As an owner of Cadillac's 365, 390, 425, 472, and 500 engines, I rarely had any problem with them. They were always smooth and quiet as intended. I also had a 1985 Fleetwood HT4100 and a 1999 Northstar Eldo TC. While I had no problems with those engines, their reputation is well known. I likely just traded them off before they had a chance to fail. Thanks for covering the big blocks :)
I blew one up in my dads 79 Cadillac Deville and when he found out I thought that the Devil had come over to take me to hell. 😂😂 He was so pissed. I was 17. I am 53 now. But that car from a Rolling start -30mph would smoke many many hot rods of the day. Miss ya dad 💛
I've always thought of the 500/472/425 as Cadillac's smoothest and most reliable engine... and it deeply grieves me how many of these engines were lost to idiotic demolition derby scene.
Serious Demo Derby guys take those engines out, as they don't handle heat well, and never start back up when they stall hot. A common trait with long stroke motors. Short stroke motors are best for starting hot, Ford 289/302,429, Chevy 283/307/327, Chrysler 318, 361, 383, 400.
@@johneckert1365 Hi John, unfortunately, not too many derby players are so astute. My best friend owns a salvage company, (started by his dad), and I can't tell you how many derby wrecks that came in his yard, back in the day, that contained these engines. I don't recall these engines overheating and locking up, either... although, to be fair to you, I was never trying to murder the cars they were in. 😄
@Rafael Fiallo Hi Rafael, repurposing them to some useful purpose, I don't mind so much... I had a friend who used a converted 1969 472 as a backup generator for his house... it's the wanton, useless destruction of these irreplaceable works of automotive history in things like demolition derbies that make me see 8 shades of red. (I know it's their property and they can do what they want with it, but it still irks me).
The various GM big blocks were designed for different tasks. The Cadillac was designed for the ability to power accessories, have a smooth idle and a board flat torque curve from 1000rpm and up. That doesn’t make it less of a motor. It was supposed to be reliable and dead quiet under hood, and it was. Certainly one of the best big block designs. I don’t think they were jetted that lean either because an AIR pump allows you to run richer and clean up the emissions on the back side after combustion. Love your picture of the V8-6-4 with the air cleaner lid flipped. Hi Performance mode.
They were very high nickle-content blocks and were practically indestructible with anything even resembling care. It was uncommon for engines to run 250K miles in those days, but the 472/500's did it routinely.
A lot of engineering went into making these cars reliable. Back then luxury wasn't about how large of a tv screen you can put in there, but about comfort, ergonomics, ease of use and reliability. A luxurious car was one you could rely on to work flawlessly every time you need it. Cadillac became the synonym of luxury in America in large part thanks to the reliability of their engineering and the level of care that went into making a quality product to last owner's lifetime. And bc Cadillac was a luxury brand with a hefty price tag it could afford to not cut corners, they could afford to make things the right way not just the cost effective way.
I was 18 years old in 1981, I worked for a old timer in a shop as an " apprentice " . One of our customers was a wealthy old timer who at the time owned a 1968 Couple de Ville. I got to drive it 25 miles round trip to the near by town for front tires and alignment . The old timer was an orig owner and the car had 60-70k on it. I recall floor boarding it numerous times ( I probably burnt 6-8 gal of gas in the 25 miles ) and I recall it seemed to have one hell of a roar and a lot of giddy up and go. Not too much after this period of time, the old timer bought a brand new 1981 Sedan de Ville with the V-8-6-4 which I did not get to drive, but I recall he was very disappointed and irritated with the car. So, this video is very cool to see that I got to drive one of the best 472s ever made.... Thanks...
In 2 weeks I'll have owned my 1974 Fleetwood Brougham for 40 years, here in Australia we went metric in 1974, so it's a kilometres car and is sitting at 704,000 kilometres , about 440,000miles. It has just had its engine overhauled & rebuilt FOR THE FIRSST TIME IN MY 40 YEARS OWNERSHIP. with well over 500 foot pounds of torque in "granny" spec these cars have serious punch, over 500 ft lb torque is in modern turbo diesel territory, however this is in a half century old petrol V8 with a spread bore Rochester Quadrajet which was designed to be frugal. Properly set up these give you 15 mpg around town in peak hour & on the freeeway/highway 20+ mpg not shabby at all from an old 8 litre v8 pulling a fully stocked 6 metre long Fleetwood Brougham that weighs in at 3,180 kilos. Owning a 1973 mk4 Lincoln Continental as well, the difference is dirt obvious , in the Lincoln you need to let it kick down into 2nd gear , let it rev & it will then deliver what the Caddy 500 does by flexing your big toe while remaining in 3rd gear, Caddy has effortless punch instantly. REAL WORLD DIFFERENCE:- due to having to work the revs on the Lincoln to deliver same outcome , Lincoln eats fuel at 5mpg in traffic from a shorter lighter car, WHEREAS, Caddy delivers 15 mpg doing same thing, SO in the real world of day to day driving the Cadillac 8 litre engine delivers 10 out of 10 as mega torque, frugal for size and built to be long lasting 704,000 kilometres durability (or 440,000 miles) what current new item gives this outcome ?? None.
Bought an emerald green 76 Eldorado convertible with 27,000 miles in 1983, it was so quiet you could not hear it run. The car also handled surprisingly well.
I might be the minority, but the Chrysler 383 and 440 were great and reliable engines and the 3 speed torqueflite transmissions were the bomb….never gave me an ounce of trouble.
Chrysler B and RB engines were nearly indestructible with forged cranks and deep skirted blocks. Front mounted distributor is easily serviced. No coolant to drain or distributor to hassle with for removing the intake manifold. Shaft mounted rocker arms from the factory and an external oil pump were nice too.
I remember pulling the oil pan off a parts guy's 472 CID 71 Deville that worked at the dealership with me in the late 80's. The dip stick tube was broken off even with the block so I was replacing it. Funny thing, I found a small piece of a piston skirt laying in the pan. Cleaned it out, reinstalled, and that engine ran with a piece of a piston skirt missing for several more years that I know of. Probably ran longer than that. I figure it got over revved at some point, IDK. Tough engine though.
Back in the 80’s, a friend of mine installed a 472 Cadillac engine in his beater Chevelle. He couldn’t afford a Chevrolet 454 but 472 Cadillac engines were plentiful in the junkyards in those days. Car was a tire fryer but engine was out of breath at 4000 rpm.
The 429 was a fine engine. Our funeral cars and even our ambulances used this engine from 1964 to 1967. Never gave us any trouble. We loved the 472 and the increase of power. I can still hear the sound it made when starting and idling. Our only gripe was their tendency to overheat in traffic when hot and humid outside. This was an issue that continued on into the 500 engines as well. Most annoying thing having to pull a limo or a hearse over to the side of the road and let it cool off while everybody else in a procession sat there fuming------oh-----and the family---------. The 425 was acceptable when the body size changed in 1977. We were surprised that our 1977-1979 Cadillacs ended up being so trouble free. Out 1979's were just about the last Cadillacs we had with any get up and go until 1993-1996. Those were the last of the old Cadillacs we saw in the funeral business.
Steve, Thank you for sharing your experiences with Cadillacs 429 in.³ , 472 & 500 engines. Speaking with owners of 1964 models, I was told that the 429 in.³ engines burned oil requiring topping off in between oil changes. Did you experience this with your funeral and ambulance fleet ? I should also say that these particular owners said that their 429 engines were original and not rebuilt, making me wonder if the piston rings were simply worn out.
@@ScottALaFollette Our service cars, the two limos, two hearses one flower car, two ambulances were never oil burners in that 429 generation ALTHOUGH we were expected to be sure the Gulf gas station attendant checked the oil with EVERY fill up! That was an iron clad rule for years. So if the cars weren't leaving a blue contrail we did not notice anything amiss. If anything would have burned oil it would have been the ambulances. They here horribly abused. We traded fleets every two years, so did not keep our cars long enough to have issues. In those days by the time a car had 30K on the odometer my father thought it was time to call up some pallbearers.
@@michaelbenardo5695 We were not going to risk anything that could void the factory warranties on a whole fleet of cars especially since the cars were only a year or two old. In those days Cadillac offered a Five year warranty.
A friend in the late 70’ had an early 70’s Cadillac and wanted to collect an insurance claim. He put something on the accelerator to keep it at high rpm. He came back the next day to find his car ran out of fuel and still ran well
I drove a ‘70 Sedan Deville daily between’96-‘08, it went onto a new owner with 108k. Everything worked, drove as it should, I miss the ole girl. ❤ I’d have another but 8 mpg in town and 11 mpg highway just isn’t earth friendly 😊
Ive owned a 73 Coupe, 76 Eldo and a 80 Coupe D'Elegance and have to say the 80 was my favorite overall of the three. The 368 was just as sewing machine smooth as the 472 and 500 when the deactivation was deactivated. It was the last model with a traditional Cadillac engine, the 4100, Olds 307 or Chevy 350 in the later years of this body style never had the smoothness of the big block Cadillac engines.
Olds V8s are pretty darned smooth though. Perhaps the 307 was a little harried due to size and tune. I theorize that the relatively massive Cadillac displacements just made so much torque, that one needed to only barely use the engine, in order to motorvate those big beauties down the street at an acceptable clip...
I owned a 1970 Coupe de Ville, a 1972 Sedan de Ville, and a 1980 Coupe de Ville d'Elegance.. All three were reliable, the 1980 was a bit underpowered for my taste however, the 1970 was the most robust.
I was lucky enough to own a 75 Eldorado with the monstrous 500. My mechanic mate stood in awe of its size, mainly because I’m in Ireland and he serviced 4 cylinder cars on the regular!
I have a '69 472 and a '76 500, and I drove them both stock and modified. If you had a bog on part-throttle tip-in, your Quadrajet needed adjustment. Even with only a 4800 rpm redline these engines have plenty of get-up-and-boogie to them. The monstrous amounts of torque available just off idle and their tall highway gears make them both fast and comfortable at speed. They feel like they're accelerating slowly until you look down at the speedometer and see you're into triple digits.
