Cadillac enigne in Disco

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   TucsonSean Posted on Saturday, June 08, 2002 - 06:37 pm:    I just got through looking at an ad for a complete Cadillac Northstar engine for $7990 from MechTech Motorsports. Wasn't there someone who dropped a caddy engine in a D1 and said an adapter wasn't necessary? If so, this could be a promising solution to the underpowered D1 that is sitting in my driveway. Anyone else have thoughts on this?   Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco) Posted on Saturday, June 08, 2002 - 07:00 pm:    Why do you need more power? Street driving or off road use? Personally I would put the money into an underdrive before I sunk $8k into an engine. Heck I would convert it to a 4.6 before putting in a GM engine.   TucsonSean Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 02:03 am:    Have we forgotten where the origins of the 4.6 come from? Besides, wouldn't you like to have 380HP and 385 lb-ft of torque?   Chris Browne Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 08:14 am:    The ZF box will NOT like 385 ftlbs of torque   Mel A. Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 10:11 am:    I thought that the ZF boxes are heavy-duty? What worries me is the weight balance being thrown off,the use of new engine mounts and maybe a new crossmember. Also remapping the ECU could be a problem. But if it does all work out, you have to put the "Northstar V8" sign in place of the "V8i" emblem on the back of the Disco. Either that or "Cadillac Powered" Good luck   Kyle Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 11:52 am:    What do you mean remapping Mel ? None of your rover shit is going to function on a Northstar. Also , what isnt being said is that hefty price tag for sll the other goodies. You are looking at about a 15K swap using new parts. If a person waas going to do it they would be better served getting a totaled caddy as a donor.. Kyle   Anonymous Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 08:55 pm:    Or you could just buy an "Escapade" and be done with it...   Neal Glessner (Nealg) Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 10:32 pm:    If I were going to go through all that trouble to put in a different engine, I would elininate the EFI and all the computer craps- something like a Chevy 351 with a large Holley carberator. If you keep it simple, it will cost less, you will have fewer headaches, and anyone can work on it.   Glenn Guinto (Glenn) Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 10:47 pm:    A 300TDi is the only engine of choice for me as far as engine conversions are concerned. Upper 30's mpg fuel efficiency and torque gallore! I think ECR does a "turn key" 300TDi conversion for about that Northstar price tag you have there. -glenn I can already see those water crossings   Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco) Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 10:49 pm:    Neal, Not that such an engine would ever be legal on the road. You can't put in a non OBDII engine into a chassis built durring years that OBDII engines were used. You can drop in a newer engine into an older chassis but not an older eninge into a new chassis. I still think it would be much easier to do the 4.6 conversion than use that engine. And I know the LR V8 is a 1960's era Buick engine.   Olaf Kilthau Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 11:14 pm:    Try RPI in the UK, their site is rpiv8.com. They have several options including 3.9 or 4.0 to 4.6 conversion. They also have a 5.2 engine, but it's expensive! If you want to go all out they offer a natural gas/petrol conversion.   TucsonSean Posted on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 12:54 am:    The Northstar V8 comes with the ECU. Good point about the TDI and mileage increase. The only problem that I have is the price tag for the conversion. Has anybody looked into the 4.0 to 4.6 conversion that replaces the pistons, rods, crank, camshaft, and bearings instead of the complete engine?   hendrik Posted on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 06:10 am:    Hi there, look @ www.zf.com That´s the homepage of the zf-automatic gearboxes. They have some good .pdf pages with technical info (like tolerable torque input). (The autobox in the Range/Discos I is the 4HP22; in the 4.6 V8-HSE RangeRoverII the 4HP24). I like the 300tdi a lot. Excellent engine. But if I lived in the USA, with your fuel costs I probably wouldnt bother - unless I regularly do expeditions (where the Diesel gives you a good driving range without carrying tons of fuel). I would go for the 4.6l aswell. Power, refinement and it is harmonic with automatic gearbox. The tdi is a bit sluggish if not mated to a manual and if not tweaked (larger intercooler, injection pump adjusted - costs you can add then). Not a problem in the Defender I think, more so with Discos (with which you expect to chase Jeeps with). Expect 130-135bhp power from a TDi engine which is about the most you can get without compromising durability. Torque might be expected at 340NM. Noise is another point to consider. The automatic gearbox from the V8 will not fit to the Tdi engine. Rover used the same auto box but with different bellhousing. Still though with the right equipment you could manufactuer a adapterplate. regards, Hendrik   JMcD Posted on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 08:10 