Has Anyone Put In A V8 Cadillac 472 In A 80s C20 ?

[Sam13under]

I got a TBi 1995 454 I'm goin' to swap in, however someone I kno' let me have 472 Cadillac Engine. Which I also wonder if I can use the TBi from the 454.

1983 C20. Four Door , with Automatic 3 Speed Turbo 400. 373 Gears . Tires; 275/80/16s

 

[ktmoutfront]

The TBI sucks for tuning away from a stock engine. Aftermarket FI would be a better deal on the Cad engine.

 

[dyeager535]

And if you have a TBI 454 already, why go with the Cadillac? A fair number of changes to make that swap even ignoring the TBI aspect.

 

[Sam13under]

The TBI sucks for tuning away from a stock engine. Aftermarket FI would be a better deal on the Cad engine.

I don't do Carburetors. I don't mind TBi

 

[Sam13under]

And if you have a TBI 454 already, why go with the Cadillac? A fair number of changes to make that swap even ignoring the TBI aspect.

From what I know, the 472 stock, dependin' on what year, have lots of torque/power.

 

[tRustyK5]

Caddy 472/500 suck compared to BBC. Poor oiling and don't like to rev past 5000 rpm without spinning bearings unless you pour a ton of money into them. Now if you were in need of a new anchor for your boat...you might be onto something.

 

[shady]

You don't need to go over 5000 rpm like ever, in normal driving. He has a truck not a race car.
The 472/500 has gobs of torque down low. Like 300+ at idle.

He's not on here much I don't think, but Kurt from diy4x has done a bunch of caddy motor in a square stuff.

@cybrfire

 

[dyeager535]

I don't do Carburetors. I don't mind TBi

Then you'd have to learn to burn your own PROMs or pay someone else to do it. It won't run right by simply bolting it on because the displacement is similar. It's a lot more complex than that.

 

[ktmoutfront]

Then you'd have to learn to burn your own PROMs or pay someone else to do it. It won't run right by simply bolting it on because the displacement is similar. It's a lot more complex than that.

That was my point. Factory TBI fir 454 would suck. Aftermarket TBI would be a better way to go. But you are adding a bunch of money to the build then.

 

[Sam13under]

That was my point. Factory TBI fir 454 would suck. Aftermarket TBI would be a better way to go. But you are adding a bunch of money to the build then.

In that case, how do I add 430 Pound Feet of Torque , to the 1995 TBi 454?

I'm lookin' for Torque, Horsepower is extra. I'm not trying to race anyone.

 

[Bent77]

Add 430? You need more air

430 total at the crank, doable

 

[centexk5]

Nitrous. I think a 400 shot would do it.

 

[HankScorpio]

Those engines are not what they seem. Low power, heavy, gas guzzlers. Only the first few years make good power and those numbers are skewed, 68-71 are rated gross hp, after '71 net hp. 1972 with 220hp and 365 lbft, weighing something around 750lbs, why bother. There are lots of options for that power level at way less weight with better fuel economy and aftermarket support.

Year	Engine VIN code	Engine letter code	Displacement	Rated horsepower	Rated torque	Bore x stroke	Compression ratio	Oil pressure
1968–1969	None	None	472 cu in (7.7 L)	375 hp (280 kW) @ 4400 rpm	525 lb⋅ft (712 N⋅m) @ 3000 rpm	4.3 in × 4.06 in (109.2 mm × 103.1 mm)	10.5:1	33 psi (2.3 bar)
1970 (SAE gross)	10.0:1	35–40 psi (2.4–2.8 bar)
500 cu in (8.2 L)	400 hp (298 kW) @ 4400 rpm	550 lb⋅ft (746 N⋅m) @ 3000 rpm	4.3 in × 4.304 in (109.2 mm × 109.3 mm)
1971 (SAE gross)	R	61E,Q	472 cu in (7.7 L)	345 hp (257 kW) @ 4400 rpm	500 lb⋅ft (678 N⋅m) @ 2800 rpm	4.3 in × 4.06 in (109.2 mm × 103.1 mm)	8.5:1
S	500 cu in (8.2 L)	365 hp (272 kW) @ 4400 rpm	535 lb⋅ft (725 N⋅m) @ 2800 rpm	4.3 in × 4.304 in (109.2 mm × 109.3 mm)
1972 (SAE net)	R	62E,Q	472 cu in (7.7 L)	220 hp (164 kW) @ 4400 rpm	365 lb⋅ft (495 N⋅m) @ 2400 rpm	4.3 in × 4.06 in (109.2 mm × 103.1 mm)	35 psi (2.4 bar)
S	500 cu in (8.2 L)	235 hp (175 kW) @ 4400 rpm	385 lb⋅ft (522 N⋅m) @ 2400 rpm	4.3 in × 4.304 in (109.2 mm × 109.3 mm)
1973	R	63E,Q	472 cu in (7.7 L)	220 hp (164 kW) @ 4400 rpm	365 lb⋅ft (495 N⋅m) @ 2400 rpm	4.3 in × 4.06 in (109.2 mm × 103.1 mm)
S	500 cu in (8.2 L)	235 hp (175 kW) @ 4400 rpm	385 lb⋅ft (522 N⋅m) @ 2400 rpm	4.3 in × 4.304 in (109.2 mm × 109.3 mm)
1974	R	64E,Q	472 cu in (7.7 L)	205 hp (153 kW) @ 4400 rpm	380 lb⋅ft (515 N⋅m) @ 2400 rpm	4.3 in × 4.06 in (109.2 mm × 103.1 mm)
S	500 cu in (8.2 L)	210 hp (157 kW) @ 3600 rpm	380 lb⋅ft (515 N⋅m) @ 2000 rpm	4.3 in × 4.304 in (109.2 mm × 109.3 mm)
1975	65E,Q
1976	66E,Q	190 hp (142 kW) @ 3600 rpm	360 lb⋅ft (488 N⋅m) @ 2000 rpm

