Slick!!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/CLASSIC-67-CADILLAC-ELDORADO-ALL-ORIGINAL-ONLY-15-774-MILES-PRISTINE-CONDITION-/180922136654?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2a1fccb84e
Frank? Frank who? :scratchhead: That's my middle name, but you sure ain't talkin' about me.
Frank,Dean and Sammy all had one.Jack Cassidy,Dick Martin,William Morris and
even Phylis Diller had one.Frank kept his at The Sands up into the 80's when he
went back to Lincoln.He always advertised and drove T-Birds for Ford until he
Got the Black/Red killer!!!
Sweet!!!
WOW! That's nice! Can you even drive one of those older Caddy's with the high compression on the premium they sell these days?
I do mine.....I run it on Sunoco Ultra 94.
Mike
Quote from: trvlr480 on July 27, 2012, 07:40:29 AM
WOW! That's nice! Can you even drive one of those older Caddy's with the high compression on the premium they sell these days?
They were only 10-1. What's the big deal?
Up to '69 they were 10.5:1 Those funny pistons in the '70 brought it down to 10.0:1.
BTW, the LT1 in the '94 runs 10.3:1, it requires 91 octane.
Mike
Those GTO motors can be 13-15to1 but it takes computor control for timing retard and spark control!
I will stick with whats proven!GT0 only was made for what a year,computers are cool but not for valid
transportation!
GTO? As in current race engines? Yes I have heard that some race engine run near diesel CR's. NASCAR at least was running 14:1 and higher back in the 90's, but no computor control, just MSD boxes.
However they have access to race fuel with crazy octane numbers. As high as 112.
Mike
How did a GTO come into this? :scratchhead:
Quote from: guidematic on July 27, 2012, 01:39:55 PM
BTW, the LT1 in the '94 runs 10.3:1, it requires 91 octane.
I run 87 octane in mine. It made no difference when I switched from 91.
The reverse cooling allows it to run on regular.
GJ
It requires 91 for optimum performance. I have run 89 at times. But when any detonation is detected, timing is dialed back. That affects both performance and fuel economy.
No Pontiac GTO, or any Pontiac engine for that matter, ran anything close to those stratoshperic CR numbers. I think the highest I can recall may be in the 11.5:1 range for some of the high zoot Super Duty and Ram Air engines.
Mike
I didn't notice any difference at all. It will still smoke the tires all the way down the street and get the same fuel economy. I couldn't justify paying an extra 10 cents a Liter.
GJ
Temperature has a lot to do with it. Run the AC on a hot day, and I'm sure you'll see some differance.
I know I can get away with 89 most times as well, and have been guilty of using it a fair bit in the last little while, but I have never used 87.
87 works very well in the '90 Brougham and '88 Eldo, though.
On a cool day with no AC, 91 works fine in the '70 Fleetwood as well. I bet if I gave the engine a good top end clean I could get away with it more often.
Mike
I've never run regular (87) in the Cadillac. I always run the 93 octane. That's as high as you can get in pump gas here.
It originally was a 10.5:1 engine and it must be a shade higher now that it's new and the heads and block have been milled just a hair. They were cleaned up that's all.
Nothing wrong to warrant doing anything but a cleanup to them.
There is a big Horsepower Sales place here,They take those crazy L motors like in the Vette,GTO
and those big Cads.To all kinds of crazy parmeters,and yes even 15-1.
I will say this,When I put 110 in the Cad,ANYONE can tell as it will rip off your face.
In my wifes 6cly,250 1967 Camaro,There was no improvement at all. 87 -110 NO DIFFERERENCE!!
Quote from: guidematic on July 27, 2012, 03:19:02 PM
I bet if I gave the engine a good top end clean I could get away with it more often.
I run a bottle of Seafoam through it every spring when I get it out of storage.
That could make the difference. I run the A/C all the time. My L99 was actually more sensitive to the fuel I used, but the LT1 doesn't care what's in the tank.
GJ
I ran 91 or 92 octane in mine for years until I found out, on this forum I could run the 88. Now I run the 88 in the winter and swap back and forth between the 91 and 88 in the summer. I heard some pinging on a tank of 88 so I went back to the 91 and just kind of mix them now.
