I'm a design engineer. God save us from executives who *understand cost reduction* but do not understand why a design team might specify an expensive component when a seemingly similar component is available at lower cost. I saw our head of purchasing explode when we were paying the manufacturer *ten times* the list price for an LED. He went to an LED wholesaler and "saved" us money. What he didn't know was that the product would not work unless the LED produced a very narrowly specified frequency range, a range *narrower* than anything any manufacturer made. Our manufacturer was hand testing and selecting *only* the LEDs that were within our engineering spec ( about 1 out of 1000 produced) and charging us for their guaranty that the LEDs were within our spec. It took us a year to figure out why this product was failing final test 100% because the cheap LED's looked *exactly* like the expensive ones!
@@eddstarr2185 I know what you mean, but I see this all the time. My company makes scientific instruments: some of the most accurate, stable, and repeatable instruments of their kind. But our production volumes are low and our margins are very sensitive to market fluctuations, so we design using tricks like buying components that aren't as accurate as we'd like, but then we test and calibrate them until they meet our accuracy specs. We'll design special circuitry, firmware, and software to compensate for the inevitable variation of these components. Yes, we sometimes have to give each instrument personalized calibration coefficients to compensate for component variations. We have had to compensate for lens materials whose light transmission changes with age. Combine that with LEDs that dim with age, light detectors whose sensitivity changes with age and you wind up with Chemists, Physicists, and Engineers (Software, Firmware, Mechanical and Electrical) who are constantly tearing their hair out chasing an accuracy specification. And then the purchasing department buys a cheaper component without telling anyone.
@@etoineschrdlu9382 Yep, A perfect example of tripping over dollars to save dimes... But that bean counter got promoted, and a few years later the people left behind were trying to figure out a way to make things work with less resources because they were trying to save money.
A good friend of mine was the parts manager at the local Oldsmobile dealership. He took me back in the parts room and showed me 10 wooden crates with replacement diesel engines. The dealership sold ten cars with diesel engines and they were in stock to replace the engines under warranty planning on 100% failure rate.
I worked at a GMC truck dealer back then and GMC used that engine in pickups. We always had one in the shop for an engine replacement. Customers kept asking us to just put a gas engine in their trucks, but under GM warranty, we could only replace the engine with the same engine.
Worked on at least 6 Cadillac DeVilles with the HT (hook n' tow) 4100's, found if they hadn't enough oil changes yep the Camshaft would wear rapidly...due to Oil not making it back down in the Crankcase! With a slight amount of Sludge...GM expected the oil to drainback right where the Headbolts attached no other way for Oil return.
That is just what customers who just purchased an expensive car from Cadillac want to hear; don't push it. That's nonsense. Customers expect more. And rightly so. GM did a great job of improving Japanese car sales during this time
You mentioned the "soft" cams. My aunt had one of the Cadillacs with the 4.1 on witch the cam went flat after only 7 months. She had les than 20,000 miles on it. I was confused as I was only 15 years old and thought of Cadillac as top of the line. As I aged, I never even thought of owning a Cadillac. They had burned my aunt and that was enough for me.
My uncle had one that was misfiring a lot. When he pulled the engine and disconnected the transmission you could grab the crankshaft and move it. The aluminum had worn that badly. The transmission was literally holding the thing together.
I had the overheating problem with my 1983 Coupeville DE Vill!* It had head gasket issues after I had it for only 10 years, but that was 10 Yeats after 2003, so I guess, for a used Cadillac, it wasn't all that bad?*
GM's mix-and-match engine strategy -- dating from the introduction of the Olds-powered Seville -- poisoned their classic Chevrolet-to-Cadillac brand-ladder hierarchy in the minds of many. Cadillac was hit the hardest of the GM divisions because, going into the 1970s, they made only one engine: the monster 472/500. When CAFE hit, Cadillac had to run to other GM divisions to beg for less-thirsty, less-expensive hardware. In the early 1970s, my Dad was still a firm Believer in the GM gospel. Oldsmobile, according to Dad, provided the bare automotive minimum. Buick was a touch better and Cadillac was, unquestionably, the best of the best. Pontiac was not up to snuff and Chevrolet was completely unacceptable. When Dad found out in 1975 that the (very expensive) Seville was powered by an Olds engine, the scales fell from his eyes. Dad migrated to Chrysler products. [Ford and AMC were still out of the question.] Then one day I was stunned when Dad came home in a nicely used 1978 *Chevrolet* Caprice Classic. By then, he figured that whatever premium Cadillac had once commanded had long since been neutralized by GM's corporate-parts-bin shuffle. Dad was right: The "downsized" Caprice proved to be a very nice car.
I grew up in the 80s, when it was common knowledge that GM divisions shared platforms, engines, etc. It was amusing for me to later learn that in the 1970s Oldsmobile owners actually sued GM when they discovered their Oldsmobiles were powered by Chevy engines. I think there was a similar lawsuit in the 1970s when Pontiac owners learned their cars had engines or transmissions from another division; it might have involved disgruntled Pontiac Astre owners. Don't get me wrong, I understand that GM divisions actually used to be actual, full-fledged separate divisions. It's just that by the 1980s, the idea of GM having separate divisions, with separate engines, transmssions, and platforms, seemed antiquated, as if out of the 1950s or earlier. Anyways, after buying two GM vehicles, a 1999 Oldsmobile Intrigue and a 2012 Chevrolet Sonic, I will never buy a GM product again.
@@thehighllama8101 I grew up earlier. 😀 The belief I inherited was that if an auto company didn't design and build their own engines, they weren't a true auto company. Anybody -- such as Fisher or Fleetwood -- could fashion a body, but only Cadillac could create a Cadillac engine. For example, a Studebaker with a Chevy engine was no longer a Studebaker. It was a mongrel breed who was not long for this world. A "Cadillac" with an Olds engine was nothing more than a glorified Cutlass, at best, if not a woefully overpriced Chevy Nova. Engines gave cars their identities. When GM disconnected the engine from the rest of the car, that essentially wiped out 70 years of auto-manufacturing tradition. A Packard had always been a Packard no matter if it had LeBaron or Murray coachwork. By the mid-1970s, GM brought that tradition to an end.
@@waltschmerz Give GM credit for making good engines. Of course, the Cadillac engine was good, but so was the Chevrolet. GM really upped their game during the late 40s to the mid 50s. In the early post war years, GM was still selling depression style straight 8s, some with antiquated poured babbitt bearings. Not well suited for hours on the brand new interstates, that's for sure.
@@21stcenturyfossil7 I give GM credit for making good engines. But my car-nut-professional-musician Dad wanted great engines (and transmissions) so he stuck with either the top-end GM models or Chrysler. As a pro musician living in central Kansas in the 50s and 60s, practically every gig was hundreds of miles away. This meant that he cruised down pre-Interstate roads at triple-digit speeds for hours on end. The only cars that didn't wilt under his abuse were Oldsmobiles, Buicks, and Cadillacs. His 1961 Olds 88 -- with the dreaded "Slim Jim" transmission -- was one exception. And the '61 Olds broke as it backed out of the driveway. :-) One advantage that Cadillac (and to a slightly lesser extent, Buick and Olds) had was the higher percentage of nickel they used in their iron alloys. Chevys, with softer iron, wore faster than Cadillacs. The (perhaps apocryphal) story that I've heard is that, by the time the early 1960s rolled around, Cadillac's engineers knew that the day would come when "ethel" gas would go away. So by 1963, Cadillac's cylinder heads and blocks were hard enough to run unleaded gas. I had the heads redone on my 1967 Eldorado last year. There was valve wear, but the valve seats were still in pretty good condition. And there was no ledge in any of the cylinder bores to indicate cylinder-wall wear. So those old Cadillac engineers must have done something right. Of course, Faith-in-GM was history by the mid-1970s. We had two Cutlasses -- a '75 and a '76 -- that were terrible cars. Engines knocked and transmissions died frequently enough that Dad migrated to Chrysler for a while. Dashboard controls and window handles may come off in your hands in a '60s - '70s vintage Chrysler, but at least they won't break as you howl down the Interstate.
@@waltschmerz GM was continuing a tradition that the other big American companies weren't really following anyways. Mercuries and Lincolns came with Ford engines; MOPARs were all MOPARs, so there's no real reason GMs couldn't all be GMs except for legacy. GM did a lot of redundant engineering work, especially when you consider effort that was redoubled again in Brazil, Australia, Japan, Germany or the UK. How many engines did they really need; how many platforms; how many times could they have eliminated a redundancy in one area that would have allowed them to see one through in another area? GM's history is littered with what-ifs and corporate blunders.
Having owned a Seville with a Northstar I expected to see that engine on your list. These engines performed well when new, but the poorly engineered underdesigned head bolts meant you were driving a time bomb. These engines also leaked oil and were very difficult / expensive to make repairs .
The problem was there was a additive that you added when changed the coolant in the Northstar and it was at the Cadillac dealership but very few techs knew about it also a lot people did not change the coolant at the proper maintenance times which added to this problem.
The problems with the Northstar were pretty much solved by 04 or 05. There is a company called Northstar Performance that sells a head stud kit that solves the headgasket issues on earlier engines.
There was a beautiful, loaded, one female owner, Blue Onyx w/Silver Leather interior, '03 Seville for sale in Dallas a few years ago. 74k original miles. I recalled my Uncle Rudy having a Seville of the same body style with the Northstar and having problems. His was Gold. That prompted me to read owner reviews from several websites. Owner complaints about head gasket failures, the subsequent overheating headaches, and expensive repairs, sealed my decision to stay away from that car. At the time, I don't recall reading anything about a company manufacturing a fix in the reviews. Additionally, I read of some electrical problems with various engine codes. It's a shame because I love the design, but I'm a man who likes to drive my cars. Not hang out in repair shops with them...
As a chevy guy, I can verify he's right about these engines. I also was never too fond of the 305. Oil change and fluids in general makes a world of difference on longevity. Make sure to never delay maintenance, or it will die prematurely.
I had one in a pickup with a 4bbl, that truck I drove for 25yrs and 350k never replaced anything but fuel pumps, spark plugs etc wasn’t quite as peppy as the 350 but it was totally reliable probably still running today somewhere - was pretty amazing gas mileage for a tuck too
Tell that to my 2000 celica with 379k that hasnt had an oil change since 2008. Had to replace oil filter last summer due to it rusting all the way through
305 same as every other small block except 400. It’s fine in right application everyone just wants it to be a 350 but it’s not just a lot of dyslexic people maybe 🤔🤣
The only good thing about the Olds Diesel was you could easily swap in a gas Olds V8 . A friend of mine had a Chevy pickup with one he bought cheap as it was about to blow. A nice Olds 455 from the salvage yard made it a nice powerful truck.
For those of us in California, a diesel Oldsmobile is an easy path to bypass emissions restrictions with a built gasoline engine. Since diesels older than 1997 are exempt from state-mandated inspection, nothing but money is preventing an LS swap with turbos and such. It's not technically legal, but you'd never get caught
@@1mikewalsh Had a friend who did that. Got it running and gas would spew out of the carburetor! He'd forgotten to change the diesel fuel pump that was high pressure to a gasoline fuel pump that was 5-7psi!😂
General Motor's top bureaucracy of the period resulted in Roger Smith becoming Chairman and CEO. I could go on and on about this bureaucratic nightmare - but I want to mention that there are things that can go wrong when a company's top leadership is predominantly drawn from finance and accounting staff, most of whom that lacking in engineering credentials.
Lived through it, totally agree. When the CFO becomes the CEO, the numbers might look good for a bit, but the core product suffers and long term the company loses identity, momentum, etc.
@@blautens 100% agreed. And it's not just GM or the car industry. (Ask me how I know) But I truly beleive GM is still suffering the ghost of Roger Smith and his minions. Sad.
GM started being run by the accountants from the time of Frank Donner in the 1960s. Roger Smith was simply a product of that system. His predecessor, Thomas Murphy famously said "General Motors is not in the business of making cars. It is in the business of making money."
Taking owner phone calls in Cadillac Consumer Relations and Roadside Service as I did from 88-91 was an interesting experience. Recommending “modifying” (disabling) DOD on a V8-6-4, then later explaining why coolant supplement pellets needed to be added to the HT4100 taught us all how to be very tactful. And yes, there were plenty of loyal Cadillac owners lost forever in this era. We were chasing Lexus and fending off Lincoln in J.D Power rankings. Definitely a challenging time for the Clark Street executives.
hard lesson to learn - "extended powertrain warranty to reassure customers they would fix cars if they failed" that is WAY too late. Warranty to fix does nothing to satisfy customers who get stranded or worse. Kiss brand loyalty goodbye.
I'd say an extended warranty at least shows they they care about making the customer whole and if it only has to be used once (especially if the fix leaves the car more reliable than it was new) could make what could have been a major problem into a minor one, at least from the customer's perspective. My Chrysler LHS was only covered for its transmission failure because of an aftermarket warranty I purchased and on top of that, Chrysler charged me for "software upgrades" to fix THEIR mistakes, and I never bought another Chrysler car. In contrast, a co-worker's 2003 Acura got a new transmission from Honda free of charge and was a great car after that while my 2005 Accord had the same transmission and it was rock-solid by that time. So Honda took care of their customers who got what was known to be a bum transmission and worked the bugs out of it quickly, while Chrysler kept making crappy transmissions of a decade and left customers holding the bag. Honda atoned for their mistakes while Chrysler attempted to profit from theirs.
I had much training from the GM training center and they told us that the most experimental motors came out in the highest cost cars, like Cadillac, because fewer people could afford to buy them, and recalls would cost less.
Hi there, I really liked this video. Content, very interesting, as always. Always highest quality. (Don't find that too often on youtube.) And although I 'm a true fan of your usual measured, even-tempered benevolent presentation style (it's very calming in a hectic world and it's very professional, which is something I think many viewers have much respect for, as do I), I like that in this "porch chat" your personality really comes through. I mean, keep the "professional" videos coming, absolutely, but, I'd like to see more porch chats. In your measured, even-tempered benevolent Michigan way (my Dad studied in Michigan), your porch chat is warm, funny, a touch bitchy (love it), ironic, and yet the same high quality content and also, in a nice way, calling a spade a spade, which inspires trust. (BTW, I loved the video in which you spoke about your Dad. That was most moving. Thank you for sharing that.) And your breadth of knowledge is so impressive, such that the attention never faulters. One of the elements I find most valuable are the tacit tips on proper car maintenance, such as knowing on which engines to change the oil much more frequently or knowing which engines not to push too hard, or the Pontiac video about keeping the original iginition, etc. (Maybe you could do a video about how to treat a older car right, special care tips, etc..) I just cringe when I see people cold starting an old timer and revving the engine -- ehhhhhh, it's like fingernails on a chalk board. I find myself wanting to do very mean things to them. Anyway, like the porch chat alot. You come across as such a nice fellow (I mean, you always do, but here it really came through. Wish I could have a beer with you sometime and chat about this stuff. OK, I don't really drink beer, but you know what I mean. Thanks, Dude.
As an extreme classic car lover, I shamefully admit that I've never learned a whole lot about the engines, however I can attest to one of these that you discussed. I had a family member who bought a '79 olds two-door Royale with a diesel engine, they bought it used in '82 as a second car, but a year later the engine blew and they sold it to my brother, who then had a '72 olds engine put in it, he had it for about 3 years and it seemed to run well, it was a very nice looking car with beautiful plush interior. I do enjoy learning these facts and particulars though, thanks 😃
Owned a 94 Fleetwood Brougham with the 5.7 liter LT1 engine. The car was a very big and comfortable car with plenty of power (270HP). It was the last of the “true” Cadillacs, 96 being the final year for all of GM’s big rear wheel drive cars. When I finally sold the car (for a whopping $4300) t had over 600,000 miles on it and still didn’t burn a drop of oil. The tranny was just as solid. Miss that beautiful behemoth. Ive never thought much of the stealthy style and smaller size that followed. Could never understand why both Cadillac and Lincoln surrendered the large car market to the Japanese and Germans. Perhaps it was that quality issue that you mentioned but isn’t it interesting that the quality problems were almost exclusively with the smaller, front wheel drive cars?
I think the 1994-96 Fleetwoods and the 1994-96 Roadmasters were the best "all around" cars ever built. I hate the Roadmaster door panels though-they fall apart. I have owned several. But currently I own a 1994 Roadmaster Limited Sedan, a 1996 Roadmaster Estate Wagon (with wood trim delete, thankfully) and a 1996 Fleetwood Brougham. GM abandoned this B/D body platform in favor of the GMC Yukon and Chevy Tahoe, which were built on a Estate Wagon frame. The LT-1 bugaboo, the Opti-Spark was better on these cars than the Camaros and Corvettes, because they had a venting system from day one. If you took care of it, it was not a problem. And a simple rule I follow: Whenever you have to replace a water pump, at LEAST replace the rotor and cap of the Opti-spark at the same time.
