Thanks Knurled.
I'm taking the Cougar to a buddy's fab shop to create a load floor over the tank which will protect the pump plumbing and wiring and clean up the trunk. I'm registered for the Hot Rod Power Tour this year. My Dad and I are making the trip together.
One of my very good friends embarked on this same journey with a 1959 Edsel Ranger...
The idea was at or near the same power as stock and WAY better fuel economy. His answer was to swap the 292 Y block and cast iron 2 spd transmission for a 2.3L Turbo Ford setup.
The end result netted a car that is used as a daily driver, making WAY more power than the old V8 and getting WAY better economy, and it has been for years. After subtracting the old lump and heavy transmission and adding the 2.3 the car actually IIRC weighed in less than the TurboCoupe which donated the engine.
It was all done on nearly a challenge budget....
I say GO FOR IT!
In reply to ronholm :
That's absolutely terrific!
I don't think my goals are so far fetched as to be unrealistic. I was just trying to get peoples take on what would be the best way to approach it. Ultimately I think a full drivetrain swap would give the best end result. However I'm getting more and more intrigued by the idea of pushing the stock drivetrain as far as I can just to see what is possible. First though I need to find a car.
I have no skin in this and no experience with the vehicles being discussed so you probably hoped I would weigh in with some ideas. I've been watching this thread and thinking about what I would consider a huge improvement and the first words that came to mind were "200-4R" and "lockup converter". Doing a few minutes research says that the 200-4R has a .67 overdrive ratio. I used the speed-in-gears calculator on Apex Garage to try and figure out what cruise speeds would be like with a swap from a TH-400 to 200-4R in a '76 Coupe de Ville. That car had GR78-15 tires with have a nominal diameter of 28.0" and these cars apparently came standard with a 2.73 rear end ratio (there was a 3.15 axle option, apparently). I put 1700 RPM into the calculator as a nice speed to cruise at to get an idea of the change. Direct drive, and assuming 100% lockup, gets you 52 mph. .67 OD gets you 77 mph. If you went with the 3.15 rear end ratio the speed in OD drops to 67 mph.
This smells like a solid improvement to me. I kind of like the numbers I'm seeing with the 3.15 axle ratio over the 2.73 but both seem workable. It would be interesting to see what just a change in trans would do for one of these cars. The 200-4R also has the advantage of coming from the factory with column shift setups which I would want to retain if I were playing with one of these cars.
I wouldn't mind a 60s Lincoln Continental 4door with a coyote 5.0 swapped in. Hell I'd be fine with a mod 5.4 in there.
In reply to pres589 (djronnebaum) :
Interesting. I've been more focused on fueling and timing improvements over gearing while running different scenarios in my head. One thing that I haven't mentioned and probably a lot of people outside of Texas aren't really aware of is that most roads outside of the cities have 75 mph speed limits. Even small farm to market roads are usually at least 60 mph but once out of populated areas are always 75. Obviously aero plays a massive role at that speed increasing the load but 1700 rpm with proper fueling and timing at 77 mph has got to be better for efficiency.
The nice thing about the 200-4R is that it splits the ratio deltas that the TH-400 has vs. the 700-R4. 700-R4 first gear is really deep. The three speed auto's didn't go nearly as short in first. The 200-4R is a really nice compromise. Really, as long as the motor is tuned for running low RPM's for cruising, the 200-4R seems like a really good compromise. Someone like Alfa will be a good person to bounce all this off of as he's actually dealt with this sort of drivability stuff whereas I just look stuff up on the internet and pretend I'm smart.
Nick Comstock said:In reply to pres589 (djronnebaum) :
Interesting. I've been more focused on fueling and timing improvements over gearing while running different scenarios in my head. One thing that I haven't mentioned and probably a lot of people outside of Texas aren't really aware of is that most roads outside of the cities have 75 mph speed limits. Even small farm to market roads are usually at least 60 mph but once out of populated areas are always 75. Obviously aero plays a massive role at that speed increasing the load but 1700 rpm with proper fueling and timing at 77 mph has got to be better for efficiency.
I bet you could increase the aero without too muc fuss or changes to how the car looks. Better rims, blocking off parts of the grill that are not needed to keep the car cool, closing up body gaps, and a small plastic spoiler beneath the front bumper would all do wonders for making that boat a bit more slippery
nutherjrfan said:
What was under the mirror? Sorry to interrupt the thread but I'm just curious
In reply to Swiss44 :
Thermometer.
Cadillacs also had fiber optic lines running to indicators on the top of the front fenders so that you could see if your headlights or turn signals were on. Same for the brake lights, going to indicators in the rear roof where you could see it in the mirror.
I'm not certain if those were there so you could tell if a bulb had gone out, or if they were so you knew if you were driving in the left lane in broad daylight with your high beams and left turn signal on.