The old addage that ýou are wasting your money using higher octane in lower compression engines is true. Like Keeper and his wife's Camaro. An 8.5:1 engine will run no better on 93 octane than it will on 87.
But with the newer electronically controlled engines, that becomes somewhat confusing. Knock sensors detect detonation and can dial back ignition advance until knock is not detected, so you'll never hear detonation. However as in any engine, less advance translates to lower power and fuel economy. When ambient temps are cooler, you may get away with a lower octane, but if temps are high then the higher octane is required to get optimum performance.
Also, driving easy may negate the benefits of higher octane in some cases, but detonation can occur in light throttle applications as well as heavy applications. So that is not an exact science either.
Mike
You're right, Guide but I'm running 12 degrees advance and 36 total at 2500 rpm instead of the stock 8 degrees. I've also got very weak springs on the dizzy's counterweights and installed a smaller bushing in the MSD's dizzy on the mechanical advance plate so it will advance further. I actually had a broken vacuum advance diaphragm on this car for years and never even noticed it wasn't working. It runs just as good with the vacuum advance disconnected. At least I could never feel a difference. I didn't feel any difference when I replaced the bad vacuum can either.
I still don't get any pinging on 88 except the one time mentioned above and with hypertutectic pistons I'm simply not going to take the chance with detonation over a few bucks per fill. Hypertutectic pistons are quite strong but they have one weakness, detonation. They are brittle due to the high silicon content. They like to explode when exposed to detonation. At least the earlier ones did. I don't know about the KB's in mine but I've heard horror stories about the KB's as well. I've also heard success stories with them but not as many. The other weakness they have is that if the clearances are really off they will cock in the bore enough to wedge themselves in there and the top gets ripped off as the crank pulles the rod downward. All of the above problems though, seem to happen in racing applications.
All that rattling you heard in the vid I posted was the result, I think, of not clearancing the hypertutectics properly. They have very short skirts and tend to rock in the cylinder when the clearance isn't exactly right until they heat up. It's the same reason so many GM cars in the 80's and 90's have had piston slap problems. They started using hypertutectics way back in the Vette's in the 70's I believe because, supposedly, they seal better and are better for emissions. I think the 70-72 LT-1's used them which is why I requested them be put in my engine when it was rebuilt.
Had I known then what I know now I would have just put the standard cast pistons in it. So far though even with the cold rattling they have held up quite well considering the abuse the engine has had over the last 95,000+ miles. Some engines last forever with the piston slap and others don't. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
I just remembered I'm talking to a mechanic so I have probably just been singing to the choir. Oh well.
On my '70 I run 10 before with 36 degrees full advance, all in by 2200 RPM. Vacuum advance is hooked directly to manifold vacuum and it gives good part throttle response. Of coarse I also have HEI ignition lifted from a '74 Fleetwood intact, including the weights and springs.
With the compression what it is I have to be wary of detonation, hence the use of 94 octane gas when it's hot and I'm using the AC (which at the time is not working).
To be honest, I have not heard any engine, race engines included, that make that sort of racket. But it seems to be OK since you have driven it so many miles and quite hard. If there was going to be an issue with scuffing pistons I think that would have reared its' head by now.
Some engines are notorious for piston slap. One that comes to mind are the 500's. They have much of their skirt removed to compensate for the increased stroke. If they are not properly fitted, then cold slap will occur. It seems to be common with Chev 350's as well. I have had several over the years, and many of them did this, even the '94 will do it for a few seconds after start-up. Chev 292 sixes did it as well.
Another was the initial 4.9's. I replaced many piston/sleeve assemblies under warranty for this. They would rap pretty good for about 20 seconds, then quiet down. Of all the ones I removed, none showed any damage.
I think the worse were the early 3.1 V-6. The tolerances were so tight to prevent cold slap that they would scuff really bad when they warmed up. I replace many engines under warranty for that. The pistons were severely damaged to the point where they would loose compression and consume oil.
Mike
QuoteTo be honest, I have not heard any engine, race engines included, that make that sort of racket. But it seems to be OK since you have driven it so many miles and quite hard. If there was going to be an issue with scuffing pistons I think that would have reared its' head by now.
I always enjoyed the sound of solid lifter engines. The ticking and clacking. I'm really not bothered by it at all. It goes away once it warms up. I suppose you're right that if it was going to be a problem it would have happened by now. Maybe I should send a recording of it to the Guinness Book of World Records for the noisiest hydraulic lifter engine that hasn't blown up yet.