CAFE scores and attempts to realign their brands with the sportier side of the luxury market, Caddy sorta succeeded and Lincoln didn't. That said personally I'd love a Lincoln LS to do up bippu/VIP style.
Very good job-definitely your "A"-game. When I think of the Cadillacs circa 1982 and the choice of diesel, HT4100, or credit option Buick V6, all had around the same power, and the V6 was the best alternative.
@@mdogg1604 Olds Toronado got the 140 bhp 307 from 1981-1985. The Cadillac Eldorado got the "exclusive" HT4100 motor with 125-135 bhp from 1982-1985. The base 1984 Cadillac Eldorado listed for $20,342 while the 1984 Olds Toronado listed for $16,107. You definitely got the better car for the better price. 1979-1980 Cadillac Eldorado, Olds Toronado and Buick Riviera all got the Olds 350. In 1986 the Fleetwood got the Olds 307 or a Chevy 305 while the new downsized Cadillacs continued to get the 4.1 Cadillac motor.
The diesels were from what i heard was gas engines converted diesel. A family friend had a caddy she bought new that spent more time at gm than in their driveway.
In auto mechanic class in high school their was these old hard cover books,with black and white pictures with body,drive train,engine specifications for American cars and trucks from about the late 50s to the early 70s and you could see how the high compression V8 got knocked out in 1971.Great video
As long as you didn't use Ether to start them..the non turbo is durable, good on fuel, but only 155 HP..noisy box of rocks..get the turbo/ intercooled version for a better but still underwhelming 195-210 stock HP..
"I do feel bad for the people who had to work on them." No need for that! As a mechanic, I made a fortune on these - especially the Olds Diesel. I put many a pair of shoes on my kids' feet thanks to that engine. I had a trick I developed on the head gasket issue. The cylinder head would move around and etch a groove into the cylinder block. Once that happened, it would no longer hold a gasket. Fel-Pro made a .060" over gasket and I started using those. It gave a fresh area for the gasket to bite into and I had great sucess with that.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. My uncle had an early Vega station wagon. He had a case of oil he carried in the car and stopped to fill up the oil and check the gas. I had a 76 Monza with the Dura-built engine and it a fun little car with the 2 barrel, except it an issue with timing belts breaking.
When an engine has "Dura" at the start, it's not going to be durable, no matter the manufacturer. Part 2 of that is they know it, giving it that name. It's like seeing "Patriot" or "Freedom," in a Bill, it will be about the neither, the opposite in fact.
Roger that. I had a showroom new '72 Vega, blew a head gasket and seized at 14k. Chevy replaced it free. Second engine blew at 36k (from 14k, so 22k more). Chevy gave me their new iron sleeve in aluminum block which did not seize before 55k by which time I too was buying oil by the case, 1/2 qt per fill up. When I traded it the salesman asked me if anything was wrong with it, I said it uses oil. He said they all do. Later bought a new '77 Monza w/ a V6, was essentially a Vega w/a decent engine. I really liked the Vega, lots of fun to drive and Chevy replacing engines free was cool too
And then there's Hyundai/Kia's whole warranty thing which smacks of GM's 350 diesel thing - basically admitting it'll probably break but at least the customer won't have to pay for a new one when it does
A friend of ours owned a Cadillac dealership back in the day. When the V8-6-4 debuted, he was telling us the systems were failing when the customer was driving the car home from the dealership AFTER JUST TAKING DELIVERY NEW!! No one knew how to fix them. I distinctly remember the magazine ads at the time saying this new system had been tested in over 500,000 miles of real conditions, and I thought at the time, hey! that's only 5 cars being driven 100,000 miles....that's enough of a test for a new technology on GM's premier platform? GM screwed the pooch in so many ways in the late 70;s and all through the 80's. What a (cynical) fall from grace from a great American manufacturer.
I loved Oldsmobile 350 diesel engine blocks I built many 350 Oldsmobile performance gas engines unbelievably strong blocks they weighed just about 40 lb more well worth the extra weight
I was quite young when I finally got my 79 Olds 98 with the diesel. (dream car) So excited and proud! My garage smelled like a bus station. Broke down on my first long trip. Finally replaced the diesel with a 350 gas engine and managed to drive it for a while. Bought a 1999 Cadillac with the Northstar engine. Leaked like a sieve. Needless to say, I haven't had an American-made car since. Call me impulsive. Great report as usual. Thanks for your expertise.
I really enjoyed your personality and demeanor! My father bought a brand new 1974 Chevy Vega Wagon and I remember he had to rebuilt or replace the engine after 33K miles. Fun times!
I had a version of the Vega called a Monza, it was a cute looking car but OH DEAR, it was the biggest pile of GARBAGE before I bought a 78 Pontiac Firebird which was WORSE if you can imagine ANYTHING worse than a 78 Redbird with a Buick EVEN FIRING V6 engine. It lasted about 18k miles before it threw a main bearing. An engine repair shop told me “ Oh you got a good one, they usually go at about 15k miles”.
The Chevy to Cadillac progression served GM well until the 1980's. Those HT4100 were rushed to replace the V8-6-4 that had a huge class action suit against GM. The word on the street was when you heard the HT4100 making a "clicking" sound it was about to seize up. The techs were told to "shim the crankshafts" in some regions. This was because the 4100 aluminum block "flexed" and that would bind the crank and cam. I went into a Cadillac dealer in Janesville, Wi. and they had 19 Cadillacs with broken engines waiting for replacement engines. They had a Cadillac Master Guild Technician that was literally in tears because of what the GM execs had done to "his car". I really felt bad for that guy, because he worked so hard to attain his extreme high level of knowledge about what was once a great car. Fortunately, GM forced Roger Smith out and took the HT4100 and redeveloped it into the HT4900. GM ribbed and gussetted the engine block so it would not flex and added hardened sleeves into the aluminum block. This engine was in the '86 thru '89 Deville and was very reliable and a little more powerful. Cadillac also had problems with their 472 and 500 in engines. The Cadillac guys were always quick to tell anyone that their 472 was far superior to anything GM or their competitors made. That was a huge lie. Any tech that ever tore down a Cadillac 472 saw a very weak engine. Cast cranks, connecting rods, and pistons instead of far superior forged cranks rods and pistons like one found in the hi perf versions of Chevrolet's 396, 427, 454, and 502. These Chevy's easily made two to three times the horsepower and torque and were incredibly well designed and built. All Cadillac had to do was swallow their pride and put the big block Chevy into their cars, and people would have beat a path to their door. When the 350 Olds was put in the first generation Sevilles, Cadillac denied it was an Oldsmobile designed and built engine. It got to be if you owned a Cadillac and listened to the propaganda the sales guys were spewing, you were truly a dumb ass that knew absolutely nothing about cars and car engines. The truth is, Cadillac shares many components with other GM cars, like frames, front and rear suspensions, brakes, cooling and AC systems. The motor mounts position on most GM cars are identical. It is possible to mount Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile engines in any of those 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's rear wheel drive Cadillacs along with the Turbo Hydramatic 400 transmissions if they wanted to. The Olds 350 in the 1975 to 1979 rear wheel drive Sevilles, and the front wheel drive 1980 Sevilles and 1979-1980 Eldorados. Cadillac salesmen will deny that the engines are Oldsmobiles, so I bet a Cadillac salesman any amount of money that they were Olds built motors. He refused to bet me. Also, a 1971 thru 1977 Big Cadillac Deville or Sedan DeVille, and the Fleetwood Brougham become incredible cars with a mild Chevrolet 454. That 454 is 10 times the engine that the Cadillac 472 or 500 is.
I agree 100% with your option on gm engines and transmissions. I was a Cadillac technician in the late 1980s. I saw all of the problems! I replaced a lot of 4100 engines.
GM did make some good engines. My favorites: The 455 Olds with dual exhausts. I had a 1972 442 with that engine for a long time. I changed the oil frequently.No internal engine problems at all. I now own a 2001 Aurora with the 4.0 Northstar. All the head gasket problems that plagued the first generation Northstar (1993 - 1999) were solved with the introduction of the second Northstar (2000 and later). The later Northstars have longer & thicker head bolts and an improved head gasket design. Only trouble in the more than 21 years I've owned the Aurora......crankshaft position sensors.
That 455 oldsmobile rocket engine just couldnt be beat, I had one in a 77 custom cruiser wagon a painter retired n gave me for free for helping him redrywall a room or 2 that had like 5 layers of wall paper, that car had great power n sound n tractor because it was a station wagon, I left many hot rods in shame that came up on me at redlights snickering, it was a sleeper, as a plus it had a big rear bed area for date nights !, my grandmother in law had a 60 something model oldsmobile super 88 that had that 455 engine too, it also was fast, it still looked new n smelled new inside too!
Thank you for sharing. I worked as a mechanic at a Ford dealer from 1983 to 2006. Throughout that time, I had friends and acquaintances that worked at other dealerships. One worked at a Buick&Olds dealer in the early 1980s and we often shared stories of the 5.7 diesels he worked with, and the Navistar 6.9 diesels I was dealing with. The 5.7 Olds engine was indeed bad, but not nearly as bad as some think. As you pointed out, car owners were not prepared for the unique attention some diesels require. I remember that from customers that expected things from the 6.9 that they treated like a gasoline engine. You cannot ignore maintenance especially the cooling systems that can cavitate cylinders if ignored long enough. Of course there were a lot of diesels in the shop at both Ford and GM dealers at the time, not because they were problematic, but because the market was flooded with them. They sold like hot cakes out here in the desert. The 5.7 did have problems. So did the Navistar 6.9. I can remember not a week went by that Ford didn’t release a Technical Service Bulletin on some new updated repair procedure. I am sure the same was true for the 5.7 with GM. Not going to lie, we sure made good money at the time trying to keep diesel owners happy
I remember when I was much younger but still knew quite a bit about current cars for my age. I spent a good part of my youth turning wrenches with my dad as he taught me how to maintain my car and repair it instead of taking it to a mechanic. I was looking to buy a used car I'm at a regular new car dealership looking at trade-ins with the salesman. I told him specifically I did not want to look at any GM diesel cars. No exceptions I didn't want to even talk about them. Evidently they had one of these dogs on lot that they were trying to push to get it off the lot and he kept trying to get me to go look at it. He kept telling me that the car was great and he had one and he loved it and when the engine went bad he was just going to convert it to gas! Finally I got tired of him trying to send me over to this freaking car I wouldn't pay 5 cents for and asked him if you love that diesel so much why are you going to change the gas? He stopped bringing it up at that point.
The aluminum Vega engine block contained a high percentage of silicon. After boring, the cylinders were etched leaving a wear surface of silicon particles. The pistons were iron plated. This worked great until the iron started flaking off of the pistons, which in turn chewed up the bores causing the engines to fail. Other car manufactures successfully use the same aluminum alloy today.
I had a '97 Skylark with a Quad 4, and had the opposite experience. Bought it with 83,000 miles on it and ran it up to 228,000 before I had to retire it due to too many upstate NY winters.
@@tacoheadmakenzie9311 maybe they made some updates on those years but mine was problem after problem. Timing chain, fuel pump, thermostat, head gasket, water pump, 2 cylinders went out on me and it took it seemed 1 minute to get up to highway speed lol. But when I was trouble free it ran awesome.
@@irishuwould5185 I will say that I was glad that I had no issues with it because, for a four cylinder engine, accessibility was horrible. One thing that I did have to replace was the serpentine belt tensioner, and even that was a pain in the ass.
@@tacoheadmakenzie9311 I just read that 1995 was a “transitional period” for the quad 4. They made some changes to it. Maybe that was some of the issues connected to mine. It’s always better to wait a year or two after changes to work the kinks out, but in 1999 when I bought it I didn’t know that lol.
I agree that the quick succession of unreliable and underpowered engines basically started the major decline of Cadillac. In the large Fleetwoods/Broughams, the reliability issues weren’t done away until the Olds 307 in 1986, but that engine was still underpowered and, of course, wasn’t made by Cadillac. By 1991 reliability and decent power was finally returned by Chevy engines starting with the 305 and optional 350 L05 and then the 350 LT1 in 1994, but It was mostly too late by then and Cadillac itself barely pushed these cars in an attempt to ditch the “old man” image, which is too bad as these were some very good cars. In the “smaller” cars, the HT4100 persisted along with over-downsized models like the 85-88 Deville and the 86-91 Eldorado, killing prestige. There started to be a recovery with the 4.5 L and 4.9 L engines (larger, improved versions of the HT 4100) delivering decent power and reliability and installed in larger redesigns restoring some presence and prestige, but this wisp of a recovery was ruined by the 4.6 L Northstar engine which had head bolt and head gasket issues well into the 2000s. I’m actually surprised the Northstar isn’t in the video as it was one of the nails in Cadillac’s coffin. The Northstar ended up in every model after the cancellation of the Fleetwood in 1996 and so did all of its problems. Starting the 21st off, Cadillac switched to its “Art and Science” look and started to try to compete with BMW and Mercedes with “sportier” models aimed at a supposedly younger audience. This was a huge mistake as they could not beat the Germans at their own game and they simultaneously lost the traditional buyers who liked large, plush American cars, which Cadillac is still known for despite not really making any for many years now. Cadillac’s market share barely registers these days and they are at best an also-ran. Their fortunes may have been very different if it weren’t for that string of bad engines, a reduction in quality, and giving up on the cars that once made them the standard of the world.
One last note, GM’s FWD platform really didn’t truly improve until the late 80’s, the 89-92 MY was much improved over the previous years. A friend of mine owned an 89 Cadillac Fleetwood with the 4.9L V8 engine that was extremely reliable. It had around 296,000 miles before he sold it. Sure it wasn’t perfect, it leaked a ton of oil, and had other small issues, but overall it was a great well built car. It was pretty gutless I would say, but because the car didn’t weigh much, it was able to haul itself around without being dangerously slow. I personally used to own a 87 Cadillac Brougham with the 5.0 307 Olds motor. That thing was such a dog, so slow that it was actually scary to get on the freeway! I would floor it, and the car barely moved! I heard that 307 was pretty solid, but they lacked the power to the point where it always felt stressed out. I feel that Ford did a much better job in the 80’s with using TBI and fuel injection early in the decade. Because not only was the Olds motor super gutless at only 140 HP pushing a 4,000lbs+ car, but it was still carbureted. And the Rochester carb on that car was a nightmare! You had some early electronics connected to it like the TPS sensor which gave nothing but trouble and would set off a check engine light and engine acceleration problems with the slightest of wear. It was a lovely car, but the mechanicals was problematic and a PITA. The sweet spot for that body style and design mixed in with reliability and better performance, we’re the 77-79 D-bodies. You still had the Cadillac 425 engine and TH400 before all the drivetrain down sizing that came just a few years later. Those older late 70’s Cads were bulletproof and didn’t really give too much trouble.
The Rochester is way better than early TBI Fords by a huge amount, Ive had many Q jets in work trucks and were awesome, important to keep them in tune then wow! And Ford really stepped up the game when in 86' the new EFI came out. And Ive owned 6 GM TBI trucks amazing reliability and good fuel economy.
Having driven a Olds diesel for years I can say most of its troubles were brought on by dumb users, incompetent dealers and bad fuel supply. After the first couple of years they had the problems in hand but it was too late.
I totally agree. I drove one in my teen years. A person must have " diesel skills." I grew up around diesel engines on the farm. I bought an 85 300SD 5 cyl. Diesel Mercedes in 1999. I drove it until my teen son hit another classic car on a wet day in 2014.
@@Treashuntr2020 Show me ONE truck driver that starts his diesel engine in winter and immediately drives away. I had an '84 Olds 98 w/ the diesel. It was on it's 2nd engine when I bought it, the 1st going 50k, replaced under warranty, w/ me getting the car at 60k. Long story short, the car went another 20, but, the culpret was NOT the GM GoodWrench DX replacement engine, it was the injector pump-which got a little water that was in the fuel. Mentioned is that diesel fuel attracts water. It does so bad that I also had to repair the tank in the car as it literally rusted ON THE BOTTOM OF THE INSIDE of the tank. Even in MI that doesn't happen w/ gasoline. I paid $1000 for the car, and the pump was $500. I scrapped the car, getting $300. 20k trouble-free miles...$700...and the car was beautiful inside, but starting to rust.
