Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity.
| [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233118] |
Sun, 15 December 2013 08:47  |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
For those few who may be interested, here's an album I just posted showing
the Cad 500 engine oil pan filled with successive quarts of water to
measure its capacity.
What it shows is that the pan will actually hold 7 quarts of oil without
reaching the level of the crankshaft, for what value that information may
have.
It also shows that the front portion of the pan (equipped with an OEM drain
plug) holds only about 26 oz vs the full 32 oz quart held by the Olds' pan.
Maybe this will help someone with dipstick calibration.
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/g6493-cad-500-oil-pan-capacity.html
Ken H.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233125 is a reply to message #233118] |
Sun, 15 December 2013 10:24  |
kerry pinkerton
Messages: 2565
Registered: July 2012
Location: Harvest, Al
Karma: 15
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I wonder how much stays up in the engine resting in various nooks and crannies? Pan + the oil filter + whatever residual might make 7 quarts about right? What did the Caddy manual call for?
Kerry Pinkerton - North Alabama
Had 5 over the years. Currently have a '06 Fleetwood Discovery 39L
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233128 is a reply to message #233126] |
Sun, 15 December 2013 12:20 |
roy1
Messages: 2126
Registered: July 2004
Location: Minden nevada
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Larry wrote on Sun, 15 December 2013 10:06 |
OH NO....don't tell me you've got your engine out again...
|
I think Ken just likes looking inside that engine.
Roy Keen
Minden,NV
76 X Glenbrook
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233176 is a reply to message #233126] |
Sun, 15 December 2013 20:08 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Larry <weidnerl@wwt.net> wrote:
>
>
> OH NO....don't tell me you've got your engine out again...
> --
Well.....Yeah, I've got the engine out again. :-(
I don't want to say I've been holding out on Y'All, but I'm afraid I
haven't been exactly free with all the information about my summer trip, so
here 'tis:
Remember those two broken rocker arm pedestals, one near JimK's and the
other near Tupelo, MS? Well, my diagnosis of their cause changed when I
pulled the heads. lt now seems that for at least the last 1/2, and
probably more, of my trip, the engine was running much too lean. After the
EFI monitor computer failed, I had only a narrow band A/F readout (Lean or
Rich, no indication of degree). Since I have Lean Cruise implemented, it
seldom bothered me to see the bouncing bar A/F indicator showing lean. But
when we found the exhaust valve recessed into the head about 1/16" on all 8
cylinders, it was obvious they'd been running 'WAY too hot. And the
excessive wear on the exhaust valve guides confirmed that. The #3 guide
was particularly bad, and that's where the pedestals broke. Heat binding +
geometry distortion combined to overload the pedestal -- we think.
Strangely, to me, the intake valves, the combustions chambers, and the
spark plugs did not look as if they'd been run lean. Perhaps they merely
reflect the 1000+ miles I ran over basically level country after burning
the valves in the mountains.
While Lean Cruise is my culprit, everyone should recognize that "I" am the
real culprit. I left GA with only moderately well developed fuel tables,
but since the engine was running so nice, I didn't make any real effort to
update them as we climbed into the higher elevations out west. Frankly, I
expected the tables to be conservative for that area. For those who don't
know, Lean Cruise is a mode into which the EFI switches when certain
pre-defined conditions (basically easy cruise conditions) are met. In that
mode, the computer drops out of Closed Loop (no longer monitors the O2
sensor to maintain 14.7:1 AFR) and instead refers to pre-established fuel
and spark advance tables. Based on a parameter set in the computer, LC is
enabled and disabled periodically so closed loop is "sampled' for guidance
in reading those tables. Aside from setting that parameter to a relatively
short 30 seconds, I really did nothing to those cruise tables -- I should
have.
So, mea culpa. I burned up my valves by carelessness, aided partially by
failed equipment. I'll be more careful in the future, and will probably
install both a wide band AFR and EGT gauges.
