http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?316649-300-build-for-MGB-engine-swap
Jim
Seems I started a lively discussion over there. ;)
Hot Rod Magazine detailed the build of a Buick 300 with a 340 crank in March 2011.
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-1103-how-to-hot-rod-any-engine/
I'm afraid that thread went sour in a hurry, and Carl all I can do is apologize for Derek's poor manners. I haven't seen such bad behavior from him since he first started posting. Maybe he was having a bad day and felt he had to share it.
Jim
It wasn't that bad. I guess it's kinda crazy to go on a Buick engine forum & suggest decking a Buick block half an inch. ;)
I prefer oversquare engines for my sports car, Joe. The 340 crank into a Buick 300 turns it in to an undersquare, long stroke towing engine, IMO.
Undersquare by .050" doesn't exactly make it a motorhome engine Carl, though I totally understand where you are coming from. We got things straightened out over there though and may have opened a path for you. Have a look.
Jim
Of all the engines to work on, the 300 with the 340 crank has the most appeal. With aluminum heads, it makes for a simple, lightweight engine that bolts up easily and cheaply to a T-5 or a 200R4 transmission. It is compact and reliable. Even with stock parts, such as 340 exhaust manifolds and 64 aluminum heads, it would be a strong performer.
With TA heads, a roller cam, and headers it would be equal to most other engines in its capacity. The long stroke makes it a torquey engine and it's that type of mid-range power that is the most satisfying to drive.
If I were starting from scratch on a project, I'd be building an MGB GT with a 300/349 stroker, a 200R4, and Dana 44. Simple, cheap, and fast.
Do we understand that "Coscast", new and improved, RV8 blocks are available ? Some 225 Hydro,( closed course boat racing), builders, would shorten the 215 V8 decks, to get more rod angle and acceleration, off the turns. Taller decks with longer bores, tend to be weaker than shorter decks and bores. art.
My 215 has 2.8" stroke. The Buick 340 has a 3.85 stroke! That is more that a BBC 427. You have to go to the mighty 454 to find more stroke than the 340 has.
It's a valid point. And if everything else were equal I'd go along with it. But it isn't, is it. To start with, you can't tell me you are making the most of that 2.8" stroke can you? Not with cast pistons. Not with a hydraulic camshaft. Certainly not with a steel flywheel and pressure plate. If you are still running stock valve springs the very most you could possibly be getting out of the engine is 5500-6000 rpm and how fast you get there is a direct function of load divided by torque.
Say what you will Carl, I think it's a pretty safe bet that my 340 will rev faster in any gear than your 215 and I'm pretty well convinced it'd also do it without any boost.
But still, I get it. I do. You want what you want, and who am I to argue? In fact I think it'd be a pretty cool build. Who wouldn't want a V8 that revs like a motorcycle engine?
So to that end, how about this? Light weight pistons and rods (such as I have for instance), an aluminum flywheel and pressure plate, a long rod ratio perhaps, (and Art, while a long bore may not make a block any stronger, a long rod does reduce the side thrust so it doesn't have to be) a cam that does well on the top end, preferably a roller cam, solid lifters and decent valve springs, then to top it all off a set of CNC ported TA Rover heads. Along with the shortest practical stroke of course. That'd get you there I have no doubt. And it looks very much like you could do that with the 300 block in at least a couple of ways.
Jim
How many 300s were built in 1964? Getting pretty scarce these days.
Anyone thinking of putting a 300 in an MGB should study Chris Gill's build journal. Beautiful car!... but Chris suffered all along the way. Seemed about ready to throw in the towel. Remember, he started with a 215, so all his frustrations were due to the differences between 300 and 215. The extra deck height of the 300 is a big obstacle for an MGB installation, especially if you'd prefer to stay under a stock hood. For BOPR there are about a dozen different intake manifolds to choose from including three distinct generations of Rover EFI manifolds. For Buick 300... not so much. Chris had injector bosses milled into a 4-barrel manifold. Extra deck height makes the whole package wider too, which puts the exhaust ports closer to the steering and the headers closer to the tires. Gee, they never used to rub. Chris ended up with specially modified headers. And then, about 300 posts into his thread, Chris discovered a hairline crack in his engine block (in the valley, just above the lifters). So much for iron blocks being trouble free!
