V16 questions

[TJ Hopland]

I assume not all Cadillacs during the V16 era came with V16's?   Only the top models?

So they were among the most expensive cars that could be bought at the time?

Was it ever common to have V16 cars saved and the engines swapped for something else?  Or the cars scrapped and the engines saved?

Does it seem like today there are more cars than engines or engines than cars? 

How about parts for the engines?   Ever any aftermarket parts made other than 1 off hand made stuff? 

What parts were the same as other Cadillac engines of the era?  And does that go for both versions of the motor?

[Tom Magdaleno]

1.  Yes only the top model or 90 series had the V16 and very few were made.  In 1938 about 200 were made.
2.  Duesys were more expensive, but yes, they were among the most expensive.
3.  I can only speak from personal experience, my car was a V16 and I take a lot of grief on this board for not having an original engine, but it missing long before I got the car.  In my case, from what I can tell from the last owner, the original engine probably died in the 40's.  Since it was a rare engine and expensive to rebuild even at that time they replaced it with a much more common straight 8 buick.   
4&5  I have actually come across 2 engine in engine shops.  The story was the same on both, the owners ran out of money to finish the rebuild.  I got one quote of $20,000 to rebuild the engine, plus the price of the engine.  The other shop told me he spent a week making a pulley that was unique to the engine out of billet.  You can imagine what a weeks worth of time at a machine shop costs.  He was rebuilding the engine for some rich Russian who had bought the car but couldn't get ahold of him.  He didn't give me a price but said he would keep me in mind if he couldn't collect the money.

Parts are extremely expensive and not reproduced.  A friend of mine has an earlier 1934 V16 and he got a "deal" on a spare distributer cap.  It was only $800!!!!  Due to the cost of parts he has started the car a few times but never driven it.

[Doug Houston]

Tom's take on those engines is very good.I have two of the late V16 cars; a '38 and a '39. I've driven the '38 around to a couple of meets, and driving the car has to be done, and not described. The feel of the engine's torque is unlike any other engine I've ever driven, though I'd expect a Packard 12, or Marmon 16 to compare favorably to it.

The OHV V16 was a masterpiece of engineering, and operation. It happened to hit the market just in time for the depression to hit. It's speculation of course, but had there been no depression, it's likely that many more Cadillac V16 cars would have been sold. Like quite a few superlative things I can cite, even if the engine never ran, it was a sight to behold!

By 1936 or 1937, foundry technology had advanced markedly. Ford had been spitting out monobloc V8 engines, rapid fire style since 1932, and with great success (once a few bugs were ironed out). Cadillac sought to take some advantage of that technology, and cast a monobloc V16. On the surface, it was a good idea, for the casting could be done as a thin shell design.

But, it didn't turn out exactly the way they'd intended. The engine was a good performer, but there were problems with the castings. Quite a few of them had cracks, and stories come out of Cadillac (unoficially, of course), that the foundry had loads of grief, getting out good castings. Even with the '39 engine I have, you can see considerable repair welding buildup in the lifter bore area, that was done at manufacture.  I had to have 5 cylinders sleeved when I built the engine. As on many of them, there were water jacket cracks that had to be welded.

Around 1963-65, Cadillac tore out their foundry, to convert the facility to the E-car assembly. When one of the sand cupolas was cleaned out, and the sand pile beneath it cleaned away, buried in the sand was a defective V16 block from the 38-40 era, that the guys had hidden from the managers.

I don't doubt that were it done today, with all of the production control currently in use, there could be some mighty good V16 L-head blocks cast, without the frailty problems that the original ones had. There are shops that can do wonders, possibly making those castings new, so I've heard speculated. If I had the mazuma, I'd love to have a couple of new ones made!!

In comparison, the monobloc V8, of 1936-48 was a more rugged engine, and not bad at all, to rebuild. Its worthiness was demonstrated in its application to propelling armored vehicles during WW II. When we started into WW II, there really was no tank engine. The first genuine tank engine of WW II, was the Ford GAA.It was a V8, with dual overhead camshafts, and 1100 Cu. In. displacement, and developing 500 horsepower.

When I built my '39 engine, I spent lots of hours, researching interchangeability of parts to currently used ones. The only pieces that had no equivalents in current engines  (around 1963 or so), were valves, and the center main bearing (with the thrust surfaces). I had to buy a V16 block that had the missing parts. Even the cam bearings had a modern engine application.

[Jim McLeod]

$20,000.00 to rebuild a  V-16 engine seems like a bargain . I had 3 quotes to rebuild my Packard 12 engine, from people with past experience with that engine. The cheapest was $2400. / cylinder and the high bid was $3000./ cyl  I have been considering buying and restoring an open Cadillac V-16   produced after 1938. A friend who has 15,   97-99 point cars, of assorted makes, he has restored, including a V-16 Cadillac dual cowl Phaeton, told me I would need to spend a minimum of $250,000.  That makes me hesitate to go forward.

[Doug Houston]

The thing that always worries me is that, regardless of what credentials the engine shop has, how good is the work he'll do on a particular engine. The figures cited in previous posts worry me, because, while an engine rebuild is labor intensive, and highly skilled, just what labor and materials go into the job? Could/would he make right on a job of his going bad?

There are shops I know of in the Detroit-Windsor area, who you pay dearly for their name, more than for the product. One of them has been described as when you drive your car in the door, you already owe them $100K. For a lot of us, that would tend to douse our love of the car, once it's done.

I've always rebuilt my own engines, including one 1939 V16. Granted, my time isn't as valuable as  a company with overhead, but with patience and time,I think I could do the job for lots less, even today,than some of the figures that we hear kicked around.

[Terry Wenger]

Due to design modifications and improvements on the late V-16 engines (See the July 2009 Self-Starter), they are more reasonable to rebuild that the '30-'37 engines. I did the engine for my 38-9039 in 2002-2003 for about $10,000.00 which included new pistons, rings, some valves, valve  springs, rebabbited and align bored main bearings, cam regrind, modifying the connecting rods for GM 350 insert bearings, boring and sleeving two cylinders. This also included Chrome plating of engine accessories, gaskets, and manifold porcelain.

I did all the engine assembly myself which as Doug said saves quite a bit of money. All of the engine machine work was done at shops within 125 miles of St. Louis Mo. Of course,the more you do yourself the less the cost.

Another friend had his engine completely rebuilt on the East Coast for about $17,000.00. So spending $15,000.00 to $25,000.00 for the whole job doesn't seem too far out of line.

It is best to shop around. Some shops are well known and as Doug said, charge accordingly. Other shops are very capable of doing a good job, but are not popular with the "classic car crowd" and charge less.

The question might arise that would I be as happy with a modern replacement engine for a fraction of the cost. I can answer that by saying I am doing the whole engine thing again in rebuilding the engine for my Pierce 12.