Now for the corrective action: We pulled the engine a couple of weeks
after I got home from the trip and it's been in the engine shop, idle, for
most of that time while I accumulated parts and energy. From Cadco, I've
acquired their Stage II camshaft, Stage I rocker arm set, and SS intake
(2.19") and exhaust (1.90") valves, along with lifters and springs. John
Beaver, my NASCAR engine-builder friend fitted the valves and I've now
reassembled the engine, as of last Friday. While none of that will prevent
further carelessness on my part, at least I'll feel more secure with no
more pedestals I can bust. :-)
Next Thursday is installation day, so I should be able to get it all
running again by Christmas and make the Sunshine Statesmen and Dixielanders
rallies at Lazy Days, Tampa in January. I'll try not to burn up the valves
during that 700 mile round trip. Randy, George, Larry, & anyone else I can
think of with EFI on my mind can expect calls for help upgrading my tables.
:-)
OK, that's my sorry tale. Y'All can pile on now. :-)
Ken H.
>
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233179 is a reply to message #233176] |
Sun, 15 December 2013 20:25 |
k2gkk
Messages: 4452
Registered: November 2009
Karma: -8
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Why on earh would anyone wish to "pile on" as you say?
It's your wallet that has taken the hits and some who play around with stuff may avoid repeating your experience.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~~ k2gkk @ hotmail dot com ~~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ex-Palm Beach, 76 ~ ~ ~
~~ k2gkk + hotmail dot com ~~
~ www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> From: hend4800@bellsouth.net
> Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 21:08:10 -0500
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity.
>
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Larry <weidnerl@wwt.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > OH NO....don't tell me you've got your engine out again...
> > --
>
>
> Well.....Yeah, I've got the engine out again. :-(
>
> I don't want to say I've been holding out on Y'All, but I'm afraid I
> haven't been exactly free with all the information about my summer trip, so
> here 'tis:
>
> Remember those two broken rocker arm pedestals, one near JimK's and the
> other near Tupelo, MS? Well, my diagnosis of their cause changed when I
> pulled the heads. lt now seems that for at least the last 1/2, and
> probably more, of my trip, the engine was running much too lean. After the
> EFI monitor computer failed, I had only a narrow band A/F readout (Lean or
> Rich, no indication of degree). Since I have Lean Cruise implemented, it
> seldom bothered me to see the bouncing bar A/F indicator showing lean. But
> when we found the exhaust valve recessed into the head about 1/16" on all 8
> cylinders, it was obvious they'd been running 'WAY too hot. And the
> excessive wear on the exhaust valve guides confirmed that. The #3 guide
> was particularly bad, and that's where the pedestals broke. Heat binding +
> geometry distortion combined to overload the pedestal -- we think.
> Strangely, to me, the intake valves, the combustions chambers, and the
> spark plugs did not look as if they'd been run lean. Perhaps they merely
> reflect the 1000+ miles I ran over basically level country after burning
> the valves in the mountains.
>
> While Lean Cruise is my culprit, everyone should recognize that "I" am the
> real culprit. I left GA with only moderately well developed fuel tables,
> but since the engine was running so nice, I didn't make any real effort to
> update them as we climbed into the higher elevations out west. Frankly, I
> expected the tables to be conservative for that area. For those who don't
> know, Lean Cruise is a mode into which the EFI switches when certain
> pre-defined conditions (basically easy cruise conditions) are met. In that
> mode, the computer drops out of Closed Loop (no longer monitors the O2
> sensor to maintain 14.7:1 AFR) and instead refers to pre-established fuel
> and spark advance tables. Based on a parameter set in the computer, LC is
> enabled and disabled periodically so closed loop is "sampled' for guidance
> in reading those tables. Aside from setting that parameter to a relatively
> short 30 seconds, I really did nothing to those cruise tables -- I should
> have.
>
> So, mea culpa. I burned up my valves by carelessness, aided partially by
> failed equipment. I'll be more careful in the future, and will probably
> install both a wide band AFR and EGT gauges.
>
> Now for the corrective action: We pulled the engine a couple of weeks
> after I got home from the trip and it's been in the engine shop, idle, for
> most of that time while I accumulated parts and energy. From Cadco, I've
> acquired their Stage II camshaft, Stage I rocker arm set, and SS intake
> (2.19") and exhaust (1.90") valves, along with lifters and springs. John
> Beaver, my NASCAR engine-builder friend fitted the valves and I've now
> reassembled the engine, as of last Friday. While none of that will prevent
> further carelessness on my part, at least I'll feel more secure with no
> more pedestals I can bust. :-)
>
> Next Thursday is installation day, so I should be able to get it all
> running again by Christmas and make the Sunshine Statesmen and Dixielanders
> rallies at Lazy Days, Tampa in January. I'll try not to burn up the valves
> during that 700 mile round trip. Randy, George, Larry, & anyone else I can
> think of with EFI on my mind can expect calls for help upgrading my tables.
