Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500?
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500? [message #119290 is a reply to message #119256] |
Sat, 19 March 2011 17:28   |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chris,
Dave Lenzi could answer that but he does not monitor the GMCnet. I'll be
seeing him at the Patterson convention and will TRY to remember to ask him.
Regards,
Rob M.
USAussie - Downunder
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
[mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Chris Choffat
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 1:42 AM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500?
I've recently heard that the Chevy 8.1 (496) burn a lot of oil, they all do
it. anyone know if this is true?
--
-Chr$: Perpetual SmartAss
77 Ex-Kingsley 455, Power Drive, 3:21 FD, Quadra bag. The Engineer's
Motorhome
Scottsdale, AZ
Photosite: Chrisc "It has Begun"
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500? [message #119292 is a reply to message #119238] |
Sat, 19 March 2011 17:59 |
|
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gene,
Potter Automotive in Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee, The Cad Company in Albuquerque,
New Mexico, and Maximum Torque Specialties, in Grass Valley, California
support Caddy 500 engines. They do build Caddy 540 engines (and bigger if
you want!)
When I was working with Jerry Potter on my Caddy 500 he noted that because
the engine in a GMC doesn't need to rev very high modified heads would be a
waste of money and the cam he uses in the engine he builds for air boats
produces lots of torque at low rpm it would be suitable for the GMC.
Regards,
Rob M.
USAussie - Downunder
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
[mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Mr.erf ERFisher
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 10:50 PM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500?
and
and
No one does the "stroked" 500 for the GMC
We just want a engine that will not break
why do Mondello and Patterson specialize in on 455 ?
The 500 needs -
new motor mounts,
tranny adaptors,
new headers
special efi
re-wire the whole engine compartment
new alternator
new AC compressor
our vendors do not support the 500
etc
so why would anyone in their right mind do a 500????, for *NO GAIN* in ,
mpg, torque, hp, life time, anything that I can see ----
----BECAUSE THEY CAN----
is the only reason I can see
but then, I just want to drive and drive and drive ;>)
JMHO
gene
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500? [message #119293 is a reply to message #119263] |
Sat, 19 March 2011 18:30 |
jimk
Messages: 6734
Registered: July 2006
Location: Belmont, CA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Carl,
I really have caderacs, a Chinese Optamolegiest looked in there and
told me that and I almost started laughing and told him , "excuse me
Dr., but I drive a Rincon.
I told him the whole joke and was surprised that he liked the joke.
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Carl Stouffer <carljr3b@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> jimk wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 21:35
>> I have a Caderack, an Ornamental version of a Cad.
>> It's great to see that we have quate a group of these devoted people.
>
>
> Jim,
>
> There's an operation for that. Â It'll help you see better! :lol:
> --
> Carl S.
> '75 ex Palm Beach
> Tucson, AZ.
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500? [message #119295 is a reply to message #119179] |
Sat, 19 March 2011 18:43 |
Gary Casey
Messages: 448
Registered: September 2009
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Nobody has really talked about the actual design differences between the Olds
and Cad engine. As best I can tell the biggest difference is that the exhaust
ports are evenly spaced on the 500, eliminating the middle exhaust port hot
spot, and that's a very good thing. Besides that, I don't know. The output of
all the GM 455-class engine was very similar. Once, before the "corporate
engine" program at GM, we at Engineering Staff built one of each Chevy, Olds,
Pontiac, Buick and Cadillar with quick-change engines so that we could swap
engines from one to the other. Mind you, the chief engvineers of all the
divisions said that in large part the "character" of their brand was determined
by the engine - none wanted to use an engine from aother division. Turned out
that absolutely none of them could tell the difference in engines. The only
engine that isn't directly interchangeable is the Chevy and even then 2 bolts
and the dowel pins fit (only four bolts to go :-) My own humble opinion is that
it isn't worth the trouble to change from an Olds to a Cad, especially when the
floor has to be raised. And what's wrong with downshifting on a hill? Why all
this emphasis on "torque?" Power is what makes it go. By the way, I just
looked and the '68 Pontiac 6 produced almost as much power as the Olds 455. I
suppose there is nothing wrong with using the Buick 455 as it also bolts right
to the transmission. But why? I can guarantee you that it won't deliver
significantly more power at any rpm than the Olds.
Gary Casey
From John:
Has anyone ever attempted to drop in a Buick 455? I think it was the torque
monster of the lot, at least in HComp version in 70 it was 510. It's also
relatively light and compact. Just wondering. (Of course I'm a Buick nut
collecting GSs and TR's)
--
John Lebetski
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500? [message #119311 is a reply to message #119293] |
Sat, 19 March 2011 21:06 |
Carl S.
Messages: 4186
Registered: January 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ.
Karma: 13
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| jimk wrote on Sat, 19 March 2011 16:30 |
Carl,
I really have caderacs, a Chinese Optamolegiest looked in there and
told me that and I almost started laughing and told him , "excuse me
Dr., but I drive a Rincon.
