Register now to get rid of these ads!

Projects 62 Skylark Motor swap 215 out Buick 350 in

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Reebz, May 19, 2018.

  1. Reebz
    Joined: Feb 12, 2011
    Posts: 5

    Reebz
    Member
    from NE Ohio

    I have a 62 Skylark and want to put a Buick 350 (maybe a sbc) in it.
    Any advice?
    I understand the floor needs cut for the trans.
    Can the front suspension take the weight?
     
  2. Mr48chev
    Joined: Dec 28, 2007
    Posts: 27,510

    Mr48chev
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    After doing a bit of research I'd say the first step is getting out the tape measure and checking to see if a bigger V8 will Physically fit.
    Weight shouldn't be a big issue as Pontiac and Olds used that same suspension with the 61/63 Tempest and Cutlass. The later 231 V6 might be a viable fit but they were a bit of a slug in stock form.
     
  3. BJR
    Joined: Mar 11, 2005
    Posts: 6,507

    BJR
    Member

    Does the 62 Skylark use the same transaxle as the Pontiac Tempest? If so you will need to change more then the engine. More like the whole drive train.
     
  4. redo32
    Joined: Jul 16, 2008
    Posts: 1,731

    redo32
    Member


    No
     

  5. Hnstray
    Joined: Aug 23, 2009
    Posts: 11,583

    Hnstray
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Quincy, IL

    The 215 cube aluminum V8 is about the same length as the Buick 350, which derived from the 300 Buick V8 which derived from the 215. The crankshaft from a 300 V8 was retrofitted, with mods, into 215 engines as a means of stroking those engines.

    The weight of an aluminum 215 is about 300 + pounds, whereas the 350 iron V8 is over 500 but less than 600. Transmissions in Olds and Buick models were conventional trans mounted to the engine, totally different than the Pontiac transaxles.

    Ray
     
  6. I have considered a 231/od in my ‘63.
    The came with a V6, as well as the 215.
    Not sure if the V6 is similar to 231 though.
    Used to drive a 80s Regal with that set up and it drove real nice.


    Sent from my iPhone using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
  7. Hnstray
    Joined: Aug 23, 2009
    Posts: 11,583

    Hnstray
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Quincy, IL

    The iron V6 was the 196 (or 198, I always get mixed up on that). That early series V6, ‘61 thru ‘63 models, was essentially the same as the ‘64 225 up (except for cu in) but with one important difference.....the block bell housing bolt pattern was the same as the 215 aluminum V8, which really limits the stock transmissions that will fit without an adapter.

    However, the 225, 231 and 252 Buick V6’s built for rear drive cars all had the BOP bell housing bolt pattern. Also the later production V6....meaning about ‘77 models and later, were “even fire” engines and smoother running than the earlier “odd fire” models. In order to build the V6 as easily and economically as possible, the V6 was designed as 90* Vee so it could be built on the V8 production line tooling. But the 90 degree Vee presented some firing order issues.

    So, GM designed the firing order as 90-150-90-150.....This resulted in the nick name of ‘odd-fire’ and an imbalance shake or vibration that was sideways, not vertical. IIRC, the ‘77 models began the even fire crankshaft design which used offset crankpins on the same crank ‘throw’ for the connecting rods and the firing order was then divided equally by degrees of crank rotation.....each at 120* of rotation....and no vibration. This same crank design was later used by Chevrolet when they introduced the SBC based V6 for rear drive vehicles.

    The Buick 3800 V6 front drive engines had a different bell housing block pattern than described above and that was shared with GM 60* V6 and front drive 4 cylinder engines. The latter were used in some S-10 pickups in rear drive configuration and if automatics, used a 700R4 trans with a case design that fit the ‘front drive’ block bell housing bolt pattern. I have one of those transmissions. Since we are now in OT territory, I will not expand further, but the possibilities are intriguing.

    Ray
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2018
  8. southcross2631
    Joined: Jan 20, 2013
    Posts: 3,996

    southcross2631
    Member

    Measure up a small block Ford with a short water pump. It is narrow enough and with a C-4 the tunnel would not need surgery.
     
  9. J. A. Miller
    Joined: Dec 30, 2010
    Posts: 1,405

    J. A. Miller
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Central NY

    That would be a reverse Buford wouldn't it. Lol
     
  10. Reebz
    Joined: Feb 12, 2011
    Posts: 5

    Reebz
    Member
    from NE Ohio

    Thanks guys. I think the Buick 350 will fit. My fear is the way the front end is attached on these cars that it will not be strong enough to take the abuse I want to throw at it. I plan to replace the rearend and back half the car. I had a 70 Skylark street strip car for 30 years. This is all new to me.
     
