Hi Rick:
Thanks for saving me a lot of time. I've been meaning to have a go at this
somewhat pompous and definitely erroneous testament to performance Rovers.
I am somewhat biased as I - unlike most of the people on this list -
actually owned a Rover P6 which I purchased new and which was one of the
two or three worst cars I have ever owned but not because of the engine.
It's not surprising that the American's face was white after a 100 mph go
up the M road. He was probably praying for his safety when confronted by a
gonzo Brit in an ancient chassis, on the wrong side of the road, listening
to the pistons in an even more ancient six cylinder changing holes.
The Buick LeSabre was introduced in 1959 as a renaming of the Buick Special
which was the lowest priced Buick. It was never a compact car and used a
slighly smaller version of Buick's venerable nail-head V8. In 1961, the
engine was a 364 cu.in. 250 HP @ 4400 rpm very oversquare (4.25 x 3.4) unit
with 10.25:1 compression. This was developed as an economy engine with
very mild cam, small four-barrel and conservative gearing.
In the above configuration the 364 could move the 4100 lb. LeSabre to 60
mph in just over 10 seconds and had a top speed of about 110 mph.
This engine was replaced by the 401 in LeSabres for 1962 and 1963. This
would have been twilight zone performance compared to any LBC sedan then
being marketed including Jaguar. Those things were quick. I have owned
several.
Bring on your six-cylinder Rovers. They must have been using JATO and a
good downhill run to sustain 100mph in the thing.
As you have pointed out Rick, the original aluminum V8 was used in all the
BOP compacts for 3 years and it was capable of very good power. Note that
the output of that engine today would be compromised by the lack of fuel to
feed its 11:1 compression ratio. I'm going to have to dig to see if I can
find a comtemporary road test on a car equipped with this version of the
engine. My guess is that performance figures were at least the equal of
the LeSabre and probably quicker.
Apples and cabbages I think.
John
>
>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]
|