Jump to content


Photo

Repco Brabham V8 engines


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#1 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 24 January 2004 - 06:04

:cool:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dick Willis
In 1969 Malcolm Eaves of Birmingham bought a new BT21 rolling chassis from the factory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Dick, great story, the car certainly motors around quickly and reliably. However, your contribution makes me think of another way this thread could go. I have always wondered how many Repco/Repco Brabham engines (whatever the correct nomenclature is!) were built and where they all are now!!! Did any go overseas unaccompanied by a chassis? This maybe better under a Repco V8 thread.....Just wondering out aloud!


Now just typing out loud!!

I believe Phil Irving was on the design team of this very successful engine......would be interested in any snippetts on where they were developed (originally from an Oldsmobile?), where they were built, how big their customer base was in the heydays etc etc

Advertisement

#2 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,270 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 24 January 2004 - 10:37

Originally announced as a replacement for the venerable Coventry-Climax FPF 4-cyl that was starting to look like it would have to struggle in the Tasman Cup series when the BRMs arrived, the Oldsmobile F85-based 2.5-litre single cam per bank V8 was slated for use only in Australia and New Zealand.

If you believed the press releases...

Of course, there's no doubt that this was a smokescreen for a more clearly defined attack on F1, with Jack Brabham being the motivating force and Repco keen to be seen on the world stage as they exported products to many countries.

Repco had already taken on the continued production of FPFs when C-C opted out, buying the patterns (later consigned to the junkpile!) and making the whole engines themselves. Though they might have imported crankshafts from Laystall?

The main thrust of the Repco-Brabham V8 (and remember that Brabham cars were sold as Repco-Brabhams for years prior to this time...) was simplicity and cost containment.

Heron heads were used, with combustion chambers in the pistons and the heads were interchangeable from bank to bank... or at least the castings were.

One would envisage about six customers in Australia and maybe three or four in New Zealand in the first couple of years. But it never got that far. Before too long it was announced that the F1 assault was on and Jack was away and winning races.

One of the design requirements, by the way, was to ensure that the engine fitted into an engine bay designed for the FPF.

Before too long there was the sports car scene to be considered with Frank Matich and Bob Jane getting 4.4-litre versions. I am sure that engines (without cars) were sent to England in the 1967/68 period... some hillclimbers had the cars and there was the Healey that ran at Le Mans with one. They weren't all ex-F1 engines, I'm sure.

In time there was an Indianapolis version too, and before it was all over there were twin cam per bank versions with 4-valve layouts in 3-litre and 5-litre form. The Indy engine was, IIRC, a 4.2-litre version of this model.

Model numbers, I think, were 620 for Olds block and external exhausts (ie outside the vee), 640 was Olds block with internal exhausts, 740 was with the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation-manufactured (or at least cast...) block which eliminated a lot of extraneous stiffening bits that had been necessary on the Olds engine with the internal exhausts (still single cam per bank) and then there was the 860 (again, if my memory is correct) which doesn't seem to fit in as the '8' or '7' or '6' refers to the block type and the '40' or '60' to the head layout... but I'm sure there was an 860 and it was the 4-valve head which only came on the CAC block.

Someone will correct this I'm sure...

As an aside, Phil Irving told me that if he had still been with the project when the 4-valvers were having so many problems, he would have had a separate oil system for the valvegear to eliminate the lubrication problems they were facing. But some put these down to the change from Ampol oil used in testing in Australia and Gulf (?) used in the UK.

#3 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 24 January 2004 - 14:33

Ray,

Just curious, but was there ever a logbook or record made of the block numbers that were used? Somewhere, I once found a block number for one of the engines used by BRO during the 1967 or 1968 season. I have always wondered about this since the discovery of that block number was a complete surprise, buried in a report somewhere.

Perhaps Repco or someone kept track of these. Then again, perhaps not....

#4 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,270 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 24 January 2004 - 21:55

Repco, as it was in those days, is no more... so that's not a likely source.

But there are surely people who knew the engine numbers at the time. We know, for instance, that the Leo Geoghegan 2.5 gained a CAC block in time, that it went from Leo to Doug Macarthur and then on to the Gibson family in Macarthur's Rennmax sports car.

The 39, into which it was first fitted, would possibly have the two engine numbers written into its log book and this should be in the possession of the Dawson-Damer family.

As we reflected in the 'what if there had been no DFV' thread, the potential for expansion of the Repco F1 involvement was realistic and would probably have come about had they not had that bout of unreliability in 1969.

A potential source for your log of numbers, by the way, might lie with Mrs Phillips, the mother of Jim Phillips, who still owns the Lionel Ayers Rennmax that had a 5-litre engine similar to that used by Matich in the SR4. Paul Gibson relies on Mrs Phillips for some spare parts because the balance of stock from Repco Brabham Engines went (IIRC) to that camp.

#5 David Shaw

David Shaw
  • Member

  • 1,734 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 24 January 2004 - 23:40

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Model numbers, I think, were 620 for Olds block and external exhausts (ie outside the vee), 640 was Olds block with internal exhausts, 740 was with the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation-manufactured (or at least cast...) block which eliminated a lot of extraneous stiffening bits that had been necessary on the Olds engine with the internal exhausts (still single cam per bank) and then there was the 860 (again, if my memory is correct) which doesn't seem to fit in as the '8' or '7' or '6' refers to the block type and the '40' or '60' to the head layout... but I'm sure there was an 860 and it was the 4-valve head which only came on the CAC block.