I still miss my 77 deville with 425. I was never sure how many times the odometer had rolled over before I got it and then I put on 100 k miles. After trying to maintain a north star I’ve never needed another Cadillac. Always learn so much from this series
When GMC came out with their awesome motorhome in the early through mid '70's they chose the Olds 455, and then 403 for a reason. They could have used the Cadillac 472/500, but they chose the Olds V8.
I believe the giant Caddy did well and could run many thousands of miles when driven with "dignity" but I suspect it would blow up fairly fast if abused by kids trying to do "burnouts" and drag racing it.
I remember disconnecting the V8 6 4 system back in the day. As I recall you only needed to disconnect the brown wire at the transmission. The people that bought these cars wanted smooth and they did not care about gas mileage.
@@sking2173 CAFE is what destroyed our auto industry. It was signed into law by Gerald Ford, and no, he was not a Democrat, he was a REPUBLICAN, the same one who pardoned Tricky Dick.
My late friend, Jeff, sometime in the 1980s bought a 1963 Suburban, that had been used as a school bus in Grass Valley, CA. He mated it with a 500 cu.in. Caddy engine, and possibly Caddy transmission. Jeff replaced the Subs suspension with all heavy duty stuff. I was with Jeff when he took this truck to what was then still called Sears Point Raceway, and ran it in the night drags. It wasn’t fast enough to not allow passengers, so I got to ride with Jeff many times down the drag strip. I don’t recall his times, but it was a fun ride.
The Flash was a dragster 1970 Caddy that ran good numbers with the 472. The owner was quoted stating that the block was high in nickel content. “It’s really tough. It’s tall, with a 10.8-inch deck height. That makes it wide, but there’s a lot of room in there. There’s a good rod length-to-stroke ratio with a 6-and-3/4-inch rod.”he liked the space the block provided.
In that time, 77-80 I prefer the Oldsmobile 403. Had a 79 Oldsmobile 98 2 door with that engine & it was very powerful, used a lot of fuel but it was worth it. Only wish they had kept it for the 1981 & up beautiful 98's of the time.
Great engines without question, I had one (472) in a 71 Calais sedan back in like 2004. I got a fantabulous deal on it, and it was nice and complete enough to be my daily driver for a couple years until I simply couldn't afford to drive it anymore. All kinds of power right off idle, ran fine on premium, and smooth as any engine I've ever experienced.
The power on the more detuned ones can be increased somewhat with some easy adjustments and even a few moderate changes. Things like advancing the timing and adjusting the metering help along with installing dual exhaust and a better-flow aftermarket intake. This has been done to my 500 and it’s made a healthy difference. If someone wants to get into it more, higher compression heads from the early years can be installed as well and there are plenty of more advanced modifications and parts created by enthusiasts that can get this engine to 1000+ horsepower for the real gearhead.
I've been taken engines apart for 50+ years. Only lately have I been working and building Cadillac 472/500/425. These are the easiest engines to work on. The only thing is, the metal is so hard that the edges of the machined surfaces are razor sharp, so be careful!
I believe only the 1955-56 Packard V8 had bore center spacing as broad as this engine, at a generous 5.0 inches. I had two 472s and one 500, and they were absolutely trouble-free, not even needing water pumps like my big Olds and Buick V8s had. I once drove my 1976 de Ville back-to-back with a friend's 1977 New Yorker 440, and found the Chrysler V8 to be remarkably smooth, but disappointingly no more sprightly than the heavily detuned 500.
My 1969 Fleetwood 472 has a factory 4 row radiator. I ran 110 leaded pre-mix fuel in it in HS.. That engine is phenominal. Fast forward to now, I still have it. I'm building a '76 500 that ran after sitting in the Arizona desert for 30+ years. The cam bearings have every type of failure possible, and it ran just as good as the 472. They'll never win superstock class, but they truly never die- they just go to sleep.
My Dad had a '75 Sedan de Ville with the 500 engine. Twice while on the way to Palm Springs he severely over heated it. The first time, a radiator hose blew. He was just west of Palm Springs, and he drove it to a garage, a distance of a few miles. The second time, the water pump blew, and the fan went through the radiator. He drove it into town, again, and had the radiator and water pump replaced. Later he noticed that the oil looked like a milkshake. He decided to give up on it, and I bought it from him. My friend got a used head for it, and had it surfaced. He installed it, and the car ran fine. A little later, I used the car to tow a '74 AMC Ambassador wagon on a large dual axle trailer 100 miles. What amazed me was that with this huge load, the car got 11 mpg. I was expecting about 5, considering that the 2 cars and the trailer weighed at least 10,000 pounds. Yes, that engine made plenty of torque!! It also took quite a beating.
Very interesting. I've had five of these engines - 2 1970 472s, 1 1970 500, 1 1973 472 and 1 1975 500 injection. They have all proved excellent and reliable - proper American V8s. The second 1970 car was bought from a doctor in Beverly Hills (via one other) who had replaced an earlier 472 in which he had done over 400,000 miles without a rebuild. He said it was his favourite car and he wouldn't drive any other type
I had a 368 in my '80 CdV, the only non-V8-6-4 version. It was an amazing engine. I know the power rating was pretty paltry, but I never had any problems. I commuted in and out of Boston and it ran perfectly, never overheated, started instantly. Best carbureted engine I ever had. The rest of the car was rotting around it, but I still loved it dearly.
I might add I was an emt 45 or so years ago and the big Cadillac ambulances we had were as close to :bullet proof" as any vehicle and as you imagine they got hammered a lot but never broke down at least in years I was there. And they had a lot of medical weight to carry.
My family’s neighbors had a Coupe deVille with the 8-6-4 engine that was infamously terrible. I remember how it would clunk and struggle down the street. I’m not sure they knew they could have the control module deactivated, because they wound up trading the car in after just a few years of ownership. It’s so sad what Cadillac did to its cars, because the comparable Oldsmobiles and Buicks were positively bulletproof. Back then, it was far more worth it to own a Park Avenue or Regency Brougham than a Cadillac product.
I wish I still had a 472....and the '69 Calais it was attached to. All it needed was a waterpump while I owned it. Coupled with a 36 gallon tank, she was a long distance runner.
Well the timing chain broke on my 68 Cadillac at 80,000 miles, so....? But I did adore that engine though no matter what I did I could never get over 12 MPG. But.... Passing cars on a two lane hwy was an experience you never forget. Smashing that pedal at 55MPH, that car would pick itself up and blast off like an efffing rocket!!! It was AWESOME out on the highway!!!
Not much experience with big blocks, but my brother had a 383 Chrysler Newport he bought used from a local university professor. It was very nice with just a two barrel carburetor. More on this later. This left me intrigued and I always wondered what it was like to drive a 440 Chrysler. I even saw that there was a special cam version of the 440. I just can't imagine what vehicle I would want to drive today that had a 440 in it. I came into a book once that had the formulas in it for calculating carburation needs. Turns out the two barrels had just enough capacity for large displacement engines like a 383 Chrysler or a 390 Ford. A four barrel wasn't doing anything for you unless you were driving with your foot to the floor.
I'll admit to being biased but I'd vote for the Mopar 383/440 among the best V8s. From high performance to luxury to police specials to boring sedans, they were in everything. Bullet proof and mostly reliable (except for the finicky mid 70s lean-burn) and made tons of power. 280 net into 1974 if I recall. Although the 426 Hemi was the most renown. from GM, definitely the 350 deserves a mention.
The mid 1970’s 472 and 500’s were smooth workhorses, but myself and others were quite disappointed with the lack of power for such large displacement. Chrysler built big luxury cars too, but their 440 felt much stronger in any driving situation. Perhaps the target buyer was so old that they never used more than 1/2 throttle. While the 1968 Eldorado lacked chassis refinement the high compression 472 made it a benchmark for Cadillac performance for decades to come.
I’ve always heard the 455 in the Buick GS was the superior V-8 for the times. I guess it depends on the subjective nature of the specific criteria used to define “best”. During the late 60s and beyond, Chrysler’s Hemi was the power plant of choice for top fuel dragsters.
@@snek9353 because they were insanely powerful, with stump pulling torque. The 454 was less tourqy and drank oil as fast as gasoline, and I wasn't impressed with the response of the 440s, even in a six pack Superbird... As far as power per cubic inch back then, I think the 318 with the tiny two barrel was the most impressive Mopar V8. 80)
Yes, and I always thought the 426 hemi would have made a great engine for the steady, high load application in boats. . However, everything I've read says they were not a very streetable motor...
I've had a 425 before, in a 1977 Sedan De Ville, and I can attest without fear either equivocation or exaggeration, that it was the finest, best engine I've ever had. Any problems I ever had with that car, they emanated from the electrical system or some other secondary or tertiary or quaternary system, not from the engine itself, ever.
My 425 is 45 years old and runs like a brand new motor. People make fun of me cause I’m a 20 year old who decided to buy an old Cadillac. There aren’t many cars that give you the Cadillac feeling. My 45 year old beast rides way smoother than a new Toyota. My boss just got a 2012 Buick regal, it drives like a bag of rocks compared to my cadi.
@@Dub-ce3dy You are my inspiration man, leave them with their boxes of shit that didn't last 10 years, my dream is to have a Cadillac from the 70s, be a man and give yourself the luxury and torque of a Cadillac!!! greetings from Brazil
As teenagers in the late 80’s. These ‘70s Cadillacs were very affordable. Our friends had a few of them and they were great highway cars and king of burnouts. The torque was endless!!!!
What is better? The Lincoln engine wasn't as big, nor was the Chrysler engine, the Rolls engine was aluminum, which means it wasn't anywhere near as bullet-proof as the Cad engine, and Mercedes had a 383, but it couldn't match the torque or the smoothness and silence of the Cadillac engine.
