ex-tyke Graham Creswick Chatham, Ontario, Canada (1165 posts) Registered: 10/25/2007 11:17AM Main British Car: 1976 MGB Ford 302 |
Re: BOP engine weight....again!
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:With reference to my second post indicating that a typical published SBF weight is about 460lb Quote:To which Dan replied Quote:..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 |
Re: BOP engine weight....again!
Quote: 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 |
Re: BOP engine weight....again!
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 |
Re: BOP engine weight....again!
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!
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!
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 |
Re: BOP engine weight....again!
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 ?
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!
> 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!
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 |
Re: BOP engine weight....again!
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!
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?!?!?! :)
|