72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

I've been looking around the web, looking for information about rear wheel drive 4.9 L swaps, and only found some general information. So, here we go, I'm about to dig in, but first... Has anybody here ever used the 4.1/4.5/4.9 Cadillac motor in a rear wheel drive application? How did you make out? Here are the issues as I see them.
1) Bellhousing configuration. Looks close but no cigar for the SBC pattern.
2) Rear mount thermostat housing. No biggie, I'll just run it remote to the front or side somewhere.
3) Intake direction is wrong, but I think a one inch spacer and rotating the whole assembly will maintain air flow. I may supercharge, making this a moot point.
4) I need to be able to operate a 4L80e transmission using inputs from the 4.9. Not sure about this part yet
5) I need to delete the Body Control Module, climate control, and passlock system.
6) Oil filter assembly on back side overhanging bellhousing. I'll just run this remote with a bit of minor custom fab work.
7) Motor mounts for RWD configuration. I'm not sure about this, since the motor's not out yet and it's hard to see them. It doesn't look good, though

I'll start posting pictures when it really gets underway. I pulled the motor, transmission, etc. from my fresh 72 LWB (eventually shortbox) C10 AirCab project. I pull the motor and transmission tomorrow from the Caddy, which by the way, only has 20k original miles. It's the same old story, old lady bought a Caddy and wasn't really able to drive. This is not a line, I know personally that this Caddy is legit. It actually produces almost 300 HP and well over 350 ft/lbs torque with an extremely low power band that runs out around 4500 RPMs with a preset shift at 4000 under light load. Maybe I'll try to find a 6L transmission to take better advantage of the low power band, and try to work out a better gear ratio for the rear axle. One thing at a time, I guess. Any experience, advice, or kind words out there?

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

Isn't that the same engine Cadillac used in the XLR?

Perhaps some parts from one of them could be adapted to your truck to ease installation.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

This swap doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

From Wikipedia

200HP and 275TQ

I hate to break this to you, but you are going to spend a lot of money on a motor swap that doesn't perform all that well and may not be very reliable, let alone easy to get parts for.

There are a lot of other motor swap options that make a lot more sense. A 5.3L or 6.0L LS motor for example. If you gotta have Cadillac, get a 472 or 500. Any Pontiac, Olds, or Buick V8. Even a Ford 302 makes more sense!

Bottom line, sell the car intact and get what you can for it to fund a different motor swap. Don't get me wrong, I love unique and out of the box engine swaps, but they have to make sense as far as money/time/power. This one is going to expensive, time consuming, and low on power. Not trying to bash or anything, I'd just hate to see you invest a bunch of time and money into something and not be happy with the end result.

A cherry Cadillac like that could pull some decent cash. With the whole "donk" look being popular right now I'm sure there is someone who would pay you a pretty good amount for that car.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

I'd have to jump on with pyro on this one I've worked on these motors before and can honestly say I don't have any overly kind words to say about them. In fact i just replaced a waterpump on one today. Have fun torqueing head bolts down on one if you ever have to replace head gaskets on it. Last one i saw that needed head work done ended up putting helicoils in all the head bolt holes because the bolts pulled all the threads out. And the guy doing the work was being very carefull during the torque sequence, because he knew it could be an issue. I think he pulled 3 out in the first torque which i think is like 17 lb/ft? There are even a couple machine shops in this area that will flat out refuse to do any work on these motors because of what a pile of garbage they are. That coupled with the points already stated earlier, i would recomend against it. There is a reason i think you don't hear of these motors being used for swaps. It is your vehicle and your project and ultimately your choice, but i agree, i think there are way better choices for swaps out there. I would totally vote for the 472-500 caddy route. these motors are friggin monsters and take very little work to pull huge power out of. And since they have the bop belhousing pattern it will be easy to find a tranny case to use.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

They are extremely problematic engines. Its definately far from an ideal swap. Its a boatload of work to swap to an engine with reliability issues. I doubt you will be able to make the 4l80 work with the caddy electronics. They were never put together and never meant to be together. Having had to fix quite a few of these gems I would highly reccomend continuing your search and finding something better. An ls engine comes to mind first especially if you want fuel injection.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

Okay, so it's "a boatload of work". How so?
Never "meant to be together"? HAH! I don't even know what that phrase means. And, I'm not simply after fuel injection. I'm after unique, 23 mpg, 200+HP, 300+ torque......