> :-)
>
> OK, that's my sorry tale. Y'All can pile on now. :-)
>
> Ken H.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233185 is a reply to message #233176] |
Sun, 15 December 2013 21:35 |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ken,
I see something that I'd like to ask a question about.
"But when we found the exhaust valve recessed into the head about 1/16" on all 8
cylinders, it was obvious they'd been running 'WAY too hot."
”From Cadco, I've acquired their Stage II camshaft, Stage I rocker arm set, and SS intake
(2.19") and exhaust (1.90") valves, along with lifters and springs. John Beaver, my NASCAR
engine-builder friend fitted the valves and I've now reassembled the engine, as of last Friday."
Did John install new valve seats or re-cut the OEM seats for the 1.90 exhaust valves?
BTW when I was working with Jerry Potter on my Caddy 500 he noted that since the engine would not see high RPM's 1.77" exhaust
valves would be fine. However, since I was going to set it up to run AutoGas (60% LPG / 405 Butane) would drive up the exhaust temps
and therefore stellite exhaust valve seats would be a good idea and the heads he built for me incorporated them.
Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Henderson
Well.....Yeah, I've got the engine out again. :-(
I don't want to say I've been holding out on Y'All, but I'm afraid I
haven't been exactly free with all the information about my summer trip, so
here 'tis:
Remember those two broken rocker arm pedestals, one near JimK's and the
other near Tupelo, MS? Well, my diagnosis of their cause changed when I
pulled the heads. lt now seems that for at least the last 1/2, and
probably more, of my trip, the engine was running much too lean. After the
EFI monitor computer failed, I had only a narrow band A/F readout (Lean or
Rich, no indication of degree). Since I have Lean Cruise implemented, it
seldom bothered me to see the bouncing bar A/F indicator showing lean. But
when we found the exhaust valve recessed into the head about 1/16" on all 8
cylinders, it was obvious they'd been running 'WAY too hot. And the
excessive wear on the exhaust valve guides confirmed that. The #3 guide
was particularly bad, and that's where the pedestals broke. Heat binding +
geometry distortion combined to overload the pedestal -- we think.
Strangely, to me, the intake valves, the combustions chambers, and the
spark plugs did not look as if they'd been run lean. Perhaps they merely
reflect the 1000+ miles I ran over basically level country after burning
the valves in the mountains.
While Lean Cruise is my culprit, everyone should recognize that "I" am the
real culprit. I left GA with only moderately well developed fuel tables,
but since the engine was running so nice, I didn't make any real effort to
update them as we climbed into the higher elevations out west. Frankly, I
expected the tables to be conservative for that area. For those who don't
know, Lean Cruise is a mode into which the EFI switches when certain
pre-defined conditions (basically easy cruise conditions) are met. In that
mode, the computer drops out of Closed Loop (no longer monitors the O2
sensor to maintain 14.7:1 AFR) and instead refers to pre-established fuel
and spark advance tables. Based on a parameter set in the computer, LC is
enabled and disabled periodically so closed loop is "sampled' for guidance
in reading those tables. Aside from setting that parameter to a relatively
short 30 seconds, I really did nothing to those cruise tables -- I should
have.
So, mea culpa. I burned up my valves by carelessness, aided partially by
failed equipment. I'll be more careful in the future, and will probably
install both a wide band AFR and EGT gauges.
