: What years had the Ht4100 (coupes)



1990CaddyBrougham
03-01-06, 11:34 PM
My buddy who you guys met breifly a couple months ago wants a Cadillac COupe Devile. First.. way way back he bought a BEAUTIFUL 83 Coupe on ebay with 30k. It was MINT. He bought it... then the day of the pick up.. the guy who had it, he hit a guardrail and off the highway and then a large rock.... it was totaled. I almost cryed. Then a few moths ago he ended up with a 83 Fleetwood Brougham Coupe. It had a hole in the block. He fund that out after he bought it. He was able to get rid of it for waht he paid.. but will never buy another HT 4100. I dont blame him. He is 17 like me.. and i want to see him get a Cadillac. To park next to mine at school. Lol.

Anyways.. what years didnt have the 4100. I know they had the 8-6-4... which he really doesnt want.

Any come with 307 or 350? He would rather the 80's no 79's.

A coupe is the only thing for him... as he says a 4 door is to old man and a few other words... but a 2 door is sleek and sexy. Lol. I let him drive my Brougham alot... makes him want more and more.

Thanks Guys.

Bro-Ham
03-02-06, 12:02 AM
Hi,

As I see it you need to be an old man or really eccentric to like these cars, whether coupe or sedan. Sexy and sleek?!? Come on! I think I have heard it all! If you want a full size coupe with a non-problematic engine in the 1980-1984 style then 1980 is the year that the plain carb 6.0 368 was available. Good luck!

Dave

Tombo47
03-02-06, 01:05 AM
hes better off dropping a 350 in it. Thats if he plans on keeping the car a while. Find one in decent shape body and interior wise, and drop a motor in it. There are plenty of olds 307's 350's and chevy 305's and 350's that will all fit into that RWD platform car. Thats his best bet if he is die hard on that style.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-02-06, 01:08 AM
Like Dave said, the 1980 is the best year because it has the carburated 368. Just a damn good motor, but 1981 isnt bad either, its got the V8-6-4, but you can pull a wire and turn that off. Dave's 81 Fleetwood Brougham coupe has the V8-6-4 and at 236k miles, it still works like a dream!

DopeStar 156
03-02-06, 02:33 AM
RWD Cars built 1982-1985 had the HT4100. 1986-1989 you had the 307. 1990-1992 you could either the 305 or the 350.

CoupeDevilleRob
03-02-06, 07:06 PM
Like everyone else said 1980 is the only year that meets your friend's criteria. Also stated earlier, the V8-6-4 in the 81s can be disconnected. I think you can even go as far as to take all the deactivation crap off and putting regular valve covers on it (the 81s had weird humps to clear the solenoids). The 4100 is not that bad, plenty of people around here, myself included, have 4100 success stories. He should reconsider it and broaden his search field. The ever popular Olds engine swap isn't a bad idea either for a 4100 car.

cadinmotion
03-03-06, 12:00 PM
If you take care of the 4100 engine it will run for a long time. The old man that I bought mine from said to always run Kendall oil in it, and get it changed every 2000 miles. I've been doing so, and never have had a problem with the engine for over 10 years. It is slow though! Drop the 350 in her!!!

LuvCads
03-03-06, 02:42 PM
Rear drive engine choices:

1977-1979 - 7.0L (425) 4bbl or FI

1980 - 6.0L (368) not the 8-6-4

1981 - 6.0L (8-6-4) or 4.1L V6

1982-1985 - 4.1L (HT4100)

1986-1990 - 5.0L 4bbl (FI '91-'92) 5.7 option ('90-'92)

1993-1996 - 5.7L ('93) LT1 5.7 ('94-'96)

5.7 (350) diesel option from 1978 I believe to 1985.
6.0 on limos '80-'84

funny Cadillac never thought to try a Northstar in the final years of the Fleetwood, or was it considered?

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-03-06, 04:28 PM
funny Cadillac never thought to try a Northstar in the final years of the Fleetwood, or was it considered?

I think by that time, Cadillac was pretty much done sticking money into those Fleetwoods, and they knew that they would only be around for a few more years anyways. Plus, the Northstar wasn't designed for RWD in those years.

CoupeDevilleRob
03-03-06, 06:48 PM
The Fleetwoods were better off with the LT1. The Northstar makes all its power at higher rpms, it would have had a hell of a time getting those tanks moving off the line. I get a kick out of a Caddy having the same engine as the Corvette and most bad ass cop car of recent times.

LuvCads
03-03-06, 08:09 PM
Yeah, come to think of it, the LT1 has torque than the Northstar (330 vs 295). I think those are the right figures, based N-stars torque on a 300hp version, not 275/295.

I also read somewhere, some new car review, that the Fleetwood had a less cushy ride than a Roadmaster or Caprice, that they were more controlled & supple, less harsh than a Caddy.

I have friends that, at one time, were pure devoted import lovers, and when I got my '87 Coupe Deville, they raved about the ride & comfort. I took it to a mechanic one time who was totally into Hondas/Acuras & he said...

"nothing beats the ride of a Cadillac" while test driving mine!!!

Since I got mine, I don't think I could ever go to another brand. I was originally looking for a rear-drive, but stumbled upon my FWD model. For me, it's Caddy all the way. :cool2: :thumbsup:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-04-06, 01:42 AM
I think it would be wierd to have a Fleetwood Brougham with the Northstar because of the somewhat large lack of low end power when compared to the LT1, but when you think about it, there are a lot of cars heavier than the FWB that have DOHC motors, and do perfectly fine, for example, the 4255lb BMW 740i used a 282hp-295 lb/ft 4.0 DOHC V8 until 1995, and that was capable of about a 15.5 1/4 mile. So I think you could theoretically have put a N* in a FWB, but you would have to compensate for the relative lack of low end torque by using a lower (?) drive ratio, like a 3.33:1 v. the stock 2.93:1

Bro-Ham
03-04-06, 07:28 PM
Rear drive engine choices:

1977-1979 - 7.0L (425) 4bbl or FI

1980 - 6.0L (368) not the 8-6-4

1981 - 6.0L (8-6-4) or 4.1L V6

1982-1985 - 4.1L (HT4100)

1986-1990 - 5.0L 4bbl (FI '91-'92) 5.7 option ('90-'92)

1993-1996 - 5.7L ('93) LT1 5.7 ('94-'96)

5.7 (350) diesel option from 1978 I believe to 1985.
6.0 on limos '80-'84

funny Cadillac never thought to try a Northstar in the final years of the Fleetwood, or was it considered?

Hi,

Just to fill in a little detail on the information above on the rear drive cars:
--On rear drive cars I recall the diesel being first available in 1979. If I recall correctly, only the Seville had the diesel in 1978.
--6.0 368 V8 was carb in 1980.
--6.0 368 V8-6-4 was fuel injected.
--The 4.1 V6 was available on 1982 models.
--Limousines used the 6.0 carb V8 in 1980 and the 6.0 EFI V8-6-4 from 1981 through 1984.

Dave

Benzilla
03-04-06, 10:28 PM
Hi,

As I see it you need to be an old man or really eccentric to like these cars, whether coupe or sedan. Sexy and sleek?!? Come on! I think I have heard it all!

Dave
:lies: :want: :kick: what the f*ck are you talking about?
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c40/Cadillac_guy/82f14c1c.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c40/Cadillac_guy/000_0176v2.jpg
If thats not sexy, neither was Marilyn Monroe

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-05-06, 02:34 AM
It's not sexy as in the usual Ferrari/Mercedes/BMW sexy way, but in an entirely different way.

davesdeville
03-05-06, 05:48 AM
So I think you could theoretically have put a N* in a FWB, but you would have to compensate for the relative lack of low end torque by using a lower (?) drive ratio, like a 3.33:1 v. the stock 2.93:1

It would've taken a 5 speed auto and something like 4.10s to get that 4500lb car to accelerate worth a damn from a stop with a Northstar. 5 speed or a 4 speed with a redonkulous overdrive gear. My ETC has 3.71s and still doesn't launch for crap. It makes up for it with top end, but low end power is just not there. (Then again the other vehicle I can compare it to is my 75 with 500ci of all low end power so my opinion might be a bit off from the norm.)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-05-06, 10:17 AM
Well when I drove a '95 Eldorado with the 275hp N* (300lb/ft @ 4400RPM) it felt like it had about 95% of the low end torque of the 4.9. But when I experienced the top end of the N*, the bottom end seemed small by comparison.