Engine and Transmission Tech

Just looking at this picture of the block...The lower bosses at the bottom head mounting holes are the exact same shape as my block...also the block seems to have Buick numbers...HII6705...and the heads are Olds heads...3 valve cover bolts on the bottom and 2 on the top....

Yeah, it sure looks to me like in that picture there would be metal where you'd need it.

Jim

Here's a pic of the earliest Rover V8, the P5. Rover eliminated the bosses for the extra head bolt from the very beginning.

Now we have another quick spotters guide to differentiate a Rover V8 block from a GM.

Yeah, and Buick also got rid of the intake side bosses when they went to the cast iron 300 ( I've got one ) as well ... the sorry @#$%&.

This page has a good overview of the various heads. Say thanks to Jimbo for diggin it up for me.

[www.roversd1.nl]

Okay, it can be done cause it has been done. here is a 1961 Buick 215 that has been drilled & tapped for the 6th head bolt.

[www.mgexp.com]

Curtis,

I found a couple of website with more Buick 215 id. info.

[www.buicks.net]

[transmissionadapters.com]

Ah, but the real question: Are the newly tapped holes in the deck blind holes? Or are they open to the water jacket?

Jim

He says blind.

Just to throw in a thought - could it be that this was built for supercharging? Hence the low cr.
The cam spec might give a clue.

Ivor

Is it possible that this was done at the factory due to a shortage of Olds blocks?

As I recall, the flywheels were slightly different from the Olds to the Buick. Looking at the balancing pins pressed into the flywheel might help clarify which factory this came from. Likewise, Buick varied its pistons, so if there's a dished piston under the heads, that will imply a Buick short block.

"Is it possible that this was done at the factory due to a shortage of Olds blocks?

As I recall, the flywheels were slightly different from the Olds to the Buick. Looking at the balancing pins pressed into the flywheel might help clarify which factory this came from. Likewise, Buick varied its pistons, so if there's a dished piston under the heads, that will imply a Buick short block."

The block castings are dimensionally the same between Olds and Buick 215s. The only difference is whether or not the sixth bolt holes were drilled and tapped.

The Olds and Buick FLEXPLATES are different due to the differences between the RH5 trans and the Dynaflow. The Olds RH5 used a fluid coupling internal to the trans, not a conventional torque converter. The front of the RH5 simply has a splined input shaft, similar to that on a manual trans. The Olds "flexplate" really looks like an MT flywheel with a separate hub plate with springs that looks like the center of a clutch disk. This is to make up for the lack of a torque converter on the RH5.

The Buick and Olds MT flywheels are the same, except that Buick used a flywheel with an additional inertia ring outboard of the clutch area to increase rotational inertia on certain heavier models (like wagons) to make for a smoother clutch engagement from a stop. The Buick and Olds flywheels can be swapped.

Do you take apprentices, Joe?

You're like an encyclopedia.

Olds and Buick castings are identical is my understanding, only the machine work is different.

It seems this could be true. The outline of the lug is there and it would make sense to eliminate it if you were eliminating the metal the stud screws into. So I'm inclined to agree that the old statements that there was no support under the deck for the top row of studs may have been an uninformed guess by someone who was not an engineer.

Still just a theory until someone drills one out though.

Jim

Quote:

Olds and Buick castings are identical is my understanding, only the machine work is different.

That and the casting numbers. ;)