am:    Al, When you say, "Not that such an engine would ever be legal on the road. You can't put in a non OBDII engine into a chassis built durring years that OBDII engines were used." Do you mean legally or morally? As long as your state doesn't have emissions test you can do whatever you want. I have never had anyone look under the hood of my cars/trucks when inspecting them. Kinda depends on where you call home. Never say can't. JMcD   muskyman Posted on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 08:52 am:    "As long as your state doesn't have emissions test you can do whatever you want. I have never had anyone look under the hood of my cars/trucks when inspecting them. Kinda depends on where you call home. Never say can't." there is a federal emmissions regulation that says it must be a newer motor not a state regulation if you could get it in the northstar is a great motor...but I can think of a million and one snags   JMcD Posted on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 01:57 pm:    Federal regulation? I think you missed my point Musky. By a mile   Greg Davis Posted on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 02:57 pm:    Sean, the only reference I have ever seen to a Caddy swap into a Disco was the older pushrod Caddy engines. The Northstar is an entirely different creature. I believe pushrod Caddies have a similar bellhousing bolt pattern which makes the swap a lot simpler. I too would stick with the 4.6, or go all out and do the 5.2! But don't expect to stop there, as the rest of your drivetrain (ZF excepted) will need beefing up as well. At that point you're throwing alot of $$ into a vehicle that you would never get it back out of. Just my $.02 worth.   TucsonSean Posted on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 09:17 pm:    Has anyone had experience on upgrading to a 4.6 from a 4.0 just by installing the kit that RPI advertises? This is clearly cheaper than the complete engine but would you get the same benefits? Also, wasn't there a post that said you would not need to upgrade the ECU, it would adjust automatically to accomodate for the added displacement?   muskyman Posted on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 10:35 pm:    well if your talking big caddy...then say goodbye to every stock driveline part. a stock 1969 caddy 500 made 400hp and 535ft lbs of torque. the amazing thing is that the 500" motors only weigh about 430 lbs making them a little more then a chevy small block but they pack a serious wallop. now if you arent afraid of "federal regs" then go caddy 500 with a clark 5 speed with a kluneV with a lt230 behind it . all the adapters are allready out there . but thats still a really aggresive swap....lots of lots of work.   hendrik Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 08:06 am:    Making a 4.6 out of a 4.0 shouldnt be that difficult. They share the same bore (and engine block basically). If appears like a matter of only change the crankshaft (and probably pistons and conrods). Much cheaper than replacing a whole engine. (Same way a 3.9 could be turned into a 4.2). Nobody could tell by looking into the engine bay, but this is not ment as a trick to fool the authorities. Ask www.rpiv8.com About re-chipping. I don´t know much about this, but have been told that a 3.9ECU will let the engine run lean or even switch into default. Maybe the step from 3.9 to 4.9 is too big for the ECU (thinking a 3.9 is taking a certain amount of air @ certain rpm) to compensate. Formerly I hoped the air mass meter would sense the more air being drawn and compensate simply by mixing more air to it. An engine running lean is something to avoid, as it will run hot then and damage the pistons and valves. I would be very intersted in long term ecperience of an upgrade without rechipping, but wouldnt do it myself. Although I dont like to pay 500$ for a little EPROM which started life as a 1$ piece of silicon stuff just because it calls itself upgraded. regards, Hendrik   Eric Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 09:57 am:    I have done swaps in other british made cars like MGBs and Spitfires. The Buick 215 is a popular swap as is the Ford 289. My experience is that swaps are always a compromise. There will be lots of power and it will be exotic, but things like overheating, broken u-joints, and trashed ring and pinions will follow. Once the engine is in place and the mounting is all figured out (whew) there is alot to celebrate! But then the detail work begins. The truck will sit there for another year or so as you work through the issues of linkages and wiring harnesses and exhaust systems. If you like engineering the details, have plenty of time and money, it can be very rewarding. But it is hard to beat the factory engineers when it comes to reliability, fit and function. Eric   muskyman Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 10:22 am:    right on the money Eric   superj Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 10:25 am:    I have a D1 with an injected 500 Cad motor. The ZF hp4 can be upgraded to withstand some stout power a variant was used by MB behind the 389 hp 6.0l V12. The LT230 is probably the stongest part of the stock driveline, the problem is the cost of the available crawlers and 1.003 ratios is on the pipe. When I bought the truck it was modified Hp4, partimed 230, upgraded Rover axles. I completely destroyed one front and one rear rover axle. I upgraded the rear to a salisbury and sheared the teeth off three gear sets. I now run 4L80E,205,Klune V,Danas and I can't remember the last time a driveline part failed.   