Pick up last months Hot Rod magazine. Great article on a new top end kit for the Cad 472/500. 600+ hp on a stock bottom end.
I haven't read the article, but it wouldn't change my comment. You can get by with pulling big power numbers from a variety of engines known to have limited strength. The thing is, you don't get to do it as long or as often. Extreme example; there was a guy who was getting 1,500 + HP using stock 302 Ford blocks.... until they split in half!(which happened regularly) A 600 HP 472/500 Cadillac is probably fine for the typical street car, but the engine doesn't have much redundant/excess strength. One needs to understand that up front. The 400/430/455 Buick is pretty much the same situation. People get by with making quite a bit of power with them. Like the Cadillac; it's decent engine, good low RPM power, very reliable in stock form, but a bit flimsy when really leaned on hard. I already said I have no problem with the Cadillac engine. I like things that are different too. But if I wanted 600 reliable horsepower I wouldn't do it with a 472/500 Cadillac. I sorted through this when planning a large displacement 600+ HP project project of my own. It came down to a BB Chevy, Chrysler RB series, or Ford 429/460. All those engines are much stronger and stiffer than the Cadillac and have considerably more reserve strength. And depending on the particulars, can make or easily exceed 600 HP. And, they can safely do it using mostly stock parts. I realize there are those who would rather have a flathead on the ragged edge with 300 HP than a SB Chevy that could make more power missing a plug wire or two. I just think that getting big power from the Cadillac is choosing paddling up-stream while ignoring easier/better options.
Like Scarebird, i too put a 472 into an 81 Regal- no troubles whatsoever- a 70 model with the 10.5:1 compression, it was a riot- less weight than a bbchevy and plenty strong for anything under 700 hp. just dont turn much rpm-not that you need to- you can juggle stock pistons/heads and get from 8:1 up to 12.5:1 compression. wouldn't mind doing another one-low cr with boost sometime.
I'm sure CutawayAl knows what he is talking about. I have never laid a hand on a 472/500 Cad. Rarely laid an eye on one. But I am very impressed by the Specter streamliner at Bonneville this year. Several runs over 400 on gas with a 483 inch Cad. OEM Iron crank. Running when they left the salt. I fail to see how this thing is so inclined to fall apart. But what do I know.
Man, I got over there and started reading about the "Infidel" (that's HILARIOUS). Absofukinlutely amazing!
I have one in the garage waiting to be put in something. Have thought about a bobber truck since I have parts for this. We will see.
For how we really use our cars, you can get an unlimited amount of smiles per gallon with a big Caddy. The earlier ones with higher compression are a 1st choice. That 57 PU install looks good. From 0 to 80 MPH that thing ought to knock yer head into the back window every shift
I think you misunderstood what I said. I am not bashing the engine. With a few upgrades, and kept withing safe limits, it is a proven engine. I just pointed out some well known facts about the engine. I explained that it's high horsepower reliability is lacking compared to other options. I didn't say the engine was a POS inclined "to fall apart". With enough modification and upgrading I have little doubt one could get 1,500 to 2,000 HP from one of these engines. But in an apples to apples comparison, the Cadillac won't tolerate that nearly as long as some other less modified production engines could. With stock main caps, factory rods, stock valvetrain, little and basic/mild porting, you can get a lot of reliable horsepower out of a big block Chevy, Ford, or Chrysler. Getting the same from a Cadillac would require a lot of changes, and when it's all said and done you still have a weaker engine with a lighter but weaker block.
It is my humble opinion that it takes lots of horsepower to go 400 mph. To do it 4 or 5 times and live is good for any engine. I really know nothing about the Cad in the Specter car except they did say it was a stock cast iron crank. And anyone could see it was turbocharged. So I am taking actual observed performance and extrapolating some idea of the strength of the assembly. Looks good to me. Anecdotal information to the contrary, what should I believe? The story's or my lying eyes?
What should you believe? You are free to believe whatever you choose. You apparently still don't understand what I am saying. And if you re-read what has been said, what I posted doesn't contradict anything you have said. I pointed out that the Cadillac engine is relative light, but it's reserve strength and ultimate durability are not on par with other options. That is especially so with a basically stock engine. You have posted nothing to contradict that. I am not passing along anecdotal information, assumptions, or opinion. Do you have any idea what it takes to make a Cadillac tolerate a lot of power for even a short time? Please feel free to compare and examine the engine's components, as I have. Work on and rebuild some of these engines, as I have. See what it takes to keep one of these engines together at high power levels, as I have. Find out what it takes to get "good" power from one of these engines, as I have. Feel free to do any or all that and disprove anything I have posted. If you have an emotional attachment to the Cadillac engine it wasn't my intention to disillusion you. Things are what they are. I had nothing to do with how it came to be, and I have no bias one way or the other. At one time I WANTED to use a a 500 Cadillac for a project. As I became more familiar with the engine, and with the successes and problems had by others with the engine, I realized that light weight aside, it had a lot of shortcomings compared to other options. Yes people get by with using iron crankshafts, but there are reasons why steel cranks are preferable in race engines. If you had seen as many cracked and broken iron cranks as I have you would realize it's only a matter of time before the crank in this engine gets tired of what's being done to it.
