Yes, I worked at a Caddy dealership in 83 and the 684 and the diesels were
littering the garage area always.
We would do block swaps on the diesels. We'd get a new crated block from
the factory and take off all the external parts from the shot diesel and
put them on the new block and drop it in the car. The shot block was
scored blue on all the internal parts. Just burned up on the inside.
Never seen anything like it. We'd tell the owner, see you in 15 - 30K
miles! Thats when the 1 round of two rounds where we would replace the
head gaskets. Third time was the block swap.
What a riot!
The 684's just plain and simply never did work right. Great idea though!
(My old boss always threatened to blow up the Caddy plant, he works for the
post office now. J/K)
It either ran on 4 at idle and 8 any other time, if you were lucky. The
idea was 4 at idle or costing down hill, 6 on the open road crusing or 4 at
zero to very low load and 8 at take off or heavy accelleration.
We constantly had people bringing their cars back for computer adjustments
and what not. It just never worked. It just never ever did work.
The HT4100 was just plain too small for the ole
cattle track. The car was OK but the engine would
wear out before it's time. Saw lots of those new crated motors.
Now I dont remember the exact year and model, but caddy also came out with
a HUGE V6 engine. It was suprisingly strong, fast and I never knew if if
was worth spit or not. Anyone rember any late 70's early 80's Caddies with
a big block V6? Might have been a caddy on a Nova body if anyone is
familiar with that el switch a roo they pulled.
Q
At 11:28 AM 1/5/98 -0500, John McEwen wrote:
>Hi David:
>
>How right you are. From recent postings I realized that I had overlooked
>two infamous GM engines. The 4-6-8 Cadillac and the 350 Diesel conversion.
>We should probably also nominate the Cadillac 4.1 V8 as being too little
>engine for too much car with resulting short life.
>
>John McEwen
>
>
>
>>On Sun, 4 Jan 1998 18:44:26 +0000 "Scott Gardner"
>><gardner7@pilot.infi.net> writes:
>>>> >how about the version of the "Iron Duke" 4-cylinder that went into
>>>> >the 1984 Fieros?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If I remember correctly, there wasn't anything intrinsically wrong
>>>with the engine that caused the failures. I think it was something
>>>to do with the oiling system GM used when they decided to install it
>>>as a rear engine in the Fiero. Whatever it was, a recall fixed it,
>>>so it couldn't have been too complicated.
>>
>>Problem was if the oil level got low, then engine would overheat in its
>>very tight space in the mid-engined car. During the mid-80's it was not
>>unusual to see burned up Fieros by the side of the road (I remember
>>seeing a couple). I also talked to at least one Fiero owner that had had
>>three engines in his car, courtesy of the factory. The car was killed by
>>its bad reputation and the fact that you couldn't get insurance for it!
>>Of course, the V6 version didn't have this problem, but by the time it
>>came out, it was too late. If you were to buy the last year V6 version
>>you would have quite a little pocket rocket, with excellent handling. It
>>took GM until the last year to finally dump the Chevette front suspension
>>for a system designed for the Fiero.
>>
>>BTW, if you are going to name the worst GM Engine, the 4-6-8 V8 fitted
>>into some late 70's (?) Cadillac Sevilles has got to be a candidate. It
>>was called the 4-6-8 because, depending upon engine load, it would only
>>operate on 4 or 6 cylinders (as on a highway, for example). The idea was
>>to save fuel. The engine was horribly unreliable, however, and was
>>quickly discontinued.
>>
>>David Littlefield
>>Houston, TX
>>David Littlefield
>>Houston, TX
>
>
>
>
--
Jay Quinn - Business Systems Analyst
Personal Email: jpquinn@cyberramp.net
Work Email: jay_quinn@bcbstx.com
2 Way Pager Email: 9120238@skytel.com
http://www.cyberramp.net/~jpquinn/index.htm
(My Totally Lame Web Page)
1962 Austin-Healey Sprite MKII HAN6L2874
|