TA Performance heads for the BOPR and SBB

NixVegaGT · June 02, 2009, 09:55:48 AM

I just wrote about these in the cam option thread. I contacted a guy in WA who builds Volvo's for racing applications. He had a bunch of these rockers sitting around for like $5 a piece. I was considering doing this mod until I found the Harland Sharp rockers. I think it would be cool to have someone flesh out the idea for the average guy. I wonder what the racing teams did to adapt them... Larger shafts? or bigger bushings?

The Volvo rockers come from the 16b engine. They are very close to the stock dimensions but the shaft bushing is a bit bigger ID. It looked like 20 thou or so. Here's a pic for comparison:

This one is missing the adj stud. I'm pretty sure it uses a ball with a cup on the rod if I remember right. The ratio is different too. 1.55:1

roverman · June 02, 2009, 01:44:28 PM

Hello again buget minded, Volvo rocker type people. Gary or Blane at Rocker Arm rebuilders, Phone(530) 378-1075, in Anderson ,C.A. Complete, rebuilt assemblies, their #B20, outrite. Hardchromed/ground shafts with bronze bushed rockers. 4 cyl. set. Lash-out at the valve, in a good way. roverman.

BlownMGB-V8 · July 06, 2009, 09:56:16 PM

http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?t=172229&page=4

Jim

NixVegaGT · July 07, 2009, 11:20:02 AM

OH MAN! These are going to be sweet!

NixVegaGT · July 08, 2009, 08:12:29 AM

There was some talk on the V8Buick site about casting these with the Buick 350 valve cover pattern. Pretty good idea. I started thinking about it a bit and looked up adapter plates to use Ford or Chevy valve covers. I'm gonna have to do something like this because of the roller rocker setup. After mocking up the heads with the covers it looks like I'm gonna hit the underside of the valve covers.

So I started thinking about welding in bosses for the valve cover bolts. Anybody done this? The cheapest adapters I found were like $80 from UK without shipping.

Thoughts?

BlownMGB-V8 · July 08, 2009, 09:36:05 AM

They may add the bosses for the Chevy pattern. As long as the flanges will match up there's no reason not to use a SBC cover.

Dan Jones · July 09, 2009, 03:26:26 PM

Coming into this late. Do the TA Performance heads require a custom intake and headers (i.e. are the ports relocated and/or resized)?

Dan Jones

BlownMGB-V8 · July 09, 2009, 03:30:52 PM

Not relocated. The ports match their V6 heads. More rectangular and without the step in the exhaust port. Standard headers should match up just fine.

Jim

Dan Jones · July 09, 2009, 05:51:05 PM

Thanks Jim. Looking forward to these hitting the market.

Dan

BlownMGB-V8 · September 05, 2009, 10:53:59 AM

TA picked up the head castings from the foundry today. WOO HOO!! Based on former results, these new heads will hit the market before Thanksgiving for sure! Maybe even around the end of the month. Remember, the tooling is already in place for their V6 heads.

My advice, if you're in the market for a set of the ultimate Rover style heads, call them up and place your order now. These are going to get snatched up quick. At about $2500 a set complete they are very cost competitive.

Jim

BlownMGB-V8 · September 06, 2009, 11:36:40 AM

Mike Jr. couldn't give me an exact count but he thinks they had 8 or more sets of forgings made for this first run. They will have to write the CNC program to machine them (which will be essentially a copy and paste operation on the V6 program so that will go quickly) and then machining and assembly will go pretty fast. Undoubtedly several sets are already spoken for but there should be at least one or two sets available out of this run. Better jump on it if you want them.

Jim

NixVegaGT · September 08, 2009, 09:23:08 AM

OMG! I am a little bummed I have my heads all ready for me. I've spent that much already and I'm certain these will kick the shit out of mine.

Hopefully I can get a couple years in and then justify buying a new set...

BlownMGB-V8 · September 08, 2009, 11:11:03 AM

Mike Jr's estimate was off a bit, They only cast 4 sets. Of those, "several" are going to Ian at Triumph Rover Spares in Australia, leaving maybe one set available. Mike Sr. would be the contact for these.

I get it Nick. Mine are done and on the engine. Not nearly as extensive as your work up, but if we'd known they were coming this soon, who knows? I'd love to keep the thought in mind of swapping on a set of these one day. Realistically with the blower on the 340 it's hard to imagine the need, but as we know horsepower is addictive. I might have to have parity or better with a certain big block GT!

Jim

BlownMGB-V8 · October 20, 2009, 11:09:10 PM

And now, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat! Nuthin' up my sleeve...

