Keep in mind the "gentle" tip-in throttle response may not be a mistake with the Cadillac big blocks. Can you imagine an elderly Cadillac customer complaining to the dealer after purchasing a their new Cadillac in 1970: "Ethyl says when I step on the gas pulling away from a light, it jerks her neck. The gas pedal is too touchy."
My daughter's biggest complaint about our Nissan Maxima is "it's too touchy." Compared to what she is used to driving, a 2005 Buick Lacrosse...it does jump off the line much faster....drive by wire vs. a gas pedal with a mechanical linkage.
@@325xitgrocgetter touchy in the wrong way ,keep tipping in and nothing nothing nothing and then wham 3/4 throttle. We've been away from an actual cable for so long we forget. DBW will never beat an actual cable in response. Even my lowly slow 52hp Jetta responds when I touch the pedal.
I've been swapping, running, modifying the big block Cadillac since the 90's , phenomenal engines it's not hard to get 500 hp and 600 plus ft pounds of torque from an almost stock engine.
@@CarsandCats The GM supercharged 3800 cars do a pretty good job of that too. It surprised me the first time I did it and started pouring smoke into the sunroof... It just wasn't something I was expecting. 😆
I can’t ever forget my high school friend taking me for a cruise in his moms massive 1970 Cadillac coupe with, I believe, a 472 in it. Emerald green with a white top and white interior. We were burning rubber from light to light that night. I’m sure some new rear tires were needed the next week! The car was, of course heavy, so we weren’t setting records, but we very effectively turned gasoline into noise and smoke! 😬
Memory Lane. I had a 1969 Olds Delta 88, with the 455 engine. When I started driving it, I used to go just around the corner from a friends house, then burn rubber down that long street. Until the day that the guy who's house I would launch in front of came running off of his porch, cursing & threatening me if I laid rubber in front of his house again. I don't know if it was due to the smoke, the noise, or making the street look like a drag strip with the tire marks.
The craziest, scariest ride I ever took was on an airboat powered by a Cadillac 500...! That thing and that guy were absolutely nuts...! There were many boats out there in Lake Placid, Florida on a memorial day weekend... It out ran them all...! I don't know all the engines that were there, but I know there were a few 454s and at least one Pontiac 455 and a ton of small block Chevys... That Cadillac 500 boat was insane though...!!! Thanks for sharing... Keep up your awesomeness...!
My three best friends parent’s had Big Blocks in 1975; a Caddie Coupe de Ville (8.2L), a 455 Olds 98 Regency and Buick Electra (7.5 L). As a teen being driven everywhere the Caddie always seemed “sedate” and dignified. You definitely could tell the difference in the way each moved and sped down the ramp onto the expressway. The Olds roared, the Buick pushed you from behind...the Caddy? It just kinda got you up to speed without really feeling anything? Maybe that throttle tip-in was purposeful? I always felt like I was being chauffeur driven in the Caddy.
In my experience, the GM engines in the late 60s early 70s with the best throttle response was the Pontiacs. The Chevys could usually outrun them at the top end because they could rev higher. But nothing seemed faster than that 1969 340 Dodge Dart with the 4-speed. That smaller engine would embarrass many GM big blocks.
Back in the 70's when all of us owned Detroit muscle of some kind the 340 was becoming a legend. Going back to the road tests from that period today the 340's ruled.
That was because the Buick had probably the most linear, easiest to mange torque curve in order to get the best out of the limited traction of street tires. As soon as you starred using tires with more grip the Hemi ruled. But that's also why the 440 would often outperform a Hemi if you were using street tires. It was a case of the Hemi having "too much power." Not manageable with limited traction. Pontiacs were probably the worst due to oiling problems which would destroy them in routine street use if they were run hard. I'm all too familiar with lean carburetors in those days. I was working at the local Cad/Olds dealership in 1970 and instantly got stuck with warranty repair "fixing" all of the new ones which wouldn't start or run because I made the mistake of fixing one which the older guys had given up on. That was a flat money loser for me because I was getting paid for about 30 minutes of regular labor rate for about two hours of work.
Remember the Cadillac was one of the heaviest cars and another thing I would take in consideration is axle ratio on caddy's, most of them had tall gears as well. They all ran lean in the 70's because of mpg which would make them have a tendency to be sluggish off the line @ tip-in let alone full throttle. Distributor timing was on the retarted side as well. My dad worked at the Tech Center in Warren for 30yrs and the first thing he would do is readjust the carb, put in lighter advance springs in the distributor and advanced the timing to wake it up. In a nutshell it's the way Cadillac wanted it.. (I do agree with you though).
In 88, I worked my first job out of tech school at the local Pontiac Buick GMC Caddilac dealership. We had old ladies bringing their late 70's 425 Caddy's in all the time running like crap. We took it out back, pulled the air cleaner, ran some water or Kerosene down the intake while revving to clean the carbon out. I would follow with a "drive it like you stole it" test drive with the air cleaner lid flipped, of course. Never forget those skinny tires smoking with the sound coming out of the 4 barell. Wished I had on of those now.
The Cadillac 472 is my favorite big block. Over the years I've had several high mileage cars with the 472. Their biggest problem seems to be clicking valve lifters and needing valve jobs rather soon but the lower ends are bullet proof. I had a Chevy truck with a 454 and it had no more power than a 350 (but it got about 7 mpg whereas 350s gave me about 10)
I love your channel Adam - it’s like a talking cars with a buddy on his porch. I’m so happy to see the growth of the channel so rapidly. You’re building quite the community of folks interested in the near luxury cars and full size cars from the 1960s-1980s.
They were, later replaced with 460 Ford's. It was just amazing how those engines revved up (5000 - 6500 rpm) and not scatter and man how they could pump some water! Even in regular boats those big blocks (Chrysler, GM, Ford) would rev high 5000+ rpm and skim along the top of the water.
a lot of this lack of response on initial pedal press was due to transmission gearing. Quite often people attributed the eventual thrust upon depressing accelerator to secondaries opening up but was actually (three speed automatic cars) downshifting from 3rd to 2nd. another subject I would like to see you cover, Adam, is the topic of “high-performance” or “HO” engined cars. What some people don’t realize is that it’s actually the components that are used in the engines like forged rods & camshafts, four bolt mains, etc. For instance, Chrysler’s 440 Magnum with 375hp vs their 440 SixPack with 390hp. The SixPack version was the only one of the two that was actually high performance, not because it was 15hp more powerful but because it had the expensive goodies in the engine that allowed it to better hold up and not break under high performance demands, like racing. Same holds true for the other manufacturers. Another example, between Pontiac’s RamAir III & RamAir IV, the IV is actually the HiPo of the two with its four bolt main, not because it’s has 2-3% more hp!
Sure. I’ll do that! As for the gearing, I’m not so sure. Other GM divisions had super lazy 2.56 rear ends and they still felt like they had more scoot. The Eldorados often had 2.73 or 3.08 final drive ratios but still exhibit the same feeling.
I had an '80 with a throttle that had that insufferable "dead zone". At one point of the pushing I think the car actually lost speed, then push past this and the car took off. This was from brand new. No one would put up with this today. The cheapest new Kia drives with precision today compared. I realise these cars were overladen with pollution controls in their infancy, but no matter, I dont miss carbs at all. I think FI is the single best improvement to engines since the beginning of cars. And a major contributor to cars' longevity now. Fuel is administered with precision now so cars last a long time and drive much better, and keep emissions low. Aunt Barbara adores you!
After 50 years of automotive repair I dont and will NOT own a fuel injected vehicle. NOTHING matches the simplicity and ability to repair (on the side of the road if necessary) of a carbureted engine. NO scan tool necessary. There are SEVEN wires running to the engine on all my vehicles...coil hot, temp sender, oil pressure sender, electric choke thermostat and 3 for the electronic ignition distributor. Compare that to a minimum of 25 (and usually more) wires for a fuel injected engine with all the failure prone sensors.
@@donreinke5863 I can understand your way of thinking. You have a point. After 40 some years of owning and driving both, I wouldn't take a carbureted vehicle (unless it was free) if I had to use it for daily transportation. There is absolutely nothing about them that I miss. Occasional use, ok. Every day vehicle, not interested in owning one.
I guess if u drive American cars thats true. All my cars are from Japan and we've never had problems with fuel systems. They tend not to be rolling garbage. Just sayin.
Properly maintained, a carbureted engine will provide excellent mileage and drivability. People managed just fine for 80 years with “primitive” carburetors and did just fine. The problem is proper maintenance. Too many people are perfectly content to drive around with worn ignition points, improper timing, chokes half closed, whatever, didn’t matter if it barely ran, as long as it got them where they needed to go that’s all that mattered. Efi and electronic ignition for the most part needs much less maintenance. On the flip side, when electronic ignition/EFI does need repair, it’s much more expensive. It’s no big deal for some people to keep spare ignition points or modules in the glove box. Not too many people would be willing to keep a spare PCM
@@johnz8210 Mine is a daily driver, but I happen to know how to rebuild set up and tune ANY carburetor. My customers are always sending me their mid 80s and older vehicles to set up carburetors, a few of them even have 3X2v "tri power" multiple carbureted systems. I can make them start as easy as ANY fuel injected vehicle and have done so many many times.
I had a friend who bought a Corvette with a factory 454. I always thought of the 454 being a low rpm pickup/farm truck engine. I thought that this was the weirdest engine combo to put into a Corvette. I never had the chance of riding in it, but he seemed to be happy with it. I was never a big Chevy guy, but as a kid I always thought that the 396 that was the biggest and baddest engine offered by GM. At least, my Chevy friends back then made the 396 into this mythical monster.
@@richthom6445 bull,they are really tough. Raced them for nearly 40 years, haven't had these failures every body speaks about without any knowledge of the engines.
@@richthom6445 Then you didn't know what you were doing. They are a very good set up. You must have used very worn out engines to do something they weren't intended for. My brother put a Buick in his pettybone loader and it was a beast. I ain't buying what your selling.
Olds V8 was handicapped by its small valves and combustion chamber but has the distinction of being the last carburated engine to receive EPA approval (307, likely due to its small combustion chamber).
All of these cars featured rear axle ratios around 2.41 to 3.07, because they had 3 speed transmissions with no overdrive, and no lock-up converter. Carb and ignition tuning was key to making them run good.
having owned a " 1974 CADI ELDO" with the 500 cid engine( low comp. ratio= dished pistons) ( I did a lot of "TWEEKING"( carb/ ignition modifications) to that engine where it would "SMOKE" the tires on that car when I got done with it , all from a "STOCK" engine I do remember back in the late 60's, a local police department used 454cid chevy engines in police duty cars, and after a few "HIGH SPEED CHASES" those engines came "UN-GLUED"!!!!, I also saw this at the "DRAG STRIP" as well!!!!!
Not to stray too far off topic, but I never knew the Chevy 454 could bend valves if the timing chain broke. To be fair, I don't work on a lot of Chevy vehicles. Our fleet is primarily Navistar, Cummins and our Ford trucks. Back in 1994 we had a fuel trucks equipped wIth Chevy 454. One of the trucks backfired and quit running. I found the timing chain had broken. After installing a new one, the engine turned over like half the spark plugs were out. Four cylinders (two on each bank) had no compression. I pulled the valve covers and was blown away to find four exhaust valves partially open. After yanking the heads, four of the pistons had little eye lash marks from kissing the valves. I have never heard anyone else experience that. But, again I don't work on a lot of Chevy engines.
Pretty common on the Mk IV big blocks in late 80's trucks actually. GM used a timing set that had nylon "fins" for sprocket teeth and over time they would break off. Usually around 100-120k they would fail completely. The Gen V's ('91+) used a better sprocket with solid nylon "humps" for teeth and they would last a good bit longer, but nothing was better than a standard double roller set you could get from any parts store at the time.
For towing and high temp heavy traffic driving the Pontiac V8s were the best. They had larger cooling system, by several quarts over the others, and better designed passages. On the flip side since the cooling system was so large and effective warm-up takes much longer and once emissions standards increased GM could not get it to pass because it ran cold too long to pass emissions. That is why Pontiac engines were pulled from California early and then were an early choice to be be discontinued. Also for cold areas there were lots of complaints that the time for the heat to work took too long.
I did not realize that smog related problem happend to the Pontiac. It does make me wonder how the Olds engine was good with smog, and didn't even use an air pump until 1973.
Most every big block I’ve owned has warmed up pretty fast. Thermostats we’re used to warm up engines faster and keep them at a normal operating temp. Usually an engine that had a hard time with emissions was due to compression ratio , cam shaft profile and combustion chamber efficiency. Once an engine was beyond the point of being able to pass emissions it was cancelled in cars and continued to the used in trucks cause they didn’t have the same emissions standards as passenger cars. That’s why so many of the good ole motors quit being produced.
I owned a 1967 Pontiac 2+2 with a 421 with 3 carbs and a muncie 4 speed on the floor. White bucket seats with a white vinyl top and a pretty blue color. Wide track Pontiac, it was a beautiful car to drive. I miss those days,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Our family,s Buick Estate Wagon , purchased new in 1970 , had the high compression 370 hp, 455 engine that was reliable as an anvil and had impressive torque.
Preach it.....My favorite motor (gas milage not considered) ! I had a 70 4 door Electra that had a Stage I cam in it, the guy I bough it from raced Buicks - this was his tow car! I used is for towing a 17 Ft speedboat, I could easily pass traffic and would get a crisp re-assuring tire chirp hitting 2nd gear towing that boat. She would chirp 2nd gear at 55 or 60 MPH. I remember a dodge Dart or Demon 340 getting next to me....grandpa's Buick snapped 2nd gear and pulled away 2 cars on him. I have a 455 GS 1974 now....built to the old compression specs too!
@@tonyrichards254 The Buick 455 is great within it's comfort zone. Unfortunately for the 455 lovers, the Buick 430 is a stronger block than the 455. I loved my Buick 455 and loved it more later as a 462. But there are thin main webs in the Buick 455, no matter how much I loved it. Heavy crank, light block.
I never owned a Buick 455 that didn’t eventually have oil pump issues, and I never had any issues with any of the Cadillac 425/472s that I owned. My Cadillac large blocks were all flawless.