muskyman Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 10:42 am:    what kind of injection system are you running? stock exhaust manifolds?...if so are they they the 500style rear dump or the centered 472 eldo ones? you should take some pics ...people would love to see as many as you could take   JEspelien (Superj) Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 10:44 am:    "But it is hard to beat the factory engineers when it comes to reliability, fit and function." Are you on the pipe?   muskyman Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 10:52 am:    "But it is hard to beat the factory engineers when it comes to reliability, fit and function." "Are you on the pipe? this seams like a very true statement to me as well I must be on the pipe as well   JEspelien (Superj) Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 11:04 am:    Custom stainless steel headers. I am debating the pictures. I had them up on my old personal webspace before qwest broadband "transitioned" everybody to MSN, the problem was some people didn't want to know the emperor has no clothes(the driveline in the finest 4x4xfar is a joke). I also tire quickly of the endless second guessing by people who's only modification to there own trucks is tires, suspension lifts, recovery equipment, and camel trophy look alike doodads. I can't even count how many times I had to respond to emails from various trolls who just wouldn't go away with "because I didn't want a friggin' manual and if you had ever driven on ice and snow or tried to pull a boat up a steep slippery landing you would know why" or "the reason YOU don't break driveline parts is you must not wheel hard. Because everybody I know who wheels hard even with the torqueless stock motor still breaks all kinds of stuff."   JEspelien (Superj) Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 11:10 am:    Do these all to common problems on low mileage Rovers: oil leaks at every sealing location, severe vibration from a worn rotoflex, leaking swivelballs, whining Transfer cases with seized shifters, obnoxious klunking from driveline lash, fractured CV joints, "normal" piston slap that sounds like a diesel, power steering boxes that use quarts of fluid: sound like a well engineered product to you? If your answer is yes, you need to get some perspective. Try selling the Trabant you have as your daily driver.   Andy Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 11:57 am:    Man so much hostility, I don't think anyone said your not an off roader or hardcore enough. I think the point is most people should leave engineering to engineers. If you don't have the resources to do such a complicated conversion, don't. It sounds like you have the time, money, ability and resources to do such a swap to your disco. I think people on this board would appreciate that time, effort and reasoning why you did the swap in the first place. But acting like we are shit heads, will make us not respect you. I have done plenty of re-engineering to cars that have raced. No car company is perfect, and any design can be improved, but you can't tell me that all the work you did to do the swap was easy or without problems that needed solved to gain reliability. Andy, with a lifted 95 d1 and a stock motor and ••••••, I guess that means I'm boring.   Andy Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 11:59 am:    I forgot, •••••• is a bad word, I use transmission. Andy   Eric Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 12:25 pm:    Hey, I'm impressed. A 500 cubic inch Caddy engine swapped into anything is a huge engineering feat. I'll bet you turn some heads when you are sitting at the stop light with that monster burbbling under the hood. Caddy engines are known for high quality. They put out serious torque, and they can do it all day long. I have to ask the questions you get tired of answering... when you stomp on the gas pedal from a standing start does it smoke the tires? Stupid question number two, does it smoke all all four? Now for a real question. I agree that the toughness of the disco drivetrain is overrated, there are 1 ton trucks out there that handle 400ftlbs of engine torque all day long with a full load... But of all the components that go after the flywheel, what seems to be the weaker links on the Disco? I figure with that monster motor you might have some good insight and experience with what the problem areas are. Eric   p m Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 01:03 pm:    Jay, do you have a disco and a rangie? peter   p m Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 01:16 pm:    as i think about it, questions pop up. so Jay, i'm at risk of falling into one of those categories you mentioned. the parts you listed sound like some awesome wish list - but they were never used together in any vehicle, so you must've done some serious homework. I may be mistaken in nearly everything here; in any case, please shed some light - is a 500cid Caddy before 72? if so, what EFI setup did you put on it? a Caddy V8 shouldn't bolt on to 4L80E - did you get the adapter from Advance? was 4L80E ever used with 205? Did you have to modify the tailshaft to fit? Danas you mentioned - with the underdrive, even crappy 205's low range ratio and the 500's torque should be hard on a 44s axleshafts; did you put 60s on both ends? and, the great state of Minnesota must not have smog checks, or only bother with whatever comes from the tailpipe... peter   lets see the pics Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 01:44 pm:    After reading the recent posts I have come to the conclusion that JEspelien is either a real dickhead or a nice guy trying to act like a dickhead. I'm still on the fence. Not because of what he has said, because of how he says it. But thats just my opinion. I could be wrong.   