Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
407 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
drop in the Cadillac with a body style of 80's Fleetwood and Brougham rear wheel drive? Those cars are dime a dozen, but we all heard stories about HTs and 8-6-4, well, that alone probably deserves a separate section in the forum LOL.

Would anyone tell me?

P.S. Admin, if this question was asked before and there is no doubt in my mind that it has, kindly direct me to that thread via PM and feel free to either lock or delete this thread altogether. No need to waste threads. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,534 Posts
So far, and hopefully Katshot agrees, the LT1/4L60E from 94-96 was one of the least troubling drivetrains GM has ever had. The 3800 is quite impressive too, but I don't think you want 170 hp/225 lb/ft torque to move a Cad....

Maybe turbocharged....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Yeah, I'd have to agree on the LT1 too. Pretty easy to find (LOTS of wrecked Camaro's, Trans Ams, etc.), one of the more recent and excellent GM small block V8's, plus from what I've read, is MUCH less difficult to transplant in a non-original vehicle than something newer like an LT1 is, because of the electronics.

Then again, compared to most of the garbage engines they put in the 80's Fleetwoods/Broughams, virtually ANY fuel injected 350 V8 from the 90's+ would be a great choice. Case in point, I have an undying love for the L05 5.7L V8 in my '93 FWB, even if it can't do as much of a burn out as a LT1 car might be able to--it still has MAJOR balls, can shock a lot of people off the line, and is turbine smooth and silent throughout the entire RPM range. LOVE IT! I guess I just might die if I got to drive an LT1 car, already having feelings like this!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
RELIABLE engine?

the Olds 307 used from 1985-1989

and it is an easy swap... they are already in there :)

if you mean to swap in to an HT car.... then, well, if you only wanted the most reliable enigne, I would say the 307... but if you wanted some snap, I would say a Cad 472/500..... if you wanted to keep something called gas mileage then a Chevy 350 would work

280hp/320ft-lbs torque from a s/c Series II 3800 with smaller s/c pully (only mod) dosn't sound bad to me.... not that it would be an easy or practical swap tho.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
The 307 that comes stock in the 80's cadilacs is about as reliable as you can get short of cutting huge holes in your floor and pulling a Flinstones manuver.
if the 307 isnt too reliable seeming, it may be because its high milelage, improperly maintained, or everything around it is broken.
of course, that isnt much of an answer to your question...But of course theres the option of the 350 chevy..but at that point it might be easier to just buy a brougham from 1990-1992 when they became a standard option.
Mabey the drive system from one of them tunnel of love swan boats? Nevermind, that only works if your Lance Armstrong.

-Eric
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,419 Posts
I agree with the 307. Some people feel it's sluggish but in my opinion if you keep it well tuned it performs all right. I think it would be a perfect alternative to an HT4100 if you wanted to steer clear of the big boy Caddy engines of the 70's. I almost came into posession of an 83 Coupe de Ville as a project car that if I swapped the engine, I'd put a 307 in it. You just can't kill that engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
90Brougham350 said:
Personally I'd go with a 350 TBI, 350 Vortec, or LT-1. The fuel injection and computer makes the reliability even better, nicer starts in the winter, better mileage, and so on.
Yeah, that's the BIG point here. There's just NO way I'd want an old carbed V8 in one of these cars, especially not one as new as the late 80's. By that time, I never did get why relatively sluggish V8's lacking fuel injection were STILL being used.

Also, for me, the whole reliability factor is probably the biggest. If it were a once a month cruise & show car, I wouldn't mind having to do some work to get it started. But as a daily, or semi-daily driven car, the carb certainly wouldn't be as trouble-free reliable and efficient as fuel injection would.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
407 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Night Wolf said:
... but if you wanted some snap...
Actually, I could care less about snap. These are not sports cars. I just want reliability.;) And thanks for replies everybody.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,096 Posts
Since the engine itself is not the only factor for reliability it depends on which year you are starting off with and how good a job at automotive re-wiring can be done. I love run on sentences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
in 1980 they did have the carbed 368, which I *assume* is a good engine as engines go. Reading the forums I can see few complaints with it.

I've found two where I live, one a coupe deville and the other a fleetwood brougham two door. According to internet sources the fleetwood is rarer but both cars are essentially the same to my understanding.

My problem is, where does the car buying end for me? I can't take care all of them, as it is having four cars insured is tough enough. But I so do want the fleetwood, right colour, mileage and needs some haggling on the price.