These are what I believe to be the correct engine designations. It may be that with the change to the 4-valve heads that there were alterations made to the block as well, hence the '8' designation.

At least one of the Repco V8 Elfin 600s (that currently driven by Ian Ross in historic events) had a 730 series engine, which I assume was a CAC block, with uprated 20 series heads, as it shares the external exhaust of the 620 engine.

#6 Coogar

Coogar
  • Member

  • 139 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 25 January 2004 - 01:07

Just a sort of 'added' query, but when I bought my much-missed 'Coogar' hill climber - Ralt RT1/2 with Rover V8 power, and my favourite race car of all time (hence the e-name) - it had an adaptor plate - block to FG400 Hewland - with 'Repco Brabham' cast into it.
It lasted the whole time I had the car, and I subsequently saw at least one one other car fitted with one.
I was told at time of purchase that it was part of the original Brabham '66/'67 inventory, but people tell you things........
Was this a mass-produced component ?
Did lots of people attach Repco/Olds/Buicks/Olds to Hewlands ?
Reading this, I guess they did, but......Does Somebody know ?
Does it matter ?
Just wondered.........

#7 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,270 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 25 January 2004 - 11:02

There were plenty of Rover, Buick and Olds engines attached to various (but mostly FT200...) Hewlands.

Here in Australia I can think of the several ANF1 cars... Geoghegan, Scuderia Veloce, R C Phillips (Harvey), Cooper, Ramsay and McCormack Elfin 600s, and the Jane cars for Harvey.

In sports cars here we had the Rennmax of Macarthur and Gibsons... but this was simply the Geoghegan package transplanted, then there were a couple of Elfin 360s (Phil Moore and the other escapes me), the bigger Rennmax of Ayers/Phillips, Matich's SR3 (of which there were at least two, one passing to Don O'Sullivan) and the SR4. And the Elfin that preceded the Matichs, that was Olds powered for a year or more.

The ex-Mildren Brabham converted to Olds power for hillclimbs and which eventually was the vehicle in which Chris Murphy died... and the ex-Mildren Maserati gained an Olds, but I'm not sure at all which gearbox was fitted by Ross Ambrose.

And latterly there has been the Brabham Buick which came from England and is owned by Les Wright.

There may be more... probably so... P76-powered hillclimb cars of course... the guy who became a paraplegic in one (was that an ex-Barrie Garner car?)... well, that's at least one, but there were more.

This list includes about fifteen, but may be slightly flawed. It may well also be pessimistic, but it's only Australian numbers.

There was at least one other SR3 sold to America with an Olds engine. McLarens sold in America with Olds engines, I'd be fairly sure they had Hewlands, though possibly they were HD5s.

#8 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 7,509 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 25 January 2004 - 12:14

THe was a new block for the 860 engine which was shallower and lighter than the 600 and 700 series.

As I understand it, the cylinder head designs were:

[list=1]
[*]Type 60: single OHC, inlet inside the blok, exhaust outside, as raced in the BT19 and 20 in 1966
[*]Type 30: protoype for 1967, sinlge OHC, bowl-in-piston combustion chamber, inside inlets, outside exhausts. Not used in 1967, but revived for the BT31 Jack drove in Australia in 1969
[*]Type 40: single OHC, exhausts and inlets both within the Vee, as used in the BT24
[*]Type 50: unraced twin OHC, 4 valves per cylinder, exhausts and inlets on both sides of the head
[*]Type 60: "conventional" 4 valves per cylinder, as used in the 1968 BT26.
[/list=1]

#9 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,535 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 25 January 2004 - 16:15

The following was researched and written for Profile Publications (GB) in 1973:

"An Engine is Born

The Repco V8 was conceived in February 1964 when the Melbourne management realized that supplies of Climax FPF bits and pieces would probably dry up within the life of the Tasman Formula. Chief Engineer Frank Hallam and Project Engineer Phil Irving were detailed to produce an engine to fit existing Repco Brabham chassis, and their answer was a new V8 using an existing GM Oldsmobile all-aluminium block. -

The obvious way to obtain more power from an unchanged capacity of 2k-litres was to use more cylinders, increasing piston area and crankshaft speed, hence the choice of a V8. It was then expedient to side-step a slow and costly foundry operation by using a proprietary block, and it so happened that General Motors in America had just shelved a suitable unit.

This Oldsmobile F85 had been developed as part of an enormously costly linerless aluminium engine programme for a 3-litre Buick “compact”. The linerless idea didn’t work out so a few units were produced with cast-in ferrous liners, but that made the whole thing too fiddly for mass production. and GM cut their losses and scrapped the whole idea. Repco picked up the pieces, and turned commercial failure into a sporting Champion. Irving found that the basic block could carry 2.5 to 4.4-litre internals, so could double as a Tasman Formula or Group 7 sports-car engine. It would need stiffening. and overhead camshafts would have to replace the standard centre camshaft within the Vee which operated overhead valves by long pushrods. There were two basic parameters to observe; one, that frontal area should be minimised to maintain the existing Repco-Brabhams’ excellent penetration, and, two, that overall width should be limited to fit existing chassis frames.

Irving consequently evolved simple mirror heads for each bank of cylinders, carrying parallel valves in simple wedge-shaped combustion chambers, angled inwards at 10-degrees from the cylinder axis and operated by single overhead camshafts to keep the unit narrow, and to reduce the length of unsupported drive chain to each shaft.