RVR OVR (Tom) Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 02:10 pm:    If you need a place to host the pics, send them to Discoweb and don't put your email address on it. Boom, no emails. Or, if you don't want them on here, I'll host them for you, I have plenty of hosting space on my own domains available for some pics. Tom   Eric Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 02:15 pm:    Hmmmm... sounds suspicious. I can see the attraction to the Northstar V8 which is a very advanced overhead cam four valve alloy engine with lots of neat features. I could see the wisdom in that proposed swap. But the 500cid Caddy seems an unlikely choice for a swap when there are so many other candidates in the GM family that might fit the buick 215 bellhousing pattern. One might consider the most popular american V8 ever manufactured, the small block chevy. There are so many aftermarket adapters for that engine, such as the V8 Vega conversion, or the Jaguar XJ 12 conversion, or the VW bug conversion... Not to mention the abundant performance parts for that particular motor. Headers, manifolds, alternator brackets, custom oil pans, every accessory ever made is right there ready to go. I have to believe someone out there has a Discovery with a mild Chevy small block. And likely it is an automatic with a bone stock driveline and doing just fine. It had to be said. Eric   Glenn Guinto (Glenn) Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 02:27 pm:    Super J, (or "Not-So-Super-J") I think it's time to stop talking the talk and start walking the walk! As they say... A picture is worth a thousand words. -glenn 99D1 - Camel Trophy wannabe   p m Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 02:38 pm:    Eric, the beauty of an old Caddy/Buick engine is the low end torque. Like, very low end torque so I see how the 8-liter OHV can be better than a 5-liter DOHC. But the 4L80E is a post-TH400 1-ton transmission, I believe only mated to Chevy engines. Advance makes all kinds of odd stuff, but very few people in the Chevy crowd swap BOP/Caddy engines in their trucks. There may be some subtle differences like flexplate spacers, flexplates themselves, etc. The drivetrain swap JE mentions is a lot of dough, and even more work; the combination of a Caddy block, 4L80, NP205, and Klune underdrive is very long and super heavy. If he doesn't break anything on his truck, he must have done quite some job. peter   Ho Chung (Ho) Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 02:48 pm:    yeah, JUST DO IT!   Milan Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 03:09 pm:    pm, "and, the great state of Minnesota must not have smog checks, or only bother with whatever comes from the tailpipe... " Shouldn't all smog checks be like this? I fail to see the logic behind under-hood inspections (except maybe to see if you have something to catch evaporative fumes). If we're checking the smog, we should really only care how much a praticulare vehicle produces, not what it uses to produce it with. Not really trying to pick an argument, it's just that this particular aspect of smogs checks makes my stomach turn.   Moe (Moe) Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 03:13 pm:    LOL, now you are talking Ho. After a momentary lapse into self doubt, the old self has returned   Drew Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 03:32 pm:    So you broke 3 teeth of a salisbury axle and then switched to dana axles, The salisbury and the dana 60 share the same gears, they are one in the same. Dosen't make alot of sense to me. I must be missing something.   Kyle Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 03:53 pm:    Zoom Zoom....   RVR OVR (Tom) Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 04:18 pm:    On the Chevy motor vs. the Old caddy motor, isn't the caddy one aluminum and lighter? The chevy motor would have more weight issues to deal with. Let's not all say why, let's say why the hell not? If somebody has the money and the time, what the hell. Nothing wrong with a hobby and a challenge. Maybe he had an old Caddy laying around that was a POS with a good base for a rebuild. If it is all just some posted bullshit, and there is no rover with a Caddy motor, then string him up or ignore him, your choice. Tom   Bench Racer Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 04:29 pm:    I have a discovery with a 500 Cad engine too. Mine has fuel injection and a holley double pumper carburetor with jets that I bored out .030 inches. It sucked a my girlfriends cat through the radiator because it is so fast now. I have pictures of the cat to prove it. It has big huge tires too and a 12 inch lift kit for mud and stuff. I had to cut the fenders with a propane arc welder.   