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.
|Ashley P |
|old guy, turbos dominate where the rules allow their use. Top Fuel doesn't allow turbos. Turbos are vastly more efficient. In the heads up racing classes that used to be called Super Street, Outlaw street, ect, the rules were such that turbo'd cars had to weigh more...so they wouldn't dominate the winner's circle.|
|I'll take the supercharger, thanks, much better than frying everything in the engine compartment. |
|Ashley P |
|To each their own. Have you ever had a forced induction Pontiac? Decades ago, when i was about 10 yo, my dad bought a beater LeMans for the 4 speed. Before parting it out, he slipped a McCullough supercharger (from a 57 T-bird?) on it. I remember riding down the road in the mouse smelling interior listening to the blower blow.|
|What racers found out, confirms our discussion. Faster spin up on turbo than supercharger, and netting a gain by using waste to spin it, versus borrowing HP to spin the supercharger. Interesting twist in Formula 1 where they are using electric motor to spin up the turbo, and also using supercharger.
Turbo racing requires a whole different start method, so IMO that would possibly add cost to beef up the trans. Don't know, haven't applied this. But I hear guys spooling that turbo way up before launch, in the track videos. You better have some solid race gear to do that.
Here is the article I was referring to.
|Ashley P |
|Firstlast, the main benefits to turboharging are compressor efficiency and durability. More efficiency = more power. Roots blowers have to be rebuilt, turbos hardly ever "wear out". |
|Balderdash on the rebuilding turbo's, they need servicing regularly, just like a supercharger, to "live long and prosper".
I have a couple of friends that work on both types, one is the person that owns/runs Blower Drive Service, in Whittier, California. He added a turbo service for rebuilding some years ago, because some of his supercharger customers had turbo cars, and there was seriously more work in the turbo section, dead shafts/bearings, impellers that unscrewed and hit the scrolls, just more turbo work than what would be considered "normal".
I have owned one 455, with a turbo, PILE OF DUNG, and the same engine, rebuilt after turbo melt down, with a 6/71 blower. Turbo lasted less than a year, supercharger ran for me before selling the car for over 7 years, still running today.
If a supercharger doesn't boost soon enough, change the drive ratio, that isn't rocket science, it is just the way it is done.
Another thing, IF a turbo is so much more efficient, then EVERY drag racing association would have them fitted to pressurized engines, in ALL classes, like Top Fuel, Funny Car, nitro, and all classes, because the racers would demand it. Anybody ever see a fast, really fast, or, for that matter, ANY Top Fueler with a turbo? NOPE.
|Ashley P |
Old guy, any engine or component can be destroyed if improperly used, serviced, ect. Any engine can run poorly. Your examples are called "cherry picked data" and do not disprove my claims that: turbos are more efficient than Roots blowers, and turbos are more durable.
Turbos DOMINATE all racing classes that ALLOW them. You mention Top Fuel....turbos are banned there. I'd have to assume that's why there are NO turbos in Top Fuel, just like why there are no electronic engine controls or traction controls.
See link for a turbo TF car before the ban.
|Ashley P |
Old guy, you mentioned that "IF a turbo is so much more efficient, then....the racers would demand it."
Buddy Ingersoll proved otherwise. When his turbo Buick dominated, he was banned.
|Yes, Buddy worked decades to get it to work, ONE out of a whole herd.
Please show me ALL the nitro Top Fuel and Funny Car TURBO race cars, world championships, all the race wins in those lasses.
|Ashley P |
Why do you bring up classes where turbos are BANNED and ask me to show you turbo wins?
When race organizers want Roots blower cars to compete with turbo cars, the rules dictate the turbo cars weigh more. Why? (See link, pg #1.)
|I have a Volvo waiting for engine swap. The bearings on turbo blew, and whole upper engine is a junk pile at this point. Not wasting time on a fix, swapping it out. Not sure about the fallout from a super charger going bad. Anyone? Comments?
In my region, young guys have lifted 4 WD, 5" pipes cut up through the floor, and heavily chipped duramax, Powerstroke, and Cummins. I haven't gotten the low down on why the entire frontage of the custom shop is jam packed with broken trucks, but I have a good idea. There are about 50 right now.
|Ashley P |
|Firstlast, how do you know "the bearings on the turbo blew"? If that's the case, what caused that failure?
Heavy equipment diesels run for decades without a turbo failure. However, shutting one down when it's too hot can cause "coking" and "gum up" the oil system in the turbo, which will cause oil starvation and bearing failure.
