News:

Due to a technical issue, some recently uploaded pictures have been lost. We are investigating why this happened but the issue has been resolved so that future uploads should be safe.  You can also Modify your post (MORE...) and re-upload the pictures in your post.

Main Menu

1976 500 ci engine

Started by Trees36, May 02, 2017, 09:40:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Trees36

I am looking at a 1966 Eldorado .  The original engine apparently failed and the owner had a 500 ci engine from a 1976 Eldorado .  That newer engine is stock , not fuel injected.  From what i can find on line, the 500 ci engine in 1976 generated all of 190 Hp vs the 340 hp of the original  1966 429 ci engine.  That is a 150  hp reduction.  Am i missing something; wont this car perform like a slug?  secondly, how big a job would it be to modify the engine to get back above 300 or so HP? .  As a mechanic, I might be a 2 on a 1 to 10 scale.  In short, I am in no way capable or knowledgeable  about Cadillac engines.

I just wonder why you would make that switch ( you do get electronic ignition and an 8.5 compression ratio for cheaper pump gas, i guess) and whether it could be undone . Or should a buyer either live with it or put in a new engine.?

thanks.  I'm also a newbie so i hope i am posting  this properly

Dick


The Tassie Devil(le)

The biggest reason for the Horsepower drop is that in 1971, Horsepower and Torque was measured with all accessories attached, and working, which is a true representation of the useable power.

Before that, the measurements were taken with a completely non-accessoried engine end not a true representation.

Plus, the Compression rates dropped in 1971 to allow for the use of Unleaded petrol.

I have brought my '72 500 back to a bit of better performance, with '70 Pistons for higher compression, planing the heads for higher combustion, plus a larger Camshaft, bigger Valves for better breathing, modified  Intake Manifold, and Dual Exhaust to improve getting the gases in and out, plus an HEI Ignition.

Actually, I think I have even better performance that what the '70 had, but have to use Octane Booster to stop the Pre-ignition.   But, Loving every minute of driving this beast.   Thankfully, the '72 never had Catalytic Converters.

Bruce. >:D
'72 Eldorado Convertible (LHD)
'70 Ranchero Squire (RHD)
'74 Chris Craft Gull Wing (SH)
'02 VX Series II Holden Commodore SS Sedan
(Past President Modified Chapter)

Past Cars of significance - to me
1935 Ford 3 Window Coupe
1936 Ford 5 Window Coupe
1937 Chevrolet Sports Coupe
1955 Chevrolet Convertible
1959 Ford Fairlane Ranch Wagon
1960 Cadillac CDV
1972 Cadillac Eldorado Coupe

Scot Minesinger

Second everything Bruce wrote, And:

Drive it and see what you think.  The flat out 0-60mph acceleration of a 1966 Cadillac was about 8.5 seconds, see what this will do. 

In answer to your question I think provided that the engine is in good running condition it will be fine.  I have driven stock 1976 Cadillacs with the 500 engine in good repair and they had nice power.  Plus the 1976 Cadillac is heavier.  The main reason that power was reduced is the lower compression ratio and cat. convt. in exhaust, and this car probably does not have a cat convt.  Plus you can improve the performance if you wish, as Bruce has done with some engine mods.

If you don't care about authenticity and correctness, but rather reliability and performance, the 500 engine should be just fine.

Also there are some things to consider, such as the transmission, is it also a TH400 from 1976 or is the original TH400 still in the car.  If the original TH400 is in the car it had a "switch pitch", which would increase the angle of the blades that the fluid impacted and change acceleration/power delivery - this was controlled by throttle I think and in any event would not some interface with 500 engine that was not designed for it.  If there is no interface than power may seem off, when with a minor adjustment would be fine.

Fairfax Station, VA  22039 (Washington DC Sub)
1970 Cadillac DeVille Convertible
1970 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1970 four door Convertible w/Cadillac Warranty

Steve Lomas

#3


I'm about the same rank as you mechanically but I'll give you my 2 cents!