RVR OVR (Tom) Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 04:33 pm:    LOL. ok, ok. But can you sqeal all four off the line or no? Tom   Kyle Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 04:34 pm:    Well Tom , you are now suffering from the woes of butchery yourself... The problem I see is that people wanna talk about it and that great. The negative side is that these mods cost alot of cash to do right and have a decent truck in the end. Most of hte people here are wanting to know "How cheap can I do this" . Thats where it just turns into a hunk of shit with a 500 caddy engine in it that stalls in inclines and shit and smells like Jeep with a carb on it on the trails... Kyle   Eric Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 04:39 pm:    Tom, The caddy 500 was cast iron block and heads. It had small intake valves and a long stroke, great for torque at low engine speeds. It was known for smooth operation. Near the end of production they dropped the compression ratio and retarded the ignition timing to meet emmission requirements. The last few years it was rated at 190hp. Not too far from the 188hp the aluminum Rover V8 makes. Cadilac made some serious boat type cruisers and the 500 linked to a three speed automatic was as smooth as glass. Then under corporate pressure from GM they began putting the 305 emmission compliant V8 in their fleet. Cadilac has never been the same since in my opinion. From the 305 they went to the transverse 90deg front drive V6. I could see the 500 making a truck motor if the price was right, and it were just laying around. Eric   muskyman Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 04:49 pm:    the Caddy motor is a beast that weigh in like a feather ever heard of a keith black big block?...its a caddy the caddy has the other gm bolt patern that fits caddy, olds,buick, and pontiacs. I believe that the 4L80e was in some full size olds and caddys just not in a original 472/500 block. the 500 is not a very large motor at all it looks very much smaller then a BBchevy. and at 430 lbs it is the lightest V8 for its displacement ever built . but it is a cast iron motor intake,heads and block. I know a hot rod builder that swears by them and one of my friends is dropping one in his scout right now with a turbo 400 and a doubler. they can be set up to make 500hp and 650ft lbs of torque for very little money and they rarely if ever have any mechanical failures. it is a great motor plain and simple. jay, you may be bored with all the simple ass questions you get about your rig, but thats how forums go. some of us with very mild buildups have trucks of all kinds not just disco's , so dont base your comments on whats been done to a guys truck and I wont base my impresion of you on these posts you just made here. and take some pictures! if you really have this combo done and driving you have reason to show it off . now anyone want real caddy power...there used to be a guy in milwaukee that hade dual 500ci caddys both set up on eldorado fwd .one in front one in back it would smoke all 4 tires half way down the drag strip and turn 10.80's. and jay he used to stand around and answer stupid questions in the pit all frigging night long build it strange and they will come   Eric Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 05:04 pm:    How about the 6.9L GM V8 diesel? That might have a block that could mate up to the bell housing. $7000+ is alot of money for the northstar V8 engine. The 6.9L comes in alot of GM platforms, so there might be a good supply of inexpensive cores. Eric   Eric Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 05:12 pm:    There are more options on the other side of the pond. Lots of diesels. http://www.landyonline.co.za/techtalk/engine_conversions%20.htm Eric   Kyle Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 05:16 pm:    6.9 GM ??? EEEEEK ! Kyle   p m Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 05:20 pm:    Milan, that's what i sincerely believe the smog check be all about - sniff the tailpipe, and fuck off if it passes. Unfortunately, the P. R. of C. thinks differently, one reason i drive around a jeep with a POS 2 barrel carb. Drew, excellent point about Salisbury. Jay must be running Dana 70s. Musky, I believe, 472 expired in Caddys before 4L80(E!) came out, and last of RWD Caddys sported THM200, just like the Caprice. TH400 disappeared around '80, and was only the option on the heaviest Fleetwoods with the 368cid engine. peter   Kyle Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 05:22 pm:    LOL , I am glad you did that to the "E" Peter....lol Kyle   p m Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 05:26 pm:    what was it in some 4x mag... "everything made out of aluminum with wires sticking out of it scares the shit out of us" peter   Milan Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 06:51 pm:    That's what I thought you meant Peter, hence my statement about not looking for an argument. I also like that magazine quote. LOL   Ronnie Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 11:48 pm:    I just bought my Disco about two months ago and haven't even taken it off road yet but I don't even see the reason someone would want 400+ horsepower (better gas mileage yes, power no.) I watched the new Back East video and it doesn't look like anyone's going over 10 mph. As long as it will get to about 80 or 85 mph on the interstate, why should I care?!? Maybe I should have hung onto the 1974 Datsun 260Z with the 350 Chevy motor to take it off road if I'm going to need all this power...   