[GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

145 views
Skip to first unread message

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 2:46:12 PM1/9/12
to GMCnet
While looking over some of the various For Sale lists of GMC's, I have
noticed that a number of them have the Cadillac 500 engine, what can folks
tell me about that engine ( how do they compare with the 403 and the 455 ),
pros and cons of using it - and other things like that?
.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.

_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist

gene Fisher

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 3:59:17 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
here is an old post on the subject
--------------------
.
.--------------------------------
*Dyno tests*
----------------------------------------------------------
I was digging through some old GM test data and thought I would share the
following:

*Olds 455* test data with an uncertain pedigree (Toro or not? Test
conditions?) and it showed a torque at 2800 and below of about *398*. No
data below 2000, but other tests implied a peak torque at 1200 to 1600 rpm.
Peak hp was 234 at 3600.

*Cadillac 500 EFI* - peak torque *395* at 1200 and 1600 rpm. Peak hp 225
at 3600. The engine was knock limited and spark was retarded about 10
degrees from MBT at most rpms. Both of these are consistent with other big
GM engines built at the time(except for the knock-limited part). Max
torquewas always below 2000 rpm and peak hp was never above 4000.
That's not
counting performance engines like the Chevy 427 or the Chrysler Hemi, of
course.

Olds 350 EFI (Cadillac Seville) - peak torque 290 at 1200, peak power 190
at 4400 and still rising. Not knock limited.

If the Cad 500 were tested on today's fuels would it be knock-limited?
Don't know.
.
Hopefully this data will be useful to somebody. GaryC
-------------------------------

I love, ( I do it because I can), but it would be hard to make an informed
decision on these engines based upon the reported performance vs the dyno
test data.....

gene

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Greg and April
<gregan...@earthlink.net>wrote:

--
Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html

Sammy Williams

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 4:10:00 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Some just want that big engine (Id imagine bigger displacement and
larger engine braggin' rights)

S. Williams

Howard and Sue

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 5:41:46 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Here is the Dyno pull for our built 455.
Torque 477.1 at 3100
H P 349.3 at 4600
Sweet spot just where I like it at 3100 RPM
Jim B's first cam " Comp Cams", roller rockers, double roller timing Chain,
Mondelo push rods, Howell FI, Stock Intake, Stock Exhaust, Dick Paterson
Distributor.
Running 3:70 final drive from Jim K.
Howard
Alpine Ca
26' Canyon Lands
Not Quite stock

Rob Mueller

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 5:46:31 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Greg,

Here's an article by Larry Weidner and Jim Wagner on swapping to a Caddy 500.

http://www.gmcws.org/Tech/Caddy_Swap.pdf

Here's a link to two companies that are Caddy 500 specialists:

Maximum Torque Specialties - http://www.500cid.com/

The Cad Co - http://www.cad500parts.com/

Unfortunately the Master Caddy builder, Jerry Potter, has retired.

There is a book entitled "Big Inch Cadillac" which has a bunch of good dope on how to build a 540 C.I. Caddy. I did a Google search
but it appears it's out of print.

As far as the advantages to swapping to a Caddy goes I would suggest that you do a Google search for Cadillac 500 as it will return
a ton of articles about that engine.

I reckon I read every bloody one of them and came to the conclusion that IMHO the Caddy 500 is the best engine that GM ever built.

Oh oh, I'm in trouble now!

I have one here in Sydney will be setup to run on AutoGas.

Sammy, JimK out in Fremont has an EFI / twin turbo charged / Caddy 540 in his personal GMC. HE has the braggin' rights so it's not
worth anyone else's time to try for them! ;-)

Regards,
Rob M.

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg and April

While looking over some of the various For Sale lists of GMC's, I have
noticed that a number of them have the Cadillac 500 engine, what can folks
tell me about that engine ( how do they compare with the 403 and the 455 ),
pros and cons of using it - and other things like that?

Greg

Howard and Sue

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 5:54:31 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Its also a nice built engine from Cadillac.
More nickel in the casting of the engine and heads.
Stronger crank and other stuff ?
Time for my nap CRS here.
If I blow up the 455 I may replace it with the 500 Cadillac I have out of a
Eldo.
Not planning on doing that soon.
Howard
Alpine CA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sammy Williams" <bd5...@gmail.com>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 13:10
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

Paul Leavitt

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 8:25:30 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

Never had a GMC with a 455. But my 78 Royale came with a really great runnin 403. Did a full pull,,,,Manny tranny, .020 over 500 Caddy. Or 507ci. Edle intake and a "bunch" of other mods. Before it felt like a big motorhome. Now it feels like a van. I,ve had a 33' 16000lb southwind with a 454. A 24' Broughm with a 460(hugh sucking sound,,,8mpg always,,,not 8.2 or 8.5) and a 21' Starflight with a V10(now that was a hotrod). The GMC now drives like a loaded van!!!! Stops real well now with the Hubler conversion!,,,,,PL

Rob Mueller

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 8:48:13 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Paul,

So CADDY powered GMC's rule! ;-)

Regards,
Rob M.

gene Fisher

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 9:18:29 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
ever wonder why Mondello, and Patterson, ( our two most famous builders) ,
never liked Cads. and still do not ?

gene

--

Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html

Gerald Wheeler

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 9:24:07 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

ever wonder why Mondello, and Patterson, ( our two most famous builders) ,
never liked Cads. and still do not ?

No, because they made their fortunes selling Olds parts (and still do).

JR Wheeler NC/OR

> [Original Message]


> From: gene Fisher <mr.er...@gmail.com>
> To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>

> Date: 1/9/2012 9:18:40 PM


> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?
>

> ever wonder why Mondello, and Patterson, ( our two most famous builders) ,
> never liked Cads. and still do not ?
>
> gene
>

gene Fisher

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 10:15:51 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
>
> No, because they made their fortunes selling Olds parts (and still do).
>
> or the worlds best engine ;>)

did not like 403 much either,
bad cooling , viper,vampire, etc, or something, like the cad ;>)

gene


> JR Wheeler NC/OR
>


--
Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html

Rob Mueller

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 10:19:45 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Gene,

For the same reason that Maximum Torque Specialties, and the Cadillac Company don't like Oldsmobile engines! ;-)

Also there are:

Chevy people and Ford people

Holden people and Ford people

Maserati people and Ferrari people

Honda people and Nissan people

Jaguar people and Aston Martin people

And so on ad infinitum - or at least until you run out permutations! ;-)

Regards,
Rob M.

-----Original Message-----
From: gene Fisher

ever wonder why Mondello, and Patterson, ( our two most famous builders) ,
never liked Cads. and still do not ?

gene

_______________________________________________

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 10:20:02 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
They are out of print but I found 2 used copies of Big Inch Cadillac @ $35
US.

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?keyword=Big+Inch+Cadillac&mtype=B&hs.x=33&hs.y=17

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=6220343344&afn_sr=para&para_l=0
.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Mueller" <robmu...@iinet.net.au>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>

Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 15:46
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

> There is a book entitled "Big Inch Cadillac" which has a bunch of good
> dope on how to build a 540 C.I. Caddy. I did a Google search
> but it appears it's out of print.
>

_______________________________________________

Rob Mueller

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 10:39:17 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Greg,

Thanks, I already have one and have read it cover to cover a number of times. Information in that book (along with other sources)
lead me to state "Caddy 500's Rule!" ;-)

Regards,
Rob M.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg and April

They are out of print but I found 2 used copies of Big Inch Cadillac @ $35
US.

