1961-63 Pontiac Tempest Four, Opinion?

Re: the corrosion problem in old aluminum engines. In the sixties the antifreeze was corrosive but it was controlled by added corrosion inhibitors. These inhibitors wore out after 2 or 3 years so, if you did not change your antifreeze regularly, you had corrosion problems. This was a small matter in cast iron engines but a big deal in aluminum. It used to be common, on iron engines, to take off the water pump or water neck and find it badly corroded. These parts were made of aluminum. A whole aluminum engine suffered badly, the water passages would get eaten out and the head gasket fail.

Around 1985 I noticed this was no longer the case. I would take a water pump off a car and the inside would be clean as a whistle, just like new. And I knew that customer was not that into maintaining his car.

They must have changed the formula of the antifreeze somewhere around 1980.

Now about the Buick-Rover V8. When Rover bought the engine from Buick they immediately started changing it. For one thing the original had a pressure die cast block. Rover did not have the technology so they changed it to a sand cast block. They made other changes to use English made carburetors and ignition plus who knows what else they did. There is an old saying, give an Englishman a piece of metal and he will do something silly with it lol. So by now with 50 years of mods and improvements it would be a wonder if anything was the same.

 

The 326 had a smaller bore but the same stroke (3.75) as the 389. Mark L

 

I drove one for awhile in the '70s. it wasn't my car but it belonged to a buddy that lived with me. Nothing special as far as performance goes but it seemed dependable and it really was kind of a hoot on a back road.

 

The Tempest four is crap. It was crap the day it was built. It was the cheapest way Pontiac could come up with a small engine.

It was done at a point in time when GM - to their credit - was trying everything. Transaxles, fuel injection, clever automatic transmissions, aluminum engines, OHC engines, rear engines, various IRS designs, etc.

That's a good thing. Some things succeed, some fail. Some should have died on the proving ground and never gone to market. Some were tremendous technical successes that were not the right product for the time. An evolved Tempest with the '65 Corvair rear suspension and the 300ci Buick V8 would have been a car the Germans couldn't touch until the '80s.

Gradually, the innovation mostly petered out, by the mid '60s GM was pumping out a whole lot of more-or-less identical product across all the divisions. Who really gives a crap whether an all-iron pushrod V8 is a Buick 455, a Chevy 454, a Pontiac 455? It's got a Q-Jet on top and a TH400 behind it. And of course Ed Cole killed innovation at GM for a decade or more by forcing the (an iron head on a die-cast open-deck aluminum block with a steel-shim head gasket? Give me an effin' break!) Vega engine to market long before it was finished.

The Pontiac four was one of the failures. It was an attempt at getting a small engine on the cheap and it's really, really nasty if used independently of its soft mounted rope-drive transaxle drivetrain.

If that doesn't put you off, if you want something authentically '60s and diffferent, go ahead.

It'll never, ever work as well as any of fifty other engines of similar or lighter weight including the 2-liter Pinto (I'm no fan of the 2.3 Lima), or a Saab B204/B234, or if four cylinders aren't a requirement an even-fire 3.8 Buick, or a 60-degree 3.4 Chevy, etc. but it depends on what you're trying to achieve.

Maybe some combination of modern hydraulic engine mounts could tame the shaking. What's GM use for mounts on the 5cyl DOHC Vortec truck engines? I'm sure the Poncho shakes a whole lot more than the Audi or Volvo inline-fives.

The aluminum V8 is an excellent engine, with lots of opportunities for mixing and matching parts, and it's better-supported in terms of overall parts availability than the Pontiac four.

 

Well,,,I must of gotten the only good one built in 3 years of production!! My 61 Tempest has over 500K on it. All numbers matching. 4 cylinder, 1bbl carb with a 2 speed automatic. Has been a daily driver for over 14 years.

 

If anyone wants to build a manly Tempest four, there's a set of 4 .030 oversize Arias forged domed pistons on Ebay right now.

 

I used to autocross a '63 Tempest LeMans convertible. 4 banger, 4-speed. The only problem I ever had was the shift linkage would tear away from the backbone, from time to time, and the shift lever would drop down so that only the knob was visible. I then had to limp home in what ever gear it was in. No engine problems.

We currently install the Rover V8 in many cars. They are actually very reliable and cheap, since soccer moms keep rolling them. They work well with carbs. If you keep the injection, there is a removable top plate on the intake plenum. Under the plate are 8 velocity stacks of different lengths. Looks like an '70s CanAm car if you use a clear Lexan cover.

