On Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:53:18 EST MGMagnette@aol.com writes:
>
>Hey All-
> Someone said:
>"I doubt that the 63 Buick 3100 series engine was under-powered,
>compared
>to the first Rovers. " It was.
> Strangely enough there is a story in the February 1998 Issue of
>Classic And
>Sportscar. In that issue they compare a Rover P5B Coupe and a Buick
>LeSabre
>400. They compared the two cars ofcourse because they have "the same"
>engine.
>But they aren't the same.
You're abosulutely right. They are not the same engine. The LeSabre
NEVER had the 3.5 L (215 cid) engine. The LeSabre engine was a cast iron
brick. And if I remember my Buick geneology (which I have often tried to
forget), the LeSabre wasn't even marketed til well after the time that
BOP sold the 215 to Rover. The 215 was only used in one Buick Model, the
Special, from 1961 to 1963. Interestingly enough, the other engine
availible in the Special was an all aluminum 90 degree V-6, ensintially
the 215 with the two rear cylinder cut off.
Compareing a P5B Rover to a Buick Lesabre is most definetly at case of
"apples and Oranges". They don't even play in the same league, much less
in the same ball park;
the Rover is most definetly a sport sedan. The LeSabre is one of the
shining examples of the "Land Yhact". Basically a living room with
wheels.
Let me quote two sections...
>
> "The Rovers ability on the motorway is still a thing of wonder.
>Moving
>naturally into the outside lane, the P5B sits at 85mph, ebbing and
>flowing
>with the quickest of moderns. Kickdown delivers enough thrust to
>shift past
>liines of uphill, middle-lane queues and onto speeds that will cost
>you a
>license before they'll worry the P5B. That's thanks to the British
>interpretation of the Buick V-8.
> When the engine came over to be developed for the P5B, a Buick man
>came to
>help. (re-read that, "developed" means the engine was changed). Rover
>wanted
>it to rev higher than its top whack of 4400 rpm,
Where did they get that 4400 RPM figure? The engines were rated higher
than that. Again, using the 3100 series version, 200 HP @ 5000 RPM.
> and the American
>couldn't
>understand why. So Rover put him in a 6 cylinder P5 with a
>development driver
>and send him up the newly opened M6 at 100mph plus. He returned white
>faced
>and wise to the demands placed on British cars. (Re-read that, it
>means it
>red lined where you'd just start going until Rover got ahold of it)
>In due
>course, the Buick 3.5-litre V8 became Rover's own, giving 184 bhp
>gross at
>5200rpm, a 30 percent hike on the original. "
Again 2 different base lines. American car manufacturers were notorius
in the 50's and 60's about putting out HP figures that satisfied the
demands of the marketing department, either up or down, depending on what
was needed . And before the flames start, No I don't buy the 200 HP
rating on the 4V version I quoted above. RPM, yes, HP no.
>Ah, 30% hike. That might just mean faster. Ok, so we've established
>that
>from the beginning, the Rover versions had more horsepower and a
>higher rev line.
No, that hasn't been established. We've got too many variables in the
mix.
Sounds like the Rover might make a better sportscar engine...
I guess that's why when Jack Brabham built their championship winning F1
cars in the late 60's, he used the Oldsmobile version of the BOP 215 as
the basis, instead of the Rover.
One question keeps coming to mind. If Rover made all these changes BEFORE
putting the engine in the P5B-P6, then somebody explain to me why in
heavens name did they leave that atrocious rope seal in the front and
rear main bearings, as well and the timeing cover!? That particular goody
wasn't modified til the early SD1's, along with the extra casting
material around the 3 center main webs, and the stiffing webs in the
lifter gallery.
Probalby the single thing this "road test" proves is that you can always
prove what you set out to, by simply making invalid comparisons.
Rick Morrison
72 MGBGT
74 Midget
>Let me
>quote some more.
>"On the motorway, the Rover just dissapears. The Buick pulls well to
>about
>60mph but then begins breathing hard, just at the point where the
>Rover
>explodes into the distance." You want to breath hard at 60 or explode
>into
>the distance at 60?
>Someone completely different said:
>"You encourage people to use the Rover engine in their conversions
>then
>ask them not to use certain Rovers, the very Rovers that use the BOP
>engine. See anything contradictory in this? If you are concerned
>about
>saving P5Bs or P6s then encourage the converter to use the BOP
>engine."
>
>Yes, we should save the remaining P5Bs and P6s, but I've never minded
>anyone
>dismantling a Range Rover. You engine choice is gonna be a compromise
>between
>availibility, price, power, and maybe a desire to save British
>Classics. The
>BOP (Buick Olds Pontiac) engine doesn't have the power. That leaves
>Rover
>Engines. While price and availiblity change from region to region,
>ripping
>the heart out of a Range Rover doesn't make me too upset, but
>destroying a P5B
>would be tragic. Obviously if any of these cars are beyond repair why
>not
>give the engine another life, but most trashed cars have trashed
>engines. So
>for most, a Range Rover engine will be the greatest compromise.
>
>Then someone said:
>"I have to disagree with your statement, "You'd be just as happy with
>a
>normal MGB, and a nice restored Rover to drive to work". You
>obviously
>haven't driven a high performance sports car. No one who enjoys cars
>and
>has driven a MGB V8 would make such a statement."
>
>I guess the V-12 XJ-S I drive everyday isn't a high performance car...
> What
>is a V8 MGB? It's called a TVR, why don't you get one of those?
>You've
>obviously never driven a Rover to work. No one who enjoys cars and
>has driven
>a Rover would make such a statement.
>
>I again put out my plea to stop the destruction of Rovers for the sake
>of a
>hotrod MG. I say this as an owner of 3 MGs, and former Rover owner.
>
>Ofcourse, this information isn't meant to criticize, just to
>enlighten, please
>accept it in the manor it is given.
>
>John
>
>
>--part0_886398799_boundary--
>
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
|