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?keyword=Big+Inch+Cadillac&mtype=B&hs.x=33&hs.y=17

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=6220343344&afn_sr=para&para_l=0

Greg H.

gene Fisher

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 10:56:01 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Don't get me wrong, I really don't care,

and this is not my field, so I lean on others ;>)

but it is hard to call the cad "the worlds greatest engine..

example:


Like the Olds 455. Compared with a 350 Chevy's 3.48-inch stroke, a 454
Chevy's 4.0-inch stroke, a 455 Buick's 3.90-inch stroke, and even a 500
Cadillac's 4.060-inch stroke, the Olds 455 enjoys a monster 4.25-inch
stroke. To duplicate that with most other brands means stepping into an
aftermarket stroker crank.

What's it translate into? According to Mondello's general manager, Lynn
Wellfringer, "You just can't duplicate the torque curve of an Olds
big-block with any other brand."


--
Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html

Dave Mumert

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 11:28:12 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Hi Gene

The Cadillac 472 has a 4.060 inch stroke, the 500 has a 4.304, both have a
4.300 inch bore.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?
>

> Don't get me wrong, I really don't care,
>
> and this is not my field, so I lean on others ;>)
>
> but it is hard to call the cad "the worlds greatest engine..
>
> example:
>
>
> Like the Olds 455. Compared with a 350 Chevy's 3.48-inch stroke, a 454
> Chevy's 4.0-inch stroke, a 455 Buick's 3.90-inch stroke, and even a 500
> Cadillac's 4.060-inch stroke, the Olds 455 enjoys a monster 4.25-inch
stroke.
> To duplicate that with most other brands means stepping into an
aftermarket
> stroker crank.
>
> What's it translate into? According to Mondello's general manager, Lynn
> Wellfringer, "You just can't duplicate the torque curve of an Olds
big-block
> with any other brand."

_______________________________________________

Rob Mueller

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 11:58:27 PM1/9/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Gene,

We're just a havin' friendly chat about the merits of the Caddy and the Olds; BOTH of which are good engines!

As far as "but it is hard to call the cad "the worlds greatest engine."

I AGREE 100%!!!

I noted that the "Caddy 500 is the best engine that GM ever built"

I've read a ton of articles on the 500 to form that opinion. Here's an article that I read which provided the icing on the cake!

YES, I realize that this engine would be TOTALLY inappropriate in a GMC. It convinced me to follow Jerry Potters advice as far as
how to build the LPG engine for The Blue Streak.

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/0609em_cadillac_performance_parts_engine/viewall.html

The Caddy 500 is a great engine; however, it is far from the world's greatest engine. That discussion could / would go on FOREVER!

Regards,
Rob M.

-----Original Message-----
From: gene Fisher

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 12:15:10 AM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
<shrug> You have the advantage on me then.

I understand basic 4 cycle theory and I can change oil and gap a sparkplug,
but if I ever really open an engine up, the magic smoke goes away, and it
never runs again.

Things like torque and horsepower, are nebulous things that do not make any
sense to me, other than if you want a vehicle to move, you have to have some
of both - to much of one and not enough of the other and you may not get
anyplace, anytime soon.

This is why engine specs may as well be ancient Egyptian for all that I can
make heads or tails of it, and web searches on them only confuse me
further - I just am not able to separate the wheat from the chaff, with this
subject.

.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Mueller" <robmu...@iinet.net.au>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 20:39
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?


Greg,

Thanks, I already have one and have read it cover to cover a number of
times. Information in that book (along with other sources)
lead me to state "Caddy 500's Rule!" ;-)

Regards,
Rob M.

_______________________________________________

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 12:22:55 AM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Personally, my vote for worlds greatest engine is for a UP 4-8-8-4 "Big
Boy" - more than 6550 tons of engineering WOW!

Second runner up would have to be for a UP 4-6-6-4 "Challenger".

LOL
.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Mueller" <robmu...@iinet.net.au>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 21:58
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

> The Caddy 500 is a great engine; however, it is far from the world's
> greatest engine. That discussion could / would go on FOREVER!
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
>

_______________________________________________

Johnny Bridges

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 7:33:20 AM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
It depends on what you're used to, as well as what yopu're gonna do with it.  For a given displacement, an undersquare engine tendfs toward torque and power peaks at lower RPM than a square or oversquare design - at trhe cost of top end RPM due to increased piston speed.  As long as it's a big slow turning torquey design, you can put giant bearings in it without worrying about high speed friction or iling, and the thing will run happily pretty much forever - a great idea for a GMC, and not a bad one for a large sedan that Grandma and Grandpa tool down to the local pub in silence and sikly smooth comfort.  Surely you can hotrod it, but it's a silk purse form a sow's ear.    And, what's sillieer than a one eared sow with a silk purse anyhow?
 
--johnny
 
'76 23'transmode norris
'76 palm beach

From: Rob Mueller <robmu...@iinet.net.au>
To: gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

Gary Casey

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 9:58:59 AM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
I'll certainly have to agree with Rob and Gene on this one.  There may be reasons why the Cad is slightly better than the Olds, but overall the differences are small, in my opinion.  The biggest design defect I see in the Olds is the siamezed exhaust ports.  Too much localized heat and it compromises the intake port locations.  Many of the GM engines had the distributor at the rear and that was to keep it away from water splash.  Does that matter?  Dunno.  The Cad block may be stronger, but is that a big advantage unless you're going for big horsepower?  The crank is probably stiffer on account of the large main bearing diameter, but large main bearings also produce more friction.  And then there is the myth about longer strokes giving more torque.  I'm not sure where that came from, but I suspect that the first person that stroked and engine noticed that the torque went up, but the peak power didn't by much.  Why?  Torque is primarily a
function of displacement and peak power is more a function of valve area.  So increasing the displacement without a corresponding increase in breathing capability will increase torque but not power.  Of course, every myth has some basis in fact.  In this case increasing the stroke without changing the connecting rod length will increase the piston acceleration at TDC.  This tends to capture more of the pressure energy by spending less time near TDC.  I suspect this effect might be in the 1 percent or less category.  And piston speed is an overrated "problem."  Note that some of the highest-rpm production engines, like the small Honda 4 cyl, are undersquare - they are able to breath at the high rpms on account of the 4-valve design and  piston speed isn't a limitation.  Piston speed used to be related to piston ring wear, but these days I don't think it is much of a issue.  Which engine has lower engine friction?  Not enough difference between
big bore or long stroke engines.  So what's the world's greatest pushrod V8 (to narrow the field down)?  It would be hard to beat the LS family.  After that I like the big-block chevy on account of the spread valves. - but the same is true of the new Hemi.  After those three what's next?  The overhead cam Fords - but they aren't in the same category.  Big bore engines allow more room for big valves, but the block is bigger and the loading on the crank is higher for the same power.  The Olds 455 has a longer stroke than others because the design of the 350 came first and it is cheaper to raise the deck, increasing the stroke, than it is to space the bores further apart.  No magic or exotic design philosophy involved.  So....??
Gary

From Rob:

I AGREE 100%!!!

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/0609em_cadillac_performance_parts_engine/viewall.html

Regards,
Rob M.

example:

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 3:29:28 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
So when it concerns a GMC, when is having more horsepower a good thing and
when is having more torque a good thing?

I'm not just throwing it out there, I'm trying to understand the how both of
them would affect a GMC at any given time.

.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.