Actually, it revs very nicely. The steel flywheel has been lightened & I used a smaller lighter clutch package (9" pressure plate). I have pegged the tach 3 times. A bit slow grabbing 5th gear on a road course. Plus, I only mash the clutch pedal halfway (old habit from drag racing). The engine routinely sees 6 grand or just over when doing track days, autox, or Slaying the Dragon (ask Max). I am truly amazed it has held together this long (16 years this coming Spring).
While the 1964 Buick 300 is the only year that sported aluminum heads, the engine was in production thru 1967. One of the better flowing 215 intake manifolds could be used on the 300 with spacers. I think those used to be available. Headers? Mike Moor is still using his 215 block hugger hears on his 300. He dynoed at just over 300hp at one of the V8 Meets (2005?)
Yeah, the 300 does not not lend itself to a stock bonnet profile very well. Wish there was a short deck version.
Sure, I would love to have lighter internals & a roller cam (especially after driving Ted's TR6!).
Carl,
You seem to be grueling over which way to go. I can totally relate. I seldom make a quick decision when it comes to modifying my car. What would you do if your motor blew up tomorrow? Just curious.
Down here we like to ponder things. :)
I have two Rover 3.9 engines, a 4.2 crank, a set of the very late 4.0/4.6 heads, & a set of Buick 300 heads. I'd likely piece something together. Oh, & a 400hp 350 in my Camaro.
Failures can occur in any engine block of course, and because Buick was a pioneer in thinwall casting, this new light weight engine did come at a price. Nobody could have predicted that hairline crack and I really felt for Chris. I had a 300 block that I didn't use because it had a perforation into the oil galley. It could have been repaired, but I went to the 340 instead. You don't hear of those type of failures very often and they happen with all engines. Unfortunate yes, but not really a big deal unless you just happen to draw the short straw as Chris did. Who knows how long those two had been like that, neither one would necessarily kill a lightly used commuter car, though they could cause other problems and early failure. The block does have to be carefully inspected, and a sonic check is highly recommended for any block that will be bored over 0.030". Magnaflux is always a good idea. I remember somebody posted a question somewhere if a 300 could be bored to 4" and the answer is No. There is not enough metal. You'd have to wet sleeve and oven braze it and why bother, the heads aren't designed to take advantage of a 4" bore. Doesn't the 5.3L LS use a 3.780" bore? So what's the big problem here?
As for his earlier issues, they struck me as just the sort of things you have to deal with when building any custom engine, and bear in mind Chris' car is a real beauty simply because he is a real perfectionist. Not all of us are quite as insistent, push it to quite that level, or are willing to spend as much. I'm not sure exactly what his issue was with the headers, might have been affected by his tire choice though, a larger diameter is more likely to hit. I didn't recall the steering being a big deal. But from my perspective with the 455 and the 340, I guess I wouldn't be.
As far as welding on injector bungs, he didn't absolutely have to do that. A carb works, as does TBFI. Some choices just require more work than others.
Chris was a pioneer as well. As was Mike Moor and Jim Stuart. Jim was able to get the engine under the RV8 hood, Mike went to a hood scoop, and lots of people are now using Dave's hood with the bump so it's a lot less of an issue than it once was. I also wonder if Chris might not sort of forget the challenges he had once he's gotten used to driving the car. I am pretty sure Mike would never go back. Jim, of course sold his cars but his opinion would still be valid.
As for intakes, yes, the 4bbl 300 aluminum intakes have gotten scarce and if you run across one you'd better buy it if you can. Nobody makes one. That doesn't mean we are out of options. Last I heard, flange spacers were still available from TRS to fit any BOPR intake. And while a 215 intake is a bit small, it should flow better than a 2 bbl 300 intake. the spacers are going to add some height, roughly 3/8". You could also hog out the top of the 2bbl intake and weld on a 4bbl flange. Or even build a custom intake. It's been done. Recall about a dozen years ago I recommended placing an Eaton blower in the lifter valley and running the ports over the top and now you can buy the LS that way.
