What costs more?

[rkmdogs]

O.K. bean-counters & you inside techies..... Let's play a hypothetical game. GM needs a new engine for a new mid-size car. What do we power it with? Decision must be based on engine build cost. Let's assume both engines would have the same displacement, and have to be a 90 degree V-configuration. What should we choose? A high tech V-6, but that has the component costs of a counterbalance shaft, to eliminate vibration, and the bearings for it to run in, and gears or a chain/belt to drive it. Or, A V-8, but that has 2 more pistons, connecting rods, and 4 more valves. But it doesn't need a balance shaft. Which would take more assembly time (labor) which has to figure into this cost equation? O.K., let's have some opinions, based on facts.

[razoredge]

Extra shaft and gear is more machine work than 2 extra rods and pistons, however V8 block - 2 more holes to line bore, heads - larger manifolds-2 more runners, crank - two more journals to machine, more camshaft, larger heads 4 more valves/2 chambers. So you tell me ? Myself with DOD in V8's Id like to see GM produce 2 smaller aluminum 8's say a 4 & 3.5 or less, something compact for the smaller cars. F1 is going to V8 now at very small displacement. Lots of power to be had in small bore short stroke V8 and not take up much more room than a I4 but do it so much better.

[capriceman]

V8 will have Low end torque which is good for acceleration. and the V8 is faster to build.

[Sixty8panther]

Like I keep saying: GM should make a modern day 215. A small aluminum V8 engine that would range from perhaps 2.9 to 3.5 liters. Small, cmopact and lightweight but with all the appeal of a SBC. Imagine an ALL V8 division from GM wiht a full size range of cars! Like Cadillac and Buick. Even a compact Skylark could have a 2.9 liter V8 standard. Add to that the fact that it could me mounted longetudinaly and transversely and you've got a winning combo! :metal:

[PontiacTechNJ]

until the silly catera , cadillac was all V8

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

a 2.0L V8 w/ DoD might be kinda cool... but then again with hp/L off a LS2 its only 133hp... and about 130torque. But then again.... at such a small size it could be built to easially revv, it would make enough torque throughout the powerband to still have reasonable power in the low end... but w/ a redline of 8000 or so it could plausibly make about 150hp. based on the LS7... 142hp. but then again i doubt this engine would get better mileage than an I4, and its only comparable to a current I4... maybe a 2.5L... about 166hp to LS2 standards... 2.8L V8... 186 (only slightly more than the Colorado 2.8 I4) how about a 3.0L V8 option as a very sporty engine... definately not mainstream in any way... give it a redline of 9000rpm... lets assume that at 8500rpm its still churning out meh.... 140 lb/torque.. thats about 225hp... kinda lethargic.... maybe with VVT and 3v and such it could make like 180 torque... 291hp... a 291hp 9000rpm V8 would be a very fun engine to drive. Maybe an RS option on a Camaro?

[rkmdogs]

All interesting wishes guys, but nobody put economics into the equation --- and that is what the bean-counters would do! I too, have very fond memories of the ol' 215cu.in.(3,5L), all-aluminum BOP engine of the early sixties that GM foolishly sold to B-L for the Rover. But you have to recall the reason that they did that. Besides money, it was a "dirty" engine that even Rover was never able to clean up enough to meet pollution standards until they got rid of the carburetor. And then there was the porosity issue of the castings----- but technical advances have solved both of these problems. I would love to see GM produce another all-aluminum 3.5L engine, maybe based on an LS2, but with some cam sophistication, maybe DOHC and VVT and DOD! But I don't think corporate would allow it in any-front drive platform, and we all know what's available NOW in RWD................... in an appropriate sized vehicle---- 0!!!!!!

[razoredge]

Gee, I thought I did a good job putting economics into the equation. There is no doubt the extra 2 holes in the V8 is far more than simply two more holes/4 more valves. Besides that I have 4 V6's here that have no balance shaft, not the best thing at idle but not an issue otherwise. Im not suggesting a new engine with no balance shaft. Only way to know which is best, cheapest, most profitable in the future is to watch what the Japs, Koreans, and Chinese do. All else will be just as you say "interesting wishes". :unsure:

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Rotaries for all!! 6.0L 6 rotor Rotary truck engine!! 450lb torque @ 6000rpm!!! 685hp @ 9000!! :P that my friend is the engine of the future

[Eric Bryant]

A high tech V-6, but that has the component costs of a counterbalance shaft, to
eliminate vibration, and the bearings for it to run in, and gears or a chain/belt
to drive it.

