Which Buick Engine Parts?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   eric Posted on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 01:42 pm:    Which Buick engine has interchangeable parts with the Rover 3.9? I read on some site somewhere about telling the counterguy "I need parts for a '76 Buick 231 Odd-Fire". Or some such engine. Lifters, pushrods, timing chain. The Cloyes double-roller timing chain for a Buick is supposed to be cheaper than if its got a Land Rover name attached. What about main and rod bearings? Are they also interchangeable? Thanks, eric   Jason Vance (Jason) Posted on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 03:13 pm:    I'm not up to date on the 231...I know the pre '64 215 has interchangable parts: heads, lifters, pushrods, cam, crank, cam and crank bearings(I'm pretty sure...there supposedly was no change in the bottom end until the 4.0). Some of the Buick 300 parts were similar with the 215. I would not think that pistons and rods would be (even in the 3.5) due to changes in the piston dish CC's and possibly wrist-pin height (requiring a different length rod), but I could be wrong. For pistons, you could theoretically use ANY 94mm piston, but you would have to match up wrist-pin heights, shape, etc. so you wouldn't (adversely) affect CR, etc. For all valve-train compatibility, go to either cranecams.com or edelbrock.com...both list valvetrain components for the Buick 215, and if those part cross reference with other engines, you can use them (e.g. same p/n for Buick/Rover 215 lifters have been used on a number of Caddy engines, FWIW). Since you'll be hard-pressed to find a cross-reference list to the Rover variant, find cross-references to the Buick 215 and go from there (and realize that parts for the 215 are also fairly uncommon, as compared to SBC, etc).   Dee Posted on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 08:25 pm:    As far as the timing chain goes the Cloyes can�t be beat that pot metal plastic POS thing LR installed is worthless� I was also looking into performance parts I was about to reinstall it today and it looked bad even after a through cleaning. The shaft has a nice blue tint on the rear right bank and lots of galling on the rockers. Thanks Jason ill call them in the AM and ask   Jason Vance (Jason) Posted on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 11:03 pm:    Some more pages: http://www.classicbuicks.com/hpcamshafts.htm Isky cams for Buick 215 http://www.classicbuicks.com/hpint&exh.htm Offenhauser intake manifolds...for carbs, but hey, if you've got your NOS plate system, why not? http://www.classicbuicks.com/v8_block.htm cam and main bearings; timing sets http://www.flatlanderracing.com/iskycamsbuick.html more Isky cams and sets (with pushrods and lifters) http://www.flatlanderracing.com/timingsets.html Dyna-gear timing sets (I'd call first to ensure this bolts onto the 215...they probably won't know about the Rover) http://www.flatlanderracing.com/dartbuick.html Cylinder heads for SB Buick; e.g. 300 cid, but should bolt onto the 215/Rover block (*should*) http://www.taperformance.com/Timing.htm timing sets from TA Performance http://www.taperformance.com/rockers.htm rocker assemblies...if anything, an idea regarding interchangability That's it for now...I'm tired of looking. If any of y'all have more info, pass it along.   Ali Posted on Monday, October 14, 2002 - 09:41 am:    Jason, Thanks a lot for the above links. I was checking out the Insky cams and noticed that the valve lifts are more than the stock lifts. For our needs, is this ok? Will this get us a smooth torque curve starting at the low end? I'm still trying to figure out the art of choosing a camshaft for our engines!   Jason Vance (Jason) Posted on Monday, October 14, 2002 - 11:19 am:    Cams are a black-magic; when building an engine, it generally is the last thing chosen. To choose the right cam, you need to consider your driving style/needs, gear ratios, RPM range, engine size, and capability for head flow. A cam with increased duration will leave the valves open longer for air/fuel to enter the combustion chamber and exhaust to leave. Increased duration cams effectively reduce your dynamic compression ratio at lower RPMs. If you notice some of the cam charts (especially at cranecams.com), cams with higher duration generally recommend higher compression ratios. This is because of intake/exhaust valve overlap (where both are open at same time) bleeding off some of the volume of air/fuel that would be compressed