As Carl mentioned, the 300 was produced until '67 and a lot of them are still around. '65 to '67 were iron engines and are in the 450 lb range, so a bit heavy for an MGB but not completely out of range considering the SBC conversions and LS conversions. An iron 300 has considerably better heads too, so some might consider that, and they were common with 4bbl intakes (also iron). They will accept the TA Rover heads, or any BOPR head so there is a path to more lightness. It's even possible to use the iron intake with the aluminum heads. Only been done a couple of times but is reported to work.
The 300 is just another option, you have to work with what is available. If you don't want or need the extra strength or power or reliability, choose accordingly. But for what you get, it's well worth the effort.
Jim
The iron intake ports do not mate with the aluminum head ports exactly.
In case anyone needs a reminder the 215 has OEM forged rods.
Iron intake manifold? Seriously?
You got me curious. Assuming current eBay prices are typical, looks like a Buick 300 aluminum 4bbl sells for about $400 whereas a used Buick 215 4bbl sells for about $100. A brand new Buick 215 size Edelbrock manifold costs $278 with shipping. A brand new Buick 215 size Offenhauser costs $378 from Summit.
Rover EFI manifolds (sans plenum, for someone building their own) are a bargain at about $65. Of course that just gets you started, but you'll be going in a good direction.
I can imagine what flat "flange spacers" must look like to go between the Buick 300 cylinder heads and a BOPR manifold. What do you do at the ends? You must need some sort of curved spacers to fill between BOPR valley pan and engine block too, right? Does someone sell nice billet ones?
I like the way you are thinking Curtis, an EFI intake opens several possibilities. They are cheap and a pretty good design. To use any 215 intake with the 300 you need a tray of some sort to block off the lifter valley, as on the 300 the intake serves that function. I do not know that TRS sells a pan for that purpose and I don't know that they don't. On my 340 I bent a sheet of 1/4" aluminum to fit and cut ports in it, using it as a spacer for my blower intake. (With just a bit of mill work I'm pretty sure I could mount that intake on a 300.) It didn't need to be anywhere near that thick, but the extra stiffness made it easy to work with, but 1/8" or 12 gage would be plenty. Even 16 gage should be fine. I wouldn't go much thinner myself, but you could. The bends were made on a press brake. Simple 45 degree bends at the correct distance apart. I simply marked the ports, drilled the corners with a 3/8 drill and connected the dots. Pretty simple really. The bends do need to be accurately positioned.
You can use 4 long 3/8" bolts to position the intake above the heads and level it. It will sit on the bolts with a gap which you can then measure to get your required spacer thickness, subtracting gasket thicknesses as required. Gaskets and spacers can be stacked if preferred. Making the spacers is something anyone could do, using a gasket for the pattern.
Bear in mind, the bolts are not at a 90 degree angle to the intake flange, although the flange IS at 90 degrees to the deck. So your manifold bolt holes are oversized to allow tightening. One is a slot to give fore/aft position.
Jim
Adapting an Intake Manifold from Another Engine
http://victorylibrary.com/mopar/alternate-c.htm
Interesting info, but it is in error on the intake port layout for the Buick 300/340/350. It is the same as the 215. See below.
http://www.roversd1.nl/sd1web/capacity3.html
Let's put this in perspective, sbc has only .06" more deck height than 215/RV8. It get's oem stroked up to 3.75", in a 400. Running 3.4-3.5" of stroke in a RV8, still allows for good rod length and ratio. The 305 sbc piston used a 3.450" stroke, so pin offset, to counter lateral thrust, should be acceptable. The Offy single plane 4bbl manifold is easy to port 300 size. With the big increase of low end torque, I suppose this manifold might make it easier to launch an LBC, without needing new rear tires way too often. In summation, how many/how cheap 300"/300lb. V8's are available from other makers ? Onward, roverman.
