: Thinkin of buyin a '82 Coupe Deville w/v6



Ryan T
04-16-06, 02:07 PM
So,, i know from personal experence that the HT4100 engines suck, I bought a coupe with one a while back and it had a hole in the block, i ended up sellin it for for that i paid even with the bad engine. I want a coupe, but dont want to deal with that engine. I've found a '83 with a V6 that i want to take a look at maybe tomorow. Its pretty rough and rusted, needs a lot of patches and a compleet repaint, and a new top to look decent. It has 119,000 miles on it, im basicley lookin something to drive threw the summer, and this is a canadent, the price is right. Are these v6's engine any good? I, sure its a dog preforance wise, but do they last a long time? Any first hand experence would be great.

The Ape Man
04-16-06, 09:09 PM
The V6 sucks just as bad as an HT-4100. Transmissions are a problem also. My advice: Keep looking.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-16-06, 09:39 PM
I thought that V6 was relatively solid..

Ryan T
04-16-06, 10:24 PM
does it have an alum block?

The Ape Man
04-17-06, 03:35 AM
Cast iron block and heads. That engine is way too small for that car even with the 4 speed trans. They also vibrate some.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-17-06, 10:04 AM
Yeah its underpowered, thats a given, but is it reliable, or is it a nightmare like the HT4100?

Ryan T
04-17-06, 01:49 PM
Since the block and heads arnt alum thats good new to me,,, would still to hear from anyone with personal experence with the engine. Im goin to look at the car tonite,, and the auction ends later tonite, so I'll have to make a decision soon.

CoupeDevilleRob
04-17-06, 02:25 PM
The Buick 4.1 V6 was meant to be an economical alternative to the V8. Unfortunately it was so over worked in a full size Cadillac that it returned the same if not worse fuel economy than the V8. I have no experience with that engine, I think it's just a bigger version of the 3.8, which is a good engine. There may even be performance parts for it, I'm not sure about that either. Personally, if you want another Coupe deVille just look for one with a solid 4100. Good ones do exist, mine has 111,000 miles and has been relatively trouble free.

zwede
04-17-06, 04:41 PM
I keep hearing how bad the HT4100 was and I don't get it. I got a 83 DeVille 5 years ago. Drove it around until 2 weeks ago when I sold it. The motor used very little oil, passed emissions each year and got 26 mpg highway. Yeah, it was underpowered for such a large car but otherwise there was nothing wrong with it. I did a few tune-ups (plugs, wires, distributor cap etc). Never any repairs. Very smooth engine with the TBI.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-17-06, 06:26 PM
You must have gotten really lucky :)

The Ape Man
04-17-06, 06:49 PM
would still to hear from anyone with personal experence with the engine.

You have already. My posts are always based on personal experience unless otherwise stated. I currently own an '82 Sedan Deville which started life with the V6. It has been in my family for 20+ years. I drove the car a few times with the original engine and always remembered it's vibration and severe lack of power. An HT-4100 car could dust it with little trouble. Fuel economy was decent though.

The engine also uses a feedback quadrajet. The ECM is not based on DEFI like the HT-4100, it uses the old C3 Computer Command Control system. When things go wrong you have what amounts to an orphan on your hands. Yeah, I know there were lots of these engines but how try sourcing fuel system parts for that exact car. For laughs, look up replacement ECM and PROM numbers. Revised PROMS during these years had lists as long as your arm.

While I'm at it: The 2004R transmissions during these years were known for grenading the sun shell.

These cars always drove better with more weight under the hood. The weight distribution with a V6 really made the car feel cheesy.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-17-06, 07:23 PM
But from a reliability standpoint, the 4.1 V6 was better than the HT4100 right?


Sounds like you were pretty much screwed for engines in the early '80s as far as Caddys go (I mean from '82-'84) You had the 252cid V6, the HT4100 V8, and the Diesel.

The Ape Man
04-17-06, 08:13 PM
But from a reliability standpoint, the 4.1 V6 was better than the HT4100 right?


Sounds like you were pretty much screwed for engines in the early '80s as far as Caddys go (I mean from '82-'84) You had the 252cid V6, the HT4100 V8, and the Diesel.

The HT-4100 usually ran like a fine watch right until it blew up. The V6 ran like some homemade piece of crap. The V6 engine itself was sure a more reliable power plant than a RWD HT-4100 but one has to consider the whole package. Similar V6's worked much better with more advanced engine management controls.

GenoTheLowrider
04-17-06, 09:29 PM
You must have gotten really lucky :)
I must agree here, I have heard so much about the 4100.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-17-06, 11:02 PM
The HT-4100 usually ran like a fine watch right until it blew up. The V6 ran like some homemade piece of crap. The V6 engine itself was sure a more reliable power plant than a RWD HT-4100 but one has to consider the whole package. Similar V6's worked much better with more advanced engine management controls.


So basically, the HT4100 was a very smooth motor with a lot of reliability problems, and the 4.1 V6 was not smooth at all, and had poor engine management system, but was probably the more reliable motor.

DopeStar 156
04-18-06, 11:03 AM
HT4100's although not the engine of choice for these cars, can do just fine if properly maintained. If you take care of an HT4100 like I'm sure Rob does it should provide you with reliable service. Same goes with any engine, you get out what you put into it. The V6 just sounds like a bad alternative to me. I'd go in the direction of an HT4100 if I were buying an 82-85 RWD.