Is an countershaft even effective at balancing out a 90-degree V6? It has a primary imbalance, not the secondary imbalance of a inline-4, and so I think it's a completely different situation.

Frankly, the cost difference between the two engines is basically a wash compared to the big question that's out there - which one can be run down an existing assembly line? If the V6 shares the same 4.4" bore spacing as the current GM V8s, then it'll be far less expensive to tool-up than a smaller V8 with a reduced bore spacing.

As to comments from others about the V8 having "more torque", keep in mind that when talking about engines of equal displacement, the one having fewer cylinders will typically have a higher peak torque at a lower RPM. Simply compare the average sportbike 1000cc V-twin to a 1000cc I4 and see what the powerbands look like. V8s are not inherently torquey; they're that way because they carry a lot of displacement.

[rkmdogs]

Is an countershaft even effective at balancing out a 90-degree V6? It has a primary imbalance, not the secondary imbalance of a inline-4, and so I think it's a completely different situation.

Frankly, the cost difference between the two engines is basically a wash compared to the big question that's out there - which one can be run down an existing assembly line? If the V6 shares the same 4.4" bore spacing as the current GM V8s, then it'll be far less expensive to tool-up than a smaller V8 with a reduced bore spacing.

As to comments from others about the V8 having "more torque", keep in mind that when talking about engines of equal displacement, the one having fewer cylinders will typically have a higher peak torque at a lower RPM. Simply compare the average sportbike 1000cc V-twin to a 1000cc I4 and see what the powerbands look like. V8s are not inherently torquey; they're that way because they carry a lot of displacement.

[post="48725"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Eric,
The big ogre that I initially was thinking about was the friction horsepower.
For those of you who may never have read Internal Combustion Engines, which was a college text written by Prof. Edward F. Obert, he discusses this design
factor in the section called: performance factors.
He says that this is a very difficult to determine even with operating and test
conditions on a working engine.
He defines it as the power that is used to overcome the internal friction in the engine from the number and surface area of the moving parts, the induction of the
fuel-air charge and also the delivery of the exhaust gases.
The math equation he uses says that:
indicated horsepower equals brake or delivered horsepower plus frictional horsepower.
A measure of some of it is accomplished by turning an engine with an external
electric dynamometer(engine not firing), but other factors such as oil temp,
throttle setting, rpm must be fixed and noted. This factor then helps in determining
a given engines' mechanical efficiency.

Maybe I did not fix enough of the variables when I set up this question? Edited December 3, 2005 by rkmdogs

[Member55]

How about this, lets say that HF 3.6 V6 and LS1 V8 cost the same to build(I know the LS1 is not made anymore). IIRC the CTS's base MSRP with the 3.6 and automatic is about $35.8K. So, take the LS1 and put it in the CTS and charge only $1k extra(to cover for better brakes and suspension upgrade). Nobody could complain that the Cadillac is using "old tech" engine because it would be up to the customers to pick a DOHC engine with less power or an LS1 with more power for about the same money. Cadillac would own the market while still making the same profit per sold CTS as they already do. Selling 100K CTS's a year would be a piece of cake.

[razoredge]

You make a good point. Now the LS1 would have been last years CTS-V engine though wouldnt it ? 350hp ? No doubt in my mind they would see better profit on that LS1.

[Member55]

You make a good point. Now the LS1 would have been last years CTS-V engine though wouldnt it ? 350hp ?

No doubt in my mind they would see better profit on that LS1.

[post="52923"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The LS6 was in the CTS-V.

[Carguy]

please----((PLEASE!!))----NO SMALL 3.5L or 215CI WEAK V8's!! That would be a HORRABLE IDEA to have a V8 thats NO BETTER then competiters V6's!! I agree with Member55 and have said like things before about useing a SB V8 in the REGULAR CTS. With the PROPER GEARING and DOD a OHV SB V8 powered CTS could get BETTER FUEL ECONOMY then a LOWER GEARED HIGHER REVVING LESS TORQUEY 3.6L DOHC V6 does! Why not KILL the competiters over just competing with them? Let CADDY be a ALL V8 brand AGAIN!!

[rkmdogs]

Hey guys, this is a tech section, not a sales and marketing forum! Get back to the basic question, which was about engineering and manufacturing cost!

[razoredge]

please----((PLEASE!!))----NO SMALL 3.5L or 215CI WEAK V8's!! That would be a HORRABLE IDEA to have a V8 thats NO BETTER then competiters V6's!! I agree with Member55 and have said like things before about useing a SB V8 in the REGULAR CTS. With the PROPER GEARING and DOD a OHV SB V8 powered CTS could get BETTER FUEL ECONOMY then a LOWER GEARED HIGHER REVVING LESS TORQUEY 3.6L DOHC V6 does! Why not KILL the competiters over just competing with them? Let CADDY be a ALL V8 brand AGAIN!!