The Cadillac runs good on 93 , but when I use octane booster you can tell the difference, in the old days 93 octane was the "regular" Sunnco 260 was a little over 100 octane and it put lead in your pencil, I run regular in a lot of the late model cars over the years that require 93 and saw no difference in mpg , driaveability.
Sunoco 260 used to be 104 octane to compete with the 104 that Amarada Hess put out.
Yes, the octane numbers have changed in the last 40 years. I'm not up on the science, but the 93 or 94 we use today could be compared to the old Sunoco 260. The '70 required a 97 octane fuel, in which 93 would be sufficient today.
I like an engine to run as quiet as possible, an as such I don't much care for the racket of a solid lifter engine. Those engines are pretty specialised for all out high RPM performance. Something I have no need for.
Mike
Quote from: guidematic on August 01, 2012, 01:14:57 PM
I like an engine to run as quiet as possible, an as such I don't much care for the racket of a solid lifter engine. Those engines are pretty specialised for all out high RPM performance. Something I have no need for.
Mike
I contest this remark. Do I need to go dig up the youtube vid of you in the '70 flat out with the secondaries screaming? You were going so fast that you missed your turn. :hammer:
Well, there are always exceptions, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOuAAIZgur4
Mike
Nothing like the sound of a wide open Q-Jet, or an 8V-71 with 6" straight pipes at 2300 rpm. :whoo-hoo:
So true. So true.
Mike
man that's a nice sounding car. You'll have to take me for a ride in it some day.
Better get it now while you are in your 3 days of summer. :Muttley: The other 362 days, it's in storage.
I was hoping to see it at the car show at the end of the month. But I just found out that I may not even be able to go!! :curse:
We'll have to see how it pans out, Why does everything always have to be on the same damned weekend.
Quote from: Jon on August 01, 2012, 03:24:57 PM
man that's a nice sounding car. You'll have to take me for a ride in it some day.
That I will. I really want to get it out for a weekend befopre the show anyway.
Mike
Quote from: Jon on August 01, 2012, 03:56:34 PM
I was hoping to see it at the car show at the end of the month. But I just found out that I may not even be able to go!! :curse:
We'll have to see how it pans out, Why does everything always have to be on the same damned weekend.
We know where your priorities lie. :pot: :pot:
I made the mistake of promising my wife that cars wouldn't interrupt our normal life when I wanted to buy the Caddy. Then again when I bought the Wildcat.
"...wouldn't interrupt our normal life..."
Jon
it was Slick Willie who said "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is".
So, it depends on what your definition of "normal" is.
Ya gotta help her understand that car shows, cruise-ins, and concours are "normal".
Then again, I don't have to live with her. :pot:
Gary
What is considered a "normal life" ???
Quote from: Gary on August 02, 2012, 01:12:55 AM
So, it depends on what your definition of "normal" is.
Ya gotta help her understand that car shows, cruise-ins, and concours are "normal".
And club meetings, fire musters, WWII events. :yes:
Many years ago our daughter asked if we've ever gone on vacation that didn't involve (vintage) cars in one way or another.
No. Why would we want to do that? :No:
There's always a junk yard or vintage car dealer, museum, show, cruise night to be found - if even for just an hour. :rockon:
Normal? What's that? I have no idea. :scratchhead: Whatever it is, I've never done it, or been it.
Mike
Mike, when you did the video with the 70 how fast were you going ?? , that has the 140 mph speedo correct?
Normal is whatever she tells me it is. Isn't it?
I've made it out to a couple shows this year, so I'm not getting totally cock blocked. But it so happens that there are 2 other things (big events organized by other people) that were recently announced to be on the same weekend as our show. We had planned on going to these long before I became a CISO member. I still hold out the dream that I'll be able to duck away for a few hours to go to the show.
Normal is whatever she tells me it is. Isn't it?
I understand.
A wise man once said , "Happy Wife, Happy Life".
Gary
Quote from: Tailfin Joe on August 02, 2012, 12:10:25 PM
Mike, when you did the video with the 70 how fast were you going ?? , that has the 140 mph speedo correct?
120 MPH speedo. Look at the speedo, I won't incriminate myself. :No:
Mike