40 replies to this topic

[MatsNorway]

Im curious to what is the lightest "american" style V8 that has been made.

 

Im assuming for pushrod it is some kind of a LS or LT alu block engine. But surely there are other tiny engines that once was used? Ford flatheads are not really that big engines with their very simple and crude designs.

 

Perhaps Mariner is able to dig up some old strange engine?

 

For reference the LT-1 is 211kg

 

Internet states that the 215" Buick V8 is around 144kg.

 

As a comparison the R35 V6 is 276 kg. Probably close to some big block engine. Lee Nicole?

 

Here is some on the Buick V8

https://en.wikipedia...k_V8_engine#215

https://en.wikipedia...Rover_V8_engine

 

Other cool engines is allways welcome. That engine even had a decent output at around 200hp

 

Here is some more offtopic on a V8 made of motorcycle engines

http://www.h1v8.com/...age/1562068.htm

3L 100kg+-

 

Im curious because i would like a small V8 for some project in the future. Turbo something something.

Edited by MatsNorway, 17 June 2016 - 20:42.

[Bob Riebe]

BOP is 315 lbs.

Short deck, Ford small block iron is 440 lbs.

LS1 is 497 lbs.

 

After the BOP, a alloy block small block Ford would be a goodly bit lighter than a LS.

[scolbourne]

Not American style but a powerful and light V8 is the Radical  V8 based on the Hayabusa engine. 460bhp and a dry Weight: 88kg (194lb)

 

http://radicalperfor...v8/Default.aspx

Edited by scolbourne, 18 June 2016 - 14:10.

[MatsNorway]

Are the BOP engines expensive? Probably more than an LS or a short deck Ford right?

Edited by MatsNorway, 18 June 2016 - 22:26.

[Bob Riebe]

Are the BOP engines expensive? Probably more than an LS or a short deck Ford right?

Here is the main UK entity that handles them.

 

http://www.v8develop...cts/index.shtml

[bigleagueslider]

Are the BOP engines expensive? Probably more than an LS or a short deck Ford right?

A few years back the 215ci BOP V8's were fairly easy to find and cheap here in the US. But while they are lightweight and compact, they were not really designed to handle significantly increased power levels.

[Bob Riebe]

The BOP/Rover engines are good little engines that can make serious horse power; Group 44 did very well with them in  IMSA road racing BUT this one is probably better for boosted hp.

 

https://en.wikipedia...mler_V8_engines

 

A fellow in the UK ran one in a top fuel dragster a couple of decades or so back.

The Hemis were in the fives while his little engine, less than half as big, was in the sevens.

 

http://www.britishdr...russ-carpenter/

Edited by Bob Riebe, 19 June 2016 - 01:56.

[John Brundage]

Not sure if you can call it mass produced, but the 1969 Chevrolet ZL1 was an aluminum 427 cu in engine. Wikipedia says "total engine weight into small-block Chevrolet territory (approx. 575 lb or 261 kg dressed)"

[Kelpiecross]

There was also a 4.5l version of the Daimler V8 - which is also said to have been a good engine.
If I remember correctly (can't find a reference on the internet) the 2.5l was built using the Triumph motorbike cylinder layout.
Also - Repco used Daimler 4.5l rods in the Brabham-Repco GP engine.

[mariner]

I have data on the various Chevy SB and BB engines but they are by no means the lighest  kids on the block ( sorry).

 

I would guess the ex-Buick/Olds 215 C.I engine which was adopted by Rover would be the lightest US V-8 as it was die cast and never intended for big capcity or high power being a compact car engine.

 

I'm not sure about  the Daimler V-8, it is a fine engine and has lovely hemi heads as befits its motobike origin designer. Having seen one in friends car I doubt it is much lighter than the Buick/Rover unit.

 

One possible contemder would be the all alloy Ford pushrod V-8's developed for Lotus at Indy in 1963. The Ford 260/289 was smaller engine physically than its SB Chevy rival so an all alloy unit would have been very light.

 

If you look at weight vs capacity( lbs.cubic inch or kg/litre) thenIi think the flat-6 aero engines would wiin. They aren't very high power as reliablty is everything but they are light.

Edited by mariner, 21 June 2016 - 09:15.

