Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice?
| Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice? [message #274486] |
Sat, 28 March 2015 07:21  |
Chris Tyler
Messages: 458
Registered: September 2013
Location: Odessa FL
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Curious if anyone has any insight as to how the Olds 455 was chosen for this application vs the Caddy 500, or even the Buick 455?
76 Glenbrook
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice? [message #274495 is a reply to message #274486] |
Sat, 28 March 2015 10:52  |
midlf
Messages: 2212
Registered: July 2007
Location: SE Wisc. (Palmyra)
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chris Tyler wrote on Sat, 28 March 2015 07:21Curious if anyone has any insight as to how the Olds 455 was chosen for this application vs the Caddy 500, or even the Buick 455?
Maybe because GM knew better! <grin>
Steve Southworth
1974 Glacier TZE064V100150 (for workin on)
1975 Transmode TZE365V100394 (parts & spares)
Palmyra WI
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice? [message #274509 is a reply to message #274487] |
Sat, 28 March 2015 15:23 |
Chris Tyler
Messages: 458
Registered: September 2013
Location: Odessa FL
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Sammy Williams wrote on Sat, 28 March 2015 07:25The olds is more plentiful and already set up as fwd. The buick 455 is rwd
only. (Guesses ) Sammy Williams
The Buick was availible in the contemporary Riveara, the Caddy in the El Dorado, both FWD
I'm guessing cost and production capability. Would have been nice to have the 500
76 Glenbrook
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice? [message #274510 is a reply to message #274509] |
Sat, 28 March 2015 15:37 |
james Ernst
Messages: 79
Registered: December 2013
Location: Lincoln, NE
Karma: -4
|
Member |
|
|
Steve is right, GM did know better. The Olds was simply the better engine
especially compared to the Buick 455. Also the Buick 455 never saw front
wheel drive. The Riv didn't have fwd till later and iirc those Riv's had
Olds engines in them 307/350 Ithink. Also, Bob D commented on this a
while back.
Jim Ernst
Columbus, NE
77 PB
77 Kingsley
On Mar 28, 2015 3:24 PM, "Chris Tyler" wrote:
> Sammy Williams wrote on Sat, 28 March 2015 07:25
>> The olds is more plentiful and already set up as fwd. The buick 455 is
> rwd
>> only. (Guesses ) Sammy Williams
>
>
> The Buick was availible in the contemporary Riveara, the Caddy in the El
> Dorado, both FWD
>
> I'm guessing cost and production capability. Would have been nice to have
> the 500
> --
> 76 Glenbrook
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Jimbalaya
No Coach yet
60 Olds 88
66 Toro
76 Toro
86 cutlass Supreme
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice? [message #274515 is a reply to message #274486] |
Sat, 28 March 2015 15:52 |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chris,
Rumours have it that Caddy would not "sell" the 500 to GMC, don't know the reason. I'll forward this to Bill Bryant the Official GMC
Historian and ask him to respond.
Regards,
Rob M.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Chris Tyler
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 7:21 AM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: [GMCnet] Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice?
Curious if anyone has any insight as to how the Olds 455 was chosen for this application vs the Caddy 500, or even the Buick 455?
--
76 Glenbrook
_______________________________________________
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] Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice? [message #274521 is a reply to message #274515] |
Sat, 28 March 2015 17:57 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Responding to what is below:
I hope Bill does have an answer. What I heard was that it almost was a choice, but as a 472 and later 500, but that was from Livonia Engine and their Cadillac line had quality trouble and was always behind. By that same token, the Olds big blocks had been out in the field for industrial power for years and had a good reputation of running irrigation pumps and such for long periods without problems. Kinda sounds like what I would want in a 6 ton coach.
Matt
Quote: On Behalf Of Chris Tyler
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 7:21 AM
Subject: [GMCnet] Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice?
Curious if anyone has any insight as to how the Olds 455 was chosen for this application vs the Caddy 500, or even the Buick 455?
USAussie (aka Rob) wrote on Sat, 28 March 2015 16:52
Chris,
Rumours have it that Caddy would not "sell" the 500 to GMC, don't know the reason. I'll forward this to Bill Bryant the Official GMC Historian and ask him to respond.
Regards,
Rob M.
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] Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice? [message #274522 is a reply to message #274521] |
Sat, 28 March 2015 19:10 |
roy1
Messages: 2126
Registered: July 2004
Location: Minden nevada
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Matt Colie wrote on Sat, 28 March 2015 15:57Responding to what is below:
I hope Bill does have an answer. What I heard was that it almost was a choice, but as a 472 and later 500, but that was from Livonia Engine and their Cadillac line had quality trouble and was always behind. By that same token, the Olds big blocks had been out in the field for industrial power for years and had a good reputation of running irrigation pumps and such for long periods without problems. Kinda sounds like what I would want in a 6 ton coach.
Matt
Quote: On Behalf Of Chris Tyler
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 7:21 AM
Subject: [GMCnet] Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice?
Curious if anyone has any insight as to how the Olds 455 was chosen for this application vs the Caddy 500, or even the Buick 455?
USAussie (aka Rob) wrote on Sat, 28 March 2015 16:52
Chris,
Rumours have it that Caddy would not "sell" the 500 to GMC, don't know the reason. I'll forward this to Bill Bryant the Official GMC Historian and ask him to respond.