@@johndillinger8482 Care to back that up with some actual numbers? I have a roller cam in my Buick 455 with over .600" lift at the valve, so there's plenty there for a potent street engine.
The reason why GM stopped giving the divisions to design and build their own engines is because customers complained about the divisions sharing engines amongst each other. For example, a customer purchased an Oldsmobile with the Oldsmobile V-8 and discovered that his Oldsmobile was equipped with a Chevrolet V-8. It has gotten to the point that customers even took GM to court. Also, it was costing GM too much money to ceritify all the engines. Later, GM created GM Powertrain division to design and produce engines for all GM divisions. Here is my favorite big block GM engine in order: 1. Chevrolet 454 LS6 V-8 2. Buick 455 Stage 1 V-8 3. Oldsmobile 455 Rocket V-8 4. Pontiac 455 Super Duty V-8 5. Cadillac 472 V-8
You can always find high performance parts from cad500parts for cadillac big blocks especially the 472-500 v8s, Butler performance provides high perf parts for Pontiac 389, 421, 428, 455ho an 455sd and even make crate engines, Oldsmobile has John Mondello has made spare parts for their big blocks, TA Performance makes high performance parts for any Buick big block. As for Chevy big blocks , there are Brodix, Shafiroff and more producing high performance parts. So you can always tune up a malaise era big block into a real big block brawler with real impressive net hp
One thing I've seen. At about 100K miles, the timing chain takes a dump and except at idle the valves will hit the pistons. Haven't seen destroyed pistons, but many bent valves and no compression. Also the rocker arms are held on with what looks like a paper clip on steriods. Not the plan for spirited driving. They run OK though, but most of them have small single exhaust trying to exit 500 CI. Also the smallest intake and exhaust valves on any large engine.
Same for a Pontiac V8: the 421/428/455 has a larger journal than the 326/350/389/400. Naturally the intake manifold would be wider if the deck height it taller, just like the difference between Windsor 302 and Windsor 351. But the Pontiac V8 and the Ford Windsor V8 are each considered one engine family.
@@RabeHighPerformance With the Olds V8 it's really low deck and high deck, not small/big when comparing the 350 to the 455. Bore spacing is the same which is why so many parts are interchangeable as you mentioned.
I had a 68 472, I changed out the primary metering rods too, it was a heavy engine, it ran that way, but it could make a ton of low end power, (it's small valves and intake runners limited the upper end) reliable and bullet proof. Had a friend in his 70s, bought a new 454 Chevy truck to pull a camper in the 80s, he took good care of it, but it still blew a rod before it made a 100k. In fact, Chevy 454s in the 80s in motorhomes we're known for having "square crankshafts" I never heard that said about any other BB GM, just the 454 The 472 would have made a great pick-up engine imo.
I actually agree with you on your insight on this. I'd venture to say that because Cadillac was GM's car for wealthy folks who wanted power & comfort without all the engine noise that Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, & Olds drivers had with all the muscle and pony cars. GM had those Cadillac engines bogged down and muzzled with more emissions components than all the other GM divisions. You take all that junk off those Cadillac engines and exhaust systems and you've got yourself a hot rod.
Having owned many of these, I had always attributed the less enthusiastic power delivery of the Cadillac to the higher curb weight for any given body style and year, so quite interesting that it was likely more than that. And of all my GM big blocks, a 1976 de Ville was the only one that consistently had trouble passing emissions, despite being in good repair and of modest mileage. I finally resorted to leaning out the carburetor every year prior to the test.
desert modern - My grandfather had a 1976 Olds 98 Regency with a 455 4 barrel. It was 455 cubes, but only put out 190 HP because it was choked so bad with emissions stuff. Car weighed as much as a house, and only had 190 HP. Hell....my 2007 Mazda 3 with a 2.3 liter 4 cylinder puts out 156 HP.
Correct. It was the weight and the gearing, nothing at all to do with the engine itself. My friend swapped a 472 Caddy into a C10 truck with 4.10 gears and it was a rocket.
in the early 80s I drove a 1969 Cadillac Coupe de Ville with a 472, and it was one of the fastest and quickest big cars I have driven to this day. No 460 powered Lincoln Ive driven (there were a few) compared with its performance, although some of them had respectable power for being 5000-6000 pounds.
@@christopherweise438 On a heavy car, you need good TORQUE. That Mazda might make a lot of horsepower per cubic inch, but in would not have made in any way enough torque to easily get a heavy car moving, especially on hills.
He said he’s a writer for major auto publication, so I’d assume that’s a big part of his library and expertise. He was probably a nerd like many of us car guys as kids where he knew the vehicle by it’s headlights. I thought I was the only one who did that but it seems to be quite a few of the car guys have that trait.
I recall the 1970 sedan deville was factory equipt with a 391 rear end. My cousins Dad had one, on occasion we would get to drive it. The full throttle hole shot was amazing. The huge tires would barely hold traction. It would beat most cars on the road in 1980.
@@BarryTsGarage My Cousins was a one wheel wonder. The big sedan had al ot of weight transfer that helped hold traction. It would squeel all the way down the street just digging in without breaking loose
The oiling system on the Pontiac was not very good. (Cam bearing priority) The Pontiac would suffer from excessive cylinder wall wear over time. Their cylinder heads were quite good though. The Chevy BB used canted valves with unequal length rockers which meant you couldn't use girdles to stiffen the rocker studs for high RPM use. The Cadillac V8 was never intended to be a "HP" motor, just a hulk motor for moving a hulk car. (With a family of hulks inside) The Buick was probably the best since it was a thin-wall cast block, produced gobs of torque yet was considerably lighter than it's counterparts. (Except for the ZL-1 427)
In every convo I have with people on the rowdiest street/strip engines of the 60’s I always put the 421sd Pontiac’s and the Max Wedge Mopar’s at the top of the heap. Cheers and keep up the great work🍻
The Buicks used the 850 CFM Quadrajet Carburetors and you described exactly how the power arrived, that was a great time gas was 39 cents a Gallon until the oil embargo in October of 1973 and you were lucky if you found a gas station that was open for the next several months.
Good one Adam, I've only owned Mopar 440(RB) and 400(B) and driven plenty of other brands, 460, 454, 455, etc and my personal fave was the Chrysler 400 in a '73 Newport, damn but I miss that car, by far the best road trip car I've ever driven. Around town I was lucky to get 8 or 9 MPG but with cruise control set to 70 it would average 16 from Calgary to Vancouver and if you split gas with your 3 or 4 passengers it was inexpensive, comfortable, smooth, quiet and you never slowed down no matter how steep those roads in the Rockies got.
I miss the Newport though I never owned one. It must have been one of the cheapest cars per pound. When your refer to mpg, were those 16 miles to one of our Canadian gallons or 16 miles to a US gallon?
I went on a road trip once in a 73 Newport with 400. Temperature was about minus 25 outside We had to bring the battery inside to warm up first but was great after that.
When I was growing up my parents had a 1974 Cadillac Coupe deVille with the 472 CID engine. They owned it for several years before I was allowed to drive it when I obtained my driver license a the age of 16 . I was so eager and excited to finally to drive it because I knew that it had that HUGE V-8 under the hood and on my first drive my excitement soon turned to disappointment as the car lumbered along UNTIL those secondaries kicked in and.................it still lumbered on, And you know why? because the car weighed 4942 lbs and the engine only made 205 HP😳 We've come a long way since then, thank goodness!!!! 💪
They make a stroker kit for the Caddy big blocks that comes with forged crank, pistons and rods. When the motor is stroked it is converted to 541 cubic inches and puts out a lot more horsepower and nobody but you will know what is inside the motor.
Interesting about the 472. In the mid '70s, a guy we hung out with would borrow his Dad's '72 Coupe De Ville (maroon, black top and interior) with a 472. Car was awesome. I remember one night, we're following him from one house party to the next going north bound on Hwy One , turns right onto mainstreet of our town at a high rate of speed, does a 180 and stops at the curb of a gas station like a perfect park job ! We were in shock. This is nearly 50 years ago and i remember this like it was last night. I've had a different view on these cars ever since.
348/409, but I’d own either one in a heartbeat. That’s earlier than Adam’s intended time range, but compared to the others they come up lacking. I haven’t heard of them being problematic during town and freeway motoring, other than maybe valve train glitches early. Something to consider about the later Mk IV Chevrolet big-blocks is that they were designed first as a race engine (‘63 Mk II Mystery Engine) and later was revised for street applications when it went into production in 1965. Oval and peanut port heads always struck me as something of an afterthought.
@@michaelbenardo5695 I meant with regard to reliability and the architecture in general. They didn’t tolerate being overrevved very well. The angled deck was kind of a weird thing for machine shops to deal with. There are drag racers who seem to have overcome some of the valve train issues in recent years, though.
In 1976 my dad had a New Eldorado with the fuel injection 500cid. It had 215sae hp, & 400 torque. I had a Buick 225 coupe with 455 4bbl. 205 hp 345torq. True, changing the timing did feel much nicer. The final drive ratio is what kept em lazy. Mine was 2.53:1 limited slip. Gr8 in snow. 78, I got a new Mark V 460cid.212hp. 357torq. Lazy from stand still but, better @ hi way. Man, I miss those landyachts. Imagine with today's technology ♥️
Adam, If you think the GM big block ranking will "stir emotions" then you better be in full, OSHA-approved protective gear when you rank the 350 V8s 😁😁😁😁
After 50 years of automotive repair I will definitely "go there" Before 1987 when high nickel blocks were introduced in small block Chevrolets, the Olds 350 was superior to ALL 350s in terms of reliability. Early Chevy 350s often would develop "flat" cams and cylinder wall wear would leave a considerable ridge at well under 100k The very first 1000 to 2000 Chevy small blocks ever built (265 ci) had rings that did not seat. GM sent out what was later known as a TSB telling dealers to have their mechanics throw a handful of BonAmi cleanser down the carburetor!!!
@@donreinke5863 Agreed, the Olds 350 was in a class unto itself. I worked at a full servvice repair shop that had been in business for thirty years back in the late 1970's. We routinely overhauled 350 Chev's, never once can I remember pulling down an Olds 350. They went well beyond 100K miles which was not the norm like today.They were also perfectly balanced and most had a smooth idle when properly tuned. Love the Olds blocks, have a '70 442 and a '72 Vista, both 455's.
I always liked the Buick myself. Stock there's lots of smooth low end torque kinda like a little big block. And unlike the big block Buick you've got a very strong block to build from.
@@donreinke5863 The only thing I can add to your insight is that I seemed to see early 70s Cutlasses on the road a lot longer than their Chevy, Pontiac or Buick cousins.
@@user-cs1ne8gx9u The weak point in the post nail head Buick engines was the oil pump built into the aluminum timing cover. These would commonly wear, the oil pressure would drop and that was the end of the Buick engine.
Every time you release a new video, the subscriber count is higher. Good for you! These are my favorite TH-cam auto vids: quiet, informative, well researched; and you concentrate on my favorite era and types of cars.
I owned a 1972 442, 455 with the 308* cam & hood scoops....W-25. The worst I ever had with it was fouled spark plugs from too much around town driving.
Having owned cars with all of these engines in the last 30 odd years I agree with all your Cadillac 472-500 comments. I suspect it was at least partly intentional, they wanted that “stately” feel like say from a Rolls Royce of the era. If had 69, 70 and 71 Eldorado’s and they all had that same underwhelming initial response. (Which btw made them great winter cars, almost like modern diesel cars, sluggish initially but tons of low end torque mid-rpm mid-throttle). Considering the other engines they all had their pros and cons. The 70 455 Pontiac had probably the best “performance” feel (not necessarily the quickest, just the best “normal” driving response feel). However this engine shared the regular Pontiac problem of timing chain failure, failure prone water pumps and the 70 455’s specifically had a abnormally high crank failure rate, perhaps related to the long about 4 and a quarter inch stroke and a then 16 year old architecture and a block that was really maxed out at this CID. The Chevy 454 got all the press back then and the hipo versions were the best revvers of the GM gang but they also had some issues including crank failure and intakes cracking on the bottom side. Also like the earlier 427’s the non performance versions were probably the worst performing of all the GM big blocks. The olds 455 was a great all arounder with lots of mid range. Even with the W30 version top end power was a bit weak which was ok given the iffy reputation of the crankshafts. The Buick 455 didn’t have quite the grunt of the Pontiac or Olds but they were the sleeper of the bunch at higher rpm. All my comments are about the high compression 70 versions and in bone stock tune and trim. The 71-72 feel very similar but with say 10-15% less grunt in the seat of the pants but still really nice feeling. The 73-74 were noticeably slower again but also suffered from drivability thanks to the factory “desperation” tuning and early EGR issues. The 75-76 are noticeably slow thanks to the cork like early cats and ultra highway gearing. However the catalytic converter ironically resulted in much much better drivability than the 73-74. But as you said these were all great engines for the average buyer. They only new had good they really were when they ended up several years later driving horribly slow small blocks in the 300 and less cube range and 100 and change horsepower.
As an owner of a 1990 Cadillac Brougham I was sad when you said the Caddy Engine was your least favorite, but you are probably right. I am happy that My 1990 has the proven 5.7 Litre 350 Chevy Engine in it, so I think it is pretty indestructible, I hope.
We got smoked on Floyd Hill in Colorado while driving a 78 Eldo with a 425 by a brand new Buick Grand National back in 1985. Guess what the 425 big block powered car got traded in on ? We had a 67 Eldo during the Gas Crisis in the 70s. I remember walking to the gas station when it ran out. 429 ran better than that later smogger crap.
With nearly 50 years of building engines and general repairs under my belt, I'll give you "my" spin, from best to worst. By FAR the best (in terms of durability) is the Olds, followed by the Buick, followed by the Cadillac, followed by the Pontiac, and coming in dead last would be the 454 (I call them 'trash-factories')
Of course when I was a kid I didn't know or understand I guess how the engine internals we're different on each engine, but it explains why every engine made a different sound. And honestly, when I was a kid I could actually tell the difference between each car - without looking at it! Maybe everybody could do it, I don't know, but yeah. Especially accelerating from a stop, I knew a Chevy from an Olds from a Buick etc. I guess the Olds being the most obvious because they sounded different from everything. Anybody else get that? 😉
You are right about the customers, the q-jet rods, and most other stuff. Olds used a ton of the 425 motors in the 68 - 70 model years also depending on the trim and budget.
