whats the rover v8 called in america
Discussion
ianstaffordshire said:
by what name are these engines known in america heard buick mentioned before but if so what models and years were they produced in
The Rover V8 was developed in 1960 by GM and called the Auminium Fireball V8. It was fitted in the 1961 Buick Special and Pontiac Tempest. A similar version was also used in the Oldsmobile F85. These engines ceised production in America in 1963.
If you google buick rover v8 I'm sure you will find several good histories which outline various interesting facts... Buick 300 an IRON derivative, later ally Buick V6's which are basically 2 cyls chopped off - sounds the same as the Metro (thingy..) and share common oil covers still. Even hidden away is the fact that Buick got the design from BMW in the first place.
Dave
Dave
spend said:
If you google buick rover v8 I'm sure you will find several good histories which outline various interesting facts... Buick 300 an IRON derivative, later ally Buick V6's which are basically 2 cyls chopped off - sounds the same as the Metro (thingy..) and share common oil covers still. Even hidden away is the fact that Buick got the design from BMW in the first place.
Dave
Dave
true
Have to say I really don't get this story about the Buick 215 being derived from a BMW design (the engine in the 507 I presume). Designing an engine of this kind was well within GM's (by far the largest car company in the world at the time) engineering capability. Surely the give away is that the fundamental architecture dimensions of bore centres, bearing widths & diameters, bore/stroke, etc are all imperial and not metric. Once these dimensions are selected (especially bore centres) the design sort of falls inplace around them. I'm happy to see proof otherwise.
wheeljack said:
Have to say I really don't get this story about the Buick 215 being derived from a BMW design (the engine in the 507 I presume). Designing an engine of this kind was well within GM's (by far the largest car company in the world at the time) engineering capability. Surely the give away is that the fundamental architecture dimensions of bore centres, bearing widths & diameters, bore/stroke, etc are all imperial and not metric. Once these dimensions are selected (especially bore centres) the design sort of falls inplace around them. I'm happy to see proof otherwise.
If they were so 'great' why did they have so many problems in casting Aluminum
It was only good for shiny caravans and aircraft in sheet material - so they went back to lump iron as the raw material for sports cars very quickly (amid whoops of joy for lower oil prices - was this a debut of spin I wonder?) 
Dave
spend said:
wheeljack said:
Have to say I really don't get this story about the Buick 215 being derived from a BMW design (the engine in the 507 I presume). Designing an engine of this kind was well within GM's (by far the largest car company in the world at the time) engineering capability. Surely the give away is that the fundamental architecture dimensions of bore centres, bearing widths & diameters, bore/stroke, etc are all imperial and not metric. Once these dimensions are selected (especially bore centres) the design sort of falls inplace around them. I'm happy to see proof otherwise.
If they were so 'great' why did they have so many problems in casting Aluminum
It was only good for shiny caravans and aircraft in sheet material - so they went back to lump iron as the raw material for sports cars very quickly (amid whoops of joy for lower oil prices - was this a debut of spin I wonder?) Dave
I'd agree with wheeljack that the BMW story is unlikely.
I don't see the word great being used just that they were the biggest car company.
I would imagine the reason they went back to iron was cost, pure and simple.
V8 GRF said:
spend said:
wheeljack said:
Have to say I really don't get this story about the Buick 215 being derived from a BMW design (the engine in the 507 I presume). Designing an engine of this kind was well within GM's (by far the largest car company in the world at the time) engineering capability. Surely the give away is that the fundamental architecture dimensions of bore centres, bearing widths & diameters, bore/stroke, etc are all imperial and not metric. Once these dimensions are selected (especially bore centres) the design sort of falls inplace around them. I'm happy to see proof otherwise.
If they were so 'great' why did they have so many problems in casting Aluminum
It was only good for shiny caravans and aircraft in sheet material - so they went back to lump iron as the raw material for sports cars very quickly (amid whoops of joy for lower oil prices - was this a debut of spin I wonder?) Dave
I'd agree with wheeljack that the BMW story is unlikely.
I don't see the word great being used just that they were the biggest car company.