Any component that fails and puts debris into the intake of a running engine will cause similar "fallout", IMO.
|Interesting event. My neighbor, Lance, just got back from his vacation on Tuesday, and had fun, after having his Ford Diesel turbo truck have a serious failure about 15 miles out of town. Nice camper on the truck, 30 whatever foot long toy haulers/camper trailer, nice setup. I now call him "Turbo".
His wife was driving, and about 15 miles out of town, extreme loss of power. Going up one steep hill we all travel, 30 mph, and slowing> He made it the remaining 10 miles to the next town, and found the shop that works on what broke, and, $3,400 or so bucks later, with a brand new TURBO, and lots of other work, they were back to happy vacationing.
They decided to continue to the next town, because the mechanics here are not that functional, and, the shop in the next town is well known for fixing many, many turbo disasters. Most of the people here and from all over the place, go to that shop for turbo repairs, and other related problems and issues.
I find it odd that that particular shop, that specializes in turbo repair, and service, has only repaired ONE supercharger, and tells the public they just don't get any supercharger failure, or other issues repairs.
That shop works on all sorts of turbos, and the one supercharger, on all sorts of vehicles, cars, trucks, farm and industrial, boat, if it has a turbo or supercharger, they are capable of working on it, and fixing it the right way.
But, then, I am sure, that somewhere, some place, in whatever universe, turbos are just the most reliable things since holes in donuts, and superchargers are just plain junk.
Myself, I have two supercharged cars, NO PROBLEMS, and three cars with turbos, all the turbo cars have had the turbos replaced, all have less miles on them than the supercharged cars, of which, only had one part replaced in their lives, one supercharger drive belt. The supercharged cars are much more fun to drive.
|Ashley P |
|Well, that's interesting for sure. What Ford truck had the failure? It got a turbo and "lots of other work"...care to elaborate, something could have caused the turbo failure.
Do you care to reply to my previous questions regarding your comments?
|Ashley P |
|Old guy, I've worked on passenger cars/light trucks (1 ton and smaller) professionally since 96. I've seen a fair share of turbo vehicles, from the last of the turbo 4 cylinder Chryslers (K cars) to all sorts of diesel trucks. I've heard a few customers complain thinking their turbo was bad, and had even had one customer come from another dealership after a turbo replacement. It's always been a different problem, the turbo has never been "bad".
(The only bad turbo I've seen is still on my diesel tractor. I didn't work it and the carbon in the exhaust seized the exhaust turbine. Not really the turbo's fault, I mistreated it.)
|I'll have to ask Lance what his truck is, I have no idea, he and his wife wweren't driving his beat up Ranger. Frankly, I don't care what it is, it is only yet another broken turbo around here.
I've seen my fair share of broken light to medium trucks, turbo and not, and a lot of farm implements around here, gas and Diesel, and I know enough to not want a vehicle with a turbo on it. I have seen "rebuilt, reconditioned" turbos last no time at all, and some rebuilt by what they say are qualified people. The only one I trust is the one Lance got his fixed at.
As far as what is seen around here, center cartridge bearings and shafts just plain burned, with impellers striking housings, some locked up, worn completely out, enough to not interest me.
And, it would help immensely if you didn't imply that I am a liar. Don't say you didn't, it is right above this post, and in others in this topic.
|Ashley P |
|In no way did I mean to imply you are a liar. What makes you think that?
I'm curious as to the particular Ford truck so that I can compare it's failure to troubles I may have seen/will see.
|01 Volvo S60 2.3L turbo. History with this particular engine of blowing the turbo seal. Not sure what that means, but it won't hold its oil. You will blow it out completely in about a minute if you refill and try to test run the engine.
It could be that the oil pressure loss causes the mechanical failure to then ensue. Or it could be that internals let loose when seal goes out, sending bearings in parts through the impeller and spraying engine with good stuff. Not sure.
I would take suggestions to dignose a bit better. Have fresh lower mile motor ready for the swap , just haven't gotten it done yet. It will be a cradle swap from below on this car. Nothing very serviceable about the engine. Can't access a dang thing.
|Ashley P |
|Firstlast, google RAY HALL TURBOCHARGING, or maybe turbofast.com.au
On that site there are descriptions of turbo failures and possible causes. I recall that man claims that "turbo seals do no fail". The repair I mentioned above was where a dealership replaced a turbo due to a "failed oil seal", yet later the customer came to me for the same issue (oil in the intercooler). Due to the trouble chart on the site I suggested, I examined his "road draft tube" (crankcase vent to atmosphere). The customer had added about 3' of hose to the factory tube, and his addition was smaller in diameter.
