59 replies to this topic

[Ray Bell]

I'm trying to find out a little bit about Daimler's 4.5-litre V8... as used in Majestic Majors etc in the sixties, probably the late fifties.

I believe it was an all-alloy engine... and it's well possible it had hemi-style combustion chambers with pushrod valve actuaction via angled rockers. This is something I'd like to confirm or deny.

Any pics or cutaways of the engine would be greatly appreciated... either post them on this thread or, should you not be able to, please e.mail them to raybell@ramojan.com

Thanks folks...

[Rainer Nyberg]

Sales brochure with "...beautiful drawing of 4.5 litre V8 engine" available here.

For only 85 Dollars of the New Zealand variant, will get you this...

[Garagiste]

Can't assist directly Ray, but if you don't have any luck, you could always try this forum:
http://forums.jag-lovers.org
Some knowlegable types there, and there's a dedicated Daimler / Lanchester board.

[Todd]

I can't find a photo, but all sources seem to agree that it was a hemi head alloy engine designed by Turner.

Here is what someone at the Daimler forum said about it:

http://www.dlcentre....p?TOPIC_ID=1995

Originally posted by rowlandson
Overall dimensions for the 2 engines are :
2.5 litre- 25.25 in long,24in wide and 27in high, Weight 419 lbs
4.5 litre- 31.25 in long, 25.5 wide and 31 in high Weight 498 lbs
2.5 litre length is without fan,4.5 litre is with fan
Power outputs 2.5 litre 140 bhp@5,800rpm; max torque 155 lb. ft. @3,700 rpm
4.5 litre 220 bhp @5,200rpm,max torque 282 lb. ft. @ 2,700 rpm.
Rumour has it that the Majestic Major engine developed more hp than 220 but the dynamomter at Daimler was only calibrated to 220 bhp max.

[VAR1016]

For a very short while when I was young, I had one of these cars; the fuel consumption persuaded me to sell it back to the previous owner.

It did go very well despite its huge bulk and weight (37cwt).

A couple of bits of trivia:

The con-rods were used in the Repco-Brabham V8 F1 engine.

When Jaguar acquired Daimler, obviously they looked at Daimler's products to see what was useful etc.

There were red faces when the experimental department installed a 220 BHP Daimler engine into a Mk X saloon; it did over 130 mph. Jaguar claimed 250 BHP for the 3.8 engine normally fitted!

PdeRL

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by VAR1016
For a very short while when I was young, I had one of these cars; the fuel consumption persuaded me to sell it back to the previous owner.

It did go very well despite its huge bulk and weight (37cwt).

A couple of bits of trivia:

The con-rods were used in the Repco-Brabham V8 F1 engine.

When Jaguar acquired Daimler, obviously they looked at Daimler's products to see what was useful etc.

There were red faces when the experimental department installed a 220 BHP Daimler engine into a Mk X saloon; it did over 130 mph. Jaguar claimed 250 BHP for the 3.8 engine normally fitted!

Thanks for the responses, folks... I'm hoping for more, but I might go check out that forum...

My only interest is in the 4.5 engine. I wonder how it would have gone in F5000? And the rods in the Repco engines were surely from the 2.5?

One wonders, however, about these poms and their engines... all that alloy and the engine weight is still in the same range as the Chevy's iron lump!

[soubriquet]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


One wonders, however, about these poms and their engines... all that alloy and the engine weight is still in the same range as the Chevy's iron lump!

Aren't you being a tad harsh, Ray? Alfa's twin cam was no lightweight, and they probably had a lot more experience at casting aluminium than Daimler. IIRCC, the US iron founders put a lot of effort into developing thin wall castings in the early sixties, so it's hardly fair to compare a 1960s Chevy with a '50s Daimler.

Ever tried to lift a Red motor ;) ?

[Ray Bell]

No, not really...

But the Chevy came out well before the Daimler... wasn't it 1955?

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Ray Bell



... And the rods in the Repco engines were surely from the 2.5?

Ray,

My source for this info was Karl Ludvigsen's Classic Racing Engines.



PdeRL

[Todd]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
No, not really...

But the Chevy came out well before the Daimler... wasn't it 1955?

Yes, the first Chevy small blocks were manufactured in huge numbers in 1955.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by soubriquet
Ever tried to lift a Red motor ;) ?

Please forgive my ignorance, but are you referring perhaps to the Holden V8? This engine has always intrigued me but there is not a lot of information available in the States. In many ways it represents typical GM V8 practice but has a number of unique features as well. If you have some good info or links on this engine it would be much appreciated.

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by soubriquet


Aren't you being a tad harsh, Ray? Alfa's twin cam was no lightweight, and they probably had a lot more experience at casting aluminium than Daimler. IIRCC, the US iron founders put a lot of effort into developing thin wall castings in the early sixties, so it's hardly fair to compare a 1960s Chevy with a '50s Daimler.

