looking for Cadillac 429 rough idle cam

Hey man, I'm trying to understand what your saying, but as far as I can tell all those testiments are based on engines with supporting modifications (carb, intake, compression ratio, headers, converter, ect..).

Now if the OP is planning on doing some of these mods (and maybe he is but he didn't say), I'm sure it would be a great running engine with plenty of power.

All I'm trying to say is that if he puts a big cam in an otherwise STOCK engine (witch was my impression), he's gonna sacrifice performance, driveability and economy just for that "cool sound". IMHO, a Hot Rod, or any performance built car, should be built to perform as best as possible within the limitations of the technology used.

Sorry guys if I turned this thread into a pissin contest, wasn't my intention, I just had a little too much coffee this morning.

 

QUOTE=Tricknology;6270168
....to all you guys that are not up to date...

Yeah, I think that covers a fair percentage of us.

You guys are just too proud to admitt that the guys questions were not stupid, just your answers were.

There exists a chance (a very small chance, mind you) that the OP's question wasn't dumb***. However, it was presented in a dumb*** manner, or at least enough to fool the hell out of me and a bunch of others.

you guys would have been correct a few years ago in the last century, but your are wrong in this current century.

And your point is ....????
This site is dedicated to traditional rods and customs, which began in the mid~20th century, based on automobiles considerably older than that.
I would have considered a guy that was only interested in a "rough idling" cam a fool then, and see no reason to change my opinion in this brave new century.
The fact that the majority of your customers have a lumpy idle as the main criteria for selecting a camshaft only shows there are more fools around than there used to be.

you should be ashamed of your small mindedness.

Uh, so far, not noticeably .... sorry.

 

Yea, you make a good point. I guess if you dont mind getting your *** handed to you by a stock Escalade, a thumper might be a good choice. Personally, I set the performance bar a little higher than that. mid 14s ohhhhh.

 

.
WOW, you must work for Comp Cams - Oh wait, never mind, you just copied and pasted that bit of PR from their site without giving credit.

You know, nothing sounds more weak *** than a motor with stock compression and a big cam. Might as well get some Zoomies and be the complete poseur.

 

Iceberg, I am looking to do a cam, Valves, and porting if necessary.
I will romp on the motor, but I want a mean sound, not like a 350 with gl***packs!

 

you guys keep saying that the 429 is low compression ratio,,,you are wrong,,,

429's are 10 1/2 compression ratio,,,Stock, which is high compression ratio. and 340 horses stock.


the heads are about like a stock 350 chevy flow wise,,, so the engine is like a 400 small block chevy, but with much higher compression ratio than a 350's or 400's 8.5 to 1.

 

I am not a poser,,, i like all forms of motoring fun.

this is what i do on the week ends,,not my car, but my car runs the same cl***,,,i run in the back of the field,,,but it is still a big hoot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKorzMY8hjk

 

All I know about this is that I'm happy with the way my 429 sounds and performs stock! It pushed my 4000+lbs car to a 3 car win over a ragflap of a suburban in 1/8 mile.

 

34olds, what you have to keep in mind is the camshaft is the "brain" of an engine, and should be matched to your engines other parts. Camshafts are made to make the most power in a a specific RPM range. Longer duration and more overlap = higher rpm range = rougher idle. A cam that’s gonna give you a rough idle is typically gonna opperate in a 2000-6000 or higher RPM range. Now, I've never worked with a caddy 429, but my guess is its a low reving torque monster, probably with a 500-4500 rpm range(?).
<O</O
<O</O

So, IMO, these are your options: <O</O
1. build the engine to match the cam you want, ported heads and bigger valves, big carb or carbs, single plane intake, headers, high stall converter, CR above 9.5:1 and if its a heavy car a numerically higher rear end ratio.
<O</O
2. build the engine to run in a lower rpm range, and forget the rough idle. This would be a cheaper route, being that you can replace parts one at a time. IMHO, a big motor with good exhaust and a decent compression ratio is gonna sound pretty mean by itself.
<O</O
3. put a lopey cam in a stock engine, have something that "sounds mean" but runs like **** until 2k rpm before you have to shift, and risk getting called a poser

Sorry I can't get into more details, at work today and i gotta type between cars. There is quite a bit of good information out there on engine and cam theory. I would recommend you do your own research on building motors and matching parts and make your own informed decision. There is some pretty good info to get you stared in these links, including information on why your cam needs to be matched to the other engine parts:

<O</O<O</O

<O</O

 

I HAVE a Cadillac 429. And yes, either Camcraft or Chris from Cad500parts.com (a HAMBer) can hook you up with the cam you want.