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

They are NOT problematic engines. The 4.1's and 4.5's were. "Caddy electronics"? You do know it's just a GM built engine with 4T60e trans, right? 20k with reliability issues? I'm not worried. LS1 engine? Not quite original enough for me. Thanks for the advice, though.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

Thanks for the wiki, but dynos don't lie. And, no, I've tried to sell it. I wound up parting it out for more cash than I could sell it for. And, power isn't everything. Those power numbers with 23 MPG on the highway? Awesome. I'm not looking for massive power. I'm looking for a decent unique, cool, daily driver. Oh, and "sense"? 23 MPG with decent power, and I got the car for an $80.00 junkyard trans. Not sense, cents. Thanks anyway.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

Im completely aware of what this engine is. Aside from not being able to physically bolt the the engine to the trans. The stock computer cant control a 4l80e.The mounts are going to turn into a fabrication nightmare. The point is its a lot of hassle for little payoff in name of being different. Theres a reason certain things become popular and others dont. Its not because people dont want to be different its because some things work well and some dont. Its your time and money have at it. Good luck.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

I can't wait to see pics of this. Sure it might be a pain and in others opinions not worth it, but if you already have the motor it will be interesting and different. So go for it!
The trans, a 4L60e will easily handle your power and torque. A 80e will just take more power to turn, doesn't have quite as low of a OD gear and it weighs more so it will hurt your economy and performance. Good luck and remember we love pics!

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

Good point. I actually have a 4L60e with extremely low miles on a rebuild. It's the 97-up style with 65 upgrades. I also have the ECM from it, and I believe I can piggyback the trans ECM to the Caddy ECM as I have done in the past. I don't think this one will be a "pain" so much as more thinking than most people want to spend their time doing. I have worked out the bellhousing issue. Okay, so I got some confimation and exact milling specifications from a guy in England where they actually use these motors for rear wheel drive English built cars with a 700R, tomato, temato. So, I guess it's not that this isn't a popular swap. It's just not a popular swap in America, and not on pickup trucks. This is not a pickup truck. It is a two door Cadillac in disguise, right down to the suspension. Or it will be, at least. I have black leather, 8 way bucket seats with center console, black leather tilt steering, CD with piggybacked cassette deck, all from 1999 Chevy's. Thank you for your encouragement, and an actual fact-based suggestion. That's what I was looking for, suggestions and advice about the build, not suggestions and advice about not doing it. LOL. I live in NC, where the weather looks pretty awful until Saturday. As soon as it clears up, I will start taking pictures.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

Not to question what you're saying, but are you sure it was a 4.9L? I've seen issues like the ones you're talking about on 4.1/4.5's but it's been my experience that by the time 92 (or was it 91?) came around and the big brother, 4.9 hit the line, these issues were resolved. Yes, the water pump is a pain in a front wheel drive, but I'm not building a front wheel drive, so problem solved. As far as the machine work goes, yes some shops won't work on them, but not because they're piles of crap. It's because the lifters assembly is used to pre-stress the engine before final machining. Therefore, if it were removed, it would require extremely skillful machine work to bring the engine back to stock specs. There's my 2 cents. Oh, and as far as the HP goes, I should've been clear about my intentions with this build. I have stupid powerful stuff around here. I'm looking more for ease and comfort of driving, while maintaining a decent amount of power when I just have to hit the freeway at 80 mph and get it done quick. The bellhousing is resolved and it wasn't as bad as I feared. It's a simple inch thick aluminum adapter plate. Somebody makes one already, I'll look it up again if anybody's really interested. I'm going to just make mine though, using specs from a gentleman from England, since $250.00's a little steep for a simple bellhousing adapter plate. Thank you everybody for your suggestions and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Please, keep it coming. Pictures on Saturday.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

I think I have the trans controller and bellhousing sorted. I pray that you're wrong about the difficulty of the motor mount issues, but I fear that you're right. Wish they had the same mount locations as the older engines with the same displacement. But, hell no, they're not even close. Very front-wheel-drivey. I also wish myself good luck. LOL. Thanks everybody. Keep it coming.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

why not make it rear engine w a transaxle? That'd be more different and a little easier.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

maybe FWD? that would be very different.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

I considered something like that, but it seems like maybe it wouldn't be easier. I guess I could just cut a hole in the bed and drop it in, but I think that's something that would work better in a car. Maybe. Suggestions?

