I saw an old Honest Charley magazine ad on tv for an adaptor "HE-4" that adapted a 32-48 Ford or 39-50 Merc transmission to the "GM Aluminum V8". I don't think I've ever seen any of the cars listed with a GM aluminum V8. Are they refering to the early 60's Olds V8? What's the history of the motor? I assume it wasn't/isn't a popular swap?
might be the 215ci engine that Rover bought from Buick in the early 60's. It was a big hit in the UK thats for sure
Buick Special, Olds F-85/Cutlass and Pontiac Tempest 215 cubic inch aluminum V8 from 1961 thru 1963 is what I would assume they were referring to. The base engine was the same for all three, but the cylinder heads differed. Buick had a set of heads that mimicked the Nailhead and that version was used by Pontiac. The Olds had a head design that looked like...well...an Oldsmobile. Relatively few Pontiacs got the V8...the Tempest Slant 4 was the hot news at the time. Though the engine was considerable lighter in weight, they were not smaller than a typical 'small block' V8 and had limited cubic inches to boot. For 1964 models, Buick switched to cast iron blocks, changed the bellhousing bolt pattern to what is now called the BOP bolt pattern and used the aluminum heads and intake, increased cubic inches to 300 and installed it in the new for '64 "A" Body Buick Special/Skylark. Pontiac and Olds built there own 326 and 330, respectively. As indicated in the above post.......Buick sold the design to Rover of England where it was developed up to 4.0 litres as I recall. Ray
I had one in a '63 Skylark. They were fast, would break 100 in the 1/4 mile. Rover bought them and put them in Land Rovers. I always wanted to put one in a '27 roadster.
All the info you posted was on the money except for what I quoted above. For a number of years Rover stayed with the engine's original 3.5L size. Over time there were 3.9L, 4.0L, 4.2L, and 4.6L versions(I think I remembered them all). On the early engines pretty much everything interchangfed with the U.S. engines. Although there continued to be some interchange with earlier engines, the last generations had 4 bolt mains and a number of upgrades that made them different. When Ford bought Rover they quit making the engine. Not sure if it ever happened, but there was talk of someone resuming production. Aftermarket blocks, heads, crankshafts, valvetrain parts, and assorted other stuff is available for these engines. Using those parts(bring lots of money) it's possible to around 6.0L.
IIRC they have a steel liner for the pistons, so you can only bore it out so much. Other than that, not a bad engine.
Yeah, the 4.0 and 4.6 were the later structurally-improved versions of the 3.9 and 4.2. It was also widely used in the British kit-car and specialty-sportscar industry, by TVR and others, and was built I think in displacements as large as 5.2 liters for those applications. The early Rover engines had a pair of Stromberg carburetors, later ones were FI of various flavors, there's piles of different aftermarket manifolds available for those.
and... the valve covers mimicked the look of the Nailhead, but the heads were pretty standard V8 at that point and didn't have the horizontal mounting.
Was and still is a popular swap, especially in smaller, lightweight cars like MGs, Healeys etc. Lots of info can be found here: http://www.aluminumv8.com/index.htm BTW- Dan Gurney qualified M/Ts 'baby nailhead' 8th for the 1962 Indy 500.
The biggest ongoing issue with this engine has been one problem or another with the cylinder liners. The GM blocks had cast in place liners. It wasn't too unusual for the liners to shift out of position during the casting process. Rover eliminated that problem, but then at different times made engines with liners that were too tight and cracked the aluminum behind them, or that were too loose. The later blocks have a bigger bore minimal material supporting the sleeves. With casting and machining imperfections added to an already marginal situation there were more cracked blocks and liner problems. If you want to use one of the blocks that tended to have problems proper resleeving using the right methods can correct the problem.
And..... read the rest of that post. I described the other displacements Rover offered and gave some additional info as well. The guy said he thought Rover started out with 3.5L and ended up with 4.0L. I listed what he either forgot or didn't know.
The engine only makes sense in light cars. Even then it's shy on power if not upgraded. Fortunately it's not too hard or expensive to get more power out of them.
I had a 215 Olds aluminum V8, muncie 4 gear and a 456 dana 44 in my '71 Vega sedan delivery. It weighed 20 lbs more than the stock 4 banger and went like shit off a shiny shovel...pulled the wheels in 2nd gear! Unfortunately the block cavitatted and I replaced it with a SBC.
I'm putting an Olds 215 with a T-5 in my Model A modified. There' a lot of info on OT sites about these. Parts are not as common as a SMC though
the army used a all aluminum 283 in a track veh called an M-115. it had a billit block as well as billit heads. the intake was also billit. I dont know were the motors came from other then they were 283s and would run real hard with an allison auto trans. I understand from an old maint sgt they were around from 1957 thru 1963. I had seen them used on tank ranges in the 70s and had a set of heads and a intake.
And the Repco 3-liter V8 that won the 1966 Formula 1 drivers and constructors championship for Jack Brabham was an Olds block destroked to 3 liters with Aussie-designed SOHC heads. Think it was said to be the least powerful engine in the field but it was light and didn't break.
Billet? 283, um, i'd Ike to see pictures of that!!!! And until I see pics, I ain't a believer............
"billit" as in "bill it to the taxpayer"? Just because it's aluminum doesn't make it billet. How would you machine all the undercuts and water passages In a block without making it in in a dozen pieces?
Water passages are typically machined in, then a plate is welded over the cavity. The 4.1/4.5/4.9 Cadillac pushrod engine is light and compact. When GM got a handle on the problems the engine was also pretty reliable. The down side is that each version of the engine will tolerate almost no increasing in output over stock. If the engine is ok in stock form it's a possibility for some uses. If it doesn't have enough power as is, it's not a good option.
It was a guy in Michigan, D&D Fabrications, who did most of the 215 / Vega swaps, and sold many more kits to people who did the swap themself. D&D is still in business doing things with the engine, selling parts, and making MGB V-8 swap kits.
As JEM says, the Repco-Brabham engine derived from the 215 GM motor won the GP championship in '66 in the BT-14 and also won again in '67 with Denny Hulme at the wheel of the BT-24. Engine was under powered but reliable.
The engine is light, but as you say, underpowered. At stock power levels the engine only makes sense in very light cars. Fortunately the engine responds well to modification, so a little more power isn't hard to do.
There was some tracked personal carriers that were used for target practice out on the chocolate mountain bombing range that had aluminum 283 engines in them. we went out and looked at one thinking it would be a good racing motor. It didn't take the MP's long to catch up with us and run us off. I don't know about billet, but, they were chevy V8's and they were all aluminum.
^ Interesting but kinda strange... why worry about the small weight gain a light weight block would provide in a vehicle as heavy that APC? I wonder what the real reason was? Improved cooling? Gary
The Jalopy Journal