I'd say part of it was certainly different testing methods, but there is no way all the emission/MPG restrictions and lowering the compression had zero effect on performance!

You can tinker with carb settings etc, if it has the quadrajet, adjusting the linkage to make the secondary plates open sooner gives a more 'nippy' feel- at some MPG cost-
but I don't think there is anything short of major surgery that would get that engine up to 300 HP, probably just buying good quality tires and keeping them fully inflated would be the most practical.


On cheaper gas..  I have a '75 Eldorado- same 500 ci engine and it needs premium,  whether that's bad timing chain, ethanol in the blend.. I don't know..

On the transmission; the '76 is front wheel drive, isn't the '66 rear wheel??









Jeff Wilk

Here's a great write up on the Gross Vs Net HP change and its relative impact including an example of a 1976 Cadillac - found on another forums Google Search:

"Understanding Gross vs. Net Horsepower Ratings

There are a lot of misunderstandings among car enthusiasts and historians about vintage horsepower ratings. It's easy to assume from a casual glance at ads or spec sheets that even quite ordinary American family sedans of the sixties were overwhelmingly powerful, with 300 horsepower or more, and yet by 1975, many of those same cars were down to 150 hp or less. When asked the reason for the huge difference, gearheads tend to shake their heads and mutter about emissions controls and anemic, low-octane unleaded gasoline -- which is true, but only partly.

What complicates the issue and makes apples-to-apples comparisons difficult is the fact that those pre-smog horsepower ratings were not calculated in the same way as modern engines. "A horsepower is a horsepower, right?" you say. While a horsepower, pre-smog or post, remains 746 watts (or 750, for metric horsepower), the way that output was measured has changed quite a bit.

Before 1972, most American engines were rated under the methodology laid out in Society of American Engineers (SAE) standards J245 and J1995, which calculated the output of a 'bare' engine on a test stand with no accessories, optimal ignition timing, free-flowing exhaust headers (no mufflers), with a correction factor for standard atmospheric conditions.

What does all that mean? The engine in your car is burdened with various engine-driven accessories, ranging from the engine's own oil and water pumps and generator/alternator to the power steering pump and air conditioning compressor, each of which consumes a certain amount of power. An engine in a passenger car also has mufflers and an exhaust system designed for quiet operation, rather than low back pressure, ignition is retarded to prevent detonation with pump gasoline, and the carburetor(s) or fuel injection system are aimed at fuel economy and driveability, not maximum power. The gross rating reflects none of these losses; it represents an engine's theoretical maximum output under ideal conditions, not how much power it actually produces when installed in a car.

As an example, Chevrolet's original small-block V8, which bowed for 1955, had a gross rating of 162 hp (121 kW) at 4400 rpm with a 8.0 compression ratio and a single two-barrel carburetor. Motor Life magazine reported in December 1954 that the factory quoted a net output of 137 hp (102 kW).

Nothing in those SAE standards actually said that the calculated horsepower could be whatever the marketing department wanted it to be, but it might as well have, because that was what happened. If Chevrolet advertised 195 gross horsepower (145 kW) for its standard V8, for example, it was not difficult for Ford engineers to tweak their calculations to justify a rating of 200 hp (149 kW) for their standard engine.

Until the mid-fifties, the gap between gross horsepower and as-installed output was not vast, but by the end of the decade advertised horsepower ratings far outstripped usable power. Significant inflation was clearly taking place, sometimes to the tune of 25-30%.

By the mid-sixties, it was also not uncommon for power ratings to be deliberately understated. For example, in 1965, Chevrolet released the 396 cu. in. (6.5 L) TurboJet V8 as an option for Corvettes, rated at 425 gross horsepower (317 kW). The following year, the engine was bored to 427 cubic inches (7.0 L), but its power rating remained suspiciously unchanged. (Indeed, some early GM promotional material credited the 427 with 450 gross horsepower (336 kW).) GM imposed corporate rules limiting all their cars except the Corvette to a maximum of one gross horsepower (0.75 kW) per 10 pounds (4.5 kg) of curb weight, leading to curious non sequiters like rating Pontiac's 3,300-pound (1,500-kg) Firebird at 325 hp (242 kW), while the identical engine in a 3,600-pound (1,635-kg) GTO claimed 360 hp (269 kW).