Basic work on the block tilled all unwanted holes and spaces allowed for the original push-rod valve gear, and a ladder-formation stiffener plate in ??-inch thick steel was then screwed to the sump flange to tie the crankcase crosswise. New main bearing caps were retained by long bolts which passed deep into the crankcase. and the existing 3.5-inch bores were reamed and fined with 10-thou thick Repco cast liners. With a bore and stroke of 85 mm x 55 mm the capacity of 2.5-litres was achieved. Laystall in England machined new crankshafts. which ran in five Repco bearings, and another short-cut was taken when lightened and balanced Daimler V8 con rods were found suitable.

Repco pistons were cast in aluminium silicon alloy, with shallow valve clearance indents in their crowns, and Irving’s new mirror heads were identical in every dimension to ease the spares situation; it was all good basic practical design.

The engine’s internals were all-new, and two beautiful magnesium castings completed the conversion; a Y-shaped cover for the camshaft drive chains and a new 3½-inch-deep ribbed sump which helped to stiffen the crankcase even more to accommodate its designed power increase. Adaptors were available to suit either Weber carburettors or Lucas fuel injection, and Repco even made their own specialized oil and water pumps to suit. Basic dimensions showed a length of 25½-inches (excluding the Climax FWB fly-wheel), width across the heads of 21 -inches, and height (excluding induction equipment) of 23-inches.

The prototype 2.5-litre engine coughed its way into the world on Repco’s Richmond, Victoria, test bed on March 21, 1965. only 51 weeks after Irving and Hallam first put pen to paper. It was at about this time that Brabham and Repco began talking about producing an intermediate 3-litre variant for Formula One, and Phil Irving spent much of the summer in England, working closely with Jack himself on detail design of the new variant. They reverted to the standard 3.5-inch (88.9 mm) bore, and adopted a piston stroke of 60.3 mm, to give a swept volume of 2,994cc. With Lucas fuel injection this new version gave 285 bhp at 8.000 rpm in early tests. and all Brabham had to do now was fit it into a chassis to have his 1966 Formula One car.

However, Ron Tauranac felt that M RD’s lack of direct involvement with Formula One was most unsatisfactory. and it had then lasted for three whole seasons. Before work began on the new car, a new agreement was evolved with BRO, giving MRD their direct involvement and Tauranac the incentive which had been so lacking in the 1½-litre days.

This arrangement was finalized as late as November, 1965, and a crash programme began to build up a new Repco-engined car for the first official race to the new Formula. the non-Championship South African GP at East London, on January 2.

The Repco V8 1966—1968

In 1966. the Oldsmobile F85-based RepcoBrabham engine became known as the type 620. and engine numbers were all prefixed ‘RB-620’. This was a two-part classification, the ‘600’ applying to the block and the ‘20’ to the cylinder heads. Engine numbering began at ‘RB 620—E1’.

During the year the engine proved very reliable and produced sufficient usable power to make the light and good-handling Brabham chassis extremely competitive. At Monza for the Italian GP the BRO transporter disgorged three cars and an engine, newly crated from Melbourne, with “Monza 350 hp” stenciled on the crate. In fact engine ‘E7’ produced a peak of 298bhp on Repco’s test-bed, and after attention to the porting and a raise in compression ratio John Judd (BRO’s ex-Climax engineer) saw 311bhp at 7.250 rpm on the Climax dynamometer. There was more to come but at this point a piston burned out.

New developments were in hand for 1967, and during the following months a whole family of Repco V8 bits and pieces were developed, the blocks taking hundred-series numbers and the heads ten-series.

The basic deficiencies of the Oldsmobile production block and the complex operations necessary to bring it up to racing specification made the production of an all-new block a near necessity, and the 1966 World Championship success gave Repco the impetus to press on with its production. The 20-series cross-flow heads had also provided a low-level exhaust system which gave the chassis designer headaches weaving the pipes through his suspension system. So new heads were developed with their exhausts exiting within the Vee to clean-up the installation.

Repco engine developments were at this time being carried out by Repco-Brabham Engines Pty Ltd at Maidstone, outside Melbourne, where a four-man design team were working under general manager Frank Hallam, and with Phil Irving’s strong influence their guiding light. The new team was headed by Norm Wilson, assisted by John Judd (down from England), Lindsay Hooper and Brian Heard.

The crankcase was redesigned to increase rigidity, and was cast in aluminium alloy. A change was made to wet liners and cross-bolted main bearing caps, and there was also a system of main bearing studs which distributed stress right through the new crankcase. These studs screwed into the bottom of the case, and continued right through it with reduced diameter, relieving stress concentrations through the top of the new block where they were provided with nuts, tightened down after the main bearing nuts had been tightened.

The new cylinder heads retained parallel valves, but they were now in-line with the cylinder axis—instead of at 10-degrees to it— and were flush with the head face. Camshaft centres were naturally changed to suit, and the original 20-series wedge-shaped combustion chambers were replaced by a “bowl-in-piston” arrangement. The all-new block took the ‘700’ type number, and it represented a weight-saving of 30 lbs over the original Oldsmobile-based component. The new centre-exhaust heads were known as the type ‘40’... so what had happened to the type ‘30’?

