>
>
>
>
> As this is my first posting, perhaps I should mention that I DO fit the
> stereotype and I DON'T and never have driven a Volvo (unless you count the
> Volvo engine in a Marcos I once owned). Now that the important stuff is out
> of the way I'll proceed to the purpose of this communication.
>
> I've been reading the postings about the merits of the 215 cu inch Buick
> engine such as the one I've had setting in my garage for the past several
> years. Also, I've been working on the restoration of my 1947 Triumph 1800
> roadster for several years. In a moment of weakness it came to me that I
> might combine the two projects and put the Buick engine in the Triumph. I
> have looked for other pre-1965 lbcs to put the engine in but have been
> unsuccessful. Is there anyone out there that can dissuade me from doing
> the above to the Triumph? Is there another pre-65 (do to California smog
> laws) lbc that the engine might better fit? Is the 4.8 rear end in the
> 1800 roadster too low or weak to handle the Buick? Is it simply unthinkable
> to do such a thing to the Triumph? HELP!
>
> Earl Huff
>
> 47 Triumph 1800
> 53 XK120
> 85 XJS
>
Earl,
Don't do it!! It is estimated that there are only about 200 of the 1800
Roadsters left in the world. Modifying a potentially restorable one
would be a tradgedy. If you are not serious about properly restoring
the roadster then sell it to some one who is. The buick motor would be
good for any forien peice of junk, be it German, Japanese, U.S., even
and MGB, but not an Early Triumph. I wouldn't even consider putting it
in any pre-1960 car, most of them are just too rare.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Spooner
The Sports Works of Greeley
Specializing in Triumphs and British Sports Cars
britcars@hpfckjs.fc.hp.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|