1966 Chevrolet Corvette Sting Ray 427 engine air cleaner
This is a 1966 Corvette 427 (7.0 L) L72 engine. Early literature credited the L72 with 450 hp (336 kW) at 6,400 rpm, but this as quickly amended to 425 hp (317 kW) at 5,600 -- the same horsepower as the previous year's 396 cu. in. (6.5L) L78. Contemporary reviewers were highly skeptical.

Why would a manufacturer underrate their engines? Particularly at GM, the most conservative of the automakers, there was real fear of the growing safety lobby, which already thought the amount of power the auto industry offered in its cars was uneemly. In that climate, advertising a 500-horsepower (373-kW) Corvette or 400-horsepower (298 kW) GTO seemed like asking for trouble. Insurance was also becoming an issue, with a growing number of insurance companies levying prohibitive surcharges on very powerful cars (or simply refusing to offer coverage at all).

Another concern was racing. Eligibility for different drag strip classes was based on power-to-weight ratio, calculated using advertised horsepower and shipping weight. If an engine produced more power than its rating, it would have a competitive advantage. This type of underrating was at best an open secret. Testing a Pontiac GTO Judge equipped with the $390 Ram Air IV engine, for example, Car Life magazine noted that the division's own executives freely admitted the 370 hp (276 kW) gross rating was purely a fiction to satisfy insurance companies and their corporate superiors. As a result, racing officials frequently "factored" underrated engines for the purposes of classification; Chrysler's very strong 340 cu. in. (5.6 L) engine, for example, carried a conservative 275 hp (205 kW) rating from the factory, but the NHRA treated it as a 325-hp (242-kW) engine for racing purposes.

Between inflation and deliberate underrating, by 1970, the relationship between advertised gross horsepower and actual power was at best nebulous. The gross ratings served a variety of political and marketing purposes, but they were far from useful as a realistic measure of engine output.

Starting in 1971, manufacturers began to lower compression ratios and de-tune their engines to prepare for the advent of unleaded gasoline. Both the early emission-control systems (air-injection pumps, exhaust gas recirculation) and the reduced compression ratios made engines perceptibly less powerful, whether those losses were reflected in the gross power ratings or not.

Faced with this reality, along with the pressures of the safety and environmental lobby, domestic manufacturers decided it was time to abandon the gross rating system. In its place they adopted the SAE net rating methodology, described by SAE standard J1349. "Net" horsepower ratings are still made with the engine on a test stand, but with stock ignition timing, carburetion, exhaust, and accessories -- in short, a closer approximation of how much power an engine produces as actually installed in the car. (SAE net horespower does NOT, contrary to some assumptions, measure horsepower at the drive wheels; both gross and net ratings are at the flywheel, and don't reflect power losses in the drivetrain.)

The result of the new rating system was a dramatic drop in advertised power. The Cadillac Eldorado's mammoth 500 cu. in. (8.2L) V-8, for instance, dropped from 400 gross horsepower (298 kW) in 1970 to 360 gross horsepower (269 kW) in 1971, a drop of about 10%. The rated horsepower of the 1972 version was only 235 net horsepower (175 kW), even though the engine itself was basically unchanged. (Although GM did not quote a net horsepower rating for the higher-compression 1970 engine, it was probably 275-285 hp (205-213 kW).) On paper, though, output had been cut by 35%.

Because of the vagaries of the old gross standards, there is no precise formula for converting gross to net or vice versa. Some 1971 engines carried both gross and net ratings, but for earlier or later years, the best you can do is make an approximation based on state of tune and real-world performance testing.

