO power, ecomeny and reliabilty then the luxury divsion? if i had the choise, I would take a 3800 over an HT4100 or 4.5... and most likely a s/c 3800 over a 4.9....

CadiJeff
10-19-04, 01:11 AM
the 307 is 140hp and 255ft-lbs... not too far off from the 368
true but the 307 has to work a lot harder to make that less amount (140hp @ 3200rpms) and would get less fuel econ

barge master
10-19-04, 06:03 AM
I've got an 89 Caprice with TBI but the Caddy is carbed, go figure. :hmm: Hey Jeff, does the 4-6-8 thing work right on your car? The 368 I have is old school carbed and isn't too bad on gas. It feels a lot like a Chevy 350 in terms of power.

CadiJeff
10-19-04, 01:24 PM
my grandfather had it disabled in 1982, I have reconnected it but havn't had a chance to take it on the highway to test it.

DopeStar 156
10-19-04, 01:39 PM
What's the word on those variable displacement 368's? Some people tell me bad things, some tell me good. If I can gat a car with one that works real well, that'd be a great thing to have. It's very revolutionary for it's time.

barge master
10-19-04, 08:34 PM
Well, if Jeff's grandfather had it unhooked when the car was a year old that's telling you something. Some guys on here claim to have mega-mile cars with it and it works great, but I think they're in the minority. I've never put a wrench on one myself, they only used them in 1981 I believe. I've been told by mechanics who were on the job when they were around, that they were very troublesome. Plus, a 1981 anything is a potential nightmare. It was the first year for electronically controlled engines and they were still experimenting. The ability to access data from them is rather limited too. And to top it all off the parts are now suffering the ravages of time. Sometimes I feel kinda bad when guys post problems they have with those cars. I don't have a clue what to tell them.

Night Wolf
10-19-04, 10:56 PM
true but the 307 has to work a lot harder to make that less amount (140hp @ 3200rpms) and would get less fuel econ

the 255ft-lbs of torque is at something like 1800RPM though.... for a not very powerful small block, it has torque...

... in tuned shape, a 307 in the Borugh should get something like 16/25 for millage....

CadiJeff
10-20-04, 02:23 AM
Well, if Jeff's grandfather had it unhooked when the car was a year old that's telling you something. Some guys on here claim to have mega-mile cars with it and it works great, but I think they're in the minority. I've never put a wrench on one myself, they only used them in 1981 I believe. I've been told by mechanics who were on the job when they were around, that they were very troublesome. Plus, a 1981 anything is a potential nightmare. It was the first year for electronically controlled engines and they were still experimenting. The ability to access data from them is rather limited too. And to top it all off the parts are now suffering the ravages of time. Sometimes I feel kinda bad when guys post problems they have with those cars. I don't have a clue what to tell them.

He had it unhooked only for the reason that he said he could "feel" the power loss, keep in mind at the time his other vehicles were a 1980 lincoln and a big ford pickup. My dad drove the deville to Iowa before the 8-6-4 was disabled and he said that he could feel it but it was not a significant difference

sizanjdf
10-20-04, 10:18 AM
true but the 307 has to work a lot harder to make that less amount (140hp @ 3200rpms) and would get less fuel econ
If it has to work harder why does it make the same HP at 600 RPM less than the 368, Sounds more like the 307 is just as good if not better than its older brother to me...and thats not saying a whole lot is it?

DopeStar 156
10-20-04, 11:37 AM
the 255ft-lbs of torque is at something like 1800RPM though.... for a not very powerful small block, it has torque...

... in tuned shape, a 307 in the Borugh should get something like 16/25 for millage....

I'm getting something along the lines of 18-25 on my 307 I would guess. That car holds a tank of gas pretty well.

sizanjdf
10-20-04, 12:00 PM
then I hope to god my 86 does as well as yours is doing...that would be great

DopeStar 156
10-20-04, 12:41 PM
my secret is I don't step on the gas if I don't have to. I let the weight pull the car down hill and sometimes with enough momentum, up another. Also I believe your 86 has the 20 gal. tank where mine has the 25 gal.

CadiJeff
10-20-04, 01:08 PM
somehow those numbers just don't add up.... anyone who has driven both say that the 307 is a dog compared to the 368.

Night Wolf
10-20-04, 04:06 PM
well, I woudln't consider the 307 a dog to my 425.... definitly not as much power... but both cars are slow to start with...