Good points, Art. About your earlier comment, are they really improved & are they still available?
QuoteDo we understand that "Coscast", new and improved, RV8 blocks are available ?
QuoteAnyone who may be considering a Coscast block may want to reconsider. A friend just contacted V8 Developments and got an interesting response from Ray Webb: We can no longer supply Costcast blocks or short motors. Coscast blocks do not address the problems associated with Rover blocks ie slipping liners and porosity.
So there we are, the end is near ! Only prox. 1.7m used blocks left... "This Rover died of stroke"
Pics of Huffaker intake on spacers for 300. Not mine, but gives an idea what it looks like. Probably 1/2" for spacers and 1/4" for valley cover.
Huffaker_2.jpg
Huffaker_3.jpg
"Of all the engines to work on, the 300 with the 340 crank has the most appeal. With aluminum heads, it makes for a simple, lightweight engine that bolts up easily and cheaply to a T-5 or a 200R4 transmission. It is compact and reliable. Even with stock parts, such as 340 exhaust manifolds and 64 aluminum heads, it would be a strong performer. "
391 HP at 5700 RPM and 422 ft-lbs at 3700 RPM, per the article. Not too shabby.
I think personally, Chris Gill's version is better. Stock longer 350 capscrew rods and lighter pistons. He had some bad luck and on hindsight I would recommend the Fitech TBI over the Megasquirt. He is retarding the cam to move the RPM range up. We would have beat the Hot Rod mag version with a hotter cam. Carl, You may get a deal on his aluminum flywheel as he is going back to iron.
Too light for him? Thanks for those spacer pics!
QuoteWhat would you do if your motor blew up tomorrow? Just curious.
The quick engine reload, Scott, would likely be to put new rings & bearings in one of my 3.9 engines reusing the stock pistons & slap on the late 4.0/4.6 heads. I have an adapter ring from Dan Lagrou that will allow me to use the mini starter from my Buick 215. I also have a Crower 50232 cam & lifters, two more 4bbl intakes (one is an Edelbrock), plus a NASCAR Holley 390 carb.
I could get back on the street fairly quick, then go back to pondering about my ideal engine choice.
Great thread guys, and thank you for the kind words about my car. But the praise really should belong to a bunch of people including Jim N., Jim B., Curtis, etc.
Yes, I had some issues along the way but they were really just the typical stuff you encounter when fitting a square peg in a round hole. I should have pressure tested the block before doing all the work. Then I would have found the hairline crack. But it's fixed now so all is good. Sometimes I just needed to rant to make me feel better.
As for the EFI, I would have probably gone for a throttle body EFI in hindsight but I'm not sure it would have fit under the RV8 hood. The Megasquirt EFI works but I'm personally not super psyched on it.
I'm running 225/50/15 tires on the car. With the slightly wider engine block, I was getting some tire rub with my RV8 headers. So we shortened them about 3/4" and I installed 1/4" spacers. All is good now, but I'm installing the Saturn Vue electric power steering box to make slow speed driving more enjoyable.
The engine is out right now because I'm installing a heavier flywheel. The 10lb aluminum one was great for throttle response, but it made me look like a new driver every time I had to pull away from a stop sign (lurching or over revving to get going - it drove me nuts!).
I'm also retarding the cam, like Jim N. mentioned to get a bit more performance out of the engine. But overall I'm really happy with how it turned out. It needs a bit more fine tuning for the idle but aside from that it's good to go.
I went for a more streetable cam than the Hot Rod Magazine build because I wanted a driver. The car is very tame to drive on the highway (cruising at 2000 RPM at around 60 mph) but is completely nuts when you put your foot into it (second gear burnouts without the clutch are almost too easy).
Best,
Chris
I'm also happy with how the engine looks aesthetically.
(http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv335/cgill/IMG_3069_zpsf6rlp4sq.jpg) (http://s697.photobucket.com/user/cgill/media/IMG_3069_zpsf6rlp4sq.jpg.html)
I had a spare 300 block but didn't want to get rid of it so I decided to turn it into a coffee table for the time being.
(http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv335/cgill/2016-10-11%2020.49.58_zpszgxhhsqv.jpg) (http://s697.photobucket.com/user/cgill/media/2016-10-11%2020.49.58_zpszgxhhsqv.jpg.html)
(http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv335/cgill/2016-10-12%2016.46.22_zpsrzlzl4c6.jpg) (http://s697.photobucket.com/user/cgill/media/2016-10-12%2016.46.22_zpsrzlzl4c6.jpg.html)
(http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv335/cgill/2016-09-21%2017.37.37_zps512yvlxh.jpg) (http://s697.photobucket.com/user/cgill/media/2016-09-21%2017.37.37_zps512yvlxh.jpg.html)
Very nice Chris,
that engine bay is something to be proud of!
Live like you mean it.
fred
Carl, If you go 300 Destroker like Derek suggested with the 6.45 NASCAR rods. I found the perfect piston in the Silvolite catalog. 3159HC 96-04 Ford 232 V6. 1.43 comp. ht., Coated, Hyper, floating pin for bushed rod. You don't need the cost or strength of forged unless boosted or raced.
232.jpg
That is sooo much sexier than a stock Rover soup can piston!
(http://www.rimmerbros.co.uk/ItemImages/Large/STC64720P.jpg)
There may be a problem with the rod not having enough meat in the small end to bore for the Ford pin. I guess you could bush the piston for the smaller NASCAR pin. This idea was for the 300 crank offset ground to the Honda rod size for 3.31 stroke.
It also appears to be bigger than 3.8"
Carl, Yeah. 3.81 is .010 over. .060 over 3.75, 300 size. There are some 3.78 pistons, .030 over.
I guess that is about the limit for a 300 block.
Carl, Chris went .050 on his build. Used 3.78 +.020 for stock 350 bore of 3.8.
I went 0.050" over also for 350 cid on the 340 block. I had one wall that ended up about 0.110" thick, it was not a thrust wall. So I could have gone bigger, but thicker walls make for less flex and a more reliable engine. Plus it could be rebored once if necessary. In my case it was a reman short block that had been poorly done and we corrected the flaws by increasing the bore a bit.
Derek seems to think the 300 has thicker cylinder walls. That may or may not be true. The 300 and 340 blocks weigh the same despite the difference in deck height so the extra metal had to go somewhere. The bores are the obvious place so there could be something in that. Or, by the time they did the 340, Buick had found other places to remove metal. Also likely. A sonic test is the way to find out for sure. If I were building one I would get the block and test it as the very first step. The first one might not be the one you end up building. Luckily, rebuildable Buick 300 cores are cheap. Then I would pressure test, have the bores straightened out, then buy the pistons, then hone to final size, deck and align bore. By that point you don't have a tremendous amount of money in the engine but you know that what you have is good. So you can move on to crank, rods, heads and valvetrain.
Jim
One good thing that came of this discussion, over on the Buick board, is that the early Buick 350 rods are 100 grams lighter than the late capscrew rods. The reason this is important is because with lighter rods and pistons the engine will rev quicker, which is more in keeping with our usage. The early rods are fine for a 400+hp build which is more than most of us are looking for.
Another possibility might be to ream the pin bores of the Courier pistons to the Buick size, eliminating the need to bush the rods. But clearly if we could find a similar piston with the right pin bore it would be better.
Jim
Jim B., The lighter earlier rods can be fitted with SBC ARP rod bolts also. The bolt heads will have to be ground for cam clearance like in the Hot Rod mag build. Maybe the threaded ends also in the shallow pan area. I would magnaflux check, sand the sides and shot peen. The reason most prefer the capscrew rods is they are good to about 600 HP and have more clearance. The pistons used were Ford Ranger 2.5 SOHC standard size of 3.78 +.020. There appears to be lots of material to ream the piston bores or bush the rod for floating pin. Chris was limited by budget compromises on valve size also. The valves I recommended, 1.72 intake and 1.42 exhaust required new seats. They were turned down to 1.69 and 1.39 which is max for the stock seats. The cam will be much better retarded 4 degrees. He has more torque off idle now than the 215 had total.
