People keep talking about engine swaps, but what about keeping (and improving the efficiency) of the engine, but swapping to a more modern trans? I have no idea, but are there any kits out there to use a later electronically controlled 4 speed with lock up trans in older cars? I would have thought there was quite a market for that with hot rodders, resto modders and pro touring guys?
Nick Comstock said:In reply to SVreX :
Nice ninja edit. Although condescending.
Everyone has their reasons for whatever they do. It's a valid reason.
I did ninja edit. Because I thought my first comment would be perceived as condescending. 
No, there is nothing condescending about my comment. Is it wrong to say that I think cutting your emissions in half would be terrific?
Hard to give a guy a compliment around here.
In reply to alfadriver :
I remember gas being $0.72 when I got my license in 87, but that was in BFE so I’m sure urban areas were more expensive.
I guess half is not good enough so may as well do nothing right?
In reply to Nick Comstock :
Dude!
In reply to Nick Comstock :
Like fuel, time and money are also resources to be used efficiently.
Producing CO2 is bad, and your swap should have a positive impact in that regard. I salute the goal here but there are some things to consider as well. How much CO2 does the act of swapping produce? Will you have to work more shifts to pay for the swap, thus driving more? Making the parts, shipping the parts, going on trips to the auto parts store for this and that, disposing of the old parts, etc will all offset your reduced CO2 production to a degree. Using electricity (lights, tools, etc) to complete the swap will have some CO2 production too. So what I'm saying, is that there will be an initial spike in CO2 to get the swap up and running.
Once it's running you'll enter the payback period (both monetarily and environmentally) where you'll be operating more efficiently but it will take time to hit the breakeven point(s). You'll only be cutting your CO2 production in half if you drive the same amount that you do now. If you're more likely to drive more miles after the swap, then it will also offset your reduced CO2 production, and extend the payoff/breakeven point.
It is likely to end up being a net gain eventually, both financially and environmentally but when you consider the entire impact of the project those break even points may not happen as quickly as your initial estimates suggest, and that could alter some decisions. Just food for thought since this all seems to be in the bench racing stage.
Adrian_Thompson said:People keep talking about engine swaps, but what about keeping (and improving the efficiency) of the engine, but swapping to a more modern trans? I have no idea, but are there any kits out there to use a later electronically controlled 4 speed with lock up trans in older cars? I would have thought there was quite a market for that with hot rodders, resto modders and pro touring guys?
That would be interesting to look into.
The reason is that I just looked up on Detroit CL to check for LS powered Chevy vans- and there's one that is in great shape for a mere $1500. That would give you the entire powertrain, plus AC, plus cooling that was in a vehicle with like weight. And it would be down to mounts and a re-flash (that would leave it 100% stock other than theft). And you are left with an entire van when you are done.
Not sure how much a proper trans that would work with the engine would be.
STM317 said:In reply to Nick Comstock :
Like fuel, time and money are also resources to be used efficiently.
Producing CO2 is bad, and your swap should have a positive impact in that regard. I salute the goal here but there are some things to consider as well. How much CO2 does the act of swapping produce? Will you have to work more shifts to pay for the swap, thus driving more? Making the parts, shipping the parts, going on trips to the auto parts store for this and that, disposing of the old parts, etc will all offset your reduced CO2 production to a degree. Using electricity (lights, tools, etc) to complete the swap will have some CO2 production too. So what I'm saying, is that there will be an initial spike in CO2 to get the swap up and running.
Once it's running you'll enter the payback period (both monetarily and environmentally) where you'll be operating more efficiently but it will take time to hit the breakeven point(s). You'll only be cutting your CO2 production in half if you drive the same amount that you do now. If you're more likely to drive more miles after the swap, then it will also offset your reduced CO2 production, and extend the payoff/breakeven point.
It is likely to end up being a net gain eventually, both financially and environmentally but when you consider the entire impact of the project those break even points may not happen as quickly as your initial estimates suggest, and that could alter some decisions. Just food for thought since this all seems to be in the bench racing stage.
You also end up with probably a 95% reduction in HC and NOX and a 90% reduction in CO. Or maybe more, as one would have to look up the cert data from the engine source.
Given how much energy is in an gallon of fuel, I can't see the actual CO2 used for the swap to be that much. Less than a gallon of fuel, likely.
I'm getting more confuse that people are trying to talk Nick out of doing one of the most popular swaps on this board. Into a vehicle that would easily take it.
ebonyandivory said:It’s an old Cadillac, it’s in Texas. I think it’s probably perfect for it’s environment as is.
Plus, the challenge of making it more fuel efficient by tweaking the original equipment should satisfy the car-guy in you. And the sheer act of the attempt should satisfy the “environmentally friendly” guy in you.
yea what he said.
However if u want a Cadillac of that size with modern fuel injection and a over driver transmission the last gen Cadillac fleetwoods maybe what ur looking for. They were made from 93 to 96 but the last 3 years got the lt1. And they were 225 inches long.
alfadriver said:You also end up with probably a 95% reduction in HC and NOX and a 90% reduction in CO. Or maybe more, as one would have to look up the cert data from the engine source.
Given how much energy is in an gallon of fuel, I can't see the actual CO2 used for the swap to be that much. Less than a gallon of fuel, likely.
I'm getting more confuse that people are trying to talk Nick out of doing one of the most popular swaps on this board. Into a vehicle that would easily take it.