Why was this change made? The most obvious reason was as an inexpensive PR gesture; overnight, the carmakers made it clear that they were no longer offering irresponsible levels of horsepower, without making any expensive engineering changes whatsoever. Beyond that, the switch in ratings made it easier for salesmen to obfuscate the actual loss of power caused by reduced compression and smog control hardware -- useful when trying to explain to a customer why the 1972 Cadillac he's looking at seems to have 40% less power than the 1970 he's trading in.

By the end of the decade, the big drops in horsepower were no longer just on paper. For example, Pontiac's 455, which as late as 1973 had produced a conservative 310 net horsepower (231 kW), could muster only 200 (149 kW) by the time it faded out in 1976. Ford's 4.9 L V8, which had made as much as 306 gross horsepower (228 kW) in the sixties, had plummeted by 1979 to less than 140 net horsepower (104 kW).

While the late sixties were a golden age of horsepower compared to the late seventies or early eighties, the differences weren't quite as vast as they appear at first blush. A '67 Impala with the 396, rated 325 gross horsepower (242 kW), probably had something like 220 net horsepower (164 kW) in pure stock form -- decent, but no muscle car.

The net rating system was used until 2005, when the SAE issued standard J2723, eliminating a number of loopholes in the existing methodology and requiring an independent observer present when the ratings are measured. Under these new "SAE-certified output" guidelines, some engines ended up with lower ratings (Toyota's 1MZ-FE engine, the 3.0L V-6 in the previous-generation Camry, dropped from 210 to 190 hp (157 to 142 kW) under the new system), while a few actually rose (Cadillac's supercharged Northstar went from 440 to 469 hp (328 to 350 kW). The engines were not actually altered in any way -- the testing methodology had just changed. The new rating method is voluntary, but most, if not all, manufacturers now use it for their U.S.-market cars.

Most European manufacturers, incidentally, rate power under the DIN (Deustches Institut für Normung, German Institute for Standardization) methodology, sometimes also quoting metric horsepower rather than English. Japanese companies in the home market use JIS (Japanese Industrial Standards) rules, which are similar to DIN. The DIN standards haven't changed that much over the years, so if you find old road tests quoting output in DIN-rated horsepower, those numbers are much more comparable to modern ratings than contemporary SAE numbers. Modern DIN, JIS, and SAE-certified ratings for an identical engine tend to vary slightly, but the distinction is not huge -- perhaps 1-2% -- and owes more to the difference between metric and English horsepower. (A metric horsepower, often abbreviated PS, is about 736 watts, whereas an English horsepower is 746 W)."
"Impossible Only Describes The Degree Of Difficulty" 

Southern New Jersey

1959 Cadillac Fleetwood Sixty Special
1975 Eldorado Convertible (#12 made)
1933 Phaeton Chevrolet - "Baby Cadillac"
1933 Master Sedan Chevrolet - "Baby Cadillac"

SOLD
1976 Cadillac Mirage (factory authorized Pick-Up)
1958 Cadillac Sixty-Special
1958 Cadillac Sixty-Special
1958 Cadillac Sedan
1958 Cadillac Coupe Deville

m-mman

EXCELLENT, excellent review of horsepower ratings. Now let me add a few comments for the OP who is an admitted newbie.

A 1966 El Dorado is a rare car. It originally had a 429 engine. The 429 engine dates its design back to the original 1949 OHV motor. In 1968 Cad introduced the all new 472 (later enlarged to 500)  These motors are very different.

Can they be easily swapped under the hood? I will leave that answer to the people around here who modify their Cads, BUT even if an easy swap is possible the change would be obvious. every time you open the hood you will be informed that your 1966 El Dorado "has the wrong engine".  Good or bad somebody will say it.

Having the 'wrong engine' may not mean much in a basic Deville but an ElDorado is a rare enough car that it derives a lot of its respect (and value) from NOT being a regular Deville. Over the years people have found tattered ElDorados stripped the rare ElDorado pieces and added them to a regular Deville.

