What car had an aluminum block & head V8 or V6 engine?

"Chas Hurst" > wrote in message
...

> > Jaguar took over Daimler somewhere around 1955-60, then were swallowed
up
> > themselves by BMC in 1966. By 1968, Daimler was just a Jag with a fluted
> > grille. Daimlers never used the 215.
>
> Daimler produced their own 2.5L V8 which was used in their SP250 sports
car.

Also used in the Jag 2.5 version of the 3.8 Sedan.

"TeGGer®" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Chas Hurst" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Chas Hurst" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> > Jaguar took over Daimler somewhere around 1955-60, then were
> >> > swallowed
> > up
> >> > themselves by BMC in 1966. By 1968, Daimler was just a Jag with a
> >> > fluted grille. Daimlers never used the 215.
> >>
> >> Daimler produced their own 2.5L V8 which was used in their SP250
> >> sports
> > car.
> >
> > Also used in the Jag 2.5 version of the 3.8 Sedan.
> >
> >
>
>
> You sure? I don't think so. The Daimler V8 was 2548cc in capacity.
>
> The closest I can come to that is the 2483cc inline 6 in the '59-'67 Jag
> MkII, and the 2438 in the '67'68 240.
>
> --
> TeGGeR.

You could be right. It's been 40 years since I owned a Jag.

"TeGGer®" > wrote in message
.. .
> > I think you need to go back and check your facts on this. According to
> > various sources, the Cologne V-6 (never sold as a 3.0L by the way)
> > weights 305 lb (2.8L version). The Ford Windsor V-8 weighs 460 lbs
> > (302). The Buick Aluminum V-8 only weighted 218 lb. The Enlish Ford
> > 3.0L V-6 weighed 379 lb.
>
>
> You're right. I was thinking of the British Essex V6, not the Cologne. My
> mistake.
>
> According to a series of articles by Will Holman of Britain's Practical
> Classics magazine over the last two years (in which he removed the
original
> Essex in his early-'70s Capri and replaced it with a 302) the 302 was
> either the same weight or was lighter. This meant that he did not have to
> change the front suspension.
>
> Sombebody better tell him he's wrong.

Maybe he installed a 302 with aluminum heads and intake? I helped a college
mate remove and reinstall a 2800 cologne V-6 in a Capri. It was a very light
engine - especially if you compared it to the lump of iron MGB 4 cylinder. I
don't recall it being a whole lot heavier than the 4 cylinder in my AH
Sprite.

Ed

Nate Nagel wrote:

> - picked their absolute *worst* V-8 design to standardize on as their
> "corporate" engine over several much superior designs from Olds, Buick,
> Pontiac, and Cadillac

I think it is hard to call the Chevy small block V-8 the
absolute worst design. It has a long and glorious history in
many applications. And, like the Buick V-6, the current
design is highley refined from the original.

Ed

C. E. White wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > - picked their absolute *worst* V-8 design to standardize on as
their
> > "corporate" engine over several much superior designs from Olds,
Buick,
> > Pontiac, and Cadillac
>
> I think it is hard to call the Chevy small block V-8 the
> absolute worst design. It has a long and glorious history in
> many applications. And, like the Buick V-6, the current
> design is highley refined from the original.
>
> Ed

You are right, and even the older ones had some high spots like the 302
and 327. Still the fact remains that *every* other GM design of the
time was better in materials and design than the SBC. One noticeable
shortcoming of the SBC is its rod ratio, which remained the same
throughout its lifespan AFAIK. I'm sure cost factored into the
decision to use the SBC, but I can't think of any other compelling
reason to do so. If the same amount of development had been poured
into, say, an Olds motor as was the SBC, I'm sure the results would
have been even more impressive.

nate

> Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Aston Martin, Bristol and other high-end, low-volume
> British makes used either their own V8s, or American Ford or Chrysler
> units.
>
>

I'd love to have room in the stable for a Mopar 383-powered Jensen
Interceptor... probably my single most favorite Brit car.

C. E. White wrote:

>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>- picked their absolute *worst* V-8 design to standardize on as their
>>"corporate" engine over several much superior designs from Olds, Buick,
>>Pontiac, and Cadillac
>
>
> I think it is hard to call the Chevy small block V-8 the
> absolute worst design. It has a long and glorious history in
> many applications. And, like the Buick V-6, the current
> design is highley refined from the original.

No, its quite EASY to point out exactly why the Chevy smallblock was the
worst of the GM smallblocks at the time the others were phased out. Yes,
the Chevy was an excellent engine... in its short-stroke versions. The
longer stroke versions have a horrible rod ratio. The iron alloy used
was inferior to that used in the Olds and Buick engines as well. Those
two factors combined cause much more cylinder-wall wear in Chevies than
in the others. I have a harder time making an argument for Pontiac v8s,
they have their own set of weak spots, but the Buick and Olds were
excellent designs. The Olds was too heavy in its small displacement
versions, but the Buick v8 was nearly as light as the Chevy 350 even in
its 455 CID form! But nevermind the smallblock, I will TRULY never
understand why GM kept the Chevy 454 around instead of the Olds 455 (or
Buick 455, or Cad 472/500). The inferiority of the 454 compared to the
other big GM v8s is much more striking than the differences between the
smallblocks.

The "current" Gen-III V8 family is not a smallblock Chevy at all, no
matter how much people try to claim that it is. Nothing of the original
remains, except maybe the bore-center spacings.

N8N wrote:

> One noticeable
> shortcoming of the SBC is its rod ratio, which remained the same
> throughout its lifespan AFAIK.

What remained constant was the "deck height," the distance between the
crank centerline and the block/head parting surface. The upshot of this
was that as the stroke increased from the original 265 through the 350
and 400 versions, the connecting rods remained the same length, and the
rod-ratio got *worse* because the rods couldn't be made longer to match
the increased stroke. Its not actually bad in the 265/283/302 versions
at all, but the bigger ones (especially the 400) are horrible! One of
the results of that is how people describe an engine as throwing a
connecting rod "smallblock-chevy style" whenever the rod exits the side
of the block instead of the oil pan. The point of maximum stress on an
excessively short rod is well away from TDC and BDC, so the rod flies to
the side when it fails.