Nick Comstock said:In reply to Curtis :
That's encouraging too. Were you running a Q-Jet? Being in a Bonnie I'm assuming things weren't exactly stock?
Correct. I spent a good bit of time getting the Qjet just right and added an adjustment screw on the primary step-up rods. The 4.10s were completely incorrect... I should have skipped the GVOD and gone with 3.08s or 2.93s, but I built it to tow a vintage travel trailer (which never happened) so I wanted the low first final drive.
Very not stock; 10.5" FF rear from a P30 step van, front spindles and brakes from a 3/4 ton chevy, it was a beast. Still is, but its disassembled for body work.
Pocket ported intake ports, fully ported exhaust, 8.5:1 pistons, and the cam was a step up from stock with ramps that were about as fast as I felt comfy doing with flat lifters, but ground on a 112 LSA instead of the factory 114 (IIRC). Another thing that helped was Evans Coolant allowing me to run things hotter and drop a jet size. I never got it on a dyno, but we estimated 390hp and nearly 600 lb-ft at 2300 rpms. Idled at 450 rpms and was all done by 4500.
By the way, Edelbrock makes an intake for it.
I like this idea a lot. But it wouldn't make sense for me to go through with it*. Why? Because I'd never see the return. I simply wouldn't drive a car with 1970's safety equipment enough that I'd care about the MPG--there are possible exceptions, but they aren't any GM products.
So with that, where do you live? Don't have to answer, I'm just putting it out there for the thought provocation--Where I live (Chicago), the chances of being in an accident are too high such that I'd be scared of driving it on a regular basis. I'll probably change my tune on this in 10-20 years when your average car has exceptional collision avoidance technology, but until then I'll be watching from the sidelines.
*This is only looking at MPG. Lots of other reasons to go through with it, even if it were a guy like me who wouldn't drive it much--better engine, better for the environment, potentially easier to work on, more power, etc. My above argument was taking it as if MPG was the ONLY goal here.
Other fun little tidbits:
The 425/472/500 were such low-rpm torky things, they cast the blocks with the highest nickel content of any GM block. It's not uncommon to tear apart a 200k mile assembly and find full crosshatches in the bores. They also were low enough RPM and balanced well enough that they don't have harmonic dampers. They're just big chunks of cast iron on the front of the crank.
Having said that, there are dampers made for them, but the high nickel content means that high RPM harmonics plus high nickel blocks don't necessarily make a good match. Focus on getting your power to the crank by 5000 rpms. Getting the heads to flow enough for more than 5000 rpms is tough, too. Up to 500 hp, they're as cheap as a 454 to build. After 500hp you're looking at unobtanium Bulldog heads that probably go for $4000 a pair these days.
They are also remarkably light. Adding an aluminum intake to a 500 puts you within a few pounds of an all-iron SBC.
Only way to externally identify a 472 from a 500 is to pull a plug and use a dowel or welding rod to measure the stroke. Same block and heads were used on both, just a different crank. 500s will have a 4.3" stroke, 472s closer to 4". The 425 is pretty easy to identify in stock form as it is the only one with a single plane intake. If you're a sharp-eyed Qjet person and can tell the difference in a 750cfm and 800cfm model, the 425 also (most of the time) got a 750cfm while the 472/500 always got the 800.
mtn said:I like this idea a lot. But it wouldn't make sense for me to go through with it*. Why? Because I'd never see the return. I simply wouldn't drive a car with 1970's safety equipment enough that I'd care about the MPG--there are possible exceptions, but they aren't any GM products.
So with that, where do you live? Don't have to answer, I'm just putting it out there for the thought provocation--Where I live (Chicago), the chances of being in an accident are too high such that I'd be scared of driving it on a regular basis. I'll probably change my tune on this in 10-20 years when your average car has exceptional collision avoidance technology, but until then I'll be watching from the sidelines.
*This is only looking at MPG. Lots of other reasons to go through with it, even if it were a guy like me who wouldn't drive it much--better engine, better for the environment, potentially easier to work on, more power, etc. My above argument was taking it as if MPG was the ONLY goal here.
I live in PA. I don't worry so much about MPGs other than environmental reasons. Having said that, a 70s Caddy will pollute 10 times more than a modern vehicle even at the same MPG. If environmental factors were a strong consideration, I might look into a modern drivetrain swap. I do get a little twitchy when I drive my 67 LeMans with just lap belts and a monster steel steering column in my face, but I think I have a solution to add shoulder belts.
I'm with you, though. I don't drive my polluters enough to feel guilty about their emissions. I tell myself that buying a used car prevented supporting the manufacture of a new car and I justify it that way. :)
mtn said:I like this idea a lot. But it wouldn't make sense for me to go through with it*. Why? Because I'd never see the return. I simply wouldn't drive a car with 1970's safety equipment enough that I'd care about the MPG--there are possible exceptions, but they aren't any GM products.