  11. 1946caddy
    Joined: Dec 18, 2013
    Posts: 1,703

    1946caddy
    Member
    from washington

  12. Reebz
    Joined: Feb 12, 2011
    Posts: 5

    Reebz
    Member
    from NE Ohio

    Thank you caddy!! Aluminum heads(TA) and intake and a Buick seems good. Plus remove ac, power steering, and------. Should work
     
  13. Hnstray
    Joined: Aug 23, 2009
    Posts: 11,583

    Hnstray
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Quincy, IL

    I took a look at that link in post #11.........personally, I am quite skeptical of that 450 lb weight given for a 350 Buick. Given that that is, or almost is, 100 lbs lighter than a small block Chevy doesn't seem realistic.

    I have both 340 and 350 Buick V8's on hand, and have for years, so I am not unfamiliar with these engines.
    That said, I do think they are relatively light weight, but by that I mean about the same as an SBC. Could be wrong about this, but it will take a scale to convince me.

    In any case, if you use aluminum heads and intake, you will shed some weight and improve the vehicle balance.

    Ray
     
  14. Reebz
    Joined: Feb 12, 2011
    Posts: 5

    Reebz
    Member
    from NE Ohio

    Hnstray I agree. I plan to put the car on a diet, but it is already light. Structure and strength stay, silly things like a radio, heater core, ac are getting taken out. Moving the battery to the trunk is not a wt savings but puts wt in the back.
     
    Hnstray likes this.
  15. Wish you were closer .... I'd take that damn Buick 215. They're fun lil' f#ckers.
     
  16. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 46,849

    squirrel
    Member

    The buick special shared suspension with the Olds F85 from 61-63. Not with the Tempest. The Olds had the aluminum V8, like the Buick. So you'd probably want to keep the weight of the engine as low as you can.
     
  17. redo32
    Joined: Jul 16, 2008
    Posts: 1,731

    redo32
    Member

    Interesting chart I found. Oops, copied the data but not the chart spacing. Go here http://www.carnut.com/specs/engdim.html. says the 350 Buick weighs 450

    Representative for comparison purposes only

    Engine Displacement A
    length
    B
    length
    C
    height
    D
    height
    E
    width
    DIST SUMP STARTER OIL
    FILTER
    WEIGHT
    AMC
    250/287/327 x 27.75 24.00 x 24.12 rear rear right left rear 601
    AMC 304/360/401 28.75 29.25 21.25 29.50 21.50 front rear right right front 540/600
    Buick/Olds 215 x 28.00 x 27.00 26.00 front rear x right front 315
    Buick 350 29.00 30.50 21.50 28.50 23.00 front rear right right front 450
    Buick 322/425 x 33.50 x 29.00 28.00 rear rear left right rear 685
    Buick 400/455 29.00 30.00 22.00 30.00 23.00 front center right right front 600/640
    Cadillac 331/390 60-62 x x x x x rear rear left right rear 699/720
    Cadillac 331/390 63-up x x x x x rear rear left left front 699/720
    Cadillac 425/472/500 30.00 30.50 28.50 32.00 28.50 front rear right left front 625
    Chevy 262/400 Short WP 26.50 27.00 20.50 27.00 22.00 rear rear right left rear 575
    Chevy 262/400 Long WP 27.88 28.38 20.50 27.00 22.00 rear rear right left rear 575
    Chevy 348/409 x 34.50 x 32.00 28.50 rear rear right left rear 685
    Chevy 396/454 Short WP 30.50 30.50 23.50 33.00 27.00 rear rear right left rear 685
    Chevy 396/454 Long WP 32.00 32.00 23.50 33.00 27.00 rear rear right left rear 685
    Ford 221/302 27.00 29.00 22.00 27.00 22.00 front front right left front 440/460
    Engine Displacement A
    length
    B
    length
    C
    height
    D
    height
    E
    width
    DIST SUMP STARTER OIL
    FILTER
    WEIGHT
    Ford
    332/428FE 30.00 32.00 28.00 32.00 27.00 front front right left front 650
    Ford 427 SOHC 32.00 34.00 30.00 34.00 32.00 front front right left front 680
    Ford Flathead 30.00 30.00 22.00 x 26.00 front front left left rear 569
    Mopar 273/360 29.50 29.50 23.50 31.00 25.00 rear front left right rear 525/560
    Mopar V10 488/505 36.88 36.88 23.50 x 25.00 x front left right rear 716/816
    Mopar 350/440 29.00 30.00 24.00 30.50 29.50 front center left left front 620/670
    Mopar 331/392 Hemi 32.00 31.00 24.00 31.00 29.00 rear center left right rear 729/745
    Mopar Late Hemi 32.00 32.00 24.00 32.00 29.00 front center left left front 765
    Olds 303/394 x 32.00 x 29.00 30.00 rear rear right right rear 700
    Olds 350 28.25 28.25 20.25 27.50 26.00 rear rear left right rear 560
    Olds 455 29.00 31.00 24.00 31.00 26.50 rear rear left right rear 605
    Pontiac 350/400 28.25 29.00 20.00 31.00 27.00 rear rear left right rear 650
    Pontiac 455 29.50 32.00 27.00 33.00 27.00 rear rear left right rear 650
    Allison V12 1710 x 44.00 36.00 x 30.00 rear rear rear x 1160
    Merlin V12 1649 x 71.00 29.80 x 43.00 rear rear right x 1540
    Engine Displacement A
    length
    B
    length
    C
    height
    D
    height
    E
    width
    DIST SUMP STARTER OIL
    FILTER
    WEIGHT
    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    A - Length from rear of intake manifold to water pump pulley
    B - Length from rear mounting surface to water pump pulley
    C - Height from bottom of sump to highest point of intake manifold
    D - Height from bottom of sump to top of carburetor
    E - Width outside of valve cover to outside of valve cover
     