[post="52945"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

We werent talking about Caddy to begin with just as an example in the last few posts. If there is balance complications with the V6 why not make the smaller displacement engines V8's. They only need to compete at that 3-4 litre level but be capable of running smoother and haveing DOD. Having claims of an all V8 brand and ideas of that sort will not sell cars and even has less novelity in these times.

A few of us have covered all the aspects of V6 vs V8, RKM, I guess your just going to have to break the suspence.

[Member55]

Hey guys, this is a tech section, not a sales and marketing forum!

Get back to the basic question, which was about engineering and manufacturing cost!

[post="52976"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

My post was about manufacturing cost.

[Carguy]

We werent talking about Caddy to begin with just as an example in the last few posts. If there is balance complications with the V6 why not make the smaller displacement engines V8's. They only need to compete at that 3-4 litre level but be capable of running smoother and haveing DOD. Having claims of an all V8 brand and ideas of that sort will not sell cars and even has less novelity in these times.

A few of us have covered all the aspects of V6 vs V8, RKM, I guess your just going to have to break the suspence.

[post="53044"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

A weak small V8 to compete with V6's is a ((BAD IDEA!!))---And Member55's point allong with mine are GOOD! How do these points NOT FIT IN THIS FORUM?? <_<

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

you could probably tune a V8 to get better gas mileage than a V6 at roughly the same power cant you?

[razoredge]

A weak small V8 to compete with V6's is a ((BAD IDEA!!))---And Member55's point allong with mine are GOOD! How do these points NOT FIT IN THIS FORUM?? <_<

[post="53079"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

and why ((DO YOU SAY THIS ??)) What is your POINT and MEANING behind USING ((WEAK)) in referenceing small displacement ENGINES for the SMALLER cars ((?????)) It is after all ABOUT ECONOMICS in MANUFACTURING as well as ECONOMICS for the CONSUMER.

And RAZOREDGE made the first GOOD evaluation of all the WORK and MATERIALS involved ALONG TIME AGO, and that apparently DID NOT FIT IN THIS TOPIC EITHER (((!!!!!!!)))

I'M NOT SURPRISED :unsure:

[Newbiewar]

a v8 has to be a larger displacement motor, because... there are more moving parts and generally heavier moving parts... so if a 2.0 v8 or a 2.0 4 I4 were to go head to head... the 4 banger should win due to its weight advantage... it should have less piston mass to move and less rockers lifters, etc to move....

[razoredge]

I dont know about that as far as it being carved in stone. Its all old news now and passed history and not really applicable to common road cars but the Italians have been building small displacement V8's and V12's for decades that matched and sometimes even beat engines half again larger. I feel the main point of interest lies in the fact that a V8 is such a smooth and uncomplicated engine at this time when everyone seems to be most interested in how smooth and quite a engine is. It would cost more to build small displacement V8's but the results may be beneficial.

[rkmdogs]

a v8 has to be a larger displacement motor, because... there are more moving parts and generally heavier moving parts...

so if a 2.0 v8 or a 2.0 4 I4 were to go head to head... the 4 banger should win due to its weight advantage... it should have less piston mass to move and less rockers lifters, etc to move....

[post="53856"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Total crap! That's like saying what weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers! If the engines are of the same displacement, the mass of material CAN
be the same!
The question still comes back to internal friction. More pistons, rod, etc of V-8 are
offset by extra balancing components required in the V-6, if both engines are 90 vees. That is, unless you want to live with a "shaker".

Change the Vee angle, and you have an entirely different ball game!

Razor finally made a good point. The Italians have been building small displacement V-8's and more that out-perform other engine configurations. Efficiency, is the key; at that brings in the issue of internal friction again. Anybody listening? <_<

Razor, this was not a trick question. I don't have an answer, because the answer
depends on the flexibility of the engine manufacturing operations; the adaptability of the transfer machines in their set-ups and fast tool change capability. This is something your manufacturing engineers would know.
Technology has come a long way, since I was doing hands-on stuff.
Old-time stumbling blocks don't even cause a hiccup with todays technology and
the advent of computer-controlled machining. Once the programs are written
and proved out, --- some machines could be run by trained apes!..........
Come to think of it, some are! (joke)!!!!!! Edited December 7, 2005 by rkmdogs

[razoredge]

Extra shaft and gear is more machine work than 2 extra rods and pistons, however V8 block - 2 more holes to line bore,  heads - larger manifolds-2 more runners,  crank - two more journals to machine, more camshaft, larger heads 4 more valves/2 chambers.