@@CadillacPat1 I agree with your points, but those engines were also used in chevy and gmc pickups. Farmers here bought them because their tractors burn diesel, and they know how to operate Diesel engines! They swapped the diesel with the ubiquitous 350 gas engines!
I owned a 1981 Seville with the 8-6-4 (as well as a 1984 HT4100). Mine was 100% reliable and I drove it hard, very hard. I even raced the car in the winter and with all of the weight on the front wheels and good snow tires I always dominated the front wheel drive classes and pretty much always came in 1st place. I agree with you on the vibration on 6 cylinder mode though. In 4 cylinder mode it was smooth but fairly gutless. The worst problem was the throttle was not drive by wire and it didn't compensate for the reduced power as cylinders deactivated. Basically at certain speeds it would switch to 4-cylinder mode and it would start to slow down so you'd give it a bit more gas and it would switch back to 6-cylinder or even 8-cylinder mode. Had the throttle been drive by wire and given it more throttle automatically, it would have worked quite well. I know this because you could use the heater controls to go into maintenance mode (this was before OBD so all diagnostics was built in and was quite sophisticated), force it into 4-cylinder mode and make it stay in 4 cylinder mode. Locked in you could give it heavier throttle and it would happily cruise along at 80 mph while (according to the onboard travel computer) getting 23 to 24 mpg (in 8 cylinder mode at 80 mph it only got 18 or 19 mpg). I would do this regularly on long trips. Unfortunately with everything working automatically, even with cruise on, it would continuously cycle between 4 and 6 cylinder mode at 80mph. It could be driven at different speeds, such as 60mph in 4-cylinder mode or 90+ mph in 8-cylinder mode but 75 to 80 mph was a disaster. Other than that, the 81 was really a great car. I bought it with 40,000 miles (60,000 km) on it and put almost 200,000 miles (320,000 km) (in total) on it before eventually selling it in the year 2000. It was still rust free (driven in salty Canada too), although the paint was peeling on the hood and it required almost zero maintenance (other than tires and brakes once in a while). I did undercoat it with heavy used oil twice a year (spring and fall). I definitely would not list it as one of the worst engines due to its excellent reliability, even though the system didn't work all that well in automatic mode. The 1984 HT4100 on the other hand was a disaster...
You forgot to mention the 3.0 liter 2bbl. carbureted V6 used in the front wheel drive Buick Century from '82 to '84. It was about as underpowered as the 1.8 liter 4 cyl. engine and delivered horrible gas mileage. Plus, it was prone to head gasket failure. I suffered through this one on one car I had despite regular maintenance.
Yes, I would be in agreement with all of these. I remember thinking, in about 1981 - 83, in a big Cadillac, when choosing an engine, the only really good choice you had in terms of reliability was the 4.1L Buick V6 engine - which had to be very underpowered. A V6 in a big heavy car like a Cadillac? So - some questions for you Adam, since you worked at GM for a while and may know the answers. Or you may not, which is fine - but these are interesting topics for discusson. 1. Why did GM choose to start using RV sealant instead of gaskets for things like oil pan gaskets and valve cover gaskets?? That never made any sense to me. Were they just being cheap? Using a regular gasket is always going to be better - and it isn't like a gasket weighs so much that it adds weight and there is a fuel economy savings. 2. Vega engine question - in 1961 - 63, GM already had a precedent with a successful aluminum block engine - WITH cylinder liners - in the form of the 215 Buick V8. As you know, but others may not, this was used in the Special/Skylark/F-85/Cutlass/Tempest/LeMans in 1961-63, either as standard or as an option. While it was important you not overheat these engines, other than that these engines were very good and went on to be bought by Land Rover and powered their vehicles for many decades afterwards. So, WHY did GM NOT apply the same technology from these engines when creating the Vega engine?? And why produce the Vega for 5 model years (1971 - 75) while these problems were going on and not act faster to resolve the issues? By 76 it didn't matter anyway. In 1977 they came out with the 2.5L Iron Duke engine which replaced the 2.3L aluminum engine anyway. So 76 was the only good year for the 2.3L aluminum engine? 3. Olds diesel V8 - in this same time period, though I don't know the exact model years - GMC and Chevrolet used a 6.2L diesel in the Suburban. If the Olds 350 diesel had to be built without water separators and had weak head bolts because they did not have the money to put into the development, why not put this 6.2L diesel in the Delta 88 and 98 in 1978 and 1979 instead of the Olds 350? I believe this engine was available then though I might be mistaken on that. I don't think the same replacement could be done with the Cutlass in these years, which used the 260 V8. Yet somehow the smaller 260 V8 does not have as bad a reputation as the 350 diesel V8. GM was sharing engines among divisions by this point - if they wanted to put a diesel engine in cars, why not use the 6.2L GMC diesel? I never heard of any mechanical problems with that engine. 4. As bad a reputation as the 350 and 260 Olds diesel V8s had, the vast majority of Delta 88s, 98s, and Cutlasses did not have the diesel. Do you have an idea of what percentage of the 1978 and 1979 Oldsmobiles got these diesel engines? I think it was a small number. 10% maybe? In this case it seemed customers could just steer clear of these engines - the cars themselves were generally good - yet a LOT of criticism has been heaped upon Oldsmobile for producing these 2 diesel engines in 1978 and 1979 - though by 1980 the problems had largely been worked out. (An aside - I personally feel that, while accurate, that Oldsmobile has been unfairly beat to hell over this one mistake - and people just keep bringing it up over and over and over - and this happened almost ->45
The answer to many of these questions is directly related to CAFE and CARB laws that were passed in the 70's. Corporate Average Fuel Economy and California Air Resource Board passed laws in the 1970's (CAFE in 1975) that could have potentially put any of the big three out of business. Basically, for every gas guzzling beast you sell, you MUST sell a lot of econo-boxes or literally quit selling cars in the states. The US was behind in its fuel injection technology compared to the other side of the pond and by the time the 80's arrived, instead of having a true solution to the problem they just attacked the big engines with band-aids like massive cats, air pumps, feedback carbs, camshafts with lobes so small you need a caliper to find...etc. Oh, and dropping cylinders, can't forget that. They knew it didn't work but if they said it worked, they could at least keep selling cars until they figured it out. This was a huge problem for auto techs like me who had to get cars to pass emissions which likely wouldn't have passed when new. For the consumer, it all paid off in the long run. Today's port fuel injected cars and engine management systems are better in every way than the cars of the 70's and 80's. Although there are too many of them.
I don't know about most of these items, but the 6.2 was not introduced until 1982, and was used in the entire C/K series. The 5.7 was in 2 wheel drive/auto trans only up to the 1981 models.
12:40 Chevette air filters were the same way. They were a sealed assembly. You could buy an aftermarket filter housing to convert them to cartridge (?... or "normal") style.
Having become a licensed driver in 1971, doing all my own maintenance, and very interested in the engineering side of car design, all your info was very familiar and most interesting. Thanks for the nice videos, not many RUclipsrs have a good knowledge base. Starting in 1968 when the US Federal Government started dictating engine emission regulations it appears the US car companies rebelled and substantially drop their horsepower and drive ability. SAE power output ratings replaced Net output, compression ratios dropped, ignition timing retarded, all jetting in the carburetor was overly leaned, carbuetor choke profiles were totally screwed up in efforts to get the choke to turn off faster, along with exhaust gas recirculation. 1982 was the worst year for overly smogged engines. Of course the "gasoline crisis" that started in 1973, along with the government wanting cleaner emissions and better gas mileage simultaneously really took its toll on the US automakers.
The HT4100 had headgasket problems galore.The rear wheel drive version of the 3.8 V6 was not good too.GM had a Brazilian built 4 cylinder in the Pontiac Sunbird that ate headgaskts as well
we owned 5 of the front wheel drive gm 3800 engines people would sell them cheap when the intake manifold gasket started leaking those were made out of plastic, the solution was a aftermarket gasket made out of steel, a bit of wrenching and u get great reliable car very cheap, my cousin is a master tech mechanic and charged us 300 to repair them, 3 i bought that needed fixed, 2 i bought that never had the gasket go out yet, so we went ahead and fixed them, it wasnt a matter of if those intake gaskets would leak but when they would go out on you, n you didnt want to be stuck out of town on the road when it went, so we just fixed those 2 so we could have peace of mind and less future headaches
Some of those early 1980's GM subcompacts could have as an option a version of the small Chevrolet V6 which was 2.8 or 3.1 litres,some of those little cars ran quite well ,also the somewhat larger Pontiac 6000 STE ran fairly well with those engines
@@sixpakshaker88 Our 84 S10 P/U was able to travel 233,000 miles on the original engine & upon rebuild we only had to re-bore .030 over & use standard size bearings with of course new pistons / rings. Still using original oil pump & intake valves that were reground. Rebuild kit`s oil pump had too much oil pressure at 80 psi even at idle so we went back to using original oil pump which has 45 psi at idle & 80 psi at higher rpm`s. Have to be very good on maintaining work for these hard working small engines to last.
I had an 81 GMC 1/2 Ton Pickup, with the 5.7 Diesel. No acceleration, a Paperboy with 2 full Bags could out accelerate it. After thrashing 2 Engines, 2 Transmissions, several Starters, and a couple of Rearends, the Truck was taken away from me. It caught Fire once, after a wire was pinched after a Starter Replacement. I arrived at a Company Site, smoke pouring from under the Hood, a Manager came running out with an Extinguisher. I hollered at him to Get Lost, let it burn, but he proceeded to flood the Engine compartment with CO2. Soon as he stopped spraying it, the smoke started again. I very leisurely, took my time digging out some Tools and even longer to unhook the 2 Batteries. The Battery Cables were all melted. I hated that Truck. I even forgot to shut it off one day at the End of my Day. Next morning(17 hrs later) I exited the Building, and the truck was still running where I had left it the Day before. Too bad it hadn't been a Long Weekend.
I worked for a diesel service that primarily worked with G.M diesels . In The v6 front wheel drive cars in order to remove the rear injections you had to unbolt the motor mounts and rock the whole engine forward because it required a slide hammer to remove them
Ah, the good old Vegas! Just about the best thing you could possibly say about them is that they were one of the easiest cars ever to swap a V8 into. Had a '73 wagon with a 350.... what a frickin' blast! Re acceleration..... My friend's father was a GM salesman in the 70s and he brought a brand new '78 GMC 1/2 ton with the 5.7 diesel to the drags one Saturday afternoon for a promo. Not a bad idea in principle but taking it for a pass down the strip definitely was.... 22.00 seconds!! I forget the MPH but with an ET like that, what difference would the MPH make? I don't know how many sales he ended up making out of that little trip but whatever the number was, it almost certainly would have been higher if he hadn't done that 1/4 mile pass.
My dad had a company car Cimmaron - the first half of the model year - it wouldn't get out of it's own way! What a dog that Chevy 4 was. My brother had a Vega he bought used, the engine had a massive failure no one's ever heard of. He was driving it when suddenly the engine locked up. Later he tore it down, and SURPRISE! The skirt had broken off the 3rd piston, which turned SIDEWAYS in the cylinder! The connecting rod was C-shaped!
The V-8-6-4 was a perfectly good 368cid engine based on 472, 500, 425 block. If you disconnected one wire, you disconnect the cylinder deactivation and you have a good V-8. Plus, it still came with the THM400 transmission.
Glad to hear GM stays consistent through the decades with soft cams. I recently started working on a Police fleet of Tahoes and I have replaced more camshafts in GM vehicles in 6 months than I did in 16 years working for Toyota and Ford combined.
Converted a few of those Olds V8 diesel to gas burning, ran great and the bottom ends were bulletproof. In fact there were so many people doing it , it became harder to find the heads and intake at the junkyards. It also was a workaround to California smog laws as diesel were exempt. The GM engines coming out of Brazil had terrible machining, take the heads off and you can see mill cutter marks on heads and block.Combustion chambers way off from each other, camshafts going flat at 30 thousand miles and rocker studs pulling out of heads causing excessive valve lash.
all reasons why GM went from having over 50% market share to where they are today.... Toyotas and Hondas became popular because people could no longer depend on GM vehicles to be dependable like they were in the 50's and 60's
Disagree I have a 2010 Chevy Cobalt with 154,000 miles on it yeah I have put a timing chain it but come on people with newer Vehicles you have to keep up on your maintenance most people don't you want to look at the fault don't blame the manufacturer frame the owner for not keeping up on maintenance the end.
I'd argue the post 2002 Ford Triton 5.4, v-8, is absolutely the worst motor in current history. We have a 99 triton that has over 550K mi.s and still running strong. So, in 2004, we bought two 5.4's in our fleet. One blew up with 50K the other.... Well, 32K and done. It didn't even make it a year. Then we read about engines blowing with less than 20K. Unless the engine is replaced and you're looking at a low mileage 5.4, post 2002, truck, RUNNNNN!!!!!! Even if it's cheap. The replacement cost is over 8K for engine and labor!!! RUN!!!!
@@travelingwithrick Yes sir!!! We love our 99 with the 2v. That engine burns 1/2 pt of oil every 2000 mi.s with over 550K mi.s on it and never failed an emissions test. Ford "redesigned" the head and timing guides (installed plastic guides in 2002.5). Two things happen: oil ports clog or the timing guides fail with both having catastrophic results to the engine. But, like all cars with coil packs, we learned if one fails, replace them all. That's really the weakest link on Ford parts across all engine lines. BTW, other than our Ford 7.3, diesel pickups, that 99, 1/2 ton, is our lowest cost per mile truck we've ever owned. Get this, the alternator went 170K and the water pump is still 300K. We replaced the original transmission after the solenoid pack went out with a little over 400K mi.s. We are so confident that engine will go another 200-300K mi.s. And, this truck is a 4 wheel drive we use as a "knock around" in the winter months. So its sees some rough conditions. It was my daily commuter for over 15 years, so I'm sure that's why it's lasted: I'm a maintenance freak and fix problems before it festers to an issue. Just an amazing engine and truck.
I have always had a company van for my job. Mostly Ford Econoline E350. Most companies used Fords because they were the most reliable and best built until they started putting the 5.4 Triton engines in them. It seemed they always would blow spark plugs out of the head. When they were taken back to the Ford dealer, they wanted to replace the heads for a ridiculous price. They certainly didn’t do themselves any favors with that. The Econoline vans however were much better than the crap pile Transit vans they make today.
as a former Vega owner, I learned a lot about working on cars from it. somewhere around 1987-1988 I bought a '74 Vega GT at a car auction for $330. it was virtually rust free and had about 85K miles on it. the engine itself wasn't the source of most of my headaches, it was that forsaken 2bbl Holley carburetor with the water temp operated choke. Kansas winters required a cardboard panel with an 8x8 diamond cut in it to be placed in front of the radiator or I had no heat/defrost (have you ever scraped ice on the INSIDE of your windshield?) and the choke wouldn't open. It had 110K before it started smoking and using oil. the air filter was a replaceable element on mine. maintenance wise they were easy to work on with plenty of room in the engine bay, can't scoff at being able to change the starter from the top side. one last little fun fact, my old Vega currently resides in a museum in Nebraska :)
you mean there was an extending warranty for my blown 1982 Seville HT4100? best day of my life up till then was when I traded it in for a new Toyota. the Seville wasn't my first GM product, but it sure was my last GM product!
@@wilsixone well dude when you get a crap product, do you buy from the same company again? nope. I've done the same with VW, there is no reason why a well maintained vehicle should fail under 80,000km. once bite twice shy. also I was joking a little in my reply, but one persons humour is anothers slapdown. thanks
You nailed it. The only area where any of these engines excelled is when they were used as anchors for small boats. In the late 60s, I did a lot of drag racing with 4 cyl engines. I had the most success with air-cooled VW ( We zig-zagged through the rule book and used an old I/Gasser, with a stock 1600 cc bottom end and cylinder jugs to run in A/Modified VW ). I tried to run that 2.3 Vega engine in a 130-inch front engine dragster, got it to run in the nines but I needed to build three motors a month. The reason I bring this up is the high silicone was not a coating in the pure sense. It was actually a multi-stage casting process that is very hard to master, and they never did. They started with a sand mold of the cylinder bank and poured a high silicone alloy aluminum. These castings were then pre-heated and placed in the block mold. I'm not sure if this mold was sand or re-usable steel, but you had GM cheaping out again. The high silicone aluminum was more expensive than what they used for a lined block so instead of using all high silicone metal in a monolithic pour, they put the cylinder casting in the block mold and relied on molten metal from the second pour to " weld " the castings together. This often caused "burn through", allowing the soft metal into the bores.