Super Liked this vid. I owned two 70’s Caddy’s. Love this subject, engines. If you can, I would to like to get your take on Olds small blocks 260/307/330/350/403 and another vid on Olds big blocks 400/425/455. They would be long videos but I would love every second of it. I really appreciate your knowledge and detail. Still shots of those engines are action shots to me.
Probably one of the smoothest running, well balanced GM V8's I've seen is the mid 70's Olds 350, however the engines mentioned in this video were remarkably vibration free, uber reliable and generated copious amounts of torque. The Ford 385 series of motors, while torque producing powerhouses also, could not match the smooth running of the Caddy big blocks...
Dang straight jkl ! Olds 350, 403, and 455 were undoubtedly the best engines of the period. Neither my motor buddies, nor I was was unable to destroy any Olds V8 in the day, and we tried very hard...trust me this speaks volumes! We Destroyed one of just about every other Ford or GM engine built!
No experience with these engines, except a tiny one...riding in my aunt and uncle's 1969 Fleetwood. It was still smelling new, and to this day I'd have to say it was the quietest, smoothest, quickest car I've ever seen.
In the late '90s, I owned a very clean white '68 Coupe DeVille w/ white vinyl top; last year for the stacked headlights. Really miss that car. Had a hitch setup for a matching white cargo trailer w/ caddy hub caps. I was the drummer in a 3 pc. blues trio called Hip Trash, we played MO, IL, Indiana, for about 6 years. Good times.
My vote is for the Olds 455/403/350/307. In OE form they were extremely reliable, quiet and Smooth. Their ease of service and refinement is 2nd to none.
I replaced a timing chain on an olds 350 once, a much bigger task than doing a timing chain on a Chrysler big block. The Chrysler’s were a lot easier to work on.
There is something so beautiful about these big beefy workhorses, so smooth but yet so strong and usually over engineered enough to not be able to hurt themselves. But it really depends on what the definition of "best" is. Reliability when operated "responsibly"? Fuel mileage? Power and performance? Smoothness? Low emissions? In my opinion, the LS1 fits that bill. Considered LEV in some states, capable of 33 mpg cruising at decent highway speeds (67-70 mph seems to be the sweet spot in a Firebird), a reliable workhorse when operated as designed and unmodified, smooth but potent revving up to the 6200 RPM rev limiter without obvious signs of going breathless... and of course seems to operate the same regardless of whether it's arctic or arid temperatures out. There's a reason it kept reaping engineering awards for years following its intro. It's the only GM engine I've ever had where at 24 years of age there is still not one drip of oil from a seal, nor a puff of blue smoke at cold start-up. And all with a straightforward proven and simple layout (OHV, single cam, no multi stage intakes, no cylinder shutdown, etc). The SBC probably comes in a close second, on sheer versatility alone (and the high RPM crank vibrations of the 350 being addressed with 4 bolt mains where appropriate). Nonetheless the LS1 was such a leap ahead that other brands fell behind for what seemed like close to a decade. Even at idle the 32V Ford 4.6 would drink fuel as if the tank had a puncture, while the LS1 could idle for hours without budging the needle on the gauge. Perhaps the 5.7 Hemi from Chrysler would be the first to match the LS1 in operation many years later but suffered from some weak points early on (valve seats etc) while requiring some kludges to be emissions compliant (twin spark plugs, with 30000 mile change intervals, etc). Again, I still enjoy the HECK out of my Pontiac "big block" :) as well as my TPI SBC and I'm certainly enjoying my 2016 Hemi (which I find is so much nicer than my previous 2006 version) but that LS1... at 24 years of age I'm amazed at how it simply has not shown any signs of aging (including some track use early in its life). A true engineering marvel.
My dad had a 1980 Cadillac with the 368. He bought it in '87 and didn't sell it until '04. It had over 240,000 miles on it by the time he got rid of it. It's one of the cars I learned to drive in.
I had a '69 convertible back in the Eighties, while I was in High School. Dad is a very qualified ASE Mechanic and a MASTER of the Quadrajet... We had that car so well set up, it'd actually get over 20 mpg on the highway and at least 15 mpg in town, IF I kept my foot out of it. With a recurve in the distributor and one of Dad's Quadrajets on it, that big old aircraft carrier would just about hang with the then-new IROC Z Camaros and 5.0 Mustangs that the cool kids drove. I guess I never did really appreciate that car as I should have... It was a factory Mauve with the ostrich print, Eggplant Purple interior and white convertible top combination. I happened to do some research on that particular color combination of the '69 Cadillac convertible, and it turns out that something like ONLY 35 or so were built that way. The other standout things about the car, were that it only had about ten thousand miles on it when I bought it... And it was originally owned by an infamous Houston doctor's wife before he allegedly murdered her. Anyway... I drove that car for about six years and then sold it to buy an extremely low mileage 1960 Dart Phoenix two door hardtop... Damn if it wasn't pink and had full power and A/C... And it turns out that those are as rare as hen's teeth, too. And that one's another that I should have known better about.🙄
I had an Eldorado Hussell Back with a 4-6-8. I lived in Pennsylvania just south of philly, I worked at Johns Hopkins Hospital. While my wife looked for a home closer to work I commuted 2 hours each way for 6 months. My 4-6-8 operated perfectly for thousands of miles. Great gas milages too maybe 18 MGH
I truly enjoy your presentations very much! I'm now going to look for video from you, on what IS the best engine of American manufacture from this era!
I had the pleasure of owning several 1977 and 1978 Coupe De Villes and will say it was easily one of the finest V8 engines ever built reliability wise ...I was a Cadillac Master Craftsman fr many years... Enjoyed all of it except the HT 4100 LOL...
You are so right, I have a ‘68 coupe deville with the 472. I was not impressed with the power, read the owner manual the robust 472 was to operate the A/C. I also now own a 1970 Lincoln Continental Mark 3 with the 460, that car will leave the ‘68 in the dust. I love both cars BTW lol.
Owned a 1977 MK 5 loved it Never owned a pre 72 motor but loved the 70 460 in a conti had great power, that being said a 1970 ELDO will be in my garage before I die and I’m a die hard Ford guy but a realist on badass cars
@@patrickjerzak5267 my buddies Mom had a 1970 Eldorado, Gold, white Vinyl roof with wicker ascents on the door above the door handles, what a car. I would love to own one now, they are great cars.
What are your top mods for a stock 472? I pulled one with trans from a pretty low mileage rotted deville. It started right up after sitting for several years before I pulled it. I’m looking to use it in a pre 70’s Chevy or other truck, wagon, hauler 👍😎
@@HillDwellerFeller Depends what you are going to do with it, what kind of numbers you want from it, stock cheap way is to make sure the quadrajet carb is good, HEI DISTRIBUTOR, get rid of the points, put a carb spacer on the stock intake, kind of need to know what year it is on the block and heads to go further. Stock youll get almost 600 ft pounds of torque from that 482.
They are torquey and reliable, but I think the Chrysler 383 is the all-time best big block, especially per cubic inch. I am a big fan of the Buick 400-430-455 but their poor oiling system and lightweight (flimsy) block keep them from realizing their potential in modified form. Nice video and I love them all!!
I've owned a whole mess of 71-73 Devilles over the years and never had a lick of trouble out of those engines. Didn't take much to wake them up either. the torque was so nice on those, it made climbing passes like the Siskiyou feel like it had a rocket pushing it.
As much as it pains me to say this, the 'best' V8 of all time is the Chevy smallblock only because of the insane amount of aftermarket support - essentially it was re-engineered it in the process... It's basically the IBM based PC in engine form.
@@john2914 Best? Best to me means the most rugged most durable. The small-block Chevy was great, but not the best in the world. Chevys were CHEAP cars. They were build down to a price point, not up to a standard.
Hard to figure how much that plays a role. It could also be said that it needed a lot of aftermarket support. Some engines don't need it because the factory parts can't be improved on.
I think the 368 offered in 1980 and 1981 is probably the best engine in the bunch. It's the smallest offering the best possible fuel economy and since it's was based on the 500 ci block, it's probably got the strongest durability with the walls being so much thicker. I think the 1980 and 1981 Cadillac Devilles are the ones to buy. Coupe form too.
With mild modifications to the exhaust ports the 472 and 500 can be made to scream. Plus Edelbrock does make a Performer manifold for that engine. While the stuff is not forged on the internals they're sufficiently durable enough based on their mass and density such that they should hold up fairly well. And moreover be capable of considerably more power output than their Factory rating necessarily would indicate. Add other aftermarket goodies like a gear vendors Overdrive and it would make a quite budget-friendly Highway Cruiser other than The Upfront cost of the overdrive unit. I know when my dad had his 72 Coupe DeVille it got regularly about 16 to 18 MPG on the highway, I know at least one individual running a gear vendors overdrive behind the th400 with a 500 swapped in of all things in a sedan DeVille and they get over 20 MPG on the highway, compression is still mild enough for pump gas but it does breathe freely thanks to some exhaust work and better intake probably Edelbrock, but I know they're still running stock Quadrajet.
Dunno. When I was 17 I bought a '67 coupe I think with the 425 (correct me if I'm wrong). Had about 140,000 miles on it and ran smooth as glass. Couldn't even tell it was running and power for days. In any case, the BB Caddy's from the 60's were great.
I had a 68 CDV with the 472 and a 77 Eldo with the 425. My aunt had a 72 with the 472 that she put 150k miles on, mostly all in town, short drives for 2 decades. The only complaint beside gas mileage was the idle speed, which I guess was for emission standards. It seemed they idled at a really high rpm. Good engines though. My 68 ran on 7 cylinders the entire time I owned it as it had a burned valve.
It was emissions. The engine would idle more slowly, but then you wouldn't pass a smog check, as they would say you "modified" it, making it unsuitable for use on a public road.
Enjoyed the video, and can’t disagree with any points, but will say that I loved the ‘78 Coupe DeVille with the 425. One of my favorite “malaise era” cars … That thing would eat up the highway miles in grand fashion.