  18. Hnstray
    Joined: Aug 23, 2009
    Posts: 11,583

    Hnstray
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Quincy, IL

    I have seen a goodly number of errors on charts like this and think that is the case with this one.

    Ray
     
  19. redo32
    Joined: Jul 16, 2008
    Posts: 1,731

    redo32
    Member

    Found 3 other charts that all quoted the same 460#. Nobody states their source. A couple of guys on a jeep forum were swapping Buick 350, first guy weighed his rebuilt shortblock and all the accessories and came up with 540#, the other guy weighed his on truck scales with the exhaust manifolds and claimed 478#. I guess we'll know when somebody we know & trust weighs their's.
     
  20. Desmodromic
    Joined: Sep 25, 2010
    Posts: 571

    Desmodromic
    Member

    A bit OT, but hopefully you Buick guys could help me out. I have a good 300 Buick, with alloy heads, and stick shift set-up including the tranny. The 215 appeals to me for it's light weight (application to be a small Track T). Just came across a chap that has a nice alloy Rover (nee, Buick, but slightly bigger displacement), for reasonable price. It has a stick bell housing, but no flywheel/clutch/tranny. (I haven't seen it yet.) I know my 300 bell housing engine-side bolt pattern is not at all like a 215. Have no idea what the Rover bolt pattern is, or whether there might be some Buick pieces (V6 or V8) bell housing or flywheel that would fit. And is there some mixed-and-matched Buick/Rover starter-flywheel combination that will work? Help!!
     
  21. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 46,849

    squirrel
    Member

    a quick google search seems to make it look like the Rover has the same back as the 215.

    There are probably some british car forums that could help you out...have you searched yet for info?
     
  22. I am too, Ray ..and I raced a 350 Buick in an Olds X body. I've seen that number around, but i think , inthe internet age, that stuff just gets passed around..accurate or not. I never weighed any of mine but I can't see where that much weight savings could be..It'a all normal stuff. Be back in a few.. Okay, I found a chart where the 301 Pontiac was 452 , and the 350 Buick was 450..Not buying that. Ever see a 301 crank ? head? manifold? They took 150# out of a 350/ 400..and still heavier than a 350 B? Not buying it. The 350 B has a normal crank with all the counterweights. Same stroke as a 460 Ford.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2018
    Hnstray likes this.
  23. In answer to your original question , Ronnie ( peelouts and donuts /Gas monkey wannabee LOL) tried this last year.It became too involved for him .The Olds /Buick is somewhat different than the Tempest. Tempest is 5 lug, 4.5 bp (yes), with front steer. Rear steer box and linkage becomes your first problem.
    Think about the 300 stroker . Becomes a 270 something, I think.
    Now you trans is the next problem.
    63 Tempest had a 326, which is a small piston 389. So there might be heavier springs available. Other than that , I can't imagine what you might do with the steering linkage that would break it. Better not tell us.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2018
    Hnstray likes this.
  24. If you are a skilled fabricator and welder, have at it.
    If not, I'd recommend passing on the whole idea.
     
  25. Hnstray
    Joined: Aug 23, 2009
    Posts: 11,583

    Hnstray
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Quincy, IL

    Try this site BritishV8.org ....lots of neat stuff to see and learn about....

    Ray
     
  26. Hnstray
    Joined: Aug 23, 2009
    Posts: 11,583

    Hnstray
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Quincy, IL

    Totally agree. I am thinking that just maybe somebody weighed a long block assembly and got that figure. An 'undressed' engine could be that light.....but ready to run with all manifolds, water pump, distributor, carb, crank dampener, etc, no way (weigh ?). :D

    Ray
     
  27. 3speedoverdrive
    Joined: Dec 2, 2017
    Posts: 16

    3speedoverdrive
    Member

    Another factor to consider is the fact that the original setup uses a bolt on front flange, a slip joint in the middle of the 2 piece drive line, swtching to a different trans requires much drive line modification. Plus the stock engine setup has a 6 degree down ward tilt to get the needed hump clearance. Front springs from a 54 Chev will offset the weight increase.
    Be prepared to fight drive line vibrations etc. Been there done that, was glad to dump my project and get a conventional Ford (in my avatar)
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.