This was indeed the second design completed, but it retained the original cross-flow characteristics with outside exhausts, and mated that system to the new in-line valve/bowl-in-piston features. At the time it was felt that with parallel valves the gas had to make a pretty sharp turn as it left the cylinder, and it was immaterial to the gas which way it turned. The fallacy of this argument was proved when some serious tests were run with the 30-series heads, but when exhaust installation became of paramount importance the 30-series was held over, and the centre-exhaust type ‘40’ heads took their place in the 1967 type 740 engines.., and another World Championship came Repco’s way.

At the end of 1967 the Repco-Brabham range of V8 engines included the old Formula One 3-litre and sports-racing 4.4-litre 620s, and the new 740s in both 3-litre and Tasman 2.5-litre trim. Original 2.5 620s were still available, and new 4.2 and 2.8-litre Indianapolis engines were on the stocks (the latter with AiResearch turbocharging).

Highest output achieved from the Fl 740s was only 330 bhp, but all Repco’s horses seemed to be hard workers compared to the 408 claimed for the new Cosworth-Ford V8 and the 417 or so of the Eagle-Weslake V12. Nonetheless, something fairly drastic had to be done if the Repco- Brabhams were to be competitive in 1968.

There were two avenues of approach. One was for a short-stroke magnesium block engine, and the other was for a daring new cylinder head design, using a radial valve disposition. As it turned out a combination of the new and existing ideas was chosen, using aluminium short blocks with twin-overhead camshaft, four-valve per cylinder heads; without the complex radial layout, or short stroke.

Developments of the held-over 30-series heads had proved there was a power advantage to be achieved from cross-flow gas paths, and the radial-layout type ‘50’ heads aimed to exploit this advantage to the full. They were intended to use twin overhead camshafts per bank, each one driving inlet and exhaust valves alternately. The valves resided side-by-side in each half of a conventional pent-roof combustion chamber, exhausts and inlets being diametrically opposed across the chamber. This layout allowed very simple valve operation. compared to BMW’s F2 Apfelbeck heads in which a radial valve layout appeared in hemispherical combustion chambers; the BMW valve stems protruded in all directions, like the horns on a sea-mine I

On the Repco test heads exhaust stubs appeared within the Vee as a bunch of eight small-bore pipes, while four more appeared below the heads outside the Vee on either side. Eight induction trumpets fought for space within the Vee, and four more appeared on each side. One test engine was built-up using these heads and results were “most encouraging” but it was all a blind alley once again due to installation problems.

So the type ‘50’ heads were shelved, and Repco (who had a lot of originality inside them, fighting to get out) adopted a more conventional ‘60’-series design, using twin ohc and conventional four-valve per cylinder layout, with cross-flow gas-paths, neatly tucked-away outside exhausts and Lucas injection gear uncluttered within the Vee. These heads were mounted on the new 800-series block, which was fully 1¼-inches shallower in the crankshaft centre-line to head interface dimension than its forerunners. It was considerably lighter, despite the use of a nitrided gear train to drive the new multiple camshafts, and was suitable only for 2.5 and 3-litre capacities. Part of this weight-saving came from the use of new crankshafts with fewer balance weights, and the original 800-series block to be raced was cast in magnesium. It made its debut in the 1968 Tasman series, but in Formula One it eventually ran out of water and pulled out of line. It survives in John Judd’s hands today in Rugby.

One short-stroke test engine was built-up using a 2½-litre crankshaft, bigger bore and a 5-litre sports-car head (a 700-series development of the 600-series 4.4-litre engine) carrying bigger valves to take full advantage of the extra bore. It showed no power advantage, and the short-block 800-series engines appeared in 3-litre form with shorter con-rods, using 5.1-inch centres instead of the original F85/620/740-type 6.3-inch-centre components. Time spent on these developments cost the quad-cam 60-series dear, and Brabham and Tauranac could have been forgiven for buying Cosworth-Ford engines as the 1968 season progressed from problem to problem. The Mexican GP saw Repco’s last Fl appearance in a works car, for the 12.000 miles between Melbourne and Guildford proved an insuperable obstacle to race development.

Jack Brabham drove a new Tasman car fitted with an 830 engine in the Tasman Championship early in 1969, and since then Repco have rested on their hard-won laurels, and have concentrated on service of their Tasman and Indianapolis V8s, and production of a successful Holden-based Formula 5000 engine." (...AS OF 1973)

Blackie still bitterly regrets not having stayed with the 740 16-valve engine for 1968 instead of the 860 32-valve. However, the 4-valve per cylinder heads worked well on the big 4.2-litre 4-cam V8 Repco Indy engine, which proved crucially lower-revving, keeping below the resonant range which was destroying the cam followers in the 3-litre Formula 1 860s.

DCN

#10 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 24,608 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 25 January 2004 - 16:57

Originally posted by Doug Nye
The following was researched and written for Profile Publications (GB) in 1973:

. . . and a ladder-formation stiffener plate in ??-inch thick steel was then screwed to the sump flange to tie the crankcase crosswise.

My copy of this excellent profile says that the thickness of this item was 3/16 inch. Is this now classified information, or is it that under the new European legislation dimensions are no longer allowed to be quoted in good old imperial units? :lol:

#11 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,535 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 25 January 2004 - 17:51

Nah - didn't read out on the Textbridge OCR programme and then, since I was approaching the end of another five-minute TNF 'window' before returning to doing something 'sensible', I couldn't be naffed to search it out on the original.... :p

DCN

#12 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,270 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 25 January 2004 - 21:50

3/16"?

Hardly... it was more like a full inch thick... it was huge! Maybe three quarters of an inch, but certainly no less than that, to my recollection. Mind you, I only ever saw pictures, I never saw one of these engines in bits.