EDIT:
Okay, so I spoke too soon. You got me thinking and I remembered something from way back in those fuzzy days of my early twenties. I remember a buddy of mine taking an ElDorado subframe and grafting it to the frame of a 68 Chevy pickup (I think it was a 68, and I think it was an Eldo, but I definitely remember it was a 67-72 pickup, because I had just bought my first one, and I think it was an Eldo, but I definitely remember it was a FWD Cadillac). If my hazy memory serves me well, as it does from time to time, I think he just tied in the tie rods and appropriate components to the frame. Issues with body roll or anything like that, that anybody can think of? I'm pretty sure that's how the 4.9L Fiero swaps are done, too. I'm fairly certain I'm going to go with the rear engine idea. It's efficient (direct drive), it's cool, it's different, it seems reasonable to accomplish, and it is truly out of the box swapping goodness. I've always wanted a trunk in my pickup. Brad_man, thanks for bringing that up. It was an AWESOME thought. Now, to figure out which suspension to use and how to make it all work. Ideas?

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

I considered something like that, but it seems like the frame is a bit narrow for that. I would love a front wheel drive truck. Anybody have a solution or another project like this to solve the frame clearance issue?

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

I have worked on all of em from the 4.1-4.9 and yes im sure it was the 4.9. This is purely my opinion from having worked on them. I do know there used to be guys that would transplant the whole cradle, trans, and engine into chevy citations, and i think i've seen em put into cavaliers as well. People do use them in conversions, and I'm not saying that what you want can't be done, and would probably do what you are looking for out of it, I just feel it would be a less than desireable motor to use. But again as I said before its your project, if it's what u want go for it, i hope it works for ya. I just hate to see you go to all the work of doing something like this, and have all your time,effort, and money get bamboozled cause the motor you are going to use gives you problems.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

I tried to upload some pictures, but I got an error from the upload management applet that said a security token is missing and the operation couldn't be processed. I clicked the button to "notify administrator". Anybody had this happen to them? Did you solve the problem??? Help. I need my unique build pics up.:eek:

Oh, and if you missed it, I edited post #16. I'm aiming more towards a rear engine 4.9 using the subframe, trans and all from the Caddy. Tips, advice???? Oh, and I know it doesn't make sense. If it did, I wouldn't bother posting it up. That's why you'll see no write up on my fairly boring fuel injected Vortec swap for my 79 F100 Ranger Lariat Edition.

The issues I see with rear transverse setup is really crappy weight distribution, but I think this rock heavy truck should be okay. Then, there's controlling rear steer effect with body roll. How to graft the frame, nuts and bolts or welding? It's nuts and bolts in the stock setup. Need to measure shaft width and height of caddy subframe/ suspension, maybe wind up putting the truck frame "on top" of the Seville frame. And if i'm not mistaken, wouldn't this open up the possibility of swapping a 500 into it down the road from a FWD Eldo??? Oh, and matching the wheels up: I'd like to keep the ones I have. I like the idea of being able to drop the whole rear and swap it with other motors. That would be very cool. Okay, I think this is the part where someone should give some cautionary advice... Anything? Anybody? I'm about to dive in head first. This is the slowest time of year for my shop, so I'm good to go.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

If you go to the top of the page, click on gallery. http://67-72chevytrucks.com/gallery/
Upload your pics there and then take the link from them and paste it into your reply. The attach files function doesn't work for me if I upload more than one pic at a time. Gallery has worked every time.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

I tried that and it crashed out, but you led me to the answer. I forgot I had a PhotoBucket account. So here goes.