Now for the corrective action: We pulled the engine a couple of weeks
after I got home from the trip and it's been in the engine shop, idle, for
most of that time while I accumulated parts and energy. From Cadco, I've
acquired their Stage II camshaft, Stage I rocker arm set, and SS intake
(2.19") and exhaust (1.90") valves, along with lifters and springs. John
Beaver, my NASCAR engine-builder friend fitted the valves and I've now
reassembled the engine, as of last Friday. While none of that will prevent
further carelessness on my part, at least I'll feel more secure with no
more pedestals I can bust. :-)
Next Thursday is installation day, so I should be able to get it all
running again by Christmas and make the Sunshine Statesmen and Dixielanders
rallies at Lazy Days, Tampa in January. I'll try not to burn up the valves
during that 700 mile round trip. Randy, George, Larry, & anyone else I can
think of with EFI on my mind can expect calls for help upgrading my tables.
:-)
OK, that's my sorry tale. Y'All can pile on now. :-)
Ken H.
>
>
_______________________________________________
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] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233194 is a reply to message #233185] |
Mon, 16 December 2013 07:17 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rob,
No, we did not install seats. We considered it, but every reference I
found, and Cadco, recommended against it. The common position was that the
head material is hard enough, and that the risk of hitting the water jacket
too great. That means, to me, that I've got to be especially careful about
exhaust temperatures. I DARNED sure don't want to do another engine
change! :-)
Would you believe, the seats, recessed though they were, looked pretty
darned good?
Ken H.
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Robert Mueller <robmueller@iinet.net.au>wrote:
> Ken,
>
> I see something that I'd like to ask a question about.
>
> "But when we found the exhaust valve recessed into the head about 1/16" on
> all 8
> cylinders, it was obvious they'd been running 'WAY too hot."
>
> â€From Cadco, I've acquired their Stage II camshaft, Stage I rocker arm
> set, and SS intake
> (2.19") and exhaust (1.90") valves, along with lifters and springs. John
> Beaver, my NASCAR
> engine-builder friend fitted the valves and I've now reassembled the
> engine, as of last Friday."
>
> Did John install new valve seats or re-cut the OEM seats for the 1.90
> exhaust valves?
>
> BTW when I was working with Jerry Potter on my Caddy 500 he noted that
> since the engine would not see high RPM's 1.77" exhaust
> valves would be fine. However, since I was going to set it up to run
> AutoGas (60% LPG / 405 Butane) would drive up the exhaust temps
> and therefore stellite exhaust valve seats would be a good idea and the
> heads he built for me incorporated them.
>
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233197 is a reply to message #233194] |
Mon, 16 December 2013 08:32 |
Sammy Williams
Messages: 522
Registered: August 2010
Karma: -2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I would like to pile on and ask for a parts list if you have time or point
me to a web site if you already have one up. I am doing 500 cubic inch
research. I do that a lot with engines lately. Thanks!! Sammy Williams --
GMC less but has an 1976 eldo conv in storage. lol
On Dec 16, 2013 7:18 AM, "Ken Henderson" <hend4800@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> No, we did not install seats. We considered it, but every reference I
> found, and Cadco, recommended against it. The common position was that the
> head material is hard enough, and that the risk of hitting the water jacket
> too great. That means, to me, that I've got to be especially careful about
> exhaust temperatures. I DARNED sure don't want to do another engine
> change! :-)
>
> Would you believe, the seats, recessed though they were, looked pretty
> darned good?
>
> Ken H.
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Robert Mueller <robmueller@iinet.net.au
> >wrote:
>
> > Ken,
> >
> > I see something that I'd like to ask a question about.
> >
> > "But when we found the exhaust valve recessed into the head about 1/16"
> on
> > all 8
> > cylinders, it was obvious they'd been running 'WAY too hot."
> >
> > ”From Cadco, I've acquired their Stage II camshaft, Stage I rocker arm
> > set, and SS intake
> > (2.19") and exhaust (1.90") valves, along with lifters and springs. John
> > Beaver, my NASCAR
> > engine-builder friend fitted the valves and I've now reassembled the
> > engine, as of last Friday."
> >
> > Did John install new valve seats or re-cut the OEM seats for the 1.90
> > exhaust valves?
> >
> > BTW when I was working with Jerry Potter on my Caddy 500 he noted that
> > since the engine would not see high RPM's 1.77" exhaust
> > valves would be fine. However, since I was going to set it up to run
> > AutoGas (60% LPG / 405 Butane) would drive up the exhaust temps
> > and therefore stellite exhaust valve seats would be a good idea and the
> > heads he built for me incorporated them.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233199 is a reply to message #233176] |
Mon, 16 December 2013 08:54 |
Mr ERFisher
Messages: 7117
Registered: August 2005
Karma: 2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Do not understand lean cruse
You will not gain 1 mpg
Not worth the risk ?