[Lee Nicolle]

Common mass produced engines, as most suggest the Buick Olds Rover is probably the lightest. And those various engines like many will vary quite a bit. An ok road engine  but really that is it,, look at the Repco!! And that was over 50 years ago!!

 

289 302 [yeah I know 221, 255 and 260 too but we will not count them] Windsor is the lightest iron block and a good little engine, especially in the later form. And with all the good Motorsport [or just plain aftermarket]  bits lighter again and makes very good power. Especially in 347 form. And the aftermarket has them up to 460ci!!! Though they are really not a nice engine at that. The production block needs the pan rails relieving at 347 [3.4" stroke]

 

The plastic fantastic Holden [253 308] too is fairly light and huge in comparison to the Ford!! Reputedly originally  designed as a Pontiac fork lift engine.

 

The best and still fairly light,,, the SBC as thousands of racers prove every week. 

 

The LS is lighter and is a very good engine once you bin the cracked rods etc.

 

Most powerfull? Currently 707 hp Dodge, a big lump and I think Mercedes based? And OHC anyway. I have never seen one naked!!

 

Though BBC Chev is still winning more races and in its HUGE forms makes stupid,, but useable power. On a carby!

 

The heaviest? And common? one answer. Side valve Ford though those Caddys are probably up there too. But those old sidewackers are still winning historic races week in week out even now.  85 years after they first came out!] And look at the hotup parts STILL available now.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 21 June 2016 - 09:52.

[Greg Locock]

Well Mats, I suppose the sensible answer is what is the mass of the rest of your vehicle? Add that to the mass of the chosen engine. That's your mass. Divide the engine power by that mass and most of us would say you have a figure of merit to select your engine. If anybody starts wittering on about torque point them at a gearbox.

[ray b]

289 302 [yeah I know 221, 255 and 260 too but we will not count them] Windsor is the lightest iron block and a good little engine, especially in the later form. And with all the good Motorsport [or just plain aftermarket]  bits lighter again and makes very good power. Especially in 347 form. And the aftermarket has them up to 460ci!!! Though they are really not a nice engine at that. The production block needs the pan rails relieving at 347 [3.4" stroke]


Most powerfull? Currently 707 hp Dodge, a big lump and I think Mercedes based? And OHC anyway. I have never seen one naked!!

was not the ford indy cammer based on the alloy windsor block from 63?

I believe the 707hp dodge is the new little hemi in 6.1 + a Supercharger
so no relation to MB's other motors [but may be paid for during MB's ownership of mopar]
no OHC just a standard old fashion push rod 2v but does have two sparkplugs per cyl

from wiki
For 2015, Chrysler introduced an all-new high performance supercharged variant of the Hemi engine, called the Hellcat (named after the Grumman F6F Hellcat).[18] It features the same 103.9 mm (4.090 in) bore as the 6.4 L Hemi and the same 90.9 mm (3.578 in) stroke as the 5.7 L, giving it a total displacement of 6,166 cc (376.3 cu in).[18] The supercharger is a 2,380 cc (145 cu in) twin-screw IHI unit with integrated charge coolers, capable of producing 11.6 psi (80 kPa) of boost.[19] This engine is rated at 707 hp (527 kW) and 650 lb·ft (880 N·m)[18] and has a 9.5:1 compression ratio.[18] This engine marks the most powerful engine produced by Chrysler as well as the most powerful engine ever in a muscle car [stock form ]

Edited by ray b, 14 July 2016 - 21:22.

[Lee Nicolle]

AFAIK the Indy car engine was just that, an Indy car engine.

No alloy Windsors that I know of in those days.

The Windsor is about as basic as you can get in a V8, and as small too.

[Wuzak]

Most powerfull? Currently 707 hp Dodge, a big lump and I think Mercedes based? And OHC anyway. I have never seen one naked!!

 

Pushrod overhead valve, cam-in-block type engine.

 

http://www.allpar.co...mopar-hemi.html

 

(some pics 1/3 of the page down)

[Lee Nicolle]

Pushrod overhead valve, cam-in-block type engine.

 

http://www.allpar.co...mopar-hemi.html

 

(some pics 1/3 of the page down)

There ya go. A semi hemi pushrod engine.It does look efficient though a bit fiddly. Not sure about that cylinder deactivation however.

