Yeah, I ment 4.1L Little typo there, wow :shock: But I'd have to agree with regalman, mabey a motor swap is ouside your ability. I'd at least have someone help you or give you some pointers.regalman4925 said:
What Can I Put In My 79??????
- Thread starter WCN8TIVE
- Start date
- Status
Cadillac used the worthless POS 4.1 in RWD applications starting in 1982 and ending around 1984 or 85, and the FWD version of this engine can also be had in a 4.9 liter in addition to the 4.1 and 4.5. Either way, for the love of all things sacred and holy, DO NOT GET ONE OF THESE ENGINES!!!!!!! They are garbage and there is no aftermarket support for them.
The Cad I was referring to is the 368(80-81), 425 (77-79), 472 (67-74) or 500 (70-76). You need a swap mount setup ( I think the company that makes them is called Maximum Torque Specialties, but am not sure) and a BOP bellhousing transmission-preferably a TH350 or TH400 as the overdrives will not take the torque of the better ones without modification. If you get one from the mid 70's and leave it stock, it is not worth your while. They use lots of gas and do not have a lot of power stock.
Do yourself a favor, just get a 350 SBC. It's cheap and parts abound for it. If you are new to engine swaps this will be the easiest one to do other than just replacing the V6 with a similar unit. The Cad is not for the beginner, and is best left to those who are willing to science it out or those who just want to be ironic. Don't get me wrong, the Caddy has loads of potential, but information is no where near as easy to come by as it is for a Chevy 350. One more thing: If you plan to do this, be sure you have another vehicle to drive ( preferably a pickup, van or station wagon) so that you can go get parts and deal with life. Swaps take longer than you think to do right, and what seems like ti will take a weekend can sometimes turn into weeks.
The Cad I was referring to is the 368(80-81), 425 (77-79), 472 (67-74) or 500 (70-76). You need a swap mount setup ( I think the company that makes them is called Maximum Torque Specialties, but am not sure) and a BOP bellhousing transmission-preferably a TH350 or TH400 as the overdrives will not take the torque of the better ones without modification. If you get one from the mid 70's and leave it stock, it is not worth your while. They use lots of gas and do not have a lot of power stock.
Do yourself a favor, just get a 350 SBC. It's cheap and parts abound for it. If you are new to engine swaps this will be the easiest one to do other than just replacing the V6 with a similar unit. The Cad is not for the beginner, and is best left to those who are willing to science it out or those who just want to be ironic. Don't get me wrong, the Caddy has loads of potential, but information is no where near as easy to come by as it is for a Chevy 350. One more thing: If you plan to do this, be sure you have another vehicle to drive ( preferably a pickup, van or station wagon) so that you can go get parts and deal with life. Swaps take longer than you think to do right, and what seems like ti will take a weekend can sometimes turn into weeks.
i am gonna partially disagree with the cadillac motors sucking. yes they suck for performance and rwd BUT they were excelent fwd stock motors. the 4.1 is said to suck, i use to have a 84 eldorado biaritz and it had the 4.1 in it, long story short i sold it with just under 200,000 miles and the guy i sold it to has been driving it everyday for that last 3+ years, it has to have 250 at least. i currently have a 90 eldo with the 4.5, very very good dependable and powerful motor for these cars. my buddie had a 4.9 with close to 300,000 at time of trade in. they are good, just not for a g body. the 4.1 was produced up til like 87ish and then the 4.5 came out but the good 4.5 was in late 89 and 90 only i think a and the 4.9 was 90 till mid 94 and then the first generation of the northstar came out. in case you have not noticed i am a huge fan of cadillac, they make great sport luxury dailys!
only caddy engines id run are the 472 or 500 i dislike the rest of them.why not go nuts and get a gmc big v6 they made them from 305 ci to 478ci and its a v6 but the size of a small block but they make some big torque numbers low like 1500 to 2000rpm
The later variants used in the FWD cars may be OK, but they were horrible when they fist came out in 1982. My grandfather had one and it bent the crank at 28k miles!
andrew is right gmc did make big v-6 engines in the 72 and older trucks they were sbc bellhousing pattern, 305ci and 351ci and 401ci and 478ci
they were called the gmc v-6 engines
alot of ppl run them still
the 305 and 351 were found in the 1/2 through 1 ton pickups
they are neat engines, gobs of low end torque and at low RPM
would be just right to make up for the crappy rear axle ratios that the '70s and '80s cars got
caddy did it right though, they put bigger low end low rpm torque engines in their big cars with crappy ratios such as 2.56 commonly, like in the 79 devilles 2.56 th400 425ci in which i owned(a 6 door limo one) and that sucker flewwwwwwwww like it was a pinto with a hot 427 in it
also the 403 2.56 th350 '77 Electra i had it was no slow poke either whatsoever,
a billion times faster off the line than any 305 chevy powered 2.56/2.73 car ever could dream to be, it could pull its own weight plus a house and still be fast as hell
soo....
its too bad though that everyone has demo derbied all these great tough high torque engine powered cars
its a really sad thing, all these great engines and cars gone forever no one seems to care at all
complete total waste
besides post-early '70s chevy cars(trucks were better low RPM torque and deeper axle ratio almost always), the other divisions had the right idea with gobs of low rpm torque
see these pages to see what the v-6 gmc engines were:
http://www.6066gmcguy.org/V6powered.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_V6_engine
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/show ... ?p=2278239
good luck
they were called the gmc v-6 engines
alot of ppl run them still
the 305 and 351 were found in the 1/2 through 1 ton pickups
they are neat engines, gobs of low end torque and at low RPM
would be just right to make up for the crappy rear axle ratios that the '70s and '80s cars got
caddy did it right though, they put bigger low end low rpm torque engines in their big cars with crappy ratios such as 2.56 commonly, like in the 79 devilles 2.56 th400 425ci in which i owned(a 6 door limo one) and that sucker flewwwwwwwww like it was a pinto with a hot 427 in it
also the 403 2.56 th350 '77 Electra i had it was no slow poke either whatsoever,
a billion times faster off the line than any 305 chevy powered 2.56/2.73 car ever could dream to be, it could pull its own weight plus a house and still be fast as hell
soo....
its too bad though that everyone has demo derbied all these great tough high torque engine powered cars
its a really sad thing, all these great engines and cars gone forever no one seems to care at all
complete total waste
besides post-early '70s chevy cars(trucks were better low RPM torque and deeper axle ratio almost always), the other divisions had the right idea with gobs of low rpm torque
see these pages to see what the v-6 gmc engines were:
http://www.6066gmcguy.org/V6powered.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_V6_engine
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/show ... ?p=2278239
good luck
What an odd engine! Looks like ir was the progenitor of the W head MK1 348/409 V8's used in cars from 1958-65.
- Status
Similar threads
