I thought the 300CID introduced in the larger Skylarks in 1964 was a new
engine design and not just one of the older cheaper cast iron units but I
may be wrong. I do know that, at least in 1964, the heads on the 300 were
aluminum (the '64 heads can be transplanted to the 215 with some effort).
I'm not sure that cost was the overriding factor in the demise of the GM
produced 215 but it certainly was a factor. Here is a link with a different
perspective on why GM abandoned the 215 aluminum power plant...
http://www.buickgod.com/article.html?ID=3332
Frank
B9471116
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Eyerman [mailto:jan.eyerman@usa.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 12:08 PM
To: Fmarrone@turinnetworks.com; jan.eyerman@usa.net;
sosnaenergyconsulting@home.com; cole.harvey@baesystems.com
Cc: alpines@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: [RE: Rover V-8 and Ford V-8]
Cost was probably the over-riding consideration, but not that it was too
expensive to stretch the 215, just that the F85/Special/Tempest grew from
"compacts" in 1961-63 to "mid-sized" in 1964. This meant it was cheaper
just
to use one of the old cast iron V-8's instead of spending the money and
effort
to stretch the 215.
Ford showed a great deal of intelligence and foresight in developing the
221/260/289 etc engine. It was introduced in their mid-sized car, then
moved
to the compact (Falcon) and finally to their full sized cars. They then
used
the design for the next 30+ years. They sure got their money's worth out of
that design!
Interestingly, while the Ford small block V-8 is one of the longest lived
designs around, the Rootes 1390/1494/1592/1725 engine also rates high on the
longevity scale. I believe that they were still being made in Iran until at
least 1996!!! It was introduced in October of 1954 in the Hillman Minx Mark
VIII as a 43 HP 1390cc engine. It was next used in October of 1955 in the
new
Sunbeam Rapier, now developing 62/63 HP.
Jan Eyerman
(past owner of one of the first 1961 Oldsmobile Cutlasses, with the 185HP
version of the 215)
Fmarrone@turinnetworks.com wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------
> Attachment:
> MIME Type: multipart/alternative
> ---------------------------------------------
Great summary but note that although GM might not have figured out how to
get more CI from the 215 for a reasonable amount of $$ modern day hot
rodders have. There are a variety of configurations that you can build the
215 to using Buick 300 cranks and various piston/piston sleeve combinations.
The 215 can be increased in size to over 300 CID by using these methods at a
not outlandish price, there was a good article in Hot Rod Magazine on this
about 15 years ago. Also, the modern versions of the 215 design are now 4.6
liters (I think but can't remember for sure but it is something like that)
so the Brits also figured it out too.
Frank
B9471116
past owner of a 1963 200HP/4spd Skylark Convertible and never finished
215/MGB conversion.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Eyerman [mailto:jan.eyerman@usa.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 11:34 AM
To: sosnaenergyconsulting@home.com; Harvey Cole E
Cc: alpines@autox.team.net
Subject: Rover V-8 and Ford V-8
The "Rover" V-8 was introduced in 1961 in the Buick Special- an aluminum 215
cubic inch V-8. Oldsmobile used a variation of it with more head bolts.
With
a 2 barrel carb and 8.5:1 CR it developed 155 HP. With a 4 barrel and
10.25:1
CR it got 185. This was increased to 10.5:1 and 200 HP at Buick while Olds
added the first "mass produced" turbo-charged version in 1962 and 1963 (in
the
"Jetfire") producing a very modest 215 HP.
The machinery to build these engines was sold to Rover in 1963-64. The
reason
GM dropped the engine was because the horsepower race was heating up and
these
engines could not be stretched much beyond 215 cubic inches and cost way too
much to build.
They were very popular "back yard" swaps into various sports cars of the era
but the Buick/Olds 215 engine was too wide to fit into the narrower engine
bays. The Ford 221/260/289/302/351 was/is an amazingly narrow engine and
thus
will fit into many, many different bodies. The Ford engine was a "thin
wall"
casting, allowing Ford to build a cast iron engine that was almost as light
as
an aluminum one. The engine was first introduced in 1962 as an optional V-8
in the Fairlane-it was a 2 barrel 221 cubic engine developing (I believe)
145
HP.
It was this combination of light weight and narrowness that allowed Shelby
to
drop one into an Alpine and create the Tiger.
The Buick/Rover 215/3.5 was an "exotic" engine at the time as it was
aluminum.
There were also a number of aluminum in line sixes- AMC/Rambler had one of
about 232 Cubic inches and the Chrysler "slant six" was also available in
225
cubic inches in aluminum. The Chrysler was available with a four barrel and
all sorts of high performance goodies in the Dodge Lancer (what the Dart was
initially called) and dominated "compact car" racing in the 1961-62 era.
Jan Eyerman
1959 Hillman Minx Series III DeLuxe
1973 Hillman Avenger DL
(ex Board of Directors member of the Society of Automotive Historians)
sosnaenergyconsulting@home.com wrote:
Hi, Cole:
Congrats! The rover has that nifty aluminum V-8, doesn't it? I do wish
there had been some way to shoehorn it into a sunbeam.
Sorry, I don't know a source for parts, but I just thought I'd offer my
congratulations anyway.
Is the Mercedes 2.8 going into a Mercedes, or something else?
Regards
David Sosna
Harvey, Cole E wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Boy oh boy, it has been a busy past few days. I got a new toy, a 1969
Rover
> 3500S. The car is rust free and is the first car I have ever bought with
> shiny paint (British racing green). And last night I picked up a Mercedes
> 2.8 liter engine for $60. Actually it was $120 engine (Budget
rent-a-Ranger
> $30, dinner for the wife $30), but a bargain either way.
>
> So, to my questions, does anyone on the list own a Rover, and where do I
get
> parts?
>
> Cole
|