Chevy 427 tall block vs Caddy 500 - Page 4 - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > Brand Specific Tech > Chevy
Notices

Reply
 
Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2006, 08:20 AM   #76 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
Jeepaholik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Member # 14473
Location: Sumerduck, VA
Posts: 520
Send a message via AIM to Jeepaholik
http://www.cadillacpower.com/album/t...album=2&page=1

Read the torque pig articles. I think this is the one ChiScouter is refering to and yes, they used a 76 motor.

To be completely honest I have taken 500's out of the junkyard and dropped them right in my two rollbacks. This was 10 years ago and they are still going stong. Only problem I have ever had was that they like to eat clutches. So, with a little j-yard engineering I had a 12 inch clutch in one via some pontiac parts and a 13" in another w/ a Clark 285vo school bus 5 speed.

I see you have a budget alotted for this project. I will give my 2 cents, you can take it for what its worth.

*Stock 74-76 500; make sure it checks out compression wise and check the main bearings out as well. Almost everyone I have ever seen has and still usually even has the factory crosshatch marks on the cylinder walls

*Get a nice cloyes timing chain. This should done irregardless

*Get a decent cam if you want. The stock cams lobes look like goose bumps compared to most cams. A cam can really wake up this motor big time

*Get a basic shaft mounted rocker set. At the same time replace the vavle springs as per your application if you do a cam change.

*If you want a Edelbrock intake. These are worth a surprising amount of HP and bring the total motor weight down to that of a SBC.

*The stock Q-Jet is fine and came from the factory as a 750or 850 cfm carb...it all depended on year.

* If you want headers they are a plausable route. The stock ones are extremely restrictive. One look at them and you can see why. If you do go the header route I would advise sanderson coated headers.

*The stock HEI is fine.

This was just a optional list of what you could do. The only thing I would really do is replace the timing chain. I guess yout could call this CYA, due to the fact the replacing it in the vehicle is a pain. Just remeber that those motors made that much power stock, imagine them with some speed parts.
__________________
GET IT
Jeepaholik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2006, 09:48 AM   #77 (permalink)
Registered User
 
1967CJ5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Member # 42217
Location: Yukon Oklahoma
Posts: 197
Yip caddy is an oldsmobile bolt pattern, For simple ease go with the 427. I have ran both as well, Not much difference either way. I like the 427 for simple simplicity of finding parts and price of parts. i dont use unique motors at the track or out on the trail so you can usually find someone with the spare parts you need if something goes south. Just my opinion here.
__________________
Most people don't fail alone, they only fail if left alone.
1967CJ5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-28-2006, 04:15 PM   #78 (permalink)
Registered User
 
rockhog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Member # 1655
Location: stockton,ca
Posts: 2,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeepaholik
http://www.cadillacpower.com/album/t...album=2&page=1

Read the torque pig articles. I think this is the one ChiScouter is refering to and yes, they used a 76 motor.

To be completely honest I have taken 500's out of the junkyard and dropped them right in my two rollbacks. This was 10 years ago and they are still going stong. Only problem I have ever had was that they like to eat clutches. So, with a little j-yard engineering I had a 12 inch clutch in one via some pontiac parts and a 13" in another w/ a Clark 285vo school bus 5 speed.

I see you have a budget alotted for this project. I will give my 2 cents, you can take it for what its worth.

*Stock 74-76 500; make sure it checks out compression wise and check the main bearings out as well. Almost everyone I have ever seen has and still usually even has the factory crosshatch marks on the cylinder walls

*Get a nice cloyes timing chain. This should done irregardless

*Get a decent cam if you want. The stock cams lobes look like goose bumps compared to most cams. A cam can really wake up this motor big time

*Get a basic shaft mounted rocker set. At the same time replace the vavle springs as per your application if you do a cam change.

*If you want a Edelbrock intake. These are worth a surprising amount of HP and bring the total motor weight down to that of a SBC.

*The stock Q-Jet is fine and came from the factory as a 750or 850 cfm carb...it all depended on year.

* If you want headers they are a plausable route. The stock ones are extremely restrictive. One look at them and you can see why. If you do go the header route I would advise sanderson coated headers.

*The stock HEI is fine.

This was just a optional list of what you could do. The only thing I would really do is replace the timing chain. I guess yout could call this CYA, due to the fact the replacing it in the vehicle is a pain. Just remeber that those motors made that much power stock, imagine them with some speed parts.