muskyman Posted on Wednesday, June 12, 2002 - 09:56 am:    "Musky, I believe, 472 expired in Caddys before 4L80(E!) came out, and last of RWD Caddys sported THM200, just like the Caprice. TH400 disappeared around '80, and was only the option on the heaviest Fleetwoods with the 368cid engine. peter" peter, my point was that because the bell houising patern is shared you can use the late model trans with the early engine block. the tough part is setting up the •••••• /throttle/sensors and linkages.the motor needs to talk to the •••••• love the orange dots kyle...makes me feel like a rebal   p m Posted on Wednesday, June 12, 2002 - 11:53 am:    Musky, the bellhousing pattern is different between the caddy engine and late-model chevy transmission. there's a lot to be done to mate these two, that's why i was waiting to hear from JE. peter   muskyman Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 12:12 am:    peter , one more time the old caddy shares the same bell housing as oldsmobile,pontiac and buick V8's. they never shared a patern with chevy oldsmobile and buick make v8 station wagons that use the 480LE with a V8 hence the old Caddy and the olds/buick version of the 480Le will bolt up.   p m Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 12:21 pm:    Musky, you can go rounds here. Please name me one year and model when Oldsmobile and/or Buick had a 4L80E. Just to save you time - 4L80E was used on 91-up 3/4 & 1 Ton Truck. RWD Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, anc Chevrolet expired in 1996 with THM200. No front wheel drive GM car ever used 4L80E. peter   Anonymous Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 01:12 pm:    FWIW, the Keith Black engines are base on the old Chrysler Hemi, not a Caddy 500...   Paul T. Schram (Paulschram) Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 01:45 pm:    You know guys, I have an old rusty (probably solid) 354 CID Chrysler Hemi in the garage of my rental house. Now, that would make a Disco scream, until the engine fell out of the truck, or the •••••• (sorry Kyle) exploded and decapitated passersby with the shrapnel (would it be Schrampnel in my case?). Hhmm, let me see, what does that engine weigh, about a quarter of what the entire truck weighs, but it only puts out 354 HP and 354 Ft-Lbs torque (I have overloaded engine hoists to disastrous effect with old cast iron Hemis-they don't bounce). Oh yeah, I'd have to put the radiator on the roof rack to make it fit. I'd bet it would get better gas mileage than the 3.9 LOL. Years ago, I bought a square tube framed Vega to make a drag car out of. What a mistake. No, I never did get it finished (funny how college gets in the way). And to make matters worse, when I finally sold it, it slid off the trailer on the way to the guy's shop and I left it where it was as we had absolutely no way to recover it from the middle of the road on an early Sunday morning. Yeah, I want to see pics of the caddy engined Disco. Maybe I should post that old hemi in the classifieds to see if anybody (Perrone?) would want to try the swap. Peace, Paul   Kyle Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 02:00 pm:    I dont think he is getting the E there Matusov... He is having brain cramp...lol Kyle   Kyle Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 02:01 pm:    Also , the front wheel drive version that the caddy runs is a 60 I believe (Its been awhile) Kyle   Anonymous Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 02:25 pm:    Hello I was wondering will a FLUX Capacitor similar to the one used in a Delorean a few years ago work in a Disco? I just won the lottery and want to put 1.2 mil in a car worth 5k There seems to be quite a few Freelance engineer's lurking around this board, I was wondering would the ZF be able to bolt up to the flux capacitor or would i have to steal some parts from Dream Works? Also the Mr. fusion would look cool sticking out of the hood next to the blue washer jet lights. Will the Flux capacitor be able to work with the current Gems fuel management systems and does anybody know a cheep source for Plutonium (( In case Big Brother is checking this is a Joke no such thing as a Mr. Fusion )) Also How many miles per gallon will 2 banana peels and some old tofu get?   p m Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 02:48 pm:    Anon, i don't want to go into that... don't break my secrets. the closest i ever got to calculate the mileage per banana peel Kyle, even 4L80(no f'ing E) never was in a BOP/Caddy vehicle. Musky's theoretizing. peter   JEspelien (Superj) Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 04:02 pm:    PM: The interesting facts about the motor: block/crank/heads'76 500, CMD forged rods, KB hypereutectic 9.8-1 pistons, Erson TQ40H ground on 108 degrees, CMD roller shaft rockers, Extensive head work including 2.25I/1.90E valves, Edelbrock performer converted for port fuel injection, Accel Gen 7 ECU. The motor was run on the builders dynamometer in its orignal configuration using a ported and flowed '76 Eldorado fuel injection manifold and an Accel Gen 5 ECU with all it's accessories and mufflers but no other exhaust. It made 400 lb-ft of torque at 1400 rpm and 635 lb-ft peak at 4200 rpm. The BOP and Chevrolet bellhousing bolt patterns use the same locations for the lower bolts and locating dowels it is only the uppers that are different. There is quite a cottage industry around