So you tell me ?

Myself with DOD in V8's Id like to see GM produce 2 smaller aluminum 8's say a 4 & 3.5 or less, something compact for the smaller cars.

F1 is going to V8 now at very small displacement. Lots of power to be had in small bore short stroke V8 and not take up much more room than a I4 but do it so much better.

[post="40114"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I make alot of good points :lol: everyone doesnt want to listen :rolleyes:

It seems obvious that V6 is cheaper, otherwise we'd be seeing small V8's instead of the V6's. Correct ?

I figure if the 6 is such a hastle go for 3 litre V8. 90* packages better, especially with OHCams those 60*'s are some tall engine.

[Carguy]

A three liter V8 tuned like the NS V8 would put out around 225HP and 220FT/LB of Torque at a like RPM! If thats what you want for GM then you MUST desire their DEATH! :angry: <_< You have made TO MANY good posts in the past to ACTUALLY think THAT Razer! Think about what it is you are saying!! A three and a half liter V8 would put out 255HP and 250HP!----And YAH THATS WEAK compaired to the 3.5L ((V6's)) in the compatition. EMASCULATE GM??----I DONT THINK SO!! <_<

[razoredge]

A three liter V8 tuned like the NS V8 would put out around 225HP and 220FT/LB of Torque at a like RPM! If thats what you want for GM then you MUST desire their DEATH! :angry:  <_< You have made TO MANY good posts in the past to ACTUALLY think THAT Razer! Think about what it is you are saying!! A three and a half liter V8 would put out 255HP and 250HP!----And YAH THATS WEAK compaired to the 3.5L ((V6's)) in the compatition. EMASCULATE GM??----I DONT THINK SO!! <_<

[post="55622"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well heres a 6 year old 3.5
V8
Displacement: 3586 cc
Horsepower: 395 bhp @ 8500 rpm
Torque: 275 lb-ft @ 4750 rpm
Redline: 8500 rpm

So I owuld think for a basic transport car GM could do better than 2 out of a 3. Im not talking about this for the large cars, we have those V8's.

I love my old 3.8's better than anyone I think, but Im tired of hearing about smoothness and quiteness so why keep fighting this V6 when it just not naturally balanced.

Besides that we know they can get just as much per cube out of an 8 as a 6 as a 4

[rkmdogs]

Do any of you guys remember the old Road and Track magazine test data?

In their calculated data section they used to list Engine revs/mile, piston travel in
ft/mile, engine speed in rpm at piston speed of 2500ft/min, the equivalent mph,
and finally a wear index.

These were all good measures to tell you about the engine efficiency and wear,
i.e., how long it might last.

Engine speeds of 8500 rpm, while attainable do not contribute to long engine life!
........ and gentlemen, we are talking about street machines, not racing applications!

To use a prior analogy of proportion ratios, if the 7.0L ZO6 achives 505hp and
470lbs-ft of torque, proportionately a 3.5L V-8 with similar characteristics would
theoretically produce 253hp and 235lbs-ft of torque.

Now, the key answer to whether or not that is enough is, what is the vehicle
that is going to use this mini-Z going to weigh? The Vette calculates out to
6.2 lbs/hp. That would mean that the new vehicle could not weigh more than
1569 lbs. Not practical for an everyday street car, even in Soltice size. Then
the other variable would be gearing relative to the available 253 hp.
It might call for a new gearbox with some different ratios.
Back to the drawing boards gentlemen!!!!

Oh yeah, BTW
In 1962 R & T magazine tested an AC-Aceca powered by a 3.5L all- aluminum
Buick engine, (the ol' BOP 215).
The car weighed 2430 lbs., did 0-60mph 7.7sec., the 1/4 in 15.3sec @ 93mph,
and that was with an ADVERTISED 185hp and 230lbs-ft of torque!
To add frosting on the cake, that was with the old split-torque, 2 speed auto
trans that Buick used to make!

Edited December 9, 2005 by rkmdogs

[Carguy]

Well heres a 6 year old 3.5
V8
Displacement: 3586 cc
Horsepower: 395 bhp @ 8500 rpm
Torque: 275 lb-ft @ 4750 rpm
Redline: 8500 rpm

So I owuld think for a basic transport car GM could do better than 2 out of a 3. Im not talking about this for the large cars, we have those V8's.

