What if? 80's engine ideas.

[TJ Hopland]

So by 1980 the HT4100 had to be reasonably far along since they started building them in mid 81. The 4100 plant must have been new or converted? Was it an engine plant before?  Guessing it could not have been where they were making the 368's?   How many plants were there making the 472/500/425/368?  I would assume more than one since it was the only engine many years so a plant issue would have really screwed up the brand.

So lets say its late 1980.  We must have a pretty good start on the 4100 production, are we working on a car for it yet?   We are expecting to keep the 368 going for at least a few more years.  If the new car was able to come out mid 83 or 84 maybe that would have been the Deville?  Eldo and Fleetwood been what we did get and would have kept the 368? But slowly got downsized like what really happened?

They apparently knew from the 80 Eldos and gas optioned Seville that DEFI 368 wasn't going to work without the 8-6-4 emissions and economy wise so their only plan was the 4100?  What else was going on in the GM engine plants at the time?  Why not DEFI something like the Olds?  Its a little smaller and lighter than the 368 was and obviously had some characteristics that made it emissions friendly.

What if the 4100 came out in 82 or 83 in the Cimmaron only except it was a G body?  It would not have been a crazy small car but smaller and lighter than the rest so maybe not so bad power wise and they would have been able to work the bugs out with only one model sucking instead of the whole brand.  Plus the G's were 2 and 4 door so that could have been fun. Or was their CAFE number so slanted the wrong way a mid size car would not have helped?   

What were the other lines doing?  Did any of them maybe have capacity to supply Cad with some V8's for a few years?  Pontiac V8 production was really winding down and I think last year was 81.  They had to be ramping up the 4 cylinder line.  Did they take over some of the V8 line for that?  Olds was still doing a fair number of V8's plus they were expecting the diesels to get bigger so likely no excess capacity there.  How about Buick?  Was there an 80 Buick V8? I know there were a few in 79 but it seemed like they were just trying to use them up.  Were they converting their V8 lines to V6 production?

With Buick I remember hearing that when they bought the V6 tooling back from Jeep they were able to more or less bolt it back down in its original locations and get back to production very quickly.  What were they doing in that plant while it was all at Jeep?  I know that happened before 80 so it doesn't seem like that part of the plant would have been converted to Buick V8's or was it?

Is there any good write ups on GM engine plants?   I assume at times there were plants that made more than one brand maybe even at the same time?  I suppose some of the engines didn't 'die' because they were not selling maybe the plants and tooling were just too old?  Were they sitting there in 1975 saying, dang the Pontiac and Buick V8 lines all need a total overhaul and its not worth it given the direction things were going?   

[bcroe]

One Olds line was lost to building diesels, I
am sure that caused the uproar about Chev engines
in Oldsmobiles.  But another Olds line kept
going with the 5L for Cad and many others with
a BOP mount.  Alternate parts places are so bad
about which engine, I always asked for 403 parts
for a Seville etc engine, so I would not get
Chev 350 parts. 

Some of the things Cad did were just to be Cad
different, even though it was not better (or
maybe not even as good).  Bruce Roe

[James Landi]

TJ, you've raised such great historical challenges. Thank you for doing so.   


(As a much younger Cadillac enthusiast in my late 30's, I never shied away from asking strangers how they liked their new model Cadillacs... I vividly recall several owners saying, ''I like the car, but it has no power.'' A friend ran the local Cadillac service department, and he was trying to manage failed 4-6-8's and internally destroyed 4100's.   Meanwhile, I was still driving my '67 Eldorado, and I endured harassing commentary about driving a thirsty dinosaur.  During the 80's, AMericans were convinced that we'd be driving small, gas sipping sedans.   

[TJ Hopland]

I don't think power was really an option in the 80's unless you just put a stupid big engine in a really little light car and with insurance and crash standards that wasn't likely gonna happen and even if it did how many would they have sold? 

I guess we did have the turbo Buicks but I don't think they were that popular in the early 80's.  They seemed to kinda be a thing when they first came out in what 78 but then seemed to not really come back till mid 80's. Guessing they were having issues with emissions?   Cad did use the Buick V6's what if they did the turbos?  Pontiac did turbo V8's in 80 and 81 in the TA's.  I don't remember hearing that they were any less reliable than anything else in that era.   

I think what started bringing back the power was a combination of EFI getting better, computer modeling, and newer manufacturing processes.  The electronics were actually able to do what needed to be done and it was more practical to actually manufacture some of the newer ideas.

