: Vid: Cadillacs 1982 HT4100, the Development and Manufacturing



91 s-10baja
06-07-12, 04:11 PM
http://testdrivejunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/1982-Cadillac-HT4100.jpg


Quite an interesting video, featuring the Development, of the engine and manufacturing facility itself, the building of the engine, and the technology. From Concept and Design to Quality! Lets take a look back at the achievement of a failure!

Video at link:
http://testdrivejunkie.com/1982-cadillac-ht4100-engine-story-manufacturer-promotional-video/

91 s-10baja
06-07-12, 09:57 PM
You should really watch the video, it amazes me how they touted the factory, and the technology!

BigCadMan_1
06-08-12, 11:50 AM
Cool vid, thanks for the post.

Cadillac1980
06-10-12, 09:24 PM
My god they wasted soooo much money on such a piece of shit

aeronca36606
06-16-12, 04:01 AM
You have to look at this and remember when this engine was developed. In the late 70's the personal computer was in its infancy with the IBM pc just eclipsing the Radio Shack TRS 80's and Commador Vic's. This engine was extremely innovative for the time. Every engine that Cadillac has developed since owes at least some if it's design to this engine. It was the first time that Cadillac used Die Casting in the manufacturing of the block. It was Cadillacs first Aluminium engine. It was the first time that they used a digital fuel injection system of there own design. While the 4100 had many growing pains the later 4.9 (Which is very similar to the original 4100) turned out to be a great engine. Every new engine design goes through growing pains. The Northstar is no exception. (Look at the head gasket history)
You must also remember that GM had specific goals in mind when they designed this engine. One of the most important was fuel economy. This engine delivered on this. The engine was fuel thrifty along with being very smooth. The later 4.9 had lots more power but a good running 4100 will beat it every time on fuel economy.

watajob
06-23-12, 02:39 PM
Very true. But, the laws of physics are not easily repealed. Why oh why did they choose "floating" cylinder liners and an iron head? Oh, well. No sense crying over spilled milk. :)

aeronca36606
06-23-12, 08:05 PM
I don't have too many problems with the overall design. I think the most troublesome problem on the early engines centred around the intake manifold moving around too much. The angle of the intake manifold gasket relative to the cylinder head allowed for wear on the gasket. This allowed coolant into the crankcase causing damage over time.
All of the problems where worked out eventually with the 4.9. The differences in design between the 4.1 and the 4.9 are minor. If there had been more development and testing time some of these improvements would have made it into production. If you look at the very last 4.1's installed in the Allante, You will see most of the upgrades used in the 4.9.
This engine was Cadillac's first foray into a lightweight fuel efficient Aluminum design. The Northstar owes a lot of its design to the failures of the early 4.1.
The Northstar doesn't have the best reputation for reliability either. Most of which could have been avoided if they had used the 12MM head bolts with a long thread grip of the 4.1 instead of using the current 11MM,
Cadillac's other failure of the era the V8-6-4 was based on a good engine design but with electronics not up to the task. Variable valve geometry is common today. The Olds Diesel of the time would have been a good engine had the engineers had there way and increased the number of head bolts to handle the clamping load.

83CADMAN
07-02-12, 04:31 PM
I don't have too many problems with the overall design. I think the most troublesome problem on the early engines centred around the intake manifold moving around too much. The angle of the intake manifold gasket relative to the cylinder head allowed for wear on the gasket. This allowed coolant into the crankcase causing damage over time.

Cylinder #1 cam lobes and lifters are very prone to excessive wear on the early HT4100’s because of the dissimilar metal expansion and contraction properties mentioned. Cooliant in the lifter valley gumming up at #1.
A fix for the intake gasket problem was a “reseal kit” from GM.
I found one last winter for my own flat cam problem. I think a couple of kits are still out there.
It used a thicker gasket material and contained a set of special bolts fitted with stacked bellville washers. The installation torque specs I think were around 12 ft-lbs versus the original spec of 25 ft-lbs.

drewsdeville
07-03-12, 07:51 AM
Very true. But, the laws of physics are not easily repealed. Why oh why did they choose "floating" cylinder liners and an iron head? Oh, well. No sense crying over spilled milk. :)

To keep the weight down but durability up. Those liners are strong - these engines typically don't use any oil, even in their old age. The iron heads rarely have any problems. They also weigh about as much as a typical V6 from the day