----- Original Message -----
From: "gene Fisher" <mr.er...@gmail.com>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 13:59
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

gene

_______________________________________________

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 3:31:35 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
It sounds a bit like you are saying that a Cad 500 in its self is neither
good nor bad in a GMC, as it depends more on what was done to the Cad 500
when it was installed - is this correct?
.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Johnny Bridges" <jhbr...@ymail.com>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:33
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

It depends on what you're used to, as well as what yopu're gonna do with it.
For a given displacement, an undersquare engine tendfs toward torque and
power peaks at lower RPM than a square or oversquare design - at trhe cost
of top end RPM due to increased piston speed. As long as it's a big slow
turning torquey design, you can put giant bearings in it without worrying
about high speed friction or iling, and the thing will run happily pretty
much forever - a great idea for a GMC, and not a bad one for a large sedan
that Grandma and Grandpa tool down to the local pub in silence and sikly
smooth comfort. Surely you can hotrod it, but it's a silk purse form a sow's
ear. And, what's sillieer than a one eared sow with a silk purse anyhow?

--johnny

'76 23'transmode norris
'76 palm beach

Howard and Sue

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 3:34:37 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Torque for pulling
Howard

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg and April" <gregan...@earthlink.net>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 3:37:26 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
At higher RPM or lower?
.

Greg H.

_______________________________________________

Howard and Sue

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 4:15:29 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Greg;
I'll resend the information on our 455
Torque 477.1 at 3100 RPM's
This is the RPM range we want for pulling.
At that engine speed we are traveling at about 65 MPH
Using Jim K's 3:70 final drive
HP is 349.4 at 4600 RPM's
We don't need no stinking horse power.
We need torque to pull our motor homes.
Torque is what make the Diesel engines so nice for pulling large loads.
You need RPM for speed.
As in NASCAR, drag racing or rice burners.
My love for the 455 started with jet boats,
With jet boats you need power "torque!" in the lower RPM range.
I built all of our 455's to run in the 3,500 to 4.000 range and kicked some
butt on the lower Colorado River.
It was me or my friend with his 454 Chevy that would take on the kids ever
afternoon.
Howard
PS This is why we don't need some high RPM engine builder.
We need some one who knows how to build torque engines.

gene Fisher

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 4:19:03 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
the good news is,
we have choices that will keep GMCs on the road forever

there is not a nickel's difference between these two,
but
more important is what has to be done to make a change
and
that you are able to make a change

gene

--

Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html

Daniel Jarvis

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 4:22:47 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall.
Torque is how far you drag the wall with you.

:-D

Dan in NC
Caregiver to a 1976 Eleganza II
"Tzetze Fly"

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 4:35:59 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
I understand that torque pulls.

What I don't understand ( and I really am trying to ) is whether the
differences between the Cady 500 and the Olds 455 are enough to choose
between a coach with the Cady or a coach with the 455, when they appear
similar in most other respects.

The question is not about swapping an engine, but choosing between one coach
for sale and another coach for sale, when I'm evaluating them online.

Bob de Kruyff

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 4:45:20 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

""Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall.
Torque is how far you drag the wall with you.

:d

Dan in NC
Caregiver to a 1976 Eleganza II
"Tzetze Fly"

""

Ha ha --that's a good way to put it. Actually HP=(T x RPM)/5252, so they are joined at the hip. The question is how you want to distribute it. Personally I like a bit higher RPM engine. Some of you may have had an older Dodge/Cummins truck combination. Those were very low RPM diesels and once you were over 50mph, you couldn't pass anyone since you had no mere gears and no more RPM left. That's sort of an extreme case in one direction.
--
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ

Howard and Sue

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 4:48:03 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Greg;
No differences;
Its just that you can punch out the Cad to a larger c i then the Olds.
Plus 455's are harder to find if you need a new or replacement block
For me it what "trips you trigger"
I have the Cad 500 as a back up.
Plus I pick it up cheap with a 425 trans include!
Now some of the Cad guys may say some thing different.
Some things better then the Olds is this.
The Cad has more nickel in the block and head casting, larger crank and not
having to deal with the center exhaust ports.
Parts about the same?

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 4:48:21 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Are we basically like the differences between kinetic energy vs. working
energy?
.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Jarvis" <TheJ...@carolina.rr.com>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 14:22
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

> Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall.
> Torque is how far you drag the wall with you.
>
> :-D
>
> Dan in NC
> Caregiver to a 1976 Eleganza II
> "Tzetze Fly"
>

_______________________________________________

Howard and Sue

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 4:50:14 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Works for me!
Howard

Rob Mueller

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 4:59:47 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Greg,

I appreciate you providing the response below as it indicates that we've been wasting our time providing technical responses to
questions you have posed as by your own admission below you don't comprehend them.

Regards,
Rob M.

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg and April

<shrug> You have the advantage on me then.

I understand basic 4 cycle theory and I can change oil and gap a sparkplug,
but if I ever really open an engine up, the magic smoke goes away, and it
never runs again.

Things like torque and horsepower, are nebulous things that do not make any
sense to me, other than if you want a vehicle to move, you have to have some
of both - to much of one and not enough of the other and you may not get
anyplace, anytime soon.

This is why engine specs may as well be ancient Egyptian for all that I can
make heads or tails of it, and web searches on them only confuse me
further - I just am not able to separate the wheat from the chaff, with this
subject.

Greg H.

Rob Mueller

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 5:06:57 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Greg,

Taking into consideration what you have noted regarding your mechanical skills I'll give you the simple answer.

Maintaining a GMC isn't easy, adding a Caddy 500 to the mix further complicates the issue.

Regards,
Rob M.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg and April

I understand that torque pulls.

What I don't understand ( and I really am trying to ) is whether the
differences between the Cady 500 and the Olds 455 are enough to choose
between a coach with the Cady or a coach with the 455, when they appear
similar in most other respects.

The question is not about swapping an engine, but choosing between one coach
for sale and another coach for sale, when I'm evaluating them online.

Greg H.

_______________________________________________

georgeDV

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 8:06:53 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

Rob
A commendable and appropriate response without resorting to profanity
even tho it might have been deserved.
We all have been quite patient with some members

George DV
76 Glenbrook
455 HEI Alcoas

> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4733 - Release Date: 01/09/12

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 5:18:35 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
It doesn't stop me from trying to understand, nor does it stop me from being
able to take care of much of the peripheral stuff.

I own a '86 Canadian LandCruiser, in the middle of the US - it's not like I
am able to just take it to the dealer.

.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Mueller" <robmu...@iinet.net.au>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 15:06
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

Tom Eckert

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 5:28:35 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Reminds me of how I used to explain accelerated/rapid depreciation vs.
standard/long term depreciation at AT&T. Standard depreciation was when a
telephone pole rotted away from termites, accelerated depreciation was when
the pole was taken out by an out of control high speed car hitting it.

For the younger group in the class it was the difference in your '69
Chevelle 396/GTO Judge 400 (fill in as appropriate) or GMC 455 frame
(content) slowly rusting away vs. crashing into the telephone pole.

You had to "Keep It Simple for...


Tom Eckert N2VWN
73 Glacier
Oakland, TN.

Rob Mueller

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 5:29:38 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Greg,

I wish you all the best in your quest to get a GMC.

Goodbye,
Rob M.

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg and April

It doesn't stop me from trying to understand, nor does it stop me from being
able to take care of much of the peripheral stuff.

I own a '86 Canadian LandCruiser, in the middle of the US - it's not like I
am able to just take it to the dealer.

Greg H.

Bob de Kruyff

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 5:54:38 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

""Are we basically like the differences between kinetic energy vs. working
energy?
.

Greg H.