Presto! A guy in the pacific NW has a Buick 350 short block that somebody put 340 heads on! Apparently it had been run that way. Details are still a bit sketchy, but he says pushrod clearance is not a problem.

That means a cheap, abundant supply of lightweight iron short blocks of 350 cu.in displacement, alloy aftermarket heads that are the best you can get at a reasonable price, and all that's left to sort out is the cam. I think that's pretty big news. Soon you will be able to build that big inch BOP/R style motor, retain the appearance and hold the weight at about 400 lbs.

Jim

NixVegaGT · October 21, 2009, 08:48:45 AM

So he must have put a BOP/R style cam in it then? The 350 has a different cam journal size, right? So custom cam, right? Maybe not. I suppose you could make or use OS bearings. About the push rod clearence. Why would that be an issue. they come up in the same places right?

A sturdy 400 lb 350 is pretty frickin' hot. That's got the small Ford beat. Unreal. I'm so hot for this it's obscene.

STOP! Focus, Nic. YOu're almost done with your current engine... Hey, I'm almost done with my current engine!! LOL!

BlownMGB-V8 · October 21, 2009, 09:07:11 AM

Better finish that engine Nic!

The BOP/R has the center lobes splayed a bit to clear the siamesed center ports, where the 350 has the front and rear runners paired. The center offset is close to 3/8" at the cam so you probably couldn't run a 340 cam in a 350 even with oversized bearings. That is part of what we are trying right now to figure out. Undoubtedly a custom cam, he mentioned that the lobes were well centered under the lifter bores. Possibly it will have some markings on it that can be used to identify the source.

Jim

pcmenten · October 22, 2009, 11:42:44 AM

Seems to me the hot ticket would be the 300 block with the 340/350 crank.

If the 340/350 is a taller deck version of the 300, there ought to be a way of doing it.

roverman · October 22, 2009, 02:45:05 PM

Paul, I "think" the 340/350 has monster 3" mains? 300 has 2.5". Your thoughts on this? Anybody? 340/350 block being both taller and wider than 300, fitment issues in likes of MGB's etc.? Old School method in strength to effort ratio was using 427" Ford main bearings,2.75" dia. Using a #8620 or #9310(better) material for "roller" cam, is strong enough to get the base circle small enough to clear the 3.85" stroke. Giving-up some lobe lift to clear, you can get back with rocker ratios. Monster torque or high rpm. HP.? Can't have both with this set-up. roverman.

BlownMGB-V8 · October 22, 2009, 05:15:12 PM

You could do that, if you were willing to go with custom pistons and move the pin up so that you could keep a favorable rod ratio. Also have to cut the mains down as Art mentioned. Now that I think about it, the cam is no more of an issue than it would be in the 340 or 350 block, since all of these engines use the same timing set. The smaller stroke engines do indeed have more cam clearance, something I may have mis-stated.

Anyway, the extra width is not an issue, but the extra height might have to be dealt with, depending on your choice of induction system. It may be as much as 1-1/2" taller than the 215. (Which, with the stock intake was a short engine to begin with.)

Jim

pcmenten · October 22, 2009, 07:27:05 PM

Art, that's good information. Yeah, my first thoughts would be to turn the mains down, losing the rod/main overlap.

It's pretty much idle talk from me. I do have a 340/350 crank kit, but no intention of doing anything with it besides selling it. But for a MGB application, it might be a fun option partly because it allows the use of an automatic transmission with a BOP pattern, something like the 200R4.

But Jim is right about the incremental issues like hood clearance.

BTW, are roller cams ever used in these Buick/Rover engines? I didn't see anything with I did a quick search with google.

hoffbug · October 22, 2009, 09:17:13 PM

http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/MonsterMotor.htm

pcmenten · October 22, 2009, 11:52:44 PM

Ah ha! I had read that, but I had read so much stuff recently, I couldn't remember it clearly. It would be interesting to hear what Dave Michel did with the engine.

348 cubic inches. Reading Blackwood's description of his work, I find a reference to block weights that says the 340 block weighs 82 pounds more than a 215 block. I'll guess that the 300 block weighs about 55 pounds more than a 215 block.

Hmm. I have the chance to weigh the 340 crank and the 215 crank. I'll do that soon.

That would put the stroked 300 with T5 maybe 50 pounds more than the original 1800 w/OD?

castlesid · October 23, 2009, 06:42:51 AM

You guys have got me going again, must dash out and buy some more lottery tickets!

That combination would make some serious power without having to worry about the inherent fragility of the Rover block.

Curious to know how you would overcome the alignment problem of using the 350 block with it's different cam lobe and presumably lifter bore spacing with either the 215/340/Rover/ TA head pattern if you used a cam to match the TA heads arn't the lifter bores going to be in the wrong position?