I agree with both of you. There's the possibility that the 400MPH crank is now toast even though it didn't break. The main webs could be pounded out too, but it didn't break...yet. They were clearly on their game to do that with the big Cad that many times. Pound for pound, dollar for dollar, torque for torque, it's tough to beat a big Caddy for daily street fun. Lighter than others of similar displacement, not too hard to look at, speed parts available, easy on the wallet. Did I miss something? Oh yeah I did, high nickel blocks and heads so no real need for hardened seats too. Well dressed, they can compliment anything that most of us do. Anybody want one? I might have a spare...
Heads presmog heads have a much smaller combustion chamber. See Max Torque web site .Max stock RPM 4200. crank is big, Rods are on the thin side by the bolt.still get 500ft/lb stock.Lifters same as sbc. Cam gear weak,fiber. 71 and earlier heads. Old caddy 472/500 motor. Oil pump and filter hits the frame.Got to work the metal.Hell of a engine.
-------------- I agree. My suggestion - just use the engine as it was designed to be used - as a low and medium-rpm torque monster - with enough torque to be capable of seamlessly pulling around a 5500 lb luxury 'land-yacht' - and it will live a long useful life and it will probably have enough balls in a relatively light (by Cadillac standards!) '40 Plymouth to scare you! You can make anything do anything - including building a 472-500 Caddy into a high hp/high rpm, all-out screamer if you have enough ingenuity, enough parts and bushel baskets of money to burn in the process, but why bother? There are better engines for that will be cheaper and easier to build and will last longer doing it. Instead keep the engine near stock, (maybe a mild cam, headwork and valve train upgrade), keep the maximum revs to around 5000 rpm, and gear and shift the car to use the immense torque the Caddy is capable of producing and it won't do you wrong - or break the bank or itself. No guarantees on driveline parts connected to it though! LOL Mart3406 =========================
------------------------ How does it pull it around? Pretty good, I'll bet. Mart3406 ========================
I've built a few Big engines BBC, 385 Ford and more than one Caddy (including Bigredtodds) I've seen BBCs break because of weak mains but work well with steel caps and splaid bolts. The "main" problems with the big Cad is the diameter of the mains and the cast rods. Large dia. mains (3.250") have more area to cover than smaller ones for any given rpm and create more heat from higher surface speeds and cast rods are...well they're cast rods. Caddy engines make a good engine for a '60 Effie or any rod that you want to roast the tires on once in a while, not the best dragster engines though. On the subject of LSR the power comes on slowly not all at once like a drag car so the stress is not so bad, I'll bet after four or five 400 mph runs that Caddy looks like new inside.
Another issue with the Cadillac's mains; the caps move around on the block when RPMs are increased. That happens well below the limits of hydraulic lifters, or the limitations of the stock rocker arms. Like you say, the engine is fine if used withing its limits.
5 pages of argueing about whether a Caddy is suitable for 1000+ hp build that MAYBE half a dozen people on this board would build? On a thread that's 3 years old? Enough already. You win, CutawayAl. I'll yank the 472. 400 hp is 600 to little to propel my roadster...
Sorry Brian, I'm not trying to carry on the argument but BBC caps move around a lot too that's why you get rid of the bolts and go with studs, same for the Cad. As for the rockers that's a no brainer, replace them, not many stock rockers are up to the task it just comes down to Cad parts cost a little more. Brian, I'll bet that Caddy moves your roadster just fine and will for an eternity if you change the oil now and then.
1000+ hp? ; problems with a stock engine show up at way below that number. I'm pretty much done with this topic myself, but in case you didn't realize, you can stop following this discussion at any time. I didn't see anything saying your car was lacking, and I'm pretty sure no one was thinking it either. The fact the Cadillac is relatively light makes it especially attractive choice for a light car. But if you are genuinely dissatisfied as you say, there are plenty of alternatives. Caterpillar has a road-going engine that has 600HP. Maybe you would like that.
Studs help, but at some point better caps are needed. Another BB Chevy issue: Due to high rod angularity, with 4"(454) or more stroke they tend to be hard on blocks and occasionally fail because of it. The fix is a taller aftermarket block and longer rods. No doubt about that. People focus on peak horsepower, but in most cases power under the curve decides who gets there first.
Now we aren't dealing with GM factory anything, it all comes down to how much you want to spend. I'm having fun with the discusion but it is three years old and I think the original question was about just pulling a slavage engine and running it.
A nodular iron crank will live just fine, esp considering you don't have to rev one of these engines to the moon. Yes, the mains are large, and that is an issue, but for a street motor? Who cares? The rods are junk, but most anybody running an engine built in the early 70s is going to go through it. I built one several years ago, and used a custom forged piston and I think Olds style Eagle H-beams.
actually the big caddy motors aren't gas guzzlers as one might think, i know a guy with a 72 coupe de'ville with a 700r4 and gets about 25mpg on the highway.. the reason is because that motor doesn't have to work to move the car..
The Jalopy Journal