We used to run 455 rich just to extend the life
FREE WIFI @ Mickey D
On Dec 15, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Ken Henderson <hend4800@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Larry <weidnerl@wwt.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> OH NO....don't tell me you've got your engine out again...
>> --
>
>
> Well.....Yeah, I've got the engine out again. :-(
>
> I don't want to say I've been holding out on Y'All, but I'm afraid I
> haven't been exactly free with all the information about my summer trip, so
> here 'tis:
>
> Remember those two broken rocker arm pedestals, one near JimK's and the
> other near Tupelo, MS? Well, my diagnosis of their cause changed when I
> pulled the heads. lt now seems that for at least the last 1/2, and
> probably more, of my trip, the engine was running much too lean. After the
> EFI monitor computer failed, I had only a narrow band A/F readout (Lean or
> Rich, no indication of degree). Since I have Lean Cruise implemented, it
> seldom bothered me to see the bouncing bar A/F indicator showing lean. But
> when we found the exhaust valve recessed into the head about 1/16" on all 8
> cylinders, it was obvious they'd been running 'WAY too hot. And the
> excessive wear on the exhaust valve guides confirmed that. The #3 guide
> was particularly bad, and that's where the pedestals broke. Heat binding +
> geometry distortion combined to overload the pedestal -- we think.
> Strangely, to me, the intake valves, the combustions chambers, and the
> spark plugs did not look as if they'd been run lean. Perhaps they merely
> reflect the 1000+ miles I ran over basically level country after burning
> the valves in the mountains.
>
> While Lean Cruise is my culprit, everyone should recognize that "I" am the
> real culprit. I left GA with only moderately well developed fuel tables,
> but since the engine was running so nice, I didn't make any real effort to
> update them as we climbed into the higher elevations out west. Frankly, I
> expected the tables to be conservative for that area. For those who don't
> know, Lean Cruise is a mode into which the EFI switches when certain
> pre-defined conditions (basically easy cruise conditions) are met. In that
> mode, the computer drops out of Closed Loop (no longer monitors the O2
> sensor to maintain 14.7:1 AFR) and instead refers to pre-established fuel
> and spark advance tables. Based on a parameter set in the computer, LC is
> enabled and disabled periodically so closed loop is "sampled' for guidance
> in reading those tables. Aside from setting that parameter to a relatively
> short 30 seconds, I really did nothing to those cruise tables -- I should
> have.
>
> So, mea culpa. I burned up my valves by carelessness, aided partially by
> failed equipment. I'll be more careful in the future, and will probably
> install both a wide band AFR and EGT gauges.
>
> Now for the corrective action: We pulled the engine a couple of weeks
> after I got home from the trip and it's been in the engine shop, idle, for
> most of that time while I accumulated parts and energy. From Cadco, I've
> acquired their Stage II camshaft, Stage I rocker arm set, and SS intake
> (2.19") and exhaust (1.90") valves, along with lifters and springs. John
> Beaver, my NASCAR engine-builder friend fitted the valves and I've now
> reassembled the engine, as of last Friday. While none of that will prevent
> further carelessness on my part, at least I'll feel more secure with no
> more pedestals I can bust. :-)
>
> Next Thursday is installation day, so I should be able to get it all
> running again by Christmas and make the Sunshine Statesmen and Dixielanders
> rallies at Lazy Days, Tampa in January. I'll try not to burn up the valves
> during that 700 mile round trip. Randy, George, Larry, & anyone else I can
> think of with EFI on my mind can expect calls for help upgrading my tables.
> :-)
>
> OK, that's my sorry tale. Y'All can pile on now. :-)
>
> Ken H.
>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233201 is a reply to message #233194] |
Mon, 16 December 2013 09:46 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Ken Henderson wrote on Mon, 16 December 2013 08:17 |
Rob,
No, we did not install seats. We considered it, but every reference I found, and Cadco, recommended against it. The common position was that the head material is hard enough, and that the risk of hitting the water jacket too great. That means, to me, that I've got to be especially careful about exhaust temperatures. I DARNED sure don't want to do another engine change! 