Now, a sidelight to all this... Phil Irving's involvement...

Phil clashed with John Judd. He told me of this several years later, he was less than amused when Judd arrived and started getting more of the development policy down his lines of thought rather than Phil's.

I'm sure that Phil told me he was out of it before the twin cam engines were built.

Judd was there at Brabham's suggestion/insistence...

#13 Dale Harvey

Dale Harvey
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 25 January 2004 - 22:33

In addition to all the information that has been posted here about Repco Brabham V8 engines there is an excellent article written by Graham Howard in Australian Motor Racing Yearbook No. 13 1983/84. It deals with all the various block types, head types, development problems and cures. Ther is also a list of all the engine types with BHP and RPM and who used them. Engine capacities listed are 2.5 litre,3.0 litre, 2.8 litre, 4.2 litre, 4.3 litre, 4.4 litre, 5.0 litre and also an interim size between 4.4 and 5.0 approx. 4.8. A total of 52 engines were built, not many considering all the different configurations.
Dale.

#14 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,270 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 25 January 2004 - 22:40

Not having that book to hand, Dale, could you refer to that story or the pics and see what thickness the stiffening plate is below the block?

Or is the dimension mentioned in the text?

#15 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,535 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 25 January 2004 - 23:25

Ray - the reference to the original conversion's 3/16-inch thick ladder-plate originated in Repco's own description upon which I wrote mine. I was told the plate was Jack Brabham's suggestion to reinforce the production block's bottom end.

DCN

#16 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,270 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 25 January 2004 - 23:36

Well, Doug, it is a long time in the past now... but my recollection is that it was much thicker than 3/16"...

The weakness in the Olds Block was its lack of integrity with regard to the 90 degree displacement between the banks. In short, there was almost nothing to stop the two banks of cylinders lying themselves out flat.

On the (pushrod) engine built by Peter Dowd and Frank Ure they overcame this by tying the heads tightly together with a very stiff bracing across the inlet manifolds... but they told me at the time (and quite pointedly so...) that this was the issue that Repco were addressing with their stiffening plate.

But I have been wrong before... I note that the sump was also quoted as being a further stiffening agent.

Press pictures released by Repco were familiar to me when the engine was announced because I was at that time boarding with Unsta... sorry, Mike Kable. He brought home the pictures that had been sent to him at The Australian and we had a good look at them. I'm sure the stiffening plate was shown separately or in an exploded view and at the very least appeared to be very thick.

#17 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 24,608 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 26 January 2004 - 18:18

There is a photo showing the stiffening plate in Doug's profile, but I can't post it as I don't have access to a scanner at the moment . If no-one comes up with anything in the meantime, I shall try to post it later this week. It certainly looks thicker than 3/16-inch to me . . .

#18 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 7,509 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 26 January 2004 - 23:54

Originally posted by Tim Murray
There is a photo showing the stiffening plate in Doug's profile, but I can't post it as I don't have access to a scanner at the moment . If no-one comes up with anything in the meantime, I shall try to post it later this week. It certainly looks thicker than 3/16-inch to me . . .


Posted Image

Hoping the Author doesn't mind.

#19 Dale Harvey

Dale Harvey
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 27 January 2004 - 05:30

I shall just copy a few lines from Graham Howards story.
The as received block was stiffened by the addition of a 3/16" steel diaphram ( later made in dural with a useful saving in weight) across the sump- gasket face, and tied in to extended main bearing bolts; the valley between the banks,and the sixteen quite large bores for the hydraulic lifters for the original pushrod valve gear, were collectively roofed in with aluminium sheet and dowels and sealed with araldite. The original head-bolts were replaced with waisted studs,and the original timing face of the block was resurfaced.
So maybe that might clear up the saga of the stiffening plate thickness.
Also Ray I think it was Chris Dowd and Frank Ure not Peter.
Dale.

Advertisement

#20 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,270 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 27 January 2004 - 06:02

Chris Dowd indeed... where did I get Peter from?

As shown in the photo, however, it's more than 3/16"... and I'm sure it was much thicker than that.

#21 Cirrus

Cirrus
  • Member

  • 1,753 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 27 January 2004 - 08:10

I asked Ron Tauranac about the infamous plate, and he reckoned it was 3/16". He said that if we need a definitive answer, then John Judd would know.

#22 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 02 February 2004 - 11:57

:lol: I noticed a Leyland 4.4 Litre V8 for sale today........$300!

Now what do I need to make a reasonable facsimile of a Repco-Brabham....

Shopping List:

3/16 to 1" stiffening plate......etc etc :rolleyes:

#23 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 July 2005 - 12:57

QUOTE

I think Sir Jack was really looking after Rindt by giving him the previous years engines for the first half of 1968 as the complex RB860 engine was failing.

BRO had sold all their engines but one at the end of the 1967 season and Rindt used that one early in 1968 but retired in the event before Monaco[Spain I think] with no oil pressure, and that is why they had to use another engine for Monaco.This I believe to be the Tasman engine but probably enlarged to 3 litres.

When John Judd of Engine Developments sold all the remaining spares for Repco engines a few years back-most of them were 2.5 litre bits-sleeves, pistons etc. So, where did they come from??