IT's no contest as far as total emissions goes. But Nick only mentioned CO2 specifically, so that's all I brought up. I can see it easily taking more than a gallon of fuel to acquire, and transport new parts and dispose of the old ones. I can see a single extra trip to the auto parts store using up that much if he's in certain parts of TX. Let alone planes/trucks shipping them, etc.
I have no problem with any of the swaps suggested really. I think it's a noble goal. I wasn't trying to talk him out of it, only suggesting factors that may impact the ROI as he sees it.
Well my commute is all powered by my legs. And I have three parts stores within a mile of my house. I had a thread about it a while ago but y'all bunch a goofballs went and got that one locked. I think your getting way more in depth than is needed. Don't be so literal.
Using half the fuel while sightseeing in a classic Cadillac is what I'm after.
Prius drivetrain? Might sacrifice a bit of performance, however.
In reply to Nick Comstock :
When I was looking into what to do with my 1960 Caddie, I looked hard at the LS.
I learned that all GM products are not alike, and the Cadillac learning curve is steep.
The answer to your question is LS, but be prepared for more work than you expect. As Alfa has pointed out, drivetrain donors are cheap. There is still gonna be quite a bit of fabrication.
My ‘60 and I parted ways because ultimately I couldn’t spare the space in the shop to take on a project like that. That car was unbelievably enormous, and the project was gonna take up twice as much floor space as any other project I had, and I could not spare the floor space or the time for the learning curve.
I let her go for $2K less than I had in her.
I hope you do it- I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
I like the idea Nick. If you went with the LSx route, I would find the nearest 2wd pickup or van you could find with the chosen engine and swap the whole thing in. Personally, I like the idea of a big diesel for better millage and truly effortless torque, but I am the kind of guy that thinks swapping a diesel into a Roller would be a riot just to watch heads explode.
In reply to Nick Comstock :
Please don’t do it. Yes you can and maybe you’ll achieve your goal.
However, there will be one less 70’s Cadillac. Which as you point out has unique characteristics.
One of which is poor fuel mileage. When you are done with it who will want it? Most buyers won’t care that you’ve almost doubled the fuel mileage. They will want originality.
I like the false premise of “economy.” If you were concerned about economy you wouldn’t drag 5000lbs of pig iron around and you’d leave the LS in whatever it came in cause that would have gotten better mileage that the LS swapped Caddy ever will.
If you want to swap a Caddy, just do it. Don’t look for excuses , rationalizations or justifications.
In reply to maj75 :
I haven't been. As I said it's a compromise between my conscience and passion. You don't have to understand and that has nothing to do with the question being asked.
I appreciate all the advice given. Lots to think about.
I think it's possible to stick an electric forklift motor in a car, and add batteries til you're happy, but I've not done it. Yet.
If this guy created THIS, then you certainly should be able to build an eco-friendly version. I like your idea, as I've owned several Caddys already.
https://dallas.craigslist.org/sdf/cto/d/west-4x4-fleetwood/6800069837.html
Okay finally home and have time to actually elaborate a little on some things.
On the Tesla EV swap. Is that actually a thing? Have people been able to put the Tesla package in another car and still get close to the range? If so that's awesome but something that's way above my skill level. If there was a proven path towards that I would certainly be up for attempting it because there is nothing I can't do only things I haven't done yet. But that's a big jump into the unknown for me.
I'm still intrigued by how far I could take a stock Caddy engine with full Megasquirt control and a modern trans. It would take a ton of sorting and fine tuning but I'd be surprised if I couldn't get extremely close to the MPG I would see out of an LS swap but probably wouldn't be as clean as swapping in a donor drivetrain.
I knew going in that the swap would likely be the winner here. I think it would be the easiest to implement and as Alfa said GM has all the hard work already done as far as tuning. I think it would be the way to go.
I don't think a chassis swap would give me what I'm looking for.
In reply to Nick Comstock :
I said Tesla a little bit tongue and cheek. It can be done, and it would be everything you dream of. But there is not a well defined path, and it’s probably above your pay grade. And ridiculously expensive
Stick to the plan. I was just offering g a little to dream about. 
(which was ufortunately taken wrong)
I like the hardtop coupe deville like this 71.
But by 74 they went to this pillar behind the window which I can't stand. 
So I'd be looking for a 71-73. Although the sedans continued with the hardtop design through 76. If I could get over my disdain of four door cars I could have a bigger pool to search from.
STM317 said:alfadriver said:You also end up with probably a 95% reduction in HC and NOX and a 90% reduction in CO. Or maybe more, as one would have to look up the cert data from the engine source.
Given how much energy is in an gallon of fuel, I can't see the actual CO2 used for the swap to be that much. Less than a gallon of fuel, likely.
I'm getting more confuse that people are trying to talk Nick out of doing one of the most popular swaps on this board. Into a vehicle that would easily take it.
IT's no contest as far as total emissions goes. But Nick only mentioned CO2 specifically, so that's all I brought up. I can see it easily taking more than a gallon of fuel to acquire, and transport new parts and dispose of the old ones. I can see a single extra trip to the auto parts store using up that much if he's in certain parts of TX. Let alone planes/trucks shipping them, etc.
I have no problem with any of the swaps suggested really. I think it's a noble goal. I wasn't trying to talk him out of it, only suggesting factors that may impact the ROI as he sees it.
He also mentioned keeping the catalysts of the donor.
Patrick said:You guys suck, the biggest reason to own a big caddy is so you can swing your cubic inches around.
I'm partial too fords but always assumed this is the reason for old caddy's. I want a 500 powered one just too brag about my cubic inches
You'll need to log in to post.
