Early 70's Cadillacs and fuel efficiency.

In reply to Nick Comstock :

There are easier ways to get the taller gearing. Taller tires!  If I’m not mistaken big GM’s have 5x5 bolt pattern same as 1/2 ton pickups.  

Keith Tanner said:

Knurled. said:

In reply to Swiss44 :

Thermometer.

 

Cadillacs also had fiber optic lines running to indicators on the top of the front fenders so that you could see if your headlights or turn signals were on.  Same for the brake lights, going to indicators in the rear roof where you could see it in the mirror.

 

I'm not certain if those were there so you could tell if a bulb had gone out, or if they were so you knew if you were driving in the left lane in broad daylight with your high beams and left turn signal on.

On my '66, there's an actual light bulb for the turn indicators on the top of the fender I believe. It's actually a really smart feature.

Fun fact: My LS1 powered MGB probably gets about the same fuel economy as it did stock, at least on the highway. Tires don't last as long though.

that was actually a great feature. People may not look down at the dash and notice a flashing light (how, I don't know) but flashing lights atop the fenders are a little more difficult to miss

P3PPY said:

What an interesting thread. It's almost like there's an argument and I'm not sure who's mad.

My opinion is worth even less than everyone else on here because I don't know anything about anything,

Well, hell, that isn't stopping the rest of us. 

"So-crates.  'True knowledge is knowing that you know nothing.'"

"...  That's US, dude!"

P3PPY said:

What an interesting thread. It's almost like there's an argument and I'm not sure who's mad.

 

 

My take on that is this. 

In the original post I thought I made a pretty clear case about what I wanted to do. Knowing that one of the first gut reactions would be that I'll never get an ROI in doing so and that money would buy a lot of gas, I specifically said that it wasn't about the fuel costs. A couple posts in someone completely disregarded what I wrote and said they believed what I was looking  for was actually the complete opposite of what I actually wrote, essentially refusing to take my request at face value. To which I made an attempt to clarify my reasons for my desire to do this. I get the feeling that attempt was seen as disingenuous like I somehow had some dark ulterior motive for wanting to do it. Or that somehow the reason wasn't real and they wanted to be able to catch me in something so they could say "Ha! Caught you mother berkeleyer!". 

That's just the feeling I got. It did take a weird turn. But I got a lot of useful and thought provoking information out of it.

In reply to Nick Comstock :

Yea, most GRM build question threads are enabling vs questioning why you want to do something.

Had you asked the same question for more performance, I bet nobody would question it one second.  

But to get better fuel economy, and better gas emissions- everyone questions what you are doing.   Very odd.

My build thread when I finally install EFI on my GTV so that I can effectively use a modern catalyst will be pretty funny.  That will make the car SO much more livable, it's not even funny.

In reply to alfadriver :

I mean I totally get it. It sounds hypocritical to say you care about emissions with a 5000lbs+ vehicle that's almost 50 years old and got 9 mpgs originally with zero emission controls. I get it. 

But that's the car that I want. I'm not willing to accept those emissions which is nothing except obscenely wasteful. The thing is we have the ability to drastically improve on that. And I'm willing to do that.

I guess my question should have been " If a modern drivetrain swap is the standard, how close can I get in regards to emissions and fuel economy by modernizing and optimizing the original drivetrain?"

To which I would still expect the same people saying the same things but my intent would have been more clear.

In reply to Nick Comstock :

So to answer one question, I'm 99% sure that your caddy will end up emitting roughly the same as the donor vehicle, assuming you keep the whole system, and use mostly the stock calibration.  There are things you can change with no real impact, and I can help a little.

And when you find some donors, I can help look up what the vehicles were certified to.  

Somewhere there is a build thread of a guy with an Edsel Ranger who stuffs a little four banger in it. It seemed to go quite well, and certainly his mileage improved.

Here it is

https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/59-edsel-2-3-turbo-5-speed-conversion-14594.html

Once I traveled across Montana on Route 2 and came across this Caddy with some mud on it's tires, fender skirts like it should be. 

It felt like this is what I should be driving across Montana. 

In reply to Datsun310Guy :

That's a '73.  See the smaller backup lights?

Nick Comstock said:

In reply to alfadriver :

I mean I totally get it. It sounds hypocritical to say you care about emissions with a 5000lbs+ vehicle that's almost 50 years old and got 9 mpgs originally with zero emission controls. I get it. 

