Cadillac 429 Engine Information Request

I have the opportunity to obtain a vehicle with a Cadillac 429 engine
in it. I know next to nothing about these engines other than they were
made from '64-'67 (I think). Therefore I have some questions:

1) Was the design of this engine 'good' or did it have problems?
2) Was it considered a 'performance' engine or just 'run of the mill'?
3) Are there any sources for aftermarket performance parts?
4) What are its stock HP, torque, etc. specifications?

Thanks!

1.....fair ...good for its day...typical V8 config...related to the earlier
390 c.i. motor.

2....big displacemment high cost not popular for engine swaps.

3.....there there and rather pricey do to the limited market. There are a
coupla companies that specialize in early Cads in the US....

4....a motors or GM shop manual tells all....

"Ironradio" > wrote in message
om...
> I have the opportunity to obtain a vehicle with a Cadillac 429 engine
> in it. I know next to nothing about these engines other than they were
> made from '64-'67 (I think). Therefore I have some questions:
>
> 1) Was the design of this engine 'good' or did it have problems?

I had a couple of them. One of them overheated terribly once when
the water pump bearing wore out. I'm convinced that this may have
caused a piston to break. The rebuild was very expensive. I also
had some problems with cracking manifolds, both exhaust and intake...

> 2) Was it considered a 'performance' engine or just 'run of the mill'?

It had a lot of power and torque, and the integral cooling system for
the heads was a good idea. The two middle cylinders on each bank
were siamesed, and tended to build up a lot of heat. When tuned up
properly with a strong transmission behind it, the 429 in my '64 made
it jump even though it was a heavy car. I read that it could do 0-60
in 8.5. The best milage I ever got out of it was 16 on the open road
at 55 MPH, and under 10 in town. Cadillac was about effortless
performance as long as you had lots of gas money...

I buried the needle when Montana speed limits were "Reasonable
and Prudent" on one long straightaway. I was probably doing close
to 130 MPH, but the front of the car was lifting up with all the air
rushing through the grille trying to lift the hood up. Once again, fun
but expensive...

> 3) Are there any sources for aftermarket performance parts?

I'm not aware of any. This was not a popular hot-rod engine just
because the parts for it cost too much...

> 4) What are its stock HP, torque, etc. specifications?

It put out 340 HP. Torque was in the 350-400 range. Compression
was 10.5:1 so it's a good idea to run premium fuel. Bore and stroke
were 4 and 3.75 inches respectively if memory serves. There was a
Carter or Rochester four-barrel carb. Usually the '64s and '65s had
the Carter, and I think most later engines had the Rochester. As far
as I know they're interchangeable because the intake is the same
from the '63 390 to the '67 429. The block and heads were cast
iron, and the two cylinder banks were at 90 degrees to each other.
The crank-case held four quarts of oil, five with the filter. Timing was
set at 4 or 5 degrees BTDC, and the dwell angle was 28 degrees on
a fresh set of points. I'm sorry I forgot the firing order. I got rid of
both my '64 and '65 in 2002...

-'dreas

Wow, what a comprehensive answer. What's an "integral cooling system
for the heads"?

Steve H

dreas wrote:
>
> "Ironradio" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I have the opportunity to obtain a vehicle with a Cadillac 429 engine
> > in it. I know next to nothing about these engines other than they were
> > made from '64-'67 (I think). Therefore I have some questions:
> >
> > 1) Was the design of this engine 'good' or did it have problems?
>
> I had a couple of them. One of them overheated terribly once when
> the water pump bearing wore out. I'm convinced that this may have
> caused a piston to break. The rebuild was very expensive. I also
> had some problems with cracking manifolds, both exhaust and intake...
>
> > 2) Was it considered a 'performance' engine or just 'run of the mill'?
>
> It had a lot of power and torque, and the integral cooling system for
> the heads was a good idea. The two middle cylinders on each bank
> were siamesed, and tended to build up a lot of heat. When tuned up
> properly with a strong transmission behind it, the 429 in my '64 made
> it jump even though it was a heavy car. I read that it could do 0-60
> in 8.5. The best milage I ever got out of it was 16 on the open road
> at 55 MPH, and under 10 in town. Cadillac was about effortless
> performance as long as you had lots of gas money...
>
> I buried the needle when Montana speed limits were "Reasonable
> and Prudent" on one long straightaway. I was probably doing close
> to 130 MPH, but the front of the car was lifting up with all the air
> rushing through the grille trying to lift the hood up. Once again, fun
> but expensive...
>
> > 3) Are there any sources for aftermarket performance parts?
>
> I'm not aware of any. This was not a popular hot-rod engine just
> because the parts for it cost too much...
>
> > 4) What are its stock HP, torque, etc. specifications?
>
> It put out 340 HP. Torque was in the 350-400 range. Compression
> was 10.5:1 so it's a good idea to run premium fuel. Bore and stroke
> were 4 and 3.75 inches respectively if memory serves. There was a
> Carter or Rochester four-barrel carb. Usually the '64s and '65s had
> the Carter, and I think most later engines had the Rochester. As far
> as I know they're interchangeable because the intake is the same
> from the '63 390 to the '67 429. The block and heads were cast
> iron, and the two cylinder banks were at 90 degrees to each other.
> The crank-case held four quarts of oil, five with the filter. Timing was
> set at 4 or 5 degrees BTDC, and the dwell angle was 28 degrees on
> a fresh set of points. I'm sorry I forgot the firing order. I got rid of
> both my '64 and '65 in 2002...
>
> -'dreas

"snh9728" > wrote in message
...

[Cadillac 429]
> Wow, what a comprehensive answer. What's an "integral cooling system
> for the heads"?