But if you ask me, putting that cam in that motor is like putting lipstick on a pig. But it's you car, man.

 

Could not resist

 

Guy's if we start to get political, the mods will pull the thread..............

 

Somehow, a batch of guys that are into cars have arrived at a very wrong conclusion about cams. These folks seem to be driven by instant gratification and navigate this journey with information that is too vague or completely wrong. I'm not in anyway saying that these folks are stupid or ignorant but they are extremely uneducated when it comes this issue.

The lope or rough idle is not now, nor ever was the goal. That lope is actually the engine struggling to stay running because it is the end result of the series of compromises made on a motor built to run extremely well at WOT. Any motor built to run smooth and powerful at high rpm will struggle to ( or lope at ) idle. The Opposite is also true, Any Motor built to idle smoothly will struggle at WOT high rpm. Installing a cam ( the wrong cam) designed for maximum performance at WOT high rpm into a motor designed to give maximum performance at low rpm is only going to result in an engine that can do neither.

 

What's lipstick on a pig got to do with politics?

That's the only thing the OP asked about...

 

Great video thanks

 

Lol!

~Jason

 

Installing a longer duration cam generally raises the torque and horsepower peak by a few hundred RPM.
Unless the cam grind selected is way too 'radical', it will generally raise both peak torque and peak HP (at higher RPM) even on an otherwise stock engine.
Outside of certain dedicated OEM 'High Performance' package engines, production camshafts are optimised for 'smoothness' and for low to mid-range torque as that is what most buyers desire in their 'everyday grocery-getter's'.
But for the performance minded who are willing to sacrifice a portion of that smoothness and low end torque, a camshaft change easily can add an extra 30 to 70 HP on most any large displacement American V-8.

Early Cadillacs by the very nature of the vehicle, were intentionally tuned for maximum smoothness of operation at low to mid-range RPMs, and were cam limited to around 4500 RPM by weak, low-pressure valve springs and consequent Hyd lifter 'pump-up'.
Cadillac bottom-ends however were quite sturdy and would handle significantly more HP and RPMs (Anyone who doubts that fact, needs to investigate the early '60s exploits of 'Ohio George' Montgomery and his early Caddy powered, blown '33 Willys National Championship winner in '59, '60, '61, The first 'G***er' to break into the 10s)

So the stock mild camshaft Caddy was originally engineered to loaf along at a leisurely 2200 to 2800 RPMs at normal highway speeds and was geared accordingly with a 2:94 ratio being common.
No problem with installing a 'bigger' cam set-up that moves the torque and HP peak both higher and upwards into the 2400-3000 RPM range, with an appropriate gearing change to maximise efficiency. Some loss of idle smoothness will be the trade-off, but the gains in acceleration can be very significant.
It is actually at this late date, difficult to even find a cam grind (anymore) for an early Caddy that would be too radical for street use, that would definately require a 'custom' grind on a billet, as the stock cams simply do not have enough 'meat' or large enough base circle to regrind very radical.
A whopping 262 degrees is considered to be a 'performance' cam for early Caddy V-8s, compare that with any hot SBC cams specs.
(and stock heads and valves simply won't flow enough to utilise anything beyond 270 degrees.)
If your a George Montgomery wannabe, run a GMC blower and have an unlimited budget you might consider a $4000 custom roller cam set-up, but then it is unlikely you would be deriving much of your advice from this forum.

 

I'm going to add that although Montgomery broke into the 10s in 1961 with early Caddy power, with the advances in technology and tires, His old Caddy powered Willys could have potentially been into the 9s or better by now.
For a 'cruiser' that is somewhat irrelevant, but the point is that those old Caddy's do contain a lot of untapped potential, and a simple cam change is not going to ruin or make a 'dog' out of it.
Most rodders enjoy having a little rump rump satisfaction for their efforts.