So why post? I need some peer pressure to fend off logic...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
well spock...its a 2 dr. rare...good condition...old big block caddy power and if u like ur 86 i bet u will love the extra HP and torque of the 368, and a real plus the car is ALL caddy...not a little buick or olds or chevy...all caddy all the time. that would be a great car to swap a 472 or 500 in also....probably swap the motor mounts and be done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,471 Posts
This is REALLY a tough question. I have to agree with a lot of you for several reasons. The 368 that came in the early 80's was a great engine. The V-8-6-4 system gave the 368 a black-eye that it didn't deserve. If you use one of these engines, you'll have an easy install and good reliability. They weren't the strongest engine and didn't get great MPG but they were reasonable in both departments IMO.
The Olds 307 was absolutely one of the most rock-solid reliable engines around but they were rather under-powered, and even though you say you don't care about "snap", it "may" get a little old after a while.
The Chevy 350's.......what can I say, IMO, all are great engines. The LO5 from the truck division is a solid engine but not terribly powerful. I'd say it will probably out-perform the 368 alright but, the LT1 has reliability, power, AND great gas mileage! A combination that's hard to beat these days considering gas isn't getting any cheaper.
The engines I mentioned are not only in order of availability from the OEM (chronologically speaking) but also in order of complexity of install.
In the end, any of these engines won't let you down. It'll probably boil down to cost, availability and your desire for an easy swap or a big project.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I know everyone raves about the reliability of the Olds 307 and yes the cars this motor came were reliable but is that the whole story?. Dont forget most of the cars that had this motor also had very high gears (2:21? or so). Then with the Chevy powered models they went to a 3.08 and I know there are some out there with 3.42's. What I'm getting at is that the 307 is reliable but nobody ever really asked much of it. Put a 3.08 gear or 3.42 behind a 307 and reliability would suffer. In addition the 307 is a real sluggish motor with 140hp. Almost any motor would be reliable under the conditions of the 307. Nobody beats on it because there is no reward for it, its geared so that it really does not have to work that hard. If someone drove a 307 like an LT1, the LT1 or any other sbc would come out ahead IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
Olds 307 cars had 2.56 gears.... IIRC somewhere around there.

my '79 DeVille has 2.28 gears, so it has even worse gearing for performance.

Also, the Olds 307 was bolted t the 200R4 (or was it the 700R4? I think the 200....) either way, yeah, it has over drive, but honstly, it is a junk transmission... stock atleast, both my mother and her finacee had to get a trans rebuild around 120-150k miles in their Broughams ('87/'89) on the same note, the Turbo400 would go on and on and on never, ever giving you any problems.

Also.... whats the big deal with a carburator? I personally like a carburator more then a complex fuel injection system, thats just me though.... hard starting? it really isn't all that hard to pump the gas twice and turn the key.... the only real draw back would be winter starting... which for me isn't an issue because the '79 dosn't get used in the winter... actually now that I live in FL, my winters are not like NY winters :) but even then, the few times I did use the '79 in the winter, pump the gas twice, turn it over for 3 seconds, stop, pump the gas twice more and then she fires right up.... simple process, after only 3 or 4 minutes it was warmed up enough to the point that it wouldn't stall..... hardly an inconvience. My mothers Brougham was the same way, now if you factor in most people let the car warm up to heat the car, or run the engine while they clear snow off it, it isn't a big deal.

Really, I don't know what the big fuss over a carburator is.... I like em'

the Olds 307.... well, the good thing is, it is more powerful then the HT4100, that was just a joke in the big bodys... but you gotta make sure there is a large gap in traffic to merge, gaining speed up a hill dosn't happen.... the car is just slow. My mother floors it at times to get up to speed..... my mother. When she rented an '05 Nissan Sentra with the 1.8L 4banger and auto, she kept saying how much power the car had and how quick it got up to speed and stuff.... I'll admit, I drove that car and it wasn't bad for what it was.... but comeon, when a cheap econo car has that much more of a difference in power then the Caddy.... that is just sad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
607 Posts
Another vote for the LT1 considering the fuel injection, quick and easy power, wide availability, reliability, gas mileage, etc.
Another thing to mention is that the optispark distributor on the LT1 engines have a bad reputation, generally considered about a 100K mile part. But in reality, if you put it in perspective, what other distributor can you allow to go unserviced for 100K miles?
To me the opti is a decent upgrade over traditional distributor systems, GM just put it in a bad location.

Also to note, the taxi cabs and police vehicles used the LT1 powered Caprices for well over 100K miles and trusted them.
Before the LT1 cars, the L03 (5.0 liter) and L05 (5.7 liter) were the engines that powered Caprices. Reliable as well, but not sure they can compare in gas mileage vs. power available.