Donor car: 1992 Cadillac SeVille with 20k original. Thanks, someone's Gammy! I can't find any pictures from before I started ripping it apart, but here's a couple I grabbed in my five minutes of sunlight.

http://i1218.photobucket.com/albums/...n/DSCI0001.jpg
http://i1218.photobucket.com/albums/...n/DSCI0002.jpg
http://i1218.photobucket.com/albums/...n/DSCI0003.jpg

Here's the truck. I'll get some better ones up when I can>

http://i1218.photobucket.com/albums/...n/DSCI0009.jpg

And here's the trans (maybe). It's from a 99 Chevy 4X4.
http://i1218.photobucket.com/albums/...n/DSCI0011.jpg

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

If the trans is from a 99 4wd you would need it converted to a 2wd which it would probably easier to just get a 2wd to start with, as the output shaft would have to be swapped for a 2wd anyway. And i believe it was in 98 that gm went to a pwm pressure solenoid so whatever you are using for a controler make sure it is pwm or you will burn it up in no time. You could always go to a 700r4 with the tv cable. Would be cheaper and easier to make it work off the throttle body rather than use a controller. Just a thought.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

And a good thought it was. Fortunately, I am very familiar with these transmissions. Wish I was that familiar with Cadillacs. The PWM pressure solenoid started officially in 96, but appeared in some late 95's, indicated by the lettering "PWM" on the inside of the bellhousing. The ECM from the Blazer that it came out of will actually work as a standalone controller with a couple of inputs from the ECM being used for the engine. I've done this with other vehicles before, like a TBI 350 I built a few months ago. I'm just not sure about the signals from the Cadillac, and how many sensors I would have to add to get proper signal, since I haven't got that far yet. I'm in the process of eliminating everything from the car's wiring that isn't necessary, nice and slow, so nothing bad happens. I'm eliminating the BCM, SIRS, Climate Control, interior and exterior lighting circuits, all chassis computers, horn, seat belt sensors, seat controls, fuel pump, etc., etc. I prefer to keep my different systems bundled separately. When I'm done with that, I'll look at the signals the Caddy gives, since I can't even seem to get a decent wiring diagram or specs for it. It would probably be easier to just paddle shift it for an extra $65.00 in materials (I buy some parts assembled already, lazy, lazy). As far as the 4WD vs. 2WD issue, no problem. I have a short tail housing for it, adapted some time back from an old Chevy 3 speed, I think. The rear slip on yoke from a 91 SportVan w/ 4L80e fits perfectly. The universal joint for the yoke in turn matches the driveshaft I will be using. Or, the one I was going to use. I think I hit a hard turn on this project. Read on.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

Guess what, guys. I have another Cadillac Seville all of a sudden. And what do you know? It's got a 4.9L/4T60E trans. This one's got higher miles, but it's okay at 80k. So, that got me thinking. I was going to put the motor in the back, but then the suspension becomes a mess. What about a front wheel drive truck? What about both? Here's the new direction of this quickly-changing project I've barely just started. I intend to place the entire subframe from Cadillac #1 in the rear of the truck, and the entire subframe from Cadillac #2 in the front of the truck. This will actually solve some problems (weight distribution, suspension differences/upgrade/lowering) and cause others. I'm going to run both motors basically independently, two floor shifters, two ignition cylinders, two of everything but the stuff there can only be one of, like the gas pedal. I need to figure out a way to allow them to measure each other's speed accurately, but I have the rest of it pretty much worked out. Maybe wheel speed sensors? Or I could make the part-time engine slaved to the full-time engine using tach output from distributor, maybe. Not really sure yet how I'm going to keep them perfectly synched. But the idea here is 200+HP with 23 MPG on the highway when I want it. At any time, I will be able to neutral start engine number 2 and double my horsepower in an all-wheel-drive setup. Anybody have any experience with this uncommon setup?