Your videos all remind me how different it was to grow up a car nut on the West Coast, compared to (my assumption in your case) the Midwest and especially Michigan. I'm a product of the middle of the Boomer era, so I reached the age where I could read and understand Motor Trend magazine in 1965 (Car of the Year - Pontiac). It took until 1968 when my intellect could take in Road & Track; from that point forward, that was my standard of reference. My folks - and all the other relatives - were normal American car buyers through the 60s, except for the Beetle Dad got in 1962 as our first second car. All during that time, here in the PNW there were enough VWs, M-Bs, DKWs, Renaults, Peugeots, FIATs, Simcas etc. that I recognized them as well as all the 60s Americana. Then about 1966, big numbers of Toyotas and Datsuns started appearing -- and staying, since we don't have road salt rust. My family did have two 1960s Buicks.. but both had crippling flaws, the '65 Skylark convertible having virtually zero braking capability, and the '69 LeSabre having chronic overheating. From that point on, in my own mind, no thinking person considered big American cars the best choice; per R&T and lots of teenage pressure-campaign, I talked my folks into a '73 SAAB 99 4MT. The SAAB turned out to be an utter disaster in terms of breakdowns, but its performance, economy, braking were miles ahead of the Buicks and its capacity and comfort was darn near as good as the LeSabre. Then, when I finally had career-job money of my own, I bought a 1977 fuel-injected Rabbit.
My Dad bought a ‘77 Rabbit with fuel injection. It was brown. Perfect color for that turd. It was the only foreign car my Dad ever bought. It got totaled two years after multiple breakdowns. It was hit in the front by a ‘67 Beetle. The Beetle drove away.
The only foreign cars that would last a few rust belt winters was the beetle. Even in the 80’s people say how much better the Japanese cars were then. They really weren’t a few winters of salt on the roads and suspension parts would rot to pieces. Meanwhile big American cars would last as long as you cleaned the salt off in the summer . I graduated HS in the mid 90’s my first car was a 20 year old Plymouth station wagon there was no 20 year old foreign cars running around.
Foreign cars got a well deserved bad wrap in the mid-west. My uncle had an '80 Civic that only made it to '84 before the rust totaled it. He was displeased to put it mildly. He has never again intentionally bought a foreign car (he had a Geo without fully appreciating it was a Suzuki). From that point forward, Chevettes were the ticket for the thrifty. You could get 10 years out of one and just beat it the entire time. Rust did eventually drive them into extinction as well, and they were basically as refined as a lawn tractor, but they worked.
The biggest engine I've ever owned was a 360 in an old Dodge truck. I've had some 350 Chevys(currently the 2nd gen LT1), 307, 305. But I've always wanted a big block. I don't care what make, size, year, anything. I've just always been curious about them.
Had a 73 Pontiac Grandville with a 455, that car could handle a heavier trailer than the 84 f350 diesel I owned at the time and could bury the 120mph speedometer with no issue whatsoever. Had some dumb kid talking smack at a cruise in about how fast his 5.0 mustang was and how it could beat anything there, needless to say my 455 blew his doors off with little effort. Old Pontiac cars are just cool!
I think you have an excellent point that many commenters are not acknowledging to the customer, if it feels underpowered and/or is unreliable, that's all that mattered. They were not going to tinker with it. Most original owners (and second owners, I'd wager) bought a Cadillac at least partially based upon their reliability.
The reminds me my grandmother’s 76 Sedan DeVille with the 8.2L V8. When she got that car new, she was about 65 years old and God forbid if that engine had ever been tuned to anything more than “gutless”. When she turned 81 my mother finally took the keys away from her and I nominally inherited the car although it was in storage for much of the remaining years of her life. When I did drive it, it wasn’t much different than the 368 in my ‘80 Coupe Deville that I had in college in the mid 80s. Neither engine were going to set the drag strip on fire and that was the point to the typical Cadillac geriatric customer. I miss both of those cars.
Thanks Adam, another great video. I'm partial to GM so I enjoy most anything you do on GM, particularly the 60's and 70's. I've driven many '68 Buick430s as well as 455s from '71 and '72 and aside from the smooth performance, they were also incredibly durable. My '72 Riviera started spewing white smoke about 2 years ago and of course a head gasket was the culprit. I've had this car since the mid 90's and it was a daily driver for most of the late 90's to mid 2000's and had almost 200K miles. My mechanic told me the entire block looked great as did the heads when he took it apart. It was just a small area of the gasket that failed. I was wondering if you've ever had any experience with the Buick nailhead, either the 401 or 425. Those are actually my favorite Buick engines as I owned a few back in the 80's
I had some Nailheads over the years. My 56, my 61, and ended up with my mothers 62. Mine were great, but my parents refused to maintain their cars, so the 62 was pretty tired. PS: That white "smoke" was probably steam.
I had a '68 Buick GS 400 with the 400. Lots of fun days in that car but I expected more than the 10 mpg I got in it as it's not a heavy car for that day.
As the owner of a '67 Eldo with the 429, I have endured the shade thrown by owners of '68-and-later Cad owners who crow about the vast difference they think they'd perceive between their King-of-the-hill 472/500 and the old, puny 429. Neither the 429 nor the 472/500 were perfect, but both were very good. Your remark about decreased smoothness in the later, low-compression 472/500 is interesting since, at the Eldo's 1967 debut, the 429 was touted by Cadillac as the smoothest engine in the world, out-smoothing the Granddaddy of Smooth, the Rolls Royce V8. Apparently during Cadilac's early-1960s development of a new V12, GM's bean counters came to the conclusion that potential customers would not be able to feel a difference between a V8 and a V12. Hence, Cadillac's engine-replacement strategy switched back to a V8, resulting in the 472/500. Perhaps all of these "smoothness" claims are purely works of imagination? I've always chalked up the Cadillac's "reserved" acceleration response to the car being a … Cadillac. All things in moderation. Press the Go pedal and the Engine Room responds, "Very good, Sir. How much faster would you prefer to go?" An Eldorado (or even a Coupe de Ville) isn't a hyperactive puppy, overanxious to respond to any crude simulus. A Cadillac is a thouroughbred, meeting out its seemingly infinite supply of torque on a dignified, as-needed basis. They have long final-drive ratios to keep the revs down and lots of insulation to keep the engine-agitation cacophony away from the driver. Above all, Cadillacs go about the business of getting down the road quietly! Maybe the cushy factor was worse with the 472/500, though. As a sneaky, irresponsible teen, I was able to earn top time (in my class) at my first autocross in Mom's pristine, five-year-old, stock 429-powered 1967 Sedan de Ville. (Owners of competing Camaros and Mustangs -- with whom I shared the 'Large Car' class -- were stunned.) On the Interstate, I also outran various XKEs, Chaargers, and GTOs in the beloved de Ville. If one was willing to mash the throttle, the 429 got with the program posthaste! I can't disagree, however, that other big-block cars felt faster off the line. My family's 1966 and 1973 Olds Toronados were always rarin' to go (except for when the sickly QJ on our '73 had a bad case of the Bogs). But again, I've always figured that, given the slightly more "sporty" pretensions of the Toros, it made sense that I didn't have to stand on the gas *quite* as deliberately. An Oldsmobile (or Buick) didn't have the weight of the "Standard of the World" resting on its shoulders! 😊 Back in the present day, I would have expected your biggest anti-Caddy beef to be the location of the air-conditioning compressor. All of the other GM divisions hang the compressor off the the left or right side of the block. Cadillac puts the compressor right in front of the QJ! Getting at the left idle-mixture screw can be a challenge even if you have a flexible screwdriver. On the whole, none of the GM big blocks are indestructible. My Dad brought home one well-thrashed example each of a '68 Cadillac convertible (472) and '71 "boat-tail" Riviera (455). They were both too far gone for teenage me to straighten out on the open asphalt in front of our crummy townhouse. The '73 Toro's QJ bog got me t-boned by a Chrysler wagon when the engine went "bloop" when I stood on its throttle in the face of on-coming traffic. My '73 TransAm's 455 unceremoniously stripped the nylon from its timing-gear teeth and let the timing chain jump a cog or two, leading to a greasy afternoon squriming around underneath it in a fast-food parking lot. Even the venerable Cadillac 429 (as well as a Buick or two) suffers from the notorious aluminum-timing-chain-cover-wear scenario. Thanks again for another porch chat!
ok now i must now more about the ( was a 383 727 3.2FG interior removed for restoration, now a 4.5inch stoker hemi and TR6060 TT= about 500HP to 1200HP ) charger as i have a pre-1971 and my old boss that ran a cadillac proformace shop was willing to bet a grand usd 2012 dollars on a 1/4 mile drag i laughed a 1969-77 FWD 500CI full weight no we didn't do it as he was looking for the right car to restore/buy and mine wasn't paided off that year aka my paperwork signed said no racing but if i get the chance again i might consider it
You mentioned the Q-Jet bloop in the '73 Toronado, which also existed on the '72. Had a horrifying incident borrowing my folks '72 Toro (mint) 3 decades back turning left with plenty of space to clear oncoming traffic when NOTHING came out of the throttle for about 2 very long seconds when the secondaries opened and it produced the most insane burnout. Scary yet impressive.
@@douglasb.1203 vacuum secondary's? if so as q-jet not my favourite as i proffer all lever carbs as tuning and responses is better/easygoing. my incident was a q-jet having the float sink at the most inconvenient time and side swipe my buddy's crown victora pulling out of the driveway not cool my trucks bumper was going to get replaced anyway's as it was a farm/industrial one but ugly and strong but his car not so much ouch the back end was toasted from it boggling/stolling out and dieing leaving me with no vacuum/brakes/power steering pump pressures ect. on a hill
@@richardprice5978 I'm not talking about the 1/4 mile. On the highway, the low final-drive ratio of the Cadillac will let it run all day at 130 if you bury the throttle in the carpeting and keep it there. That was the beauty of the late-60s GM Cadillacs, Oldsmobiles, and Buicks: They could run flat out all day long. For example, the guy in the Charger simply ran out of steam - engine wailing at the top of its revs - as I rolled by him at around 110. His engine was wound out and there was nothing he could do about it. The Cadillac still had plenty of pedal remaining as he vanished in my rear-view mirror.
Funny you should mention the late 60s/early 70s Cadillacs being a bit doggy until the secondaries opened... My dad was a mechanic at Central Cadillac in Cleveland, Ohio from 1967 until 1971... He was also (still is) a Quadrajet Guru... So the management always had him bench those carbs and reinstall them, tune the cars and then they'd send them out the door. Northern Ohio had a few hot rodded Caddies running around there, in those days😁 Back in the Eighties, I had a Wysteria/Evening Orchid (can't remember what the color is called) 69 convertible when I was a teenager in Houston, Texas. We did the whole enchilada tune on it and that car would nearly walk a then-new 5.0 Mustang off the line... And make one look like it was going backwards after about 40 mph, when you'd nail it.... Fun and good times!
Actually as a retired mechanic the one GM big block I never really liked was the Oldsmobile big block and for a completely mechanical reason. When the time came for a timing chain replacement I always had issues with the way the crankshaft pulley was located. It was a bear to get off with limited room unless you lifted the engine slightly and normally you had to lift the engine. Other wise then that small issue it also was a great engine, smooth, great bottom end and easy to work on otherwise then doing the timing chain replacement.
They had horrible chain stretch. A good double roller was needed. And the oil system ugh Wish it had priority main oil but then it might have had cam and lifter issues with people running low on oil But the biggest flaw was minuscule oil drain back passages from the cylinder heads.
I bought a 1978 Chev pickup 1/2 ton 2 wheel drive stepside short box with a factory 454 engine and 400 transmission. It was a heavy 1/2 ton version, so there was no smog pumps or catalytic converter on it. But in 1979 they could no longer use the heavy 1/2 ton loophole. I still have this pickup in storage with around 100,000 miles on it. Only removed the valve covers on it because they siliconed them on that year. It was a fun truck to drive too,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The weak spot of the 472/500 was the valve train. I agree with Adam that these engines were not meant to be revved beyond about 4400 rpm. Even the transmissions were tuned for early butter smooth shifts on purpose to avoid revving them. He's also right about the EFI system for the 500s. I recall working on several cars in the 80s that were converted to 4bbls from the dealers years prior.
I had the exact same rating of these engines as you outlined, based on driving or being driven in cars with these engines, and lots of studying engines as an engineer. My brothers 1972 Cadillac with the 472 was beautiful car, but I was taken back how it didn't have the acceleration like his 1956 Imperial (354 hemi) or even my 1956 DeSoto 2 speed 331 Hemi. For all out power, the 454 has the head design, but that's another discussion.
The early hemi's are beasts . Always hear about the 430 mel when mentioning these. The classic drag racing pictures showing the winning cars always seem to say " Chrysler FirePower " stamped on the valve covers.
Awesome video. Any chance we can get a video that gives a quick overview, or pros / cons, of the GM big-blocks or small-blocks (Chevy vs. Pontiac vs. Buick vs. Olds etc.)? I always wondered what differentiated each engine.
I had a lot of Chevy/Olds/Pont/Buick big blocks. My parents went thru 8 Cadillacs from 1955-1990. They never had anything but the best of luck & those Caddy engines were marvelous. I was hooked on Olds, but never found them to be superior.
Pontiac never have a small block or big block classification. Pontiac v8 blocks from 301 to 455 blocks are the same size. Only difference is crankshaft journals 301 to 400 are small journal engines 421 428 and 455 are large journal engines.
Well, no issues here! I Agree. The Caddy was just a big engine without the matching horsepower…but it’s ok because….It’s a Cadillac….and it needed the biggest engine….that’s what I am paying for. I remember a family friend bought a beautiful gold 76 Fleetwood with pillowed velour seats and the 500….what a beautiful car but he could care less as he never drove very fast…..but is was impressive…….SMOOTH!
I also owned a 76 Fleetwood with the 500 and it was far and away the smoothest engine I've ever seen. I'm confident that if I parked it well for the stunt, that I could have balanced a quarter on the hood.