And it will not be a light engine, probably 10% heavier than the LS.

[jcbc3]

Just read something on BMW history. What about their Aluminium V8 from the fifties?

[Wuzak]

There ya go. A semi hemi pushrod engine.It does look efficient though a bit fiddly. Not sure about that cylinder deactivation however.

And it will not be a light engine, probably 10% heavier than the LS.

 

Says 485lb for the 2004 model, "with induction, wiring, flexplate, and exhaust manifolds, but not accessories".

[MatsNorway]

485pounds? Thats very good for a 700hp engine! But not accessories? what does that mean? the radiator or something silly like that?

Edited by MatsNorway, 15 July 2016 - 19:08.

[Bob Riebe]

AFAIK the Indy car engine was just that, an Indy car engine.

No alloy Windsors that I know of in those days.

The Windsor is about as basic as you can get in a V8, and as small too.

Some of the small blocks, both short and tall deck, that Alcoa poured for Gurney are still out there and pop up for sale every now and then.

[ray b]

AFAIK the Indy car engine was just that, an Indy car engine.
No alloy Windsors that I know of in those days.
The Windsor is about as basic as you can get in a V8, and as small too.

most of them sure recently
the chevy/cad/olds were scale models the japs have race motors also

but fords chevys buick v6 turbo and even an plymouth all ran at indy in the 60 & 70's
some were claimed to be production street used seasoned units, then rebuilt [chevy]
others at least looked like the street motors

well the 63 indy ford v8 was cast on the iron block patterns [modified] 325lbs in alloy




the 64 on 4 cam ford indy used the same style block
'' A few other components were carried over from the 63 engine. The cast-magnesium oil sump lubrication system with dual internal scavenge pumps were carried over with minor improvements. The ’63 pushrod engine had already been fitted with a gear drive for the camshaft, water pump, oil-pump and alternator in the magnesium front housing. For the new engine it was merely necessary to run an upper gear train off the center cam gear to drive the overhead cams. An aluminum tube was cast in place of the original cam for oil drain-back and block strengthening for 1965. The water pump, oil pumps and alternator, were retained.'' from http://www.quadcamfo...evelopment.html


all time lite for the power must be the M B indy v8 push-rod turbo rule beater

Edited by ray b, 16 July 2016 - 02:42.

[ray b]

485pounds? Thats very good for a 700hp engine! But not accessories? what does that mean? the radiator or something silly like that?

alt. ps pump, ac comp, starter lots of wires and tubes pipes fans & belts ect
also likely computers exhaust manifolds clutch maybe the flywheel too

think of the motor pulled from the car
nobody pulls the rad with the motor on a v8 rwd car
pull the rad to get room first sure

that is all up all accessories attached [dressed] as it would come out
then take off every thing you would reuse on a new motor or rebuilt one
that is the long block left what most people call the motor's weight
pull the heads and you have a short block

[ray b]

btw aftermarket has loads of alloy blocks old hemi's to chevys of every size are COMMON

[Lee Nicolle]

Having weighed several Chevs, Ford Clevos and Windsors and LA Mopars they do vary in weight quite a lot from year to year and specification also. I have weighed bare blocks, bare heads, crankshafts. A late 60s Chev is 15-20lbs heavier than one 10 years later and will bore further too.

Various vintage heads weigh quite  bit different too, a cast Chev crank is 2-3 lbs lighter than a steel one of similar vintage too. All aftermarket ones are lighter again, some by over 10lbs.

As iron blocks go the Cleveland is the heaviest and the Windsor  the lightest. The LA and SBC are fairly similar, the LA just a bit heavier.

Completed the Clevo is the heaviest.

As for accesories I actually consider waterpumps dissy, alternator carb exhaust manifolds all accesories. Yet alone alternators, starters, A/C and P/S pumps and brackets.

There is a deal of weight in all of those things. eg an aftermarket Chev starter is quarter the weight of a 70s OEM. As can be waterpumps too. Even some modern alternators are a third less in weight.

My old Sports Sedan Chevy was 50lb lighter with alloy heads compared with the [heavy] Dart11 iron version. Plus the bigger manifold was lighter, the Moroso rocker covers were lighter than pressed steel. IF I had got rid of the iron [short and lightened] iron waterpump as well as the starter there was another 20lbs. 