Excellent video as always Adam! My votes are for the good old Chevy 305 and 350 as the best motors of the 80's era. Used to own as '86 Caprice with the 305 4 barrel. 25 mpg on highway, sometimes as high as 28 cruising at 60 on country roads. 0-60 in 8.9 seconds with aftermarket duals, turbo mufflers/free flow cat cons😁 Stellar reliability as well. Didn't burn oil at 160K miles
I had an 86 caprice with 305. I hated the transmission. Driving at 55 MPH every gust of wind or mole hill and it would shift out of overdrive. Just constant shifting. A mechanic told me it could not be adjusted. Hated it.
@@oldarkie3880 Bought mine in '05 with 75K miles. It would shift out of overdrive between 45 and 55 mph if you stepped on it lightly, such as going up a slight hill, as the RPM's were so low in 4'th gear. Over 60 this was not an issue. I think '86 was one of the first years for the 4 speed automatic in the Caprice
Our local Cadillac dealer had stacks of Aluminum blocks behind the shop. I don't recall that happening with Vegas. Vega's needed good maintenance, regular oil changes and NO overheating. People who buy cheap cars tend to scrimp on maintenance. I worked on a LOT of them back in the day, they were very common. Vega was a unibody car, it was weak. If you open the hood and watch the suspension towers while bounce checking the shocks you could see the body flexing. After ~ 50,000 miles you couldn't align them to specs anymore. We'd get the camber right and match the caster as best we could. Toe in was never a problem. The body flex screwed up the included angle (none adjustable). For a cheap throwaway car it wasn't bad at all.
I inherited my grandmother's 1982 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham 4 door land yacht with the 4100 engine. She always complained about how slow it was as she had been getting a new one every 4-5 years for a couple decades. The older ones had huge powerful engines but Grandad got a 'deal' on a dealer demo. When I saw this video in my feed, I immediately thought that engine had to be on this last and of course, it was the 1st engine discussed. Anyway, I got it and hated driving it unless just around town. It sat in my garage for over 10 years until I sold it for 2000 USD a little over 10 years ago. The car was in mint condition with less that 35K miles but I was just glad to get it out of my garage.
Chevy Vega is the main one that comes to my mind. That whole car was junk. I doubt that there any still around? Are you going to do a video like this for Ford?
I was a victim of a '79 Olds Cutlass diesel with the smaller engine. Not only was the engine bad (I had multiple problems) the way GM treated its customers was even worse. The reputation of that engine quickly became known which made the value of the car fall like a stone. After only a year owning it, I tried trading it in, several dealers wouldn't even take it on trade. Today, I still harbor resentment for that car and the way GM treated me, I wouldn't buy a tooth pick from them. I understand that there was even a class action suit over that engine.
The diesel converted from gas 350s had to be on there. My father had one, never had real issues with it but sold it quickly after buying new because it was a dud performance wise and soon after it turned into a breakdown nightmare for GM..
Porsche also used the ‘Nikasil’ method of cylinder wall treatment on the engines used in the 928 and 944 with much success. Thanks for the great videos!
Ford started applying it to the Coyote 5.0 in 2018 and oil consumption issues are plaguing the once reliable engine. I’m satisfied that if the big three find out that they have done something right they’ll screw it up just to maintain their reputation for sucking.
I think part of the reason the coating in the bores on the Vega failed so quickly was GM (typically) tried to go cheap on the process when the bean counters got involved.
I would love to see a list of all the junk GM branded engines of more recent times, maybe from the last 10-15 years. Coming full circle more than 40yrs later from your examples in this video, very few GM branded engines have gotten any better😂👍
Our machinist had a stack of HT4100 blocks stacked behind his shop. Once a year the aluminum recycler would be called and he would pick up that stack of blocks along with the other aluminum. It was how our machinist paid for his vacations in the 1980s.
Gale Banks, who modified 455 Oldsmobile engines for powerboat racing, was asked to assess the Oldsmobile diesel engine during its design and noted the inadequate head retention with high compression (20+:1) and issues with oil contamination due to soot buildup. An interesting aside mentioned during his Amsoil bypass filtration system. Go check it out.
Very good video. I currently own an 85 Eldorado Biarritz with the HT4100 engine. It's definitely not a high performance engine but does get good mileage. I'd like to add one point, GM tarnished the image of the diesel engine so badly that even today there virtually is no market for diesel powered passenger cars in the U.S. Volkswagen also added to that in the 2000s but it was GM'S I always heard about the most.
You forgot the 3.0 that was fitted to the Buick Century. I was working in a lube bay during the day and a parts shop at night. When I saw a Century come in, I would have to check to see what engine the dealer had replaced it with. I saw everything from 2.0s out of J Cars, 2.5s out of X platforms and 2.8s out of the A body Celebrity. Most owners were unaware that they did not have the 3.0.
I worked as a GM tech and I was shocked to learn that GM put nine different brake systems on a car in one year with the theory that in the second year they would use the system that was the most reliable and only buy from that vendor. I decided to never buy a new car again at that point.
Like you, I am a life long believer in Detroit cars. While not a collector, I have owned Ford Galaxies, Olds 98, Chevy Caprice, Saturns, Chevy Chevelle, Chevy pickup, etc. I even had a Ford Fairmont - the only car I bought new! I have been a cheerleader for the brands, but it was increasely difficult to do whilst they, and GM in particular, just continued to self inflict disasters. Hence, I currently roll a 2005 Audi A4 - which is pretty expensive to maintain but has good performance, great build quality and very reliable so the maintenance expenses average out over a long interval. Nobody is perfect, but GM lost its way/soul when it took a scorched earth attitude toward UAW and nickle and dimed engineering and quality to death.
Bill @ Curious Cars discussed his theory on why Cadillac went "Down The Tubes" (ty George Carlin) when they began offering easy financing and making them 'too' available to the masses. He makes some good talking points, tho he's not mechanically inclined, but he studys his era's and gets his facts accross effectively, in between drags on a cigs and Coronavirus Whiskey swigs...
It’s a good thing I wasn’t taking a drink when he commented that the closest some Lincoln engineers got to the Nurburgring was when they flew overhead and bombed it during the war. 😱
I had an '03 Jaguar S Type with the 3.0 liter V6 that churned out 240 HP and got 27 mpg on the freeway and it had close to 200k miles on it. That car kicked ass! I had to drive 50 miles one way to work and that car made quick work of it @90+ MPH. I'm 10 miles from work now, so I got a gas sipper that has 92 HP that is exactly half the displacement but gets over twice the mileage in town @32.5 mpg. Today GM is in a race to the bottom with FIAT/Chrysler so one should just avoid anything made by those companies if they value their money.
Great video. My Dad was a master mechanic and ran our family's car and truck repair shop in the 50's to mid 70's. We came across our share of stinkers during that time.
This is a very informative video. I witnessed all of this growing up watching people "put up" with these vehicles. I've also heard about other problems GM has had with their cars during this time too. The "big picture" side of me says that this was caused more by the senior leadership of GM. It seems they were trying to cut costs because they wanted to answer to shareholders and make a bigger profit. As if the government hasn't been ruthless enough to the US auto industry (they could care less), GM could've planned better and worked harder to serve customers before serving stockholders. Everything about GM is doing whatever they can get away with as cheaply as possible and the customer pays for it.
1986 Lincoln had a simple light iron V8 engine with fuel injection which really did,like the advertisement said,run rings around the competitor Cadillac of the same era.
Very astute observations, Adam. It was amazing to see Cadillac customers migrate elsewhere, primarily to Lincoln in the '80s, though I'm sure the German makes picked up a few new customers as well. And as I look at FoMoCo and Chrysler engines of the era, I can't think of any there were nearly so bad as any of these. Well, except any CA car equipped with a Variable Venturi carburetor! At least the fix for those was easy -- install a 2-barrel carburetor on it and be on your way.
I had '79 Olds Cutlass Diesel. First came with 260-a real slug. Overheated. Then changed to 350. Discovered the Turbo 200 trans was slipping with the extra power. Changed trans to turbo 350-no more trans problems. This 350 cracked 2 pistons. Rebuilt target engine installed. This 350 cracked cylinder. Rebuilt target engine installed. The fuel injection pump went out-the wanted $800 to repair. Paid $250 to have it hauled away at only 135,000 miles. It was really a nice car to drive and the 350 was sufficient power-beat a 2002 BMW in a drag race once. But-a real clinker of an engine.
Adam I sure enjoyed your video. My dad had several Oldsmobile Delta 88 with those desiel engines….. constantly putting head gaskets on them. But when it was running fine it would get 25 mpg.
I bought a '71 Vega, so early in the production run that it was recalled for rear shock mounts mounts, as it couldn't go through a car wash; a no-options car, it rusted as you watched. In my late teens at the time, I thought the car was fabulous. The windshield washer button connected to a bulb behind the dash, and your literally pumped the fluid manually-the bulb would come of the back of the button, under the dash LH, and soak your pant leg. Super enjoy your great presentations. 6.2 GM diesel which followed the 5.7 you discuss, was a gem,.
I once owned a 1988 Chevrolet Cavalier. Pile of.... It was running on 3 cylinders when I finally traded it. It was getting about 38-40 mpg, though. Had it for 189K miles. I had to replace the Idle Air Control a few times. The car had other problems as well. Instead of sinking a ton of cash into it, I traded it. But I was poor, so I got a 1994 Chevrolet Cavalier. It averaged about 35mpg. The car was at least reliable. It was better than the previous car. The seats weren't that good (uncomfortable) After five years I purchased a new car, but kept that Cavalier. It became my nephew's car for a little bit, then became my niece's car. It ran for quite a while for her.
I was a tech at a GM dealership in the 90's. The Cadillac 4100 not only had the problems you mentioned but we had several come in leaking coolant between the back of the engine and bellhousing. The block would actually rot through and start leaking. The only fix was a new block which always meant a new engine. Also the oil filter is in the worst place ever. It is on top of the engine next to the distributor. There is no way to change the oil without making at least a little mess. Interestingly enough, when it was enlarged to 4.5 and then 4.9 it was pretty good engine, even powering the first models of the Allante'. The Olds diesel did have problems but it allowed those 4000 to 4500lbs cars to get 30+ mpg. That's pretty impressive even by today's standards. The 8-6-4 Cadillac engine just didn't have enough computing power in it's onboard processor. It could only be programmed to function properly in about 10 different conditions. Modern cars are almost infinite with not only a base program that covers thousands of driving conditions but the ability to learn and adapt to your specific driving style. The weak processor in the old Cadillac meant it couldn't compensate for much so it always felt like it was out of tune or out of sync, and I suppose it was. The 1.8 and later 2.0 were Brazilian built. I have no experience with the 1.8 but the 2.0 was a great motor with exceptional fuel economy but a tendency to blow head gaskets. They still have one of the easiest timing belts to change and they use the water pump as the belt tensioner. Although it is a static tensioner instead of the more popular modern dynamic tensioners, I never had any issues with them and in the 90's my work car was an '88 Sunbird with a 2.0. It ran great, got 34 mpg on the highway when driven sanely and had an A/C with good old R12 that could run you out of the car on 100 degree day. Thanks for the memories. I hadn't thought about most of these motors in years since they are few and far between today. Here's one, the 2.8 Chevy V6. It's absolutely horrible when carbureted but it's a decent motor when fuel injected.
I worked at an auto parts store in the late 1970’s, we carried AC Delco part number A375C, the complete air filter canister assembly for the Vega/Astre 2.3. I believe it was something like $10-$12. Normal air filter elements were in the $2-$4 range. Many a Vega and Astre owner were shocked at the price. We also carried the Hastings filter line, they had a canister for that application that wasn’t sealed and offered a replaceable element. Buy the canister once for $11 or so and then the filter element was available for future service at $2-$3. I think an honorable (dishonorable?) mention on your engines list should include the early 305 Chevrolet with the soft camshafts, the turbo 301 Pontiac that popped head gaskets frequently, and the earlier 3.6’s that ate timing chains, although part of the problem on the 3.6’s was GM’s oil life monitoring system that extended oil change intervals too far.
I had that 305 in a 78 Cutlass Calais. I swore I wasn't going to buy one with the 305, but the car was so nice I took the bait. The engine did eat a cam, but all it took to repair it was about $225 in parts and a weekend. I drove it for a long time after that.
Regarding the Chevy Vega air filters, there was an aftermarket kit made by K&N that you could change the air filter housing made by GM to a replaceable filter available off the shelf. I believe the list price for this conversion kit was around 30 dollars in 1977 dollars. My dad purchased a 1977 Vega ( 4 speed, yellow with "Vega GT" striping, Z29 package, AM/FM/8-Track player, and A/C ) while was station on Okinawa and took delivery in Chicago. He would have liked to purchased the Cosworth powered version, but it had been discontinued by point..
My dad had 1985 Pontiac 6000le diesel v-6. He got it for free from my grandmother. This car was extra clean for a car that was about 8 years old at the time. He fixed the fuel pump. After few thousand miles he had to replace the transmission. Few months later the engine blew. Unfortunately he had the car hauled off to the junkyard. It had only 125,000 miles on it.
With all this garbage coming out of Detroit in the late 70's and early 80's its no wonder why the Japanese auto industry crushed the domestic car market.
Hey Adam, my dad used to say, "never try to save money in engine design, save money by firing an overpaid executive". Dad was a Navy man.
I'm a design engineer. God save us from executives who *understand cost reduction* but do not understand why a design team might specify an expensive component when a seemingly similar component is available at lower cost.
I saw our head of purchasing explode when we were paying the manufacturer *ten times* the list price for an LED. He went to an LED wholesaler and "saved" us money. What he didn't know was that the product would not work unless the LED produced a very narrowly specified frequency range, a range *narrower* than anything any manufacturer made. Our manufacturer was hand testing and selecting *only* the LEDs that were within our engineering spec ( about 1 out of 1000 produced) and charging us for their guaranty that the LEDs were within our spec. It took us a year to figure out why this product was failing final test 100% because the cheap LED's looked *exactly* like the expensive ones!
@@etoineschrdlu9382 Honestly, Etoine Schrdlu, first I wanted to cry but then I wanted to laugh - ended up doing both! 👍👍
@@eddstarr2185 I know what you mean, but I see this all the time. My company makes scientific instruments: some of the most accurate, stable, and repeatable instruments of their kind. But our production volumes are low and our margins are very sensitive to market fluctuations, so we design using tricks like buying components that aren't as accurate as we'd like, but then we test and calibrate them until they meet our accuracy specs. We'll design special circuitry, firmware, and software to compensate for the inevitable variation of these components. Yes, we sometimes have to give each instrument personalized calibration coefficients to compensate for component variations. We have had to compensate for lens materials whose light transmission changes with age. Combine that with LEDs that dim with age, light detectors whose sensitivity changes with age and you wind up with Chemists, Physicists, and Engineers (Software, Firmware, Mechanical and Electrical) who are constantly tearing their hair out chasing an accuracy specification. And then the purchasing department buys a cheaper component without telling anyone.
@@etoineschrdlu9382 Yep, A perfect example of tripping over dollars to save dimes... But that bean counter got promoted, and a few years later the people left behind were trying to figure out a way to make things work with less resources because they were trying to save money.
The sales and finance guys can ruin a company when put in leadership positions!
A good friend of mine was the parts manager at the local Oldsmobile dealership. He took me back in the parts room and showed me 10 wooden crates with replacement diesel engines. The dealership sold ten cars with diesel engines and they were in stock to replace the engines under warranty planning on 100% failure rate.
lmao
I worked at a GMC truck dealer back then and GMC used that engine in pickups. We always had one in the shop for an engine replacement. Customers kept asking us to just put a gas engine in their trucks, but under GM warranty, we could only replace the engine with the same engine.
Sounds like an air cooled vw parts store. Only those engines would be recons ready for exchange at 100 000 miles!
Cheek, GM= Great Mistake ! Guess dabbling in diesel powerplants was a path they should've avoided !
Worked on at least 6 Cadillac DeVilles with the HT (hook n' tow) 4100's, found if they hadn't enough oil changes yep the Camshaft would wear rapidly...due to Oil not making it back down in the Crankcase! With a slight amount of Sludge...GM expected the oil to drainback right where the Headbolts attached no other way for Oil return.
That is just what customers who just purchased an expensive car from Cadillac want to hear; don't push it. That's nonsense. Customers expect more. And rightly so. GM did a great job of improving Japanese car sales during this time
Yep, Roger Smith and his minions were the best thing that ever happened to JAPAN'S auto industry.
You mentioned the "soft" cams. My aunt had one of the Cadillacs with the 4.1 on witch the cam went flat after only 7 months. She had les than 20,000 miles on it. I was confused as I was only 15 years old and thought of Cadillac as top of the line. As I aged, I never even thought of owning a Cadillac. They had burned my aunt and that was enough for me.