Absolutely the BEST engines from General Motors. The 472 "family" (472, 500, 425, 368) are durable, smooth, and very long lived. Minor tweaks give huge HP gains and without the gyrations and dramatics of other engine designs. The last of the engines when GM built cars first, and everything came last. To me, this, and the Lincoln 460, were the best of the best coming out of Detroit.
Pretty much all GM large displacement engines were good in my opinion anyway! The 210 horsepower of a '75 500 may not seem like much in a land yacht caddy but when you plunk one down in an '82 cutlass it suddenly "seems" very potent! Personally my favorite would be between a Chevrolet 409 from the early 60's or a Pontiac 455 from the early 70's but that's just me!
Hey Adam, I found that the 500 cid engine in the 75 Cadillac Eldorado convertible was very smooth & had plenty of power!!! Thanks for sharing another informative video!!! 👍👍
The best "American" engine of all time, is unquestionably the 32 valve, quad cam, LT-5, that powered the 1990-1995 ZR-1 Corvette. Now "American" may be a bit generous, as it can be argued that it was developed in heavy collaboration with Lotus, However the performance records the LT-5 still holds to this day, cannot be argued with..........100 miles @175.600 MPH........500 miles @ 175.503 MPH..........1000 miles @ 174.428 MPH........5000KM @ 175.710 MPH......5000 miles @ 173.791 MPH......12 hour endurance @ 175.523 MPH.......24 hour endurance @ 175.885 for 4221.256 miles.............world records irrespective of class...........5000KM @ 175.710.......5000 miles @ 173.791 MPH..........and finally 4221.256 miles @ 175.885 MPH.........this is from a stock 350 CI production engine that routinely delivered 25+ MPG, and also routinely passed the "nickel balance test" for smoothness. these records are insane, and the ZR-1 Corvette beat the previous records that were held for 50 years and were done with a special built Car the Mormon Meteor that had a 1570 CI Aircraft engine in it! While these Cadillac engines are great, they are not remotely in the same class as the LT-5. the Cadillac Northstar was based heavily off of the LT-5, and is a great engine also, but it was not hand built as the LT-5 was, and suffered a problematic oil leak that was very hard to deal with, because of ironically a very durable skirted block design.
@@drippinglass the last really nice one I saw on BAT went for $75.5k which with fees is well over $80k….still a relative bargain, and this one was outlier nice. 👍🏻
@@michaelbenardo5695 as mentioned, the Northstar is a close derivative of the LT-5 and was used in some of the best GM luxury cars for nearly 20 years from 1992-2011 in the Cadillac Deville to Oldsmobile, to Pontiac. Delivering silky smooth performance from 215 to a whopping 459 HP, and terrific fuel economy. The 1997 Deville were cushy boats, that would absolutely roast the front tires.
@@WydGlydJim I'm talking about the TRADITIONAL luxury cars. Cars with rear drive, a separate frame, extreme weight, and huge size. The Northstar, which was not a very reliable engine, was much too small at less than 300 cubic inches.
My first car was a '70 Coupe deville. That 472 was smooth. The throttle response at around town speeds was intentionally soft given the age of the average Cadillac buyer. But crack open the back barrels on the Quadrajet and bye-bye 460 Lincoln! Super reliable car except for the points. Always carried a spare.
John Egan from Jaguar in an interview from 1981. He always admired Cadillac's Mass Production quality. Gearboxes and the lack of knowledge of the 4-6-8 issues helped. The engine itself was so tough
Great engines I've had Cadillacs with all of them, 70 Eldorado, 73/75 Sedan Deville's, 77, 78 Sedan Deville's and Fleetwood... and even the 455 Buicks were great in my 72 225.... the 350 is also a great engine, the 472's had some noisy lifter issues, but if you used the proper oil... you were good.
thats a hard one to call as far as pre 75 engines buick 455 vs pontiac 455 vs pontiac 400/6x vs chevy 427 vs chevy 454 large oval my favorite caddy motor is the 390 in my 61 series 62 i love the sound of gear timing and its not bad on gas lol
There are a number of great engines. Saying this as a past & current owner: As for the Cads, the 472 / 500 are very good (note I didn't mention the later, lighter weight displacements w/too much smog equipment on them) The one "problem" (such as it is) is the oil pump being in the timing cover. This is design is shared with Buick, and Corvair. All have naturally low oil pressure. This is not problem, as long as they're used as intended (As passenger cars). The engineers of these three brands seemed to share O.P. opinions with the NASCAR guys---10 PSI / 1000 RPM .
It's amazing that it took so long to adjust to getting power from engines at lower emissions levels using unleaded gas, but I'm sure glad that it happened. There's an interesting story behind the use of the lead additive. They say that anyone alive before 1980 has some degree of lead in their bodies. There are even studies showing a reduction in violent crime corresponding with the phase out of leaded gas. Now we're at the dawn of electric propulsion they'll probably find issues with being exposed to such strong electrical fields, maybe?
Getting lots of power with low emissions requires a fully computerized fuel system and a fully computerized ignition system. There was no sure-fire tech for that that was suitable for mass production at that time. You don't need lead for power, you need it to protect the valves and seats. Stellite does not need it, but it was EXPENSIVE, and EXPENSIVE is what mass-producers tried to avoid.
@@michaelbenardo5695 - TEL was first patented as an octane booster; the patent didn’t mention valve seats. The reason for raising the octane is to raise compression potential, and thusly POWER …
@@sking2173 Originally that was true, but it was later discovered to do so, and there were other ways to increase octane, it was more expensive though. Lead was cheap.
Sitting less than 10 feet away from me now on the other side of the wall is our 1980 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham D'Elegance with the 368 engine..same firemist blue color and wire wheel covers as the '80 Coupe DeVille featured in your video. In addition to being the last (non V8-6-4 Caddy big block), it was also one of the latest appearances of the Turbo 400 transmissions in a GM passenger car. My family had two of these Cadillacs resting side-by-side in the garage for decades...one was the above-noted '80, and the other was a 1979 Cedar Firemist Fleetwood Brougham with the 425. The 425 was definitely the stronger of the two cars, as expected. One notable memory happened in May of 1980 following the eruption of Mount St. Helens here in Washington State. That eruption bathed us in ash; so much so that many drivers affixed aftermarket outside auxiliary air cleaners to their vehicles. We continued to drive the '79 (incidentally without any of this supplemental equipment) until one day when I discovered that a dealership service tech had mistakenly left the air filter element out of the air cleaner housing during the previous service job performed just prior to the mountain blowing. At that point, we were nearly 3,000 miles later and approaching the next service date. We were, of course, shocked and not happy. Nevertheless, that engine lasted another 350,000 miles without incident.
As an owner of Cadillac's 365, 390, 425, 472, and 500 engines, I rarely had any problem with them. They were always smooth and quiet as intended. I also had a 1985 Fleetwood HT4100 and a 1999 Northstar Eldo TC. While I had no problems with those engines, their reputation is well known. I likely just traded them off before they had a chance to fail. Thanks for covering the big blocks :)
Very smooth. One of my favorite cars was my 78 carbureted sedan Deville. Wish I had that car today, or the 73 Fleetwood.
I blew one up in my dads 79 Cadillac Deville and when he found out I thought that the Devil had come over to take me to hell. 😂😂
He was so pissed. I was 17.
I am 53 now.
But that car from a Rolling start -30mph would smoke many many hot rods of the day.
Miss ya dad 💛
@@muthrfuqrjonz3530 Thank you I add Miss you Dad!
Made Great Moters in A 64 Chevelle
So you avoided 368?
I've always thought of the 500/472/425 as Cadillac's smoothest and most reliable engine... and it deeply grieves me how many of these engines were lost to idiotic demolition derby scene.
Serious Demo Derby guys take those engines out, as they don't handle heat well, and never start back up when they stall hot. A common trait with long stroke motors.
Short stroke motors are best for starting hot, Ford 289/302,429, Chevy 283/307/327, Chrysler 318, 361, 383, 400.
@@johneckert1365 Hi John, unfortunately, not too many derby players are so astute. My best friend owns a salvage company, (started by his dad), and I can't tell you how many derby wrecks that came in his yard, back in the day, that contained these engines.
I don't recall these engines overheating and locking up, either... although, to be fair to you, I was never trying to murder the cars they were in. 😄
@Rafael Fiallo Hi Rafael, repurposing them to some useful purpose, I don't mind so much... I had a friend who used a converted 1969 472 as a backup generator for his house... it's the wanton, useless destruction of these irreplaceable works of automotive history in things like demolition derbies that make me see 8 shades of red. (I know it's their property and they can do what they want with it, but it still irks me).
Sure.
@Bobby Z Also could be why you're a new jersey poser with nothing lol.
The various GM big blocks were designed for different tasks. The Cadillac was designed for the ability to power accessories, have a smooth idle and a board flat torque curve from 1000rpm and up. That doesn’t make it less of a motor. It was supposed to be reliable and dead quiet under hood, and it was. Certainly one of the best big block designs. I don’t think they were jetted that lean either because an AIR pump allows you to run richer and clean up the emissions on the back side after combustion. Love your picture of the V8-6-4 with the air cleaner lid flipped. Hi Performance mode.
They were very high nickle-content blocks and were practically indestructible with anything even resembling care. It was uncommon for engines to run 250K miles in those days, but the 472/500's did it routinely.
A lot of engineering went into making these cars reliable. Back then luxury wasn't about how large of a tv screen you can put in there, but about comfort, ergonomics, ease of use and reliability.
A luxurious car was one you could rely on to work flawlessly every time you need it.
Cadillac became the synonym of luxury in America in large part thanks to the reliability of their engineering and the level of care that went into making a quality product to last owner's lifetime.
And bc Cadillac was a luxury brand with a hefty price tag it could afford to not cut corners, they could afford to make things the right way not just the cost effective way.