during the compression stroke. This is not inherently bad, as when using a high duration cam at high-rpm, the exiting exhaust gasses help pull more air/fuel into the chamber. However, we are not building up TVRs here, we want low-end torque, and a broad power-band for hauling, wheeling, and generally, trying to move our overweight, underpowered Rovers around. Too much duration bleeds off our dynamic compression ratio at low RPMs, affecting the BMEP (effective cylinder pressure when the air/fuel mixture is ignited; directly related to torque and HP). While increased duration opens the valve longer for more air/fuel to flow in, increased lift moves the valve further away from the seats and port, offerring less resistance to the air/fuel entering the chamber. A cam with the same duration but increased lift will generally produce more torque across the RPM range than a cam with less lift. More air/fuel is entering the chamber, but no more/less is bleeding out of the exhaust port because the duration is unchanged; this results in a higher dynamic CR and greater BMEP, leading to greater torque (and greater power since it is the product of torque and RPM, divided by 5252 -using US measurements-). We like torque. But there is a limit to how much greater air/fuel we can get in/out with increased lift. At some point, the port size/design ultimately limits the flow of air, and increased lift will not aid the way the heads breathe (well, really not true when considering dynamically, but since it is easier to think about things statically, for the most part this blanket statement works). Also, increased lift may lead to increased valve-train wear; but, again, we're not building TVRs, and we will not be too concerned with "excessive wear" due to the chosen cam. Without port work, there is little benefit to lifting more than .440" at the valve. You can safely lift this without worrying about coil-bind (the physical limit of valve-lift due to the coils of the valve-spring binding). Also, you may desire increased duration over stock (because, face it, the stock cam is very conservative). You don't wanna go nuts here, because it ultimately affects were your power-band lies on the RPM range. Look at the Optimax from RPi, the Powermax (I think) from Crane, and Iski's grind; all three offer a mild cam with slightly increased duration (10-15 degrees, advirtised), and increased lift (all above .410"). Try to pick a cam grind that the manufacturer recommends from 1000-5000 or 1500-5500 (preferrably the first one with an auto-t.ranny); really, more than putting together the logic I've just written, this is the range of the powerband that this cam will be effective over...the grinder of the cam knows! Last advice, don't fool yourself. Be realistic with your intended driving needs and realize that changes made over an RPM range we seldom use (e.g. over 5500...) are going to result in decreased torque/power at lower RPMs and your Rover driving like the dog it is (haha, pun inteneded).   Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Posted on Tuesday, October 15, 2002 - 10:24 pm:    http://www.rover-v8.co.uk/ http://www.roverv8.co.uk/ (Note: it IS different from the above site) http://www.rpiv8.com/homepage.htm Be sure to surf to the links off of these pages, too.... FWIW... -L   Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 11:28 am:    Thanks a bunch, Jason, these links may be of a great help to me when it comes to do something good to my 68 Wagoneer's Buick 350 (which is an awesome engine, btw). peter   Jason Vance (Jason) Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 12:16 pm:    Peter, you'll probably have beter luck with those links than those looking for 215 parts...the 215 just isn't that popular in the US and it makes sense. Why build up a small engine for a heavy car when you can build up a big engine for that heavy car.   Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 09:04 pm:    well... rover's choice of buick V8 was a minor step down from the main rule of building a 4x4 - make every next component in the drivetrain stouter than previous. for the very same reason Lightweights and M38s lived ways past their engine's glory days. Jeep stepped down the "right" path with using the 327 Vigilante on a Wag/J-trucks - but not by a lot, for only the front axle (Dana 27 until 69 or 71) was not up to snuff. peter   Ali Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 10:39 pm:    Jason, Thanks for the detailed explanation. I'm leaning toward the Optimax from RPI right now.