Hahh, all the 4100s had that problem. My dad got stuck replacing all those motors under warranty at the dealer back then.
Nothing wrong with the 1.8, or a 20 second 0-60 time, which is tons faster than most of the trucks I drove.
My uncle had one that was misfiring a lot. When he pulled the engine and disconnected the transmission you could grab the crankshaft and move it. The aluminum had worn that badly. The transmission was literally holding the thing together.
I had the overheating problem with my 1983 Coupeville DE Vill!* It had head gasket issues after I had it for only 10 years, but that was 10 Yeats after 2003, so I guess, for a used Cadillac, it wasn't all that bad?*
@@christopherscuorzo3044 yea but i guarantee you that the motor you had in 03 wasnt the original engine.
GM's mix-and-match engine strategy -- dating from the introduction of the Olds-powered Seville -- poisoned their classic Chevrolet-to-Cadillac brand-ladder hierarchy in the minds of many. Cadillac was hit the hardest of the GM divisions because, going into the 1970s, they made only one engine: the monster 472/500. When CAFE hit, Cadillac had to run to other GM divisions to beg for less-thirsty, less-expensive hardware.
In the early 1970s, my Dad was still a firm Believer in the GM gospel. Oldsmobile, according to Dad, provided the bare automotive minimum. Buick was a touch better and Cadillac was, unquestionably, the best of the best. Pontiac was not up to snuff and Chevrolet was completely unacceptable. When Dad found out in 1975 that the (very expensive) Seville was powered by an Olds engine, the scales fell from his eyes. Dad migrated to Chrysler products. [Ford and AMC were still out of the question.] Then one day I was stunned when Dad came home in a nicely used 1978 *Chevrolet* Caprice Classic. By then, he figured that whatever premium Cadillac had once commanded had long since been neutralized by GM's corporate-parts-bin shuffle. Dad was right: The "downsized" Caprice proved to be a very nice car.
I grew up in the 80s, when it was common knowledge that GM divisions shared platforms, engines, etc. It was amusing for me to later learn that in the 1970s Oldsmobile owners actually sued GM when they discovered their Oldsmobiles were powered by Chevy engines. I think there was a similar lawsuit in the 1970s when Pontiac owners learned their cars had engines or transmissions from another division; it might have involved disgruntled Pontiac Astre owners. Don't get me wrong, I understand that GM divisions actually used to be actual, full-fledged separate divisions. It's just that by the 1980s, the idea of GM having separate divisions, with separate engines, transmssions, and platforms, seemed antiquated, as if out of the 1950s or earlier. Anyways, after buying two GM vehicles, a 1999 Oldsmobile Intrigue and a 2012 Chevrolet Sonic, I will never buy a GM product again.
@@thehighllama8101 I grew up earlier. 😀 The belief I inherited was that if an auto company didn't design and build their own engines, they weren't a true auto company. Anybody -- such as Fisher or Fleetwood -- could fashion a body, but only Cadillac could create a Cadillac engine.
For example, a Studebaker with a Chevy engine was no longer a Studebaker. It was a mongrel breed who was not long for this world. A "Cadillac" with an Olds engine was nothing more than a glorified Cutlass, at best, if not a woefully overpriced Chevy Nova. Engines gave cars their identities.
When GM disconnected the engine from the rest of the car, that essentially wiped out 70 years of auto-manufacturing tradition. A Packard had always been a Packard no matter if it had LeBaron or Murray coachwork. By the mid-1970s, GM brought that tradition to an end.
@@waltschmerz Give GM credit for making good engines. Of course, the Cadillac engine was good, but so was the Chevrolet. GM really upped their game during the late 40s to the mid 50s. In the early post war years, GM was still selling depression style straight 8s, some with antiquated poured babbitt bearings. Not well suited for hours on the brand new interstates, that's for sure.
@@21stcenturyfossil7 I give GM credit for making good engines. But my car-nut-professional-musician Dad wanted great engines (and transmissions) so he stuck with either the top-end GM models or Chrysler. As a pro musician living in central Kansas in the 50s and 60s, practically every gig was hundreds of miles away. This meant that he cruised down pre-Interstate roads at triple-digit speeds for hours on end. The only cars that didn't wilt under his abuse were Oldsmobiles, Buicks, and Cadillacs. His 1961 Olds 88 -- with the dreaded "Slim Jim" transmission -- was one exception. And the '61 Olds broke as it backed out of the driveway. :-)
One advantage that Cadillac (and to a slightly lesser extent, Buick and Olds) had was the higher percentage of nickel they used in their iron alloys. Chevys, with softer iron, wore faster than Cadillacs. The (perhaps apocryphal) story that I've heard is that, by the time the early 1960s rolled around, Cadillac's engineers knew that the day would come when "ethel" gas would go away. So by 1963, Cadillac's cylinder heads and blocks were hard enough to run unleaded gas. I had the heads redone on my 1967 Eldorado last year. There was valve wear, but the valve seats were still in pretty good condition. And there was no ledge in any of the cylinder bores to indicate cylinder-wall wear. So those old Cadillac engineers must have done something right.
Of course, Faith-in-GM was history by the mid-1970s. We had two Cutlasses -- a '75 and a '76 -- that were terrible cars. Engines knocked and transmissions died frequently enough that Dad migrated to Chrysler for a while. Dashboard controls and window handles may come off in your hands in a '60s - '70s vintage Chrysler, but at least they won't break as you howl down the Interstate.
@@waltschmerz
GM was continuing a tradition that the other big American companies weren't really following anyways. Mercuries and Lincolns came with Ford engines; MOPARs were all MOPARs, so there's no real reason GMs couldn't all be GMs except for legacy. GM did a lot of redundant engineering work, especially when you consider effort that was redoubled again in Brazil, Australia, Japan, Germany or the UK. How many engines did they really need; how many platforms; how many times could they have eliminated a redundancy in one area that would have allowed them to see one through in another area?
GM's history is littered with what-ifs and corporate blunders.
Having owned a Seville with a Northstar I expected to see that engine on your list. These engines performed well when new, but the poorly engineered underdesigned head bolts meant you were driving a time bomb. These engines also leaked oil and were very difficult / expensive to make repairs .
The problem was there was a additive that you added when changed the coolant in the Northstar and it was at the Cadillac dealership but very few techs knew about it also a lot people did not change the coolant at the proper maintenance times which added to this problem.
Never heard anything good about the Northstar.
The problems with the Northstar were pretty much solved by 04 or 05. There is a company called Northstar Performance that sells a head stud kit that solves the headgasket issues on earlier engines.
There was a beautiful, loaded, one female owner, Blue Onyx w/Silver Leather interior, '03 Seville for sale in Dallas a few years ago. 74k original miles.
I recalled my Uncle Rudy having a Seville of the same body style with the Northstar and having problems. His was Gold. That prompted me to read owner reviews from several websites.
Owner complaints about head gasket failures, the subsequent overheating headaches, and expensive repairs, sealed my decision to stay away from that car. At the time, I don't recall reading anything about a company manufacturing a fix in the reviews. Additionally, I read of some electrical problems with various engine codes.
It's a shame because I love the design, but I'm a man who likes to drive my cars. Not hang out in repair shops with them...
@@21Piloteer didn't the Northstar come out in 93? Why'd it take so long to fix the problem?
As a chevy guy, I can verify he's right about these engines. I also was never too fond of the 305. Oil change and fluids in general makes a world of difference on longevity. Make sure to never delay maintenance, or it will die prematurely.
Mine would cut valve seals.
I had one in a pickup with a 4bbl, that truck I drove for 25yrs and 350k never replaced anything but fuel pumps, spark plugs etc wasn’t quite as peppy as the 350 but it was totally reliable probably still running today somewhere - was pretty amazing gas mileage for a tuck too
Tell that to my 2000 celica with 379k that hasnt had an oil change since 2008. Had to replace oil filter last summer due to it rusting all the way through
@Adam c The 305 is an underrated block!
305 same as every other small block except 400. It’s fine in right application everyone just wants it to be a 350 but it’s not just a lot of dyslexic people maybe 🤔🤣
The only good thing about the Olds Diesel was you could easily swap in a gas Olds V8 . A friend of mine had a Chevy pickup with one he bought cheap as it was about to blow. A nice Olds 455 from the salvage yard made it a nice powerful truck.
For those of us in California, a diesel Oldsmobile is an easy path to bypass emissions restrictions with a built gasoline engine. Since diesels older than 1997 are exempt from state-mandated inspection, nothing but money is preventing an LS swap with turbos and such. It's not technically legal, but you'd never get caught
Smart money rebuilt the blocks as gas burners.
@@1mikewalsh Had a friend who did that. Got it running and gas would spew out of the carburetor! He'd forgotten to change the diesel fuel pump that was high pressure to a gasoline fuel pump that was 5-7psi!😂
Some of the early Chevettes has the sealed air cleaner too. 12:46
General Motor's top bureaucracy of the period resulted in Roger Smith becoming Chairman and CEO. I could go on and on about this bureaucratic nightmare - but I want to mention that there are things that can go wrong when a company's top leadership is predominantly drawn from finance and accounting staff, most of whom that lacking in engineering credentials.
Lived through it, totally agree. When the CFO becomes the CEO, the numbers might look good for a bit, but the core product suffers and long term the company loses identity, momentum, etc.
@@blautens 100% agreed. And it's not just GM or the car industry. (Ask me how I know) But I truly beleive GM is still suffering the ghost of Roger Smith and his minions. Sad.
Then from the first Roger Smith to the second Roger Smith that had been the CEO of Kelloggs.
Just ask Boeing about the beancounters, and what that's done to there brand.
GM started being run by the accountants from the time of Frank Donner in the 1960s. Roger Smith was simply a product of that system. His predecessor, Thomas Murphy famously said "General Motors is not in the business of making cars. It is in the business of making money."
Wow dude, I love so much your KNOWLEDGE of all of these things! Thanks for having this channel.
You bet!👍
Taking owner phone calls in Cadillac Consumer Relations and Roadside Service as I did from 88-91 was an interesting experience. Recommending “modifying” (disabling) DOD on a V8-6-4, then later explaining why coolant supplement pellets needed to be added to the HT4100 taught us all how to be very tactful. And yes, there were plenty of loyal Cadillac owners lost forever in this era. We were chasing Lexus and fending off Lincoln in J.D Power rankings. Definitely a challenging time for the Clark Street executives.
The worst GM engine of all was probably the 1923 ‘copper cooled’ Chevrolet, so bad that they were ALL recalled.
hard lesson to learn - "extended powertrain warranty to reassure customers they would fix cars if they failed" that is WAY too late. Warranty to fix does nothing to satisfy customers who get stranded or worse. Kiss brand loyalty goodbye.
I'd say an extended warranty at least shows they they care about making the customer whole and if it only has to be used once (especially if the fix leaves the car more reliable than it was new) could make what could have been a major problem into a minor one, at least from the customer's perspective. My Chrysler LHS was only covered for its transmission failure because of an aftermarket warranty I purchased and on top of that, Chrysler charged me for "software upgrades" to fix THEIR mistakes, and I never bought another Chrysler car. In contrast, a co-worker's 2003 Acura got a new transmission from Honda free of charge and was a great car after that while my 2005 Accord had the same transmission and it was rock-solid by that time. So Honda took care of their customers who got what was known to be a bum transmission and worked the bugs out of it quickly, while Chrysler kept making crappy transmissions of a decade and left customers holding the bag. Honda atoned for their mistakes while Chrysler attempted to profit from theirs.
True. Even then, after 60K miles, you're on your own, likely off a cliff!
The most impressive warranty is the one that is never used. Like the forever idle Maytag repairman.
In other words, their warranty was better than their engines.
Seems to work well enough for Hyundai/Kia
I had much training from the GM training center and they told us that the most experimental motors came out in the highest cost cars, like Cadillac, because fewer people could afford to buy them, and recalls would cost less.
Hi there, I really liked this video. Content, very interesting, as always. Always highest quality. (Don't find that too often on youtube.) And although I 'm a true fan of your usual measured, even-tempered benevolent presentation style (it's very calming in a hectic world and it's very professional, which is something I think many viewers have much respect for, as do I), I like that in this "porch chat" your personality really comes through. I mean, keep the "professional" videos coming, absolutely, but, I'd like to see more porch chats. In your measured, even-tempered benevolent Michigan way (my Dad studied in Michigan), your porch chat is warm, funny, a touch bitchy (love it), ironic, and yet the same high quality content and also, in a nice way, calling a spade a spade, which inspires trust. (BTW, I loved the video in which you spoke about your Dad. That was most moving. Thank you for sharing that.) And your breadth of knowledge is so impressive, such that the attention never faulters. One of the elements I find most valuable are the tacit tips on proper car maintenance, such as knowing on which engines to change the oil much more frequently or knowing which engines not to push too hard, or the Pontiac video about keeping the original iginition, etc. (Maybe you could do a video about how to treat a older car right, special care tips, etc..) I just cringe when I see people cold starting an old timer and revving the engine -- ehhhhhh, it's like fingernails on a chalk board. I find myself wanting to do very mean things to them. Anyway, like the porch chat alot. You come across as such a nice fellow (I mean, you always do, but here it really came through. Wish I could have a beer with you sometime and chat about this stuff. OK, I don't really drink beer, but you know what I mean. Thanks, Dude.
And I agree
Thank you for the nice note. Will try my best!
As an extreme classic car lover, I shamefully admit that I've never learned a whole lot about the engines, however I can attest to one of these that you discussed. I had a family member who bought a '79 olds two-door Royale with a diesel engine, they bought it used in '82 as a second car, but a year later the engine blew and they sold it to my brother, who then had a '72 olds engine put in it, he had it for about 3 years and it seemed to run well, it was a very nice looking car with beautiful plush interior. I do enjoy learning these facts and particulars though, thanks 😃
Owned a 94 Fleetwood Brougham with the 5.7 liter LT1 engine. The car was a very big and comfortable car with plenty of power (270HP). It was the last of the “true” Cadillacs, 96 being the final year for all of GM’s big rear wheel drive cars. When I finally sold the car (for a whopping $4300) t had over 600,000 miles on it and still didn’t burn a drop of oil. The tranny was just as solid. Miss that beautiful behemoth. Ive never thought much of the stealthy style and smaller size that followed. Could never understand why both Cadillac and Lincoln surrendered the large car market to the Japanese and Germans. Perhaps it was that quality issue that you mentioned but isn’t it interesting that the quality problems were almost exclusively with the smaller, front wheel drive cars?
I think the 1994-96 Fleetwoods and the 1994-96 Roadmasters were the best "all around" cars ever built. I hate the Roadmaster door panels though-they fall apart. I have owned several. But currently I own a 1994 Roadmaster Limited Sedan, a 1996 Roadmaster Estate Wagon (with wood trim delete, thankfully) and a 1996 Fleetwood Brougham. GM abandoned this B/D body platform in favor of the GMC Yukon and Chevy Tahoe, which were built on a Estate Wagon frame. The LT-1 bugaboo, the Opti-Spark was better on these cars than the Camaros and Corvettes, because they had a venting system from day one. If you took care of it, it was not a problem. And a simple rule I follow: Whenever you have to replace a water pump, at LEAST replace the rotor and cap of the Opti-spark at the same time.
CAFE scores and attempts to realign their brands with the sportier side of the luxury market, Caddy sorta succeeded and Lincoln didn't. That said personally I'd love a Lincoln LS to do up bippu/VIP style.
260 hp, but yeah
I’ve always loved your car reviews, but the porch chats are just mesmerizing. Keep them both coming.
Very good job-definitely your "A"-game. When I think of the Cadillacs circa 1982 and the choice of diesel, HT4100, or credit option Buick V6, all had around the same power, and the V6 was the best alternative.
Unfortunately the Olds 350 V8 was dropped after 1980 and the Olds 307 did not come out to replace it until 1986.
@@jeffrobodine8579 Actually, I believe my '84 Toronado had the 307.
@@mdogg1604 Olds Toronado got the 140 bhp 307 from 1981-1985. The Cadillac Eldorado got the "exclusive" HT4100 motor with 125-135 bhp from 1982-1985. The base 1984 Cadillac Eldorado listed for $20,342 while the 1984 Olds Toronado listed for $16,107. You definitely got the better car for the better price. 1979-1980 Cadillac Eldorado, Olds Toronado and Buick Riviera all got the Olds 350. In 1986 the Fleetwood got the Olds 307 or a Chevy 305 while the new downsized Cadillacs continued to get the 4.1 Cadillac motor.