 

stock valve train not designed for high rpm's or killer lifts, you are looking at big bucks, why not swap in 472/500?

 

OK someone is going to be pissed at me for bringing this back up.

If all you want to do is idle rough just try tunning it yourself. Any car poorley tunned will idle rough.

head work is part of tunning and properly done it will not make it idle rough but infact will tend to overcome the ill effects of a healthy cam shaft. If you want to throw a healthy camshaft in your caddy then head work is the just the beginning of what you will need to do to make it right. If you don't do the work required to use your new high zoot camshaft what you are doing in effect is the same as poorley tunning your engine. A bad tune up is cheaper and won't have any more adverse effects on the engine than too much camshaft and not enough engine to support it.

Ohio Groege was mentioned and it occures to me that I was off the impression that prior to going to the Ford Cammer he was running an olds motor. But to prove that I would actually have to go back and read up on the subject.

Whether Olds or Cad is a mute point. He was not winning on a stock mill whichever he was using. I am not privy to his engine specs but I'm pretty sure he wasn't running a Comp Cams Thumper cam or any other modern cam made to be sold to the poser street rod/pro touring crowd. He was also not running stock heads or lower end. I would be willing to wager that his lower end was lightened and balanced that he had extensive head work and that his induction as well as his exhaust was tunned beyond the comprehension of the modern technology crowd.

The truth is that any internal engine can be made to run well in the hands of a proficient tunner. I went to school with a kid that was running 110 on the back stretch with a Briggs n Stratten powered racing go cart. Its all about what has been done to the engine in question and cam shaft is only part of the equation.

One thing that everyone should bear in mind is that this is a traditional hot rod and custom forum. We are not really about late model caddys or the latest in street rod technology or even what is the best subs***ute for the real deal traditoinal parts.

There are forums dedicated to looking cool and being modern with the very best high zoot parts that money can buy. Maybe that would be the best place to peddle and or learn about your modern technology.

BTW just to make sure that you are offended beyond beliefe if that is what you are after, the last comp cams camshaft I had I pulled from an FE in favor of a good camshaft. I gave the comp cams camshaft to someone who couldn't afford a decent cam and needed to get his car on the road. I a still ashamed of giving the kid the cam he is a good kid and deserved better.

 

You expect that swap will be cheaper than a simple cam and spring change on the 429???

The late model, 472-500 series 'smog-motors' are also notorious for having a weak (as in prone to breakage) valve train, it is another low revver design. I've personally experienced broken rockers on my stock 472.

A good cam and decent spring pressure will easily allow another 50+HP in the 3000-4000 RPM range. satisfactory enough for most street use.
Neither engine series should be expected to live long with otherwise stock parts when subjected to beyond 4500, and going any higher in either case is an expensive proposition.
Yes the parts to do so are more available for the late model 368-500 smog-motor series, but they are expensive and really have little application on the street where RPM can be kept below around 4200 and torque does the work of accelerating the m***. Which m***, in the typical Cadillac is quite considerable.
A full size Caddy, because of its heft, simply does not make for a very good race car, that is why there are so few of them. Not to say that they can't be made quite fast, they can, but it will cost $$$$$ and will not be very enjoyable for everyday highway use.

So if the OP has a big 'ol boat of a Caddy with a 429 and wants a little rumble, lope, and some additional git up an go, there ain't nothin wrong with sticking with a simple cam & kit swap, I doubt that he intends to try to use it as a serious race vehicle.

Same for anyone that's running a 331-429 Cad in any old-timey TRADITIONAL Hot Rod, With 2x2s, 3x2s, 4x2s, 6x2s or 2x4s and a big cam you can have one hell of a lot of fun. It doesn't always require an automatic replacement with a -late model- '68 up NON-TRADITIONAL 472-500 smog-motor

Ask any of the TRADITIONAL guys on this board that have built TRADITIONAL early Cad powered rides, there are a lot of 'em here.
Ever hear of Johnny Cola? or check out Ryan's own thread on here "Powered by Cadillac"?
You care to accuse these guys of promoting being "dedicated to looking cool and being modern with the very best high zoot parts that money can buy."?