""

No, torque is force while horsepower is energy. It's the same as wattage, voltage and amperage


--
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 6:02:23 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
That is a perspective that I understand better. Thank you.
.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob de Kruyff" <NEXT...@AOL.COM>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 15:54
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?


>
>

Dennis Sexton

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 6:25:39 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

Greg,

If you are thinking about which engine/coach might be best for you to maintain -- with the original configuration engine, you can generally use the GMC maintenance manual as a go-by. Plus, you can call JimK or JimB and they can give you phone instructions for a "stock" engine.

Once you go to a Cadillac engine -- while there are many experts -- the type of help and availability of help changes.

I love all of the various combinations -- but I am keeping my 73 coach engine/drive train as near stock as possible. It's easier for me to self-maintain.

Your experience/thoughts may be different.

Dennis
--
Dennis S
73 Painted Desert 230
Germantown, TN

Dave Mumert

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 6:49:59 PM1/10/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Hi Greg

I think the engine choice is far enough down the check list as to be pretty
much irrelevant.

If I had to choose between two similar coaches a '78 and a '76, I would pick
the '78 even though it has a 403 engine and the '76 has a 455. Picking
between two identical '78s one with a 403 and one with a 500, I would still
pick the 403. I would sooner have the unmodified unit.

I think the condition of the coach far more important than the size of the
engine.

In the unlikely event you find two perfect coaches and the only difference
is the engine you may be forced to make a decision based on the engine.
Let us know if this happens as there are a number of folks looking for
perfect coaches.

Dave

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 1:11:01 AM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Dennis,

That, is the information that I needed. With performance numbers flying
around as thick as mosquitoes in Florida or Texas, and the emphasis that
they are often given, it's easy to overlook other factors.

Thank you.

.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Sexton" <dennis...@aol.com>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 16:25
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?


>
>

Jim Kanomata

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 1:15:47 AM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Back in 1990 was when I installed the 500 cad as People in Southern CA
were getting great results going up hills.
We only had a 3.21gears available and when you need to climb 7,000
feet plus to pull out of the hole in California almost every time ,
you look for more climbing power.
Back then it made sense to use the Cad engine, but today I would stick
with a 403/455 Olds engine for the fact that should you need a water
pump for one,you might need to waite for it as in the West there are
not too many cities large enough to stock Cad parts.
We went to 540 cid when I had the engine out after knocking out the
thrust bearing.
Shortly after another tthree plus another , we put on the Twin turbo
set up in 1992. Clarence Buskirk followed suit, but did some other
things and we use to swap information.
I have never had Turbo problem as mine is water cooled unit.
Currently, I sit here with 2 new Turbos as I broke the shaft of the
one turbo and they told me they cannot rebuild it because the shaft is
small and not available.
Since I had over 700,000 miles on them it was time anyway.
I hope to have it all done so I can get to Shawnee, OK in March.

--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
ji...@appliedairfilters.com
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 1:16:25 AM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
LOL - given the way that folks appear to keep tweaking them, I'm not sure
that "the perfect coach" even exists, except as some envisioned, yet
unobtainable goal ( especially since they can no longer be bought new ).

Richard Brown

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 3:59:26 AM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Guess I'll put in my 2 cents. I have a 455 in mine & plan to leave it there. That being said, if my 455 took a dump & I couldn't find a good running one( they're getting harder to find), I like the idea of having a second option. Guess it depends where you are as to which is the most likely to find. The 500 isn't completely bolt-in(front mount from an older motor is needed & some exhaust mods), but it's not that much of a headache from what I hear.
   As far as the differences between the 2, the best thing I can tell you is do research, read all you can find, and ask folks who owned Cadillacs & Toronados. Chances may be that the 500s may have been better maintained, since they were in more expensive cars. When it all boils down to it, the differences between the 2 are hardly noticeable from the front seat. There really isn't any simple answer to which is best. If you can crank it up & go whenever you get the urge & it gets you there & back, It's doing what it's supposed to do.What's under the hatch don't really matter. It's perfect if it's perfect for you.

Richard & Carol Brown

1974 Eleganza SE

"DILLIGAF"

Lindale, Tx. 75771

903-881-0192

Gary Casey

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 7:22:11 AM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Greg,
It's a little bit of a trick question - horsepower is torque times rpm, so they aren't really two independent characteristics.  Horsepower is what makes things happen, so that is the primary factor.  But the shape of the torque curve is also important.  A fairly useful tool is to look at the ratio of the peak torque to the torque at peak power.  That's what the truckers call "torque back-up."  The higher the number the less likely you will need to downshift to maintain speed on a grade.  Most modern diesels are known as "constant horsepower" engines in that the torque increases enough as the rpm drops to make the horsepower constant.  Often the horsepower is constant from about 2,000 down to 1,500 rpm, so in that range there is no incentive to downshift.  An example:  You could easily build a 350 with the same power output as a standard 455.  It would have less torque, so to get the horsepower it would have to be able to run at higher rpm.
 But to get that power more downshifting would be necessary.  Nothing really wrong with that, except for the noise - and the fact that the rpm is selectable only in steps, and those steps might not be right where the driver wants.  So the big torque, low horsepower engine might be easier to drive, but probably no faster that the smaller engine with the same power.  The standard 455 has a torque peak below 2,000, kind of useless since the stall speed of the converter is about 2,000 rpm - the engine could never run below 2,000 at full throttle.

So in a nutshell, power is what counts, but the shape of the power curve is important, too.
Gary Casey

Previously from Greg:


So when it concerns a GMC, when is having more horsepower a good thing and 
when is having more torque a good thing?

I'm not just throwing it out there, I'm trying to understand the how both of 
them would affect a GMC at any given time.

.

Greg H.

Gary Casey

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 7:40:49 AM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Howard,
So what you are saying is that you have 281 horsepower available at 3100 rpm.  That is what enables you to pull the trailer at speed.  Once you put in the requirement for speed you need to be talking about horsepower.  Torque does nothing unless it moves something, and that takes horsepower.  Yes, if you need 281 horsepower and want to limit the rpm to 3100, then you need 477 ft-pounds to create that horsepower.  I'm sure a standard 455 will also pull the same trailer, just not as fast.  You need horsepower.  If you want to accelerate fast you need horsepower.  If the rpm is limited by some outside factor (like wanting to run in 3rd gear at 65 mph, then you need enough torque to get that power.  But I doubt that you need 281 horsepower to pull your trailer at 65 mph.  You would use up all 50 gallons of gas in 140 miles - less than 3 mpg and I doubt that's the situation.  Rather, with that much reserve torque available you can climb a grade or
pass a car without downshifting, and that's a good thing.  But I could easily build a 350 with more than that much power at 5,000 rpm.  I could probably climb the same grade by downshifting to second and running 4,600 rpm.  Nothing wrong with that either.  Power is what moves things (fast).  And we always care about going fast.

No, torque is not what makes diesel engines so good at pulling large loads - fuel economy is.  That's the only reason diesels have replaced gasoline-fueled engines in trucks.

Gary

Greg;
I'll resend the information on our 455
Torque 477.1 at 3100 RPM's
This is the RPM range we want for pulling.
At that engine speed we are traveling at about 65 MPH
Using Jim K's 3:70 final drive
HP is 349.4 at 4600 RPM's
We don't need no stinking horse power.
We need torque to pull our motor homes.
Torque is what make the Diesel engines so nice for pulling large loads.
You need RPM for speed.
As in NASCAR, drag racing or rice burners.
My love for the 455 started with jet boats,
With jet boats you need power "torque!" in the lower RPM range.
I built all of our 455's to run in the 3,500 to 4.000 range and kicked some 
butt on the lower Colorado River.
It was me or my friend with his 454 Chevy that would take on the kids ever 
afternoon.
Howard
PS This is why we don't need some high RPM engine builder.
We need some one who knows how to build torque engines.