I suspect the 368 was a pretty terrible motor when it came to size vs weight and manufacturing cost and I bet the emissions were pretty terrible.  All those way downsized motors had breathing problems which usually leads to poor emissions and performance.  The stroke stayed fairly long (same as 472/425) so all they could do was shrink the bore.  Small bore means small valves and with everything scaled and spaced for a larger bore I'm sure there were several things that you would never design intentionally but they were stuck with. 

That's why I wonder if it would have helped if they had just grabbed another GM engine. Olds seemed busy so look at the Pontiac or Buick?  Which ever had the production capacity and an engine that was decent for emissions.  Go into the parts bin and come up with the best combo of existing bore and stroke to get the emissions where they needed it likely something in the 300-350 inch range and throw the DEFI on it and that's the standard Cad motor for 82-85 while the 4100 is just in a single model.        

Anyone know how the diesels fit into the CAFE standards?  Were they just straight MPG too or did they have their own scale that figured into the total?  I totally get the diesel program.  If the fuel had remained cheap I think it would really have gone somewhere.  People were willing to put up with some issues if they could still have their land yachts and pay the same per mile as an econo box.  Fuel price went up in the early 80's so it wasn't worth the extra hassle.

[smokuspollutus]

Olds was at capacity for most of the time period. They had the "advantage" of being the oldest design and the tooling was given a refresh in the 70s to limp them through to the planned portfolio-wide downsizing that was supposed to take place in the early 80s. Chebby had enormous capacity and flexibility of design but both were spoken for with the volume they were moving.

Buick and Pontiac were undesirable architecturally as "smog" engines. Both were designed from the get go to make power (Olds predated this) and the big cooling systems they had presented an insurmountable challenge in getting the fast warm up time they needed. So they used them for what they were worth and had those divisions make the V6 and 4 cylinder engines exclusively.

With its design from a more thrifty era, the Olds could be made to meet the foreseeable standards at the lowest cost, ie carburetor, could fit in most everything they were making, and the tooling still had some life in it. So it was the natural choice to use on the lower margin RWD regular passenger cars until the those models largely died out and the tooling was totally shot. From there demand was low enough to use the still cheaper chef-row-lay across all the rear wheel drive models. The Olds was only used in the Cadillacs when the 1986 Fleetwood Brougham d'Lazarus showed up late for dinner to eat the capacity & demand freed up with the 85,86,&88 downsizings. At a higher margin than an Electra or Ninety Eight resurrection could have managed

I have seen some documents dating as far back as 1979 for 4100 parts. I have no idea at what point that was
"ready" or when the process really started. It was a clean sheet design and the plant was new. The 368 was quite the turkey in the power generation department. The stroke was really long; way too much torque at too low an RPM for a lighter weight OD trans & short rear end that could have improved mileage. If you can believe it in spite of being nearly 50% larger in displacement, the bore size between the 368 and 4100 is almost the same hence the similar horsepower rating. The 4100 was tapped as being architecturally more efficient to put the power to the road, ie lower torque at the flywheel for a lighter more efficient tranny with more gears and a shorter rear end gear to make up the torque shortfall put to the road. This is the same recipe we see employed today to meet MPG requirements, less flywheel torque, more horsepower, more gears.

Most of this insanity went on because of a corporate policy of not passing the cost of the "gas guzzler" tax onto the consumer. (I don't think there was a way to market a vehicle at all that would not pass emissions standards, so that was a total non starter) As per normal, standards were set at the regulatory level by people who had no experience in what they were attempting to regulate. Increase total fleet fuel economy by 50% in 6 years? Why not? When you make the standards, and design the processes to measure progress, you can convince yourself of anything. The calculus for the CAFE rating is available online if you have a math major on retainer.

In reality fleet fuel economy did not improve near what the numbers may suggest, however the consumer paid the gas guzzler tax many times over being a testbed for expensive mickey mouse technology, and of course in the shared responsibility paid thru insurance for the benefit of those unfortunate enough to be injured in the subcompact vehicles of the era bred by these "standards".

A G-body 4100 equipped vehicle was not going to come close to getting them "over the hump". A shoebox '82 Cimarron 1.8L was rated at 42 mpg highway with standard shift. And they made CAFE by the skin of their teeth, which was then serendipitously relaxed and frozen shortly thereafter.

