Richard Holdener is gonna boost a Cadillac 500

Caddylackn

Active Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2015
Messages
160
Reaction score
68
Points
28
Did anyone else notice that he changed the cam and dropped the previous lifters right back in? I've done that before with very low mileage lifters. I would never suggest anyone else do it as I have magic oil that I use to keep it from wiping lobes. I'm just surprised that he let it be seen on video. Richard also jumbled up the pushrods when he pulled them. I'm sure that made someone discount his knowledge of engine building. I love it.
And they found two collapsed lifters when they stepped up the cam again? I would have dropped the oil and looked for metal at that point. Also why are they messing around with that weird year Quadrajet with the extra booster and altitude adjustment? The fat secondary hangers they pulled out looked like they were from a 305 chevy quadrajet, no wonder it was running lean. Those didn't come off a stock 500 carb.
 

PSYKO_Inc

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
15
Points
8
What vehicle(s) do you drive?
66 Cadillac Miller-Meteor Duplex
I suspect that the collapsed lifters were an unrelated issue, sometimes you get a bad lifter right out of the box. The reason you want to change lifters when you change cams is that sometimes the lifters get a wear pattern from one cam lobe that is just different enough from the new cam lobe that it creates a pressure point that causes the new cam lobe to gouge and wear excessively. I'd be willing to bet that since they're using their own cams that they used new lifters on the the stock cam, ran a couple dyno pulls, then swapped in the "mild" cam, never having given the lifters a full break in. The couple minutes of dyno time shouldn't let the lifters wear enough to cause an issue that couldn't be fixed by letting the new cam do a full break in, and if they do wipe out a lobe, they're only out the cost of a cam core (or weld it up and regrind) since I think they do their own cam grinding in-house.
 

5one9

Active Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
479
Reaction score
142
Points
43
Location
WV
What vehicle(s) do you drive?
2007 Magnum SRT8, 1957 F100
Something doesn't seem right about the lack of improvement with that manifold. I'm not sure why they didn't try a couple of different spacers on the MTS intake. Hell I might have to by an Edelbrock :p .
Another thing is that engine is powering over just after 5000rpm and mine pulls like a freight train through 6000rpm which surprises me because his engine has more compression, I'm sure he's running race gas, and the our cams aren't much different other than flat tappet vs roller. I don't know, I just expected it to make peak power at 56-5800rpm. Seems like a prelude to a plug for the Boogieman heads setting on it at the end of the last video. They better leave that cam in when they dyno the Boogiemans the first time, before they move to something bigger.
 

PSYKO_Inc

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
15
Points
8
What vehicle(s) do you drive?
66 Cadillac Miller-Meteor Duplex
Guessing they probably limited testing to about 5200 rpm due to the rockers (not sure which set they're using) or stock rods. If you can spin it to 6k without it coming apart, I'd bet the MTS would show some gains over the Edelbrock up top. I'm actually going to be running an MTS single plane on stock heads, rockers, and bottom end because I'm an idiot. In reality, I found a deal on it that was too good to pass up, and it should at least make more power than the stock manifold until I can do head porting, cam, etc...
 

5one9

Active Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
479
Reaction score
142
Points
43
Location
WV
What vehicle(s) do you drive?
2007 Magnum SRT8, 1957 F100
Yea, I didn't think about stock rods. But still the dyno graph starts folding over just after 5000. My MTS intake had some miniscule ports from the factory. If yours is the same I'd probably leave it that way until you started doing some other upgrades. It would probably help port velocity on a stockish engine. Here are my before and after pics.
IMG_2143.JPG
IMG_2144.JPG
 

5one9

Active Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
479
Reaction score
142
Points
43
Location
WV
What vehicle(s) do you drive?
2007 Magnum SRT8, 1957 F100
Better pic for direct comparison. As you can see the intake manifold is upside down, so I pretty much left the floor alone and raised the port roof to match the raised port in the head. The floor on the intake port is actually about 0.100" higher than the stock untouched port floor on the head.
IMG_2142.JPG
 

PSYKO_Inc

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
15
Points
8
What vehicle(s) do you drive?
66 Cadillac Miller-Meteor Duplex
Wow that's some major port work! I actually haven't even taken mine out of the original plastic wrap yet. I wonder if they tested the MTS manifold in "as received" condition since CadCo sells their own competing intake...
 

5one9

Active Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
479
Reaction score
142
Points
43
Location
WV
What vehicle(s) do you drive?
2007 Magnum SRT8, 1957 F100
I’ll be the a$$hole in the room. They should have used the spacer stack on yesterday’s video. They should have run the big roller cam with the iron heads. This was simply a plug to promote the Boogieman heads like I said yesterday. The heads are great no doubt at all. Based on what I saw, I either need an Edelbrock intake (almost unbelievable) or a bigger cam (almost definitely). By the results of the last two videos either one would make better power than my MTS intake and cam combo. Since they skewed the results I don’t know which makes more sense. Ok I’m done bitching now.
 

Psychoholic

Member
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
32
Reaction score
15
Points
8
Location
Loganville, GA
What vehicle(s) do you drive?
72 Miller Meteor
I was discussing this video with a friend this morning (we're all chomping at the bit for him to do the boosted videos) and I *personally* would rather make turbo power than all motor power for a street car. That cam is pretty radical all things considered for a street car so I'd rather have 800-900 flywheel hp on demand and be able to turn down the boost to make 500-600 when I'm not in kill mode. On motor the most you could tune out of it would be timing and fuel so you're still running a pretty brutal combo. It's nothing short of impressive either way but I'm all about that boost, that boost, that boost.
 