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

I'll leave my opinion of the engine in question out of this and say this sounds interesting.
However, I predict you won't hit 23MPG. I predict you'll get 15 at best.
Look at the aerodynamics of a caddy, and then look at the front of the truck. If just looking doesn't explain it enough, then get in a car doing 60 MPH, stick your hand out the window palm facing down, fingers extended out. This represents the caddy. It slices through the air.
Now turn your hand to where your palm is facing forward. This is the truck.
At speeds about 40 - 45 MPH, areo drag is the single most important equation in MPG goals. This is why the NASCAR guys stopped looking for more power and started adding air dams and rounded bodies (among other reasons too)
I have't seen gearing mentioned, gearing in a caddy will be way too low for a pickup. The areo thing at speed, and weight both come into play. Drop the RPMs too much and the motor will struggle and be under constant load, killing the MPG. Rev it too high, and obviously MPG blows out the tailpipe.
I suspect you will have less trouble getting your MPG numbers out of an Ls1 (and I'm not an Ls fan personally). I have personally oly seen 3 or 4 late model swaps in person, so it's not common like a ratty million mile sludge covered small block with pretty chrome valve covers.
Either way, it's your truck, and you have very high ambitions. YOu need to sit down and figure out exactly what you want. You've hardly pulled the tarp off the truck and your build plan has changed a few times. Not plans like "wat color should it be"... but talk of front wheel drive and 2 engines (nightmare... more for show than go...added dead weight). Figure out what you want, plan it out, and then attack it. If you change your mind after cutting the crap out of your truck, then you'll be left with a lot of welding anf 'unfabbing', or it'll be worth it's weight in scrap. With any of the things you have planned here, you don't want to half ass it, plan each step, and how it'll be a pain when you get 3 steps down the build.
Good luck on what ever you do... but don't expect 23 mpg anyway you slice it with that motor.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

rear engine = crappy weight distribution?! Ask anybody that drives a porsche if 50/50 weight distribbution is "perfect".

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

LSX seems to be a better option, unless your going for creativity points..your goign to lose alot of sleep with this project i believe tho..youll be racking your brain 24/7 figuring out ways to ge tit to work

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

Longhorn Man, I was wondering when you'd get your two cents in. I'm glad you did. You have an excellent point about aero drag and fuel economy/ power. 23 MPG is unattainable. However, I think 15's a bit low. Especially with aggressive lowering with some rake. Actually, I made mention of the gearing way up top somewhere, but I never got any feedback, and I'm a bit stuck on that. Why would the gearing be too low for a pickup, IF the pickup weighed approximately the same as the donor car, had similar frame dimensions and sat on the ground on the original suspension from the donor (sort of, just without Electronic Level Crontrol junk). The bed is being removed and replaced with more "decorative" aluminum, and I'm dropping weight wherever I can for better starts. In other words, it would be less truck than car. It will never pull a load. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really looking for some insight. So please, feel free to poke holes in my ideas. I'd rather someone does it on paper than to do it on the street. As far as practicality, that went out the window when I "untarped the truck". Yes, the project has changed, and yes, I should do a lot on paper. I intend to. It's just a shell and "stock" is way overrated, especially on something this old. I know, it's blasphemy to say that. As far as cool factor at the show, I think some variation of this is project should hit the nail on the head. As far as added "dead "weight" the combo only weighs about 450-500 lbs. I know this is a bit of weight, but it's like having two really fat guys in the truck. What do you think?

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

I have lost a bit of sleep already, but that's kind of the point. Like you said, creativity points. I'm trying to do something not done before. This is not a simple feat, so I'm going crazy with it. And I'm soooo sick of LS series motors. I know, "they're great", but they're in everything, even my 79 Ford pickup. And I think everybody might be overestimating the difficulty of placing the engine in the rear using the Caddy subframe. Just my opinion. It should almost "drop in". Okay, so that's a little over-simple, but it shouldn't be the worst thing ever. And I've got spare body parts and things like that, so try, and try again on this one. And I know it won't be the fastest truck ever, I already have a 95 2-door blazer with TBI 350 (don't attempt this one LOL), 79 F100 with TPI 350 (eeeasy), and a supercharged 3.8L Monte Carlo (it's a 95 with the 3.1 ripped out- not the worst swap ever). I want to do this on a budget (okay, my wife wants me to do it on a budget), but difficulty is not an issue. I have welders, hoists, lifts, and anything else I might need, including experience.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