Bob de Kruyff

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 10:11:19 AM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

I always equate this discussion to loosening a lug nut. If you exert 100ft lbs and it doesn't turn, you haven't done any work.


--
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ

Matt Colie

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 10:14:20 AM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

Gary Casey wrote on Wed, 11 January 2012 07:40
> <snip>


> No, torque is not what makes diesel engines so good at pulling large loads - fuel economy is.  That's the only reason diesels have replaced gasoline-fueled engines in trucks.
>
> Gary

Gary is absolutely correct on this point. All you have to do is look at truck engine history. You will see that when the cost/capability of the manufacture of diesel fuel system parts came down, the first cost got competitive and the big gassers were gone in short order.

Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie
'73 Glacier 23 Chaumière (say show-me-air) Just about as stock as you will find
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit

Matt Colie

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 10:21:00 AM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

Greg and April wrote on Tue, 10 January 2012 15:31


> It sounds a bit like you are saying that a Cad 500 in its self is neither good nor bad in a GMC, as it depends more on what was done to the Cad 500 when it was installed - is this correct?
>

> Greg H.

Greg,

Now you have the Idea!!

If you had to choose between the two, the choice would not be Cad vs Olds. If you could get a Ken Henderson quality coach with a SB 350 in it, you should seriously consider it.

I myself would not be eager to jump into a coach that had been refit with a Cad 500 just because I could not get parts by number from JimK. And, I am a serious wrench, but I do not like Easter Egg hunts.

If first cost is an issue, you are standing on the wrong pier.

Howard and Sue

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 11:17:55 AM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Gary
Please re-read
I never said I had 281 HP at 3100 RPM
The Torque is 477.1 at 3100 RPM
I run at around 2900 to 3100 RMP
The Horse Power is 349.4 at 4600
If I ran at 4600 RPM the engine would not last.
I said nothing about pulling a trailer.
I said nothing about MPG
By the way we do get around 10 MPH unless we are pulling a grade.
I only passed along what works for me.
I don't think you can get the same Torque out of a gas engine that you can
out of a Diesel engine.
With the price of diesel being higher then the price of gas its about a
brake even as far as the economy.
Please go and enjoy your day.
Thanks You
Howard
Alpine Ca

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Casey" <casey...@yahoo.com>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 04:40
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

Howard and Sue

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 11:23:07 AM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Amen!
If two squirrels in a cage under the hatch works for you.
Go for it.
Howard

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Brown" <wings7...@sbcglobal.net>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 00:59
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

Gary Casey

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 12:32:20 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Howard,
I didn't mean to make it sound like I was disagreeing - in fact, I pretty much go along with what you are doing.  If you recall, hp=torque/5252 (good ol' American units :-).  So 477.1 ft-lb of torque at 3100 rpm is the same as saying 281.6 hp (okay, it rounds off to 282) - you did, in fact say that your engine produce 282 hp at 3100 rpm.  And I believe you said that you ran 3000 rpm at 65 mph.  Okay, I misread to think it was 3100 rpm.  At 3000 it probably puts out very close to 477 ft.-lb of torque, so that is 272 hp, not the 281 that I stated.  Pretty close, though.  My point was that (even pulling a trailer) it certainly can't take that much hp to go 65 mph and therefore you are running at part throttle and therefore the benefit of the extra torque is to be able to climb grades without downshifting.  And that is the real benefit of having all that extra torque (oops, hp).  Your engine produces 399 ft-lb of torque at 4600 rpm, just as you said
(349.4 hp).  My reference to mpg was to show that you couldn't possibly need all 282 hp at 65 mph - just as an example.  Your 10 mpg (at an assumed 65 mph) indicates that it takes about 78 hp to maintain that speed, about what I would expect.  All in all, it looks like you have a pretty nice engine that should make a real hot rod out of the coach - well, compared to mine anyway :-(.

You can't really compare a gas engine to a diesel without a lot of caveats.  All modern diesels are highly supercharged, while most of the gas engines we are talking about (except Jim's !) are not.  A naturally-aspirated diesel will almost certainly not produce the torque of a similar gas engine, and that is because only about 60% of the inhaled oxygen is actually consumed by combustion - a gas engine consumes essentially 100%.  To make it worse, the rpm capability of a diesel is limited by the short time available to mix the fuel and air, not to mention the inherent ignition delay.  Less torque and less rpm means less power.  So why do diesels have the reputation for producing high torque?  In order to produce enough power, they are usually made in higher displacements.  Note that the Cummins engine in the Dodge pickups has a displacement of (I think) 7.5 liters, bigger than the normal 5.7-liter gas engine and it is turbocharged besides.  Still,
it produces less power than the 5.7 (I think I'm right on that).  Most modern truck diesels run manifold pressures way north of 2 atmospheres, and there isn't any fundamental limit to the boost that they can tolerate.  So yes, the Cummins pickup engine might produce more torque than the 5.7 gas, but it's still considered a dog.  I'll bet Jim's 500+ gas engine with the turbos will develop around 1,000 ft-lb of torque - in a lighter weight package than the Cummins.  And still be able to produce way over twice the Cummin's hp.  All in a lighter, smaller and cheaper package.  But if you want to talk fuel consumption, ah, that's different story.  You make a good point on the price of diesel fuel if one is thinking about investing in a diesel.  Diesel fuel contains about 10% more energy per gallon than gasoline and the price is about 10% more the last I looked - a break-even in terms of energy purchased per dollar.  The efficiency of a diesel might
be 30% higher than a gas engine, so it still make economic sense if you drive a LOT of miles.  Like in an 18-wheeler.  In a lightweight car the extra operating expense of a diesel - more expensive batteries, more frequent oil changes, etc. make it a discouraging proposition.  In Europe diesel fuel is subsidized as a way of reducing overall oil consumption, but does that make sense?
take care,
Gary


Gary
Please re-read
I never said I had 281 HP at 3100 RPM
The Torque is 477.1 at 3100 RPM
I run at around 2900 to 3100 RMP
The  Horse Power is 349.4 at 4600
If I ran at 4600 RPM the engine would not last.
I said nothing about pulling a trailer.
I said nothing about MPG
By the way we do get around 10 MPH unless we are pulling a grade.
I only passed along what works for me.
I don't think you can get the same Torque out of a gas engine that you can 
out of a Diesel engine.
With the price of diesel being higher then the price of gas its about a 
brake even as far as the economy.
Please go and enjoy your day.
Thanks You
Howard
Alpine Ca

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Casey" <casey...@yahoo.com>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 04:40
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

Howard,
So what you are saying is that you have 281 horsepower available at 3100 
rpm. That is what enables you to pull the trailer at speed. Once you put in 
the requirement for speed you need to be talking about horsepower. Torque 
does nothing unless it moves something, and that takes horsepower. Yes, if 
you need 281 horsepower and want to limit the rpm to 3100, then you need 477 
ft-pounds to create that horsepower. I'm sure a standard 455 will also pull 
the same trailer, just not as fast. You need horsepower. If you want to 
accelerate fast you need horsepower. If the rpm is limited by some outside 
factor (like wanting to run in 3rd gear at 65 mph, then you need enough 
torque to get that power. But I doubt that you need 281 horsepower to pull 
your trailer at 65 mph. You would use up all 50 gallons of gas in 140 
miles - less than 3 mpg and I doubt that's the situation. Rather, with that 
much reserve torque available you can climb a grade or
pass a car without downshifting, and that's a good thing. But I could 
easily build a 350 with more than that much power at 5,000 rpm. I could 
probably climb the same grade by downshifting to second and running 4,600 
rpm. Nothing wrong with that either. Power is what moves things (fast). And 
we always care about going fast.

