I just went out and weighed my spare Buick 215 block - 69 pounds - and that
includes 2 pistons and connecting rods. So that is quite a bit less than the
302 block. Personally I don't want any more weight up front than is absolutely
needed since I want the car to handle at least as well as it did before (in DSP
autocross form).
Kevin Brown
Odessa, MO
Larry wrote:
> Dan,
> No offense taken at all. Just trying to help us all "figure it out.." My
> "limited" brain capacity is just suprised that an alum block would only save
> ~35lbs.. I was trying to extrapolate it based off of my limited history with
> the units in my garage..
>
> All I know is I have a gorgeous 302 block painted Forb Blue, that basically
> matches the body color of my B, and I am going crazy not being able to get
> it installed!! :-)
>
> If you could scan in thos epictures it would be much appreciated!!
>
> Larry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <DANMAS@aol.com>
> To: <larry@larryembrey.com>; <mgb-v8@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215
>
> > In a message dated 9/19/2000 7:46:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > larry@larryembrey.com writes:
> >
> > > HEY!! WHAT HAS ANYONE DONE IN REGARDS TO MOTOR MOUNTS FOR THE 302!??
> >
> > Larry,
> >
> > I built my own for the TR6, but that design won't work on the MGB. Ford
> makes
> > a nice motor mount that bolts to the chassis with one bolt, and to the
> block
> > with two. If you want, I can scan a picture of them and send to you. If I
> > recall correctly, Dale Spooner welded a steel plate (sorta "u" shaped) on
> > each side of the MGB chassis, at an angle to match, and bolted the these
> > mounts to that. You should contact him (mgv8vt@aol.com) for more info.
> These
> > particular mounts would, I think, work perfectly for an MGB installation.
> >
> > One thing to keep in mind is that the motor mount bolt holes on the Ford
> are
> > offset from one side to the other. I don't recall the exact number, but
> it's
> > about 1/2" or so. If you want your mounts to be the same for both sides,
> you
> > will have to take this into account, and split the difference. If you
> locate
> > the chassis mount holes correctly, the mounts can be interchanged, left to
> > right, as the factory mounts are; otherwise, you'll need to locate the
> > chassis mounts differently on opposite sides of the car.
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 9/19/2000 7:48:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > MGTRAutoXr@sprintmail.com writes:
> >
> > > I've got a spare 215 block in my garage and it weighs far less than 97
> > pounds -
> > > and that is with two pistons still in it. I'll weigh it next time I'm
> in
> > there.
> >
> > Kevin,
> >
> > Thanks, that would be great. It would be nice to KNOW for a change, rather
> > than just guessing. Any idea why the large weight descrepancy between the
> > Ford and the 215 blocks?
> >
> > In a message dated 9/20/2000 10:00:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > yt_one@hotmail.com writes:
> >
> > >I have a alum water pump on the way, once I get it, I will weight both
> and
> > >let everyone know. The Alum block HAS to save more than 30lbs, that just
> > >seems a bit on the low side now that I look at it. Probably means that
> the
> > >iron block weighs more than 127lbs.
> >
> > > Keep in mind aluminum is not as strong (depending on alloy) or stiff as
> > > steel, therefore more aluminum is required to match the strength and
> > > stiffness of steel. So, an aluminum block may require more material to
> > match
> > >
> > > the strength of the steel block, hence the disparity between the actual
> > > block weights and the material weights.
> >
> > Chad,
> >
> > Also, we need to keep in mind that the 215 block extends below the crank
> > center line whereas the Ford blocks stops at the centerline, so, all else
> > being equal (which it never is, of course), the 215 would weigh more than
> the
> > Ford. BTW, I just weighed the Ford block again, and the scales showed 125
> > pounds this time - well within the accurcy of the bathroom scales I'm
> using.
> > The 97 pound weight for the aluminum Ford came right out of the Ford
> > MotorSport catalog, and has been listed as 97 pounds in the last four
> > catalogs from them. It still could be an error, of course - those kind of
> > errors have a way of perpetuating themselves. The Ford aluminum engine is
> > intended strictly for racing applications, so one would expect it to be a
> bit
> > stouter than if it were for street use. The Ford aluminum block costs
> around
> > $4,000! Just for the bare block! Ouch! $133/pound!
> >
> > In a message dated 9/20/2000 11:30:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > larryhoy@prodigy.net writes:
> >
> > > I guess I hadn't considered the aluminum and iron blocks would be
> > different. It's my understanding that 6061 T-6, 7075 T-6 or 356 T-6
> aluminum
> > alloys
> > > have essentially the same strength of mild steel, not sure how it
> compares
> > to cast iron used in engine blocks. However this discussion has made me
> > run to
> > > some of my reference books, I found that cast iron strengths are all
> across
> > the board, some are much less than aluminum and some are much higher. I
> > guess I have enough information to be dangerous (and inaccurate) so pick
> and
> > choose what ya believe.
> >
> > Larry,
> >
> > I hope I didn't give the impression that *I* know what I'm talking about!
> > I'm only on a "seek and find" mission myself.
> >
> > Dan Masters
> > Alcoa, Tennessee
> >
> > Triumph TR 250 - TR6 Electrical Maintenance Handbook:
> > http://members.aol.com/danmas6/
> > Stuffing a V8 into a small British sports car:
> > http://members.aol.com/danmas/
> > MGBV8 Newsletter:
> > http://members.aol.com/danmas4/mgv8.htm
> >
|