If you like Pontiacs and want something unique, I'd use a OHC 6.

 

Thought of another advantage to using a Tempest drive train in a T bucket - no transmission hump. A big advantage in a narrow T bucket that has no foot room to begin with.

I agree with JEM up to a point, there are a hundred more modern, better and cheaper engines. The engine and trans out of a mini pickup truck would be rear drive and better and cheaper. But not as cool.

 

Yes, reliability counts for something. Usually a powertrain engineer's trying to hit a few other goals, too.

It used to be said that GM's fours were intentionally made rough enough to remind their buyers they should have bought something more expensive. Whether intentional or not, the rest was true of the Tempest motor, it was true of the Vega, more or less true of the pushrod 153 Chevy/Pontiac four, it was true of the odd-fire 225 V6 as well, even with the later Quad-4 they tried to avoid balance shafts and the result was uncompetitive in the market.

 

Going down that road means using the Tempest 'rope drive', transaxle, and swing-arm rear suspension. The whole powertrain in the Tempest was more or less a rigid assembly from front to rear, with the whole thing softly mounted to the car to accommodate the shaky motor, and I'm not sure how something like that's gonna work with a T.

Changing the length of that solid 'rope drive' driveshaft might be an interesting bit of work.

 

In my day I use to drag race my 1963 Tempest at the local track. I cracked 3 bell housinsgs but never tore up any mortor parts. I out ran the 6 cyl. Chevys & Fords that were running no stock. I was 100% stock. Good torque.

 

Those with an innovative mind have and do make these engines work quite well and anyone with half a brain (no pun intended) can maintain stock 195s that last and run fine for daily use.

 

Back in 84 I put one in my son's 48 CJ2A Jeep. It was a hill climber !!!!!!!!.

Lee

 

I had a 62 leMans that was four barrel 4-speed and it performed well and I probably would still have it if it hadn't been t-boned in 1965.
Parts availability should not be an issue, since it is half a 389, I say go for it.
Good Luck

 

Hi,
My Dad bought a 62 wagon new. Had 2 speed automatic. My brother and I beat the living shit out of it. It would lay rubber if you backed up fast and slammed it into low.
Dad bought a new Caprice in 66 and gave me the Tempest for a work car. I junked it two years later with a 167,000 miles on it,and only put one trany in it. So that was one tough buggy.
Have fun,
Merc man

 

Wow JEM,
Thats some serious hate on the 195 Poncho.
If your words are true then tell me why this car has gone 192mph at Speedweek on the salt in 2011? Yes the one pic is from 2010 when it only went 189mph? I expect it will go 200 this year, to bad I won't be there.
Here is a shot of my 62, runs fine with 150,000 miles.

 

A friend back in the say had one in a 62 Tempest 2door....It had a one bbl carb and an automatic transmission....In stock form it was a real slug...It would even slow down more whenever the airconditioner was turned on !!...and this was back in the late 60s when muscle cars were common....he bought it to save on gas !!

 

I have a 1963 tempest convertible that i just bought. Is it the same arrangement as your 1961?

I was wondering can you put the FULL 8 389 in it or would any modification be needed? Or the 326 engine?
Also i want to put bucket seats in. Do you know if there are holes already there and if i could put lemans buckets in it?

Also since i just got it, i know i am going to have a few more questions as i get into it..can you email me ([email protected])

 

just reading through the thread. so if you recommend keeping the 4 instead of throwing in an 8, i am all for that. what all needs to be done? what about the rear transaxle transmission? keep that too?

 

Here is the chassis is my son's 1926 Model T roadster.

1962 Pontiac Tempest 194.5 with the rear transaxle.

MechanicKeith can speak to this one as he is the one who repaired my bent rear axle.

Thanks again, Keith!!!

Runs great, shakes a little...and goes like stink!!!

 

Love it! Bet you get some funny comments at rod runs!

Billeekid seems to have disappeared back in February. Too bad he missed some good info.

How hard was it to shorten the drive shaft?

 

Like anything, it can be totally over engineered. They used some sort of special mil-spec alloy to make the shaft.

What I did was take measurements with the engine and transaxle installed in the frame and determined that I needed 25 1/2 inches taken out.

I cut the shaft and tapered the ends. then I split a piece of pipe and drilled about 50 holes for plug welds.

I clamped it in the pipe and welded around the tapered part while running in a v-block to stay true. After all the welding I quenched it in oil, and it has been doing great ever since!

Best part is...I have never seen one before!