Cadillac tried to be cute and use the V8-6-4 against the EPA during mileage and emissions "tests". Ultimately they couldn't come to an agreement on how to rate the engine based on time spent in each cylinder mode. Keep in mind, the 3rd gear pressure switch which allowed the cylinder deactivation feature to start working was not monitored by OBD (as they did in later years for 4th gear and TCC engagement) So, when the system drove their clientele nuts all without saving them any gas (like they knew it would), it could be quietly disconnected with no ill effect/service light/etc. The EPA knew this and effectively left them no other option but to use a different powerplant. Which ended up being the 4100 for above reasons.

CAFE was a game designed to get people out of private their transportation. Like many things, it was put on temporary hold for long enough to get the disaster it caused to stabilize and leave the public's memory, and then brought back to applause years later. Look at the standards now. They've effectively ended the internal combustion engine and with it private transportation for a large chunk of the population. Except they say the quiet part is said out loud now.

[TJ Hopland]

I didn't think of how the 8-6-4 played into testing and the ratings. That was probably about the time emissions testing was more about the lawyers negotiating on each side than the actual testing.      I wonder when they wrote details like that into test specs? 1982 maybe?

I did see and read a bunch of the history and where things were headed in the whole emissions game with VW had their little thing going on.  I was kinda expecting the word to get out that its all a joke but they kept the focus on VW and they just took it so back to business as usual. 

I had not thought about cooling characteristics and warm up time when it came to emissions.  I could see how that could be a factor in emissions.  Makes sense that they just let those engines die as the lines wore out.  I suppose they just rebuilt and converted those lines to increase production of the 4's and V6's. 
   

["Cadillac Kid" Greg Surfas 15364]

TJ
The 80's Cadillacs were a blessing to MB ands BMW. Somehow they remembered what "luxury" car buyers were after. Quality construction, a solid but comfortable ride and enough power to get out of their own way. All the flailing around done by GM to find or develop a decent power plant was bean counter driven and the results show it

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

I seem to remember that for a number of years in the early '80s, the largest engine in a Mercedes was a 200 HP 3.8 Liter V8. This, in a 380SEL which weighed around 4,700 lbs which was 700-800 lbs heavier than a full size RWD Cadillac sedan. 

At nearly three times the price of a Cadillac, I don't see any great accomplishment here. And has anyone seen what the depreciation and resale value of MB and BMWs made over the last 20 years has been? Not to spoil the surprise but it's pretty dreadful with repair bills off the map along the way.

In any case I don't get why everyone is so down on the 6.0 liter engine of 1980/1981 (once the latter's teething problems addressed). It may not be a street rocket but it's a fine engine with more than adequate power to motivate these cars the way they were expected to be driven.

[smokuspollutus]

To Eric's point, I always found it funny that the automotive press of the era would compare a Cadillac with a foreign competitor that was 2 or 3 times the list price comparably equipped (even with currency manipulation), had a fraction of the dealership support network, and a fraction of the parts availability (again, equivalent parts being 2 or 3 times more expensive than the domestic) and proceeded to deride the Cadillac as tacky, cheap, slow, or better yet, a "gas hog". The foreign was the forbidden fruit for the younger generation of the time, and the press seemed to not notice the black plastic battering ram bumpers to comply with US safety standards, embarrassingly cheap conversions to US lighting standards and overall poor space utilization.

Never mind the back door imports of Euro-spec models that complied with none of our standards. At best the foreign makes turned a blind eye to them.

Meanwhile the domestic complied with all emissions, fuel economy and safety standards of this country (at a time when Europe had virtually none) employed millions of folks living here with good paying jobs, (who, by the way, financed the new overseas factories the competition built their superior vehicles in), and brought their product to market by the millions at a realistic price. All achieved with old plants, a huge unionized labor force, and taking the huge costs imposed by regulators on the chin. And just to see the product decried by a "journalist" complaining about a door gap slightly bigger than he'd like to see, or a piece of fake wood trim that wasn't realistic enough for him.

["Cadillac Kid" Greg Surfas 15364]

Not to start another digression, but when it comes to true "luxury" car buyers, the proce is less important than the results. Remember in the 70's Cadillacs were two to three times the price of say a Chevrolet. The people buying Cads were truly able to afford the difference. Same for the 80's. The truly wealthy that wanted the perceived luxury that MB and BMW would bring thought little of the cost. That's my story and I'm sticking to it
Greg Surfas

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

The truly wealthy that wanted the perceived luxury that MB and BMW would bring thought little of the cost.

I'm glad you said "perceived luxury". Without getting into the definition of "luxury" in an automobile which would be an argument without end, I would simply say that MB/BWM etc offered a very different type of "luxury" than that associated with our favorite GM Division in the past. While German makes enjoyed their heyday for a while, they too had their fall from grace.