@@jeffrobodine8579 Thanks for the reply! My Toro was the Caliente, white with a red leather interior. I really miss it!
The diesels were from what i heard was gas engines converted diesel. A family friend had a caddy she bought new that spent more time at gm than in their driveway.
In auto mechanic class in high school their was these old hard cover books,with black and white pictures with body,drive train,engine specifications for American cars and trucks from about the late 50s to the early 70s and you could see how the high compression V8 got knocked out in 1971.Great video
Another sad fallout of the 5.7 diesel debacle is that it sullied the reputation of the 6.2 diesel. Absolutely a workhorse of an engine.
As long as you didn't use Ether to start them..the non turbo is durable, good on fuel, but only 155 HP..noisy box of rocks..get the turbo/ intercooled version for a better but still underwhelming 195-210 stock HP..
"I do feel bad for the people who had to work on them."
No need for that! As a mechanic, I made a fortune on these - especially the Olds Diesel. I put many a pair of shoes on my kids' feet thanks to that engine.
I had a trick I developed on the head gasket issue. The cylinder head would move around and etch a groove into the cylinder block. Once that happened, it would no longer hold a gasket. Fel-Pro made a .060" over gasket and I started using those. It gave a fresh area for the gasket to bite into and I had great sucess with that.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. My uncle had an early Vega station wagon. He had a case of oil he carried in the car
and stopped to fill up the oil and check the gas. I had a 76 Monza with the Dura-built engine and it a fun little car with the 2 barrel, except it an issue with timing belts breaking.
When an engine has "Dura" at the start, it's not going to be durable, no matter the manufacturer. Part 2 of that is they know it, giving it that name. It's like seeing "Patriot" or "Freedom," in a Bill, it will be about the neither, the opposite in fact.
Drop a 350 small block and a 400 turbo in the Vegas and monza problem solved
Roger that. I had a showroom new '72 Vega, blew a head gasket and seized at 14k. Chevy replaced it free. Second engine blew at 36k (from 14k, so 22k more). Chevy gave me their new iron sleeve in aluminum block which did not seize before 55k by which time I too was buying oil by the case, 1/2 qt per fill up. When I traded it the salesman asked me if anything was wrong with it, I said it uses oil. He said they all do. Later bought a new '77 Monza w/ a V6, was essentially a Vega w/a decent engine. I really liked the Vega, lots of fun to drive and Chevy replacing engines free was cool too
GM was just ahead of their time. Nowadays even brand new Mercedes and Kia motors burn a quart of oil every 800 miles. It ain't easy bein cheesy.
And then there's Hyundai/Kia's whole warranty thing which smacks of GM's 350 diesel thing - basically admitting it'll probably break but at least the customer won't have to pay for a new one when it does
A friend of ours owned a Cadillac dealership back in the day. When the V8-6-4 debuted, he was telling us the systems were failing when the customer was driving the car home from the dealership AFTER JUST TAKING DELIVERY NEW!! No one knew how to fix them. I distinctly remember the magazine ads at the time saying this new system had been tested in over 500,000 miles of real conditions, and I thought at the time, hey! that's only 5 cars being driven 100,000 miles....that's enough of a test for a new technology on GM's premier platform? GM screwed the pooch in so many ways in the late 70;s and all through the 80's. What a (cynical) fall from grace from a great American manufacturer.
I loved Oldsmobile 350 diesel engine blocks I built many 350 Oldsmobile performance gas engines unbelievably strong blocks they weighed just about 40 lb more
well worth the extra weight
I was quite young when I finally got my 79 Olds 98 with the diesel. (dream car) So excited and proud! My garage smelled like a bus station. Broke down on my first long trip. Finally replaced the diesel with a 350 gas engine and managed to drive it for a while. Bought a 1999 Cadillac with the Northstar engine. Leaked like a sieve. Needless to say, I haven't had an American-made car since. Call me impulsive. Great report as usual. Thanks for your expertise.
Shoulda bought a FORD with a V8.
Problem was you stuck with GM
The best thing about an Oldsmobile diesel was that an Oldsmobile gas engine was a 100 percent bolt in replacement!
I really enjoyed your personality and demeanor! My father bought a brand new 1974 Chevy Vega Wagon and I remember he had to rebuilt or replace the engine after 33K miles. Fun times!
I had a version of the Vega called a Monza, it was a cute looking car but OH DEAR, it was the biggest pile of GARBAGE before I bought a 78 Pontiac Firebird which was WORSE if you can imagine ANYTHING worse than a 78 Redbird with a Buick EVEN FIRING V6 engine.
It lasted about 18k miles before it threw a main bearing. An engine repair shop told me “ Oh you got a good one, they usually go at about 15k miles”.
A very good video. With a tremendous amount of information. Thank you for sharing.
The Chevy to Cadillac progression served GM well until the 1980's. Those HT4100 were rushed to replace the V8-6-4 that had a huge class action suit against GM. The word on the street was when you heard the HT4100 making a "clicking" sound it was about to seize up. The techs were told to "shim the crankshafts" in some regions. This was because the 4100 aluminum block "flexed" and that would bind the crank and cam. I went into a Cadillac dealer in Janesville, Wi. and they had 19 Cadillacs with broken engines waiting for replacement engines. They had a Cadillac Master Guild Technician that was literally in tears because of what the GM execs had done to "his car". I really felt bad for that guy, because he worked so hard to attain his extreme high level of knowledge about what was once a great car. Fortunately, GM forced Roger Smith out and took the HT4100 and redeveloped it into the HT4900. GM ribbed and gussetted the engine block so it would not flex and added hardened sleeves into the aluminum block. This engine was in the '86 thru '89 Deville and was very reliable and a little more powerful. Cadillac also had problems with their 472 and 500 in engines. The Cadillac guys were always quick to tell anyone that their 472 was far superior to anything GM or their competitors made. That was a huge lie. Any tech that ever tore down a Cadillac 472 saw a very weak engine. Cast cranks, connecting rods, and pistons instead of far superior forged cranks rods and pistons like one found in the hi perf versions of Chevrolet's 396, 427, 454, and 502. These Chevy's easily made two to three times the horsepower and torque and were incredibly well designed and built. All Cadillac had to do was swallow their pride and put the big block Chevy into their cars, and people would have beat a path to their door. When the 350 Olds was put in the first generation Sevilles, Cadillac denied it was an Oldsmobile designed and built engine. It got to be if you owned a Cadillac and listened to the propaganda the sales guys were spewing, you were truly a dumb ass that knew absolutely nothing about cars and car engines. The truth is, Cadillac shares many components with other GM cars, like frames, front and rear suspensions, brakes, cooling and AC systems. The motor mounts position on most GM cars are identical. It is possible to mount Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile engines in any of those 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's rear wheel drive Cadillacs along with the Turbo Hydramatic 400 transmissions if they wanted to. The Olds 350 in the 1975 to 1979 rear wheel drive Sevilles, and the front wheel drive 1980 Sevilles and 1979-1980 Eldorados. Cadillac salesmen will deny that the engines are Oldsmobiles, so I bet a Cadillac salesman any amount of money that they were Olds built motors. He refused to bet me. Also, a 1971 thru 1977 Big Cadillac Deville or Sedan DeVille, and the Fleetwood Brougham become incredible cars with a mild Chevrolet 454. That 454 is 10 times the engine that the Cadillac 472 or 500 is.
I agree 100% with your option on gm engines and transmissions. I was a Cadillac technician in the late 1980s. I saw all of the problems! I replaced a lot of 4100 engines.
Oh boy. You’d be an interesting interview!
@@RareClassicCars ok when would you like to interview me?
@@douglasfrye6462 Send me an email
The Olds conversion to diesel almost single handedly destroyed the US Diesel market.....
GM did make some good engines. My favorites: The 455 Olds with dual exhausts. I had a 1972 442 with that engine for a long time. I changed the oil frequently.No internal engine problems at all. I now own a 2001 Aurora with the 4.0 Northstar. All the head gasket problems that plagued the first generation Northstar (1993 - 1999) were solved with the introduction of the second Northstar (2000 and later). The later Northstars have longer & thicker head bolts and an improved head gasket design. Only trouble in the more than 21 years I've owned the Aurora......crankshaft position sensors.
Now if Ed Cole had let Olds build the 32 valve version.
That 455 oldsmobile rocket engine just couldnt be beat, I had one in a 77 custom cruiser wagon a painter retired n gave me for free for helping him redrywall a room or 2 that had like 5 layers of wall paper, that car had great power n sound n tractor because it was a station wagon, I left many hot rods in shame that came up on me at redlights snickering, it was a sleeper, as a plus it had a big rear bed area for date nights !, my grandmother in law had a 60 something model oldsmobile super 88 that had that 455 engine too, it also was fast, it still looked new n smelled new inside too!
Thank you for sharing. I worked as a mechanic at a Ford dealer from 1983 to 2006. Throughout that time, I had friends and acquaintances that worked at other dealerships. One worked at a Buick&Olds dealer in the early 1980s and we often shared stories of the 5.7 diesels he worked with, and the Navistar 6.9 diesels I was dealing with.
The 5.7 Olds engine was indeed bad, but not nearly as bad as some think. As you pointed out, car owners were not prepared for the unique attention some diesels require. I remember that from customers that expected things from the 6.9 that they treated like a gasoline engine. You cannot ignore maintenance especially the cooling systems that can cavitate cylinders if ignored long enough.
Of course there were a lot of diesels in the shop at both Ford and GM dealers at the time, not because they were problematic, but because the market was flooded with them. They sold like hot cakes out here in the desert.
The 5.7 did have problems. So did the Navistar 6.9. I can remember not a week went by that Ford didn’t release a Technical Service Bulletin on some new updated repair procedure. I am sure the same was true for the 5.7 with GM.
Not going to lie, we sure made good money at the time trying to keep diesel owners happy
The 6.9 had problems. But those were mostly solvable . But the early production GM 5.7 was truly junk as a whole.
I remember when I was much younger but still knew quite a bit about current cars for my age. I spent a good part of my youth turning wrenches with my dad as he taught me how to maintain my car and repair it instead of taking it to a mechanic. I was looking to buy a used car I'm at a regular new car dealership looking at trade-ins with the salesman. I told him specifically I did not want to look at any GM diesel cars. No exceptions I didn't want to even talk about them. Evidently they had one of these dogs on lot that they were trying to push to get it off the lot and he kept trying to get me to go look at it. He kept telling me that the car was great and he had one and he loved it and when the engine went bad he was just going to convert it to gas! Finally I got tired of him trying to send me over to this freaking car I wouldn't pay 5 cents for and asked him if you love that diesel so much why are you going to change the gas? He stopped bringing it up at that point.
The aluminum Vega engine block contained a high percentage of silicon. After boring, the cylinders were etched leaving a wear surface of silicon particles. The pistons were iron plated. This worked great until the iron started flaking off of the pistons, which in turn chewed up the bores causing the engines to fail. Other car manufactures successfully use the same aluminum alloy today.
Quad 4. Had one in my 95 grand am. It was a nightmare, I had parts all over my garage floor when I did a head gasket repair.
I had a '97 Skylark with a Quad 4, and had the opposite experience. Bought it with 83,000 miles on it and ran it up to 228,000 before I had to retire it due to too many upstate NY winters.
@@tacoheadmakenzie9311 maybe they made some updates on those years but mine was problem after problem. Timing chain, fuel pump, thermostat, head gasket, water pump, 2 cylinders went out on me and it took it seemed 1 minute to get up to highway speed lol. But when I was trouble free it ran awesome.
@@irishuwould5185 I will say that I was glad that I had no issues with it because, for a four cylinder engine, accessibility was horrible. One thing that I did have to replace was the serpentine belt tensioner, and even that was a pain in the ass.
@@tacoheadmakenzie9311 I just read that 1995 was a “transitional period” for the quad 4. They made some changes to it. Maybe that was some of the issues connected to mine. It’s always better to wait a year or two after changes to work the kinks out, but in 1999 when I bought it I didn’t know that lol.
Our 96 grand am was butt fugly, but very reliable and that little quad 4 ran great well past 200,000 miles.
I agree that the quick succession of unreliable and underpowered engines basically started the major decline of Cadillac. In the large Fleetwoods/Broughams, the reliability issues weren’t done away until the Olds 307 in 1986, but that engine was still underpowered and, of course, wasn’t made by Cadillac. By 1991 reliability and decent power was finally returned by Chevy engines starting with the 305 and optional 350 L05 and then the 350 LT1 in 1994, but It was mostly too late by then and Cadillac itself barely pushed these cars in an attempt to ditch the “old man” image, which is too bad as these were some very good cars.
In the “smaller” cars, the HT4100 persisted along with over-downsized models like the 85-88 Deville and the 86-91 Eldorado, killing prestige. There started to be a recovery with the 4.5 L and 4.9 L engines (larger, improved versions of the HT 4100) delivering decent power and reliability and installed in larger redesigns restoring some presence and prestige, but this wisp of a recovery was ruined by the 4.6 L Northstar engine which had head bolt and head gasket issues well into the 2000s. I’m actually surprised the Northstar isn’t in the video as it was one of the nails in Cadillac’s coffin. The Northstar ended up in every model after the cancellation of the Fleetwood in 1996 and so did all of its problems.
Starting the 21st off, Cadillac switched to its “Art and Science” look and started to try to compete with BMW and Mercedes with “sportier” models aimed at a supposedly younger audience. This was a huge mistake as they could not beat the Germans at their own game and they simultaneously lost the traditional buyers who liked large, plush American cars, which Cadillac is still known for despite not really making any for many years now. Cadillac’s market share barely registers these days and they are at best an also-ran. Their fortunes may have been very different if it weren’t for that string of bad engines, a reduction in quality, and giving up on the cars that once made them the standard of the world.
Thx. There’s a separate video on the Northstar and a description of why I didn’t include it.
One last note, GM’s FWD platform really didn’t truly improve until the late 80’s, the 89-92 MY was much improved over the previous years. A friend of mine owned an 89 Cadillac Fleetwood with the 4.9L V8 engine that was extremely reliable. It had around 296,000 miles before he sold it. Sure it wasn’t perfect, it leaked a ton of oil, and had other small issues, but overall it was a great well built car. It was pretty gutless I would say, but because the car didn’t weigh much, it was able to haul itself around without being dangerously slow.
I personally used to own a 87 Cadillac Brougham with the 5.0 307 Olds motor. That thing was such a dog, so slow that it was actually scary to get on the freeway! I would floor it, and the car barely moved! I heard that 307 was pretty solid, but they lacked the power to the point where it always felt stressed out.
I feel that Ford did a much better job in the 80’s with using TBI and fuel injection early in the decade. Because not only was the Olds motor super gutless at only 140 HP pushing a 4,000lbs+ car, but it was still carbureted. And the Rochester carb on that car was a nightmare! You had some early electronics connected to it like the TPS sensor which gave nothing but trouble and would set off a check engine light and engine acceleration problems with the slightest of wear. It was a lovely car, but the mechanicals was problematic and a PITA.
The sweet spot for that body style and design mixed in with reliability and better performance, we’re the 77-79 D-bodies. You still had the Cadillac 425 engine and TH400 before all the drivetrain down sizing that came just a few years later. Those older late 70’s Cads were bulletproof and didn’t really give too much trouble.
The Rochester is way better than early TBI Fords by a huge amount, Ive had many Q jets in work trucks and were awesome, important to keep them in tune then wow! And Ford really stepped up the game when in 86' the new EFI came out. And Ive owned 6 GM TBI trucks amazing reliability and good fuel economy.
I really enjoy the Porch Chats. Thank you so much for bringing such informative and entertaining content.
Having driven a Olds diesel for years I can say most of its troubles were brought on by dumb users, incompetent dealers and bad fuel supply. After the first couple of years they had the problems in hand but it was too late.
I totally agree. I drove one in my teen years. A person must have " diesel skills." I grew up around diesel engines on the farm. I bought an 85 300SD 5 cyl. Diesel Mercedes in 1999. I drove it until my teen son hit another classic car on a wet day in 2014.
Can’t be that many dumb users! They were junk!
@@Treashuntr2020 Show me ONE truck driver that starts his diesel engine in winter and immediately drives away. I had an '84 Olds 98 w/ the diesel. It was on it's 2nd engine when I bought it, the 1st going 50k, replaced under warranty, w/ me getting the car at 60k. Long story short, the car went another 20, but, the culpret was NOT the GM GoodWrench DX replacement engine, it was the injector pump-which got a little water that was in the fuel. Mentioned is that diesel fuel attracts water. It does so bad that I also had to repair the tank in the car as it literally rusted ON THE BOTTOM OF THE INSIDE of the tank. Even in MI that doesn't happen w/ gasoline. I paid $1000 for the car, and the pump was $500. I scrapped the car, getting $300. 20k trouble-free miles...$700...and the car was beautiful inside, but starting to rust.