Also what is the advantage of using the 350 block as opposed to the 340?

I love thinking out of the box and this has wetted my appetite, now thinking well built 350 bottom end TA heads, decent induction system, Meagasquirt ECU and a 250 shot of gas should make for a 600-650 BHP motor, now that would give my friend Perry something to think about, he's the guy with the extremely rapid 4.6 engined MGB GT now doing regular quarters at 10.66 at 126MPH and looking to get it down to minus 10 seconds, I'm just dreaming but who knows,

Kevin.

NixVegaGT · October 23, 2009, 08:44:55 AM

Jim's point about the 350 block is that its WAY more plentiful than the 340. Ok so here's a conundrum I've always been confused about. Why does the 300 weigh more than the 350?

I've seen a number of references that show the 300 at 462 lbs. and the 350 at 450 lbs. If the stat Paul laid out above is right then the 340 must be 489 lbs. I know the '64 300 heads are about 17 lbs each. so that means the '64 300 should be about 407 lbs. The references I've seen put the 300 weight at 400 lbs. so was the '64 using an aluminum intake? The weight savings for the 350 can't be just in the heads and intake, it's got to be in the block too, right? There's some savings in the intake because of the shared runners compared to the 340 but it's gotta come up with 39 lbs. from somewhere. Anybody got a 350 block handy to weigh? I bet it comes pretty close to the 55 lb mark of the 300.

The Lord's light shine on Buick for being so fixated on engine weight. The lightest, torquiest 455 and the lightest all iron 350. Lightest by a LONG shot.

BlownMGB-V8 · October 23, 2009, 10:09:16 AM

Some weights for you guys to ponder, based on actually placing the parts on the scale. The 215 block weighs right at 60lbs. The 340 block is exactly 82 lbs heavier than the 215, so 142 lbs. The '64 300 engine is 80 lbs heavier than the 215 exactly (according to Mike Moore). Piston weights are very similar, rods likewise, we're talking grams here. Cranks typically weigh in around 50 or 60 lbs and are very similar also and I may have an exact weight around here somewhere, I can weigh a 215 crank if you like but there isn't much to be gained there. Bear in mind the change in main bearing size from 300 to 340/350 matches an increase in hole size in the block.

The light weight of these engines is due to pioneering work that Buick was doing on thinwall castings during that time period, and they continued to refine their skills as they developed the 350 and the 455 engines. As a result, these were some of the lightest iron engines ever built in terms of weight/displacement. In the case of the 455 they pushed it far enough in the early 70's that over the next few years they felt they had to add weight back in for critical areas and the mid 70's 455's are therefore a bit heavier. This was not the case with the 350 however and to the best of my knowledge it remained the same weight during the entire production run. Developed progressively up through the displacements, by the time they derived the 350 from the 340 they had it pretty well dialed in.

As the lightest iron V8 in the line, the 350 is the obvious choice when combined with aluminum heads and intake, bringing it within spitting distance of the original B series engine weight. It also had the greatest production numbers, well into the tens of millions if I remember correctly, where the 340 numbered maybe 3/4M at best over two years of production and the 300 wasn't that much higher. The actual numbers are in a thread on the V8Buick site so if I get a chance I'll look for them. The iron block is quite strong, having stood up to power output levels of 1000hp without problems like block flex or thread pull-out that plague it's aluminum brethren. The more modern bellhousing pattern is also a plus.

From one owner who claims to have a 350 block with 340 heads, pushrod interference is a non-issue, though the pushrods do appear canted slightly. Tip wear is even. Since the guide holes in the heads are only about a quarter of the way down the pushrod, the effect of the lobe offset seems to be fairly minor.

A 215/300/340/R cam CANNOT be used in this engine without extreme efforts. The journal sizes do not match and the lobes have different spacing, off by perhaps as much as 3/8" at the center lobes. (I don't think this has been verified by actual inspection though, and cam bearing spacers are an option) Therefore, a custom cam is the most likely solution. We are waiting on Randy to respond with more information about this mystery engine, hopefully he can find some cam markings which might help us to identify the source of the cam in his engine. If so, we may find a source for the correct cam blanks.

However, TA has contracted a limited run of 350 roller cams which have shipped to the customers. Somewhat expensive as they were billet items, the original intent was to have them made with a firing order swap (5&7 I believe) for a more performance oriented configuration. The actual parts manufactured came with the standard firing order due to a miscommunication, but this just illustrates that for equal money any lobe pattern (BOP/R for example) could be used.

So at this point it's just money. But it's not that far out of line for a light strong badass of an engine. Heck, if you powder coat the block silver very few will even know it isn't a Rover!

Jim