Personally, I think the 454 is the jankiest GM big block. They can be reliable, but lack performance for what they are. If given a choice, I'd take the SBC 350 every time over a 454. Parts are way cheaper and more available as well. A good truck motor for sure, but they don't like high revs.
As a Pontiac enthusiast, I wished they had just ended it with the 400 in 1979. Also glad he made the distinction that you hear & see all the time "It's gottta' 455 Pontiac Big Block."
I think the best way to refer to the Pontiacs would be small journal (326-400) and large journal (421-455). The 301 and 265 could be considered short deck and all the others tall deck.
@@mikee2923 Great Point Mike, but that kind of information is "inside baseball" for most all real Pontiac Motorheads. I just think of Chevy's which I like also when I hear the term Big Block. There were other makes that.apply also.
I've read that due to the low line of the hood of the Cadillac, GM had to keep the profile of the engine quite low. If Cadillac were able to utilize a mid rise or high rise intake manifold, the power output (hp and torque) would have been dramatically higher. Cadillac designers weren't going to put bubbles or cowl induction hoods on their cars, so the penalty was poor engine breathing and lower performance figures.
The reason some of these Caddys felt lazy is because they all had economy axle ratios. Swap out those lazy ratios for a more aggressive gear and you'd be impressed with the throttle response.
In the same token, my '76 Fleetwood felt like it would cruise all day at 100mph and that was without an overdrive transmission. If I had the money in the era and was driving around out west on huge empty roads, it would have been a top contender for me as a buyer.
@@TheBrokenLife Overdrive transmissions were the solution but GM did not start using them until the 1980's so they could put small displacement engines into large cars.
@@jeffrobodine8579 For sure, but I was more making the point that the car didn't really feel like it was missing something without one like a lot of things of the era would.
As an 11 year old, there was a neighbor in the house east of us who had two 1966 Cadillac DeVilles, one black and one a gold color. These cars, IIRC, had 429s in them. I found it odd that these had the AIR systems on them (the infamous smog pumps). Even then I knew that AIR existed since the mid 1960s, but was only used on California cars ... our 1972 Impala did not have this on its 350 2 barrel L65 engine (this was in 1979/1980).
For the naturally smoggiest engines, air pumps arrived for 1966 in California and 1968 in the other 49 states. Engines that produced less smog during combustion would not get one. At other times in history, there would be California cars that got an air pump and 49 state cars that didn't. The Olds 455 didn't get any air pumps until 1973, as I understand. I'm not sure how they controlled smog so well at that time.
I worked at a Pontiac Buick Cadillac dealership in 1983and got the chance to bring an elderly customer’s(yellow slacks white shoes )around the lot to the body shop. I picked the right spot to floor it so as to not loose control with the 500 cu inches and sideswipe any of the new versions parked nearby .To say I was disappointed with the resultant foot on gas pedal Would be as big an under statement as was the overstatement the term 500 horsepower
Your right about the customers experience is what will be remembered. Despite all the easy simple fixes for the problems, the majority of customers never had the “improved” feel from the car. Unfortunate that Cadillac didn’t see it this way. Or maybe they did and due to emission standards couldn’t. This isn’t just a Cadillac story. All of the manufacturers were struggling with drivability problems. When finally designing engines to work within the emission standards, instead of tacking on stuff to the same old engine, they got it right. That was after nearly 20 years of trying.
I had a ‘70 Coupe Deville for 8 years with the 472ci and I couldn’t agree more with your assessment of its low end performance. On a good note, when you stomped on the accelerator at a dead stop the massive torque available would really wake it up. It would scare my passengers who thought they were riding on the back of a friendly dinosaur. 😀
If it's not a Cadillac 472/500....i dont even turn my head to look....been driving these engines since 1984....there is no other engine for me....period.
All good points. I used to drive a '68 Sedan DeVille quite a bit and have to agree it just didn't feel powerful unless it was at 3/4 throttle or more. Even then it was not very impressive. Smooth and quiet, though. I drove a '75 and a '76 Eldorado often, too. Gutless is being kind - for a 500 cubic inch engine. Also I think the other big blocks were mated with a slightly higher stall speed torque converter, which makes quite a bit of difference in how the engine feels.
I would agree on the Cadillac engines. They were not meant to be anything other than big motors moving around big heavy cars with with numerical low rear gears (2.56, 2.73, 3.08, etc) I drove and owned Buick's, Pontiac's and Chevy's. Lots of of performance parts for any Chevy engine, big or small block. AND they could take the horsepower. Something the Buick 455 blocks could not. Big block Buick's were limited to 550HP because of the stock oiling system and high nickel content in the engine casting. Buick engines were light and made great amounts of torque which helped push around those heavy land yachts like the Electra 225. Pontiac's were predisposed to the same engine design and block size. Also the stock cams were .407 lift, unless you used 1.65 rocker arms like the Round Port Ram air engines. Plenty of performance parts in the day from H.O. Racing specialties. My 1970 RA IV Judge used a lot of their performance parts and cams. No real experience with Oldsmobile, but the old Hurst Olds 442 versions made good power and surprised many at the drag strip. All of this is just my humble opinion and experience.
i drove a 66 caddy with the big engine, it was a boat anchor...Yes very smooth riding and fun but didn't seem like it had that much power as it had to have back then .....My Olds 403 had way less in 79 trans am 220 hp on paper but felt like more ..must have been gears or carb specs ....1966 Buick Electra 225 another fav of mine.......Great video as always
Your are hitting home for me...my old 69 Electra I painstakingly rebuilt the 430 with high compression pistons and Stage 1 cam....it was so smooth and strong. I had a 77 Olds 98 first year with smaller body and had 403 with a tow package 3.23 axle ratio - and TH 400 transmission. A doctor ordered the car, and I got it 2nd. It was SO tight when I got it you could tell he babied it!...( I did not). I believe the Olds 403 with that setup was an excellent package - she was quick and would take the crappy Camaros of the day!
I know exactly what you mean... my godfather had a 67 Grand Prix with a 400 he traded that in for a 67 Coupe deVille... no comparison in acceleration... that 67 GP would move, and spin the tires easily... the big Caddy didn't feel a whole lot faster than my 283 Chevy from a stop. My neighbor had a 68 Fleetwood, also not fast, but very luxurious... full leather interior and power windows had 8 buttons on the drivers door, all windows and vent windows were power...
I had a 1980 Cadillac Coupe Deville as my first car. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the power delivery. In normal driving, the car felt slow. When you got on it, it took off like a rocket. I had a 1977 Sedan Deville, slightly quicker in normal driving, get on it and, it flew. It's funny you mentioned water pumps. I had to replace them in both cars!
I had an Olds 455 and loved it. My grandmother had a Buick 455 and it ran great, always made power and never had issues. One uncle had a Cadillac 500. It made plenty of torque, but didn't accellerate well above 30 mph. It had a lot of spark knock and just didn't like wide open throttle at all. It seemed like the factory single exhaust was holding it back and it just couldn't breathe. Once on a long hill on the Interstate it bogged down. My uncle pulled it down into L2 and floored it. It finally rev'd up and pulled amazingly hard all the way up the hill, then he let off and shifted back up into Drive and it was back to struggling. Maybe a gearing problem? Maybe the engine made so much torque that the trans didn't downshift when it should have. I rode in a Cadillac with a 472 and it ran better. Still no match for either the Olds or Buick, but seems to work better than the 500 for whatever reason.
Was the 500 newer than the 472? If so maybe blame it being a "smog" motor,otherwise something wrong such as carburetor jetted for high altitude when car used at sea level,timing chain off a notch or ignition timing off also if requiring premium gas and using regular instead I think some engines if still around have to use aviation fuel if not modified to use lower octane than they were designed for,such as the 1970 Ford 429. Heat riser valve stuck? Trouble with the "thermostatic air cleaner" ? Did Midas stuff a 2" pipe where the factory used a 2 and 1/2" pipe going to (or from) the muffler? Bogging down could also be a weak fuel pump or even a clogged inline fuel filter.
@@davidpowell3347 The 500 was in a 1975 Caddy. The 472 was a 1974. If the fuel pump or filter is the issue, flooring it would quickly run the carb out of gas and it would stumble. Not the case. Can't speak for the exhaust. I never had a heat riser valve get stuck. Maybe the timing chain, but it started fine.
Chevy 454 was widely known as powerful, but an oil-gulper. We had one in a new 73 wagon that used a quart every 1000 miles. Had the heads pulled, and the bores changed sizes as the crank was turned. Chevy used the lowest nickel content cheapest cast iron castings they possibly could.
Big block Chevy engines, particularly the 454 (7.4L) was very known for high oil consumption. According to GM this was considered normal. Even later engines (7.4 - 8.1L / 454 - 496 CID) equipped with TBI or sequential fuel injection still had those consumption issues. All had a higher oil capacity (7 quarts). Owners got use to it, using a quart every 1000 miles or so. " Nature of the beast " so to speak. Being that Chevrolet was the entry level division of GM, it seemed to get the less of everything.
@@michaelmurphy6869 You are correct. The company I drive for has GMC Kodiak 4500 trucks with 8.1 V8 motors that constantly need oil. The three we have are all original with almost 200,000 miles on them. We also have three Ford F550 trucks with 6.8 V10 motors that never used oil but all of them went bad at approximately 150,000 miles and had to be replaced with rebuilt motors at 💲10,000 a pop.
@@michaelmurphy6869 Up until the introduction of the Gen V 454 (1991?), much of that oil consumption was via the timing cover and oil pan gaskets, in addition to the rear main seals. lol!
I'm not going to argue with your pick, although I have heard that the Cadillac responds better to high performance mods than say the buick 455. I've heard the block itself in the buicks isnt as tough for a high performance custom build.
Wow, blow my mind, one thing that I remember of my mom's 72 caddy, is that it, and so MANY OTHER Cadillac's had of the same time/era, seems like they ALL: had some kind of "EXHAUST Manifold " leak..... all of them the 500 also had some kind of "tick" , as if , some kind of exhaust manifold leak.
396 - 427 - 454 is what you use for racing, the heads are what set them apart from the others the factory high performance ones could rev to 7000 rpm, try that with the other factory 455s. The Buick 455 and the caddy 500 are the next best IMHO.
The Ford FE series of big-block was in fact used across all ford brands, with Lincoln having exclusive displacements as well as some commercial trucks.
I had the '69 427 in a covette. Mild 390 hp 425 ft lbs torque. Avery good dependable engine, fast but not crazy. Jus a little crazy. I drove in off the street and turned 13.08 et quarter 3.08 rear axle that's pretty good.
Keep in mind the "gentle" tip-in throttle response may not be a mistake with the Cadillac big blocks.
Can you imagine an elderly Cadillac customer complaining to the dealer after purchasing a their new Cadillac in 1970: "Ethyl says when I step on the gas pulling away from a light, it jerks her neck. The gas pedal is too touchy."
My daughter's biggest complaint about our Nissan Maxima is "it's too touchy." Compared to what she is used to driving, a 2005 Buick Lacrosse...it does jump off the line much faster....drive by wire vs. a gas pedal with a mechanical linkage.
LOL, my thoughts exactly. 😂👍
Cadillac back in 72 or so was a geezer mobile with prestige.Not an off the line machine.
@@325xitgrocgetter touchy in the wrong way ,keep tipping in and nothing nothing nothing and then wham 3/4 throttle.
We've been away from an actual cable for so long we forget.
DBW will never beat an actual cable in response.
Even my lowly slow 52hp Jetta responds when I touch the pedal.
@@GaryBoyd02 - It was meant to be a La-Z-Boy on wheels. No feel, no noise, nothing.
I've been swapping, running, modifying the big block Cadillac since the 90's , phenomenal engines it's not hard to get 500 hp and 600 plus ft pounds of torque from an almost stock engine.
My Dad has a '68 Eldorado and I have never seen a stock vehicle smoke the front tires like that!
I have heard the Cadillac won't rev much past 3.500 rpm
Smiles per gallon!
@@CarsandCats The GM supercharged 3800 cars do a pretty good job of that too. It surprised me the first time I did it and started pouring smoke into the sunroof... It just wasn't something I was expecting. 😆
@@timothykeith1367 They will depending on the build .
I can’t ever forget my high school friend taking me for a cruise in his moms massive 1970 Cadillac coupe with, I believe, a 472 in it. Emerald green with a white top and white interior. We were burning rubber from light to light that night. I’m sure some new rear tires were needed the next week! The car was, of course heavy, so we weren’t setting records, but we very effectively turned gasoline into noise and smoke! 😬
Memory Lane. I had a 1969 Olds Delta 88, with the 455 engine. When I started driving it, I used to go just around the corner from a friends house, then burn rubber down that long street. Until the day that the guy who's house I would launch in front of came running off of his porch, cursing & threatening me if I laid rubber in front of his house again. I don't know if it was due to the smoke, the noise, or making the street look like a drag strip with the tire marks.
@@mikeholmstrom1899 Wow, those Rocket Olds are powerful. I'm working on a 69 Delta 455 now.
Olds has a unique sound.
The craziest, scariest ride I ever took was on an airboat powered by a Cadillac 500...! That thing and that guy were absolutely nuts...! There were many boats out there in Lake Placid, Florida on a memorial day weekend... It out ran them all...! I don't know all the engines that were there, but I know there were a few 454s and at least one Pontiac 455 and a ton of small block Chevys... That Cadillac 500 boat was insane though...!!! Thanks for sharing... Keep up your awesomeness...!
My three best friends parent’s had Big Blocks in 1975; a Caddie Coupe de Ville (8.2L), a 455 Olds 98 Regency and Buick Electra (7.5 L). As a teen being driven everywhere the Caddie always seemed “sedate” and dignified. You definitely could tell the difference in the way each moved and sped down the ramp onto the expressway. The Olds roared, the Buick pushed you from behind...the Caddy? It just kinda got you up to speed without really feeling anything? Maybe that throttle tip-in was purposeful? I always felt like I was being chauffeur driven in the Caddy.
In my experience, the GM engines in the late 60s early 70s with the best throttle response was the Pontiacs. The Chevys could usually outrun them at the top end because they could rev higher. But nothing seemed faster than that 1969 340 Dodge Dart with the 4-speed. That smaller engine would embarrass many GM big blocks.