that converts 4l80E cases to the BOP bolt pattern mainly for use behind turbo sixes in GNs in place of the TH200R4. The cases are welded, stress relieved, and then machined. The 4L80-NP205 Tcase adapter came from Advance. The rear is a 35 spline 60 the front is a 44HD. Minnesota has no emissions tests at all now. We had tailpipe only tests for a few years but Jessie "the Body" refused to sign the bill reauthorizing them. Drew: While a Dana 60 and a Salisbury housing are similar the structure and alloy are different. I work for a foundry that manufactures axle housings for Daimler/Chrysler, Deere, Caterpillar and many others. I have tested both the salisbury and a 60 housing on our Instron. The Salisbury does not adequately absorb the side load on the pinion allowing it to deflect almost five times as much as the 60 does for the same load. This causes the pinion to load the ring gear teeth up towards the tips instead of down on the roots where they are strongest. I beleive this flaw is not a problem in the Salisburys usual applications because even in the british one ton trucks they use squirrels for power.   Anonymous Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 04:37 pm:    PM you drive Jeeps, Kia and LR should we expect to see you in a Honda soon?   p m Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 05:00 pm:    awesome, JE. you really need to post these photos, how all this stuff fits in a disco; you also mentioned Klune-V (which i assumed to be an underdrive) - guess you'd be fine in the power/gearing department with that powertrain. what is a 44HD - that is, how do you make a 44 HD? Anon - there's only one range rover on that island, and it was already taken. peter   Anonymous Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 08:26 pm:    Sounds like BS too me   p m Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 08:43 pm:    Jay, what about 76 Eldo fuel injection manifold? it can't be stock. peter   Anonymous Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 08:52 pm:    '76 Caddy 500's were carbureted...   Anonymous Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 09:01 pm:    Sounds like BS too me   JEspelien (Superj) Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 11:02 pm:    The trolls come out from under their bridges. Cadillac was the first domestic manufacturer to offer practical electronic fuel injection beginning in 1975, the 1957 Chrysler system used vaccuum tubes. EFI was a $600 option on the 500 in 1975 and 1976 go here or here   JEspelien (Superj) Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 11:12 pm:    PM: 44HD was a regular Dana production item basically a 44 center section with 60 size tubes, axles and joints. My understanding is they were used extensively in military applications and by both Ford and IH on their cab&chassis and snow plow special models. I chose it to maintain front housing clearance without having to lift the truck a huge amount.   p m Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 11:19 pm:    hold on, hold on... if the 44HD axles are of '60 size... it's got to be a different carrier... where can I get one? currently, I am looking into changing '44 axles a few times a year... and the prospective of this "walking on the eggshells" feeling doesn't make me happier... if you have any pointers to more info on 44HD, please post or email me. i didn't know there was EFI as early as in 75... all big cube caddy mills i've seen were carb'ed. peter   kyle Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 11:39 pm:    No Peter , there was some Early CFI motors. A common whore if it ran out of gas but otherwise pretty simple and neat.. kyle   muskyman Posted on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 12:09 am:    they also had a closed loop adjusted rochester quadrajet that was pretty cool JE, your motor sounds great , you really should post some pics . plus I'd love to see some pics of the D44. I'v been parting out IH's for the last 20 years and I have yet to see one of these fabled IH front axles. I wheel in Wisconsin often. We should hook up in Blackriver forest WI for some wheeling I'd really like to check out your swap youv done   JEspelien (Superj) Posted on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 11:24 am:    PM: You have hit upon what I originally felt was the possible weak link in the 44HD: the inner axles still maintain the 30 spline end to fit a standard 44 carrier. The assembly seems "unbalanced" with the big 35 spline outer axles, joints, and lockouts. The problem with that hypothesis is that it is the standard 44 that is unbalanced with most failures occuring at the axleflange/joint or the stubshaft/lockout. I don't know where you can find one in California but they are easy to spot since as far as I know they are the only 44 size center section with a cast iron cover in place of stamped steel. Here is a description of the Cadillac factory EFI I cut and pasted from another Cad info site. The factory EFI system used from '75-76 on 500 cubic inch engines is a port injection system which operates similar to the familiar Chevy tuned port injection, but appears like a large throttle body on an intake with separate fuel injectors. Each cylinder has it's own injector mounted in the intake runner near the intake gasket area with a common fuel rail feeding all 8. This system was also used through 1979 on Sevilles as standard equipment and as an option on