No matter how wealthy one is, everyone likes getting their money's worth. And they don't appreciate a $10,000 repair bill for a radiator & water pump replacement on a 2013 BMW X5 which happened several years ago to a friend of mine. There are plenty more where that came from.

[TJ Hopland]

So was the 79 Eldo and then 80 seville too cheap?  What would have happened if they actually made them better and sold them for more maybe with a higher profit margin too to make up for what I'm sure would have been a lower overall volume?


$10k for a waterpump is a bit steep but with how complex newer engines are we are a long ways from the 1/2 hour water pump swaps of the old days.  Serviceability just doesn't seem to be a factor at all anymore.  I just did one in a 98 Chev truck where I thought the worst part was you had to remove the alternator and vacuum pump and their bracket because part of it hung over the water pump.  Turns out that was just the first half of the battle, some of the like dozen bolts on the thing actually went in from the inside of the timing cover so that had to come off too.  Really?  I guess they learned from Olds and Cad that having water pump bolts just thread into a thin 'tin' cover isn't good but why not some sort of captive nut?  I guess there was something to be said for the classic Chev V8 design with the 4 bolt water pumps.

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

$10k for a waterpump is a bit steep..

Water pump and radiator. Part of reason was due to labor required in order to access the parts. I can't recall all the specifics but it was pretty involved. 

So was the 79 Eldo and then 80 seville too cheap?  What would have happened if they actually made them better and sold them for more maybe with a higher profit margin too to make up for what I'm sure would have been a lower overall volume?

Remember the Eldorado/Seville shared a lot of mechanical hardware with Toronado & Riviera which helped keep costs down. To make one product line "better", costs would be significantly higher which would have a direct impact on sales volume. Everything is a balancing act. However, one easy way of getting a better '80 Cadillac would be to buy a RWD and not an Eldorado/Seville. And for less money.

[TJ Hopland]

I was just thinking of the Eldo Seville because it was a new at the time design and assuming they would not quit building the C car so presumably it would be the one to try and 'improve'.  I'm sure by that time they knew the land yachts were on their way out.     

What happened to the 76-80 Seville line?  What did that make before and after?  Why didn't that car or at least platform continue?

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

I was just thinking of the Eldo Seville because it was a new at the time design and assuming they would not quit building the C car so presumably it would be the one to try and 'improve'.  I'm sure by that time they knew the land yachts were on their way out.

Correction: They presumed (or more likely, hoped) full size RWD's days were numbered, but demand kept it going until 1996 so they were only off by almost 15 years. Otherwise the models were built to the best permitted by existing technology and manufacturing methods, within the constraints of the required profit per unit over an expected volume.     

What happened to the 76-80 Seville line?  What did that make before and after?  Why didn't that car or at least platform continue?

The 57/58 Eldorado Brougham would have been the analog ancestor to the 1976-1979 Seville ie, smaller, but more technologically advanced carrying a premium price to the standard line. Unlike the Eldo Brougham which came standard with every possible optional accessory at the time, the Seville's list of standard equipment was significantly less, which helped keep its base MSRP within the range of sanity.

The reason why a separate dedicated platform for the RWD Seville was discontinued gets back to the sharing of parts and production methods I mentioned earlier. The greater the commonality, the lower the per-unit cost- and often significantly lower. The problem is that you can only get away with it so far before all your products start looking the same.   

[bcroe]

It seemed to me, Cad was way too insistent on
building their own engines.  They finally did
put a small block Olds in their Seville, it
would have been a much better performer if they
used a 403 instead of a 350.  Once the 403 was
not available, they should have gone to the high
performance Vette engine. 
Bruce (half million mile 403 experience) Roe

[dochawk]

Performance *was* possible in a heavy car with a large V8.

The Bently Turbo R of the mid-80s could match the top porsche and corvette of the day with 0-60 in six seconds.

They slapped two turbos onto the Rolls V8 (412cid?), which had enough exhaust at idle to keep the turbos spinning.

But then, Rolls just laughed off the gas guzzler tax (until a few years later, when they noticed it only applied to cars under 6,000 pounds, and applied to get it back).

And I'm not so sure how cadillac buyers would've reacted to 8mpg at the time . . .

I finally drove one at an auction this year.  It only went for $10,000!  But needed *so* much, wish *such* expensive parts.

[jwwseville60]

Im not getting into this argument. No way!
I'll only state that all malaise era Caddies should have a supercharged LS put in them with a six speed auto. Done.