Looking at 360 Sprintcar engines,,, the blocks are milled everywhere to remove weight and at the back swiss cheese too. I dont know how much lighter, at least 20lbs.

 

Though the question was which production engine is lighter, my answer, the Buick is still the same and the modern Windsor in iron  is lighter than its 60s brother with a lot of the above factory

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 16 July 2016 - 07:24.

[Greg Locock]

One reason blocks get lighter is that the casting plant manager has his performance measured partly on how many good blocks out he gets per ton of cast iron. Making the sand cores bigger is metal off the moulds, a fairly cheap mod. So once you know where your porosity problems are you can thin the rest of the casting. Incidentally CI has a lower density than steel, that may explain the difference in weight of the heads.

Edited by Greg Locock, 16 July 2016 - 09:52.

[imaginesix]

Well Mats, I suppose the sensible answer is what is the mass of the rest of your vehicle? Add that to the mass of the chosen engine. That's your mass. Divide the engine power by that mass and most of us would say you have a figure of merit to select your engine. If anybody starts wittering on about torque point them at a gearbox.

It's purely for show. He needs to be able to lift into the overhead bins when he takes it to trade shows to avoid the checked luggage fee.

[Lee Nicolle]

One reason blocks get lighter is that the casting plant manager has his performance measured partly on how many good blocks out he gets per ton of cast iron. Making the sand cores bigger is metal off the moulds, a fairly cheap mod. So once you know where your porosity problems are you can thin the rest of the casting. Incidentally CI has a lower density than steel, that may explain the difference in weight of the heads.

?? Who uses steel heads?? Iron or alloy only.

Modern cast iron is almost certainly denser [and thinner] than 40-50 years ago. Most of what I see these days are excellent and without the core shift of old. Downside is they are so thin they do not lend themselves to rebored. Many are literally throw away if they need to be bored, they strike water at .020" [or whatever that may be in mm]

Even 70s and 80s Ford GM blocks are unsafe over that. Though the modern blocks are better finished and machined.

[Greg Locock]

Sorry cranks not heads.

[Lee Nicolle]

Sorry cranks not heads.

[Greg Locock]

Landrover used to make diesel and SI versions of their horrible engine.I think they used the same block, but the diesels got a steel crank, the others got CI.

[Magoo]

I did a project not too long ago using an all-aluminum small-block Chevy -- traditional, not LS -- using Dart Mfg. aluminum block and heads. This was a 400 CID road engine, not a super-trick sprint car engine with pocket-milling and ultra-light crank, etc. 

 

Less water pump and flywheel (since these would vary considerably by application) but complete with intake = 366 lbs. 

 

Same thing in Chevrolet production cast iron = 476 lbs. 

 

That was an excellent point Greg Locock made about blocks, heads, cranks, etc getting lighter over time. The small block Chevy lost a good bit of weight over the decades. 

[Lee Nicolle]

I did a project not too long ago using an all-aluminum small-block Chevy -- traditional, not LS -- using Dart Mfg. aluminum block and heads. This was a 400 CID road engine, not a super-trick sprint car engine with pocket-milling and ultra-light crank, etc. 

 

Less water pump and flywheel (since these would vary considerably by application) but complete with intake = 366 lbs. 

 

Same thing in Chevrolet production cast iron = 476 lbs. 

 

That was an excellent point Greg Locock made about blocks, heads, cranks, etc getting lighter over time. The small block Chevy lost a good bit of weight over the decades. 

Good and bad. Modern engines if maintained properly last longer, but many have no overbore limit so the engine is throwaway.

And yes early SBC was heavier than its later versions. A 4" bore block in the late 60s would go +060, a nineties version is a worry at .020. The later blocks have a bit better webbing and seemingly less core shift as well. And do seem to be better material as well.

Weigh an iron Dart block, they are HEAVY, strong though

[Magoo]

Good and bad. Modern engines if maintained properly last longer, but many have no overbore limit so the engine is throwaway.

And yes early SBC was heavier than its later versions. A 4" bore block in the late 60s would go +060, a nineties version is a worry at .020. The later blocks have a bit better webbing and seemingly less core shift as well. And do seem to be better material as well.