I love my old 3.8's better than anyone I think, but Im tired of hearing about smoothness and quiteness so why keep fighting this V6 when it just not naturally balanced.

Besides that we know they can get just as much per cube out of an 8 as a 6 as a 4

[post="55679"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

So you would want say a future Malibu to have a REDLINE up around 8K RPM with its 3.5L 4VPC DOHC 90 degree V8? To get that kind of POWER for normal driveing it would need a VERY LOW axel ratio like 5.00 to 1 witch KILL FUEL ECONOMY! They would be better off with a OHV 4.5L 2VPC DOD 90 degree V8 tuned like the LS2 with 300HP and 310FT/LB of Torque and a HIGHER axel ratio like 3.00 to 1. But then people would JOKE about GM's V8 getting NO MORE HORSEPOWER then COMPETITERS 3.5L V6's! DONT get me WRONG I would LOVE a V8 in something like the Bu but (V8) has a premium image to it and SHOULD NOT be compairable to V6's when it comes to POWER.

[razoredge]

fellas, fellas, fellas, I put that engine up to show the power that could be made, no way in hell would I think of wasting an engine the equivelant of the Modena in a stupid Malibu or Impala. Im not a Chevy guy OK, Chevy makes great trucks, an awsome sports car and at one time a really cool American Pony car. Outside of that I could care less what Chevy makes so long as they dont get funding that should be at Buick and dont build cars that compete with Buick. After all it was Buick and their great V6 engine that kept GM somewhat in the car market. Those 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, Chevy powered cars did little for GMs rep. Thats why Buick needs more attention, more R&D funds, and an exciting little car. Buick towed the line through the 80's and 90's along with Olds and Pontiac but I think the profits went to saturin and Fiat. Of course I realize this engine would need to be shared but thats after the fact. I was more thinking about a state of the art 3 litre DOHC 90* V8 to power the up and comming 3000lb Wildcat sports sedan and coupe, built to compete on the market against the little BMW's, Acuras, Inifinitys and Lexus. Of course the Wildcat coupe would be much more highly tuned, personal, and quite serious, they could cam that to spin to 7000 and it would not bother me, but a Malibu?.....((NOT!!!!!!))

[razoredge]

oh, and the BS about a V8 needs to be large and produce large or its loosing face is some kind of hang up I do not have. I rarely think about piston count having any kind of special meaning. Its the displacement and technology thats applicable to results, only. If its 3 litre and it produces 225 thats pretty damn good in typical cars, so what if its a 4, 6 or 8, whats that got to do with a 225 hp 3 litre. Sound and smoothness, thats it. The rest is some form of housewifes mentality or something. I dont know what it is but I dont subscribe to it. Perhaps you are suggesting its better to cater to the ignorance of the mechanically challenged that think number of pistons = power. Be that the case then Ferrari and Jag must be the all time power leader with all their little V12 and flat 12 usage. Back in the 50's before everyone caught up, Ferrari was destroying much larger engined cars with little 2.6 & 3.0 litre V12's.

[razoredge]

RKM, love that Aceca, have never seen one. Tell me about this Buick powered one. Was than an available engine option ? There is a guy locally that has an Ace Bristol, I just love that car. All aluminum with the little 2 litre I6. Guess Shelby saw something in them also. The rest is history. This 215 powered one is interesting. I think that engine got quite a bit of use in road racing from bits and pieces Ive heard. I believe that is the same/similar engine used by Leyland in the TR8 and I also wonder about what other sports cars Leyland put that engine in ? The Stag ?

[Carguy]

HOUSEWIFES MENTALITY??----Its a HOUSEWIFE who would see that PUNY LITTLE V8 and think its CUTE!! Till she DROVE IT THAT IS!! You would need to DRIVE IT LOKE YOU HATE IT meanwhile the LEXUS IS350 would BLOW ITS DOORS OFF!! ((A 3 Liter 7000RPM V8 Wildcat?))----PAAALEEEEEEASE! That would DEGRADE BUICK'S BRAND! Its fine to like ITALIAN sports cars and their tiny HIGHSTRUNG Engines but that fits that market.----((NOT BUICKS!!))----And the WARE and TEAR would be TERRABLE!! Do you REALIZE the amount of fuel that little V8 would use at 7000RPM that it could ONLY REACH with a HORRABLY LOW AXEL RATIO? GAS--HOG---CITY!

