I only added 45 HP from just a built shortblock. That's all...

yup and any 1 that can blueprint an engine can add that same 45 HP but in a 100 hour build and do all the machine work and not take 6 years

No doubt... go do it to your lawnmower.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 05-10-2012).]

well the junk yard dint want t swap the 3.4 dohc for the rover engine so i might be stuck with what i have no biggie its a good engine that has a nice sound to it i just would have liked the weight savings .

BTW Will when you go get one of these then i will talk to you about engine

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 05-10-2012).]

quote Originally posted by engine man: yup and any 1 that can blueprint an engine can add that same 45 HP but in a 100 hour build and do all the machine work and not take 6 years

at least will stuck to his guns and built a f*****g engine.

------------------
there's a Group on 60degreeV6.com for us 660 Fiero owners!

Fiero Owner's group on 60degreeV6.com

I know these lines Look crooked on paper, but I swear I've got them straight in my head.

[This message has been edited by ericjon262 (edited 05-10-2012).]

Lol Ive built more engines in 1 year then he probably has in his whole life and i am still learning something all the time

big whoop, you have nothing to show for the past year of "hey guys what do you think of this engine?"

I think it is funny how some one starts to pick on me then when I pick on them back they get all mad then there friends have to come on and defend them. I am glad he built the engine and he did a good job but if you want to start giving me grief then i am going to give it back

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 05-10-2012).]

I didn't have anybody's anything... except your goat.

I wasn't defending Will merely using him as an example, short of what I see on this forum, I don't know Will at all.

build a car, then come to the show.

I will be checking on a series 1 4.0 at the yard and see if the timing cover off the series 2 will fit and oil passages line up due to that shortens the engine up .I want to thank all of those who posted good info and i hope the info i have posted will help some one even if it is not me and that is what this thread was about in the first place was to look at a engine option and talk about it

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 05-10-2012).]

I have found D&D for a adapter they do a 215 to metric adapter but there isn't a starter provision $370 he also makes a 215 to Chevy bellhousing adapter $150 then you could buy a Archie's or Street Dreams adapter and stack them http://www.aluminumv8.com/c...5CatalogComplete.pdf

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 05-11-2012).]

I see TA Performance now has Aluminum heads for this engine so if you really want to make some HP you can . the same head"s minus 2 cylinders on there V6 turbo makes like 15 to 17 hundred horsepower that would be 2000 to 2250 on a V8 i think the transaxle would break lol

The 215 is old tach. Weighs about the same as a modern 4 cylinder, and even the turbo version only put out around 180 BHP net.

Much better off with a modern turbo 4 cylinder - way more power for the same sort of weight.

turbo was 200+ but it's design was sold to land rover and they stretched it to 4.6 L / 278 ci and it stayed low hp 225 but torque went up and rover improved the block with cross bolted mains . the best stock heads that will fit are 300 Buick aluminums and can be ported to give the engine around 425 HP NA and now TA performance has come out with a set of heads that are based on there V 6 heads and air flow is way up . the 198.215.231,3.8 & 3800 can be traced back to the 215,300,340 & 350 V8 Buick

http://www.tctc.com/~park/m.../page62JET/62jet.htm

The four barrel 215's were about 185 HP (GROSS!), while the turbos were 215 (again, gross).

I have a hard time believing that this engine would be significantly lighter than an LS1. An LS1 is 350 HP stock, while the Buick/Rover/Whaever would be a grenade with the pin half pulled at 350 HP and cost a LOT more to get there.

I would say OldsFiero know since he has one in his fiero that he weighed and as far as being durable the rover engine 4.0 & 4.6 have cross bolted mains just like the ls engine and 3800. connecting rods are forged the crank is Nodular cast iron and the weak point would be the cast pistons. they are pretty much a Buick V6 with 2 more cylinders

quote Originally posted by OldsFiero: Mine weighed 324 pounds comeplete-manifolds,turbos,ect. Good write up Weaselbeak. Marc

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 05-13-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Will: I have a hard time believing that this engine would be significantly lighter than an LS1.

As much as I liked the aluminum BOP 215 V8 in the '60s, and although I don't know the true answer, I would still tend to agree. I'm sure they are probably pretty close. Consider that GM, and the automotive industry in general, has probably learned a lot about lightweight structural aluminum castings over the past 50 years.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 05-13-2012).]

I cant speak for the weight or the durability other than what i am told or read . but i do know that i would start out with the rover 4.0 or 4.6 since they are big bore at 3.7 and have cross bolted mains and will accept a Buick 300 crank with out turning down the mains . now you can build a stroker engine out of those 2 rover engines i mentioned by putting a Buick 300 crank in and using 5.7 Chevy small journal rods and 305 piston and over bore of .036 this gets you to just about 300 inches or you can take the 4.6 crank have it offset ground to 3.375 stoke with again small journal SBC rods 5.7 and 305 stock bore piston for about the same displacement . the stock rover heads are not great flowing heads in stock form they flow about enough for 300 hp and ported 380 hp the next step up are the 300 Buick aluminum Heads in stock forum maybe 320 hp and fully ported 425 hp and from there you can get the TA Performance heads and get flow enough to make around 600 HP NA then of course you can do power adders turbo,supercharger & Nitrous

Sounds like you have it all figured out. Throw some cash on the table and get started.