No, torque is not what makes diesel engines so good at pulling large loads - 
fuel economy is. That's the only reason diesels have replaced 
gasoline-fueled engines in trucks.

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 2:39:44 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Thank you.

You mention another consideration - engine availability.

Which begs the question - What happens 10-15 years down the line, with fewer
engines and fewer mechanics are available that know how to work on older
engines? What is the closest thing to a modern engine that will go in a
coach?
.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Brown" <wings7...@sbcglobal.net>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:59
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

Larry Davick

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 2:45:38 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
I wouldn't worry too much about that. Even today you can still find parts and a mechanic who will work on a Packard. And by then you'll be 10 - 15 years into GMC bliss. Also, who know where the flux-capacitor development will be in 10 years. We may all be floating over the road!


Larry Davick
Fremont, California
The Mystery Machine
'76 (ish) Palm Beach

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg and April" <>
To: gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:39:44 AM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

Thank you.

You mention another consideration - engine availability.

Which begs the question - What happens 10-15 years down the line, with fewer
engines and fewer mechanics are available that know how to work on older
engines? What is the closest thing to a modern engine that will go in a
coach?
.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 2:57:09 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Gary,

You said - " If you want to accelerate fast you need horsepower. "

Isn't this partially qualified by the weight of the vehicle - or in other
words, you need to have a given horsepower to vehicle weight ratio, to
achieve a given amount of acceleration?

The reason I ask, is because as I mentioned a little earlier in this thread,
I have a Canadian LandCruiser, but more than that it was a 4 cyl diesel, and
while I could get about 20 mpg with it around town, it was only putting out
around 85 hp while the LandCruiser weighed in at around 5000 lbs - I could
get up to 65 mph with it, but it took 3-4 minutes to do so, unless I was
going down hill with a tailwind. But the wife's little car weighs in at
1700-2000 lbs and engine only puts out about 70 hp, but it could outrun the
Land Cruiser from a dead stop.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Casey" <casey...@yahoo.com>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:40
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

If you want to accelerate fast you need horsepower.

_______________________________________________

Sammy Williams

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 3:09:27 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
>>What is the closest thing to a modern engine that will go in a
coach?


Well, the GM (Chevrolet) Vortec series V8 out of the 1 ton trucks
could be "persuaded" to fit, and has twice (hearsay -- at least once)
into GMC coaches.

S. Williams

Be prepared to spend money...

Dennis Sexton

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 3:18:50 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

Greg,
I would argue that is all the more reason to keep it stock. In 10-15 years specialty vendors will be better able to help you maintain a GMC with stock engine. Both parts and service personnel. I say this as I compare GMC motorhomes to british cars and other vintage marques -- more parts available today than 15 years ago.

Besides -- by then, the truly original survivors will be selling at high prices and be special draws at Jackson-Barrett and Pebble Beach. Of course -- that's just my opinion.

Dennis

Greg and April wrote on Wed, 11 January 2012 13:39


> Thank you.
>
> You mention another consideration - engine availability.
>
> Which begs the question - What happens 10-15 years down the line, with fewer
> engines and fewer mechanics are available that know how to work on older
> engines? What is the closest thing to a modern engine that will go in a
> coach?
> .
>
> Greg H.

--
Dennis S
73 Painted Desert 230
Germantown, TN

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 3:19:30 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
I work on the idea that before I buy anything over $75, I make a list of
priorities:

- what it is that I absolutely need to have in the product.
- what would be nice in the product, but do not have to have right away.
- what really doesn't matter.


But in order to identify what those three things are, I have to see what is
being offered, and compare the options against each other.

That way, once I have my list of 'must haves' down, I can keep my eye open
for a product that meets those qualifications - it doesn't matter if the
product shows up 3 months later or 3 years later, I'll know it when I see
it.
.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Colie" <matt7...@gmail.com>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:21
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

If first cost is an issue, you are standing on the wrong pier.

Matt
--

_______________________________________________

Bob de Kruyff

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 3:30:26 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

""I work on the idea that before I buy anything over $75, I make a list of
priorities:

- what it is that I absolutely need to have in the product.
- what would be nice in the product, but do not have to have right away.
- what really doesn't matter.


But in order to identify what those three things are, I have to see what is
being offered, and compare the options against each other.

That way, once I have my list of 'must haves' down, I can keep my eye open
for a product that meets those qualifications - it doesn't matter if the
product shows up 3 months later or 3 years later, I'll know it when I see
it.
.

""

That doesn't work for me when I'm at Applebees happy hour :)


--
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ

Dennis Sexton

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 3:36:15 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

Greg,

Fine to be a deliberate buyer -- go to a GMC rally and attend an open house. Check the black list for local GMC owners and make a friend -- visit their coach and see what you like. Read the archives, look over bdub's and gene's sites for ideas; peruse the GMC photo site.

But, while folks love to talk GMCs -- some questions may wear thin -- especially since many have been asked before by newbies, wannabes and repeated answering can be trying for some members.
For example, how about a modern engine, how about a six speed transmission, anyone ever go all electric, how about fuel injection. how about blah blah blah.....not that we have thought of everything nor discussed everything but I hope you understand.

Respectfully,
Dennis

Greg and April wrote on Wed, 11 January 2012 14:19

--
Dennis S
73 Painted Desert 230
Germantown, TN

Howard and Sue

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 4:11:01 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Dennis;
Thank you.
I have a very good friend who asks questions and then never follows up on
what other tell him.
I still love him.
He also marches to a different drummer.
I'm worn out for now on the subject of Cads, Olds and other engines.
Our 455 GMC works just the way my wife and I like it.
The GMC is just size for the two of us and our small dog.
Again well said and thank you.
Howard

_______________________________________________

Dennis Sexton

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 4:28:42 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

Greg,

Since apparently you are just in the looking stage, may I suggest you start over with the Bovee Guide to GMC's

http://gmceast.com/about/guide/index.html

It contains links to an incredible amount of information -- you can do your inspections/reviews and perhaps direct you search.

You should also try to articulate how you intend to use the GMC -- how many adults, children, pets to travel where, when for how long boon-dock and such -- how do you want to sleep, how large are you, and on and on -- all enter into finding the right coach.
For many, the answer was in finding a decent coach and modifying it to their needs and expectations,

Dennis

--
Dennis S
73 Painted Desert 230
Germantown, TN

Marc Hogenboom

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 4:52:15 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
From: Gary Casey
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:32 AM
To: gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org


Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

" In Europe diesel fuel is subsidized as a way of reducing overall oil

consumption, but does that make sense?"
"take care,"
"Gary"


Sorry Gary, But that is just not true!
There is no subsidizing on any fuel, only a reduction in road tax for VERY
fuel efficient passenger cars.