I was 18 years old in 1981, I worked for a old timer in a shop as an " apprentice " . One of our customers was a wealthy old timer who at the time owned a 1968 Couple de Ville. I got to drive it 25 miles round trip to the near by town for front tires and alignment . The old timer was an orig owner and the car had 60-70k on it. I recall floor boarding it numerous times ( I probably burnt 6-8 gal of gas in the 25 miles ) and I recall it seemed to have one hell of a roar and a lot of giddy up and go. Not too much after this period of time, the old timer bought a brand new 1981 Sedan de Ville with the V-8-6-4 which I did not get to drive, but I recall he was very disappointed and irritated with the car. So, this video is very cool to see that I got to drive one of the best 472s ever made.... Thanks...
In 2 weeks I'll have owned my 1974 Fleetwood Brougham for 40 years, here in Australia we went metric in 1974, so it's a kilometres car and is sitting at 704,000 kilometres , about 440,000miles. It has just had its engine overhauled & rebuilt FOR THE FIRSST TIME IN MY 40 YEARS OWNERSHIP. with well over 500 foot pounds of torque in "granny" spec these cars have serious punch, over 500 ft lb torque is in modern turbo diesel territory, however this is in a half century old petrol V8 with a spread bore Rochester Quadrajet which was designed to be frugal. Properly set up these give you 15 mpg around town in peak hour & on the freeeway/highway 20+ mpg not shabby at all from an old 8 litre v8 pulling a fully stocked 6 metre long Fleetwood Brougham that weighs in at 3,180 kilos. Owning a 1973 mk4 Lincoln Continental as well, the difference is dirt obvious , in the Lincoln you need to let it kick down into 2nd gear , let it rev & it will then deliver what the Caddy 500 does by flexing your big toe while remaining in 3rd gear, Caddy has effortless punch instantly. REAL WORLD DIFFERENCE:- due to having to work the revs on the Lincoln to deliver same outcome , Lincoln eats fuel at 5mpg in traffic from a shorter lighter car, WHEREAS, Caddy delivers 15 mpg doing same thing, SO in the real world of day to day driving the Cadillac 8 litre engine delivers 10 out of 10 as mega torque, frugal for size and built to be long lasting 704,000 kilometres durability (or 440,000 miles) what current new item gives this outcome ?? None.
Bought an emerald green 76 Eldorado convertible with 27,000 miles in 1983, it was so quiet you could not hear it run. The car also handled surprisingly well.
I've had the joy of owning one of these engines and what a joy. I owned it for 10 years and it was very smooth and reliable.
cadillac 429 in 1964 was a beast! had a couple 390's, but was real happy with the 429
I might be the minority, but the Chrysler 383 and 440 were great and reliable engines and the 3 speed torqueflite transmissions were the bomb….never gave me an ounce of trouble.
Chrysler B and RB engines were nearly indestructible with forged cranks and deep skirted blocks. Front mounted distributor is easily serviced. No coolant to drain or distributor to hassle with for removing the intake manifold. Shaft mounted rocker arms from the factory and an external oil pump were nice too.
@@jaybredeken8983 And a very easy to change water pump to boot.
Best big block design of their era…as long as you got a got build from the factory, great engines.
I remember pulling the oil pan off a parts guy's 472 CID 71 Deville that worked at the dealership with me in the late 80's. The dip stick tube was broken off even with the block so I was replacing it. Funny thing, I found a small piece of a piston skirt laying in the pan. Cleaned it out, reinstalled, and that engine ran with a piece of a piston skirt missing for several more years that I know of. Probably ran longer than that.
I figure it got over revved at some point, IDK. Tough engine though.
Back in the 80’s, a friend of mine installed a 472 Cadillac engine in his beater Chevelle. He couldn’t afford a Chevrolet 454 but 472 Cadillac engines were plentiful in the junkyards in those days.
Car was a tire fryer but engine was out of breath at 4000 rpm.
The 429 was a fine engine. Our funeral cars and even our ambulances used this engine from 1964 to 1967. Never gave us any trouble. We loved the 472 and the increase of power. I can still hear the sound it made when starting and idling. Our only gripe was their tendency to overheat in traffic when hot and humid outside. This was an issue that continued on into the 500 engines as well. Most annoying thing having to pull a limo or a hearse over to the side of the road and let it cool off while everybody else in a procession sat there fuming------oh-----and the family---------.
The 425 was acceptable when the body size changed in 1977. We were surprised that our 1977-1979 Cadillacs ended up being so trouble free. Out 1979's were just about the last Cadillacs we had with any get up and go until 1993-1996. Those were the last of the old Cadillacs we saw in the funeral business.
That's really interesting thanks for the insight,
Steve, Thank you for sharing your experiences with Cadillacs 429 in.³ , 472 & 500 engines.
Speaking with owners of 1964 models, I was told that the 429 in.³ engines burned oil
requiring topping off in between oil changes.
Did you experience this with your funeral and ambulance fleet ?
I should also say that these particular owners said that their 429 engines were original
and not rebuilt, making me wonder if the piston rings were simply worn out.
@@ScottALaFollette Our service cars, the two limos, two hearses one flower car, two ambulances were never oil burners in that 429 generation ALTHOUGH we were expected to be sure the Gulf gas station attendant checked the oil with EVERY fill up! That was an iron clad rule for years. So if the cars weren't leaving a blue contrail we did not notice anything amiss. If anything would have burned oil it would have been the ambulances. They here horribly abused. We traded fleets every two years, so did not keep our cars long enough to have issues. In those days by the time a car had 30K on the odometer my father thought it was time to call up some pallbearers.
Why didn't you have the radiator re-cored with a thicker core?
@@michaelbenardo5695 We were not going to risk anything that could void the factory warranties on a whole fleet of cars especially since the cars were only a year or two old. In those days Cadillac offered a Five year warranty.
A friend in the late 70’ had an early 70’s Cadillac and wanted to collect an insurance claim. He put something on the accelerator to keep it at high rpm. He came back the next day to find his car ran out of fuel and still ran well
I tried that with a '94 Topaz 2.3 OHV, and all of the grime and gunk on the outside of the engine burst into flames.
I drove a ‘70 Sedan Deville daily between’96-‘08, it went onto a new owner with 108k. Everything worked, drove as it should, I miss the ole girl. ❤ I’d have another but 8 mpg in town and 11 mpg highway just isn’t earth friendly 😊
Ive owned a 73 Coupe, 76 Eldo and a 80 Coupe D'Elegance and have to say the 80 was my favorite overall of the three. The 368 was just as sewing machine smooth as the 472 and 500 when the deactivation was deactivated. It was the last model with a traditional Cadillac engine, the 4100, Olds 307 or Chevy 350 in the later years of this body style never had the smoothness of the big block Cadillac engines.
Olds V8s are pretty darned smooth though. Perhaps the 307 was a little harried due to size and tune.
I theorize that the relatively massive Cadillac displacements just made so much torque, that one needed to only barely use the engine, in order to motorvate those big beauties down the street at an acceptable clip...
The olds 307 was buttery smooth and quite torquey down low. Just didn't make any real power. Passing was a real chore. Now the Cadillac has a 5.3LS
I owned a 1970 Coupe de Ville, a 1972 Sedan de Ville, and a 1980 Coupe de Ville d'Elegance.. All three were reliable, the 1980 was a bit underpowered for my taste however, the 1970 was the most robust.
I was lucky enough to own a 75 Eldorado with the monstrous 500. My mechanic mate stood in awe of its size, mainly because I’m in Ireland and he serviced 4 cylinder cars on the regular!
Over there, they'd get excited about the optional 990cc over the 850! 8200 is a REAL engine!
Oh yeah I bet everyone was jealous haha
I have a '69 472 and a '76 500, and I drove them both stock and modified. If you had a bog on part-throttle tip-in, your Quadrajet needed adjustment. Even with only a 4800 rpm redline these engines have plenty of get-up-and-boogie to them. The monstrous amounts of torque available just off idle and their tall highway gears make them both fast and comfortable at speed. They feel like they're accelerating slowly until you look down at the speedometer and see you're into triple digits.
I still miss my 77 deville with 425. I was never sure how many times the odometer had rolled over before I got it and then I put on 100 k miles. After trying to maintain a north star I’ve never needed another Cadillac. Always learn so much from this series
425 always gets my vote.
When GMC came out with their awesome motorhome in the early through mid '70's they chose the Olds 455, and then 403 for a reason. They could have used the Cadillac 472/500, but they chose the Olds V8.
I believe the giant Caddy did well and could run many thousands of miles when driven with "dignity" but I suspect it would blow up fairly fast if abused by kids trying to do "burnouts" and drag racing it.
The V8-6-4 was an absolutely genius idea that was FAR ahead of it's time. It's a shame the tech wasn't ready for such an idea yet.
And still isn't
@@johnhull6363 GM's recent Displacement on Demand would like a word. It's used in the Corvette, Camaro, and full sized trucks.
@@garthhancock3373 and causes thousands of engine failures
@@johnhull6363 you got the proof to back that up? Because my Silverado works just fine with 160k miles with DoD
@@garthhancock3373 I've got it on the 3.0TT in my CT6, works great. My mother has an '11 camaro and it works great. The tech has caught up for sure.
I remember disconnecting the V8 6 4 system back in the day. As I recall you only needed to disconnect the brown wire at the transmission. The people that bought these cars wanted smooth and they did not care about gas mileage.
It was the CAFE folks that cared about the fuel mileage …
@@sking2173 CAFE is what destroyed our auto industry. It was signed into law by Gerald Ford, and no, he was not a Democrat, he was a REPUBLICAN, the same one who pardoned Tricky Dick.
My late friend, Jeff, sometime in the 1980s bought a 1963 Suburban, that had been used as a school bus in Grass Valley, CA. He mated it with a 500 cu.in. Caddy engine, and possibly Caddy transmission. Jeff replaced the Subs suspension with all heavy duty stuff. I was with Jeff when he took this truck to what was then still called Sears Point Raceway, and ran it in the night drags. It wasn’t fast enough to not allow passengers, so I got to ride with Jeff many times down the drag strip. I don’t recall his times, but it was a fun ride.