Would you believe, the seats, recessed though they were, looked pretty darned good?
Ken H.
|
Ken,
A lot of Detroit iron is happy with parent metal seats even in extreme operations. The big problem I encountered when doing aftermarket parts was that the "less expensive" lines often had problems with the exhaust seat heat treatment and were not allowed the time/expense to shut the line down and repair same. this would lead to a run of failures in the 60~70K region in truck/van service. (Sold a lot of SB Chevy and Chrysler LA sets to annoyed people.)
At 0.060 recession, I would be worried about the thickness of the remaining hardened seat. Unfortunately, I do not know a non-destructive means to check this. Maybe someone at Cadco has a good idea. Does the same source even recommend not doing seats that have receded that far? (60 is not the worse I have seen, but it is not good.)
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233233 is a reply to message #233118] |
Mon, 16 December 2013 16:25 |
Ultravan Owners
Messages: 443
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ken,
I must say I have not read up on the history of your build and your coach.
I could be way out in left field! However, if there is some custom work going on with the powder plant and even though the oil pan can hold up to 7qts of oil; be careful not to over fill.
Unless you know for sure the volume that is going through the engine at a given RPM and just how much is left in the pan I would do the following.
If you still have the pan off - fill it back up to lets say 5qts and then act like you are driving up a long hill at 3%+ and see just where that oil might be then.
Without a crank tray to help keep the oil from splashing back - it might, and I say might, cause a crank to drag - going up or down long grades.
Best of Luck with getting it bakc on the road in time.
Tony (Ontario Canada)
Marie and I are blessed to have had a 2nd chance to buy our farm.
Still hoping and more importantly praying to be able to build a garage.
Our 1970 Ultravan #520 has an Olds Toronado 455 in back.
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233251 is a reply to message #233233] |
Mon, 16 December 2013 17:32 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Tony,
I was by no means proposing that anyone use the full capacity of the pan --
just reporting what I learned by my experiment. Notice that I only filled
it to 5 quarts since that's the recommended "dose". I'd be concerned
about foaming of the engine oil if the crankcase was filled with 7 quarts
-- foaming oil does not lubricate well.
Which brings up again the discussion we've had here in the past about that
almost 1 quart (full quart for the Olds engine) that's in the front
compartment. Since the Cad comes with a drain plug there, we can assume
that the recommended 5 quart fill winds up putting only a little over 4
quarts in the deep part of the pan, while the Olds receives the full 5
quarts (slightly contaminated by mixing with the trapped quart in the front
area).
Ken H.
Americus, GA
'76 X-Birchaven w/Cad500/Howell EFI & EBL
www.gmcwipersetc.com
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Tony <Ultravanman248@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ken,
>
> I must say I have not read up on the history of your build and your coach.
>
> I could be way out in left field! However, if there is some custom work
> going on with the powder plant and even though the oil pan can hold up to
> 7qts of oil; be careful not to over fill.
>
> Unless you know for sure the volume that is going through the engine at a
> given RPM and just how much is left in the pan I would do the following.
>
> If you still have the pan off - fill it back up to lets say 5qts and then
> act like you are driving up a long hill at 3%+ and see just where that oil
> might be then.
>
> Without a crank tray to help keep the oil from splashing back - it might,
> and I say might, cause a crank to drag - going up or down long grades.
>
> Best of Luck with getting it bakc on the road in time.
>
>
>
> --
> Tony Ontario Canada 70 Ultravan #520 with an Olds Toronado 455 under the
> bed, in back. Like to have a 78 GMC, twin beds in back, one couch up
> front. If you have one that is on the road & you're willing to sell it -
> let us know.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233256 is a reply to message #233251] |
Mon, 16 December 2013 18:32 |
jim kanomata
Messages: 257
Registered: March 2007
Location: fremont,ca
Karma: 12
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ken,
Is it my vision, or what, but it seems like the engines tend to tilt down in the front on the coach and tend to create the full 1 qt.
in the front part of the pan.