I told him the whole joke and was surprised that he liked the joke.
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Carl Stouffer <carljr3b@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> jimk wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 21:35
>> I have a Caderack, an Ornamental version of a Cad.
>> It's great to see that we have quate a group of these devoted people.
>
>
> Jim,
>
> There's an operation for that. Â It'll help you see better! 
> --
> Carl S.
> '75 ex Palm Beach
> Tucson, AZ.
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
That's a funny, old joke, Jim.
Carl Stouffer
'75 ex Palm Beach
Tucson, AZ.
Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive, Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels, Rear American Eagles, Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500? [message #119334 is a reply to message #119248] |
Sun, 20 March 2011 09:05 |
 |
mike miller
Messages: 3576
Registered: February 2004
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| gordh1 wrote on Sat, 19 March 2011 06:43 |
Hi Les,
Contrary to the majority, I'd be looking really hard at swapping out for almost anything that's a bit more modern - unless of course you're set on keeping a classic, 'classic'.
I watch the Copart auctions for damaged FWD or 4WD power plants, and just about all I see make equal or more torque and hp than a 455 - and you can get parts, and you don't have to worry about oils, and fuel economy (regardless of weight and frontal area) has to be better *by design*, and 4,5,6,7 speed automatics or 5 or 6 speed manuals.
If you grab an entire car or truck that's running but has been smacked, you have everything you need. The 455 and the 3 speed get removed and the new plant set in place. Fab up a few mounts, graft the drive shafts if required, then clean up the wiring. Exhaust and fuel and other ancillaries - that's simple stuff really.
Guess what I'm trying to express is that if I (had a GM)  and chose to swap engines, I'd at least take the time, make the effort to bring the drive train up to 21st century specs.
Bring on the hate mail! 
|
Gord,
I agree with the idea BUT....
If the transmission of your donor is behind the engine, you'll have to extend the engine compartment well into the living area.
Not simple stuff or something most of us would want to do.
If I understand things correctly, the loss of other vehicles the full size FWD drive train was one (of many) reasons for shutting down GMC production. I heard they did look for a replacement including a transverse mounted 454.
I would love a more modern drive train. While there are good substitutes for the motor there doesn't seem to be a replacement for the transmission. Anything that will fit (without modifications to the coach) will not handle the power requirements.
Please prove me wrong. 
Mike Miller -- Hillsboro, OR -- on the Black list
(#2)`78 23' Birchaven Rear Bath -- (#3)`77 23' Birchaven Side Bath
More Sidekicks than GMC's and a late model Malibu called 'Boo'
http://m000035.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500? [message #119343 is a reply to message #119334] |
Sun, 20 March 2011 12:09 |
 |
gordh1
Messages: 332
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Mike,
Not having a GMC next to me to study fully, I have to guess a little - but... have a look-see at this just for amusement.
http://www.autobidmaster.com/carfinder-online-auto-auctions/lot/10138431/
Note the position of the front wheels versus the engine (4WD but we'll only use the front).
Engine specs:
| Quote: |
• 4,172 cc 4.2 liters V 8 front engine with 84.5 mm bore, 93 mm stroke, 11 compression ratio, double overhead cam, variable valve timing/camshaft and five valves per cylinder
• Premium unleaded fuel 91
• Fuel economy EPA highway (mpg): 24 and EPA city (mpg): 18
• Multi-point injection fuel system
• 23.8 gallon main premium unleaded fuel tank
• Power: 250 kW , 335 HP SAE @ 6,500 rpm; 317 ft lb , 430 Nm @ 3,500 rpm
|
I can't say for sure but I believe it's a 5 speed automatic and I think for that year, it was one of those you could sort of shift manually if you had the urge. I'll be curious to see what this sells for, along with the dozen or so others that are also going for auction. The A6, S6, S8 also use similar engines and it seems the power just increases each year, yet the economy stays about the same.
Don't forget - the 455 in a GMC came out of a car too, probably weighed less than these things (even though the A8 is entirely aluminum), and made less power with more fuel. 
It's fun to dream.
Gord
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500? [message #119348 is a reply to message #119343] |
Sun, 20 March 2011 14:09 |
|
mike miller
Messages: 3576
Registered: February 2004
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Funny that you should bring up this example.
I have an Audi A6 with a twin turbo 2.7 that is rated at 250hp. (From 167 cubic inches!)* To put the axle shafts far enough forward, the engine is pushed very close to the nose of the car. (The transmission has an interrogated front differential just aft the torque converter.) Almost every engine procedure starts with "Remove the front bumper..."
