Triumph Sports Cars

Edith has full blown maternal instincts, and will ferociously oppose anything she fears could ham her child. I respect that and feel a lot the same. But we don't entirely see the safety issue the same in regards to LBCs. So it is probably safe to say that Matthew will be stuck with the Jeep for at least a couple years. Now what that will do is leave Edith with just the TR-7 during the day, and as she likes to go shopping at lunch time the most obvious remedy for that is for her to take my truck. Which is fine, as I expect to be driving the MGB by then, leaving the TR once again as the spare car, available when she doesn't want something big, or when I have to haul something. Personally, I think that works fine, but if she does not identify with the TR she won't tolerate it for very long, which is what I think this is all about. But of course, I've been wrong before.

Jim

Perhaps hard-wire a Helen Reddy cd. ? "I am woman , I am strong" ?

She'd probably like that.

That Jeep has the whole "rollover" thing going for it though.

Both of my girls started off in trucks, and not for the reason you think.
When I was younger (at the beginning of recorded time) most of my "errors in judgement" involved a back seat full of buddies.
The girls had trucks because they could only carry one passenger, which turned out to have many benefits.
So you could present a pretty strong argument for the 7 and it's lone extra seat.
Stick in a roll bar and you're in better shape still.
An interesting discussion that crops up around here from time to time involves the safety of older vehicles vs new.
Specifically newer brake systems. The thought is that ABS, DSC, TRACS, etc cause drivers to become much too complacent and much more aggressive in traffic because they compensate so well for bad driving. 90 percent of the time they are excellent, but when you put yourself in a position where they can't control the vehicle any more, the situation is unrecoverable. Resulting in some pretty horrific crashes.
An older vehicle teaches you to pay more attention to the vehicle and it's limitations.Presumably turning you into a better more aware driver. Speeds are usually slower, tailgating stops ( because you can't) and errors generally can be driven out of.
The younger drivers learn to respect and understand their vehicle more.
Any way, of all the opinions I have, this is certainly one of them.
Cheers
Fred

Sorry Fred, you don't have govenors up there. While we're trying desperately to keep our kids safe, how about dual controls, each side of car ? I like those outboard casters that Consumer Reports and some racing shools use. "How fast can this pig go" ?, something unsupervised youngsters might ask ? Safer, roverman.

Hmmm... a little off track, aren't we. Oh well.

The Buick V6 TR-7 is now running as well as could be expected. Idles nice, no more bog off the line, no dying at stops, more responsive to the throttle, maybe a little more power, maybe running a little cooler, certainly overall noticeably smoother. Less throttle at idle. Finally, the timing mark is nice and consistent and goes where it should. I've switched it to manifold vacuum and got a reading of 20 degrees of vacuum advance which is a bit high, but the motor seems fine with it. I suppose at 8:1 it would.

I can't honestly say that there is a world of difference between running with the odd fire trigger in the distributor and with the right parts. It's more of a subtle difference that is always just noticeable. Bear in mind this is no powerhouse. 110 Hp listed, is not going to shred rubber. But it does have good torque, and a slow idle. Nice things for a family runabout.

So, probably time to change oil, finish the tune up, then run it awhile and see what kind of fuel mileage and oil usage it gets. For now, I think it'll be OK.

Jim

Oh....yah....right......sorry, (the four magic words that can get you out of any kind of trouble, just use them in whatever order is required)

I'm one of the bigger offenders for going off topic...Oh look at the kitty!

Glad to see it's running better. Wonder how long it had been that way? Probably a reason for it's sale in the first place?

Cheers
Fred

Is this family counselling or a car website? lol Tim

What kind of kitty is it Fred? ; )

My kitty is always begging. Is that because of the Hemi ? Sorree Jim. roverman.

Just stick a 3.4 with T-5 in it. If Mathew is going to learn to really drive he needs a proper transmission! And tell Edith I said so. ;)

I have the same problem and am looking at options except that my engine is already a 3.8. It was completely disassembled and rebuilt but when put together, apparently the guy who did it erred. The bearings have spun. The crank will have to be ground, at the least. The rods have to be replaced as they may have been all or part of the problem. The bearings are loose in the rods. In addition, too much sealant was used and some was found in the engine. My (new) restorer suspects that the oil passages may have plugged. So, he wants to get a crate 3.8. The top end should still be fine but..........I hear where he is coming from. The engine would at least have to be disassembled again and boiled, crank turned and new rods used. I'm wondering about using a 3.5 GM. John's Cars says to not use Chevy engines but that is because of the rear location of the distributer. The 3.5's don't have distributers and the 60 degree V6 looks tiny next to the 90 degree 3.8. The engine would bolt directly to my T5....What's the hook? I haven't seen anyone here or on other forums that has done that swap. Those engines are WIDELY used in MGB swaps but.........Any help from here would be greatly appreciated. If this swap would require nothing except new mounts and new wiring...I think I'm on it. Any thoughts?
JGug1

JGug1 (Jim) I am in the process of putting a GM 3400 in my TR6 and it is a very compact motor. The 3400 is the same size as the 3500. Being that these engines are set up for front wheel drive you will have a bit of work to convert a 3500 for a RWD application. But you can be assured that the end product is well worth the effort!
You will have to turn the intake around to face forward and change out the throttle body to an older throttle body that is manually operated as the 3500 has a drive by wire unit.
You will have to change out the front cover and water pump to an older GM 2.8 or 3.4 set up.
You will have to make asymetric motor mounts as the bolt locations on either side of the motor are different
You will have to go with a different flywheel ( late 90's Chev Cavalier)
If you plan on using your transmission I am assuming that it is a Gm t5 then you can to go with an S10 2.8 bellhousing. The 3500 starter is on the LH side but the 2.8 bell housing can be notched for this as long as you weld in a piece to strengthen it. This setup will work with an external slave cylinder. I think that either a S10 slave or a slave from a Feiro will work. I am not sure about this but I think a 2.8 clutch assembly will work with this also.
The last big issue to deal with is the engine harness and ECU. This system is set up to work with the drive by set up so you will have to go to an older simpler system.
If you want to go this route check out the British Car Conversions website. Click on Faqs and you will see a topic on how to convert the 3400/3500 engine and check it out as I may have missed a few details. Also check out all the cool conversion parts this outfit supplies for converting these engines. If you have any questions send Marc Traylor an e-mail and he will be able to help you.
I hope this gives you an idea of what you are looking at.

Cheers
Byron



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2012 11:04PM by BWA.

Jim, it sounds to me like you and I both have the same engine in the car presently, the difference being that you have a manual transmission where I have an automatic. I'm not going out tonight to check but I was thinking it was an '87 but it could be '85 or even '84. At any rate it's the even fire motor with the BOP bellhousing (not to be confused with BOPR) and is entirely interchangeable with the 4.1L. It's a good engine and extremely common for exceptional prices at local junkyards everywhere. I'd say grab a good one at the pic-n-pull for a couple bills, (check compression) scrub it down, bolt it in, and drive away. If you find a 4.1 out of a Caddy or a big Buick, so much the better.

Some time after that engine I understand the heads were redesigned with raised ports (not interchangeable) and then still later the bellhousing was changed to the small corporate GM pattern which is the same one the 60 degree V6 uses. These engines, known as Gen-III 3800's are arguably the best version that GM ever built, with all modern conveniences. Because the primary difference is the bellhousing, a simple bellhousing swap would allow you to swap one in and go, provided you had the induction and ignition sorted. Headers, mounts, hoses and all should be the same. That would be the natural second choice, and again, a very common engine, with SEFI , distributorless ignition, modern seals and the works. That would be the upgrade path, and will not only beat the pants off any of the 60 degree motors, it will give you great mileage doing it.

I know a lot of guys can't seem to see past the 3400 and 3500 and it's true that they are decent engines, but when you already have the conversion done for the 3800/3.8/231/252/4.1L, which is a bigger engine to start with, why in the world would you want to throw all that away and buy or fabricate a bunch of new parts just so you could downsize?? Do you have so much power that you just can't stand it? Somehow I doubt that.

Now let's consider one or two more things. The 3800 is an iron Rover motor with two cylinders cut off. That is simply a known fact. It uses a different bellhousing but is otherwise identical. If you are willing to buy new headers (and nobody makes 3400 headers for the TR-7) why wouldn't you consider a Rover V8 instead? After all, the car WAS designed for it. But that would require a new and expensive bellhousing as well. Well guess what? The Buick 300 uses the BOP bellhousing which is the same one your V6 uses. And the 300 can use the same headers that fit the Rover. The 300 is the same size as the Rover but with a little taller deck. Finally, the 300, in 1964, came with aluminum heads and intake, and weighed maybe 50 lbs more than your V6, and possibly even less than that. The only issue is hood clearance, and with that double bump hood already, who is going to care if you modify it?

Then of course is there is the 1UZ option.

I'll be sticking with the 2bbl 231 (3.8) in this car. It only has 110 hp but lots of torque and more importantly I've finally gotten it to run well and it is quite sufficient for this car. But check out Wikipedia on these engines:
[en.wikipedia.org]
You'll find that what you have is a very good series of engines to choose from, and can easily make the car whatever you like by staying within this series, especially when the Rover and the SBB are included.

Jim

Correct. My engine is an even fire from the mid 1980's. The issue of bell housing is probably important. John's Cars calls for obtaining a Vega bell housing (there are some others but that is the one I got). Wasn't the Series III 3.8 solely Front Wheel Drive?
WHOOPS, It was used in trhe Camaro and in the Firebird. I just did some searching and according to a source on Antique Automobile Club Of America Forum, in a discussion initiated by a TR7 guy looking for more power, the Series III 3.8 wsa used in cars to be sold in California because the new 60 degree engine did not meet Calif EPA requirements. Finding one in the mid west might be togh though IF all the parts fit, one might get a crate engine, perhaps.
IF all the parts fit the 4.1, and it will accept my Vega bell housing, that may be the way to go......providing my Eldelbrock intake would fit, too.

This is a MOST intriuging thread, for sure.
Jim G

With the BOP bellhousing, the 4.1 would be the logical upgrade. It comes with a 4bbl QJ carb and intake that can be used on the 3.8 so if you happen across one and want to use your Edelbrock you can sell the intake and carb off the 4.1 (and I might be interested if the price is right). I was completely unaware that the Vega used this bellhousing pattern but it sort of makes sense in a weird way. GM Corporate did the design on the Vega and round-filed the Chevy and Pontiac proposals. This was in '68 so there was a definite trend towards the BOP as a standard. It's a little surprising that they were able to lay it all on Chevy without allowing any changes but I'm just guessing that division resistance led informally to overlooked flaws which ultimately doomed the car. Still, who would have thought that we could use a Vega bellhousing? Incidentally, the SBB and even the BBB use the same bellhousing pattern, though I'd guess the Vega part may not be as strong, and I think even Cadillac used it. Apparently Chevy was the odd man out, yet they ultimately managed to hold out against all odds, and that may be why that era of GM cars had two separate lines of rather similar 4 speed automatic transmissions. It is likewise interesting to note that the version that Chevy used ultimately prevailed (700r4) despite poorer gear selection and a dual pattern bellhousing on the 2004r.

But back to the engine. Looks like mine is an '82 but still the same thing, and I guess they made something like 25 million plus of them. Considering worldwide production of all Rover variants is somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple million, the V6s should be littering the landscape, and if you walk through a pick-n-pull, indeed they are. I think my local yard charges something like $150 for any V6, your choice, and they have a surplus of 80's era Caddys and Buicks so the 4.1 is going to be pretty common. Smog era 2bbl 3.8's have about 110 hp but the 4.1 is rated at 135 and about 200 ft/lbs of torque, partly due to the increased displacement and partly due to the 4bbl carb and intake. Obviously headers and a little hotter cam can only help but the biggest hold back is the 8:1 compression. It would however make a great platform for adding a blower.

The series III 3800 is in the neighborhood of 200 hp N/A and as much as 260 in the blower version. But it has the small corporate bellhousing like the 60 degree motors used. That shouldn't pose much of a problem though as an S10 bellhousing should work fine. With these engines the electronic controls become the major issue.

Jim

A rebuilt Cadillac or Buick 4.1 can be bought with a 7 year warranty for $1295. Same price for a 3.8 engine. I had rather thought that the parts from my 3.8 would mostly match up. I think you are saying that the intake manifold is the same pattern. That would likely mean that the Eldelbrock 4 barrel that I have on it would also be useful. I wonder about my headers. I'm actually guessing that they would be the same too. Any thoughts?
Jim

I think that's all the same Jim. Obviously since the intake interchanges the deck height is the same and I'm almost positive they use the same heads.

Incidentally, TAPerformance makes a nice set of aluminum heads. A little expensive but flow very well. I think that a low mileage junkyard engine is still the best bang for the buck and Buick engines hold up well so it would certainly be worth considering finding that $200 low mileage junkyard engine and then slapping a set of TA heads on it. I'm not sure it would bring up the compression any, but it would be lighter and make more power. Now if money was not an issue, a guy could buy the TA aluminum block, install some high compression pistons, the good heads and a decent cam and the sky's the limit. With turbo those have made over 1000hp, but even N/A you'd drop a good bit of weight and be over 200 easy. Or get the 4.1 and put a new set of pistons in it to bump the compression up around 10:1 or 11:1 with aluminum heads if you don't mind running premium. The higher compression will bring your mileage up too.

The crate rebuild may be a good deal, but I'd sure want to know what the compression is.

Jim