None of the OLD TRADITIONAL 331-429 Caddy engines are 'modern technology' by any stretch, and swapping in a late model 1968 through 1974! Cadillac smog-motor IS NOT one damn bit more TRADITIONAL than hopping up any of the older TRADITIONAL 331-429 series engines.

If anything should be excluded from this TRADITIONAL rodding Forum, it would be the constant promotion of these NON-TRADITIONAL late model smog-motors.

I exclusively drove old Caddys for years, stopped when they switched over to the alumni-**** disposable engines, but I still have my Weiand Dual-Quad, Isky cammed 390 on the engine stand, and a load of 368-500 parts leftover from my adventures back in the 80's (lot of us old guys do)
I traded off TWO good Eldo 500s, one totally rebuilt with 0 miles, for my 390.

Oh by the way, to the best of my knowledge Ohio George never ran a Olds mill in his Willys, first ran early Caddy for those Nationals wins from '58-'61, then went to a SBC.
Larry Davis's informative book "G***er Wars" traces Ohio Geoge's exploits throughout the G***er years.



.

 

Why do people insist on trying to make and engine something it is not? Those Caddy's were not high revving big HP engines. They are lower rev torque monsters. Build them that way and they are bullet proof. Try to change it's personality and you're looking at problems and cubic dollars.

 

But 'building' one does not entail the exclusive use of mild stock cams, there is plenty of room for increasing duration, lift, and power without revving high.

 

And I didn't say it did. But time and time again I see people here suggest or push people down this path. You can hop it up with stuff that works with the personality of the engine without harming it.

 

or you can take the bean route and throw money at it until it is no longer a cadillac.

Posing don't cost much but why build a sheep in wolf's clothing. By my way of thinking if it sounds fast it damned well better be fast.

Like Z said there is not reason to not take advantage of what it is. They make lumps of torque down low take advantage of that and have fun with it. This engine was designed to push a heavy pig down the road, if you shove it stock in a lighter body, put a decent exhaust and ignition on it you can take advantage of the better power to weight ratio and even not sounding like a full on match bash car skunk the majority of who ever you decide to take advantage of.

 

"Like Z said there is not reason to not take advantage of what it is. They make lumps of torque down low take advantage of that and have fun with it. This engine was designed to push a heavy pig down the road, if you shove it stock in a lighter body, put a decent exhaust and ignition on it you can take advantage of the better power to weight ratio and even not sounding like a full on match bash car skunk the majority of who ever you decide to take advantage of."

You sure talk purdy, Benno.
__________________

 

Thanks I wish I was purdy.

 

jessieJ and others seem to have lost sight of the original post. Heres a refresher. I dont see ANY info here regarding performance expectations, valvetrain modifications or anything else. IF the original poster had said something to the effect of "I am looking for a cam recommendation for my 429 cad motor. Its in a 3300lb car with power brakes and a t400, 3.55 gears and 27" tall tires. Its not a drag car, just a saturday night cruiser, a lopey idle is acceptable. I am mostly looking for a broad, flat power band, with good power from around 3000rpm-5500rpm. I am willing to step up to an 11" converter. Can I get some suggestions?"
If that had been what he had posted, or something similar, he might have gotten some respect, and some reasonable answers. My cam recommendation, if I had made one, would probably actually been a little more aggressive than most. Unfortunately, on the HAMB, cam questions like this are virtually non-existant. They are outnumbered 10/1 by some ***hat who comes on here and says "I want a cam that makes my car go rumpty rump". This is why I for one, and I am sure there are LOTS of other guys who feel the same way, rarely answer cam recommendation requests on the HAMB, or anywhere else on the internet, for that matter. if you want to see the response when someone actually makes a REASONABLE cam request on the HAMB, check the thread with the guy asking about wanting to run a GM 140 in his '55 chevy g***er.

 

George

That thread actually had some good cam info a little argueing but very little just enough to bring out more good info.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=563684

My problem on any of these posts is that I have spent too much time trying to figure out how to make one perform better with some mild success and a lot of luck along the way. It is hard for me to suggest anything that will actually make a turd out of one.

Someone said on one of these that the customer is always right. That is actually not a true statement. Yes the customer normally gtets what he or she wants but it is rare especially when it comes to engines that the customer is right. If indeed the customer takes advantage of the fact that the fella with the wrench knows what he is doing the customer will be right.