I agree that the weight distribution issue is a bit overrated. However, where the axle sits on this truck, I don't think 50/50 would be anywhere near the worst case scenario. Also remember that Porsche has spent decades making this "work". It wasn't something that made itself happen, like they dropped the motor in the middle and voila, instant performance. Porsche's actually compensate heavily for the issues of over/ understeer that this type of balancing creates. Chevy trucks do not. That's why I thought of a bit of body roll rear steer. It should compensate for understeer on acceleration, but I'm not sure about the far more dangerous oversteer on braking. I am a very experienced driver, though, and I think I could get a lot of performance out of this setup. However, any novice drivers out there, DO NOT attempt to drive something set up this way thinking you're a NASCAR driver. You WILL burn out on the turns. As far as 50/50 distribution, I could probably estimate what type of mid-engine setup would work best using the scrap scale to work out both ends' weight on wheels. I'm leaning toward mid-engine to mitigate HP loss by driveshaft, still maintain proper (or better than stock) weight distribution, and leaving it with one engine. By using the 4l60e adapted to the 'GM metric/ GM corporate' configuration featured on the Cadillac, I should leave lots of room for any type of Small block, NorthStar, or whatever else I have the crazy urge to add. I may even just use this 4.3L I have as a mid-engine. But, I think that would be wimping out. Not sure. I'm still in the planning stages. BTW, this site is the BEST place for like-minded Chevy people, despite all our differences. I love it.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

lower and lighter is a great start. Now look at the windshield of your truck, and then the one on any car built in the last 20 years. The angle is what we are looking at. The truck is near verticle in comparison to the caddy that donated the motor. Remember the hand out the window test. Flat is the car, verticle is the truck.
20+ MPG can, and has been obtained, and you may well nail it and get to thumb your nose at alot of us. Put I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

Almost forgot, the rear of the truck cab in perfectly verticle, then there is the bed that catches air, and then the verticle tailgate too. In the aerodynamic world, the rear is almost as important as the front. Picture the hull of a canoe. It slices through the water, then puts the water back in it's place with minimal fuss and turbulance.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

Oh, yeah, with the engine out of the front, I figured I could plug up all the holes on the front, such as grille, under the engine compartment, etc. so that it wouldn't catch so much air in the front. Then, with the mid- or rear-engine setup the bed would be completely enclosed, except when it's show time. I think the windshield is unavoidable, but maybe a split window chop with a V-Window or something like that since I freed up a lot of head- and footroom using bucket seats slap on the floor and a newer, shorter tilt column. I know it's a truck, you know it's a truck, just don't tell the truck it's a truck. Of course, this brings up the issue of cooling a mid- or rear-engine vehicle, which I thought would have come up by now. It's far from "off the drawing board" but it's starting to come together.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

Got all the non-essential systems removed and emulated where necessary to keep the check engine light off. I measured for mid-engine RWD today. It doesn't look good. Anybody know of a shorter transmission that used GM metric or GM small block bell housing? Shorter than a newer style (shorter) 4L60e that is. For such a long truck bed, there's not a ton of space front of bed to axle yoke. Looks like everything works out about right for rear engine (over the axle, not behind it). After checking out some numbers as far as front weight vs rear weight of the truck, weight distribution actually works out pretty good. I'm not the biggest fan of aluminum, but this low, low mile aluminum beasty's been good so far and parts are fairly easily obtained around here. Of course they're not like SBC parts as everybody keeps pointing out, but what is as common as a Chevy small block (the answer is absolutely nothing, and certainly not an LS motor.) We do have a Pull a Part up the road from us (the nationwide chain out of California). I do a ton of business with them and they warranty everything for 30 days. I can get a whole motor for this swap for $180.00. Not to mention I've got a spare already. As far as gearing goes, I don't think the Caddy gearing will be a problem using slightly smaller, wider wheels (done), lowering the truck a lot (done) and matching weight almost perfectly with the donor car. Phew, I was worried about weight. Anybody see a problem using deeper wheels like the ones that are on the truck, and creating stress on parts? As far as "undoability" and swapping out to a different FWD,LS4 maybe? I'm in good shape except of course for the obvious hole in the box. I think I'm going to leave the box off and sell it, so I can buy this guy's short box, which I think would be a lot cooler with the rear engine. Rear cooling is a mystery to me. So, that's where it's at. Devil's advocate, anybody? I'll take any advice into consideration except for "Don't do it, man." Now, just what am I forgetting? Guess I'll know when I get to that part.