When you show an ElDorado people routinely want to admire it by checking all the many details for correctness. If things are not correct then esteem for the car typically drops.

My main point: If you are looking at a real 1966 ElDorado its originality is VERY IMPORTANT and having the wrong engine significantly affects the value.

1929 341B Town Sedan
1971 Miller-Meteor Lifeliner ambulance
Other non-Cadillac cars
Near Los Angeles, California

CLC #29634

Dan LeBlanc

Actually, the 1949 OHV motor design took it's bow in 1962 as the 390 that year.  The 1963 390 was the new design that became the 429 in 1964.  Other than displacement, the two 390 engines share very little.
Dan LeBlanc
1977 Lincoln Continental Town Car

Trees36

Thanks to all for excellent information. i learned a great deal, especially about horsepower.  FYI, car is about 1000 miles away so going to test it is a non trivial matter; i think i will do so as the horsepower discussions helped me get over a "killer" hurdle to even test the car.
Further appreciate value observations.  The car has other modifications that eliminate any collector value as a 1966 Eldorado.  it has front disc brakes and a 700R4 transmission.  While you don't know  what you can get until  you put money on the table, and I'm not there yet, I appreciate the advice that the car has reduced value and should be priced accordingly...as I'm sure I will find out if ever i sell it!   
I am torn between the aura of a true Eldorado vs the price and the fact that if I am brutally honest  I will use the car as a weekend cruiser and grand daughter car rather than show it.  Further , my mechanic skills are very, very limited so i wont be making many improvements myself.  I think the originality vs reliability/cost trade off is right for me ..if I am sure i get lower cast and reliability.
  thank you all again for some really great help

Carl Fielding

First , Welcome , Dick ! Has the transplant already been done ? If so , drive and enjoy it as is. If the car is in extremely good original condition , still minus engine , take Jim's advice. Build a 429 and decompress and cam for modern gasoline. Re-curve advance , but USE PREMIUM FUEL ANYWAY. If the 500 is installed already , you will be able to enjoy all the power that massive engine produces every day , and every way. It is almost impossible to fuel old high compression engines in order to use all their power. Repeated attempts to do so will ultimately destroy such a mill. If you are concerned about performance , I think you will enjoy the feel of the massive torque of the massive 500. As Steve mentioned above , if you really do use full throttle occasionally , USE PREMIUM FUEL anyway in the low compression 472 and 500s. The one exception MIGHT be the '71s , the only year Cadillac put a long duration camshaft in the low compression series. I used premium in my '71 until I punched it out to 514 , and decompressed it to 7:1 and cammed it for the 70 something octane Mexican gasoline one had to run down there in the old days.

Well there is the short version. All the hotrodders and very old flight engineers who date back to the days of recip' powered aviation will know why even these 8.5:1 engines prefer PREMIUM at full throttle at sea level. If you are above , say 5000' , drop octane. I had a '65 Eldo way back when it was almost a new car. Plenty of appropriate fuel back then. Power , sure. I once followed a Porsche down hill past the Zen center towards Stinson Beach North of 'Frisco in Marin County. He didn't dare to drive faster , and neither did I. I was at full fade with the drum brakes. I would have had to throw too much money at the thing to convert to discs back then.

So , bottom line is , if you don't want to throw inordinate money at the 500 , or 429 for that matter , love it as it is , assuming the transplant has been done. Definitely verify the transmission question. Also , if driving is your thing , the above tire advice will be the single most cost effective means for enjoyment enhancement. I've been through this so much that I will spare my brothers and sisters who are shuddering , lest I go on about it again. Suffice it to say , put the very best state-of-the-art HIGH PRESSURE radials on that thing. To spare my now bored fellow members , to whom I would seem like a broken record at this point , please feel free to call me. To increase performance , I now slightly modify my suspensions on the old things , which along with the all important tires , makes them actually utilize their capabilities . Astonishing ! Safer too !