Caddylackn

Active Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2015
Messages
160
Reaction score
68
Points
28
Anybody else notice the horrible dip in the torque curve around 2,500 - 3,000 rpms on all runs. What is up with that? We usually see a pretty flat torque curve from 2,000 rpms to peak. I am curious if the Edelbrock intake they tested is stock or one of Cad Company's ported ones.

Being that the motor is their dyno test mule, you would have to think that it is beefed up before hand to make it all the way from "stock" to the peak hp they will be testing without taking it back off the dyno and tearing into the bottom end for upgrades. So, it would be no surprise that has upgraded rods and bolts. They also have head studs. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a girdle too under the pan, since this will be boosted. So the "stocker" dyno runs were not a stock motor but a beefed up 0.060 over forged motor with a beefed up bottom end, but that is understandable. The purpose is to show how much hp and torque the mods will be adding.

I just wish they would call this motor a 514", since that is what it is.
 

PJ McCoy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
1,254
Reaction score
355
Points
83
Location
Outter Banks NC
Anybody else notice the horrible dip in the torque curve around 2,500 - 3,000 rpms on all runs. What is up with that? We usually see a pretty flat torque curve from 2,000 rpms to peak. I am curious if the Edelbrock intake they tested is stock or one of Cad Company's ported ones.

Being that the motor is their dyno test mule, you would have to think that it is beefed up before hand to make it all the way from "stock" to the peak hp they will be testing without taking it back off the dyno and tearing into the bottom end for upgrades. So, it would be no surprise that has upgraded rods and bolts. They also have head studs. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a girdle too under the pan, since this will be boosted. So the "stocker" dyno runs were not a stock motor but a beefed up 0.060 over forged motor with a beefed up bottom end, but that is understandable. The purpose is to show how much hp and torque the mods will be adding.

I just wish they would call this motor a 514", since that is what it is.
I believe it is ported, I have great respect for both men so these videos could be made. But if you find the CadCo page, the old one, Courtney has a "Basic Build" with dyno results. And then goes to the high compression version and makes even more power with all his "Bling" parts. It looks like Rich is following those build parameters. The stock Edelbrock won't flow good numbers past 5500. The curve drops. There is old postal that mention this here on the forum. What I didn't know was How much better it flows after the porting. We now have video of that. So my best guess would be Courtney put his Ported version, after all, if my engine was being record, I would use my best. I do want to see how much we can get out of a basically stock build. Looks like ring gap should be around .026? Does that seem right?
 

5one9

Active Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
479
Reaction score
142
Points
43
Location
WV
What vehicle(s) do you drive?
2007 Magnum SRT8, 1957 F100
Yep. My Malibu is at 0.024”
 

Psychoholic

Member
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
32
Reaction score
15
Points
8
Location
Loganville, GA
What vehicle(s) do you drive?
72 Miller Meteor
Wow, he responded to me.

I asked if he'd do a test with the iron heads, single plane, and a turbo and he said 'single plane is the wrong choice'. I see that in his numbers for sure on the NA combination but I'm super curious which one flows better. I have searched but haven't been able to find the flow numbers between the 2 and we haven't finished building out our flow bench yet to test them ourselves.
 

5one9

Active Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
479
Reaction score
142
Points
43
Location
WV
What vehicle(s) do you drive?
2007 Magnum SRT8, 1957 F100
Wow, he responded to me.

I asked if he'd do a test with the iron heads, single plane, and a turbo and he said 'single plane is the wrong choice'. I see that in his numbers for sure on the NA combination but I'm super curious which one flows better. I have searched but haven't been able to find the flow numbers between the 2 and we haven't finished building out our flow bench yet to test them ourselves.
Did he say whether it was a ProCadIII intake or stock Edelbrock?
 

Caddylackn

Active Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2015
Messages
160
Reaction score
68
Points
28
I'd like to see a dyno run of the low comp. ported iron heads with a ported iron dual plane intake. That would tell us what the gains are from the Edelbrock over ported stock iron manifold. From all the data I have seen, the gains will not be much due to the uneven flow distribution between cylinders of the Edelbrock. A new Edelbrock is now $435 and the ported is $535. How much gains do you get for $435? for $535?

Interesting is I was watching the $3000 Hooptie Drag Challenge last night on Motortrend. And there is the Gremlin with the 500 Caddy motor. This was the same motor that was eventually given to Richard. The gremlin was an entry car for this $3000 and under dragfest. Frieburger offered the owner $3000 on the spot for the car after he was done competing. The guy was running low 13s in the car and letting off well before the end.
 

PSYKO_Inc

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
15
Points
8
What vehicle(s) do you drive?
66 Cadillac Miller-Meteor Duplex
Back to iron heads and "medium" cam, and a taste of boost...
 

PSYKO_Inc

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
15
Points
8
What vehicle(s) do you drive?
66 Cadillac Miller-Meteor Duplex
Wow, he responded to me.

I asked if he'd do a test with the iron heads, single plane, and a turbo and he said 'single plane is the wrong choice'. I see that in his numbers for sure on the NA combination but I'm super curious which one flows better. I have searched but haven't been able to find the flow numbers between the 2 and we haven't finished building out our flow bench yet to test them ourselves.
If you do get the flow bench together, I've got an MTS single plane I'd be willing to test. Apparently straight out of the box the ports are pretty small on it, (good for me since I'm still using stock heads) but tons of meat available for porting. As-cast vs ported might be a fun comparison, or even stock vs ported factory iron manifold...
 
Last edited:
Top