Early BOP 215 V8
Jump to Last
While road tripping, I chatted with a Range Rover owner who raved about his Buick powered V8, that ye,had 3, that parts,were very agailable, life long, and durability great. I dug into this a little, and the story is very interesting. Is this motor in 1963, in any way related to the biggest displacement 326?
|I copy pasted this corporate content:
1963. Derived from the 389 was a new 326-cid V-8 that arrived in the 1963 Tempest. It was a small-bore version of the bigger engine with a four-barrel carburetor and 260 hp. The 1963 326 engines used a 3.78-inch bore size for an actual 336 cubic inch displacement (same bore/stroke/displacement as the 1959 GMC engine, also a small bore version of the Pontiac 389-cid engine). In 1964 Pontiac reduced the bore size to what was correct for 326 inches of displacement, a 3.719-inch bore. Pontiac continued with Tri-Power options for both the 389 and the 421. Two 421 HO. V-8s produced 353 and 370 hp, respectively, but the hottest options of all were the 390-, 405-, and 410- hp 421 Super-Duty choices. These featured up to 13.0:1 compression and came with a single four- barrel, three two-barrel, or dual four-barrel carburetors. They were intended strictly for racing and to make Pontiac the competition king.
|So, is there any development effort by Pontiac fans on performance for this Olds block, Chevy head motor?|
|Well, the Rover engines are nowhere near the original 215 BUICK engines, and the Olds had a different top end. Pontiac used the Buick version. Those engines were literally a V6 with two more cylinders added, and cast from aluminum.
These engines were designed after the then new Buick 198 and 225 V6, parallel design, which also went on to become the 300, 340, 350 BUICK engines, and never were designed after any Pontiac engine. Olds ran a different head, still aluminum, with completely different valve rocker shafts, with an extra head bolt per cylinder, with a very bad design wedge combustion chamber.
In 1964, Buick built their first 300 V8, which had a cast iron block, aluminum heads. 1965 thru 1967 300 was all cast iron.
The aluminum engines had block extensions below the crank centers, but no cross bolts, UNTIL Rover built them. Leyland also uses that design in their aluminum truck engines.
BIG differences in the Buick/Pontiac vs the Olds, vs the Rover/Leyland.
In 1963, the Olds version had 3, two barrel, four barrel and turbo, sing the same turbo and single barrel carb as the Corvair turbo used. Olds aluminum engines, especially the turbo version, had severe detonation issues, all of them from the Chevy type wedge combustion chambers.
The guy you want to talk to about them is Dave Ray, he does great things with those engines. He built me a Rover cross bolt 4.6 that has a Leyland crank, .600 stroker, early Chevy small bearing rods, Chevy 305 pistons, 300 aluminum heads, Crower cam, Corvair valves, and a highly modified Rover tuned port FFI using Ford 302 injection nozzles. This engine has been running since Dave built it in 1989, has over 175K miles, runs like a top, is 312 cu/in.
Here are just a few of the active or recent projects.
|PLEASE, give me a break, I am a lot farther past that stuff, and Dave is one of the best all aluminum Buick/Rover people around, he has been building them for over 45 years. |
|61-62 tempest used the buick n/a version of the 215 alu V8 as a option for the 4 cyc.In 63 they went to the 326 V8.Very rare in the tempests.Tom|
|Steve C. |
Good application here. Although some will question the merit of the vehicle.
In 1967 while stationed at Williams Air Force Base in Arizona. I wanted a car and went to a local Chevy dealer and looked at a new Corvette. Dealership policy would not allow me to buy it unless I was 21 years old. Went down the street and purchased a Triumph TR4. When transferred overseas my younger brother drove the Triumph. Later after getting out of the service and inspired by the Shelby Cobras at the time I actually considered putting in a Ford 289 V-8 into the Triumph. There was room in the engine compartment for it and it weight less than the 4-cylinder engine in the car which was based on a English tractor motor design. Today I'd consider the lighter aluminium V-8.
|Was the turbo a hat over carb configuration?|
I just put this up for nostalgia reasons,not to pick a argunent. And there are some on a quest right now, with early variants in these 61 to 63. Details omitted on purpose so they can achieve their goal.
I would like to see this article link without P-interest, about Brabham McLaren twice champion motor. It,was built off the Buick version.
|the ONLY alumiunum engine turbo setup was the OLDS< 215 cu/in, 215 horsepower, and it was a draw through setup, drew mixture through the SAME single barrel side draft carburetor, from the SAME turbo used on the Corvair's. I said that above.
Yes, the Buick design has been the basis for many, many variations, head development, and other updates, stroker cranks from other Buick derivitives, small journal small block rods, Chevy 305 pistons, all sorts of 300 head mods, intake systems, and a lot of other neat stuff.
They were ever raced at Indy, and in Formula 1, with Brabham, Repco, and other sources. I have 2 Rover engines heere, and 5 Buicks, plua the one in the car.