[razoredge]

HOUSEWIFES MENTALITY??----Its a HOUSEWIFE who would see that PUNY LITTLE V8 and think its CUTE!! Till she DROVE IT THAT IS!! You would need to DRIVE IT LOKE YOU HATE IT meanwhile the LEXUS IS350 would BLOW ITS DOORS OFF!! ((A 3 Liter 7000RPM V8 Wildcat?))----PAAALEEEEEEASE! That would DEGRADE BUICK'S BRAND! Its fine to like ITALIAN sports cars and their tiny HIGHSTRUNG Engines but that fits that market.----((NOT BUICKS!!))----And the WARE and TEAR would be TERRABLE!! Do you REALIZE the amount of fuel that little V8 would use at 7000RPM that it could ONLY REACH with a HORRABLY LOW AXEL RATIO? GAS--HOG---CITY!

[post="55944"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

yo mister ya wanna drop the attitude, if Im not thinking of the kind of car that you are that is your problem and should not be put on me as my problem. You dont like my views and visions you stay the Fyuk off my back, your replys here have been complete bull and I was just expressing my view.

Ya wanna have some kind of fight, do it face to face not what ever you have been up to here, on the other side of some phone line.

Immature AH

[rkmdogs]

RKM, love that Aceca, have never seen one. Tell me about this Buick powered one. Was than an available engine option ? There is a guy locally that has an Ace Bristol, I just love that car. All aluminum with the little 2 litre I6. Guess Shelby saw something in them also. The rest is history. This 215 powered one is interesting. I think that engine got quite a bit of use in road racing from bits and pieces Ive heard. I believe that is the same/similar engine used by Leyland in the TR8 and I also wonder about what other sports cars Leyland put that engine in ? The Stag ?

[post="55839"][/post]

Razor,
No this was not a factory option--- and neither were the Ford-engined ones made by Carol Shelby as Cobras! Shelby never picked up on the coupe, sticking only with the roadster.
This conversion was the handiwork of Rip Carter, of Carter's Foreign Car Service in Bell, CA.
The Buick engine while slightly bigger was actually lighter than the stock 6-banger
that AC used, being wider but not taller.
R&T raved about the outcome, claiming that this car had everything anyone could want; speed, handling, brakes and reliability...... and then even COMFORT!
Lance Reventlow made his 2nd generation Scarabs using the BOP V-8 as well,
but later owners of these cars switched them to SBC engines for more displacement.
GM sold all the patent rights and tooling for the 215 to British-Leyland in 1963, when they introduced the V-6, and the replacement for the V-8 was the 300cu.in.
cast iron block, aluminum-head engine. The one reason I know of for this change
was cost. The aluminum engine had a propensity for getting air pockets trapped
in the casting, that were not revealed by any inspection means known at that time.
They could get an engine 90% machined and then uncover one of these voids, and
the engine was then scrap! It was claimed that the BOP aluminum engine was
costing an average of $200 more for each engine produced than the all cast-iron
ones. They used a system of air gaging on those aluminum ones to try and find
leakers.

British-Leyland bought the engine for Rover sedans, and then later after the intro of the TR7 body style, upgraded that car with this engine and made the TR8.

One of the domestic problems with this engine, as was discovered by Rover was,
that the engine was "dirty" when it came to the new USA pollution standards.
Remember mandated pollution controls first appeared on 1963 models under
Federal Law. Under those first regs, where everbody was shooting in the dark, so-
to-speak, even holy water was suspect!
Rover had outfitted the engine with SU carbs and never got it to pass the regs, until they switched the intake system!

I've never heard of the Stag getting this engine, but it is a possibility, since the Stag was an upscale TR anyway.

That's all I have at this time on this history. Oh yeah, GM tried to buy it back when they bought the V-6 back from B-L, but Leyland said no, we will sell you complete
engines. GM told them to go scratch! B)

[razoredge]

Next time Im at one of the Vintage Races I'll have to check a few of those Scarabs and see if they have the aluminum engine. They sound like a 350 or more but I have never heard a 215. With straight pipes they too probably have the low roar of the Domestic V8.

[razoredge]

Well I found this on Stag, dont know much about it but this engine appears to be OHC ????? Does that mean its not the Buick based eingine ? Or does that mean they were using just the block castings ? Now I wonder more about the TR8 engine, there was a convertable just recently for sale locally, Im now sorry I did not stop and check it out.

Webster wanted the car to be produced with the option of new Triumph V8 that was also currently  under development. The Triumph V8 was being developed as a fuel injected 2.5 litre unit but was still in its early development stages.  During this time Triumph merged to become part of  British Leyland and interal coporate changes saw Webster's talents being directed to the Austin-Morris divison. 