full size cars. It consists of four main systems, the ECU, the fuel delivery system, the air distribution system, and the sensors which supply information to the ECU. The ECU is a pre-programmed computer that analyzes the sensor information and computes the exact fuel requirements based on that information. It supplies the proper amount of fuel by opening the injectors for a specific amount of time, which varies as the engine operating conditions change. The fuel system consists of 2 fuel pumps(1 in tank, 1 on chassis), the fuel filter, the fuel presure regulator, the fuel rails and lines, and the injectors. The fuel system runs with a pressure reading of 39 to 55-95 PSI. A relief valve protects the system from excessive fuel pressure. The fuel regulator maintains the pressure in the fuel rails at 39 PSI for proper injector operation. The injectors are divided into 2 main groups, one for cylinders 1, 2, 7, and 8, and the other group for injectors 3, 4, 5, and 6. All four injectors in each group open simultaneously, the 2 groups alternate in operation. The air distribution system consists of the throttle body assembly and the intake manifold. The throttle body houses the fast idle valve and the idle bypass air passage. The fast idle valve allows extra air to bypass the throttle blades when the engine is cold, and closes as it warms up. The warm idle is adjusted at the idle bypass air passage. The sensors are as follows...MAP(intake pressure), TPS(throttle position), MAT(air temp), CTS(coolant temp), and RPM(engine speed measured at distributor). The MAP sensor is housed in the ECU and a plastic vacuum line connects this to the throttle body. The TPS sensor is mounted on the throttle body and is controlled by throttle blade movement. The MAT and CTS sensors are completely interchangeable, MAT located on the intake manifold and CTS located on the passenger cylinder head water outlet. The RPM sensor is on the distributor shaft under the cap assembly, it sends engine speed and fuel triggering information to the ECU. This system runs in open loop configuration without an oxygen sensor, and is quite easy to transplant into any vehicle, as long as all the components are used. The ECU has a separate computer/engine wiring harness that is easily swapped from donor vehicle to the new vehicle, with only 4 wires and one vacuum line needing to be hooked up to work properly. All of the servicing information can be found in Chilton's #8587 manual, which deals exclusively with Cadillacs from 1967 to 1989. Musky: I find myself seriously and weirdly into drag racing currently. I am obsessed with putting my S38 B36 powered E30 318 into the 10s. I am planning on making a trip to Dresser in August but other than that I don't know if I am going to get wheeling very much this summer.   p m Posted on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 12:27 pm:    wow, that's some dissertation here! thanks for the info, Jay. speaking of 44s, i found that the failure mode is the same as in rovers - splined end of the shaft shears off where it exits the carrier. which basically brings the 44HD back to the regular 44. In fact, if the axleshaft is thicker all the way except for the splined end, it makes shear failure at the carrier even more likely... too bad, Moser shafts are only 30% stronger... peter   JEspelien (Superj) Posted on Monday, June 17, 2002 - 10:25 pm:    The axle shafts are in a multiaxial stress state due the combined bending and torsional loads. The heavier larger diameter 60 size tubes and heavier centersection casting of the 44HD reduce the bending loads on the shafts. I have not experimentally quantified how much stiffer a HD housing is versus a standard 44 but a quick Pro-E simulation using some rough cross-sectional area calculations indicates at least a 200% increase in strength. Since the bending component can be as much as 70% of the total load on a 44 axle shaft in a full size truck reducing this component has the same effect as dramatically increasing the shaft strength in a standard housing. Anecdotally the fact that 44s don't like weight fits with the reality that they last pretty well in CJs even with fairly big power but puke in Scouts with that insanely heavy underpowered binder V8.   muskyman Posted on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 11:06 am:    "Anecdotally the fact that 44s don't like weight fits with the reality that they last pretty well in CJs even with fairly big power but puke in Scouts with that insanely heavy underpowered binder V8." d44 are actually very reliable in scouts, the one weak link being the single cross pinion in the rear diff. they have a tendency to egg out the pinion hole untill the cross pinion contacts the ring gear gernading the Diff. please take some close up pics of your D44 , I would really like to see one of these fabled axels....what IH did it come out of?   Milan Posted on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 05:07 pm:    OK, Now I'm interested too. Up till now, the only HD D44 I have seen was essentially regular rear D44 with thicker (same wall thickness as front D44) tubes. Supposedly a custom job. FWIW, the only failures on front D44 I have seen were busted u-joints and/or axle shafts at the ears as well as outer shafts twisted off. Never seen one twist at the carrier but that does not mean it's not common. The u-joint failures were on Jeeps, Fords and Chebys and the twisted shaft on a Cheby.