So with that, where do you live? Don't have to answer, I'm just putting it out there for the thought provocation--Where I live (Chicago), the chances of being in an accident are too high such that I'd be scared of driving it on a regular basis. I'll probably change my tune on this in 10-20 years when your average car has exceptional collision avoidance technology, but until then I'll be watching from the sidelines.
*This is only looking at MPG. Lots of other reasons to go through with it, even if it were a guy like me who wouldn't drive it much--better engine, better for the environment, potentially easier to work on, more power, etc. My above argument was taking it as if MPG was the ONLY goal here.
It's been mentioned several times in the thread but I'll forgive you for not reading everything. Central Texas. My primary made of transportation for at least the last five years has been a motorcycle and I commute mainly on a bicycle nowadays. The safety of the vehicle isn't even a consideration.
Ya know, Nick, a thousand dollar Corolla or Celi would probably be the best thing for you. Just sayin'.
Nick Comstock said:It's been mentioned several times in the thread but I'll forgive you for not reading everything. Central Texas. My primary made of transportation for at least the last five years has been a motorcycle and I commute mainly on a bicycle nowadays. The safety of the vehicle isn't even a consideration.
Exactly. My 30 mile daily commute over a four lane, two in each direction, mountain road is regularly on a motorcycle. If it's in a car that because half of the commute was on bicycle to where said car is parked overnight. Automotive safety is a relative thing and relative to virtually any two wheel transportation mode, a '70's Caddy is quite a bit better statistically.
Dr. Hess said:Ya know, Nick, a thousand dollar Corolla or Celi would probably be the best thing for you. Just sayin'.
Pretty much lacking in style though.
Curtis said:Other fun little tidbits:
The 425/472/500 were such low-rpm torky things, they cast the blocks with the highest nickel content of any GM block. It's not uncommon to tear apart a 200k mile assembly and find full crosshatches in the bores. They also were low enough RPM and balanced well enough that they don't have harmonic dampers. They're just big chunks of cast iron on the front of the crank.
Having said that, there are dampers made for them, but the high nickel content means that high RPM harmonics plus high nickel blocks don't necessarily make a good match. Focus on getting your power to the crank by 5000 rpms. Getting the heads to flow enough for more than 5000 rpms is tough, too. Up to 500 hp, they're as cheap as a 454 to build. After 500hp you're looking at unobtanium Bulldog heads that probably go for $4000 a pair these days.
They are also remarkably light. Adding an aluminum intake to a 500 puts you within a few pounds of an all-iron SBC.
Only way to externally identify a 472 from a 500 is to pull a plug and use a dowel or welding rod to measure the stroke. Same block and heads were used on both, just a different crank. 500s will have a 4.3" stroke, 472s closer to 4". The 425 is pretty easy to identify in stock form as it is the only one with a single plane intake. If you're a sharp-eyed Qjet person and can tell the difference in a 750cfm and 800cfm model, the 425 also (most of the time) got a 750cfm while the 472/500 always got the 800.
Here’s an article from hot rod on a 541 Cadillac build up on the dynowith 93 octane it’s was making around 526 hp but with 650 lbs feet of torque. That’s diesel level torque but with more horsepower.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-0804-541-big-block-cadillac-v8/
Dr. Hess said:Ya know, Nick, a thousand dollar Corolla or Celi would probably be the best thing for you. Just sayin'.
I think that may be the most inflammatory thing I've ever seen you post here.
In reply to Nick Comstock :
I didn't say DON'T get the 72 CDV with a swapped in Viper V10 and manual 6 speed, just that a nice 'Rolla to get you back and forth to work in the rain wouldn't be a BAD idea.
In reply to Dr. Hess :
Don't worry, I won't melt 
Knurled. said:In reply to Swiss44 :
Thermometer.
Cadillacs also had fiber optic lines running to indicators on the top of the front fenders so that you could see if your headlights or turn signals were on. Same for the brake lights, going to indicators in the rear roof where you could see it in the mirror.
I'm not certain if those were there so you could tell if a bulb had gone out, or if they were so you knew if you were driving in the left lane in broad daylight with your high beams and left turn signal on.
On my '66, there's an actual light bulb for the turn indicators on the top of the fender I believe. It's actually a really smart feature.
Fun fact: My LS1 powered MGB probably gets about the same fuel economy as it did stock, at least on the highway. Tires don't last as long though.
What an interesting thread. It's almost like there's an argument and I'm not sure who's mad.
My opinion is worth even less than everyone else on here because I don't know anything about anything, but I'd play with the current drivetrain first just because it would cost less and get you on the road sooner.
It's funny; back in high school I was in love with old boats. But then as I got newer and smaller cars I fell out of love with them. I enjoyed turning too much. I now HATE oversteer. Dragging the front sidewalls. Ugh. But that's because I drive around town too much. Sometimes though I would absolutely LOVE a nice highway cruiser with a bench seat so my wife could sit right beside me.
You'll need to log in to post.