I would imagine the reason they went back to iron was cost, pure and simple.
Its true, Buick purchased the design rights of the engine from BMW. Its a BMW Designed engine
Wheeler saying he would never have anything German in his cars
Uncle Bulgaria said:
Its true, Buick purchased the design rights of the engine from BMW. Its a BMW Designed engine
Wheeler saying he would never have anything German in his cars
Never seen that
where did you find that detail? He'd be devastated if he found that out then
Edited by V8 GRF on Thursday 17th May 14:29
V8 GRF said:
Uncle Bulgaria said:
Its true, Buick purchased the design rights of the engine from BMW. Its a BMW Designed engine
Wheeler saying he would never have anything German in his cars
Never seen that
where did you find that detail? He'd be devastated if he found that out then
Edited by V8 GRF on Thursday 17th May 14:29
Will have to go through all my old car mags now
Wish I had just kept quite now.
Dave, that's not proof! That's just a brain fart of conjecture (and if I may say tainted with some typically misplaced condescending european attitude to the US.)
They probably did have some problems with casting aluminium at the start, the foundries probably tried to produce it like they would a normal old-fashioned thick wall iron-block, i.e just throw the shit in. Aluminium casting is nowhere near as tolerant to bad casting practices and requires far more time and care (especially development time in terms of flow, gating & core sealing) to ensure acceptable porosity and containable residual stresses. This is absolutely nothing beyond GM's capability to have these problems ironed out.
In the miniscule three or so years it was in production did they not produce around 750000 (i.e. only 250000 less than Rover did in nearly 40 years, and nearly 3000 times BMW did in the 507). I seriously doubt anybody else was making aluminium engines in those sort of numbers at the time. And when Rover did buy the design rights apparently some of the ex-Buick chaps came over helped set up production and improve casting processes. (Joe Turlay ex-Buick chief engineer being one)
As for going back to cast-iron, in that intervening time improvements in casting processes allowed the use of thin-wall iron casting (eroding some of the aluminium advantage) and casting in iron is always much cheaper and robust, probably reason enough if weight is not a significant issue. Besides they continued casting the heads on the 300 in aluminium for a while longer.
Unless you're in the industry, nobody seems to understand that producing a simple engine inexpensively in vast numbers is far more difficult (and IMO much more impressive) than a complicated boutique engines in the 100's. I have serious doubt's that BMW's engine could have been produced at stratospherically higher volumes without some serious re-engineering.
Anyway if you can prove that the BMW engine has 4.25" bore centres, I might warm to the idea.
They probably did have some problems with casting aluminium at the start, the foundries probably tried to produce it like they would a normal old-fashioned thick wall iron-block, i.e just throw the shit in. Aluminium casting is nowhere near as tolerant to bad casting practices and requires far more time and care (especially development time in terms of flow, gating & core sealing) to ensure acceptable porosity and containable residual stresses. This is absolutely nothing beyond GM's capability to have these problems ironed out.
In the miniscule three or so years it was in production did they not produce around 750000 (i.e. only 250000 less than Rover did in nearly 40 years, and nearly 3000 times BMW did in the 507). I seriously doubt anybody else was making aluminium engines in those sort of numbers at the time. And when Rover did buy the design rights apparently some of the ex-Buick chaps came over helped set up production and improve casting processes. (Joe Turlay ex-Buick chief engineer being one)
As for going back to cast-iron, in that intervening time improvements in casting processes allowed the use of thin-wall iron casting (eroding some of the aluminium advantage) and casting in iron is always much cheaper and robust, probably reason enough if weight is not a significant issue. Besides they continued casting the heads on the 300 in aluminium for a while longer.
Unless you're in the industry, nobody seems to understand that producing a simple engine inexpensively in vast numbers is far more difficult (and IMO much more impressive) than a complicated boutique engines in the 100's. I have serious doubt's that BMW's engine could have been produced at stratospherically higher volumes without some serious re-engineering.
Anyway if you can prove that the BMW engine has 4.25" bore centres, I might warm to the idea.
Gassing Station | Griffith | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff