: 6.0 Liter or ht4100 - Which is better?

03-15-06, 03:49 PM
What are everyone's thoughts on the 6.0 Liter 368 and the ht4100? Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read on this forum the 368 is a good engine if the V-8-6-4 is unhooked? Thanks.:confused

03-15-06, 04:09 PM
My thoughts are from what I have seen/heard, the 6.0L is better.

1. It would be my choice, and it is a nice easy swap to 7.0L, 7.7L or 8.2L if so desired.
2. NO performance parts for HT4100, and you can't put the FWD 4.9L in place of the RWD HT4100 w/o trans replacement
3. Cad V8's (500/472/425/368/390/429) all have performance parts available, but aren't cheap.
4. 6.0L's have the displacement to run well, and should be able to make 300 hp easily on today's technology. You would be hard pressed even turbocharging a HT4100 to make 300 hp and make it live more than 1 dyno pull....
5. If the V8-6-4 works, use it. If not, disable and drive on....

03-15-06, 04:21 PM
Even with the 8-6-4, the 6.0 wins out. If the cylinder deactivation goes bad, it runs on 8 cylinders. (Am I right?) If it's a 1980 6.0, its a typical Caddy V8. Very reliable and smooth, and noticeably more powerful than the HT4100, but neither makes for a "fast Caddy." Generally, the 6.0 is a pretty damn reliable motor, and IMO, the HT4100 atleast in the early years is a damn good boat anchor!

03-16-06, 12:22 AM
no contest 6.0L all the way

03-16-06, 05:05 AM
I guess it all depends on what you want from your engine, but IMO, the 368 is the better engine overall.

03-16-06, 08:12 AM
I guess the HT4100 is gonna give you around 15-16 MPG around town, where as the 6.0 would probably give you 12-13 MPG. Highway, the HT4100 is around 23-24, and the 6.0 is like 18-19.

03-16-06, 08:30 AM
Thanks, guys.

03-16-06, 08:28 PM
The only redeeming quality of the HT 4100 is the fuel mileage. Besides that the 368 is superior in every way.