Something else, in Canada for 1962 and 1963, same basic engine design as the 215 V8, the Buick 225 V6 had an option, some very few had ALUMINUM HEADS AND BLOCKS. EXTREMELY RARE, hard to find, probably sitting in a car locked into the Perma-Frost for eons.
|Steve C. |
Rover V8 .... one of the 10 Best V8 Engines Of All Time. What most people don’t know is that the design began life as the Buick 215. It was an all-aluminum unit and was also fitted to the Oldsmobile Jetfire, the world’s very first turbocharged engine.
|Ashley P |
|"First turbocharged engine" was in the Jetfire? Surely you jest! :) |
|Yes, it was in that, and consecutively, exact same turbo and 1 bbl carb in the Corvair. Shirley?.....who?
The B-O-P engines had issues with block strength, they were a Y block, pan rails extend beyond crank center line, as do the Rover. B-O-P had cast in wave faced sleeves, takes a bit to get them bored out and a flange top sleeve installed.
Rover had 4 different versions, most used were the 4.0 and 4.6 liter versions, they were called "Rover Strong Block, had thicker block materials around a pressed in, but not flange top sleeve. Those sleeves are still problems, best to bite the bullet and install 8 flange top sleeves, problems gone. Strong Block had improved oiling, and was cross bolted like other maker's Y blocks. Damaged strong blocks are easy to find, slipped sleeve, but, easy fix, bore and relieve to fit the flange sleeve, better than new. Sleeves slipped in the blocks form emissions tuning just plain over heating the engines to sleeves slipped.
Rover 4.0 and 4.6 engines bore .036, to fit a nice Chevy 305 piston, use small journal small block Chevy H beam rods narrowed .067 big ends, and fit a main bearing journal altered Leyland Austrialia crank, to make 312 cu/in, and still weigh a whopping 335 lbs for a complete engine. Mice thing about the crank is, ones with main needs are perfect, as they meed to have the mains trimmed down past damage to the mains.
There is a lot more that can be done to these engines, using old school parts, makes a really nice engine to use, not a big block Pontiac or Chevy, but, no slouch overall for its size.
|Ashley P |
Shirley....shirley you mean fist "car" engine... ;) (I know ya'll mean car engine, I'm just playin'.)
Some hotrodders put a turbo near the rear axle of a front engine car, they call that "rear mount". I asked some of them about the first time that was done, none of them knew it was about 1940.
|Ashley P |
|"fist" should be "first"....|
|Ashley P |
turbo from Thunderbolt.
|I would think the first was the Olds/Corvair in a FACTORY PRODUCTION car.
There were supercharged engines back into the 1920's, Cord, Auburn, Duesenberg, and more, but a supercharger is different than a turbocharger.
|Ashley P |
|Turbos are supercharges as squares are rectangles. :) |
|Giant difference in the way they produce boost, though, turbo uses controlled exhaust gas pressure to force more volume into the cylinders, supercharger uses same from direct ratio'd drive from crankshaft. Apples driven by lemons and limes
Both have the same objective, increase compression pressure by inducing more compressible air/fuel mixture into the cylinder than normally aspirated draw methods can supply.
Actually, nitrous oxide has the same objective, inject more compressible volume of fuel/air (oxygen), than can be normally aspirated, raising compressible volume, compression ratio, and power output. So, apple, force inducted, by avocado.
A fascinating museum - a real guy's hangout - that celebrates all things mechanical that advanced mankind. They have this actual production 1963 turbo car that was sold to consumers.
Most of our talk is about one offs, so this was a interesting car for sure.
|Chrysler turbine, NOT a turbo, but, nice, you can drive, and cook dinner at the same time.|
|Ashley P |
|Which was first, Chrysler turbine or Pontiac's turbine?|
|Steve C. |
The Rise And Fall Of America's Jet-Powered Car in article.
Development meshed up with the automotive world when Chrysler got a military contract to design a turboprop aircraft engine. After the war, it continued with the research, this time with an eye on terrestrial vehicles, eventually leading to the M1 Abrams tank engine. Other companies were also considering turbine power for street and performance cars. British car company Rover had a working concept called Jet I in 1950, and kept working with turbines through the 1960s. GM had some turbine cars, too, including the various Firebird (no relation to the later Pontiac) concepts in the mid-1950s. The Firebird cars were never intended to go into production as personal transport, but Chevrolet did look seriously at turbines as an option for semitruck power during this time, as did Ford.
|Ashley P |
|Steve C, I appreciate that link. Interesting read.|
|I do believe we are speaking of production vehicles, sold to the public, aren't we. If so, Chrysler was the only company that sold directly to the public, a turbine powered vehicle. |
|What if you just field charged water (super water) and blended that with methanol for a boost, less explosive to the rod and piston than nitrous?
I don't believe a super charger nets equal HP to a turbo because you are robbing HP to generate boost, whereas turbo is recovering expended HP, so it's gaining faster on acceleration curve. When a 6,000 lb boosted lifted 4WD truck is changing your white shirt to black in the car following it, your supercharged Pontiac GXP is probably not as quick, and not catching it despite the considerable weight advantage.
|Me, supercharger all the way. Most Top Fuel and Funny Car, blown alcohol cars run superchargers, NOT turbos. The turbo cars are significantly slower, and so are the different street cars I have seen that were available either way.
Just my preference.