Regards,
Rob M.
Not to mention they were in a lot of jet boats back in the day
Roy Keen
Minden,NV
76 X Glenbrook
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice? [message #274523 is a reply to message #274510] |
Sat, 28 March 2015 19:42 |
Chris Tyler
Messages: 458
Registered: September 2013
Location: Odessa FL
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
[quote title=james Ernst wrote on Sat, 28 March 2015 15:37]Steve is right, GM did know better. The Olds was simply the better engine
especially compared to the Buick 455. Also the Buick 455 never saw front
wheel drive. The Riv didn't have fwd till later and iirc those Riv's had
Olds engines in them 307/350 Ithink. Also, Bob D commented on this a
while back.
You know, youre right I could have sworn Rivs were FWD also in those years.
That certainly explains the lack of buicks.
76 Glenbrook
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice? [message #274527 is a reply to message #274523] |
Sat, 28 March 2015 22:44 |
|
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
G'day,
I received the following from Bill Bryant.
Regards,
Rob M.
-----Original Message-----
From: bryant374@earthlink.net [mailto:bryant374@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2015 11:33 AM
To: Rob Mueller
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice?
Hi Rob,
I'm fine, been busy getting my daughters estate settled. Sold her house a couple of weeks ago, put her car away until the snow
disappears, seem to be dealing with a bunch of incompetents in attempting to get other details finalized. Hopefully will get my
attention back to GMC stuff soon. Wish I could be at Patterson!
I check the GMCnet every day, so I had seen the question on engine choice.
Here is what I think I know.
Engineer Ralph Merkle was the key person with the initial development. The plan was to use as much off the shelf existing hardware
as possible and yes, at least partially, costs were a driving those decisions. The "pie wagon" was built to demonstrate the FWD
(Olds) and unique rear suspension. There were already 4 other makes of motor homes that used the Olds FWD 455 assembly so the GMC
MH was not unique with that usage.
Why?
I don't believe any other GM produced engines were even considered since the Olds assembly was readily available, a proven design at
a reasonable price point.
The Caddy 500 certainly could have been a choice, but why. The Olds performed well and was less costly.
I was going to go on with other reasons but my take is why bother, the above answer says it all.
I also attached an answer to a past question on why the GMC front vs. rear track differs, thought it fit in here.
Hope this helps, have a great convention, Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Chris Tyler
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 04:51 AM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Front track vs Rear track difference
Several months ago there was a great deal of discussion on the GMCnet, why had GMC designed the motor home with a narrower track in
front than the rear. I recently was going thru some old audio tapes of interviews I did in the mid 1990s with the original GMC MH
Engineers and there was information I had forgotten about for many years.
Ralph Merkle was an engineer in the GMC Product Development area and was looking for a new vehicle that could use a leading-trailing
arm tandem wheel suspension he had designed. To prove his design he had a pie wagon built and proposed a new motorhome as the
vehicle for its application.
Note: the new suspension was driving the use of a motor home, not the other way around.
The main attributes of this suspension were not only a superior ride/lowering/raising, but the minimal intrusion into the interior
space. The packaging of these suspension components is quite compact. With the outer limit of the original hubcap slightly within
the 96" legal width limit, the bolt up of the bogie to the side frame rail now established design positions.
With the position of the frame rails now established, the Olds front frame section was widened so that it would bolt up directly to
the MH frame rails. Ralph wanted to use as many existing parts as practical so the Olds short/long A-arms and knuckle/hub were used.
Thus the front track was now established.
Note: The other motor home users of the Toronado fwd (Cortez, Revcon, Travoy, Tiara) did not widen the frame rails and had an even
narrower front track.
I hope I have made this sufficiently clear and understandable.
A suggestion the GMC MH and Cord track similarities are anything but a coincidence doesn't add up. That comparison is better made
between cars, Cord and Toronado.... no, that doesn't work, they are the reverse :^(
Bill Bryant
1976~PB
1914 Ford
1965 Corvette
GMC MH History CD & GMC Showroom DVD
Workprint DVD GMC development 11-70 to 3-71
http://bdub.net/billbryant/
_______________________________________________
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: Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice? [message #274580 is a reply to message #274486] |
Sun, 29 March 2015 21:44 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chris Tyler wrote on Sat, 28 March 2015 06:21Curious if anyone has any insight as to how the Olds 455 was chosen for this application vs the Caddy 500, or even the Buick 455?
The Olds was by far the most durable. I spent many hours on the dyno during my student years testing transmissions and we needed an engine that would outlast the transmissions.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Why was not the Caddy 500 GMs Choice? [message #274581 is a reply to message #274509] |
Sun, 29 March 2015 21:46 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chris Tyler wrote on Sat, 28 March 2015 14:23Sammy Williams wrote on Sat, 28 March 2015 07:25The olds is more plentiful and already set up as fwd. The buick 455 is rwd
only. (Guesses ) Sammy Williams
The Buick was availible in the contemporary Riveara, the Caddy in the El Dorado, both FWD
I'm guessing cost and production capability. Would have been nice to have the 500
The Riv stayed RWD untill the downsized 79.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 14 21:31:42 CST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06445 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