70 gsx 455 stage 1 would embarrass the hemi cuda,but the 340 would pull for it's size
Back in the 70's when all of us owned Detroit muscle of some kind the 340 was becoming a legend. Going back to the road tests from that period today the 340's ruled.
That was because the Buick had probably the most linear, easiest to mange torque curve in order to get the best out of the limited traction of street tires. As soon as you starred using tires with more grip the Hemi ruled. But that's also why the 440 would often outperform a Hemi if you were using street tires. It was a case of the Hemi having "too much power." Not manageable with limited traction.
Pontiacs were probably the worst due to oiling problems which would destroy them in routine street use if they were run hard.
I'm all too familiar with lean carburetors in those days. I was working at the local Cad/Olds dealership in 1970 and instantly got stuck with warranty repair "fixing" all of the new ones which wouldn't start or run because I made the mistake of fixing one which the older guys had given up on. That was a flat money loser for me because I was getting paid for about 30 minutes of regular labor rate for about two hours of work.
Remember the Cadillac was one of the heaviest cars and another thing I would take in consideration is axle ratio on caddy's, most of them had tall gears as well. They all ran lean in the 70's because of mpg which would make them have a tendency to be sluggish off the line @ tip-in let alone full throttle. Distributor timing was on the retarted side as well. My dad worked at the Tech Center in Warren for 30yrs and the first thing he would do is readjust the carb, put in lighter advance springs in the distributor and advanced the timing to wake it up. In a nutshell it's the way Cadillac wanted it.. (I do agree with you though).
In 88, I worked my first job out of tech school at the local Pontiac Buick GMC Caddilac dealership. We had old ladies bringing their late 70's 425 Caddy's in all the time running like crap. We took it out back, pulled the air cleaner, ran some water or Kerosene down the intake while revving to clean the carbon out. I would follow with a "drive it like you stole it" test drive with the air cleaner lid flipped, of course. Never forget those skinny tires smoking with the sound coming out of the 4 barell. Wished I had on of those now.
The Cadillac 472 is my favorite big block. Over the years I've had several high mileage cars with the 472. Their biggest problem seems to be clicking valve lifters and needing valve jobs rather soon but the lower ends are bullet proof.
I had a Chevy truck with a 454 and it had no more power than a 350 (but it got about 7 mpg whereas 350s gave me about 10)
I love your channel Adam - it’s like a talking cars with a buddy on his porch.
I’m so happy to see the growth of the channel so rapidly. You’re building quite the community of folks interested in the near luxury cars and full size cars from the 1960s-1980s.
Yeah
Never owned a Cadillac, but remember how popular the Olds 455 was in jet boats with sustained high rpms, I love those engines, 2 thumbs up )
They were, later replaced with 460 Ford's. It was just amazing how those engines revved up (5000 - 6500 rpm) and not scatter and man how they could pump some water! Even in regular boats those big blocks (Chrysler, GM, Ford) would rev high 5000+ rpm and skim along the top of the water.
Yeah, the 455 Olds was really common in jet boats throughout the 80s and 90s. They had great low end torque.
a lot of this lack of response on initial pedal press was due to transmission gearing. Quite often people attributed the eventual thrust upon depressing accelerator to secondaries opening up but was actually (three speed automatic cars) downshifting from 3rd to 2nd.
another subject I would like to see you cover, Adam, is the topic of “high-performance” or “HO” engined cars. What some people don’t realize is that it’s actually the components that are used in the engines like forged rods & camshafts, four bolt mains, etc. For instance, Chrysler’s 440 Magnum with 375hp vs their 440 SixPack with 390hp. The SixPack version was the only one of the two that was actually high performance, not because it was 15hp more powerful but because it had the expensive goodies in the engine that allowed it to better hold up and not break under high performance demands, like racing. Same holds true for the other manufacturers. Another example, between Pontiac’s RamAir III & RamAir IV, the IV is actually the HiPo of the two with its four bolt main, not because it’s has 2-3% more hp!
Sure. I’ll do that!
As for the gearing, I’m not so sure. Other GM divisions had super lazy 2.56 rear ends and they still felt like they had more scoot. The Eldorados often had 2.73 or 3.08 final drive ratios but still exhibit the same feeling.
I had an '80 with a throttle that had that insufferable "dead zone". At one point of the pushing I think the car actually lost speed, then push past this and the car took off. This was from brand new. No one would put up with this today. The cheapest new Kia drives with precision today compared. I realise these cars were overladen with pollution controls in their infancy, but no matter, I dont miss carbs at all. I think FI is the single best improvement to engines since the beginning of cars. And a major contributor to cars' longevity now. Fuel is administered with precision now so cars last a long time and drive much better, and keep emissions low.
Aunt Barbara adores you!
After 50 years of automotive repair I dont and will NOT own a fuel injected vehicle.
NOTHING matches the simplicity and ability to repair (on the side of the road if necessary) of a carbureted engine.
NO scan tool necessary.
There are SEVEN wires running to the engine on all my vehicles...coil hot, temp sender, oil pressure sender, electric choke thermostat and 3 for the electronic ignition distributor.
Compare that to a minimum of 25 (and usually more) wires for a fuel injected engine with all the failure prone sensors.
@@donreinke5863 I can understand your way of thinking. You have a point.
After 40 some years of owning and driving both, I wouldn't take a carbureted vehicle (unless it was free) if I had to use it for daily transportation. There is absolutely nothing about them that I miss.
Occasional use, ok. Every day vehicle, not interested in owning one.
I guess if u drive American cars thats true. All my cars are from Japan and we've never had problems with fuel systems. They tend not to be rolling garbage. Just sayin.
Properly maintained, a carbureted engine will provide excellent mileage and drivability. People managed just fine for 80 years with “primitive” carburetors and did just fine.
The problem is proper maintenance. Too many people are perfectly content to drive around with worn ignition points, improper timing, chokes half closed, whatever, didn’t matter if it barely ran, as long as it got them where they needed to go that’s all that mattered. Efi and electronic ignition for the most part needs much less maintenance. On the flip side, when electronic ignition/EFI does need repair, it’s much more expensive. It’s no big deal for some people to keep spare ignition points or modules in the glove box. Not too many people would be willing to keep a spare PCM
@@johnz8210 Mine is a daily driver, but I happen to know how to rebuild set up and tune ANY carburetor.
My customers are always sending me their mid 80s and older vehicles to set up carburetors, a few of them even have 3X2v "tri power" multiple carbureted systems.
I can make them start as easy as ANY fuel injected vehicle and have done so many many times.
I had a friend who bought a Corvette with a factory 454. I always thought of the 454 being a low rpm pickup/farm truck engine. I thought that this was the weirdest engine combo to put into a Corvette. I never had the chance of riding in it, but he seemed to be happy with it. I was never a big Chevy guy, but as a kid I always thought that the 396 that was the biggest and baddest engine offered by GM. At least, my Chevy friends back then made the 396 into this mythical monster.
Ss 396 chevelle is n was a legend
I’ve always read the Buick Skylark GS Stage 1 455 was the absolute cream of the crop for GM big blocks.
I read somewhere that one had the best torque to weight ratio. I imagine a GS had a much shorter axle ratio than the Buick "Senior Model".
@@richthom6445 bull,they are really tough. Raced them for nearly 40 years, haven't had these failures every body speaks about without any knowledge of the engines.
@@richthom6445 Then you didn't know what you were doing. They are a very good set up. You must have used very worn out engines to do something they weren't intended for. My brother put a Buick in his pettybone loader and it was a beast. I ain't buying what your selling.
Olds V8 was handicapped by its small valves and combustion chamber but has the distinction of being the last carburated engine to receive EPA approval (307, likely due to its small combustion chamber).
it was carbed right to the end in 1990.
I think an Isuzu truck did have a crab'd 4 for a little longer. However, it would make the Olds 307 the last EPA legal carb V8.
Those small valves made gobs of torque
@@karaDee2363 Don't doubt it. I just recall is that no one back in the 80s wanted to hotrod the GM products with the 307. The 305 was where it was at.
@@paulfrantizek102 68 olds 350 with number 5 cylinder heads would run against any big block
All of these cars featured rear axle ratios around 2.41 to 3.07, because they had 3 speed transmissions with no overdrive, and no lock-up converter. Carb and ignition tuning was key to making them run good.
having owned a " 1974 CADI ELDO" with the 500 cid engine( low comp. ratio= dished pistons) ( I did a lot of "TWEEKING"( carb/ ignition modifications) to that engine where it would "SMOKE" the tires on that car when I got done with it , all from a "STOCK" engine I do remember back in the late 60's, a local police department used 454cid chevy engines in police duty cars, and after a few "HIGH SPEED CHASES" those engines came "UN-GLUED"!!!!, I also saw this at the "DRAG STRIP" as well!!!!!
Least favorite? I can’t choose one I like less than most others but I do have 1 favorite: Buick 455
Not to stray too far off topic, but I never knew the Chevy 454 could bend valves if the timing chain broke. To be fair, I don't work on a lot of Chevy vehicles. Our fleet is primarily Navistar, Cummins and our Ford trucks.
Back in 1994 we had a fuel trucks equipped wIth Chevy 454. One of the trucks backfired and quit running. I found the timing chain had broken. After installing a new one, the engine turned over like half the spark plugs were out. Four cylinders (two on each bank) had no compression. I pulled the valve covers and was blown away to find four exhaust valves partially open. After yanking the heads, four of the pistons had little eye lash marks from kissing the valves.
I have never heard anyone else experience that. But, again I don't work on a lot of Chevy engines.
Pretty common on the Mk IV big blocks in late 80's trucks actually. GM used a timing set that had nylon "fins" for sprocket teeth and over time they would break off. Usually around 100-120k they would fail completely. The Gen V's ('91+) used a better sprocket with solid nylon "humps" for teeth and they would last a good bit longer, but nothing was better than a standard double roller set you could get from any parts store at the time.
For towing and high temp heavy traffic driving the Pontiac V8s were the best. They had larger cooling system, by several quarts over the others, and better designed passages.
On the flip side since the cooling system was so large and effective warm-up takes much longer and once emissions standards increased GM could not get it to pass because it ran cold too long to pass emissions. That is why Pontiac engines were pulled from California early and then were an early choice to be be discontinued.
Also for cold areas there were lots of complaints that the time for the heat to work took too long.
Insightful comment!
I did not realize that smog related problem happend to the Pontiac. It does make me wonder how the Olds engine was good with smog, and didn't even use an air pump until 1973.
Most every big block I’ve owned has warmed up pretty fast. Thermostats we’re used to warm up engines faster and keep them at a normal operating temp. Usually an engine that had a hard time with emissions was due to compression ratio , cam shaft profile and combustion chamber efficiency.
Once an engine was beyond the point of being able to pass emissions it was cancelled in cars and continued to the used in trucks cause they didn’t have the same emissions standards as passenger cars. That’s why so many of the good ole motors quit being produced.
I owned a 1967 Pontiac 2+2 with a 421 with 3 carbs and a muncie 4 speed on the floor. White bucket seats with a white vinyl top and a pretty blue color. Wide track Pontiac, it was a beautiful car to drive. I miss those days,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
@@ddyeo503 spectacular!
Our family,s Buick Estate Wagon , purchased new in 1970 , had the high compression 370 hp, 455 engine that was reliable as an anvil and had impressive torque.
I like the anvil/reliability analogy.
Preach it.....My favorite motor (gas milage not considered) ! I had a 70 4 door Electra that had a Stage I cam in it, the guy I bough it from raced Buicks - this was his tow car! I used is for towing a 17 Ft speedboat, I could easily pass traffic and would get a crisp re-assuring tire chirp hitting 2nd gear towing that boat. She would chirp 2nd gear at 55 or 60 MPH. I remember a dodge Dart or Demon 340 getting next to me....grandpa's Buick snapped 2nd gear and pulled away 2 cars on him. I have a 455 GS 1974 now....built to the old compression specs too!
I hear a lot that Buick had the best big block and Olds the best small block.
@@tonyrichards254 The Buick 455 is great within it's comfort zone. Unfortunately for the 455 lovers, the Buick 430 is a stronger block than the 455. I loved my Buick 455 and loved it more later as a 462. But there are thin main webs in the Buick 455, no matter how much I loved it. Heavy crank, light block.
that 1970 455 was a legend especially the stage 1 and 2s
I never owned a Buick 455 that didn’t eventually have oil pump issues, and I never had any issues with any of the Cadillac 425/472s that I owned. My Cadillac large blocks were all flawless.
buicks have horribly small cam bearings.
@@johndillinger8482 Care to back that up with some actual numbers? I have a roller cam in my Buick 455 with over .600" lift at the valve, so there's plenty there for a potent street engine.
Baloney
The reason why GM stopped giving the divisions to design and build their own engines is because customers complained about the divisions sharing engines amongst each other. For example, a customer purchased an Oldsmobile with the Oldsmobile V-8 and discovered that his Oldsmobile was equipped with a Chevrolet V-8. It has gotten to the point that customers even took GM to court. Also, it was costing GM too much money to ceritify all the engines. Later, GM created GM Powertrain division to design and produce engines for all GM divisions. Here is my favorite big block GM engine in order:
1. Chevrolet 454 LS6 V-8
2. Buick 455 Stage 1 V-8
3. Oldsmobile 455 Rocket V-8
4. Pontiac 455 Super Duty V-8
5. Cadillac 472 V-8
You can always find high performance parts from cad500parts for cadillac big blocks especially the 472-500 v8s, Butler performance provides high perf parts for Pontiac 389, 421, 428, 455ho an 455sd and even make crate engines, Oldsmobile has John Mondello has made spare parts for their big blocks, TA Performance makes high performance parts for any Buick big block. As for Chevy big blocks , there are Brodix, Shafiroff and more producing high performance parts. So you can always tune up a malaise era big block into a real big block brawler with real impressive net hp
One thing I've seen. At about 100K miles, the timing chain takes a dump and except at idle the valves will hit the pistons. Haven't seen destroyed pistons, but many bent valves and no compression. Also the rocker arms are held on with what looks like a paper clip on steriods. Not the plan for spirited driving. They run OK though, but most of them have small single exhaust trying to exit 500 CI. Also the smallest intake and exhaust valves on any large engine.