Very good advice! My motor was pulled from a 76 and all that was done internally was a timing chain/cam swap. Sucker has been running trouble free for over 6 years. Best motor I have ever had in any of my 4x4's.
__________________
72 COMMANDO/454/TH400/39.5 BOGGERS/DANA 60's/203/300 Doubler......sold
rockhog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2006, 07:14 PM   #79 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Member # 14584
Location: The New and improved Mexico
Posts: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiScouter
The 1970 numbers were sae gross with hi compression that requires premium fuel, the 74 numbers are sae net and will run on regular. Completely apples to oranges. Those numbers are totally skewed and don't really mean anything. The 70 was way over rated, and the 74 under rated. The 74 can easily be built to surpass the 70's actuall numbers. There is nothing magic about those early engines.
Your example in the later post is an engine thats under rated. Im asking for sources on an engine that was over rated.
__________________
Yes my truck is environmentally friendly.
It lets most of the environment in the truck with you!
6869704x4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2006, 06:47 AM   #80 (permalink)
Zeus of the Sluice
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Member # 9835
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,216
Any engine that was SAE gross rated for hp and torque, from all the various mfgr's. Meaning the 68 through 70, or 71 Caddys. IIRC the 70 Eldo was rated at 400hp and 500 torque. Put a fresh stock rebuild on a dyno and you won't see it, but people brag on it all the time. You quoted that Fromader book, all this info is listed in there as well as what they really made. Anyone thinking of building a big caddy should spend the 20 bucks on that book
ChiScouter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2006, 07:49 AM   #81 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Member # 14584
Location: The New and improved Mexico
Posts: 473
Ive got the book, dont remember reading that. I'll stick it in the reading room and review it again.
__________________
Yes my truck is environmentally friendly.
It lets most of the environment in the truck with you!
6869704x4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2006, 08:33 AM   #82 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
Jeepaholik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Member # 14473
Location: Sumerduck, VA
Posts: 520
Send a message via AIM to Jeepaholik
Taken dirctly from flashcrafts website
Quote:
"We will start with our low compression buildup, and move on to the high compression engine later on. Our low compression short block was based on a 76 spec rebuild, and was built with 8:1 instead of 8.5:1 compression due to piston modification for later race combos not detailed here. The short block was bored 0.060" over, with 0.002" piston clearance, reconditioned stock rods with ARP fasteners on an OE crank turned .010/.010...........And the dyno says: 493.5 Lb-Ft at 2600 RPM and 302.1 HP at 3600"
taken from http://www.cad500parts.com/catalog/page7.htm


Quote:
The base engine for test mule #2, essentially built to 70 Eldorado specs, at 10:1 compression, similar assembly to the 8:1 test mule. The short block features Cad Company's direct replacement forged rods with ARP fasteners, and a balanced rotating assembly due to higher RPM testing to be done later..........Bone stock it pulled 323 HP and 504 Ft-Lb of torque, about the same as the stock 8:1 with the CTA 120 cam, thoroughly dispelling the myth of the 200+ HP difference between the 70 Eldo engine and the later smogger engines.
http://www.cad500parts.com/catalog/page9.htm

Quote:
Keep in mind the factory rating system was changed in 72, and all previous engines were severely over rated, as the calculations didn't take into account things like friction, and assumed impossible conditions such as 100% volumetric efficiency, and peak HP at 4400 RPM (200 RPM above stock valve float?)
http://www.cad500parts.com/catalog/page9.htm
__________________
GET IT
Jeepaholik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2006, 04:24 PM   #83 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
jeepcj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Member # 20502
Location: Rippon, WV
Posts: 575
The old truck got best in class

Not many military trucks but hey for a Saturday afternoon we had fun.

jeepcj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2006, 09:26 AM   #84 (permalink)
Registered User
 
wildcatkit52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Member # 56953
Location: Russellville, AR
Posts: 76
Send a message via MSN to wildcatkit52 Send a message via Yahoo to wildcatkit52
The book is a good investment. Get it and look at the offset grind on the crank idea. You get more than 500 cubic inches and use BBC rods. If you are not going to do anything rediculas with the engine like power adders or high RPM race build you can have a budget badass engine for less coin. As far as years go, some of the older cranks are better but you can build any 500 or 472 to be what you want. Stay away from the 68 and 69 472 blocks if you have a choice though. Like others have said, the 70 500 is hard to find since it was only in the eldo for the first years. One thing always wanted is the eldo oil pan and pickup. If you ever find any of these snag them and sell them to caddy guys!
wildcatkit52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2006, 02:49 PM   #85 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Member # 54711
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcatkit52
Stay away from the 68 and 69 472 blocks if you have a choice though.

the only reason to do this is because of the smaller oil passages. Which if this is going to be built as a torque monster then your statement doesnt apply. It is only a concern for high rpm race engines. The 68 69 472's had about 10:1 compression but pistons are avaiable to drop it 9:1 so its pump gas friendly.