Honestly, when it comes down to the extra fuel millage you get out of a perfect tuned 307, it is wortht he small drop in power... I say tuned becuase my mothers '89 Brougham is getting something like 12-14mpg.... also, for being a small block, the 307 is cramped in there and a paint to work on... the 425 is much more open...

I have never drove a car with a 368, or been in one... but with even less power then the 425, I would say it owuld be on par with a 307...

.... keep in mind, the 307 is a good engine, very reliable... just no power...

somebody should put a 4.9 in an HT4100 car (RWD)... THAT would be nice.... Well... maybe even with a nicly tuned 425.. more hp, less torque... PFI etc...

davesdeville
10-20-04, 06:51 PM
... in tuned shape, a 307 in the Borugh should get something like 16/25 for millage....

Al at MTS says someone with one of his 3 series cams got 22MPG from a 1976 500 cid in a full size Sedan DeVille. Even if it's all highway, that's still saying something.

I think mileage is affected by the size of the car and the tune of the engine more than it is the size of the engine.

DopeStar 156
10-20-04, 10:01 PM
the 307 is a good engine, very reliable... just no power...

I wouldn't say there's no power. I wouldn't say that at all really. For a car that heavy the 307 carries very well. I've driven a '79 Coupe and oh yeah, the 425 is a monster, I opened that thing on a highway and it is an insane engine. However the 307 is still pretty damn powerful and really good on gas. My vote goes for the 307's performance, reliability, and fuel economy which I'd rate all very high. All around good engine. Haha sorry, rant over. :D

Night Wolf
10-20-04, 11:29 PM
Al at MTS says someone with one of his 3 series cams got 22MPG from a 1976 500 cid in a full size Sedan DeVille. Even if it's all highway, that's still saying something.

I think mileage is affected by the size of the car and the tune of the engine more than it is the size of the engine.

That cam brings the power curve even lower then factory (which is already low), it is designed solely for better millage.... honeslty, i can't imagine the enigne making any real useful power... when comparing it to smaller engine, power would be almost similar and fuel millage better... I am sure that cam is nice, but I coudln't justify it...

... BTW with my 425, I took it on the highway... only 30 miles or so, I filled up, then when I got to the place, I filled up again... I calculated my millage... 20.8mpg... my cruise control dosn't work correctly, so I wasn't using cruise and I wasn't driving it very conservative either... plus it is not as tuned as it should be.... I should take it on the highway again

If I was building a BB Cad... the last thign i owuld do is build it for millage... 22mpg..... with that cam, byt the time the engine reaches 3,000rpm it is far out of it's power band...

Night Wolf
10-20-04, 11:39 PM
I wouldn't say there's no power. I wouldn't say that at all really. For a car that heavy the 307 carries very well. I've driven a '79 Coupe and oh yeah, the 425 is a monster, I opened that thing on a highway and it is an insane engine. However the 307 is still pretty damn powerful and really good on gas. My vote goes for the 307's performance, reliability, and fuel economy which I'd rate all very high. All around good engine. Haha sorry, rant over. :D

uhh...

... the 307 is a gutless enigne...

besides not spinning a tire form a stop, not having the abality to accelerate up a hill, let alone pass somebody on road (not even up hill) the fact you really gotta lay into the gas just to pull onto a road and accelerate to 35 or so... it is still a gutless enigne....

... I learned to drive on my mothers '89 Brougham... probably a good thing, but all 3 of my cars are considerably faster then it...

my cars line up like this (for speed)

'79 DeVille < '89 Eighty Eight < '93 DeVille

with the simple work (IE, very, very cheap) I am doing to the '79 it'll probably be faster then the Olds... but not the '93...

Although while on a flat road, the '79 is the slowest... an interesting fact is, going up hill, the '79 pulls the hardest... which in turns makes it accelerate the fastest... I say it is due to the torque form the big block, and the gearing... basically if I am going 40mph up a hill and floor it.. the secondaires open, and it downshifts into 1st... and really puts you in the seat... the '93 will accelerate, but not as much, and at 40, it'll downshift into 2nd... the Olds... depending on the hill it'll accelerate alot slower... also downshift into 2nd (at 40)... although the Olds will hold it's own... actually ia m thikning of the time when me and my friend were coming back form the movies and I was making a pass... uphill, and decided to see how long I could hold it out for, so I got back int he lane and kept my foot down... accelerated ok, but once 73mph or so came along, and it upshifted into 3rd... that hill was too much for the low-rpm V6 as the speedo kinda hung out around 75... and slowly made it's way to 80ish....eh, I don't expect miracles from that car, it is just a dialy driver... and for what it is, it is rather quick... still plenty of power on tap to embaress the ricers... gotta love dents and spray paint.. adds more to the ass-whoopin' factor :)

davesdeville
10-21-04, 01:00 AM
That cam brings the power curve even lower then factory (which is already low), it is designed solely for better millage.... honeslty, i can't imagine the enigne making any real useful power...

with that cam, byt the time the engine reaches 3,000rpm it is far out of it's power band...