They were hoing for torque not hp, so small valves help not hinder
The difference at Olds between "small block" and "big block" is also just 1/2" deck height. A 350 cam runs in a 455, though not optimal.
olds big blocks use a much bigger crank journal size than the small blocks, the intakes on a bb are also much wider.
Same for a Pontiac V8: the 421/428/455 has a larger journal than the 326/350/389/400. Naturally the intake manifold would be wider if the deck height it taller, just like the difference between Windsor 302 and Windsor 351. But the Pontiac V8 and the Ford Windsor V8 are each considered one engine family.
Olds small block and big block heads, cam, and disturber they are interchangeable with each other. The intake manifolds will not interchange.
@@RabeHighPerformance With the Olds V8 it's really low deck and high deck, not small/big when comparing the 350 to the 455. Bore spacing is the same which is why so many parts are interchangeable as you mentioned.
@@mikec9112 I thought the 302 was a long-stroke version of the 221 - 260 - 289, all of which were the then new Windsor V8.
The vast majority of BBC's were produced with cast crankshafts, not forged.
I had a 68 472, I changed out the primary metering rods too, it was a heavy engine, it ran that way, but it could make a ton of low end power, (it's small valves and intake runners limited the upper end) reliable and bullet proof.
Had a friend in his 70s, bought a new 454 Chevy truck to pull a camper in the 80s, he took good care of it, but it still blew a rod before it made a 100k.
In fact, Chevy 454s in the 80s in motorhomes we're known for having "square crankshafts" I never heard that said about any other BB GM, just the 454
The 472 would have made a great pick-up engine imo.
I thought the Cadillac engines were actually lighter than the other GM big blocks.
I actually agree with you on your insight on this. I'd venture to say that because Cadillac was GM's car for wealthy folks who wanted power & comfort without all the engine noise that Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, & Olds drivers had with all the muscle and pony cars. GM had those Cadillac engines bogged down and muzzled with more emissions components than all the other GM divisions. You take all that junk off those Cadillac engines and exhaust systems and you've got yourself a hot rod.
Having owned many of these, I had always attributed the less enthusiastic power delivery of the Cadillac to the higher curb weight for any given body style and year, so quite interesting that it was likely more than that. And of all my GM big blocks, a 1976 de Ville was the only one that consistently had trouble passing emissions, despite being in good repair and of modest mileage. I finally resorted to leaning out the carburetor every year prior to the test.
desert modern - My grandfather had a 1976 Olds 98 Regency with a 455 4 barrel. It was 455 cubes, but only put out 190 HP because it was choked so bad with emissions stuff. Car weighed as much as a house, and only had 190 HP.
Hell....my 2007 Mazda 3 with a 2.3 liter 4 cylinder puts out 156 HP.
Correct. It was the weight and the gearing, nothing at all to do with the engine itself. My friend swapped a 472 Caddy into a C10 truck with 4.10 gears and it was a rocket.
in the early 80s I drove a 1969 Cadillac Coupe de Ville with a 472, and it was one of the fastest and quickest big cars I have driven to this day.
No 460 powered Lincoln Ive driven (there were a few) compared with its performance, although some of them had respectable power for being 5000-6000 pounds.
Also, most GM cars were geared too tall, which blunts acceleration, especially on something as heavy as a Cad.
@@christopherweise438 On a heavy car, you need good TORQUE. That Mazda might make a lot of horsepower per cubic inch, but in would not have made in any way enough torque to easily get a heavy car moving, especially on hills.
I know that this channel isn't about GMC trucks but crazy to think that they had their own engines too, the big block 6s. love the channel
The Cadillac had a 272:1 rear end. That's why they seemed sluggish. My '76 got 22 MPG on the highway. Besides the cars were HEAVY.
He listed "heavy" as if it were a feature when heavy is a kiss of death for both performance and economy!
There is no way that a 1976 Cadillac gets 22 MPG on the highway. Maybe 15 or 16. Great theater though!
@@GoldenGun-Florida I was able to get 17 mpg out of a 1973 Olds Toronado with a 455 doing 65 mph on the highway.
@@jeffrobodine8579 17 I will believe. 22 I do not. But, it is great theater though.
@@alan6832for smooth steady highway ride heavy helps
Do a video on yourself , how did you learn all this? All your videos very helpfull , from an old timer technician thank you.
He said he’s a writer for major auto publication, so I’d assume that’s a big part of his library and expertise. He was probably a nerd like many of us car guys as kids where he knew the vehicle by it’s headlights. I thought I was the only one who did that but it seems to be quite a few of the car guys have that trait.
@@ScottSellsSoCal that's how I started identifying cars after I got interested in them, but cars these days aren't cool like they used to be
Experience and google is where most people get their information from….absorbing it all and remembering everything is the tricky part.
I suggest looking up steve magnante. Another very knowledgable person.
@@emerybryant I’ve seen a lot of his videos also. Very knowledgeable guy that remembers a lot of info.
I recall the 1970 sedan deville was factory equipt with a 391 rear end. My cousins Dad had one, on occasion we would get to drive it. The full throttle hole shot was amazing. The huge tires would barely hold traction. It would beat most cars on the road in 1980.
Agreed! I have a very similar memory! I wonder if they all came with a posi? #dualskids
@@BarryTsGarage My Cousins was a one wheel wonder. The big sedan had al ot of weight transfer that helped hold traction. It would squeel all the way down the street just digging in without breaking loose
@@55chevyjoes12 squealing
Is literally breaking loose
The oiling system on the Pontiac was not very good. (Cam bearing priority) The Pontiac would suffer from excessive cylinder wall wear over time. Their cylinder heads were quite good though.
The Chevy BB used canted valves with unequal length rockers which meant you couldn't use girdles to stiffen the rocker studs for high RPM use.
The Cadillac V8 was never intended to be a "HP" motor, just a hulk motor for moving a hulk car. (With a family of hulks inside)
The Buick was probably the best since it was a thin-wall cast block, produced gobs of torque yet was considerably lighter than it's counterparts. (Except for the ZL-1 427)
In every convo I have with people on the rowdiest street/strip engines of the 60’s I always put the 421sd Pontiac’s and the Max Wedge Mopar’s at the top of the heap. Cheers and keep up the great work🍻
The Buicks used the 850 CFM Quadrajet Carburetors and you described exactly how the power arrived, that was a great time gas was 39 cents a Gallon until the oil embargo in October of 1973 and you were lucky if you found a gas station that was open for the next several months.
QJets came in 750 or 800 cfm
Buick 455 had their own largest version in the 1970 Model.@@moejr1974
You will know you have a Q- Jet 850 they have no outer Booster rings on the Primary side.@@moejr1974
I liked the 1969 Buick 430 in my Riviera
Good one Adam, I've only owned Mopar 440(RB) and 400(B) and driven plenty of other brands, 460, 454, 455, etc and my personal fave was the Chrysler 400 in a '73 Newport, damn but I miss that car, by far the best road trip car I've ever driven. Around town I was lucky to get 8 or 9 MPG but with cruise control set to 70 it would average 16 from Calgary to Vancouver and if you split gas with your 3 or 4 passengers it was inexpensive, comfortable, smooth, quiet and you never slowed down no matter how steep those roads in the Rockies got.
I miss the Newport though I never owned one. It must have been one of the cheapest cars per pound. When your refer to mpg, were those 16 miles to one of our Canadian gallons or 16 miles to a US gallon?
@@rightlanehog3151 16 miles for 4 litres so a bit more than a US gallon
@@johnkufeldt3564 3.73 litres = US Gallon 4.55 litres = Imperial gallon. 👍
I went on a road trip once in a 73 Newport with 400. Temperature was about minus 25 outside
We had to bring the battery inside to warm up first but was great after that.
When I was growing up my parents had a 1974 Cadillac Coupe deVille with the 472 CID engine. They owned it for several years before I was allowed to drive it when I obtained my driver license a the age of 16 . I was so eager and excited to finally to drive it because I knew that it had that HUGE V-8 under the hood and on my first drive my excitement soon turned to disappointment as the car lumbered along UNTIL those secondaries kicked in and.................it still lumbered on, And you know why? because the car weighed 4942 lbs and the engine only made 205 HP😳 We've come a long way since then, thank goodness!!!! 💪
They make a stroker kit for the Caddy big blocks that comes with forged crank, pistons and rods. When the motor is stroked it is converted to 541 cubic inches and puts out a lot more horsepower and nobody but you will know what is inside the motor.
Interesting about the 472.
In the mid '70s, a guy we hung out with would borrow his Dad's '72 Coupe De Ville (maroon, black top and interior) with a 472.
Car was awesome. I remember one night, we're following him from one house party to the next going north bound on Hwy One , turns right onto mainstreet of our town at a high rate of speed, does a 180 and stops at the curb of a gas station like a perfect park job ! We were in shock.
This is nearly 50 years ago and i remember this like it was last night.
I've had a different view on these cars ever since.
348/409, but I’d own either one in a heartbeat. That’s earlier than Adam’s intended time range, but compared to the others they come up lacking. I haven’t heard of them being problematic during town and freeway motoring, other than maybe valve train glitches early.
Something to consider about the later Mk IV Chevrolet big-blocks is that they were designed first as a race engine (‘63 Mk II Mystery Engine) and later was revised for street applications when it went into production in 1965. Oval and peanut port heads always struck me as something of an afterthought.
The solid-lifter versions were hardly lacking, as long as you compared them to other engines of similary size.
@@michaelbenardo5695 I meant with regard to reliability and the architecture in general. They didn’t tolerate being overrevved very well. The angled deck was kind of a weird thing for machine shops to deal with. There are drag racers who seem to have overcome some of the valve train issues in recent years, though.
@@88SCdid w chevys have canted valves like mark engines?
@@rogerdodrill4733 No; the valve stem centerlines were parallel, although they weren’t in-line.
I saw a caddy 500 once that threw a rod, I reached in the hole and pulled out a piece of camshaft. They weren’t meant to rev above 4500 rpm.
It would probably make a good truck engine.
Too bad rev limiter dist. Weren't used yet
In 1976 my dad had a New Eldorado with the fuel injection 500cid. It had 215sae hp, & 400 torque. I had a Buick 225 coupe with 455 4bbl. 205 hp 345torq. True, changing the timing did feel much nicer. The final drive ratio is what kept em lazy. Mine was 2.53:1 limited slip. Gr8 in snow. 78, I got a new Mark V 460cid.212hp. 357torq. Lazy from stand still but, better @ hi way. Man, I miss those landyachts. Imagine with today's technology ♥️
Adam, If you think the GM big block ranking will "stir emotions" then you better be in full, OSHA-approved protective gear when you rank the 350 V8s 😁😁😁😁
After 50 years of automotive repair I will definitely "go there"
Before 1987 when high nickel blocks were introduced in small block Chevrolets, the Olds 350 was superior to ALL 350s in terms of reliability. Early Chevy 350s often would develop "flat" cams and cylinder wall wear would leave a considerable ridge at well under 100k
The very first 1000 to 2000 Chevy small blocks ever built (265 ci) had rings that did not seat. GM sent out what was later known as a TSB telling dealers to have their mechanics throw a handful of BonAmi cleanser down the carburetor!!!
@@donreinke5863 Agreed, the Olds 350 was in a class unto itself. I worked at a full servvice repair shop that had been in business for thirty years back in the late 1970's. We routinely overhauled 350 Chev's, never once can I remember pulling down an Olds 350. They went well beyond 100K miles which was not the norm like today.They were also perfectly balanced and most had a smooth idle when properly tuned. Love the Olds blocks, have a '70 442 and a '72 Vista, both 455's.
I always liked the Buick myself. Stock there's lots of smooth low end torque kinda like a little big block. And unlike the big block Buick you've got a very strong block to build from.
@@donreinke5863 The only thing I can add to your insight is that I seemed to see early 70s Cutlasses on the road a lot longer than their Chevy, Pontiac or Buick cousins.
@@user-cs1ne8gx9u The weak point in the post nail head Buick engines was the oil pump built into the aluminum timing cover.
These would commonly wear, the oil pressure would drop and that was the end of the Buick engine.
Every time you release a new video, the subscriber count is higher. Good for you! These are my favorite TH-cam auto vids: quiet, informative, well researched; and you concentrate on my favorite era and types of cars.
I owned a 1972 442, 455 with the 308* cam & hood scoops....W-25. The worst I ever had with it was fouled spark plugs from too much around town driving.
They put those 308 cams in 350s too, Ram Rods & W-31s.
@@mcqueenfanman I remember them.
They sounds wicked good too in them!
The 1972 w30 4 speed cam had 294-296 cam duration.
Having owned cars with all of these engines in the last 30 odd years I agree with all your Cadillac 472-500 comments. I suspect it was at least partly intentional, they wanted that “stately” feel like say from a Rolls Royce of the era. If had 69, 70 and 71 Eldorado’s and they all had that same underwhelming initial response. (Which btw made them great winter cars, almost like modern diesel cars, sluggish initially but tons of low end torque mid-rpm mid-throttle).
Considering the other engines they all had their pros and cons.
The 70 455 Pontiac had probably the best “performance” feel (not necessarily the quickest, just the best “normal” driving response feel). However this engine shared the regular Pontiac problem of timing chain failure, failure prone water pumps and the 70 455’s specifically had a abnormally high crank failure rate, perhaps related to the long about 4 and a quarter inch stroke and a then 16 year old architecture and a block that was really maxed out at this CID.
The Chevy 454 got all the press back then and the hipo versions were the best revvers of the GM gang but they also had some issues including crank failure and intakes cracking on the bottom side. Also like the earlier 427’s the non performance versions were probably the worst performing of all the GM big blocks.
The olds 455 was a great all arounder with lots of mid range. Even with the W30 version top end power was a bit weak which was ok given the iffy reputation of the crankshafts.
The Buick 455 didn’t have quite the grunt of the Pontiac or Olds but they were the sleeper of the bunch at higher rpm.
All my comments are about the high compression 70 versions and in bone stock tune and trim.
The 71-72 feel very similar but with say 10-15% less grunt in the seat of the pants but still really nice feeling. The 73-74 were noticeably slower again but also suffered from drivability thanks to the factory “desperation” tuning and early EGR issues. The 75-76 are noticeably slow thanks to the cork like early cats and ultra highway gearing. However the catalytic converter ironically resulted in much much better drivability than the 73-74.