I suggest the Tasman engine used at Monaco.
UNQUOTE

#24 maoricar

maoricar
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 27 March 2006 - 13:23

And what DID happen to REPCO???,......the money grubbers get to them???
I worked for one of their (several) NZ subsidiaries through the sixties, into the seventies..a golden era. At that time REPCO was probably the largest aftermarket and OEM auto parts replacement manufacturers on earth, with, at least in the 60's, a healthy appreciation of motor sports. For goodness sake, there was almost nothing, engine related and chassis related that REPCO did'nt manufacture. I remember vividly, in our own tool-room we had three of the most talented engineers available.....Ron Phillips..an Oz ex speedway rider and builder; Len Jelaca...Kiwi.. another speedway rider...taught me how to lay down and step off a bike; and Bill Duke....a Scot...who, famously (or in-famously depending on your ear drums) built up a multicylinder beach-racer from two Ariel Arrow engines, one on top of the other. These guys could and, frequently did, make anything...I mean ANYTHING, sometimes with from no more than a pencilled sketch on the back of the proverbial envelope...example?..an auto-feed camshaft bushing, end-facing and oil-hole drilling and countersinking machine. We were all managed by one, Donald Henry Burrell.. who actively encouraged us to explore, imagine, and think.
Now I understand that the name REPCO is attached to chains of parts sellers only. If so this is surely a great loss.

#25 Terry Walker

Terry Walker
  • Member

  • 3,005 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 27 March 2006 - 13:47

Yes, it's puzzled me, too. One minute Repco's an engineering giant, next its a retailing pigmy flogging Chinese motoring products.

How did it implode?

#26 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,779 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 28 March 2006 - 08:47

Repco seems to have split into bits.
There is Repco with the spare parts stores.
The engine components section became ACL (Automotive Components Limited)
From the ACL website...

The ACL Group started as a management buyout company when it acquired a group of businesses from Repco Ltd in 1986. The name "Automotive Components Limited" and the Trade mark "ACL" were first used by a former listed public company of that name in 1951. The "original" ACL was acquired by Repco in 1965. The Group is an amalgamation of 27 businesses over a period of 78 years. The ACL Group now has sales of US$105m per annum and employs over 1000 people.

Then there is PBR brakes
and Warren and Brown
But I don't know who owns what or why. :p

#27 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 28 March 2006 - 09:34

Originally posted by Catalina Park
Repco seems to have split into bits.
There is Repco with the spare parts stores.
The engine components section became ACL (Automotive Components Limited)
From the ACL website...
Then there is PBR brakes
and Warren and Brown
But I don't know who owns what or why. :p


But!!

1. where is REPCO in Goulburn??

2. is the swap meet on this weekend and which day??

:confused:

#28 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,779 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 28 March 2006 - 10:19

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4
1. where is REPCO in Goulburn??

The Repco store is in Goldsmith st (opposite the Coles/K-Mart carpark entry)
The Repco machine shop is in Wayo st (near Ivan Milat's place)

2. is the swap meet on this weekend and which day??

Sunday from 6am.

Repco used to stand for REplacement Parts COmpany.
Now it stands for Rip Every Poor C*** Off. :lol:

#29 cavvy

cavvy
  • Member

  • 171 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 02 April 2006 - 11:27

Originally posted by Catalina Park
Repco seems to have split into bits.
There is Repco with the spare parts stores.
The engine components section became ACL (Automotive Components Limited)
From the ACL website...
Then there is PBR brakes
and Warren and Brown
But I don't know who owns what or why. :p


Following the float of the current Repco business (Repco Corporation Limited November 2003) the car parts business stayed with ACL as did the BT19 Repco Brabham & the SR4 Match.

Litigation between the companies was settled about March 05 with Repco refunding $6.9 mil - the Repco Brabham is now owned by Repco & the Matich by the former Engineering Director Ian Tait (?) - both cars were at the recent Philip Island meeting.

On the issue of Repco engines Bob Jane (I believe) owns nine (9) including the 4.4 litre single cam motor that started life in an Elfin 400 & later saw service in a very successful (much loved by me) Torana sports sedan (ruined when Frank Gardner took it over and a F5000 Repco installed). According to John Blanden/Barry Catford in the Elfin book, the Jane engine was the first sold to a private owner.

#30 xbgs351

xbgs351
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 05 April 2006 - 09:45

Specialised Engine Services is a Melbourne, Australia based Engineering Company specialising in the manufacture of components for the Repco-Brabham racing engines as raced by Sir Jack Brabham, amongst others. It is run by Don Halpin, a former mechanic for the Repco Brabham Race Cars and is active in Historic Racing in Australia in both Repco-Brabham vehicles as well as other racing formulas. Specialised Engine Services have everything you need in Repco-Brabham - from engines and parts to history, knowledge and experience.



http://www.repcobrabham.com/

#31 cosworth bdg

cosworth bdg
  • Member

  • 1,350 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 05 May 2006 - 07:00

It is very interesting you bring up this thread , as i was a REPCO Ltd , Repco Brabham Apprentice [1965 / 1969] , and some factual stories i can tell...

#32 David Shaw

David Shaw
  • Member

  • 1,734 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 05 May 2006 - 07:40

Feel free to fill us in. As a Melbourne bloke myself, I am most interested.

#33 cosworth bdg

cosworth bdg
  • Member

  • 1,350 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 06 May 2006 - 07:05

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Repco, as it was in those days, is no more... so that's not a likely source.

But there are surely people who knew the engine numbers at the time. We know, for instance, that the Leo Geoghegan 2.5 gained a CAC block in time, that it went from Leo to Doug Macarthur and then on to the Gibson family in Macarthur's Rennmax sports car.