Marc Hogenboom
'73 Painted Desert Diesel
Madrid NM

Gary Casey

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 4:59:10 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Greg,
There is a simple (?) formula for that.  Acceleration is force divided by mass.  Horsepower is force times speed.  Trick is to get all the units right.  I fussed around until I got acceleration in terms of miles per hour per second (increasing your speed by 1 mph in 1 second takes half the power that increasing 2 mph in the same second takes) Force and speed convert to horsepower.  I'll use weight in pounds for mass.  It comes out to hp=weight x accel x mph x .00012.  If you have a 10,000 pound vehicle traveling 60 mph and you want to be going 61 mph one second later it will take 72 hp.  That's just the laws of physics - and it doesn't include any efficiency losses.  For example, it might take 50 hp just to move at 60 mph, so to travel and 60 and then accelerate at 1 mph/second will require 122 hp.  There could be a 10 percent or so loss in the transmission and driveline, so that would bring it up to about 130 hp.  At 60 mph the engine might
be turning 2600 rpm and is capable of, say, 400 ft-lb of torque, or 198 hp.  It will be able to accelerate at that rate, but won't have a whole lot left over.  As to why your "little car" accelerates faster than your diesel LandCruiser, power/weight tells the story.  The LandCruiser weighs almost 60 pounds per hp, while the little car weighs only 28 pounds per hp.  It should be able to accelerate twice as fast up to a speed at which the aero drag of the LandCruiser becomes significant, after which it will beat it by even more.
Gary
Something to do on a cold, snowy day, I guess :-)  

Gary,

You said - " If you want to accelerate fast you need horsepower. "

Isn't this partially qualified by the weight of the vehicle - or in other 
words, you need to have a given horsepower to vehicle weight ratio, to 
achieve a given amount of acceleration?

The reason I ask, is because as I mentioned a little earlier in this thread, 
I have a Canadian LandCruiser, but more than that it was a 4 cyl diesel, and 
while I could get about 20 mpg with it around town, it was only putting out 
around 85 hp while the LandCruiser weighed in at around 5000 lbs - I could 
get up to 65 mph with it, but it took 3-4 minutes to do so, unless I was 
going down hill with a tailwind.    But the wife's little car weighs in at 
1700-2000 lbs and engine only puts out about 70 hp, but it could outrun the 
Land Cruiser from a dead stop.

Greg H.

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 5:12:16 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
I actually have the planned use figured out fairly well.

2 adults and 2 teens, 1 of the adults and 1 of the teens are shorter than
average.

Most use would be to visit relatives in other states ( I refuse to fly
anymore ) - most overnight stops if needed would be at campgrounds.
Boondocking would be limited - unlikely to last more than 2 days ( if that )
perhaps a couple of times a year.
Temporary retreat for me, when the wife is ma or when I have a migraine and
the house is to noisy, and I need quiet.

It's my thought that a modified 26' 8 ( preferable ) or a modified 26' 2
layout would be near optimum for my expected use.
.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Sexton" <dennis...@aol.com>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 14:28
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?


>
>


> Greg,
>
> Since apparently you are just in the looking stage, may I suggest you
> start over with the Bovee Guide to GMC's
>
> http://gmceast.com/about/guide/index.html
>
> It contains links to an incredible amount of information -- you can do
> your inspections/reviews and perhaps direct you search.
>
> You should also try to articulate how you intend to use the GMC -- how
> many adults, children, pets to travel where, when for how long boon-dock
> and such -- how do you want to sleep, how large are you, and on and on --
> all enter into finding the right coach.
> For many, the answer was in finding a decent coach and modifying it to
> their needs and expectations,
>
> Dennis
>

_______________________________________________

Howard and Sue

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 6:22:45 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Not true in Denmark
Howard

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 7:09:14 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Arguments have been repeatedly supported that a lack of a tax, a reduced
tax, or taxing a competing product at a higher rate, is a form of an
indirect subsidy - an example would be taxing petroleum based fuels at a
higher rate, so that more expensive renewable fuels can compete ( carbon
tax ).

What is the difference between actually paying someone ( direct subsidy ) to
use a given product and taxing a competing product ( indirect subsidy ) at a
higher rate equal to the what the direct payout would have been? Nothing
realy.

.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Hogenboom" <marc.ho...@hotmail.com>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>

Rob Mueller

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 10:08:08 PM1/11/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
G'day,

This swap was done by Dyno something-or-other (now defunct) up in Squiem (Sp?) Washington a few times with varying degrees of
success as reported here on the GMCnet.

Dave Lenzi has done it to perfection!

http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=36474

Yep, you'll need deep pockets to do this!

No I don't know how much and no, I am not going to bother Dave and ask. As J.P Morgan said "If you have to ask the price, you can't
afford it!"

Regards,
Rob M.

Marc Hogenboom

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 1:25:03 AM1/12/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
No such thing in the Netherlands, or Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain,
GB, or any other European country as far as I know.
How do you come up with this stuff?

Marc Hogenboom
'73 Painted Desert Diesel
Madrid NM

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
From: Greg and April
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:09 PM

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 3:47:58 AM1/12/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Coming up with what stuff?

.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Hogenboom" <marc.ho...@hotmail.com>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 23:25
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

> No such thing in the Netherlands, or Germany, Belgium, France, Italy,
> Spain,
> GB, or any other European country as far as I know.
> How do you come up with this stuff?
>
> Marc Hogenboom
> '73 Painted Desert Diesel
> Madrid NM

_______________________________________________

Rob Mueller

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 7:58:31 AM1/12/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Marc,

Don't waste your time.

Regards,
Rob M.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Hogenboom

No such thing in the Netherlands, or Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, GB, or any other European country as far as I know.
How do you come up with this stuff?

Marc

_______________________________________________

Gary Casey

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 8:17:26 AM1/12/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Perhaps I was a little loose with my terms, but I think Greg agrees - in principle, and reality, there is no difference between a differential tax rate and a "subsidy".  You could tax all fuel equally and then give some back to a given fuel (a direct subsidy, like we do for ethanol), or just adjust the tax rate for fuels differently.  So I checked on recent (2008) tax rates in Europe.  They vary a lot, so I picked Germany as an example.  I hope this is pretty close, but I'm not sure it is 100% accurate.

US federal tax on gasoline - $.184/gallon, diesel $.244/gallon
Germany tax on gasoline - $5.03/gallon, diesel $2.68/gallon

In Europe the tax represents about half the retail price, and the tax on diesel is about half the tax on gasoline.  Is that a subsidy?  I think so, but you be the judge.
Gary

I previously said:
" In Europe diesel fuel is subsidized as a way of reducing overall oil 
consumption, but does that make sense?"
"take care,"
"Gary"

Marc replied:


Sorry Gary, But that is just not true!
There is no subsidizing on any fuel, only a reduction in road tax for VERY 
fuel efficient passenger cars.

Marc Hogenboom

Marc Hogenboom

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 11:40:51 AM1/12/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
If that were all the tax you are right.
However there is also a "road tax" , different names in various countries,
that is much higher for Diesel vehicles wich evens it out on avarage use.

Marc

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
From: Gary Casey

Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:17 AM
To: gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org


Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

Perhaps I was a little loose with my terms, but I think Greg agrees - in

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 3:29:45 PM1/12/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
That is possible ( at least on the surface - without knowing those rates and
how they are applied its hard to make an accurate assessment ), but many
Europeans, see the comparatively low fuel tax rate in the US, as a subsidy
to all US businesses, when the simple fact is, when you look at the cost of
producing a gallon of fuel and distributing it, then balancing it with the
cost at the pump, Europeans are really getting shafted by their own
governments.

.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Hogenboom" <marc.ho...@hotmail.com>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>

Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:40
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

> If that were all the tax you are right.
> However there is also a "road tax" , different names in various countries,
> that is much higher for Diesel vehicles wich evens it out on avarage use.
>
> Marc
>

_______________________________________________

Dolph Santorine

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 3:50:38 PM1/12/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Facts are inconvenient.