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233257 is a reply to message #233256] |
Mon, 16 December 2013 18:38 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dunno, Jim. To me, it looks like they're higher in the front. But, given
the variable terrain we live on, I don't think it much matters -- the
attitude's about to change anyway. Which is why I make sure the pan flange
is bubble-level when I run the tests -- need something to be constant. :-)
Remembering that Seattle hill which I couldn't climb with the toad
connected, I'd be afraid to go DOWN it for fear of starving the oil pump!
Ken H.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 7:32 PM, jim kanomata <jimk@appliedairfilters.com>wrote:
>
>
> Ken,
> Is it my vision, or what, but it seems like the engines tend to tilt down
> in the front on the coach and tend to create the full 1 qt.
> in the front part of the pan.
> --
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233274 is a reply to message #233251] |
Mon, 16 December 2013 20:52 |
Larry
Messages: 2875
Registered: January 2004
Location: Menomonie, WI
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Ken Henderson wrote on Mon, 16 December 2013 17:32 |
Tony,
I was by no means proposing that anyone use the full capacity of the pan --
just reporting what I learned by my experiment. Notice that I only filled
it to 5 quarts since that's the recommended "dose". I'd be concerned
about foaming of the engine oil if the crankcase was filled with 7 quarts
-- foaming oil does not lubricate well.
Which brings up again the discussion we've had here in the past about that
almost 1 quart (full quart for the Olds engine) that's in the front
compartment. Since the Cad comes with a drain plug there, we can assume
that the recommended 5 quart fill winds up putting only a little over 4
quarts in the deep part of the pan, while the Olds receives the full 5
quarts (slightly contaminated by mixing with the trapped quart in the front
area).
Ken H.
Americus, GA
'76 X-Birchaven w/Cad500/Howell EFI & EBL
www.gmcwipersetc.com
|
Lets not forget about another quart that resides in the oil cooler/coolers. If I drain both front and rear parts of the pan, drain the oil cooler, and new oil filter, I need almost 6 1/2 qts to bring the oil up to the full mark. If I add an external engine cooler, that's even more. Drain everything, put in 5 qts and run the motor for 1 minute or so to fill cooler and filter. Let sit for 2-3 minutes then check the stick and add accordingly. For me, comes to 6 1/2 qts. I never overfill...don't want the crank to hit the standing oil. JWID
PS: Ken, if you need a bin to start with, I can send you one. We have different cams and different valves, but might give you a starting point. My spark table is a little aggressive. I get some knocking when I fill with 87 octane. ( I use 89 octane ethanol free because that is the lowest grade non ethanol available here in Menomonie.)
Larry
78 Royale w/500 Caddy
Menomonie, WI.
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233291 is a reply to message #233194] |
Tue, 17 December 2013 00:20 |
|
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ken,
OK, here's what I did my research into Cadillac 500 heads I found out that the valve seats were induction hardened at the factory.
When I discussed whether or not I should install stellite valve seats Jerry Potter (RIP - Mr. Caddy 500 like Joe Mondello was Mr.
Olds) noted that while I would probably be OK without them it would be better with them over the long term.
I agree with you vis-à-vis the seats. The machine shop I used in Houston to rebuild the Caddy screwed up and used the wrong seats
and hit water.
Jerry Potter talked to his machinist and the machinist guaranteed that he could put them in and NOT hit water. If he did he'd pay
for the ruined head(s)! The machinist noted that the shop in Houston used the wrong seats. At any rate I've got two heads with
stellite valve seats in them.
By the way when I was doing my research into building the Caddy Jerry Potter told me had a couple of customers that had built LPG
engines and he could talk with them for info. Marty of MTS noted that they had never built a Caddy 500 that ran on LPG. The CADCO
gave me all kinds of advice and when I asked how many engines LPG engines they had built the answer was none. Things that make you
go Hmmmmmm.
The reason I asked you about the valve seats is that I assumed that John had to cut new seats into the heads for the oversize valves
and I wondered if he machined deeper than the hardening.
Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Henderson
Rob,
No, we did not install seats. We considered it, but every reference I
found, and Cadco, recommended against it. The common position was that the
head material is hard enough, and that the risk of hitting the water jacket
too great. That means, to me, that I've got to be especially careful about
exhaust temperatures. I DARNED sure don't want to do another engine
change! :-)
Would you believe, the seats, recessed though they were, looked pretty
darned good?