The Flash was a dragster 1970 Caddy that ran good numbers with the 472. The owner was quoted stating that the block was high in nickel content. “It’s really tough. It’s tall, with a 10.8-inch deck height. That makes it wide, but there’s a lot of room in there. There’s a good rod length-to-stroke ratio with a 6-and-3/4-inch rod.”he liked the space the block provided.
Had a ‘76 Sedan deVille with the 500 for nearly 8 years. Never let me down. I still miss it.
Having learned how to drive on one and owning it later on, I’m very biased. The Cadillac of the late-60’s/early-70’s was unbeatable! ❤️
In that time, 77-80 I prefer the Oldsmobile 403. Had a 79 Oldsmobile 98 2 door with that engine & it was very powerful, used a lot of fuel but it was worth it. Only wish they had kept it for the 1981 & up beautiful 98's of the time.
Great engines without question, I had one (472) in a 71 Calais sedan back in like 2004. I got a fantabulous deal on it, and it was nice and complete enough to be my daily driver for a couple years until I simply couldn't afford to drive it anymore. All kinds of power right off idle, ran fine on premium, and smooth as any engine I've ever experienced.
The power on the more detuned ones can be increased somewhat with some easy adjustments and even a few moderate changes. Things like advancing the timing and adjusting the metering help along with installing dual exhaust and a better-flow aftermarket intake. This has been done to my 500 and it’s made a healthy difference. If someone wants to get into it more, higher compression heads from the early years can be installed as well and there are plenty of more advanced modifications and parts created by enthusiasts that can get this engine to 1000+ horsepower for the real gearhead.
The 1970 made 400 hp with single exhaust. Putting dual on a weak engine is not going to increase hp.
@@blackericdenice He listed several upgrades. Not just dual exhaust. Installing what he said would increase horsepower and torque well.
@@giggiddy Install a 1970 cam and carb and you will be close to 400 hp. Cadillac never came with dual exhaust.
@@blackericdenice It will help a little though. Plus it looks cool!
@@blackericdenice From 1952 through 60 Cadillacs did indeed come with duals.
I've been taken engines apart for 50+ years. Only lately have I been working and building Cadillac 472/500/425. These are the easiest engines to work on. The only thing is, the metal is so hard that the edges of the machined surfaces are razor sharp, so be careful!
These were intended to be life-time engines. They will easily wear out the car, then go on to a long second life
I believe only the 1955-56 Packard V8 had bore center spacing as broad as this engine, at a generous 5.0 inches. I had two 472s and one 500, and they were absolutely trouble-free, not even needing water pumps like my big Olds and Buick V8s had.
I once drove my 1976 de Ville back-to-back with a friend's 1977 New Yorker 440, and found the Chrysler V8 to be remarkably smooth, but disappointingly no more sprightly than the heavily detuned 500.
My 1969 Fleetwood 472 has a factory 4 row radiator. I ran 110 leaded pre-mix fuel in it in HS.. That engine is phenominal. Fast forward to now, I still have it. I'm building a '76 500 that ran after sitting in the Arizona desert for 30+ years. The cam bearings have every type of failure possible, and it ran just as good as the 472. They'll never win superstock class, but they truly never die- they just go to sleep.
My Dad had a '75 Sedan de Ville with the 500 engine. Twice while on the way to Palm Springs he severely over heated it. The first time, a radiator hose blew. He was just west of Palm Springs, and he drove it to a garage, a distance of a few miles. The second time, the water pump blew, and the fan went through the radiator. He drove it into town, again, and had the radiator and water pump replaced. Later he noticed that the oil looked like a milkshake. He decided to give up on it, and I bought it from him. My friend got a used head for it, and had it surfaced. He installed it, and the car ran fine. A little later, I used the car to tow a '74 AMC Ambassador wagon on a large dual axle trailer 100 miles. What amazed me was that with this huge load, the car got 11 mpg. I was expecting about 5, considering that the 2 cars and the trailer weighed at least 10,000 pounds. Yes, that engine made plenty of torque!! It also took quite a beating.
Very interesting. I've had five of these engines - 2 1970 472s, 1 1970 500, 1 1973 472 and 1 1975 500 injection. They have all proved excellent and reliable - proper American V8s. The second 1970 car was bought from a doctor in Beverly Hills (via one other) who had replaced an earlier 472 in which he had done over 400,000 miles without a rebuild. He said it was his favourite car and he wouldn't drive any other type
I had a 368 in my '80 CdV, the only non-V8-6-4 version. It was an amazing engine. I know the power rating was pretty paltry, but I never had any problems. I commuted in and out of Boston and it ran perfectly, never overheated, started instantly. Best carbureted engine I ever had. The rest of the car was rotting around it, but I still loved it dearly.
I might add I was an emt 45 or so years ago and the big Cadillac ambulances we had were as close to :bullet proof" as any vehicle and as you imagine they got hammered a lot but never broke down at least in years I was there. And they had a lot of medical weight to carry.
My family’s neighbors had a Coupe deVille with the 8-6-4 engine that was infamously terrible. I remember how it would clunk and struggle down the street. I’m not sure they knew they could have the control module deactivated, because they wound up trading the car in after just a few years of ownership. It’s so sad what Cadillac did to its cars, because the comparable Oldsmobiles and Buicks were positively bulletproof. Back then, it was far more worth it to own a Park Avenue or Regency Brougham than a Cadillac product.
I wish I still had a 472....and the '69 Calais it was attached to. All it needed was a waterpump while I owned it. Coupled with a 36 gallon tank, she was a long distance runner.
Well the timing chain broke on my 68 Cadillac at 80,000 miles, so....?
But I did adore that engine though no matter what I did I could never get over 12 MPG.
But.... Passing cars on a two lane hwy was an experience you never forget. Smashing that pedal at 55MPH, that car would pick itself up and blast off like an efffing rocket!!!
It was AWESOME out on the highway!!!
Cadillacs were intended for people who don't care about gas mileage.
Not much experience with big blocks, but my brother had a 383 Chrysler Newport he bought used from a local university professor. It was very nice with just a two barrel carburetor. More on this later.
This left me intrigued and I always wondered what it was like to drive a 440 Chrysler. I even saw that there was a special cam version of the 440. I just can't imagine what vehicle I would want to drive today that had a 440 in it.
I came into a book once that had the formulas in it for calculating carburation needs. Turns out the two barrels had just enough capacity for large displacement engines like a 383 Chrysler or a 390 Ford. A four barrel wasn't doing anything for you unless you were driving with your foot to the floor.
I'll admit to being biased but I'd vote for the Mopar 383/440 among the best V8s. From high performance to luxury to police specials to boring sedans, they were in everything. Bullet proof and mostly reliable (except for the finicky mid 70s lean-burn) and made tons of power. 280 net into 1974 if I recall. Although the 426 Hemi was the most renown. from GM, definitely the 350 deserves a mention.
The current production Hemi is the best American V8 of all time.
The mid 1970’s 472 and 500’s were smooth workhorses, but myself and others were quite disappointed with the lack of power for such large displacement. Chrysler built big luxury cars too, but their 440 felt much stronger in any driving situation. Perhaps the target buyer was so old that they never used more than 1/2 throttle. While the 1968 Eldorado lacked chassis refinement the high compression 472 made it a benchmark for Cadillac performance for decades to come.
I’ve always heard the 455 in the Buick GS was the superior V-8 for the times. I guess it depends on the subjective nature of the specific criteria used to define “best”. During the late 60s and beyond, Chrysler’s Hemi was the power plant of choice for top fuel dragsters.
Oh, you're not wrong... Having owned them all, I would take the Olds, Pontiac & Buick 455's over a Chevy 454 and even a Mopar 440.
@@marko7843 Why?
I owned a 455sd non smog they were more powerful but the cad was meant to be reliable our cads never had any trouble
@@snek9353 because they were insanely powerful, with stump pulling torque. The 454 was less tourqy and drank oil as fast as gasoline, and I wasn't impressed with the response of the 440s, even in a six pack Superbird... As far as power per cubic inch back then, I think the 318 with the tiny two barrel was the most impressive Mopar V8. 80)
Yes, and I always thought the 426 hemi would have made a great engine for the steady, high load application in boats. . However, everything I've read says they were not a very streetable motor...
I've had a 425 before, in a 1977 Sedan De Ville, and I can attest without fear either equivocation or exaggeration, that it was the finest, best engine I've ever had. Any problems I ever had with that car, they emanated from the electrical system or some other secondary or tertiary or quaternary system, not from the engine itself, ever.
My 425 is 45 years old and runs like a brand new motor. People make fun of me cause I’m a 20 year old who decided to buy an old Cadillac. There aren’t many cars that give you the Cadillac feeling. My 45 year old beast rides way smoother than a new Toyota. My boss just got a 2012 Buick regal, it drives like a bag of rocks compared to my cadi.
I have a 78 coupe deville 425. And a 91 coupe deville with the dreadful 300ci I can’t get it running. Only 48k miles on my 91 and 65k miles on my 78
@@Dub-ce3dy You are my inspiration man, leave them with their boxes of shit that didn't last 10 years, my dream is to have a Cadillac from the 70s, be a man and give yourself the luxury and torque of a Cadillac!!! greetings from Brazil
As teenagers in the late 80’s. These ‘70s Cadillacs were very affordable. Our friends had a few of them and they were great highway cars and king of burnouts. The torque was endless!!!!
Is it the best? No. But as a stock Powertrain it got the job done (especially 68-70), and was put into some pretty swell cars.
What is better? The Lincoln engine wasn't as big, nor was the Chrysler engine, the Rolls engine was aluminum, which means it wasn't anywhere near as bullet-proof as the Cad engine, and Mercedes had a 383, but it couldn't match the torque or the smoothness and silence of the Cadillac engine.
Super Liked this vid. I owned two 70’s Caddy’s.
Love this subject, engines.