Weigh an iron Dart block, they are HEAVY, strong though

 

Quite so. The Dart iron block is a beast. Built strictly for strength in drag racing applications and so on, no thought to weight. EDIT: The corresponding small block Ford piece from Dart is even stouter. 

 

The old SBC production blocks have thicker cylinder walls but are less desirable in most every other way than the late model pieces. The '87-on blocks have cast bosses in the lifter valley in support of the factory hydraulic roller lifter setup, which for a street engine is the greatest thing since sliced bread. 

Edited by Magoo, 22 August 2016 - 00:12.

[Canuck]

I'm curious as to why mouse instead of an LS? I know there's a degree of fatigue around LS swaps and projects, but it (their ubiquity) seems to be largely because they work so damn well. There is a plethora of 8 and 9-second LS turbo sleepers roaming the summer streets this year (street being the operative word since we lost our track).

I did a project not too long ago using an all-aluminum small-block Chevy -- traditional, not LS -- using Dart Mfg. aluminum block and heads. This was a 400 CID road engine, not a super-trick sprint car engine with pocket-milling and ultra-light crank, etc.

Less water pump and flywheel (since these would vary considerably by application) but complete with intake = 366 lbs.

Same thing in Chevrolet production cast iron = 476 lbs.

That was an excellent point Greg Locock made about blocks, heads, cranks, etc getting lighter over time. The small block Chevy lost a good bit of weight over the decades.

[Bob Riebe]

Quite so. The Dart iron block is a beast. Built strictly for strength in drag racing applications and so on, no thought to weight. EDIT: The corresponding small block Ford piece from Dart is even stouter. 

 

The old SBC production blocks have thicker cylinder walls but are less desirable in most every other way than the late model pieces. The '87-on blocks have cast bosses in the lifter valley in support of the factory hydraulic roller lifter setup, which for a street engine is the greatest thing since sliced bread. 

How does the Dart compare in weight, and over all, to the other after market blocks  available?

I am too lazy to look as in the past I have seen bare block weights but do you have any weights of after market blocks vs factory heavy duty?

Iron not aluminium.

[Magoo]

I'm curious as to why mouse instead of an LS? I know there's a degree of fatigue around LS swaps and projects, but it (their ubiquity) seems to be largely because they work so damn well. There is a plethora of 8 and 9-second LS turbo sleepers roaming the summer streets this year (street being the operative word since we lost our track).
 

 

 

The car was an old-school traditional sports roadster, a sort of two-seat sprint car, and called for a traditional engine. The car originally had a 4.3L Chevy V6 IMSA engine and the owner was never satisfied with it. Also, Dart was in a mood to promote a new aluminum block that is fully capable of street use. 

 

The engine worked out perfectly -- made 400 lb-ft or more everywhere in its operating range and more than 500 hp @peak rpm --- with hydraulic lifters running on 87 octane gasoline. 

 

http://www.superchev...k-engine-build/

[Magoo]

How does the Dart compare in weight, and over all, to the other after market blocks  available?

I am too lazy to look as in the past I have seen bare block weights but do you have any weights of after market blocks vs factory heavy duty?

Iron not aluminium.

 

I don't know how the Dart compares to other aftermarket blocks but compared to production blocks, it's a lump. I think a bare Ford block weights like around 114 lbs (?) but the Dart SHP piece weighs 165 lbs. 

 

As you surely know, the factory Ford block in high load/boost applications has a tendency to split right in half right down through the cam and crank bulkheads and they wanted to be sure they caught that. 

[Canuck]

6 years ago...in technological terms, twas but a gigasecond. In human terms I suppose that qualifies as "recently".

[Magoo]

6 years ago...in technological terms, twas but a gigasecond. In human terms I suppose that qualifies as "recently".

 

Tempus fugit. 

[Canuck]

Indeed

[Lee Nicolle]

The car was an old-school traditional sports roadster, a sort of two-seat sprint car, and called for a traditional engine. The car originally had a 4.3L Chevy V6 IMSA engine and the owner was never satisfied with it. Also, Dart was in a mood to promote a new aluminum block that is fully capable of street use. 

 

The engine worked out perfectly -- made 400 lb-ft or more everywhere in its operating range and more than 500 hp @peak rpm --- with hydraulic lifters running on 87 octane gasoline. 

 

http://www.superchev...k-engine-build/

An interesting piece, and engine.