Technically, the V6 was sold by GM to Kaiser Jeep, and then later purchased
back from AMC Jeep, who had no reason to produce another six cylinder when
they had quite respectable inline sixes in their lineup.
Jon Arzt
Omaha, NE USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Eyerman" <jan.eyerman@usa.net>
To: <Fmarrone@turinnetworks.com>; <jan.eyerman@usa.net>;
<Fmarrone@turinnetworks.com>; <sosnaenergyconsulting@home.com>;
<cole.harvey@baesystems.com>
Cc: <alpines@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [RE: [RE: Rover V-8 and Ford V-8]]
> Regarding the history of the Buick V-8's, there is an error in that
> article-The Buick 198 V-6 was actually developed at the same time as the
> Aluminum 215 V-8 and was introduced by Buick in 1962. The V-6 was a 90
degree
> block that used the same components on the front of the engine as the V-8
> did-that kept some costs down. The V-6 was built by GM until 1967 and
then it
> was sold to Jeep/AMC. After the 1973 fuel crises, GM bought the machinery
> back from AMC!! GM had been smart enough not to mess up the factory they
had
> been building the V-6's in-they had turned it into a warehouse. With
minimum
> effort they begain building the engine again in the mid seventies.
>
> I believe that you are correct, the 300 cid engine was indeed a new
design.
> However, Pontiac, for example just used a smaller bore to create a 326 out
of
> a 389.
>
> Jan Eyerman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fmarrone@turinnetworks.com wrote:
> 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
|