Lastly , I used to have a nasty habit of throwing money at things. To a fault. I had hoped to poke a "huffer" through a hole in the hood of that 7:1 514 , and head way down South to the Andes again. Argentina and Chile this time. I sure wish I had. I threw my money the wrong way.
                                                              -     Cadillac Carl  ,  408-621-8261

Carl Fielding

Oops ! You posted as I was tapping. WOW ! That is an enormous amount of engineering and fabricating ! So is that '66 "L-D" priced above or below a stocker ? Hey Dick : get that hotrod Caddy , and have fun with us CLC guys and gals in the new "Modified" class. Even at my advanced age , if not for having lost my "roll" , I would be standing right behind you if you passed on that marvel. - CC

m-mman

Quote from: Trees36 on May 03, 2017, 04:10:12 PM
Further , my mechanic skills are very, very limited so i wont be making many improvements myself. 

WARNING: there are some vehicle modifiers and customizers out there who are fantastic automotive engineers and craftsman BUT (and this is a big but) there are probably many more modifiers who are nothing but low skill tinkers and too often their ill conceived projects are listed for sale with problems and deficits that are not easily sorted out. Problems that they themselves have given up trying to fix. 

A stock car is a stock car. Everything on it is shown in the parts books and described in the shop manuals.

In ANY modified car you are not always sure what lurks below and even simple repairs or adjustments can require significant effort.
Evaluating a modified car? Craftsmanship and quality of work is CRITICAL!
1929 341B Town Sedan
1971 Miller-Meteor Lifeliner ambulance
Other non-Cadillac cars
Near Los Angeles, California

CLC #29634

bcroe

Good info above.  Some of the earlier engines didn't really deliver the rating
in practical situations, some did more.  The all out engines need extremely
expensive fuel to do it, which is why I ditched them (I really drive a lot of
miles). 

Yes the lower compression engine losses some hp, but a 500 is a LOT of
engine.  I found that if you simply put on a free breathing exhaust and
air intake, maybe change the timing, they will still deliver an impressive
amount of power.  And it comes in fast, with gobs of torque. 

My experiment were with a 78 403 engine, rated about 160 hp.  Measurements
were made with a VC2000, leaving out human error.  With a really good dual
exhaust and a better timing curve, it was doing about 260 hp.  A 4100 lb Olds
did 0-60 in 7.49 seconds, 91.2 mph quarter mile.  Part of the story was a switch
pitch transmission.  Your 66 came with a switch pitch TH400, which bolted to
the 429.  The practical way to go to a 500 engine is change to a 68 up trans,
but the switch pitch feature could be transferred to a 68 trans.  I would not
be surprised if the 76 500 could match the 429, using much more available fuel. 
good luck, Bruce Roe

Trees36

Thanks again to all for help. The car will be inspected  late this week or earlier next week. 

One of my take aways from advice here is that i need someone who can evaluate how well the Engine, tranny install was done.  I think I have found an inspector who knows enough about installs to at least venture an opinion, though its probably  hard to tell on basis of a 20 minute drive and a one hour physical exam.

Another takeaway is that however well the install was done, the redone car will not have the market value of a rebuilt to original of the same condition.

of course at the end of the day its not market value that counts as I have no expectation of making money or even breaking even. The value I'm looking for is the joy of driving a car that looks and feels like an original 66 Eldorado (well, OK I don't mind a bit more pep and a bit safer stops and a little more leg room). It is enjoyment I'm buying, not an investment.  all that pontificating aside, Id like to get in to this car as cheaply as possible and spend as little as possible on "surprises"

thanks again to all. If i get this car, i will report back.. and Cadillac Carl, I will be calling to understand tier inflation issues.

bcroe

That car can be as fast or faster than it was before, without even modifying
the engine.  Let us know what happens.  Bruce Roe

Scot Minesinger

Thinking more on this and given you want the car for enjoyment and do not have much mechanical experience, probably not a great idea to buy it. 