Happy motoring
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,471 Posts
Destroyer said:
I know everyone raves about the reliability of the Olds 307 and yes the cars this motor came were reliable but is that the whole story?. Dont forget most of the cars that had this motor also had very high gears (2:21? or so). Then with the Chevy powered models they went to a 3.08 and I know there are some out there with 3.42's. What I'm getting at is that the 307 is reliable but nobody ever really asked much of it. Put a 3.08 gear or 3.42 behind a 307 and reliability would suffer. In addition the 307 is a real sluggish motor with 140hp. Almost any motor would be reliable under the conditions of the 307. Nobody beats on it because there is no reward for it, its geared so that it really does not have to work that hard. If someone drove a 307 like an LT1, the LT1 or any other sbc would come out ahead IMO.
I have a few problems with this post.
Based on your stated theory I would assume that the HT4100 would've been VERY reliable since it only had 130HP. Or how about the Olds 350 Diesel with 120HP. No, sorry, just because something has a low horsepower rating, that doesn't mean it's going to be reliable.
And about those horsepower ratings....you have to remember that back then, cars didn't have the kind of horsepower that you see these days. As an example, take a look at the Cadillac lineup of 1988:
4.1 liter (Allante only) - 170hp/ 235lb/ft [email protected]
4.5 liter (all other FWD car except Cimarron) - 155hp/ 240lb/ft [email protected]
5.0 liter (307Y in RWD cars) - 140hp/ 255lb/ft [email protected]
Notice it was NOT under-powered as compared to the rest of the line up. Horsepower was a little low but torque was the highest of the whole line up and that was from a mere 2000rpm! My guess is the tall gears were used on the RWd cars w/307 engines because the engine had the torque to use them.
The other thing I need to point out is that your comment about how tall gears (low numerically) are easier on the engine is actually backwards. The final drive ratio of any drivetrain determines to a great degree, the mechanical load placed on the engine and transmission. The mechanical advantage of short gears is very simple to prove. You ever try to climb a hill on a 10-speed in tenth gear? Very hard isn't it? So actually your point about gearing actually serves to show even more that the 307 (Y) was a solid engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,730 Posts
BCs71 said:
Before the LT1 cars, the L03 (5.0 liter) and L05 (5.7 liter) were the engines that powered Caprices. Reliable as well, but not sure they can compare in gas mileage vs. power available.

Happy motoring

The power output of an LO5 or a Vortec 350 is not quite that of an LT-1. The torque output is relatively simliar, however, the LT-1 has 260 horsepower (please correct if wrong) meaning she's making usable torque higher into the RPM band. All 3 are very very reliable engines, and all 3, with the L05 leading because of being generation 1 SBC, have large aftermarket possibilities. As for mileage, all three are also going to be similar, but mileage has a lot more to do with your personal driving habits than subtle differences between 3 closely related SBC's.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Katshot said:
I have a few problems with this post.
Based on your stated theory I would assume that the HT4100 would've been VERY reliable since it only had 130HP. Or how about the Olds 350 Diesel with 120HP. No, sorry, just because something has a low horsepower rating, that doesn't mean it's going to be reliable.
And about those horsepower ratings....you have to remember that back then, cars didn't have the kind of horsepower that you see these days. As an example, take a look at the Cadillac lineup of 1988:
4.1 liter (Allante only) - 170hp/ 235lb/ft [email protected]
4.5 liter (all other FWD car except Cimarron) - 155hp/ 240lb/ft [email protected]
5.0 liter (307Y in RWD cars) - 140hp/ 255lb/ft [email protected]
Notice it was NOT under-powered as compared to the rest of the line up. Horsepower was a little low but torque was the highest of the whole line up and that was from a mere 2000rpm! My guess is the tall gears were used on the RWd cars w/307 engines because the engine had the torque to use them.
I dont have a "theory" just common sense. I had an 87 FWB w/307, a 4.1 87 Deville, 305 and 350 sbc FWB. I'm not saying that a weak motor is a more reliable motor. I'm saying that the 307 was simply not meant to do much. So if I drive an LT1 FWB and I get on it a lot and I accumulate 120k before it needs a rebuild and your 307 makes it to 170k till it needs a rebuild, would your motor be in fact more reliable?. Which motor worked more through its lifespan, the weak one or the powerful one?.What if I took that LT1, lowered the compression, lowered the power to 140hp and intalled 2.56 gears in it. Do you think it would make it to 170k miles then? I do.



"The other thing I need to point out is that your comment about how tall gears (low numerically) are easier on the engine is actually backwards. The final drive ratio of any drivetrain determines to a great degree, the mechanical load placed on the engine and transmission. The mechanical advantage of short gears is very simple to prove. You ever try to climb a hill on a 10-speed in tenth gear? Very hard isn't it? So actually your point about gearing actually serves to show even more that the 307 (Y) was a solid engine."





Listen man, are you recommending that we all install 4.56 gears in our cars to improve reliability?. That argument about climbing a hill in tenth gear on a 10 speed is weak. I'm talking about daily driving and cruising at speed which is what these cars are used for. I dont know what mountain you are climbing with your car but a 307 going uphill, well.........probably wouldn't make it up that hill. A taller gear will rev lower at speed than a shorter gear, agreed?.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
About this Discussion
32 Replies
14 Participants
N0DIH
Top