His modification caused higher crankcase pressure which restricted oil flow back to the oil pan. I removed his mod and fixed the truck.
You probable do NOT have a turbo failure.
Where does the oil leak from?
|Who cares what you think.
here are the facts, 2004 Ford 1 ton, turbo Diesel, NO engine problems, 128,000 miles, and THREE TURBO REPLACEMENTS FROM TURBO FAILURES.
Lance was ready to go with a new Chevy Diesel earlier this year, wanted to get one more vacation out of the Ford, but, not so, typical Ford as far as I have seen.
Now, you go stuff it all the way up where the moon doesn't shine. I am done here, being called a liar isn't pleasant, it is something I have never been, nor ever will be.
|Ashley P |
|Old guy, earlier you said "And, it would help immensely if you didn't imply that I am a liar. Don't say you didn't, it is right above this post, and in others in this topic"
Now you just said "being called a liar isn't pleasant".
I repeat: I never meant to imply nor state that you have lied. I asked what made you think that.
Back to turbos. The 2004 F350 has the 6.0 (terrible engine) and a variable vane turbo. That turbo is known for having the vanes stick. The vane "ring" and associated parts are fairly easy to replace.
Google/youtube has plenty of info about that engine/turbo. Dieseltech Ron and srmastertech have great youtube vids.
|Ashley P |
Vid regarding the 6.0 turbo "failure".
"Lance" has almost surely been "taken" if that engine has had 3 turbos in 130k miles. Almost surely...
|I'll jump in here with a few things and pass on some first hand knowledge and maybe source of written info.The year 1962 both Olds and Chevrolet had turbo options on "Jetfire"(Olds 215"TurboRocket")and The Chevy Corvair Monza Spyder 145ci air-cooled pancake 6 got a turbo as well. In 65 it was 164 CI with a slightly bigger turbo and Spyder name dropped in favor of Corsa(4 carb and turbo versions) 4 carb was @9.5 compression and turbo was @ 8.2.
My Spyder had a blown motor(low oil starved bearings) I bought it from the junkyard my usaf co-worker dropped it off for $50. Bought a larger 66 turbo motor from a wreck there to replace it. Later bought a kit to put a larger "E" flow compressor on it from Crown and replaced the one barrel with a Holley 350 2 barrel.
Started giving the big block guys fits on the street...I usually had better traction and once up on boost pulled like a jet. I had an ls6 Chevelle owner practically in tears lol.
Back to topic... Olds used an "AirResearch t5" turbo and a different carb. Turbo had coolant line on compressor and a waste gate to limit boost. Olds also ran boost regulated water injection (water alky mix in winter. I used similar injection on my Spyder). Olds had 10.25 compression. That's why waste gate was set for @ 5 psi and needed the water injection... Carb was NOT the same anymore than early vette yh or corvair yh sidedrafts were same carbs! And between waste gate control,water injection, and pcv system over 12 connections to carb it was definately different.
There weren't chamber shape problems... It was cheapskates trying to run cheap low octane(86 octane Sunoco sunlight comes to mind.) gas.
The turbo 215 got more head bolts than non turbo 215. (6vs4 per cylinder iirc )Probably got better valves, springs and rods crank like the Corvair. I doubt base non turbo 215 Olds is any different than Buick or Pontiac 215.
(Corvair used restriction of carb size, compressor size, etc.. Venturi of 65-66 carb was bigger than 62-64 too.)
FYI Pontiac was prototyping 389 with TRW turbo in 1963. Would have been a beast I'd bet. Probably racing ban and bean counters squashed that idea.
|Ashley P |
|Bruce, great to hear from you. I've been wondering: how's your health?|
|Ashley I'm coming back to life.Things looked grim last year. I was in hospital from end of August til Thanksgiving.
I'm back in remission. Started going to VA(next door) after Thanksgiving. They treat "agent orange" patients and said I had the markers and changed up my treatment. By March my counts we're best they've been ever. I'm getting strength back fairly quick and been over to shop alot since April.
|Old guy... Don't think anyone is calling you a liar. Sometimes we repeat something from someone we trust and find out later they misinformed us or we misinterpreted.
At 65 I don't worry much when I find out something I passed along wasn't as accurate as I thought...just pass along update.
|Ashley P |
|Bruce, that's great news.
And, as it appears you're a Vietnam vet.....thank you, very much, for your service.
Do you currently have any car projects?