Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cadillac is the obvious winner here... I brought my engine to the machine shop and they couldn't find a box big enough for the crank to be sent out and turned.... absolutely indestructible motors. These motors are pretty quiet too. Up and coming aftermarket hi performance niche developing.
Year Engine Vin Code Engine Letter Code Cubic Inch Rated Horsepower Rated Torque Bore & Stroke Compression Ratio Oil Pressure PSI
1968-1969 472 375 hp @ 4400 rpm 525 lb·ft @ 3000 rpm 4.300 X 4.060 10.5:1 33
1970 472 375 hp @ 4400 rpm 525 lb·ft @ 3000 rpm 4.300 X 4.060 10.0:1 35-40
1970 500 400 hp @ 4400 rpm 550 lb·ft @ 3000 rpm 4.300 X 4.304 10.0:1 35-40
1971 472 345 hp @ 4400 rpm 500 lb·ft @ 2800 rpm 4.300 X 4.060 8.5:1 35-40
1971 500 365 hp @ 4400 rpm 535 lb·ft @ 2800 rpm 4.300 X 4.304 8.5:1 35-40
1972 472 220 hp @ 4400 rpm 365 lb·ft @ 2400 rpm 4.300 X 4.060 8.5:1 35
1972 500 235 hp @ 4400 rpm 385 lb·ft @ 2400 rpm 4.300 X 4.304 8.5:1 35
1973 472 220 hp @ 4400 rpm 365 lb·ft @ 2400 rpm 4.300 X 4.060 8.5:1 35
1973 500 235 hp @ 4400 rpm 385 lb·ft @ 2400 rpm 4.300 X 4.304 8.5:1 35
1974 472 205 hp @ 4400 rpm 365 lb·ft @ 2400 rpm 4.300 X 4.060 8.5:1 35
1974 500 210 hp @ 3600 rpm 380 lb·ft @ 2000 rpm 4.300 X 4.304 8.5:1 35
1975 500 210 hp @ 3600 rpm 380 lb·ft @ 2000 rpm 4.300 X 4.304 8.5:1 35
1976 500 190 hp @ 3600 rpm 360 lb·ft @ 2000 rpm 4.300 X 4.304 8.5:1 35
Thanks for your info on the power/torque ratings for each of the Cadillac's, prior to 1975 wasn't the 500ci used on the Eldorado's?
The 1969 Cadillac sure had great performance for it being such a luxury car, the 1971 Cadillac was a really good performer considering it had slightly less poewr than the 1969 Cadillac, weren't the 1971 Cadillac's also heavier than the 1969 Cadillac's?
Yes, the '71s were heavier.
But here is something strange... I own a '69 Fleetwood Brougham and I used to own a '71 FB. I had both weighed at a recycling center scale. They both weighed 5,060 lbs!
Yes, the '71s were heavier.
But here is something strange... I own a '69 Fleetwood Brougham and I used to own a '71 FB. I had both weighed at a recycling center scale. They both weighed 5,060 lbs!
You gotta be kidding me? I never thought those big Caddies would weigh that much, which Fleetwood Brougham you liked better between the 1969 or the 1971, do both of the FB's have 2 side mirrors or 1 side mirror?
Thanks for your info on the power/torque ratings for each of the Cadillac's, prior to 1975 wasn't the 500ci used on the Eldorado's?
From 70-74 the 500 was used exclusively in the Eldo's and then from 75-76 it was used in all. A 500 is EXACTLY IDENTICAL to the 472 except for stroke, minor differences with head/piston combos and of course differences in carburetor specs.
I like looking at the specs of these motors and then that of a diesel system... very similar in power band as far as torque goes at least.
You gotta be kidding me? I never thought those big Caddies would weigh that much,
Yeah, they weigh(ed) quite a bit. My '76 limo weighs even more... 6,040 lbs with a bicycle and floor jack in the trunk.
Quote:
which Fleetwood Brougham you liked better between the 1969 or the 1971, do both of the FB's have 2 side mirrors or 1 side mirror
They both have/had one side mirror. Dual mirrors was an option on Fleetwood Broughams, standard on the Fleetwood Seventy-Fives.
I like the '69 better than the '71. Real wood on the inside, more chrome on the front end, the nice taillights. And the seats, especially the front seat, seems to have thicker and plusher leather. The '69 seems to have a little better build quality. And, of course, the high-compression engine!
I sure wish the new Cadillac's were as luxurious and stylish looking as the old Cadillacs from the 1960s/1970s.
Me, too. I've been saying that for years. We need a large (and I mean American-type large, not European-type large) Cadillac.
Quote:
How good were the Cadillac 429 motors built from 1964 (I believe it was) to 1967?
Plenty of power (340 hp and 480 lbs-ft torque), but not quite as well-built as the 472 and 500. The 429s were known to be an oil burner and do not respond well to rebuilds. That is the main reason I would choose a '68 Cadillac (472 engine) over a '67 (429).
Yes, the 429 was on the '64-'67 models. Before that was the 390 (325 hp and 430 lbs-ft torque).
Me, too. I've been saying that for years. We need a large (and I mean American-type large, not European-type large) Cadillac.
Plenty of power (340 hp and 480 lbs-ft torque), but not quite as well-built as the 472 and 500. The 429s were known to be an oil burner and do not respond well to rebuilds. That is the main reason I would choose a '68 Cadillac (472 engine) over a '67 (429).
Yes, the 429 was on the '64-'67 models. Before that was the 390 (325 hp and 430 lbs-ft torque).
I thought the 390 motors on the Cadillac's were a bit undersized for it being a high end luxury car, I think the motors should've been somewhere in the 405-415 cubic inch range with slightly more power and torque, are the parts for the 390 and the 429 motors more difficult to get than the 472/500 motors?
I find it coincidential with the Cadillacs having 2 motors that were also similary sized to the Ford and Mercury motors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