A simple thing such as a power steering hose replacement can be a difficult issue on such a car for example for an inexperienced owner.  For many who write on this forum, it would not be a big deal.  I fix classic Cadillacs for friends at night, and it astounds me the jobs they hire out, such as for example replacing rear coil springs.  A unique vehicle with non standard engine can create challenges that limit the pool of qualified people to work on it even further.  There are a lot of non standard interfaces such as radiator fan and shroud, transmission hook up, drive shaft hook up, switch pitch trans control and others that you do not think about.  It would be one thing if the 66 Eldo was equipped with a crappy engine and this had to be done to enjoy the driving experience, but the engine the factory provided was nice.

It is very unlikely an inspector is going to know what problem areas to look for unless it is a CLC member with expertise in the 65-76 Cadillacs.  If it does not drive perfect, better than a new car - then DO NOT BUY IT.  The "it is an old car" as an excuse for compromised driving means a major repair is likely.  These cars were what Kings and Presidents drove back in the day and they were wonderful.  My 1970 Cadillac rides better, provides better climate control, and is faster than my modern Chevy LTZ Suburban, not to mention it is so much cooler and easier on the eye.

Consider moving on to another car.  Basically a 1965 thru 1970 Cadillac convertible will be very similar.
Fairfax Station, VA  22039 (Washington DC Sub)
1970 Cadillac DeVille Convertible
1970 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1970 four door Convertible w/Cadillac Warranty

"Cadillac Kid" Greg Surfas 15364

Richard
A whole lot of "what it's" in here. Chances are if you can find someone who can work on  "old iron" (assuming you are not going to yourself) they should have no problem given a list of changes from stock you should get from the seller. I used my 66 for 20+ years as my daily driver and if the car you are looking at passes a mechanics once over and the price is within your "play money" budget, enjoy the ride.
Greg Surfas
Cadillac Kid-Greg Surfas
Director Modified Chapter CLC
CLC #15364
66 Coupe deVille (now gone to the UK)
72 Eldo Cpe  (now cruising the sands in Quatar)
73 Coupe deVille
75 Coupe deElegance
76 Coupe deVille
79 Coupe de ville with "Paris" (pick up) option and 472 motor
514 inch motor now in '73-

Trees36

Once again, a big thank you to all who shared info with me on this topic.  At the end of the day, the owner and i could not agree  on price.  In fact, we weren't even close. owner, as is his right, sees the car valued as a fully restored 66 Eldorado with no discount for fact that engine and transmission are not correct.  I had the car inspected and discounted for flaws in the car and owner did not.  Car is very nice and i would have liked to own it , just not at a high  price.

But thank you all for your help.  I'm sure Ill need more as i continue my quest for a nice car at a reasonable price... reasonable as i see it anyway. 

m-mman

Sounds like a good decision on your part.

Coming from someone who has bought and sold many collector cars over many years I can definitely say the that the disappointment you feel now in NOT getting this car (which is not the right one for you at this time) is nothing compared to the long term disappointment you feel when you 'force a deal' and end up with what is really the WRONG car for you. (condition, price, location etc.) 

Lots of us around here have the 'wrong car' (that was purchased in an emotional haste) sitting out back. We dont like it and we cant off load it on anybody.

Keep looking, collector cars are like fishing, another one will become available soon enough. In the mean time you are now a little better informed and will be able to make a much better decision next time.
1929 341B Town Sedan
1971 Miller-Meteor Lifeliner ambulance
Other non-Cadillac cars
Near Los Angeles, California

CLC #29634

Jeff Rosansky CLC #28373

I think you made a good call. A bastardized car is one you buy for $2500 and is just for fun. It appears this one was going for "real" money. If you are going to pay real money, get a real car. .... The seller is right tho. Somebody will buy it.
Jeff
Jeff Rosansky
CLC #28373
1970 Coupe DeVille (Big Red)
1955 Series 62 (Baby Blue)
Dad's new 1979 Coupe DeVille