The 39, into which it was first fitted, would possibly have the two engine numbers written into its log book and this should be in the possession of the Dawson-Damer family.

As we reflected in the 'what if there had been no DFV' thread, the potential for expansion of the Repco F1 involvement was realistic and would probably have come about had they not had that bout of unreliability in 1969.

A potential source for your log of numbers, by the way, might lie with Mrs Phillips, the mother of Jim Phillips, who still owns the Lionel Ayers Rennmax that had a 5-litre engine similar to that used by Matich in the SR4. Paul Gibson relies on Mrs Phillips for some spare parts because the balance of stock from Repco Brabham Engines went (IIRC) to that camp.

All of the original Repco info [pre 1986] is now held by R.M.I.T. MELBOURNE.

#34 cosworth bdg

cosworth bdg
  • Member

  • 1,350 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 07 May 2006 - 03:14

Originally posted by cavvy


Following the float of the current Repco business (Repco Corporation Limited November 2003) the car parts business stayed with ACL as did the BT19 Repco Brabham & the SR4 Match.

Litigation between the companies was settled about March 05 with Repco refunding $6.9 mil - the Repco Brabham is now owned by Repco & the Matich by the former Engineering Director Ian Tait (?) - both cars were at the recent Philip Island meeting.

On the issue of Repco engines Bob Jane (I believe) owns nine (9) including the 4.4 litre single cam motor that started life in an Elfin 400 & later saw service in a very successful (much loved by me) Torana sports sedan (ruined when Frank Gardner took it over and a F5000 Repco installed). According to John Blanden/Barry Catford in the Elfin book, the Jane engine was the first sold to a private owner.

You mean NIGEL TATE don't you.............I think he has now retired ???

#35 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 22 May 2006 - 17:52

Quoting from the "An engine is born" excerpt further up the thread:

"This Oldsmobile F85 had been developed as part of an enormously costly linerless aluminium engine programme for a 3-litre Buick “compact”. The linerless idea didn’t work out so a few units were produced with cast-in ferrous liners, but that made the whole thing too fiddly for mass production. and GM cut their losses and scrapped the whole idea."

I don't know how this info originated but as often happens it has now grown some legs. I saw it repeated in the last issue of Motor Sport as well.

The Buick/Olds BOP 215 aluminum V8 was never a linerless engine. From inception the block used cast-in-place ferrous liners. Tens of thousands of these engines were produced by General Motors in this form in both Oldsmobile and Buick versions. Later on GM would cast linerless blocks of high-silicon aluminum, namely for a large-bore version of the Can-Am big-block Chevy V8, then in high volume with the Chevrolet Vega 2300 engine. But that process and these engines came a number of years later...circa 1969-1970.

As everyone knows, in 1965 GM sold the BOP V8 to Rover. It is a little less well-known that GM continued to manufacture its own cast-iron version of the engine (300, 340 and 350 CID Buick V8) through 1977. The problem with the aluminum block with the original BOP V8: the anti-corrosion packages in permanent antifreeze at that time were at best marginally effective; condition exacerbated by the American habit of draining out and saving antifreeze and running water only in summer (holdover from the alcohol-based antifreeze days). Meanwhile the car the BOP V8 was designed for grew in size and weight until an aluminum block no longer made sense anyway.

The problem with the linerless Vega block: with no sleeves the all-aluminum cylinder case was dimensionally unstable in the vertical plane... liners would sink in the block and lose their seal with the cylinder head; the head gasket would leak coolant into the chambers and wipe out the lubrication on the cylinder walls. The concept itself -- piston running on silicon nodules in the aluminum -- was basically sound, more or less.

#36 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,270 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 22 May 2006 - 20:43

How can such a matter of everyday knowledge become 'factually' reported in Motor Sport?

Literally everyone knew these engines had liners... surely?

#37 cosworth bdg

cosworth bdg
  • Member

  • 1,350 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 24 May 2006 - 03:41

Originally posted by Ray Bell
How can such a matter of everyday knowledge become 'factually' reported in Motor Sport?

Literally everyone knew these engines had liners... surely?

They did, the BOP V8 engine was linered from day one until ROVER [BMW] cancelled the engine recently.... :up:

#38 cosworth bdg

cosworth bdg
  • Member

  • 1,350 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 20 June 2006 - 05:02

Originally posted by Catalina Park
Repco seems to have split into bits.
There is Repco with the spare parts stores.
The engine components section became ACL (Automotive Components Limited)
From the ACL website...
Then there is PBR brakes
and Warren and Brown
But I don't know who owns what or why. :p

Very sad state of affairs, the carpet baggers got control of it on the stock exchange , the same execise is happening today.... :down: :down:

#39 Gerr

Gerr
  • Member

  • 696 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 20 June 2006 - 06:39

Actually,
The design study for the aluminum 215 began at GM Engineering in 1956. It was a linerless engine with with sprayed- on metal coating to protect the aluminum surfaces.

Buick took over the project in early 1958 and started a production design late that year. They altered the design to use dry liners of centrifugally cast iron. The block was cast around a set of these liners.

These and other processes to manfacture the engine turned out to be way more expensive than originally thought and led to the 215's early cancellation and it's replacement by the cast-iron Buick V6.

For the 215, Buick had considered using wet liners, as they had on the 1951 super-charged XP300 hemi, but felt the risk of leaks were too great on a production alloy engine.