@@CadillacPat1 I agree with your points, but those engines were also used in chevy and gmc pickups. Farmers here bought them because their tractors burn diesel, and they know how to operate Diesel engines! They swapped the diesel with the ubiquitous 350 gas engines!
I owned a 1981 Seville with the 8-6-4 (as well as a 1984 HT4100). Mine was 100% reliable and I drove it hard, very hard. I even raced the car in the winter and with all of the weight on the front wheels and good snow tires I always dominated the front wheel drive classes and pretty much always came in 1st place.
I agree with you on the vibration on 6 cylinder mode though. In 4 cylinder mode it was smooth but fairly gutless. The worst problem was the throttle was not drive by wire and it didn't compensate for the reduced power as cylinders deactivated. Basically at certain speeds it would switch to 4-cylinder mode and it would start to slow down so you'd give it a bit more gas and it would switch back to 6-cylinder or even 8-cylinder mode. Had the throttle been drive by wire and given it more throttle automatically, it would have worked quite well.
I know this because you could use the heater controls to go into maintenance mode (this was before OBD so all diagnostics was built in and was quite sophisticated), force it into 4-cylinder mode and make it stay in 4 cylinder mode. Locked in you could give it heavier throttle and it would happily cruise along at 80 mph while (according to the onboard travel computer) getting 23 to 24 mpg (in 8 cylinder mode at 80 mph it only got 18 or 19 mpg). I would do this regularly on long trips.
Unfortunately with everything working automatically, even with cruise on, it would continuously cycle between 4 and 6 cylinder mode at 80mph.
It could be driven at different speeds, such as 60mph in 4-cylinder mode or 90+ mph in 8-cylinder mode but 75 to 80 mph was a disaster.
Other than that, the 81 was really a great car. I bought it with 40,000 miles (60,000 km) on it and put almost 200,000 miles (320,000 km) (in total) on it before eventually selling it in the year 2000. It was still rust free (driven in salty Canada too), although the paint was peeling on the hood and it required almost zero maintenance (other than tires and brakes once in a while). I did undercoat it with heavy used oil twice a year (spring and fall).
I definitely would not list it as one of the worst engines due to its excellent reliability, even though the system didn't work all that well in automatic mode. The 1984 HT4100 on the other hand was a disaster...
You forgot to mention the 3.0 liter 2bbl. carbureted V6 used in the front wheel drive Buick Century from '82 to '84. It was about as underpowered as the 1.8 liter 4 cyl. engine and delivered horrible gas mileage. Plus, it was prone to head gasket failure. I suffered through this one on one car I had despite regular maintenance.
Junk compared to the durable Buick / GM 3.8 V-6..
Yes, I would be in agreement with all of these. I remember thinking, in about 1981 - 83, in a big Cadillac, when choosing an engine, the only really good choice you had in terms of reliability was the 4.1L Buick V6 engine - which had to be very underpowered. A V6 in a big heavy car like a Cadillac? So - some questions for you Adam, since you worked at GM for a while and may know the answers. Or you may not, which is fine - but these are interesting topics for discusson. 1. Why did GM choose to start using RV sealant instead of gaskets for things like oil pan gaskets and valve cover gaskets?? That never made any sense to me. Were they just being cheap? Using a regular gasket is always going to be better - and it isn't like a gasket weighs so much that it adds weight and there is a fuel economy savings. 2. Vega engine question - in 1961 - 63, GM already had a precedent with a successful aluminum block engine - WITH cylinder liners - in the form of the 215 Buick V8. As you know, but others may not, this was used in the Special/Skylark/F-85/Cutlass/Tempest/LeMans in 1961-63, either as standard or as an option. While it was important you not overheat these engines, other than that these engines were very good and went on to be bought by Land Rover and powered their vehicles for many decades afterwards. So, WHY did GM NOT apply the same technology from these engines when creating the Vega engine?? And why produce the Vega for 5 model years (1971 - 75) while these problems were going on and not act faster to resolve the issues? By 76 it didn't matter anyway. In 1977 they came out with the 2.5L Iron Duke engine which replaced the 2.3L aluminum engine anyway. So 76 was the only good year for the 2.3L aluminum engine? 3. Olds diesel V8 - in this same time period, though I don't know the exact model years - GMC and Chevrolet used a 6.2L diesel in the Suburban. If the Olds 350 diesel had to be built without water separators and had weak head bolts because they did not have the money to put into the development, why not put this 6.2L diesel in the Delta 88 and 98 in 1978 and 1979 instead of the Olds 350? I believe this engine was available then though I might be mistaken on that. I don't think the same replacement could be done with the Cutlass in these years, which used the 260 V8. Yet somehow the smaller 260 V8 does not have as bad a reputation as the 350 diesel V8. GM was sharing engines among divisions by this point - if they wanted to put a diesel engine in cars, why not use the 6.2L GMC diesel? I never heard of any mechanical problems with that engine. 4. As bad a reputation as the 350 and 260 Olds diesel V8s had, the vast majority of Delta 88s, 98s, and Cutlasses did not have the diesel. Do you have an idea of what percentage of the 1978 and 1979 Oldsmobiles got these diesel engines? I think it was a small number. 10% maybe? In this case it seemed customers could just steer clear of these engines - the cars themselves were generally good - yet a LOT of criticism has been heaped upon Oldsmobile for producing these 2 diesel engines in 1978 and 1979 - though by 1980 the problems had largely been worked out. (An aside - I personally feel that, while accurate, that Oldsmobile has been unfairly beat to hell over this one mistake - and people just keep bringing it up over and over and over - and this happened almost ->45
The answer to many of these questions is directly related to CAFE and CARB laws that were passed in the 70's. Corporate Average Fuel Economy and California Air Resource Board passed laws in the 1970's (CAFE in 1975) that could have potentially put any of the big three out of business.
Basically, for every gas guzzling beast you sell, you MUST sell a lot of econo-boxes or literally quit selling cars in the states. The US was behind in its fuel injection technology compared to the other side of the pond and by the time the 80's arrived, instead of having a true solution to the problem they just attacked the big engines with band-aids like massive cats, air pumps, feedback carbs, camshafts with lobes so small you need a caliper to find...etc. Oh, and dropping cylinders, can't forget that. They knew it didn't work but if they said it worked, they could at least keep selling cars until they figured it out.
This was a huge problem for auto techs like me who had to get cars to pass emissions which likely wouldn't have passed when new.
For the consumer, it all paid off in the long run. Today's port fuel injected cars and engine management systems are better in every way than the cars of the 70's and 80's. Although there are too many of them.
I don't know about most of these items, but the 6.2 was not introduced until 1982, and was used in the entire C/K series. The 5.7 was in 2 wheel drive/auto trans only up to the 1981 models.
12:40 Chevette air filters were the same way. They were a sealed assembly. You could buy an aftermarket filter housing to convert them to cartridge (?... or "normal") style.
Having become a licensed driver in 1971, doing all my own maintenance, and very interested in the engineering side of car design, all your info was very familiar and most interesting. Thanks for the nice videos, not many RUclipsrs have a good knowledge base.
Starting in 1968 when the US Federal Government started dictating engine emission regulations it appears the US car companies rebelled and substantially drop their horsepower and drive ability. SAE power output ratings replaced Net output, compression ratios dropped, ignition timing retarded, all jetting in the carburetor was overly leaned, carbuetor choke profiles were totally screwed up in efforts to get the choke to turn off faster, along with exhaust gas recirculation. 1982 was the worst year for overly smogged engines. Of course the "gasoline crisis" that started in 1973, along with the government wanting cleaner emissions and better gas mileage simultaneously really took its toll on the US automakers.
The HT4100 had headgasket problems galore.The rear wheel drive version of the 3.8 V6 was not good too.GM had a Brazilian built 4 cylinder in the Pontiac Sunbird that ate headgaskts as well
I disagree on the 3.8, thats a real solid reliable motor IMO.
we owned 5 of the front wheel drive gm 3800 engines people would sell them cheap when the intake manifold gasket started leaking those were made out of plastic, the solution was a aftermarket gasket made out of steel, a bit of wrenching and u get great reliable car very cheap, my cousin is a master tech mechanic and charged us 300 to repair them, 3 i bought that needed fixed, 2 i bought that never had the gasket go out yet, so we went ahead and fixed them, it wasnt a matter of if those intake gaskets would leak but when they would go out on you, n you didnt want to be stuck out of town on the road when it went, so we just fixed those 2 so we could have peace of mind and less future headaches
I was very pleased to send this video to all my GM buddies! Thank you 👍🏻
Some of those early 1980's GM subcompacts could have as an option a version of the small Chevrolet V6 which was 2.8 or 3.1 litres,some of those little cars ran quite well ,also the somewhat larger Pontiac 6000 STE ran fairly well with those engines
The 2.8 came out of the S-10, which was a solid little engine.
@@sixpakshaker88 Our 84 S10 P/U was able to travel 233,000 miles on the original engine & upon rebuild we only had to re-bore .030 over & use standard size bearings with of course new pistons / rings. Still using original oil pump & intake valves that were reground. Rebuild kit`s oil pump had too much oil pressure at 80 psi even at idle so we went back to using original oil pump which has 45 psi at idle & 80 psi at higher rpm`s. Have to be very good on maintaining work for these hard working small engines to last.
My impression is that the GM 60° V-6 was by and large a very good engine all around
I had an 81 GMC 1/2 Ton Pickup, with the 5.7 Diesel. No acceleration, a Paperboy with 2 full Bags could out accelerate it. After thrashing 2 Engines, 2 Transmissions, several Starters, and a couple of Rearends, the Truck was taken away from me. It caught Fire once, after a wire was pinched after a Starter Replacement. I arrived at a Company Site, smoke pouring from under the Hood, a Manager came running out with an Extinguisher. I hollered at him to Get Lost, let it burn, but he proceeded to flood the Engine compartment with CO2. Soon as he stopped spraying it, the smoke started again. I very leisurely, took my time digging out some Tools and even longer to unhook the 2 Batteries. The Battery Cables were all melted. I hated that Truck. I even forgot to shut it off one day at the End of my Day. Next morning(17 hrs later) I exited the Building, and the truck was still running where I had left it the Day before. Too bad it hadn't been a Long Weekend.
I worked for a diesel service that primarily worked with G.M diesels . In The v6 front wheel drive cars in order to remove the rear injections you had to unbolt the motor mounts and rock the whole engine forward because it required a slide hammer to remove them
Ah, the good old Vegas! Just about the best thing you could possibly say about them is that they were one of the easiest cars ever to swap a V8 into. Had a '73 wagon with a 350.... what a frickin' blast!
Re acceleration..... My friend's father was a GM salesman in the 70s and he brought a brand new '78 GMC 1/2 ton with the 5.7 diesel to the drags one Saturday afternoon for a promo.
Not a bad idea in principle but taking it for a pass down the strip definitely was.... 22.00 seconds!! I forget the MPH but with an ET like that, what difference would the MPH make?
I don't know how many sales he ended up making out of that little trip but whatever the number was, it almost certainly would have been higher if he hadn't done that 1/4 mile pass.
My dad had a company car Cimmaron - the first half of the model year - it wouldn't get out of it's own way! What a dog that Chevy 4 was.
My brother had a Vega he bought used, the engine had a massive failure no one's ever heard of. He was driving it when suddenly the engine locked up. Later he tore it down, and SURPRISE! The skirt had broken off the 3rd piston, which turned SIDEWAYS in the cylinder! The connecting rod was C-shaped!
Thanks for sharing another informative video!! For me the worst of the worst is the V8-6-4!!! Ugh 😫
This setup was bought from Ford and ford was going to use it on their truck engines it was orginally designed by Eaton
The V-8-6-4 was a perfectly good 368cid engine based on 472, 500, 425 block. If you disconnected one wire, you disconnect the cylinder deactivation and you have a good V-8. Plus, it still came with the THM400 transmission.
@@wildcat64100 I remember it was pink wire that you disconnected to put it in 8 cylinder mode
@@wildcat64100 GM should went with it instead of shit 4 liter and making fwd junk what were they thinking who the hell makes fwd luxury cars.
I'm surprised that the Northstar didn't make the list. It was certainly a stinker - again a Cadillac strike.
This is why Ford killed 'em in the 80s (and 90s). Panthers w 5.0 and then 4.6ohc were bulletproof. The overall car was just built way better too.
I wouldn't say the 4.6 was "bulletproof", the plastic intake manifold caused problems for a lot of people, me included.
@@kingkrimson8771 tru dat. but they went on to fix it. those engines can go many hundred thousand miles if maintained.
The best engine that GM made was the Buick 231CID 3800 Series V-6 made from late 1987-summer 2008. It made Ward's 10 best engines from 1997-2008.
Glad to hear GM stays consistent through the decades with soft cams. I recently started working on a Police fleet of Tahoes and I have replaced more camshafts in GM vehicles in 6 months than I did in 16 years working for Toyota and Ford combined.
Converted a few of those Olds V8 diesel to gas burning, ran great and the bottom ends were bulletproof. In fact there were so many people doing it , it became harder to find the heads and intake at the junkyards. It also was a workaround to California smog laws as diesel were exempt. The GM engines coming out of Brazil had terrible machining, take the heads off and you can see mill cutter marks on heads and block.Combustion chambers way off from each other,
camshafts going flat at 30 thousand miles and rocker studs pulling out of heads causing excessive valve lash.
...and then there were those cursed ROOSA-MASTER injection pumps...🤬
all reasons why GM went from having over 50% market share to where they are today.... Toyotas and Hondas became popular because people could no longer depend on GM vehicles to be dependable like they were in the 50's and 60's
Sad but true and GM is having another recall on they're V8 engines misfiring and going out as well.
Yea Honda and Toyota dealerships dont even have service departments, lol
Disagree I have a 2010 Chevy Cobalt with 154,000 miles on it yeah I have put a timing chain it but come on people with newer Vehicles you have to keep up on your maintenance most people don't you want to look at the fault don't blame the manufacturer frame the owner for not keeping up on maintenance the end.
A guy who I know that worked in a Cadillac dealership when the HT4100s were new said that HT stood for "hook and tow".
I'd argue the post 2002 Ford Triton 5.4, v-8, is absolutely the worst motor in current history. We have a 99 triton that has over 550K mi.s and still running strong. So, in 2004, we bought two 5.4's in our fleet. One blew up with 50K the other.... Well, 32K and done. It didn't even make it a year. Then we read about engines blowing with less than 20K. Unless the engine is replaced and you're looking at a low mileage 5.4, post 2002, truck, RUNNNNN!!!!!! Even if it's cheap. The replacement cost is over 8K for engine and labor!!! RUN!!!!
Yes. They’re bad.
Those are 3 valve not the 2 valve. Right post 2002 3 valve. Mine a 2000 5.4 triton. 240k
@@travelingwithrick Yes sir!!! We love our 99 with the 2v. That engine burns 1/2 pt of oil every 2000 mi.s with over 550K mi.s on it and never failed an emissions test. Ford "redesigned" the head and timing guides (installed plastic guides in 2002.5). Two things happen: oil ports clog or the timing guides fail with both having catastrophic results to the engine. But, like all cars with coil packs, we learned if one fails, replace them all. That's really the weakest link on Ford parts across all engine lines.
BTW, other than our Ford 7.3, diesel pickups, that 99, 1/2 ton, is our lowest cost per mile truck we've ever owned. Get this, the alternator went 170K and the water pump is still 300K. We replaced the original transmission after the solenoid pack went out with a little over 400K mi.s. We are so confident that engine will go another 200-300K mi.s.
And, this truck is a 4 wheel drive we use as a "knock around" in the winter months. So its sees some rough conditions. It was my daily commuter for over 15 years, so I'm sure that's why it's lasted: I'm a maintenance freak and fix problems before it festers to an issue.
Just an amazing engine and truck.
@@chuckhaugan4970 What about the
Ford 5.0L Coyote V8.