But as you said these were all great engines for the average buyer. They only new had good they really were when they ended up several years later driving horribly slow small blocks in the 300 and less cube range and 100 and change horsepower.
As an owner of a 1990 Cadillac Brougham I was sad when you said the Caddy Engine was your least favorite, but you are probably right. I am happy that My 1990 has the proven 5.7 Litre 350 Chevy Engine in it, so I think it is pretty indestructible, I hope.
No emotions stirred here. Very interesting information.
We got smoked on Floyd Hill in Colorado while driving a 78 Eldo with a 425 by a brand new Buick Grand National back in 1985. Guess what the 425 big block powered car got traded in on ? We had a 67 Eldo during the Gas Crisis in the 70s. I remember walking to the gas station when it ran out. 429 ran better than that later smogger crap.
With nearly 50 years of building engines and general repairs under my belt, I'll give you "my" spin, from best to worst. By FAR the best (in terms of durability) is the Olds, followed by the Buick, followed by the Cadillac, followed by the Pontiac, and coming in dead last would be the 454 (I call them 'trash-factories')
I've had Chevy trucks with 350s and one with a 454 and the 454 had no more power than the 350s. It drank a lot more gas tho, LOL.
Totally agree the 454 was the worst of the bunch.
Had a 454 in my 74 Vette it ran great, unfortunately not a lot of power but it never gave me a problem.
The Chevy BB is by far the most reliable large displacement GM mills, not even remotely close. Sounds more like 50 year of talking shit.
Of course when I was a kid I didn't know or understand I guess how the engine internals we're different on each engine, but it explains why every engine made a different sound. And honestly, when I was a kid I could actually tell the difference between each car - without looking at it! Maybe everybody could do it, I don't know, but yeah. Especially accelerating from a stop, I knew a Chevy from an Olds from a Buick etc. I guess the Olds being the most obvious because they sounded different from everything. Anybody else get that? 😉
You are right about the customers, the q-jet rods, and most other stuff. Olds used a ton of the 425 motors in the 68 - 70 model years also depending on the trim and budget.
Love these porch chats. I always learn something. Thank you for sharing!
Your videos all remind me how different it was to grow up a car nut on the West Coast, compared to (my assumption in your case) the Midwest and especially Michigan. I'm a product of the middle of the Boomer era, so I reached the age where I could read and understand Motor Trend magazine in 1965 (Car of the Year - Pontiac). It took until 1968 when my intellect could take in Road & Track; from that point forward, that was my standard of reference. My folks - and all the other relatives - were normal American car buyers through the 60s, except for the Beetle Dad got in 1962 as our first second car. All during that time, here in the PNW there were enough VWs, M-Bs, DKWs, Renaults, Peugeots, FIATs, Simcas etc. that I recognized them as well as all the 60s Americana. Then about 1966, big numbers of Toyotas and Datsuns started appearing -- and staying, since we don't have road salt rust. My family did have two 1960s Buicks.. but both had crippling flaws, the '65 Skylark convertible having virtually zero braking capability, and the '69 LeSabre having chronic overheating. From that point on, in my own mind, no thinking person considered big American cars the best choice; per R&T and lots of teenage pressure-campaign, I talked my folks into a '73 SAAB 99 4MT. The SAAB turned out to be an utter disaster in terms of breakdowns, but its performance, economy, braking were miles ahead of the Buicks and its capacity and comfort was darn near as good as the LeSabre. Then, when I finally had career-job money of my own, I bought a 1977 fuel-injected Rabbit.
My Dad bought a ‘77 Rabbit with fuel injection. It was brown. Perfect color for that turd. It was the only foreign car my Dad ever bought. It got totaled two years after multiple breakdowns. It was hit in the front by a ‘67 Beetle. The Beetle drove away.
The only foreign cars that would last a few rust belt winters was the beetle. Even in the 80’s people say how much better the Japanese cars were then. They really weren’t a few winters of salt on the roads and suspension parts would rot to pieces. Meanwhile big American cars would last as long as you cleaned the salt off in the summer . I graduated HS in the mid 90’s my first car was a 20 year old Plymouth station wagon there was no 20 year old foreign cars running around.
Foreign cars got a well deserved bad wrap in the mid-west. My uncle had an '80 Civic that only made it to '84 before the rust totaled it. He was displeased to put it mildly. He has never again intentionally bought a foreign car (he had a Geo without fully appreciating it was a Suzuki).
From that point forward, Chevettes were the ticket for the thrifty. You could get 10 years out of one and just beat it the entire time. Rust did eventually drive them into extinction as well, and they were basically as refined as a lawn tractor, but they worked.
The biggest engine I've ever owned was a 360 in an old Dodge truck. I've had some 350 Chevys(currently the 2nd gen LT1), 307, 305. But I've always wanted a big block. I don't care what make, size, year, anything. I've just always been curious about them.
get an FE Ford and you'll smile every time you hear it fire up.
6l gas chevy considered a big block? Thats a solid engine.
@@mph5896 no its not. CI doesnt matter. Its literally a big ass engine block lmao
The old Lean Burn 360s were a dog, Brother had one in a thing called a Charger, a horrible car not like the Chargers of old.
Had a 73 Pontiac Grandville with a 455, that car could handle a heavier trailer than the 84 f350 diesel I owned at the time and could bury the 120mph speedometer with no issue whatsoever. Had some dumb kid talking smack at a cruise in about how fast his 5.0 mustang was and how it could beat anything there, needless to say my 455 blew his doors off with little effort. Old Pontiac cars are just cool!
I would also add the much higher cost of Cadillac parts.
I think you have an excellent point that many commenters are not acknowledging to the customer, if it feels underpowered and/or is unreliable, that's all that mattered. They were not going to tinker with it. Most original owners (and second owners, I'd wager) bought a Cadillac at least partially based upon their reliability.
The reminds me my grandmother’s 76 Sedan DeVille with the 8.2L V8. When she got that car new, she was about 65 years old and God forbid if that engine had ever been tuned to anything more than “gutless”. When she turned 81 my mother finally took the keys away from her and I nominally inherited the car although it was in storage for much of the remaining years of her life. When I did drive it, it wasn’t much different than the 368 in my ‘80 Coupe Deville that I had in college in the mid 80s. Neither engine were going to set the drag strip on fire and that was the point to the typical Cadillac geriatric customer. I miss both of those cars.
I thought that the 429 on my 1966 Fleetwood Brougham was smoother than the 425 on my Eldorado.
I am presuming the Eldorado is a 1977 or 78.
Thanks Adam, another great video. I'm partial to GM so I enjoy most anything you do on GM, particularly the 60's and 70's. I've driven many '68 Buick430s as well as 455s from '71 and '72 and aside from the smooth performance, they were also incredibly durable. My '72 Riviera started spewing white smoke about 2 years ago and of course a head gasket was the culprit. I've had this car since the mid 90's and it was a daily driver for most of the late 90's to mid 2000's and had almost 200K miles. My mechanic told me the entire block looked great as did the heads when he took it apart. It was just a small area of the gasket that failed.
I was wondering if you've ever had any experience with the Buick nailhead, either the 401 or 425. Those are actually my favorite Buick engines as I owned a few back in the 80's
I had some Nailheads over the years. My 56, my 61, and ended up with my mothers 62. Mine were great, but my parents refused to maintain their cars, so the 62 was pretty tired. PS: That white "smoke" was probably steam.
I had a '68 Buick GS 400 with the 400. Lots of fun days in that car but I expected more than the 10 mpg I got in it as it's not a heavy car for that day.
As the owner of a '67 Eldo with the 429, I have endured the shade thrown by owners of '68-and-later Cad owners who crow about the vast difference they think they'd perceive between their King-of-the-hill 472/500 and the old, puny 429. Neither the 429 nor the 472/500 were perfect, but both were very good.
Your remark about decreased smoothness in the later, low-compression 472/500 is interesting since, at the Eldo's 1967 debut, the 429 was touted by Cadillac as the smoothest engine in the world, out-smoothing the Granddaddy of Smooth, the Rolls Royce V8. Apparently during Cadilac's early-1960s development of a new V12, GM's bean counters came to the conclusion that potential customers would not be able to feel a difference between a V8 and a V12. Hence, Cadillac's engine-replacement strategy switched back to a V8, resulting in the 472/500. Perhaps all of these "smoothness" claims are purely works of imagination?
I've always chalked up the Cadillac's "reserved" acceleration response to the car being a …
Cadillac. All things in moderation. Press the Go pedal and the Engine Room responds, "Very good, Sir. How much faster would you prefer to go?" An Eldorado (or even a Coupe de Ville) isn't a hyperactive puppy, overanxious to respond to any crude simulus. A Cadillac is a thouroughbred, meeting out its seemingly infinite supply of torque on a dignified, as-needed basis. They have long final-drive ratios to keep the revs down and lots of insulation to keep the engine-agitation cacophony away from the driver. Above all, Cadillacs go about the business of getting down the road quietly!
Maybe the cushy factor was worse with the 472/500, though. As a sneaky, irresponsible teen, I was able to earn top time (in my class) at my first autocross in Mom's pristine, five-year-old, stock 429-powered 1967 Sedan de Ville. (Owners of competing Camaros and Mustangs -- with whom I shared the 'Large Car' class -- were stunned.) On the Interstate, I also outran various XKEs, Chaargers, and GTOs in the beloved de Ville. If one was willing to mash the throttle, the 429 got with the program posthaste!
I can't disagree, however, that other big-block cars felt faster off the line. My family's 1966 and 1973 Olds Toronados were always rarin' to go (except for when the sickly QJ on our '73 had a bad case of the Bogs). But again, I've always figured that, given the slightly more "sporty" pretensions of the Toros, it made sense that I didn't have to stand on the gas *quite* as deliberately. An Oldsmobile (or Buick) didn't have the weight of the "Standard of the World" resting on its shoulders! 😊
Back in the present day, I would have expected your biggest anti-Caddy beef to be the location of the air-conditioning compressor. All of the other GM divisions hang the compressor off the the left or right side of the block. Cadillac puts the compressor right in front of the QJ! Getting at the left idle-mixture screw can be a challenge even if you have a flexible screwdriver.
On the whole, none of the GM big blocks are indestructible. My Dad brought home one well-thrashed example each of a '68 Cadillac convertible (472) and '71 "boat-tail" Riviera (455). They were both too far gone for teenage me to straighten out on the open asphalt in front of our crummy townhouse. The '73 Toro's QJ bog got me t-boned by a Chrysler wagon when the engine went "bloop" when I stood on its throttle in the face of on-coming traffic. My '73 TransAm's 455 unceremoniously stripped the nylon from its timing-gear teeth and let the timing chain jump a cog or two, leading to a greasy afternoon squriming around underneath it in a fast-food parking lot. Even the venerable Cadillac 429 (as well as a Buick or two) suffers from the notorious aluminum-timing-chain-cover-wear scenario.
Thanks again for another porch chat!
thanks
ok now i must now more about the ( was a 383 727 3.2FG interior removed for restoration, now a 4.5inch stoker hemi and TR6060 TT= about 500HP to 1200HP ) charger as i have a pre-1971 and my old boss that ran a cadillac proformace shop was willing to bet a grand usd 2012 dollars on a 1/4 mile drag i laughed a 1969-77 FWD 500CI full weight no we didn't do it as he was looking for the right car to restore/buy and mine wasn't paided off that year aka my paperwork signed said no racing but if i get the chance again i might consider it
You mentioned the Q-Jet bloop in the '73 Toronado, which also existed on the '72. Had a horrifying incident borrowing my folks '72 Toro (mint) 3 decades back turning left with plenty of space to clear oncoming traffic when NOTHING came out of the throttle for about 2 very long seconds when the secondaries opened and it produced the most insane burnout.
Scary yet impressive.
@@douglasb.1203 vacuum secondary's? if so as q-jet not my favourite as i proffer all lever carbs as tuning and responses is better/easygoing. my incident was a q-jet having the float sink at the most inconvenient time and side swipe my buddy's crown victora pulling out of the driveway not cool my trucks bumper was going to get replaced anyway's as it was a farm/industrial one but ugly and strong but his car not so much ouch the back end was toasted from it boggling/stolling out and dieing leaving me with no vacuum/brakes/power steering pump pressures ect. on a hill
@@richardprice5978 I'm not talking about the 1/4 mile. On the highway, the low final-drive ratio of the Cadillac will let it run all day at 130 if you bury the throttle in the carpeting and keep it there. That was the beauty of the late-60s GM Cadillacs, Oldsmobiles, and Buicks: They could run flat out all day long.
For example, the guy in the Charger simply ran out of steam - engine wailing at the top of its revs - as I rolled by him at around 110. His engine was wound out and there was nothing he could do about it. The Cadillac still had plenty of pedal remaining as he vanished in my rear-view mirror.
Funny you should mention the late 60s/early 70s Cadillacs being a bit doggy until the secondaries opened...
My dad was a mechanic at Central Cadillac in Cleveland, Ohio from 1967 until 1971... He was also (still is) a Quadrajet Guru... So the management always had him bench those carbs and reinstall them, tune the cars and then they'd send them out the door.
Northern Ohio had a few hot rodded Caddies running around there, in those days😁
Back in the Eighties, I had a Wysteria/Evening Orchid (can't remember what the color is called) 69 convertible when I was a teenager in Houston, Texas.
We did the whole enchilada tune on it and that car would nearly walk a then-new 5.0 Mustang off the line... And make one look like it was going backwards after about 40 mph, when you'd nail it.... Fun and good times!
Actually as a retired mechanic the one GM big block I never really liked was the Oldsmobile big block and for a completely mechanical reason. When the time came for a timing chain replacement I always had issues with the way the crankshaft pulley was located. It was a bear to get off with limited room unless you lifted the engine slightly and normally you had to lift the engine. Other wise then that small issue it also was a great engine, smooth, great bottom end and easy to work on otherwise then doing the timing chain replacement.
They had horrible chain stretch. A good double roller was needed.
And the oil system ugh
Wish it had priority main oil but then it might have had cam and lifter issues with people running low on oil
But the biggest flaw was minuscule oil drain back passages from the cylinder heads.