Ken H.
_______________________________________________
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] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233298 is a reply to message #233291] |
Tue, 17 December 2013 07:15 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rob,
I agree with your "Hmmmmmm". Especially since the advice I got from them
was to not install seats. These being '73 heads, I'm not even sure they
were ever hardened. And even if they were, would that treatment extend to
the area these BIG valves seat? But all of Cadco's info is that the base
nickle-iron is good enough. I'm not sure other similar reports don't just
echo Cadco. All the more reason for me to be very careful about mixture.
With the oversize valves, no, John didn't have to cut too deep -- but too
wide???
Ken
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Robert Mueller <robmueller@iinet.net.au>wrote:
> Ken,
>
> OK, here's what I did my research into Cadillac 500 heads I found out that
> the valve seats were induction hardened at the factory.
> When I discussed whether or not I should install stellite valve seats
> Jerry Potter (RIP - Mr. Caddy 500 like Joe Mondello was Mr.
> Olds) noted that while I would probably be OK without them it would be
> better with them over the long term.
>
> I agree with you vis-Ã -vis the seats. The machine shop I used in Houston
> to rebuild the Caddy screwed up and used the wrong seats
> and hit water.
>
> Jerry Potter talked to his machinist and the machinist guaranteed that he
> could put them in and NOT hit water. If he did he'd pay
> for the ruined head(s)! The machinist noted that the shop in Houston used
> the wrong seats. At any rate I've got two heads with
> stellite valve seats in them.
>
> By the way when I was doing my research into building the Caddy Jerry
> Potter told me had a couple of customers that had built LPG
> engines and he could talk with them for info. Marty of MTS noted that they
> had never built a Caddy 500 that ran on LPG. The CADCO
> gave me all kinds of advice and when I asked how many engines LPG engines
> they had built the answer was none. Things that make you
> go Hmmmmmm.
>
> The reason I asked you about the valve seats is that I assumed that John
> had to cut new seats into the heads for the oversize valves
> and I wondered if he machined deeper than the hardening.
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
> Sydney, Australia
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Henderson
>
> Rob,
>
> No, we did not install seats. We considered it, but every reference I
> found, and Cadco, recommended against it. The common position was that the
> head material is hard enough, and that the risk of hitting the water jacket
> too great. That means, to me, that I've got to be especially careful about
> exhaust temperatures. I DARNED sure don't want to do another engine
> change! :-)
>
> Would you believe, the seats, recessed though they were, looked pretty
> darned good?
>
> Ken H.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Cad 500 Oil Pan Capacity. [message #233305 is a reply to message #233298] |
Tue, 17 December 2013 09:06 |
|
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Ken Henderson wrote on Tue, 17 December 2013 08:15 |
Rob,
I agree with your "Hmmmmmm". Especially since the advice I got from them was to not install seats. These being '73 heads, I'm not even sure they were ever hardened. And even if they were, would that treatment extend to the area these BIG valves seat? But all of Cadco's info is that the base nickle-iron is good enough. I'm not sure other similar reports don't just echo Cadco. All the more reason for me to be very careful about mixture.
With the oversize valves, no, John didn't have to cut too deep -- but too wide???
Ken
|
Ken,
Most of the Detroit engine lines - at least from the mid-70s on - have been hardening exhaust valve seats. Some were flame and some (most) were induction. If you look for a heat affected area around the valve seats, you will probably see it. This is not a given, but it is a better than even bet.
Next Question....
¿Did the exhaust valves "Tulip" at all?
If they did not then, unless they were race-quality valves, like stainless or something, then you may have cut through the hardening. Cylinder temperatures high enough to cause that level of recession with a hard seat will usually also cause the valve heads to "wilt".
Years ago I worked with a guy that had been at Pratt&Whitney. He often referred to automotive as "gasoline cooled" engines. But with what aircraft parts cost, but often reminded him that the cost and TBO of aircraft would put any automotive manufacturer out of business.
In short, your lean cruise may not have been the killer. Remember the Cadco people don't usually deal with situations that can load an engine the way a GMC can regularly and for extended periods.
Have you though about mounting the engine on Dzus fasteners?
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Sep 23 22:29:59 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06815 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