I dont really see a reason to stay away and it might even be cheaper because so many people want a 500 instead of a 472.

Last edited by weaselzz; 07-31-2006 at 02:49 PM.
weaselzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2006, 01:09 PM   #86 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Member # 14584
Location: The New and improved Mexico
Posts: 473
Well, unless I missed it, Doc's book doesn't mention under or over rating. That cad500parts dyno test is cool. Looks like you cant go wrong with either these caddy engines for low end pullers. Glad I got one.
__________________
Yes my truck is environmentally friendly.
It lets most of the environment in the truck with you!
6869704x4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2006, 05:00 PM   #87 (permalink)
Registered User
 
wildcatkit52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Member # 56953
Location: Russellville, AR
Posts: 76
Send a message via MSN to wildcatkit52 Send a message via Yahoo to wildcatkit52
Quote:
Originally Posted by weaselzz
the only reason to do this is because of the smaller oil passages. Which if this is going to be built as a torque monster then your statement doesnt apply. It is only a concern for high rpm race engines. The 68 69 472's had about 10:1 compression but pistons are avaiable to drop it 9:1 so its pump gas friendly.

I dont really see a reason to stay away and it might even be cheaper because so many people want a 500 instead of a 472.

That is why I said stay away if you have a choice. A good deal is a good deal. Better oiling is never a bad thing but if you have a 1970+ 472 and a 1968/9 472 to choose from and the price is not much different, go with the later one. You never know when somebody will want to upgrade their engine in the future.

On another note, the issue with over/under ratings on the engines, I have seen Potter and a few others on the board that they frequent talk about the fact that some of the comp ratios on the late engines are not what they are suppost to be either. Some even under 8 to 1 but I have never checked it personally. If that is the case a set of the smaller chamber heads could make a pretty good difference in the engines performance.
wildcatkit52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2006, 02:41 PM   #88 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
jeepcj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Member # 20502
Location: Rippon, WV
Posts: 575
Check this out

This was made by the 12 volt man to run my winch and other stuff.

jeepcj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2006, 03:43 PM   #89 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Member # 29210
Location: Stuck in traffic.
Posts: 2,465
Send a message via AIM to Davethorik
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepcj
This was made by the 12 volt man to run my winch and other stuff.


this has been an interesting thread so far, but what does that have to do with either engine?
__________________
Davethorik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2006, 04:59 PM   #90 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
jeepcj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Member # 20502
Location: Rippon, WV
Posts: 575
not a thing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davethorik
this has been an interesting thread so far, but what does that have to do with either engine?
Just it was a very nice piece
jeepcj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2006, 05:33 AM   #91 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
jeepcj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Member # 20502
Location: Rippon, WV
Posts: 575
Tall deck 427 Vs caddy 500

Here is the update. I got a rebuilt stock 1969 472 caddy. with a rebuilt turbo 400. The tall deck will be coming out. So now I need sugestion motor mounts, any inprovements and any other sugestions.

oh For sale 1978 427 Tall Deck with Allison 540 transmition $1500.00 in the truck hear it run. New carb and new ignition

Last edited by jeepcj; 08-14-2006 at 06:44 AM.
jeepcj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2006, 09:17 AM   #92 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Juztyn00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Member # 52569
Location: Mt. Vernon, IL
Posts: 504
Send a message via MSN to Juztyn00
engine mounts shouldnt be to hard if the caddy still has the original style mounts on it.. mine are two 3/16" 4"x6" flat stock. just removed the chevy mounts, bolted the flat stock in place set the engine in and loosely bolted the trans mount, marked where the studs hit the flat stock and pulled the engine high enough to get a drill in the make 2 holes. I do think i need to make a crossmember between the 2 pieces of flat stock though since i had to remove my original crossmember to clear the oilpan.
Juztyn00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.