But that's the car that I want. I'm not willing to accept those emissions which is nothing except obscenely wasteful. The thing is we have the ability to drastically improve on that. And I'm willing to do that.

I guess my question should have been " If a modern drivetrain swap is the standard, how close can I get in regards to emissions and fuel economy by modernizing and optimizing the original drivetrain?"

To which I would still expect the same people saying the same things but my intent would have been more clear.

I can appreciate your goal but rather than put in some Ford or Chrysler turbo’d 4 cylinder, why not use a modern Cadillac?  I’m sure there are a few wrecked modern Cadillacs to be had for very modest money. 

Yank the modern Cadillac drivetrain  and haul the remaining hulk to the scrap yard after you get every last bracket and wire off it.  ( and it’s properly running and sorted) 

Likely you’ll scrap out at least 4500 pounds which would be very close to the weight of the Cadillac you keep on the road, so your concern about the ecology will be satisfied.  

However I wonder if you realize just how giant a proposition a proper engine swap really is.  My experience is with Skilled mechanics working out of well equipped shops.  Even with a boat load of skilled specialists doing swaps that are relatively  common.  It’s not uncommon for the job to take years.  

A hotrod engine swap where  just getting it running is a simple task. This to do properly is monumental. 

In reply to frenchyd :

There were and are thousands of old Caddy's out there to do whatever the owner wants to do.

Nick has an attraction to the late 60's and early 70's versions.  Why tell him to not pursue his attraction?  

It's his car and his money- let him decide what he wants to do.

I'd never put a non Alfa motor into one, but if someone else wants to do that, go for it.

I wonder if there's a single-plane intake manifold for the 472/500's that isn't some no-torque towering thing.  Reason being, a four barrel TBI unit from FiTech or similar could then be used with 02 sensors to get a true feed-back driven fuel injection setup which would help a lot in getting emissions better in check.  200-4R, a decent fuel-injection setup, and a modern ignition setup all working together should be great together.  

In reply to frenchyd :

I've never mentioned once putting a turbo 4 from any manufacturer, let alone Ford or Chrysler. An LS is a GM pushrod V8. Yes I'm fully aware of what a drivetrain swap entails. I fully realize it's not a quick and easy proposition. I may be a spring chicken compared to many of you older guys on this board but I've been playing with cars since I was 14 and had three years of vocational training in automotive technologies. I appreciate your concern but I'm not a 16 year old kid with big dreams and no concept of what those dreams actually entail to bring to fruition. 

pres589 (djronnebaum) said:

I wonder if there's a single-plane intake manifold for the 472/500's that isn't some no-torque towering thing.  Reason being, a four barrel TBI unit from FiTech or similar could then be used with 02 sensors to get a true feed-back driven fuel injection setup which would help a lot in getting emissions better in check.  200-4R, a decent fuel-injection setup, and a modern ignition setup all working together should be great together.  

I had sort of dismissed a TBI system. Much simpler than modifying for Port injection but I'm kind of in the mindset that Port injection is worth the work over TBI. 

MrSmokey said:

The question was never about whether or not I should do a swap. Never. Only which direction I should go to get the results I'm looking for and/or how close I can get the stock drivetrain to a modern drivetrain with modern control.  I wasn't asking for permission or asking if it was a good idea. 

I really don't know how I could have made it any more clear. 

I think Tuna nailed it when he wrote my signature line.

You'll find that it is much more than the EFI and ignition control that keep emissions happy.  It has a lot to do with chamber design, flame front speed, compression, and many other factors.

From the 70s through the early 90s, not much changed with the actual air injection, EGR, and catalyst engineering but they were still able to reduce emissions through other engineering means.

You can definitely improve things, but you can't expect to clean up a flathead like you can an LS1

In reply to Nick Comstock :

I think Mr Smokey was agreeing with you. 

I sent you a PM. 

In reply to SVreX :

Somehow went to spam. 

Replied.

SVreX said:

In reply to Nick Comstock :

I think Mr Smokey was agreeing with you. 

I sent you a PM. 

Yeah I was but I can see how it didn’t come thru clear ... it’s all good 

MrSmokey said:

This is how I lost a life’s savings in the stock market

I saw this tonight at a local dealership:

I thought of you, Nick. 

In reply to SVreX :

I do like the Eldorados but being FWD severely limits what is possible. Although I hear they do drive really nice.