The cylinder heads had their own water jackets to keep them cool. The
plumbing looked intricate and great!

-'dreas

[I had one for eight years and a second one for a year. You tend to learn
a lot about what you have if it keeps breaking and you do some of the
repairs yourself even if you're only doing an occasional minor tuneup.]

"Robin Banks" > wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:05:52 GMT, "dreas" > wrote:
>
> > I buried the needle when Montana speed limits were "Reasonable
> > and Prudent" on one long straightaway
>
> Ah, those were the days. ;-) I'm happy Michigan went back to 70mph.
(except
> in/near cities.)

The speed is alright as long as the WHOLE car is designed to do it, which
the
'64 Coupe DeVille was not!

> > I was probably doing close to 130 MPH, but the front of the car was
lifting up with all the air
> > rushing through the grille trying to lift the hood up.
>
> You could probably feel your wallet getting lighter with each mile too.
;-)

Maybe that burst of red-lining it is what broke that piston! I see a six
thousand
dollar bill with wings on it wafting up on a big thermal if such a thing
exists. ;-]

My recently-acquired 85,000 mile '87 TPI 5speed Trans Am should be good
for getting a few speed jollies. It should top out at 140 like my '87
Formula did
before I sold it in '93 to pay the rent and get groceries. Trouble is,
Montana
went back down to 75[?] MPH legal speed limit so I'll need to do it
illegally
again. *sigh*

-'dreas

"Robin Banks" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:52:04 GMT, "dreas" > wrote:
>
> > The speed is alright as long as the WHOLE car is designed to do it,
which
> > the '64 Coupe DeVille was not!
>
> Yeah, that's a whole lotta car to be going that fast. I did the same
thing
> once in my 1971 Road Runner, which was actually a Satellite Sebring Plus,
> dressed in Road Runner garb, but only a 318 under the hood. Had him up to
129
> (if the speedo was right) and I was getting the same lifting & drifting,
so
> backed right down. I did this on I-96 though (about midnight, no traffic
> anywhere), and thank god I wasn't clocked. There would have been a 18yr
old
> going straight off to jail that night. (Rightly so, really.)
>
> Spooky going that fast in a car that's really not set up for it.

It's just a bit dangerous too. I tried pushing my Montego once. It did about
110,
and felt very unsafe. It had a bit left, but I had to back down. It took
that 302
a long time to get going that fast. It's more of a cruiser, and best suited
to speeds
under 80, but just trying to get that speedo to register 120 was a
challenge. I only
do stuff like this when no one else is around and never close to home. There
are
no roads with straight enough flat parts in BC to try stuff like that...

> > Maybe that burst of red-lining it is what broke that piston! I see a six
> > thousand dollar bill with wings on it wafting up on a big thermal if
such a thing
> > exists. ;-]
>
> <laugh>
>
> > My recently-acquired 85,000 mile '87 TPI 5speed Trans Am should be good
> > for getting a few speed jollies.
>
> Certainly should! After getting my license suspended about 2 times, I
lost my
> need for speed. (This all happened from 18 to 20yrs old) I still love a
fast
> car, and still drive faster than I should (my radar detector is my
friend!),
> muscle cars are out for me. I'll get in too much trouble. ;-)

Imagine a horizon far away with nothing between you and it but two lanes
of perfectly straight blacktop. Is a red Trans Am speeding in the desert if
no policeman clocks it? No cops, no trouble. Of course, I don't do things
that are dangerous, and I don't do them often. I just enjoy accelerating and
shifting through the gears, taking corners like I'm on rails, and thrilling
to
the rumble of my exhaust...

> 46 is a little old to start getting speeding tickets and license
suspensions
> for them again.

Heh. I'm a professional driver. I don't need any kind of trouble. I need
my license to keep me in beer and gas money. 40 is mid-life crisis time,
so I got me a car like the one I had when I was twenty-five. The only
difference is that I'm old man wannabe now instead of the boy racer that
I once thought I was...

-'dreas

Ironradio wrote:
> I have the opportunity to obtain a vehicle with a Cadillac 429 engine
> in it. I know next to nothing about these engines other than they were
> made from '64-'67 (I think). Therefore I have some questions:
2 different 429s in 64 one had a crank for the hydramatic trans the
other had a crank for th400. 65-67 will not bolt in a 64 since they
changed the chassis in 65.(not without some major fabrication)
>
> 1) Was the design of this engine 'good' or did it have problems?
Overheating them will crack a head easy, oil burning in the 64s wasnt
uncommon.Average 1000 miles a quart.
> 2) Was it considered a 'performance' engine or just 'run of the mill'?

> 3) Are there any sources for aftermarket performance parts?
none as of yet. Just electronic ignition.
> 4) What are its stock HP, torque, etc. specifications?
>
> Thanks!
Thebig429
http://www.1964cadillac.tk

HELLO, I'M LOOKING INTO BUYING A CADILLAC 429. I'M CURRENTLY BUILDING A 63
CHEVY TRUCK. I'VE GOT IT SITTING ON A 79 ELDORADO FRAME AND COULD USE ALL
THE INFO ON THE 429 I CAN GET, GOOD, BAD OR UGLY? THANKS

ROOSTERCHICKENLITTLE wrote:
> HELLO, I'M LOOKING INTO BUYING A CADILLAC 429. I'M CURRENTLY BUILDING A 63
> CHEVY TRUCK. I'VE GOT IT SITTING ON A 79 ELDORADO FRAME AND COULD USE ALL
> THE INFO ON THE 429 I CAN GET, GOOD, BAD OR UGLY? THANKS

There's a lot of stuff on Ebay, including an engine. Take a look at auction
130060836949.

George Patterson
Forgive your enemies. But always remember who they are.