If you can, I would to like to get your take on Olds small blocks 260/307/330/350/403 and another vid on Olds big blocks 400/425/455.
They would be long videos but I would love every second of it.
I really appreciate your knowledge and detail.
Still shots of those engines are action shots to me.
The 400/425/455 engines are more accurately described as “tall blocks”, just as a 351 Windsor Ford is a “tall-block” version of the 302 Ford engine.
Probably one of the smoothest running, well balanced GM V8's I've seen is the mid 70's Olds 350, however the engines mentioned in this video were remarkably vibration free, uber reliable and generated copious amounts of torque. The Ford 385 series of motors, while torque producing powerhouses also, could not match the smooth running of the Caddy big blocks...
Olds 350 had it all, I worked on them in the late'70's, nothing could compare to their smooth idle. They were a dream.
Dang straight jkl ! Olds 350, 403, and 455 were undoubtedly the best engines of the period. Neither my motor buddies, nor I was was unable to destroy any Olds V8 in the day, and we tried very hard...trust me this speaks volumes! We Destroyed one of just about every other Ford or GM engine built!
Loved my 472 caddy!
I remember my uncle’s 1970 Fleetwood Brougham. That car was a monster. Felt like a magic carpet ride.
I had 1973 Mercury with a 429. Nice engine.
No experience with these engines, except a tiny one...riding in my aunt and uncle's 1969 Fleetwood. It was still smelling new, and to this day I'd have to say it was the quietest, smoothest, quickest car I've ever seen.
In the late '90s, I owned a very clean white '68 Coupe DeVille w/ white vinyl top; last year for the stacked headlights. Really miss that car. Had a hitch setup for a matching white cargo trailer w/ caddy hub caps. I was the drummer in a 3 pc. blues trio called Hip Trash, we played MO, IL, Indiana, for about 6 years. Good times.
My vote is for the Olds 455/403/350/307. In OE form they were extremely reliable, quiet and Smooth. Their ease of service and refinement is 2nd to none.
Yep, GM could have put them in truck service and they wouldn't have blinked an eye.
You left out the 260
I replaced a timing chain on an olds 350 once, a much bigger task than doing a timing chain on a Chrysler big block. The Chrysler’s were a lot easier to work on.
@@Wiencourager agreed
They were good engines, and the big-block version had a long enough stroke, but they were not Cadillac engines.
That’s my blue 1980 Deville … that’s awesome the motor has 92,000 original miles and still runs like a champ
There is something so beautiful about these big beefy workhorses, so smooth but yet so strong and usually over engineered enough to not be able to hurt themselves.
But it really depends on what the definition of "best" is. Reliability when operated "responsibly"? Fuel mileage? Power and performance? Smoothness? Low emissions?
In my opinion, the LS1 fits that bill. Considered LEV in some states, capable of 33 mpg cruising at decent highway speeds (67-70 mph seems to be the sweet spot in a Firebird), a reliable workhorse when operated as designed and unmodified, smooth but potent revving up to the 6200 RPM rev limiter without obvious signs of going breathless... and of course seems to operate the same regardless of whether it's arctic or arid temperatures out. There's a reason it kept reaping engineering awards for years following its intro. It's the only GM engine I've ever had where at 24 years of age there is still not one drip of oil from a seal, nor a puff of blue smoke at cold start-up. And all with a straightforward proven and simple layout (OHV, single cam, no multi stage intakes, no cylinder shutdown, etc).
The SBC probably comes in a close second, on sheer versatility alone (and the high RPM crank vibrations of the 350 being addressed with 4 bolt mains where appropriate). Nonetheless the LS1 was such a leap ahead that other brands fell behind for what seemed like close to a decade. Even at idle the 32V Ford 4.6 would drink fuel as if the tank had a puncture, while the LS1 could idle for hours without budging the needle on the gauge. Perhaps the 5.7 Hemi from Chrysler would be the first to match the LS1 in operation many years later but suffered from some weak points early on (valve seats etc) while requiring some kludges to be emissions compliant (twin spark plugs, with 30000 mile change intervals, etc).
Again, I still enjoy the HECK out of my Pontiac "big block" :) as well as my TPI SBC and I'm certainly enjoying my 2016 Hemi (which I find is so much nicer than my previous 2006 version) but that LS1... at 24 years of age I'm amazed at how it simply has not shown any signs of aging (including some track use early in its life). A true engineering marvel.
My dad had a 1980 Cadillac with the 368. He bought it in '87 and didn't sell it until '04. It had over 240,000 miles on it by the time he got rid of it. It's one of the cars I learned to drive in.
I absolutely loved my 500. Quiet and powerful
I had few buicks back then and the 455 was smooth and powerful
I had the 70 Eldo and it screamed . Also had a 68 and a 64 limo . Then a 87 was my last Caddie . Loved them all .
I had a '69 convertible back in the Eighties, while I was in High School.
Dad is a very qualified ASE Mechanic and a MASTER of the Quadrajet...
We had that car so well set up, it'd actually get over 20 mpg on the highway and at least 15 mpg in town, IF I kept my foot out of it.
With a recurve in the distributor and one of Dad's Quadrajets on it, that big old aircraft carrier would just about hang with the then-new IROC Z Camaros and 5.0 Mustangs that the cool kids drove.
I guess I never did really appreciate that car as I should have... It was a factory Mauve with the ostrich print, Eggplant Purple interior and white convertible top combination.
I happened to do some research on that particular color combination of the '69 Cadillac convertible, and it turns out that something like ONLY 35 or so were built that way.
The other standout things about the car, were that it only had about ten thousand miles on it when I bought it... And it was originally owned by an infamous Houston doctor's wife before he allegedly murdered her.
Anyway... I drove that car for about six years and then sold it to buy an extremely low mileage 1960 Dart Phoenix two door hardtop... Damn if it wasn't pink and had full power and A/C... And it turns out that those are as rare as hen's teeth, too.
And that one's another that I should have known better about.🙄
Joan Robinson Hill?
I had an Eldorado Hussell Back with a 4-6-8. I lived in Pennsylvania just south of philly, I worked at Johns Hopkins Hospital. While my wife looked for a home closer to work I commuted 2 hours each way for 6 months. My 4-6-8 operated perfectly for thousands of miles. Great gas milages too maybe 18 MGH
I truly enjoy your presentations very much! I'm now going to look for video from you, on what IS the best engine of American manufacture from this era!
Chrysler 383 and 440 were great big block workhorses.
I had the pleasure of owning several 1977 and 1978 Coupe De Villes and will say it was easily one of the finest V8 engines ever built reliability wise ...I was a Cadillac Master Craftsman fr many years... Enjoyed all of it except the HT 4100 LOL...
i have a 66 calais and ohh my…. this car rides better then most modern cars i just love it
You are so right, I have a ‘68 coupe deville with the 472. I was not impressed with the power, read the owner manual the robust 472 was to operate the A/C. I also now own a 1970 Lincoln Continental Mark 3 with the 460, that car will leave the ‘68 in the dust. I love both cars BTW lol.
My childhood best friend's older brother bought a black 1971 Lincoln Mk III in '74 and that car made quite an impression on me
Owned a 1977 MK 5 loved it
Never owned a pre 72 motor but loved the 70 460 in a conti had great power, that being said a 1970 ELDO will be in my garage before I die and I’m a die hard Ford guy but a realist on badass cars
@@patrickjerzak5267 my buddies Mom had a 1970 Eldorado, Gold, white Vinyl roof with wicker ascents on the door above the door handles, what a car. I would love to own one now, they are great cars.
Not impressed with 375 horsepower? Maybe your's was a low-compression version intended for export to a country with low-octane fuel.
Nothing like a square block! Love these 425/472/500 Cadillac's been building them for years.
What are your top mods for a stock 472? I pulled one with trans from a pretty low mileage rotted deville. It started right up after sitting for several years before I pulled it. I’m looking to use it in a pre 70’s Chevy or other truck, wagon, hauler 👍😎
@@HillDwellerFeller Depends what you are going to do with it, what kind of numbers you want from it, stock cheap way is to make sure the quadrajet carb is good, HEI DISTRIBUTOR, get rid of the points, put a carb spacer on the stock intake, kind of need to know what year it is on the block and heads to go further. Stock youll get almost 600 ft pounds of torque from that 482.
They are torquey and reliable, but I think the Chrysler 383 is the all-time best big block, especially per cubic inch. I am a big fan of the Buick 400-430-455 but their poor oiling system and lightweight (flimsy) block keep them from realizing their potential in modified form. Nice video and I love them all!!
Nice rundown. Now I'm going out to hug my 77 CDV with the little 425.
I've owned a whole mess of 71-73 Devilles over the years and never had a lick of trouble out of those engines. Didn't take much to wake them up either. the torque was so nice on those, it made climbing passes like the Siskiyou feel like it had a rocket pushing it.
As much as it pains me to say this, the 'best' V8 of all time is the Chevy smallblock only because of the insane amount of aftermarket support - essentially it was re-engineered it in the process... It's basically the IBM based PC in engine form.
The most popular. It doesn’t mean it was the best.
@@john2914 You missed what he said...
@@john2914 Best? Best to me means the most rugged most durable. The small-block Chevy was great, but not the best in the world. Chevys were CHEAP cars. They were build down to a price point, not up to a standard.
That doesn't make it the best in stock form. Chevrolets were never intended to be the finest car in the world.
Hard to figure how much that plays a role. It could also be said that it needed a lot of aftermarket support. Some engines don't need it because the factory parts can't be improved on.
I think the 368 offered in 1980 and 1981 is probably the best engine in the bunch. It's the smallest offering the best possible fuel economy and since it's was based on the 500 ci block, it's probably got the strongest durability with the walls being so much thicker. I think the 1980 and 1981 Cadillac Devilles are the ones to buy. Coupe form too.