The corrosion problem had little to due with anti-freeze or the American habits of anti-freeze use. It was mainly due to aluminum chips, from the machining getting in the cooling system and causing an electrolytic action in the copper radiator.

Advertisement

#40 cosworth bdg

cosworth bdg
  • Member

  • 1,350 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 20 June 2006 - 06:50

Thanks for the information , Cheers P N ......

#41 4u1e

4u1e
  • New Member

  • 16 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 24 September 2007 - 18:26

Interesting thread. I think the problem with the Olds 215 being reported as a linerless engine probably comes from some fairly respectable sources, where passing mentions are made to the 'linerless Olds 215 project' or similar. I think I originally got it from Doug Nye's words below (not a bad source, surely!), which also appear in his Autocourse History of the Grand Prix car.

Similar words appear in other sources: "..their answer being a new V8 which was based round the General Motors Oldsmobile F85 cylinder block rather than a totally new, purpose-made, competition engine. Abandoned by GM after initially being developed as part of a linerless aluminium engine programme for a projected 31/2 litre Buick "compact", Repco picked up the pieces of this commercial débâcle ands transformed a road car disaster into a motor racing dream." (Brabham, the Grand Prix cars. Alan Henry, p.53)

Flowery language aside:), the strong implication is that the Olds and Buick blocks were linerless, although that's not what it actually says. Like many others he refers to the engine as the F85, where I thought this was the car it was intended for (the Cutlass).

I've got an interest in this engine through the connection to the Repco engine: Does anyone know of any good books that cover th 215 project?

#42 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 24 September 2007 - 19:53

There is also a flat assertion that the BOP aluminum V8 was a "commercial debacle," which is far from so. General Motors mainly had no further use for the engine, and sold it on to Rover where it remained in production for decades. Meanwhile, the cast-iron version of the engine remained in the GM lineup through 1977, and a V6 version remains in production to this day. 25 million produced over forty-plus years (and counting) is a fairly decent run, I would think.

#43 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,535 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 24 September 2007 - 20:28

I will cheerfully confess that since I have always studiously avoided developing any interest WHATSOEVER in production car engines I accepted what the GM press office told me about the background to the F85 unit when I wrote that Repco Brabham Profile. Ditto what Jack and Repco told us or put out as press releases and background information at the time. If it was wrong then, it's wrong now - and for that I apologise - but where US V8 stock engines are concerned I just lose the will to live...never mind to dig deeper. :

DCN

#44 4u1e

4u1e
  • New Member

  • 16 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 24 September 2007 - 21:13

...and you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise your investigations for any given piece of writing will take you back to the Big Bang/Creation (delete according to preference ;) ). Apologies to DCN (and Alan Henry for that matter) - my post above wasn't intended as criticism, it was prompted more by my embarrassment at having passed on the linerless story myself without checking it out (See the current Wikipedia article on the Brabham BT19. If anyone wants to mention any further inaccuracies/infelicities, I can probably take the abuse, but that would be a different thread).

(And if anyone does know where I can find out more about the 215 engine, I would be grateful!)

Re the commercial debacle - could one argue that the Olds version was so? I know they're virtually twins, but as I understand it the blocks/heads are not interchangeable.

Cheers

#45 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,270 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 24 September 2007 - 21:34

That's right, they're not...

They have a different number of head studs, with one having five per cylinder, the other four.

#46 4u1e

4u1e
  • New Member

  • 16 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 24 September 2007 - 21:43

I think it's six and five isn't it? In any case the Olds block had one more than the Buick, the story being that this is why Jack Brabham picked it over the Buick (more chance to hold it all together as a racing engine), leaving McLaren to make off with the Buick version as a sportscar unit. Bet he wished he made a different engine choice for '66....

#47 Mark Godfrey

Mark Godfrey
  • Member

  • 147 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 24 September 2007 - 21:50

Repco Brabham history is detailed in a short run hardcover book "Mr Repco-Brabham: Frank Hallam" by Simon G. Pinder, published 1995 by Pinder Publications, Geelong. An brief introduction to the GM production is at: http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofjet.htm on this page they mention two Haynes books on turning the the Rover V8.

#48 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 24 September 2007 - 22:48

Originally posted by Doug Nye
I will cheerfully confess that since I have always studiously avoided developing any interest WHATSOEVER in production car engines I accepted what the GM press office told me about the background to the F85 unit when I wrote that Repco Brabham Profile. Ditto what Jack and Repco told us or put out as press releases and background information at the time. If it was wrong then, it's wrong now - and for that I apologise - but where US V8 stock engines are concerned I just lose the will to live...never mind to dig deeper. :

DCN


I understand completely. Obviously your focus is the race engines, not the production blocks from which they were derived.

#49 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,270 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 24 September 2007 - 22:58

Indeed... for this reason the motoring press have for years laboured under the misapprehension that the 105E/113E/116E etc range of engines have been great things...

Only intensive development, rigorous attention to detail in the modifications made to their bottom ends and so on have made them any good at all.

#50 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,535 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 24 September 2007 - 23:19

Originally posted by 4u1e
[B Apologies to DCN (and Alan Henry for that matter) - my post above wasn't intended as criticism... [/B]

Good Lord - never worry about criticism or otherwise - I very seldom mind at all, and I'm sure my pal Bruin (AH) would feel the same way. No offence taken whatsoever. Right's right, and wrong's wrong.

DCN