Edit: Some of the numbers didn't copy to the right spots but you get the idea. Chart is on wikipedia with the same lousy power levels.

 

[tRustyK5]

My point was you will make more power with more reliability for half the money using the big block Chevy over the Cadillac...and you already have the BBC.

 

[Bent77]

My point was you will make more power with more reliability for half the money using the big block Chevy over the Cadillac...and you already have the BBC.

Using logic is just crazy talk

 

[ZooMad75]

Using logic is just crazy talk

Using a BBC is not crazy talk. Using a big block cad is the crazy talk. 4 times the cost or more for speed parts.

 

[Bent77]

Using a BBC is not crazy talk. Using a big block cad is the crazy talk. 4 times the cost or more for speed parts.

You can stop with the logic too my friend

 

[ZooMad75]

You can stop with the logic too my friend

Reminds me of a guy I knew growing up. In high school, a guy built up a 348 "w" engine and stuffed it into a '73 Nova. All the weight of a BBC with the displacement of a small block. Plus at the time I could have built a couple of wicked small blocks for what it cost him to rebuild the 348. It didn't even have a tri-power setup. I mean if you are going to put in the effort for a 348 you should at least have a tri-power or dual quads on it.

A little more logic. Keep the BBC, ditch the TBI heads for just about any aftermarket units, decent cam, and an aftermarket FI setup and it should be pretty easy to pick up 430 lb/ft torque.

 

[tRustyK5]

Even just some 781's if the budget is really tight.

@max 02 put a TBI 454 in his 77 3/4 ton pick-up. stock 049 peanut port heads, Q-jet on the TBI manifold (TBI adaptor removed) and some budget headers. That truck will pull down a house, or melt the tires at will and if he has more than a grand into it I'd die of shock. If he ever installs the 781 heads I gave him and maybe adds a bit of a cam he'd probably gain another 50-75 lb/ft of tq.

 

[max 02]

Even just some 781's if the budget is really tight.

@max 02 put a TBI 454 in his 77 3/4 ton pick-up. stock 049 peanut port heads, Q-jet on the TBI manifold (TBI adaptor removed) and some budget headers. That truck will pull down a house, or melt the tires at will and if he has more than a grand into it I'd die of shock. If he ever installs the 781 heads I gave him and maybe adds a bit of a cam he'd probably gain another 50-75 lb/ft of tq.

All true!
Except for Dave @76zimmer also gave me a Edelbrock Performer intake for it.

Not much it to it for sure. Rene @tRustyK5 gave me the BB my uncle gave me headers Dave gave me the intake. Thanks again guys!

As Rene said 871 head and a small cam would really wake it up! My previous truck had a 454 with 871 heads RV cam and a 396/ 375 hp intake with a Q jet, It was perky!

Actually my previous 454 was also built on the cheep. I bought the engine for 300.00 bucks off a buddy with the cam already in it. Then he gave me the intake.

Both engines 4 bolt mains too.

I had dreams of a 500 cad in my old blazer at one point... thought it would be cool! The BB Chev is just way easier and a better choice.

No lack of torque if that’s what you are looking for.