With mild modifications to the exhaust ports the 472 and 500 can be made to scream. Plus Edelbrock does make a Performer manifold for that engine. While the stuff is not forged on the internals they're sufficiently durable enough based on their mass and density such that they should hold up fairly well. And moreover be capable of considerably more power output than their Factory rating necessarily would indicate. Add other aftermarket goodies like a gear vendors Overdrive and it would make a quite budget-friendly Highway Cruiser other than The Upfront cost of the overdrive unit. I know when my dad had his 72 Coupe DeVille it got regularly about 16 to 18 MPG on the highway, I know at least one individual running a gear vendors overdrive behind the th400 with a 500 swapped in of all things in a sedan DeVille and they get over 20 MPG on the highway, compression is still mild enough for pump gas but it does breathe freely thanks to some exhaust work and better intake probably Edelbrock, but I know they're still running stock Quadrajet.
Dunno. When I was 17 I bought a '67 coupe I think with the 425 (correct me if I'm wrong). Had about 140,000 miles on it and ran smooth as glass. Couldn't even tell it was running and power for days. In any case, the BB Caddy's from the 60's were great.
Different engine. Was a 429. Different block
@@RareClassicCars - Yes, but that 429 was a fine engine …
@@sking2173 And, '67 was the last year for the switch-pitch torque converter, which made that engine feel even finer, at least around town .
I had a 68 CDV with the 472 and a 77 Eldo with the 425. My aunt had a 72 with the 472 that she put 150k miles on, mostly all in town, short drives for 2 decades. The only complaint beside gas mileage was the idle speed, which I guess was for emission standards. It seemed they idled at a really high rpm. Good engines though. My 68 ran on 7 cylinders the entire time I owned it as it had a burned valve.
It was emissions. The engine would idle more slowly, but then you wouldn't pass a smog check, as they would say you "modified" it, making it unsuitable for use on a public road.
Thank you, Adam. As usual very informative.
I really enjoy these historical, technical reviews.
Thank you for one more awesome video. Thank you for sharing tose engine information.
Enjoyed the video, and can’t disagree with any points, but will say that I loved the ‘78 Coupe DeVille with the 425. One of my favorite “malaise era” cars … That thing would eat up the highway miles in grand fashion.
That was a very informative overview. Thank you, Adam.
Absolutely the BEST engines from General Motors. The 472 "family" (472, 500, 425, 368) are durable, smooth, and very long lived. Minor tweaks give huge HP gains and without the gyrations and dramatics of other engine designs. The last of the engines when GM built cars first, and everything came last. To me, this, and the Lincoln 460, were the best of the best coming out of Detroit.
Pretty much all GM large displacement engines were good in my opinion anyway! The 210 horsepower of a '75 500 may not seem like much in a land yacht caddy but when you plunk one down in an '82 cutlass it suddenly "seems" very potent! Personally my favorite would be between a Chevrolet 409 from the early 60's or a Pontiac 455 from the early 70's but that's just me!
Hey Adam, I found that the 500 cid engine in the 75 Cadillac Eldorado convertible was very smooth & had plenty of power!!! Thanks for sharing another informative video!!! 👍👍
Had a beautiful Canary Yellow '76 Eldorado, Camal Top & Interior! Sold it to a "Blue Jays" Pitcher who bought it for his Dad in '85!
Highly illuminating report, Adam.
I sold Cadillacs from 1977 to 1979, from 1981 to 1983, 1991 to 2000, 2002 to 2004, and from 2015 to 2018 .
The best "American" engine of all time, is unquestionably the 32 valve, quad cam, LT-5, that powered the 1990-1995 ZR-1 Corvette. Now "American" may be a bit generous, as it can be argued that it was developed in heavy collaboration with Lotus, However the performance records the LT-5 still holds to this day, cannot be argued with..........100 miles @175.600 MPH........500 miles @ 175.503 MPH..........1000 miles @ 174.428 MPH........5000KM @ 175.710 MPH......5000 miles @ 173.791 MPH......12 hour endurance @ 175.523 MPH.......24 hour endurance @ 175.885 for 4221.256 miles.............world records irrespective of class...........5000KM @ 175.710.......5000 miles @ 173.791 MPH..........and finally 4221.256 miles @ 175.885 MPH.........this is from a stock 350 CI production engine that routinely delivered 25+ MPG, and also routinely passed the "nickel balance test" for smoothness. these records are insane, and the ZR-1 Corvette beat the previous records that were held for 50 years and were done with a special built Car the Mormon Meteor that had a 1570 CI Aircraft engine in it! While these Cadillac engines are great, they are not remotely in the same class as the LT-5. the Cadillac Northstar was based heavily off of the LT-5, and is a great engine also, but it was not hand built as the LT-5 was, and suffered a problematic oil leak that was very hard to deal with, because of ironically a very durable skirted block design.
And they still sell for around $35k on BAT. Where everything else seems to have tripled in selling price since January 2021.
@@drippinglass the last really nice one I saw on BAT went for $75.5k which with fees is well over $80k….still a relative bargain, and this one was outlier nice.
👍🏻
But it is hardly suitable for use in a luxury car, and I don't mean a stiffly sprung compact, I am talking about a REAL luxury car.
@@michaelbenardo5695 as mentioned, the Northstar is a close derivative of the LT-5 and was used in some of the best GM luxury cars for nearly 20 years from 1992-2011 in the Cadillac Deville to Oldsmobile, to Pontiac. Delivering silky smooth performance from 215 to a whopping 459 HP, and terrific fuel economy. The 1997 Deville were cushy boats, that would absolutely roast the front tires.
@@WydGlydJim I'm talking about the TRADITIONAL luxury cars. Cars with rear drive, a separate frame, extreme weight, and huge size. The Northstar, which was not a very reliable engine, was much too small at less than 300 cubic inches.
Just got me a coupe deville1970 with the 472! I’m in love
My '57 Coupe De Ville has a '75 Cadillac 500 motor with Edelbrock intake, properly set up quadrajet and no air pump or AC. Tip in is perfect.
My first car was a '70 Coupe deville. That 472 was smooth. The throttle response at around town speeds was intentionally soft given the age of the average Cadillac buyer. But crack open the back barrels on the Quadrajet and bye-bye 460 Lincoln! Super reliable car except for the points. Always carried a spare.
John Egan from Jaguar in an interview from 1981. He always admired Cadillac's Mass Production quality. Gearboxes and the lack of knowledge of the 4-6-8 issues helped. The engine itself was so tough
There is a guy who says the 8-6-4 can work but it requires fiddling which Cad owners are not going to do.
I've had two 472 engines ran great
Great engines I've had Cadillacs with all of them, 70 Eldorado, 73/75 Sedan Deville's, 77, 78 Sedan Deville's and Fleetwood... and even the 455 Buicks were great in my 72 225.... the 350 is also a great engine, the 472's had some noisy lifter issues, but if you used the proper oil... you were good.
I had a 68 Conv...the 472 was fantastic
thats a hard one to call as far as pre 75 engines buick 455 vs pontiac 455 vs pontiac 400/6x vs chevy 427 vs chevy 454 large oval my favorite caddy motor is the 390 in my 61 series 62 i love the sound of gear timing and its not bad on gas lol
There are a number of great engines. Saying this as a past & current owner: As for the Cads, the 472 / 500 are very good (note I didn't mention the later, lighter weight displacements w/too much smog equipment on them) The one "problem" (such as it is) is the oil pump being in the timing cover. This is design is shared with Buick, and Corvair. All have naturally low oil pressure. This is not problem, as long as they're used as intended (As passenger cars). The engineers of these three brands seemed to share O.P. opinions with the NASCAR guys---10 PSI / 1000 RPM .
It's amazing that it took so long to adjust to getting power from engines at lower emissions levels using unleaded gas, but I'm sure glad that it happened. There's an interesting story behind the use of the lead additive. They say that anyone alive before 1980 has some degree of lead in their bodies. There are even studies showing a reduction in violent crime corresponding with the phase out of leaded gas. Now we're at the dawn of electric propulsion they'll probably find issues with being exposed to such strong electrical fields, maybe?
Like when Tesla owners start coming down with colorectal cancer (anal cancer) from sitting atop those batteries ??
Getting lots of power with low emissions requires a fully computerized fuel system and a fully computerized ignition system. There was no sure-fire tech for that that was suitable for mass production at that time. You don't need lead for power, you need it to protect the valves and seats. Stellite does not need it, but it was EXPENSIVE, and EXPENSIVE is what mass-producers tried to avoid.
@@michaelbenardo5695 - TEL was first patented as an octane booster; the patent didn’t mention valve seats. The reason for raising the octane is to raise compression potential, and thusly POWER …
@@sking2173 Originally that was true, but it was later discovered to do so, and there were other ways to increase octane, it was more expensive though. Lead was cheap.
@@angelitavaldellon7600 - Yep, including the addition of ethanol to petrol …
Sitting less than 10 feet away from me now on the other side of the wall is our 1980 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham D'Elegance with the 368 engine..same firemist blue color and wire wheel covers as the '80 Coupe DeVille featured in your video. In addition to being the last (non V8-6-4 Caddy big block), it was also one of the latest appearances of the Turbo 400 transmissions in a GM passenger car.
My family had two of these Cadillacs resting side-by-side in the garage for decades...one was the above-noted '80, and the other was a 1979 Cedar Firemist Fleetwood Brougham with the 425. The 425 was definitely the stronger of the two cars, as expected. One notable memory happened in May of 1980 following the eruption of Mount St. Helens here in Washington State. That eruption bathed us in ash; so much so that many drivers affixed aftermarket outside auxiliary air cleaners to their vehicles. We continued to drive the '79 (incidentally without any of this supplemental equipment) until one day when I discovered that a dealership service tech had mistakenly left the air filter element out of the air cleaner housing during the previous service job performed just prior to the mountain blowing. At that point, we were nearly 3,000 miles later and approaching the next service date. We were, of course, shocked and not happy. Nevertheless, that engine lasted another 350,000 miles without incident.
Replaced a Fuel Pump and put a Carter on it ran smooth. At 195,000 replaced original Converter and it was like giving it a tune-up!