Both the mostly steel A6 and the mostly aluminium A8 are about 4000 lbs. (not far from the weight our th425 transmission where designed for.) The weak part of the VW/Audi drive train is normally the transmission. While my 2000 A6 has a 5 speed automatic, the newer models, like the A8 have 6 speed autos. These transmissions are built by "ZF" (who supply transmissions for many applications) and will pull a 4000lbs car just fine. But they do NOT seem to be "over built" like the TH425. I would not expect one to last very long pulling 12000lbs.
*The 2.7t's power band is a LOT higher than anything we are used to in a motorhome! While THAT motor isn't very suited for a heavy rig... this is where I got the idea that a twin turbo small block Chevy wouldn't be a bad transplant for a long term engine solution for my "2040" project coach. Availability of parts should be better (compared to the 455) and it should be able to be adapted for most fuels "likely" in the next 30 years. (Until 2040.)
Mike Miller -- Hillsboro, OR -- on the Black list
(#2)`78 23' Birchaven Rear Bath -- (#3)`77 23' Birchaven Side Bath
More Sidekicks than GMC's and a late model Malibu called 'Boo'
http://m000035.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500? [message #119394 is a reply to message #119179] |
Sun, 20 March 2011 22:49 |
rallymaster
Messages: 662
Registered: February 2004
Location: North Plains, ORYGUN
Karma: -4
|
Senior Member |
|
|
sounds good to me, if it didn't screw up the rear bedroom and the overall
height!!!!
RonC
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:29:57 -0500 Gord Hubbell <g.r.hubbell@gmail.com>
writes:
>
>
> Actually, to be quite honest given a little extra time and loot, I'd
> toss the FWD right out the window, stuff something modern, efficient
> and interesting in the back - maybe an Audi A8 4WD driving all 4
> rear wheels? :d
>
> Would I still be able to go after the landspeed record for a
> motorhome (GMC of course), but with alternate power / drive? :d
>
> Gord ;)
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
Ron & Linda Clark
1978 Eleganza II
North Plains, ORYGUN
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ron & Linda Clark
North Plains, ORYGUN
78 Eleganza II
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500? [message #119411 is a reply to message #119311] |
Mon, 21 March 2011 01:31 |
jimk
Messages: 6734
Registered: July 2006
Location: Belmont, CA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Carl,
I know the joke, and have told it numerous times.
However ithis really came up at Kaiser.
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Carl Stouffer <carljr3b@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> jimk wrote on Sat, 19 March 2011 16:30
>> Carl,
>> I really have caderacs, a Chinese Optamolegiest looked in there and
>> told me that and I almost started laughing and told him , "excuse me
>> Dr., but I drive a Rincon.
>> I told him the whole joke and was surprised that he liked the joke.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Carl Stouffer <carljr3b@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > jimk wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 21:35
>> >> I have a Caderack, an Ornamental version of a Cad.
>> >> It's great to see that we have quate a group of these devoted people.
>> >
>> >
>> > Jim,
>> >
>> > There's an operation for that.  It'll help you see better! :lol:
>> > --
>> > Carl S.
>> > '75 ex Palm Beach
>> > Tucson, AZ.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > GMCnet mailing list
>> > Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> > http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Kanomata
>> Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
>> jimk@appliedairfilters.com
>> http://www.appliedgmc.com
>> 1-800-752-7502
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
>
> That's a funny, old joke, Jim.
> --
> Carl S.
> '75 ex Palm Beach
> Tucson, AZ.
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500? [message #119418 is a reply to message #119179] |
Mon, 21 March 2011 06:54 |
Gary Casey
Messages: 448
Registered: September 2009
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Actually, the "RWD GMC" was thought of some time back. Before the GMC existed,
Chevrolet came up with a competing concept. They used an independent rear
suspension idea to keept the differential low (borrowed from the Corvette) and
drove he center axle. I think the floor couldn't be quite as low, but it was
close. I also like the idea of using the front half of a 4WD pickup driveline,
and while you're at it, use the whole front clip, including suspension and
knuckles. But do you have to do a rework to the transmission to make it live
putting all the power to the front? And would th length protrude behind the
steps up to the cockpit. I suspect the floor would have to be raised there.
Gary Casey
from Ron:
sounds good to me, if it didn't screw up the rear bedroom and the overall
height!!!!
RonC
> Actually, to be quite honest given a little extra time and loot, I'd
> toss the FWD right out the window, stuff something modern, efficient
> and interesting in the back - maybe an Audi A8 4WD driving all 4
> rear wheels? :d
>
> Would I still be able to go after the landspeed record for a
> motorhome (GMC of course), but with alternate power / drive? :d
>
> Gord ;)
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 455 or CAD 500? [message #119450 is a reply to message #119256] |
Mon, 21 March 2011 13:25 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Chr$ wrote on Sat, 19 March 2011 08:41 |
I've recently heard that the Chevy 8.1 (496) burn a lot of oil, they all do it. anyone know if this is true?
|
We have about 20,000 in our fleet and that doesn't seem to be an issue at all.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Sep 27 11:41:35 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02104 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