I bought a 1978 Chev pickup 1/2 ton 2 wheel drive stepside short box with a factory 454 engine and 400 transmission. It was a heavy 1/2 ton version, so there was no smog pumps or catalytic converter on it. But in 1979 they could no longer use the heavy 1/2 ton loophole. I still have this pickup in storage with around 100,000 miles on it. Only removed the valve covers on it because they siliconed them on that year. It was a fun truck to drive too,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The weak spot of the 472/500 was the valve train. I agree with Adam that these engines were not meant to be revved beyond about 4400 rpm. Even the transmissions were tuned for early butter smooth shifts on purpose to avoid revving them. He's also right about the EFI system for the 500s. I recall working on several cars in the 80s that were converted to 4bbls from the dealers years prior.
I had the exact same rating of these engines as you outlined, based on driving or being driven in cars with these engines, and lots of studying engines as an engineer. My brothers 1972 Cadillac with the 472 was beautiful car, but I was taken back how it didn't have the acceleration like his 1956 Imperial (354 hemi) or even my 1956 DeSoto 2 speed 331 Hemi. For all out power, the 454 has the head design, but that's another discussion.
The early hemi's are beasts . Always hear about the 430 mel when mentioning these. The classic drag racing pictures showing the winning cars always seem to say " Chrysler FirePower " stamped on the valve covers.
Excellent discussion. You make your best point at 13:10. This is what holds the most relevance.
Awesome video. Any chance we can get a video that gives a quick overview, or pros / cons, of the GM big-blocks or small-blocks (Chevy vs. Pontiac vs. Buick vs. Olds etc.)? I always wondered what differentiated each engine.
I had a lot of Chevy/Olds/Pont/Buick big blocks. My parents went thru 8 Cadillacs from 1955-1990. They never had anything but the best of luck & those Caddy engines were marvelous. I was hooked on Olds, but never found them to be superior.
Pontiac never have a small block or big block classification. Pontiac v8 blocks from 301 to 455 blocks are the same size. Only difference is crankshaft journals 301 to 400 are small journal engines 421 428 and 455 are large journal engines.
@@RabeHighPerformance Not exactly. Some blocks for performance applications also had higher nickel content and more meat in the block.
@@RabeHighPerformance The 265 and 301 had shorter deck heights than all the others.
Well, no issues here! I Agree. The Caddy was just a big engine without the matching horsepower…but it’s ok because….It’s a Cadillac….and it needed the
biggest engine….that’s what I am paying for. I remember a family friend bought a beautiful gold 76 Fleetwood with pillowed velour seats and the 500….what a beautiful car but he could care less as he never drove very fast…..but is was impressive…….SMOOTH!
I also owned a 76 Fleetwood with the 500 and it was far and away the smoothest engine I've ever seen. I'm confident that if I parked it well for the stunt, that I could have balanced a quarter on the hood.
@@TheBrokenLife Wow…..that’s cool! The last of the best Fleetwoods ever made!
Personally, I think the 454 is the jankiest GM big block. They can be reliable, but lack performance for what they are. If given a choice, I'd take the SBC 350 every time over a 454. Parts are way cheaper and more available as well.
A good truck motor for sure, but they don't like high revs.
As a Pontiac enthusiast, I wished they had just ended it with the 400 in 1979. Also glad he made the distinction that you hear & see all the time "It's gottta' 455 Pontiac Big Block."
I think the best way to refer to the Pontiacs would be small journal (326-400) and large journal (421-455). The 301 and 265 could be considered short deck and all the others tall deck.
@@mikee2923 Great Point Mike, but that kind of information is "inside baseball" for most all real Pontiac Motorheads. I just think of Chevy's which I like also when I hear the term Big Block. There were other makes that.apply also.
I've read that due to the low line of the hood of the Cadillac, GM had to keep the profile of the engine quite low. If Cadillac were able to utilize a mid rise or high rise intake manifold, the power output (hp and torque) would have been dramatically higher. Cadillac designers weren't going to put bubbles or cowl induction hoods on their cars, so the penalty was poor engine breathing and lower performance figures.
That is exactly right, the carburetor/air filter assembly looked like it was pushed down between the valve covers, the valves were smallish too.
The reason some of these Caddys felt lazy is because they all had economy axle ratios. Swap out those lazy ratios for a more aggressive gear and you'd be impressed with the throttle response.
They all had lazy rear ends in the big cars.
In the same token, my '76 Fleetwood felt like it would cruise all day at 100mph and that was without an overdrive transmission. If I had the money in the era and was driving around out west on huge empty roads, it would have been a top contender for me as a buyer.
@@TheBrokenLife Overdrive transmissions were the solution but GM did not start using them until the 1980's so they could put small displacement engines into large cars.
@@jeffrobodine8579 For sure, but I was more making the point that the car didn't really feel like it was missing something without one like a lot of things of the era would.
As an 11 year old, there was a neighbor in the house east of us who had two 1966 Cadillac DeVilles, one black and one a gold color. These cars, IIRC, had 429s in them. I found it odd that these had the AIR systems on them (the infamous smog pumps). Even then I knew that AIR existed since the mid 1960s, but was only used on California cars ... our 1972 Impala did not have this on its 350 2 barrel L65 engine (this was in 1979/1980).
For the naturally smoggiest engines, air pumps arrived for 1966 in California and 1968 in the other 49 states. Engines that produced less smog during combustion would not get one. At other times in history, there would be California cars that got an air pump and 49 state cars that didn't.
The Olds 455 didn't get any air pumps until 1973, as I understand. I'm not sure how they controlled smog so well at that time.
I worked at a Pontiac Buick Cadillac dealership in 1983and got the chance to bring an elderly customer’s(yellow slacks white shoes )around the lot to the body shop. I picked the right spot to floor it so as to not loose control with the 500 cu inches and sideswipe any of the new versions parked nearby .To say I was disappointed with the resultant foot on gas pedal Would be as big an under statement as was the overstatement the term 500 horsepower
Cubic inches I meant
Your right about the customers experience is what will be remembered. Despite all the easy simple fixes for the problems, the majority of customers never had the “improved” feel from the car. Unfortunate that Cadillac didn’t see it this way. Or maybe they did and due to emission standards couldn’t. This isn’t just a Cadillac story. All of the manufacturers were struggling with drivability problems. When finally designing engines to work within the emission standards, instead of tacking on stuff to the same old engine, they got it right. That was after nearly 20 years of trying.
I had a ‘70 Coupe Deville for 8 years with the 472ci and I couldn’t agree more with your assessment of its low end performance. On a good note, when you stomped on the accelerator at a dead stop the massive torque available would really wake it up. It would scare my passengers who thought they were riding on the back of a friendly dinosaur. 😀
Just a tad beyond my knowledge of this era - but as always informative. Always fun to watch and learn. Bobby
Also, Lincoln had the 462 through 1967 and partly into 1968.
If it's not a Cadillac 472/500....i dont even turn my head to look....been driving these engines since 1984....there is no other engine for me....period.
All good points.
I used to drive a '68 Sedan DeVille quite a bit and have to agree it just didn't feel powerful unless it was at 3/4 throttle or more. Even then it was not very impressive. Smooth and quiet, though.
I drove a '75 and a '76 Eldorado often, too. Gutless is being kind - for a 500 cubic inch engine.
Also I think the other big blocks were mated with a slightly higher stall speed torque converter, which makes quite a bit of difference in how the engine feels.
My dad had a 69 deville convertible and it felt very powerful especially for a massive land yacht of a car.
I would agree on the Cadillac engines. They were not meant to be anything other than big motors moving around big heavy cars with with numerical low rear gears (2.56, 2.73, 3.08, etc) I drove and owned Buick's, Pontiac's and Chevy's. Lots of of performance parts for any Chevy engine, big or small block. AND they could take the horsepower. Something the Buick 455 blocks could not. Big block Buick's were limited to 550HP because of the stock oiling system and high nickel content in the engine casting. Buick engines were light and made great amounts of torque which helped push around those heavy land yachts like the Electra 225. Pontiac's were predisposed to the same engine design and block size. Also the stock cams were .407 lift, unless you used 1.65 rocker arms like the Round Port Ram air engines. Plenty of performance parts in the day from H.O. Racing specialties. My 1970 RA IV Judge used a lot of their performance parts and cams. No real experience with Oldsmobile, but the old Hurst Olds 442 versions made good power and surprised many at the drag strip. All of this is just my humble opinion and experience.
i drove a 66 caddy with the big engine, it was a boat anchor...Yes very smooth riding and fun but didn't seem like it had that much power as it had to have back then .....My Olds 403 had way less in 79 trans am 220 hp on paper but felt like more ..must have been gears or carb specs ....1966 Buick Electra 225 another fav of mine.......Great video as always
Your are hitting home for me...my old 69 Electra I painstakingly rebuilt the 430 with high compression pistons and Stage 1 cam....it was so smooth and strong. I had a 77 Olds 98 first year with smaller body and had 403 with a tow package 3.23 axle ratio - and TH 400 transmission. A doctor ordered the car, and I got it 2nd. It was SO tight when I got it you could tell he babied it!...( I did not). I believe the Olds 403 with that setup was an excellent package - she was quick and would take the crappy Camaros of the day!
@@gt-37guy6 Oh the good old days.. we were lucky to have so many engine and option choices .... now everyone puts the LS engine in LOL
Yes Adam, you've hurt my feelings, I want to cry............ WAAAAAA~ Good show dude
I know exactly what you mean... my godfather had a 67 Grand Prix with a 400 he traded that in for a 67 Coupe deVille... no comparison in acceleration... that 67 GP would move, and spin the tires easily... the big Caddy didn't feel a whole lot faster than my 283 Chevy from a stop. My neighbor had a 68 Fleetwood, also not fast, but very luxurious... full leather interior and power windows had 8 buttons on the drivers door, all windows and vent windows were power...
I had a 1980 Cadillac Coupe Deville as my first car. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the power delivery. In normal driving, the car felt slow. When you got on it, it took off like a rocket. I had a 1977 Sedan Deville, slightly quicker in normal driving, get on it and, it flew. It's funny you mentioned water pumps. I had to replace them in both cars!
The '70 Buick 455 hooked to a three-on-the-tree really made the Estate Wagon scoot!
And yes, a couple of dozen were so equipped.
I had an Olds 455 and loved it. My grandmother had a Buick 455 and it ran great, always made power and never had issues. One uncle had a Cadillac 500. It made plenty of torque, but didn't accellerate well above 30 mph. It had a lot of spark knock and just didn't like wide open throttle at all. It seemed like the factory single exhaust was holding it back and it just couldn't breathe. Once on a long hill on the Interstate it bogged down. My uncle pulled it down into L2 and floored it. It finally rev'd up and pulled amazingly hard all the way up the hill, then he let off and shifted back up into Drive and it was back to struggling. Maybe a gearing problem? Maybe the engine made so much torque that the trans didn't downshift when it should have. I rode in a Cadillac with a 472 and it ran better. Still no match for either the Olds or Buick, but seems to work better than the 500 for whatever reason.
Was the 500 newer than the 472? If so maybe blame it being a "smog" motor,otherwise something wrong such as carburetor jetted for high altitude when car used at sea level,timing chain off a notch or ignition timing off
also if requiring premium gas and using regular instead
I think some engines if still around have to use aviation fuel if not modified to use lower octane than they were designed for,such as the 1970 Ford 429.
Heat riser valve stuck? Trouble with the "thermostatic air cleaner" ? Did Midas stuff a 2" pipe where the factory used a 2 and 1/2" pipe going to (or from) the muffler?
Bogging down could also be a weak fuel pump or even a clogged inline fuel filter.
@@davidpowell3347 The 500 was in a 1975 Caddy. The 472 was a 1974. If the fuel pump or filter is the issue, flooring it would quickly run the carb out of gas and it would stumble. Not the case. Can't speak for the exhaust. I never had a heat riser valve get stuck. Maybe the timing chain, but it started fine.
The 454 could not withstand its own power output
Chevy 454 was widely known as powerful, but an oil-gulper. We had one in a new 73 wagon that used a quart every 1000 miles. Had the heads pulled, and the bores changed sizes as the crank was turned. Chevy used the lowest nickel content cheapest cast iron castings they possibly could.
Big block Chevy engines, particularly the 454 (7.4L) was very known for high oil consumption. According to GM this was considered normal. Even later engines (7.4 - 8.1L / 454 - 496 CID) equipped with TBI or sequential fuel injection still had those consumption issues. All had a higher oil capacity (7 quarts). Owners got use to it, using a quart every 1000 miles or so. " Nature of the beast " so to speak. Being that Chevrolet was the entry level division of GM, it seemed to get the less of everything.
@@michaelmurphy6869 You are correct. The company I drive for has GMC Kodiak 4500 trucks with 8.1 V8 motors that constantly need oil. The three we have are all original with almost 200,000 miles on them. We also have three Ford F550 trucks with 6.8 V10 motors that never used oil but all of them went bad at approximately 150,000 miles and had to be replaced with rebuilt motors at 💲10,000 a pop.
@@michaelmurphy6869 Up until the introduction of the Gen V 454 (1991?), much of that oil consumption was via the timing cover and oil pan gaskets, in addition to the rear main seals. lol!
I'm not going to argue with your pick, although I have heard that the Cadillac responds better to high performance mods than say the buick 455. I've heard the block itself in the buicks isnt as tough for a high performance custom build.
Wow, blow my mind, one thing that I remember of my mom's 72 caddy, is that it, and so MANY OTHER Cadillac's had of the same time/era, seems like they ALL: had some kind of "EXHAUST Manifold " leak..... all of them the 500 also had some kind of "tick" , as if , some kind of exhaust manifold leak.
396 - 427 - 454 is what you use for racing, the heads are what set them apart from the others the factory high performance ones could rev to 7000 rpm, try that with the other factory 455s. The Buick 455 and the caddy 500 are the next best IMHO.
The Ford FE series of big-block was in fact used across all ford brands, with Lincoln having exclusive displacements as well as some commercial trucks.
I had the '69 427 in a covette. Mild 390 hp 425 ft lbs torque. Avery good dependable engine, fast but not crazy. Jus a little crazy. I drove in off the street and turned 13.08 et quarter 3.08 rear axle that's pretty good.