The reigns for the Stag development  where taken up by Rovers Spen King, during which time the V8's development saw the enlargement from 2.5 to 3 litres and fuel injection dropped in favour of  a more reliable carburetor set up.

[rkmdogs]

Next time Im at one of the Vintage Races I'll have to check a few of those Scarabs and see if they have the aluminum engine. They sound like a 350 or more but I have never heard a 215. With straight pipes they too probably have the low roar of the Domestic V8.

[post="56196"][/post]

Razor,
You will be looking for a needle in a haystack. There were only 2 or possibly 3,
according to some tales of the second gen Scarabs built. Only one is known to exist now, and that one has had a 350 SBC swap in place of the BOP. The other vintage racing Scarabs are the original first gen.- front engine ones. 2nd gen was
a rear engine design with RHD. I showed a model pic of it on another thread. I put a copy below:rolleyes:

Edited December 12, 2005 by rkmdogs

[rkmdogs]

Well I found this on Stag, dont know much about it but this engine appears to be OHC ????? Does that mean its not the Buick based eingine ? Or does that mean they were using just the block castings ? Now I wonder more about the TR8 engine, there was a convertable just recently for sale locally, Im now sorry I did not stop and check it out.

[post="56201"][/post]

This engine DEFINITELY is not the BOP all-aluminum 215! Here is the frontal cross-section pic from the factory service manual
Edited December 12, 2005 by rkmdogs

[Carguy]

yo mister ya wanna drop the attitude, if Im not thinking of the kind of car that you are that is your problem and should not be put on me as my problem. You dont like my views and visions you stay the Fyuk off my back, your replys here have been complete bull and I was just expressing my view.

Ya wanna have some kind of fight, do it face to face not what ever you have been up to here, on the other side of some phone line.

Immature AH

[post="56056"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Put them up razermister!-- :P --Put them up NOW!!

[Newbiewar]

well excuse me for trying... but a same displacement of a v8 vrs v6 vrs i6 vrs i4 you're going to vote with the v8 for performance, weight, efficency, and cost?

[rkmdogs]

well excuse me for trying... but a same displacement of a v8 vrs v6 vrs i6 vrs i4 you're going to vote with the v8 for performance, weight, efficency, and cost?

[post="58548"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Who are you addressing, Newbiewar?

[razoredge]

well excuse me for trying... but a same displacement of a v8 vrs v6 vrs i6 vrs i4 you're going to vote with the v8 for performance, weight, efficency, and cost?

[post="58548"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

and Im not really sure what you are saying. It could be interpreted many ways.

[Newbiewar]

Who are you addressing, Newbiewar?

[post="58871"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

and Im not really sure what you are saying. It could be interpreted many ways.

[post="58904"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

nobody specifically, but when i suggested that a equally sized motor 2.4 i4 and a 2.4 v8... i mentioned the v8 would have more moving parts and would be heavier, have more moving mass etc... but in reality... we are talking about cost of performance, or ecconomy...

either way... in my beleive it would be cheaper and more powerful to have a 4 banger...

even though a v8 could outpower a 4banger... it would likely be more expensive, and possibly less efficent.

[razoredge]

nobody specifically, but when i suggested that a equally sized motor 2.4 i4 and a 2.4 v8... i mentioned the v8 would have more moving parts and would be heavier, have more moving mass etc...  but in reality... we are talking about cost of performance, or ecconomy...

either way... in my beleive it would be cheaper and more powerful to have a 4 banger...

even though a v8 could outpower a 4banger... it would likely be more expensive, and possibly less efficent.

[post="59270"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yes I agree with most of this.

Now the question is, which makes the best driving experience ? When your driving a four, you know, no mistakin it. Then with the V6 you have that odd cylinder count. Now with the V8 you have smoothness and sound.

If you save 200 per engine, production cost, are you ahead of the game when the extra work and results of a V8 could bring you .......another 1000? per car ?

[Im just pulling numbers out of the air, I have no idea how much total costs to manufacture an engine run]

[Newbiewar]

Yes I agree with most of this.

Now the question is, which makes the best driving experience ? When your driving a four, you know, no mistakin it. Then with the V6 you have that odd cylinder count. Now with the V8 you have smoothness and sound.

If you save 200 per engine, production cost, are you ahead of the game when the extra work and results of a V8 could bring you .......another 1000? per car ?

[Im just pulling numbers out of the air, I have no idea how much total costs to manufacture an engine run]

[post="60194"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

personally if GM started ramping up production of v8's they could quite possibly out do the smaller blocks in expense. and the consumer will benifit as well by having a better driving experiance. seeing that a v8 has a combustion ever 90* of crankshaft travel, vrs the v6 of 120* and a jarring 180* per crankshaft rotation on the inline 4 banger... likely you're going to get a happier audience with the slightly more expensive smother acceloration of a v8.