Getting 600 HP N/A out of a 5 litre will be a good test of that SAM diploma.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 05-14-2012).]

quote Originally posted by engine man: I cant speak for the weight or the durability other than what i am told or read . but i do know that i would start out with the rover 4.0 or 4.6 since they are big bore at 3.7 and have cross bolted mains and will accept a Buick 300 crank with out turning down the mains . now you can build a stroker engine out of those 2 rover engines i mentioned by putting a Buick 300 crank in and using 5.7 Chevy small journal rods and 305 piston and over bore of .036 this gets you to just about 300 inches or you can take the 4.6 crank have it offset ground to 3.375 stoke with again small journal SBC rods 5.7 and 305 stock bore piston for about the same displacement . the stock rover heads are not great flowing heads in stock form they flow about enough for 300 hp and ported 380 hp the next step up are the 300 Buick aluminum Heads in stock forum maybe 320 hp and fully ported 425 hp and from there you can get the TA Performance heads and get flow enough to make around 600 HP NA then of course you can do power adders turbo,supercharger & Nitrous

I have to agree with some of the early criticism, you've come up with some great ideas, but you never follow through with any of them engine man, this is probably the fourth or fifth proposal you've posted where in you lay a good plan of attack and after the bench work is done we hear no more about it and suddenly a new idea shows up.

You have a problem with commitment, you must have bumped your head on an engine block when you were a child (I did).

Don't take it offensively, it's just a forum. I learned that from Will after I got a little bent out of shape about a remark someone made that had no bearing on any aspect of my life. It's a waste of energy.

I along with many others I'm sure would like to see some results for a change though.

[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 05-14-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Joseph Upson: Don't take it offensively, it's just a forum. I learned that from Will after I got a little bent out of shape about a remark someone made that had no bearing on any aspect of my life. It's a waste of energy.

Awww.... My life hasn't been wasted!

quote Originally posted by Joseph Upson: I along with many others I'm sure would like to see some results for a change though.

This. Maybe "any 1 that can blueprint an engine" *can* build a Northstar, but how many *HAVE DONE IT* successfully?

The same thing applies to any of the ideas engine man has proposed since he's been on the forum.

Buckle down and do it.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 05-14-2012).]

Engine man's banter doesn't bother me. He does what we all do, talk about the possibilities. He just does more of it.

well i like to talk about engines so big deal and thats what i do so if you don't want to talk about the engines fine if you do fine but it seems no matter what the engine is or whom it is some must come on and give some a hard time. this thread was fine till some one had to take it off topic when others just seemed happy to talk about it . so if you have some real info about the engine or engine part great . i could go on many threads and find short comings of allot of engines but i don't want to be that jerk.

No offense taken Joseph . I cant complete due to lack of funds and no engine shop any more but i still dream of what i once was able to afford and build

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 05-14-2012).]

quote Originally posted by engine man: No offense taken Joseph . I cant complete due to lack of funds and no engine shop any more but i still dream of what i once was able to afford and build

Fair enough. If the ideas weren't so interesting I wouldn't make much of it but they've been pretty interesting.

Thank you I take that as a compliment now all i need is the rich girlfriend to back the idea's lol

quote Originally posted by Joseph Upson: Fair enough. If the ideas weren't so interesting I wouldn't make much of it but they've been pretty interesting.

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 05-14-2012).]

quote Originally posted by engine man: Thank you I take that as a compliment now all i need is the rich girlfriend to back the idea's lol

sugarmamaclub.com

Ok i will try that lol

Well my friend pulled out the old Buick 215 aluminum engine he has so i could take a look and i have an idea on the starter . I will use the stock starter but put it on the other side and rotate it down so it will fit this way i can use the stock flywheel but just give it the correct thickness spacer

I've got one of these engines in an MGB with a T-5 transmission from an '80s Camaro bolted to it. The engine weighs less than the original 180-0 cc 4 cylinder engine, plus the engine drops right in to place since they made an MGB V8 over in Europe, so the engine bay was designed for it. I've got two other Buick 215s sitting in my garage, one complete and one in pieces. They are neat engines with aluminum intakes, rockers, etc. they are nice and light. They used to be used in a lot of Corvair conversions and marine and home built aircraft applications.

ya i see one of the tricks are to put a buick 300 crank in and it give you some more inches and if you use the 300 head it gives you more Flow

It's looking like this project is going to be a while need to put the red 3.4 dohc fiero back on the road and up for sale to fund this project for my 88 gt t top or as i call it Smokey blue

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 05-20-2012).]

Sometimes it's smarter to just think about a project than to do it, and anyway thinking about it doesn't cost anything and it IS fun. A little mental stimulation for free.

Yes dreaming is cheap fun I have many ideas / dreams and have a good time talking about them like i wonder how R134a would work in a closed loop steam turbine

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 05-20-2012).]

Not as well as helium.

quote Originally posted by engine man: ... i wonder how R134a would work in a closed loop steam turbine

And why would you even want to do that? Not only is water immensely cheaper and immensely more plentiful than any synthetic refrigerant, but also the enthalpy (heat) of vaporization of water is more than 10 times that of R134a. See table of latent heats and this paper.

It's posts like this that cause people not to take you seriously. It's OK to "wonder" ... I do it all the time myself ... but at least perform a sanity check before starting a discussion about it. It would have taken you less than 15 seconds of Internet research to uncover the information I posted above. If you want to talk about replacing water with R718 then you might (or might not) be onto something.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 05-21-2012).]

what my thinking was that you would want a liquid that lost most of its energy while working in the turbine and Carie little to no heat out the exhaust so it contraction and expansion are far apart with small amounts of heat making the pressure difference really high but any way i am sure i am not thinking of it right . but i do have one guy interested in my 3.4 dohc stuff with the red car that i put a 3.4 dohc in so maybe i will just get the rover engine