The government decides diesel is less than pump gas to help truckers, and the market takes advantage of it.

Proof once again that the government is too bloated and cumbersome to outsmart those pesky consumers with their own best interest in mind.


Dolph Santorine

Do...@DolphSantorine.com

Phone: 304-219-3100
Cell: 740-312-5342

Http://www.DolphSantorine.com

Excuse me for not being my usual wordy and sporadically verbose self. This message is sent from my iPad, which is, in many ways, an iPhone on steroids.

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. Few long dead dinosaurs were involved. A large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

D C *Mac* Macdonald

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 3:52:36 PM1/12/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

I beg your pardon, but you must have misread something there.

The quoted federal fuel tax for Diesel is HIGHER than that for
gasoline by some 32.6% !

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ex-Palm Beach, 76 ~ ~ ~
~ www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_______________
*[ ]....[][ ][]\
*--OO---[]---O-*

Dolph Santorine

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 4:05:48 PM1/12/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
No, in Europe it's lower. And people drive Diesel cars there.

Dolph Santorine

ado...@Santorine.org

Excuse me for not being my usual wordy and sporadically verbose self. This message is sent from my iPhone.

No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Greg and April

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 4:15:01 PM1/12/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
It is the fuel of choice - in fact US refineries ship their excess diesel to
Europe, rather than sell the excess here in the US at a lower cost.
.

Greg H.

I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.

.
----- Original Message -----

From: "Dolph Santorine" <do...@dolphsantorine.com>
To: <gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 14:05
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cadillac 500?

> No, in Europe it's lower. And people drive Diesel cars there.
>
> Dolph Santorine
>
> ado...@Santorine.org
>

_______________________________________________

Terry Taylor

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 7:50:27 PM1/12/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Maybe in continental Europe, but I was just in England in
October and diesel is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive at the
pump, just like it is here.

noi

unread,
Jan 13, 2012, 4:59:42 PM1/13/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

Greetings:

I WANT this.... 8o

http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=42255&title=bmw-v12&cat=5988

:lol:

Carl P.
76 Birchaven
South of Fremont

Rob Mueller

unread,
Jan 13, 2012, 5:49:16 PM1/13/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Carl,

Any idea who's building this?

Regards,
Rob M.

-----Original Message-----
From: noi

Greetings:

I WANT this.... 8o

http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=42255&title=bmw-v12&cat=5988

:lol:

Carl

_______________________________________________

noi

unread,
Jan 13, 2012, 6:33:11 PM1/13/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

Rob,

I find &#8220;googling&#8221; harebrained ideas a form of relaxation :roll: &#8211; Other than coming across this:

http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/107913-5.html

Is about all I know of it!

Carl P.
76 Birchaven
South of Fremont

_______________________________________________

Rob Mueller

unread,
Jan 13, 2012, 7:44:38 PM1/13/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Carl,

Thanks for the link! I reviewed all 5 pages of this post and this guy is seriously talented! A problem installing this engine in a
GMC would be having to install the spacer between the final drive and the transmission, I made the assumption that he did this to
allow the drive shaft to clear the engine mains. The spacer causes the engine and transmission assembly to move rearwards and in a
GMC it would hit the cockpit steps. Obviously you could "fix" that.

Regards,
Rob M.

PS - Does anybody know why Carl's emails have the "&#8211;" in them?

-----Original Message-----
From: noi

Rob,

I find &#8220;googling&#8221; harebrained ideas a form of relaxation :roll: &#8211; Other than coming across this:

http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/107913-5.html

Is about all I know of it!

Carl

_______________________________________________

Mike Miller

unread,
Jan 14, 2012, 5:51:32 AM1/14/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

noi wrote on Fri, 13 January 2012 13:59


> Greetings:
>
> I WANT this.... 8o
>
> http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=42255&title=bmw-v12&cat=5988
>
> :lol:
>
> Carl P.
> 76 Birchaven
> South of Fremont


He is putting THAT in a Fiero!!! -- ??
<http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/107913-5.html>
--
Mike Miller -- Hillsboro, OR -- on the Black list
(#1)'73 26' exPainted D. -- (#2)`78 23' Birchaven Rear Bath -- (#3)`77 23' Birchaven Side Bath
http://m000035.blogspot.com

Dave King

unread,
Jan 14, 2012, 9:57:47 PM1/14/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

There are LOTS of Fieros with transverse Chevy V8's. An aquaintance has one with about 450 HP. Looks stock from the outside.There is also at LEAST 1 with a twin turbo NORTHSTAR. Yeah I guess that's like a hand grenade with the pin already pulled !!!

DAVE KING

Sammy Williams

unread,
Jan 14, 2012, 10:55:16 PM1/14/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
I have two 1988 Fieros. 1 has a Chevy 350 in it, the Other has a
Northstar Cadillac V8 in it.

Several friends own Fieros with 3800 Supercharged V6s in them

S. Williams

Dolph Santorine

unread,
Jan 14, 2012, 11:07:41 PM1/14/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Is either your towed?

Dolph Santorine

Do...@DolphSantorine.com

Phone: 304-219-3100
Cell: 740-312-5342

Http://www.DolphSantorine.com

Excuse me for not being my usual wordy and sporadically verbose self. This message is sent from my iPad, which is, in many ways, an iPhone on steroids.

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. Few long dead dinosaurs were involved. A large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Sammy Williams

unread,
Jan 14, 2012, 11:05:09 PM1/14/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
The Northstar V8 one is capable of being a "towd" and it will be shortly.

I am currently GMCless. :)

Im working to change that shortly. :)

Daniel Jarvis

unread,
Jan 14, 2012, 11:26:33 PM1/14/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Countach replica on a Fiero chassis.

Dan in NC
Caregiver to a 1976 Eleganza II

On 1/14/2012 5:51 AM, Mike Miller wrote:
>
> noi wrote on Fri, 13 January 2012 13:59
>> Greetings:
>>
>> I WANT this.... 8o
>>
>> http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=42255&title=bmw-v12&cat=5988
>>
>> :lol:
>>
>> Carl P.
>> 76 Birchaven
>> South of Fremont
>
> He is putting THAT in a Fiero!!! -- ??
> <http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/107913-5.html>

Daniel Jarvis

unread,
Jan 14, 2012, 11:28:21 PM1/14/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
Saw a nice Fiero GT at the spring Auto Fair that had the Northstar
Cadillac in it. Looked real good. The gentleman who owned it said he had
a professional driver take it out on a track for him and got it over 150
mph.

Dan in NC
Caregiver to a 1976 Eleganza II

Sammy Williams

unread,
Jan 15, 2012, 12:17:11 AM1/15/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org
I've never had mine that fast, but it has no problem burying the speedometer. :)

(and shocking Mustang owners. lol)

MIGUEL MENDEZ

unread,
Jan 15, 2012, 9:13:56 PM1/15/12
to gmc...@temp.gmcnet.org

WOW, Cad 500 vs 455 vs 454 vs 472, 500 t 475 hp, god, i am going to have to tlk to Jim K tommorow to design a willie bar for these GMC, hahaha, being that not many like the 403 like i do, does anyone have any 403's sitting aroung that are not wanted???, i have a 78 royale that has a 455, i'll trade it for a running 403?????
--
Miguel

1978 Royale Pain in the %$@, rear bath w/ a 403 that i love.

GMC name : The other woman


http://www.mgmgmc.com

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages