Engine and Transmission Tech

tips, technology, tools and techniques related to vehicle driveline components

Go to Thread: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicLog In
Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2


ex-tyke
Graham Creswick
Chatham, Ontario, Canada
(1165 posts)

Registered:
10/25/2007 11:17AM

Main British Car:
1976 MGB Ford 302

authors avatar
Re: BOP engine weight....again!
Posted by: ex-tyke
Date: January 06, 2013 09:39AM

I’ve been losing sleep over the math content of this thread – something doesn’t add up!
With reference to my first post indicating my measured the BOP/T5 weight was 428lb and Dan’s response for his BOP weight
Quote:
- That 440 pounds I got was for the engine alone The T5 and bellhousing add another 85 pounds
With reference to my second post indicating that a typical published SBF weight is about 460lb
Quote:
…compare these with Dan's long block weight of 525lb…
To which Dan replied
Quote:
The 525 I quoted above was for the engine AND transmission!
..so doing the Ford math, subtract xsmn/bhsg weight from 525 yields an engine weight of 440 – same as BOP
So ya see Carl, Dan IS saying that the Ford weighs the same as a BOP…
….now I can go back to sleep!


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(4511 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
1979 MGB Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: BOP engine weight....again!
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: January 06, 2013 09:50AM

Quote:
So ya see Carl, Dan IS saying that the Ford weighs the same as a BOP…
….now I can go back to sleep!

Graham,

Not in your wildest dreams. You are still asleep. Must be sleeptyping! :)


BlownMGB-V8
Jim Blackwood
9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042
(6468 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 12:59PM

Main British Car:
1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS

authors avatar
Re: BOP engine weight....again!
Posted by: BlownMGB-V8
Date: January 06, 2013 12:45PM

Maybe it depends on whether it is a 215 block or a ... what was it Carl? 3.9? So if a 3.9 is 10 pounds heavier maybe a 4.0 is 20 or a 4.2 is 30 or... by the time you get to 5.0 they'd be the same wouldn't they?

Jim


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(4511 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
1979 MGB Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: BOP engine weight....again!
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: January 06, 2013 01:02PM

My understanding is that there is a little bit of weight difference between the Buick 215 block & the late Rover 3.5/3.9 etc.


MGB-FV8
Jacques Mathieu
Alexandria, VA
(299 posts)

Registered:
09/11/2009 08:55PM

Main British Car:
1977 MGB Small Block Ford, 331 Stroker

Re: BOP engine weight....again!
Posted by: MGB-FV8
Date: January 06, 2013 01:59PM

I think that we should all agree to what should be on the engine and what series, such as the late Ford 5.0 Liter which is 35 lbs lighter than some earlier blocks. Too many apples and oranges being compared don't you all think? although, it would be real sweet to have the SBF come closer to the BPO weight.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3188 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: BOP engine weight....again!
Posted by: roverman
Date: January 07, 2013 11:52AM

In the final analysis, aluminum is "still" 1/3 the weight of iron/steel. This also lends a different sound signature to the Rover, some say more pleasant . Onward, roverman.


302GT
Larry Shimp

(240 posts)

Registered:
11/17/2007 01:13PM

Main British Car:
1968 MGB GT Ford 302 crate engine

authors avatar
Re: BOP engine weight....again!
Posted by: 302GT
Date: January 09, 2013 07:45AM

I saw a post somewhere showing a Rover 4.6 weighed the same as a Ford 302 with aluiminun heads, but I have not been able to find it again. The poster claimed to have weighed several Ford and Rover engines...

But some things to consider:

Except for the block, the materials in a 302 with aluminum heads are the same as for a Rover v8.
The bare block weight of a later 302 is 124 pounds.
The Rover block has substabtial iron parts: cylinder liners may be comparable in weight to the thin wall Ford cast cylinders; the cross bolt Rover main caps are substantially heavier than the Ford main caps, the Rover block has more material being that the block is a "deep skirt" design while the Ford block ends at the crank center line, the aluminum walls of the Rover block are thicker than those of the Ford block, and there is a layer of aluminum around the cylinders while there is no comparable structure in the Ford.
A Dart aluminum block for a Ford 302 weighs 90 pounds (also costs over $4,000).
I believe the Rover crank is substantially heavier rthan the Ford crank (longer, longer stroke, internally balanced).

Therefore, it seems reasonable that the Ford 302 and the Rover 4.6 are close in weight. But a 215 is probably lighter. Also, the new Ford Boss 302 block (push rod version) is substantially heavier than 124 pounds.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2018 04:35PM by MGBV8.



roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3188 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: BOP engine weight....again ?
Posted by: roverman
Date: January 09, 2013 11:42AM

OK, I'll "fess", this why my rover block is lighter than the iron ford block....I cool it with liquid helium ! Yes, it's heavier than a balloon, but you get the idea ? roverman.


Dan Jones
Dan Jones
St. Louis, Missouri
(280 posts)

Registered:
07/21/2008 03:32PM

Main British Car:
1980 Triumph TR8 3.5L Rover V8

Re: BOP engine weight....again!
Posted by: Dan Jones
Date: January 09, 2013 02:18PM

> I saw a post somewhere showing a Rover 4.6 weighed the same as a Ford 302 with
> aluiminun heads, but I have not been able to find it again. The poster claimed
> to have weighed several Ford and Rover engines...

I don't believe it. I've got both Rover 4.6L and Ford 5.0L short blocks here
that I can weigh but just lifting them to move them around the shop, the Ford is
heavier. I also have aluminum and iron Ford small block heads that can be weighed
but the aluminum SBF heads are heavier than their Buick/Rover counterparts.

> The bare block weight of a later 302 is 124 pounds.
> The Rover block has substabtial iron parts: cylinder liners may be comparable
> in weight to the thin wall Ford cast cylinders; the cross bolt Rover main caps
> are substantially heavier than the Ford main caps, the Rover block has more
> material being that the block is a "deep skirt" design while the Ford block ends
> at the crank center line, the aluminum walls of the Rover block are thicker than
> those of the Ford block, and there is a layer of aluminum around the cylinders
> while there is no comparable structure in the Ford.

A friend weighed a bare cross-bolted Rover 4.0L/4.6L sand cast block at 63 lbs.
With caps and bolts it was less than 73 lbs. The die cast 2 bolt main 215
block is lighter still.

It is possible to build two different Rover/Buick V8's that differ by
50 lbs or more but, if you do you homework, you can come up with an engine
that's under 300 lbs ready-to-go. Nearly everything is lighter than a SBF.
A bare Buick 300 head is 13 lbs (18 lbs assembled). The die cast GM bellhousing
is 6 lbs. My Huffaker intake is 11 lbs. My aluminum flywheel is 20 lbs
lighter than the original iron flywheel (31 lbs versus 11 lbs). A mini
starter saves a fair bit, especially compared to the iron-nose GM starter
(a Mcleod starter is 9 lbs versus 17 lbs for the aluminum nosed GM starter
and the iron nose GM starter is even heavier). The die cast Buick blocks,
bellhousings, and heads are all lighter than their sand cast Rover
counterparts. For instance, the die cast GM bellhousing is 6 lbs lighter
than the sand cast aftermarket bellhousing I have. A Carter AFB is a
bunch lighter than the iron base Rochester 4GC or the Rover twin carb or
fuel injection set-ups. The thin gauge TR8 stainless steel headers are
lighter than any of the cast iron manifolds. The stamped steel GM valve
covers are lighter than the Rover or Offy cast aluminum ones. Buick
valve train is lighter than Oldsmobile (aluminum versus steel rockers),
the GM balancers are lighter than the Rover ones. The brackets on the
Rover V8 are aluminum and the TR8 uses the small GM rotary A/C compressor.
You can lighten the crank and reciprocating assembly, port the heads, etc.
It all adds up.

One of these days, I'll weigh everything out and make a big list.
For now, here's a few numbers:

Aluminum Buick V8 (215 and 300) weights:
Mcleod mini starter - 9 lbs
GM 215 starter - 17 lbs
Bare aluminum Buick 300 head - 13 lbs
complete Buick 300 head (shafts, stands, rockers, bolts, plugs) - 18 lbs
Buick die cast bellhousing - 6 lbs (without access cover)
aftermarket sand cast bellhousing - 12 lbs
Buick iron flywheel - 31 lbs
stroker iron flywheel (modified Monza V8, use with Buick 300 crank) - 23 lbs
aluminum flywheel - 11 lbs
TR8 alternator - 12 lbs
Buick 300 exhaust manifolds - 23 lbs (pair, 11 and 12 lbs individually)
Buick dual plane 4 bbl intake - 11 lbs
Edelbrock 2x2bbl dual plane intake - 10-11 lbs
Edelbrock Performer Rover dual plane 4 bbl intake 13-14 lbs
Huffaker single plane 4 bbl intake- 11-12 lbs
Timing cover w/ oil pump - 5 lbs
Buick 300 crank with balancer - 49 lbs

The earlier Ford 302 cranks that use a 28.2 oz-in balance factor are around 40 lbs without
a balancer. The later 5.0L cranks that use a 50 oz-in are maybe 4 lbs lighter.
The aftermarket stroker cranks are generally heavier.

Dan Jones


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3188 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: BOP engine weight....again!
Posted by: roverman
Date: January 09, 2013 04:43PM

Thanks Dan, concise as always. This reflects back to that British born ,"How to build a V8 MGB". The subliminal and otherwise warnings that if you increase front end weight, youll likely drive right off a cliff,(sort of). Zillions of cars have been built with less than 50/50 weight distribution, ie. TR7/8s, Sunbeam Tiger, etc, etc. They all seem to handle quite well, once they are properly sorted, suspension, wheel/tire wise. Some would contend, you could even plop a 455 monster Buick, into one and "still" have good handling. Engine weight is only part of the succesful build formula.


Moderator
Curtis Jacobson
Portland Oregon
(4576 posts)

Registered:
10/12/2007 02:16AM

Main British Car:
71 MGBGT, Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: BOP engine weight....again!
Posted by: Moderator
Date: January 09, 2013 07:00PM

50/50 static distribution isn't a very ambitious goal... 50/50 is where you want to be under heavy braking, right? I hope to get my GT down to 2000# wet, even with heavy accessories such as a full roll cage. Much more doable with a Buick 215!


MGB-FV8
Jacques Mathieu
Alexandria, VA
(299 posts)

Registered:
09/11/2009 08:55PM

Main British Car:
1977 MGB Small Block Ford, 331 Stroker

Re: BOP engine weight....again!
Posted by: MGB-FV8
Date: January 09, 2013 09:18PM

The Rover engine needs all the help it can in being lean and mean in order to keep up with Ford muscles; OMG, did I really say that?!?!?! :)
Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.