Have you contacted Al about the cam? It's advertised as a cam for mileage, it says it's range is through 4000rpm. It's by no means performance, but I doubt it's lower than the smog cams of 74-76.

DopeStar 156
10-21-04, 01:56 PM
My Fleetwood had a busted detent cable and during that period of time, it had problems going uphill, now that that's been fixed, the car has plenty of power. I pass and climb hills with no speed loss or problems. You're prolly used to the quick acceleration of your DeVille. My girlfriend's 91 DeVille with the 4.9 is hella fast. Way faster than my 307. Although it's no speed demon, it's a powerhouse if you ask me. That engine was designed for torque and to replace the HT4100. I wouldn't call it gutless in the least.

Night Wolf
10-22-04, 01:12 AM
Dave, I remember reading on their website, it mentions that is brings the power curve even lower then the factory cam...

Dope, my mothers car has something like 150k... maybe almost 160k on it now (speedo has been broke for awhile) and needs a tune up bad (which is why she is dirivng my Olds for now)... I drove it alot the Summer of '03, as I was learning to drive with it... maybe it is more of her car, but the 307 just didn't have power... her bf (... do they still call it a bf after 16 years?) has an '87 Brougham, 195k miles... he tows a small utility trailer too, the whole summer every weekend he would bring 1,000lbs of gravel to our house... the car died last week... he thought the timing chain went, so he had it towed home, and started tearing the engine down to do the timing chain, i was helping a little... turned out it wasn't the chain, it was the ignition module on top of the distrubutor... so he rpelace dhte timing chain, fuel pump and water pump anyway... still isn't done though as he went with friends to go away for a few days (I brought him to the metting spot and will pick him up)... that engine gets dino oil, and changed every 5k and the tranny was rebuilt last year....that car is a little more peppy then my mothers (probably for the fact that it is in better tune) but it is still a dog...

the 4.9 is a very good enginein the car, I find it's power to be very nice too... I will never own a car with less power then my Olds though... unless I needed a small 4banger for commuting or something... the Olds has plenty of power too... but i just coudln't stand having to drive a car with a small engine that needs to be floored everytime you pull out from somewhere.... or even a bigger engine, in a bigger car, such as my mothers car...

... I would be willing to bet though that you car is in fact more powerful.. IIRC it has less miles, and also in a much better state of tune... and honestly, it isn't *that* bad on gas for the size of the car, so it is hard to complain about the performance of it... also acceleration was one of the last thigns (besides handling) that was put into designing these cars... I still think that if they had Chevy 350's from the factory, that would be a whole lot better.... not to mention a great car to build up and :burn:

barge master
10-22-04, 05:46 AM
I guess not all 307's are created equal. A guy posted a long list of info a while ago about how some of the early 80's ones were more powerful due to different heads. My wife's 83 Delta is almost fast compared to the Caddy. :burn:

DopeStar 156
10-22-04, 10:53 PM
Haha whatever man. I'm just happy I got her back tonight. :)

luddyludwick
10-24-04, 11:01 PM
Just as a tip for more power with the 307s (or if you decide to run a 425/368 with an overdriver transmission...for some reason...lol)...

If you can find a rear axle from an '85 Brougham, it is 3.42 ratio rather than a 2.93 or whatever they put in the 86-90 Broughams.

In my '85 HT4100 Brougham, you really do notice good pickup around town due to the "fast" axle ratio...doesn't help much on the highway hills, though.

OH BTW, the '85 HT in Broughams made 135hp and 200lb-ft. of torque...don't cheat the power any more than you have to! ;)

davesdeville
10-25-04, 03:27 AM
Dave, I remember reading on their website, it mentions that is brings the power curve even lower then the factory cam...

I think that means it shifts it to a lower RPM not necissarily a lower power level. But I'm not worried about it, I have a secondary car for mileage so the Cad will get a pretty big cam.