I agree with retarding the cam. The LBC doesn't need all that stump pulling torque. Move it up the rpm range & stand on it. :)
Ditto.
Would need pin locks for floating pistons, a further complication. Buttons don't work with slipper style. Anybody have experience with reaming piston pin bores? I don't. But that seems to me like a good solution. Is it a 0.040" increase in bore diameter Jim?
I think this is a good alternative to building a big Rover as the expense of the top hats and bellhousing/flywheel could be used to buy TA Rover bare heads. I just made the call. Bare heads with seats and guides are $1500. If you want CNC porting, Mike handles that through a 3rd party and the cost is $1000. According to Sandy that would be a maximum porting effort as there would be no other reason to do it. So add the cost of a standard valve job with upgraded springs and new valves and you are there. Brand new ported TA heads for the extra cost of building a Rover. Not a bad trade I think. You still need to sort out your intake manifold but as we've seen that challenge is not so great. Then there is the extra height and width but again, doable. Can anybody confirm that the late Rover is 30 lbs heavier than the 215? That seems like a lot to me. It would mean the block is 90 lbs instead of 60, or 50% heavier. It's hard to see where the extra metal is. But if true it would mean only a 50 lb penalty, for which you get quite a lot.
Jim
Buick 300/340/350 V8 piston pin is .940, Ford is .912. .028 difference. The weight of the Rover block probably increased slightly with the crossbolted block and engine weight went up again with the larger journal crank.
Regarding the extra weight of the Rover engine. I think that two sources of the extra weight are the larger journal diameters on the crankshaft as well as the longer connecting rods. I wonder if the flywheel and balancer are also sources of the extra weight. Then there's the EFI intake.
Yeah but that surely wouldn't account for 30 lbs. The 215, 300, and 340 cranks all are within a pound or two of each other. That's not to say the Rover crank isn't heavier, but until we know it remains uncertain.
Jim
<a href="http://forum.britishv8.org/read.php?6,2351">Here are accurate weights of Rover 4.0 and Buick 215 blocks (with main bearing caps, etc.).</a> (Note: there shouldn't be a significant weight difference between a 4.0 block and a 4.6 block.)
So that is interesting. And I'm not saying your numbers are off, but I have shipped a couple of 215 blocks with a 60 lb weight limit so I'm just saying there is a weight discrepancy somewhere. I got the following weights:
215 block with cam bearings, main caps and bolts: 60 lbs
300 : 140 lbs
340 : 142 lbs
216 crank : 60 lbs
The 300 and 340 cranks were within a pound or two of being the same
It's been quite awhile since I weighed these but the numbers shouldn't have changed. Unfortunately I no longer have the parts so I'm not able to double check. I noticed Glen was thinking " sixty few pounds" Anybody else? Is it possible that "215" block could have been a Rover 3.5L? That could account for the difference.
If so, 16 lbs difference in the blocks, 3 in the heads, another lb here and there, it *might* be possible to add it all up to a 30 lb difference. I don't know. I guess it wouldn't be that much of a stretch.
Jim
No.
Putting the iron caps in a separate box would have given you and Glen the number you remember.
Doesn't seem right Curtis, but it's been awhile. I believe caps and bolts were 8 lbs. I'm pretty sure I posted the weights and conditions on this forum though so it should be possible to find them, though maybe time consuming.
Jim
The more I think about it, the more you might be right. There's no way I'll ever find the original post where I gave the weights that I had gotten, I know there was once a way to do a custom search but that seems to be gone, there's no way to access the posts or threads I started, so it's hopeless. Too bad. It might have supported what you say. After all, 68 lbs or so would just allow enough for a cardboard box with a shipping weight limit of 70lbs and that might have been it.
Jim