[Newbiewar]

personally if GM started ramping up production of v8's they could quite possibly out do the smaller blocks in expense.  and the consumer will benifit as well by having a better driving experiance.  seeing that a v8 has a combustion ever 90* of crankshaft travel, vrs the v6 of 120* and a jarring 180* per crankshaft rotation on the inline 4 banger...  likely you're going to get a happier audience with the slightly more expensive smother acceloration of a v8.

[post="60291"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

what costs more?

Word of mouth advertisement?

or

Standard Advertisment?

Which is more effective?

[razoredge]

personally if GM started ramping up production of v8's they could quite possibly out do the smaller blocks in expense.  and the consumer will benifit as well by having a better driving experiance.  seeing that a v8 has a combustion ever 90* of crankshaft travel, vrs the v6 of 120* and a jarring 180* per crankshaft rotation on the inline 4 banger...  likely you're going to get a happier audience with the slightly more expensive smother acceloration of a v8.

[post="60291"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Now were getting all the way around the full story. You get what you give.

Why keep fighting the V6. HF V8's down to 3 litre. Theres currently a 4.3 and larger, so two smaller engines ? For smaller cars.

Never happen, these new V6 Alloytecs will have a long run........ it might be a good time to start thinkin ahead. I believe cars are going to have to shrink again, this gasoline thing, there cant be a real, real good future in 2 ton cars.

Imagine an extremely effecient, [fuel, power, size&weight] hf alloy 3.0 in a 3200 lb or less car. Preferably 3000 lb..... must burn corn :AH-HA_wink:

Im tired :lol:

[rkmdogs]

Now were getting all the way around the full story. You get what you give.

I believe cars are going to have to shrink again, this gasoline thing, there cant be a real, real good future in 2 ton cars.

Imagine an extremely effecient, [fuel, power, size&weight] hf alloy 3.0 in a 3200 lb or less car. Preferably 3000 lb..... must burn corn  :AH-HA_wink:

[post="60666"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Razor,
You again have forgotten an important point. When are you going to invent the
shrinking ray to make people smaller. to fit in these smaller cars?
Ergonomics aside, people are not getting smaller! In fact they are getting bigger.
You can only stuff so many sardines in a given can. Yes, family size is shrinking,
so you don't have to have a "family car" that can accommodate 6 people---- unless
you use it as transportation for a bunch of friends or a "car pool" for work.
But the people are getting BIGGER--- and take up more room!
If you can figure out how to make a car like a "blivot", (That's five pounds of sh--,
in a 2 pound bag) then your "smaller car" theory might work....... or the market might become more segmented, with a "work-commute" car, separate from the
ol' family hauler. Didn't we already do that?

And fuels are going to change in the very near future. There will be several new options, to compete against petroleum---- and yeah, corn may be one of them!

I'd like to hold out for the "Blacklight Power" engine tho, where the fuel will be
plain ol' tap water! Go read about it at their website! It is not that far away...... Edited December 23, 2005 by rkmdogs

[razoredge]

Razor,
You again have forgotten an important point. When are you going to invent the
shrinking ray to make people smaller. to fit in these smaller cars?
Ergonomics aside, people are not getting smaller! In fact they are getting bigger.
You can only stuff so many sardines in a given can. Yes, family size is shrinking,
so you don't have to have a "family car" that can accommodate 6 people---- unless
you use it as transportation for a bunch of friends or a "car pool" for work.
But the people are getting BIGGER--- and take up more room!

[post="62090"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Come on RKM, cut me a break ! I tried really hard on this and I feel I came up with some good evaluations.

Cars currently come in all sizes and everyone over 18 is done growing so that covers the better percentage of the next 40 years of car buying public. Im not getting any larger and in fact at only 5:10 Im still larger (longer) than most men Ive worked around.

Our highways are stuffed full of one car one driver every morning on the way to work. Car pools stink. Not many that live in same area work in same area. Then it adds time involved with work everyday to have to meet up and wait and drive out of the way, ect. ect. Not that I am against it, but I know that is the majority.

Currently our fullsize cars are smaller than mid size cars of decades past yet they weigh nearly 1000 lb more. All jumbled up with electro garb and piggy toe air bags. For a small transportation car I'd rather have my money spent on a small refined alloy V8 and skip the piggy toe protection and "help me, Im lost" electro garb.

I'll take baffeling brilliance over dazzling bull anyday.