EDITED BY STAFF: Please note that you must be a supporting member to post classified items. This includes but is not limited to What Its Worth, Want To Buy, Want To Trade, and For Sale. Please consider supporting the forum by subscribing. Further information on the subscription levels available are located here

If you need any further assistance with that please contact any Admin for help.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

Since they used the 4100 (4.1) in the full size RWD Deville in the early 80's, why not keep the truck RWD, and use a 200R4 with the split bolt pattern, and do the swap that way? I would imagine (just a guess) that the bosses for a RWD mounting are cast in as well. Those DeVilles used everythng from a 425 & 368 (think 472/500), to the 4100, and finally a corporate 5.0, so a trans from one of those or an intermediate size RWD car should net you the 200R4.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

That's an excellent idea!!! I feel a little bit dumb for not thinking of it. The gear ratios are almost identical between the two transmissions, closer than the 4l60e for sure. There are many other cars with that transmission as well. I just got an interchange on it. Many of them came with SBC and corporate bolt patterns(Dual pattern). It should hold a couple hundred horsepower just fine. Then I need to swap out the differential on the truck. It even meets the criteria of having a lot of swap options in the future. Now to figure out the sensor add-ons to pull the data required to run everything the way I want it. I don't have any transmissions that foot the bill here and weather looks a bit nasty until Friday but I know where some candidates are. Can't wait to get up there and work it all out. Fingers crossed for tomorrow. Thanks, Johnboy.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

The FWD trans pattern is different than the RWD pattern. 2 different blocks. Since the 4.9 was not used rear wheel (by then they went to the 307 Olds and 350 Chevy in the D cars) the bosses probably aren't there.
If you had a 4.1 out of 85ish brougham it would bolt up to 2004R. But those motors overheated and ate rear main seals, which is why they were replaced with the 307 Olds.

It does seem that an adapter plate and some drilling and spacing on the flex plate would let you bolt it to a Chevy pattern pretty easily. Then all that would be left is the motor mounts.

Personally I've seen enough FWD in the bed conversions. I think a FWD truck would be neat. How about AWD using a stretch drive shaft? You'd have to lose some weight if you were going to drive it hard... but it's be cool.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

Yes, I've worked out that it needs exactly 1" extra spacing and of course adaptation of the actual bolt pattern. Then, the flywheel needs to be redrilled and checked for bal. The torque converter from the 4.3L 4L60e even has proper stall and stiffness to match the 4.9L. The final drive would have to be used to compensate for WAY different gear ratios. Not sure about that little pain in the ass that often gums up the works on these jobs, the starter.
AWD would be cool, but too many down sides and utter lack of experience on my part. I will drive it hard, I can't help it.
We do need to keep in mind, as you hinted at, that not all 4.1/4.5/'s are the same as the 4.9. The bosses won't be there. However, I think it would be erroneous to say "FWD bellhousing". It seems this wouldn't be accurate at all. This is the information I'm working from as far as the metric pattern goes:

GM metric pattern
Also called the GM small corporate pattern and the S10 pattern
This pattern has a distinctive odd-sided hexagonal shape.
GM 2.8/3.1/3.4 L V6 (also used by AMC)
Buick 3300/3800 V6
Cadillac 4.1/4.5/4.9 L V8
Isuzu 3.5L DOHC V6
AMC/Chrysler 2.5L I4 found in Jeep Cherokee, Comanche, Wagoneer, CJ and Wrangler and Dodge Dakota
GM Iron Duke/Tech-4 2.5L I4
GM "122" 1.8/2.0/2.2 L I4
GM 5.3L LS4 V8
If I'm wrong, somebody PLEASE correct me.
This is the pattern that was sold to Jeep with the early 60 degree V6's and then bought back in the 70"s. It is also one bolt hole and a starter position different from the "Northstar pattern."
There are too many in-bed FWD over rear axle conversions, aren't there? I would love to make the truck FWD. The frame is about 8 inches too skinny in the front, though. I'm not sure exactly how to solve that problem without massive alterations to the truck. And we're not going there. Not yet.

Re: 72,91,92,96,99 Cadillac C-10 Pickup truck
 

Shazam! I'm off to get a 6L80! What luck!