Re: Max overbore Daimler V8
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:45 pm
replay to Ian Slade re weight (in relation to the skinny main bearing bolts)
:- Known variously as the Fireball and Skylark by Buick (and as Rockette, Cutlass, and Turbo-Rocket by Oldsmobile),[3] the 215 had a 4.24 in (108 mm) bore spacing, a bore of 3.5 in (89 mm), and a stroke of 2.8 in (71 mm), for an actual displacement of 215.5 cu in (3,531 cc). At the time the engine was the lightest mass-production V8 in the world, with a dry weight of only 318 lb (144 kg). Measuring 28 in (71 cm) long, 26 in (66 cm) wide, and 27 in (69 cm) high
At introduction, Buick's 215 was rated 150 hp (110 kW) at 4400 rpm. This was raised soon after introduction to 155 hp (116 kW) at 4600 rpm. 220 lb·ft (298 N·m) of torque was produced at 2400 rpm with a Rochester 2GC (DualJet) two-barrel carburetor and 8.8:1 compression ratio. A mid-year introduction was the Buick Special Skylark version, which had 10.00:1 compression and a four-barrel carburetor, raising output to 185 hp (138 kW) at 4800 rpm and 230 lb·ft (312 N·m) at 2800 rpm.
the final GM version produced 200BHP on 10.5:1 compression..
The final 'Rover' version (heaver..due to a stronger, sand cast,rather than die cast alloy block of the original design.. but significantly lighter than the daimler 2 1/2) produced over 220bhp and great gobs of torque from its 4.6 litres at below 5,000rpms..
Since they are easy to find, cheap as chips, parts very easy to source and a myriad of tuning parts are available ,not to mention that fact that these engines are extremely robust and capable of high mileages between overhaul, added to the compactness,high power outputs and very low wieght ..its basically a 'no brainer'
I have still not competed the build of the first failed 2 1/2 litre Daimler V8 engine ( began mid last year now on my 3rd set of 'scrap' cylinder heads and second cylinder block, after far too much time and several frustrated machinists later) Im out of patience and severely depleted on funds ..Ive decided to employ common sense and go with something that is (a) lighter (b) is more compact (c) will produce significantly more power (d) do the job better for longer on less time and money (e) Is a fraction of the cost (f) significant room for producing more power:- even the longest stroke version is well over square..3.5s have been run at 8,000 rpms frequently + with no reliability issues..
hopefully I will get one Daimler 2 1/2 engine completed and re-installed in the not too distant future.. the other 3 will be shelved due to far to many problems and the huge expense encountered..right now Im focussing on getting one of the cars back on the road with a Rover engine and ZF4hp22 auto box..the 4.2 diff is going to be replaced with a 3.54 'powerlok' from a 3.8 jaguar.. Im sure I will have a vastly more enjoyable car to drive.. 2,200rpms @75mph with significantly improved HP and torque fits my ideals quite well.. I often drive over 500 miles per day in my classics..
:- Known variously as the Fireball and Skylark by Buick (and as Rockette, Cutlass, and Turbo-Rocket by Oldsmobile),[3] the 215 had a 4.24 in (108 mm) bore spacing, a bore of 3.5 in (89 mm), and a stroke of 2.8 in (71 mm), for an actual displacement of 215.5 cu in (3,531 cc). At the time the engine was the lightest mass-production V8 in the world, with a dry weight of only 318 lb (144 kg). Measuring 28 in (71 cm) long, 26 in (66 cm) wide, and 27 in (69 cm) high
At introduction, Buick's 215 was rated 150 hp (110 kW) at 4400 rpm. This was raised soon after introduction to 155 hp (116 kW) at 4600 rpm. 220 lb·ft (298 N·m) of torque was produced at 2400 rpm with a Rochester 2GC (DualJet) two-barrel carburetor and 8.8:1 compression ratio. A mid-year introduction was the Buick Special Skylark version, which had 10.00:1 compression and a four-barrel carburetor, raising output to 185 hp (138 kW) at 4800 rpm and 230 lb·ft (312 N·m) at 2800 rpm.
the final GM version produced 200BHP on 10.5:1 compression..
The final 'Rover' version (heaver..due to a stronger, sand cast,rather than die cast alloy block of the original design.. but significantly lighter than the daimler 2 1/2) produced over 220bhp and great gobs of torque from its 4.6 litres at below 5,000rpms..
Since they are easy to find, cheap as chips, parts very easy to source and a myriad of tuning parts are available ,not to mention that fact that these engines are extremely robust and capable of high mileages between overhaul, added to the compactness,high power outputs and very low wieght ..its basically a 'no brainer'
I have still not competed the build of the first failed 2 1/2 litre Daimler V8 engine ( began mid last year now on my 3rd set of 'scrap' cylinder heads and second cylinder block, after far too much time and several frustrated machinists later) Im out of patience and severely depleted on funds ..Ive decided to employ common sense and go with something that is (a) lighter (b) is more compact (c) will produce significantly more power (d) do the job better for longer on less time and money (e) Is a fraction of the cost (f) significant room for producing more power:- even the longest stroke version is well over square..3.5s have been run at 8,000 rpms frequently + with no reliability issues..
hopefully I will get one Daimler 2 1/2 engine completed and re-installed in the not too distant future.. the other 3 will be shelved due to far to many problems and the huge expense encountered..right now Im focussing on getting one of the cars back on the road with a Rover engine and ZF4hp22 auto box..the 4.2 diff is going to be replaced with a 3.54 'powerlok' from a 3.8 jaguar.. Im sure I will have a vastly more enjoyable car to drive.. 2,200rpms @75mph with significantly improved HP and torque fits my ideals quite well.. I often drive over 500 miles per day in my classics..