I have always had a company van for my job. Mostly Ford Econoline E350. Most companies used Fords because they were the most reliable and best built until they started putting the 5.4 Triton engines in them. It seemed they always would blow spark plugs out of the head. When they were taken back to the Ford dealer, they wanted to replace the heads for a ridiculous price. They certainly didn’t do themselves any favors with that. The Econoline vans however were much better than the crap pile Transit vans they make today.
as a former Vega owner, I learned a lot about working on cars from it. somewhere around 1987-1988 I bought a '74 Vega GT at a car auction for $330. it was virtually rust free and had about 85K miles on it. the engine itself wasn't the source of most of my headaches, it was that forsaken 2bbl Holley carburetor with the water temp operated choke. Kansas winters required a cardboard panel with an 8x8 diamond cut in it to be placed in front of the radiator or I had no heat/defrost (have you ever scraped ice on the INSIDE of your windshield?) and the choke wouldn't open. It had 110K before it started smoking and using oil. the air filter was a replaceable element on mine. maintenance wise they were easy to work on with plenty of room in the engine bay, can't scoff at being able to change the starter from the top side. one last little fun fact, my old Vega currently resides in a museum in Nebraska :)
you mean there was an extending warranty for my blown 1982 Seville HT4100? best day of my life up till then was when I traded it in for a new Toyota. the Seville wasn't my first GM product, but it sure was my last GM product!
It's old history and it's sad when folks speak like that's STILL the case with GM (and other American products) vehicles.
@@wilsixone well dude when you get a crap product, do you buy from the same company again? nope. I've done the same with VW, there is no reason why a well maintained vehicle should fail under 80,000km. once bite twice shy. also I was joking a little in my reply, but one persons humour is anothers slapdown. thanks
You nailed it. The only area where any of these engines excelled is when they were used as anchors for small boats. In the late 60s, I did a lot of drag racing with 4 cyl engines. I had the most success with air-cooled VW ( We zig-zagged through the rule book and used an old I/Gasser, with a stock 1600 cc bottom end and cylinder jugs to run in A/Modified VW ). I tried to run that 2.3 Vega engine in a 130-inch front engine dragster, got it to run in the nines but I needed to build three motors a month. The reason I bring this up is the high silicone was not a coating in the pure sense. It was actually a multi-stage casting process that is very hard to master, and they never did. They started with a sand mold of the cylinder bank and poured a high silicone alloy aluminum. These castings were then pre-heated and placed in the block mold. I'm not sure if this mold was sand or re-usable steel, but you had GM cheaping out again. The high silicone aluminum was more expensive than what they used for a lined block so instead of using all high silicone metal in a monolithic pour, they put the cylinder casting in the block mold and relied on molten metal from the second pour to " weld " the castings together. This often caused "burn through", allowing the soft metal into the bores.
Excellent video as always Adam! My votes are for the good old Chevy 305 and 350 as the best motors of the 80's era. Used to own as '86 Caprice with the 305 4 barrel. 25 mpg on highway, sometimes as high as 28 cruising at 60 on country roads. 0-60 in 8.9 seconds with aftermarket duals, turbo mufflers/free flow cat cons😁 Stellar reliability as well. Didn't burn oil at 160K miles
I had an 86 caprice with 305. I hated the transmission. Driving at 55 MPH every gust of wind or mole hill and it would shift out of overdrive. Just constant shifting. A mechanic told me it could not be adjusted. Hated it.
@@oldarkie3880 Bought mine in '05 with 75K miles. It would shift out of overdrive between 45 and 55 mph if you stepped on it lightly, such as going up a slight hill, as the RPM's were so low in 4'th gear. Over 60 this was not an issue. I think '86 was one of the first years for the 4 speed automatic in the Caprice
Our local Cadillac dealer had stacks of Aluminum blocks behind the shop. I don't recall that happening with Vegas. Vega's needed good maintenance, regular oil changes and NO overheating. People who buy cheap cars tend to scrimp on maintenance. I worked on a LOT of them back in the day, they were very common. Vega was a unibody car, it was weak. If you open the hood and watch the suspension towers while bounce checking the shocks you could see the body flexing. After ~ 50,000 miles you couldn't align them to specs anymore. We'd get the camber right and match the caster as best we could. Toe in was never a problem. The body flex screwed up the included angle (none adjustable). For a cheap throwaway car it wasn't bad at all.
This video is really good, I told my friends to check it out. Great job Rare Classics!
Thx!
I inherited my grandmother's 1982 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham 4 door land yacht with the 4100 engine. She always complained about how slow it was as she had been getting a new one every 4-5 years for a couple decades. The older ones had huge powerful engines but Grandad got a 'deal' on a dealer demo. When I saw this video in my feed, I immediately thought that engine had to be on this last and of course, it was the 1st engine discussed. Anyway, I got it and hated driving it unless just around town. It sat in my garage for over 10 years until I sold it for 2000 USD a little over 10 years ago. The car was in mint condition with less that 35K miles but I was just glad to get it out of my garage.
Chevy Vega is the main one that comes to my mind. That whole car was junk. I doubt that there any still around? Are you going to do a video like this for Ford?
A friend of mine hit a small deer with his.Not much body damage to the car but the head gasket blew..Gm put 3 engines in his little Gt.
I see Vegas at the drag strip and that's about it
I was a victim of a '79 Olds Cutlass diesel with the smaller engine. Not only was the engine bad (I had multiple problems) the way GM treated its customers was even worse. The reputation of that engine quickly became known which made the value of the car fall like a stone. After only a year owning it, I tried trading it in, several dealers wouldn't even take it on trade. Today, I still harbor resentment for that car and the way GM treated me, I wouldn't buy a tooth pick from them. I understand that there was even a class action suit over that engine.
The diesel converted from gas 350s had to be on there. My father had one, never had real issues with it but sold it quickly after buying new because it was a dud performance wise and soon after it turned into a breakdown nightmare for GM..
Porsche also used the ‘Nikasil’ method of cylinder wall treatment on the engines used in the 928 and 944 with much success. Thanks for the great videos!
Ford started applying it to the Coyote 5.0 in 2018 and oil consumption issues are plaguing the once reliable engine. I’m satisfied that if the big three find out that they have done something right they’ll screw it up just to maintain their reputation for sucking.
I think part of the reason the coating in the bores on the Vega failed so quickly was GM (typically) tried to go cheap on the process when the bean counters got involved.
I would love to see a list of all the junk GM branded engines of more recent times, maybe from the last 10-15 years. Coming full circle more than 40yrs later from your examples in this video, very few GM branded engines have gotten any better😂👍
First time viewer, your info was right on the mark! All this made buyers start going over to the foreign car market.
Thx and welcome
Our machinist had a stack of HT4100 blocks stacked behind his shop. Once a year the aluminum recycler would be called and he would pick up that stack of blocks along with the other aluminum. It was how our machinist paid for his vacations in the 1980s.
Adam, Would "GM's Rankest Engines Ranked" be a suitable alternative title? 😂
Gale Banks, who modified 455 Oldsmobile engines for powerboat racing, was asked to assess the Oldsmobile diesel engine during its design and noted the inadequate head retention with high compression (20+:1) and issues with oil contamination due to soot buildup. An interesting aside mentioned during his Amsoil bypass filtration system. Go check it out.
Very good video. I currently own an 85 Eldorado Biarritz with the HT4100 engine. It's definitely not a high performance engine but does get good mileage. I'd like to add one point, GM tarnished the image of the diesel engine so badly that even today there virtually is no market for diesel powered passenger cars in the U.S. Volkswagen also added to that in the 2000s but it was GM'S I always heard about the most.
Original few years of the head gasket blowing, overheating, very agricultural and harsh Olds designed QUAD4 motor should also make this list.
You forgot the 3.0 that was fitted to the Buick Century. I was working in a lube bay during the day and a parts shop at night. When I saw a Century come in, I would have to check to see what engine the dealer had replaced it with. I saw everything from 2.0s out of J Cars, 2.5s out of X platforms and 2.8s out of the A body Celebrity. Most owners were unaware that they did not have the 3.0.
Well, now you know you're going to have to do a best engines of all time: GM....😉
Easy list to top: LS1, buddy
Truly interesting! Thank you for continued excellence!
I worked as a GM tech and I was shocked to learn that GM put nine different brake systems on a car in one year with the theory that in the second year they would use the system that was the most reliable and only buy from that vendor. I decided to never buy a new car again at that point.
Wow! No wonder GM is a failing brand.
Like you, I am a life long believer in Detroit cars. While not a collector, I have owned Ford Galaxies, Olds 98, Chevy Caprice, Saturns, Chevy Chevelle, Chevy pickup, etc. I even had a Ford Fairmont - the only car I bought new! I have been a cheerleader for the brands, but it was increasely difficult to do whilst they, and GM in particular, just continued to self inflict disasters.
Hence, I currently roll a 2005 Audi A4 - which is pretty expensive to maintain but has good performance, great build quality and very reliable so the maintenance expenses average out over a long interval.
Nobody is perfect, but GM lost its way/soul when it took a scorched earth attitude toward UAW and nickle and dimed engineering and quality to death.
Bill @ Curious Cars discussed his theory on why Cadillac went "Down The Tubes" (ty George Carlin) when they began offering easy financing and making them 'too' available to the masses. He makes some good talking points, tho he's not mechanically inclined, but he studys his era's and gets his facts accross effectively, in between drags on a cigs and Coronavirus Whiskey swigs...
It’s a good thing I wasn’t taking a drink when he commented that the closest some Lincoln engineers got to the Nurburgring was when they flew overhead and bombed it during the war. 😱
I had an '03 Jaguar S Type with the 3.0 liter V6 that churned out 240 HP and got 27 mpg on the freeway and it had close to 200k miles on it. That car kicked ass! I had to drive 50 miles one way to work and that car made quick work of it @90+ MPH. I'm 10 miles from work now, so I got a gas sipper that has 92 HP that is exactly half the displacement but gets over twice the mileage in town @32.5 mpg. Today GM is in a race to the bottom with FIAT/Chrysler so one should just avoid anything made by those companies if they value their money.
Yes I am also a fan of the Ford Duratec V-6
Great video. My Dad was a master mechanic and ran our family's car and truck repair shop in the 50's to mid 70's. We came across our share of stinkers during that time.
Don't mean to bother you but you remind me of Tony Stark.
If ScarJo shows up in one of his videos I'll really be impressed
This is a very informative video. I witnessed all of this growing up watching people "put up" with these vehicles. I've also heard about other problems GM has had with their cars during this time too. The "big picture" side of me says that this was caused more by the senior leadership of GM. It seems they were trying to cut costs because they wanted to answer to shareholders and make a bigger profit. As if the government hasn't been ruthless enough to the US auto industry (they could care less), GM could've planned better and worked harder to serve customers before serving stockholders. Everything about GM is doing whatever they can get away with as cheaply as possible and the customer pays for it.
1986 Lincoln had a simple light iron V8 engine with fuel injection which really did,like the advertisement said,run rings around the competitor Cadillac of the same era.
Very astute observations, Adam. It was amazing to see Cadillac customers migrate elsewhere, primarily to Lincoln in the '80s, though I'm sure the German makes picked up a few new customers as well. And as I look at FoMoCo and Chrysler engines of the era, I can't think of any there were nearly so bad as any of these. Well, except any CA car equipped with a Variable Venturi carburetor! At least the fix for those was easy -- install a 2-barrel carburetor on it and be on your way.
I had '79 Olds Cutlass Diesel. First came with 260-a real slug. Overheated. Then changed to 350. Discovered the Turbo 200 trans was slipping with the extra power. Changed trans to turbo 350-no more trans problems. This 350 cracked 2 pistons. Rebuilt target engine installed. This 350 cracked cylinder. Rebuilt target engine installed. The fuel injection pump went out-the wanted $800 to repair. Paid $250 to have it hauled away at only 135,000 miles. It was really a nice car to drive and the 350 was sufficient power-beat a 2002 BMW in a drag race once. But-a real clinker of an engine.
Adam I sure enjoyed your video. My dad had several Oldsmobile Delta 88 with those desiel engines….. constantly putting head gaskets on them. But when it was running fine it would get 25 mpg.
I bought a '71 Vega, so early in the production run that it was recalled for rear shock mounts mounts, as it couldn't go through a car wash; a no-options car, it rusted as you watched. In my late teens at the time, I thought the car was fabulous. The windshield washer button connected to a bulb behind the dash, and your literally pumped the fluid manually-the bulb would come of the back of the button, under the dash LH, and soak your pant leg. Super enjoy your great presentations. 6.2 GM diesel which followed the 5.7 you discuss, was a gem,.
I once owned a 1988 Chevrolet Cavalier. Pile of.... It was running on 3 cylinders when I finally traded it. It was getting about 38-40 mpg, though. Had it for 189K miles. I had to replace the Idle Air Control a few times. The car had other problems as well. Instead of sinking a ton of cash into it, I traded it. But I was poor, so I got a 1994 Chevrolet Cavalier. It averaged about 35mpg. The car was at least reliable. It was better than the previous car. The seats weren't that good (uncomfortable) After five years I purchased a new car, but kept that Cavalier. It became my nephew's car for a little bit, then became my niece's car. It ran for quite a while for her.
I was a tech at a GM dealership in the 90's. The Cadillac 4100 not only had the problems you mentioned but we had several come in leaking coolant between the back of the engine and bellhousing. The block would actually rot through and start leaking. The only fix was a new block which always meant a new engine. Also the oil filter is in the worst place ever. It is on top of the engine next to the distributor. There is no way to change the oil without making at least a little mess. Interestingly enough, when it was enlarged to 4.5 and then 4.9 it was pretty good engine, even powering the first models of the Allante'.
The Olds diesel did have problems but it allowed those 4000 to 4500lbs cars to get 30+ mpg. That's pretty impressive even by today's standards.
The 8-6-4 Cadillac engine just didn't have enough computing power in it's onboard processor. It could only be programmed to function properly in about 10 different conditions. Modern cars are almost infinite with not only a base program that covers thousands of driving conditions but the ability to learn and adapt to your specific driving style. The weak processor in the old Cadillac meant it couldn't compensate for much so it always felt like it was out of tune or out of sync, and I suppose it was.
The 1.8 and later 2.0 were Brazilian built. I have no experience with the 1.8 but the 2.0 was a great motor with exceptional fuel economy but a tendency to blow head gaskets. They still have one of the easiest timing belts to change and they use the water pump as the belt tensioner. Although it is a static tensioner instead of the more popular modern dynamic tensioners, I never had any issues with them and in the 90's my work car was an '88 Sunbird with a 2.0. It ran great, got 34 mpg on the highway when driven sanely and had an A/C with good old R12 that could run you out of the car on 100 degree day.
Thanks for the memories. I hadn't thought about most of these motors in years since they are few and far between today. Here's one, the 2.8 Chevy V6. It's absolutely horrible when carbureted but it's a decent motor when fuel injected.
Agree. Btw I’m talking about the OHV 1.8 in the video. Not the Brazilian OHC 1.8. The OHV engine was out only in 1982 in the J cars.
@@RareClassicCars OH, I didn't catch that. I guess that's why I've never worked on one!!!
I worked at an auto parts store in the late 1970’s, we carried AC Delco part number A375C, the complete air filter canister assembly for the Vega/Astre 2.3. I believe it was something like $10-$12. Normal air filter elements were in the $2-$4 range. Many a Vega and Astre owner were shocked at the price. We also carried the Hastings filter line, they had a canister for that application that wasn’t sealed and offered a replaceable element. Buy the canister once for $11 or so and then the filter element was available for future service at $2-$3.
I think an honorable (dishonorable?) mention on your engines list should include the early 305 Chevrolet with the soft camshafts, the turbo 301 Pontiac that popped head gaskets frequently, and the earlier 3.6’s that ate timing chains, although part of the problem on the 3.6’s was GM’s oil life monitoring system that extended oil change intervals too far.
I had that 305 in a 78 Cutlass Calais. I swore I wasn't going to buy one with the 305, but the car was so nice I took the bait. The engine did eat a cam, but all it took to repair it was about $225 in parts and a weekend. I drove it for a long time after that.
@@Paramount531 the replacement cams were much better than the originals, the lifters too.
Regarding the Chevy Vega air filters, there was an aftermarket kit made by K&N that you could change the air filter housing made by GM to a replaceable filter available off the shelf. I believe the list price for this conversion kit was around 30 dollars in 1977 dollars. My dad purchased a 1977 Vega ( 4 speed, yellow with "Vega GT" striping, Z29 package, AM/FM/8-Track player, and A/C ) while was station on Okinawa and took delivery in Chicago. He would have liked to purchased the Cosworth powered version, but it had been discontinued by point..
My dad had 1985 Pontiac 6000le diesel v-6. He got it for free from my grandmother. This car was extra clean for a car that was about 8 years old at the time. He fixed the fuel pump. After few thousand miles he had to replace the transmission. Few months later the engine blew. Unfortunately he had the car hauled off to the junkyard. It had only 125,000 miles on it.
With all this garbage coming out of Detroit in the late 70's and early 80's its no wonder why the Japanese auto industry crushed the domestic car market.