Ever tried to lift a Red motor ;) ?

No Rays correct.

I was employed restoring 50's and 60's Triumphs, BSA's and Norton motorcycles for 4 years and the weight of British engines parts and other castings in alloy in general of those periods is bloody terrible and sometimes pourous to boot.

I hope you dont mean a Holden Red 6cly as they are reconised as one of the lightest mass production 6cly's in the world even though they are cast iron top and toe, ever tried to lift a Nissan 'L' series 6 with alloy head ?

"Red Motor" is the term used for the 6's (unless its a .040 bored out 186 in which it imediately gets the "192" tag) and the V8's always go simply by "253" or "308" (cubes) until you get to "blue" motors - "4.2" and "5.0" - and the black motors which no one calls "black" because "crap" was the more universal name (pollution/emissions era motor).

McGuire for what its worth when our Supercars were allowed the Chev engine just about all teams went straight to them over the Holden except for Larry Perkins who held out for a while (quite well too I may be wrong but I think he won a Bathurst while being the solo Holden motor?) but he eventually went the Chev route too.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman
"Red Motor" is the term used for the 6's (unless its a .040 bored out 186 in which it imediately gets the "192" tag) and the V8's always go simply by "253" or "308" (cubes) until you get to "blue" motors - "4.2" and "5.0" - and the black motors which no one calls "black" because "crap" was the more universal name (pollution/emissions era motor).

McGuire for what its worth when our Supercars were allowed the Chev engine just about all teams went straight to them over the Holden except for Larry Perkins who held out for a while (quite well too I may be wrong but I think he won a Bathurst while being the solo Holden motor?) but he eventually went the Chev route too.

I have no doubt the Chevrolet would make the better racing engine, due to the much greater parts and knowledge base if nothing else. Also, I see a problem in the smallish intake port volumes. If there was no alternative to the production cylinder head it would be hard to keep up with the Chevy.

Still, the Holden is intriguing as a design... the GM kinship is evident but there are many unique features too. For example, the distributor and oil pump drive off opposite ends of the camshaft. A few parts could have come straight out of the GM bins (the die-cast, stirrup-type rocker pedestals and stamped rockers look identical to Oldsmobile) but most appear specific to Holden. The carburetor was Rochester but the distributor and alternator were Robert Bosch on examples I've seen. I assume the local content regulations influenced many of these choices, as well as Holden's decision to do its own V8 in the first place, rather than shop off the rack among the wide variety of GM V8s then available.

In short it looks to me like Holden did a very nice job, especially for what was by General Motors standards very low production volume for a from-scratch engine. But then I don't know any of the local lore on this engine -- what is its reputation? Any recurring problem areas?

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by Ray Bell

And the rods in the Repco engines were surely from the 2.5?

On the Repco Brabham F1 V8 (1966)…

“…the dimensions the standard F85 (Oldsmobile) cylinder block were such that, with a crankshaft of 60.3mm stroke, the cylinder face would be so far away from the crankpin even at top dead centre that an unnecessarily heavy and long piston would be needed, with an unwanted mass of metal above the gudgeon pin, or alternately an unusually long connecting rod would have to be employed. In the interests of minimizing reciprocating weight the latter alternative was to be preferred, and it was found that the standard connecting rod of the 4.5 litre V8 Daimler Majestic engine was admirably suited to the role.

This rod was 6.3 inches between centres, which is 2.57 times the piston stroke. Thus the maximum piston acceleration at 8,000 rev/min was kept down to 97,200 ft/sec², whereas the use of a connecting rod of conventional proportions (that is to say, twice as long between centres as the length of the piston stroke) would have involved a substantially heavier piston reaching a maximum acceleration 8 percent higher at 105,000 ft/sec². Once again, the use of an existing component in quantity production could be recommended on further practical grounds, for these Daimler rods cost but £7 a time.”

From: The Grand Prix Car 1954-1966, LJK Setright

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Engineguy


...Once again, the use of an existing component in quantity production could be recommended on further practical grounds, for these Daimler rods cost but £7 a time.”

From: The Grand Prix Car 1954-1966, LJK Setright

Thanks Engineguy, very interesting.

Those Daimler rods were probably superb quality; the Daimler V-8s were somewhat "toolroom" I think.

On the subject of cost, I have been told that Lancia Fulvia 1600 rods were £70 each - in 1971; I find this unbelievable, but then at the time Lancia was asking £10 for a distributor cap - until that is, a gentleman wrote to The Times pointing out that the cap cost more than its weight in silver; the price was reduced abruptly to £4/10/-.

PdeRL

[soubriquet]

I stand corrected. Thanks team. I had thought that there was some kind of competition between the US iron founders and the alloy people when the Buick/(forget) V8 was developed, hence the light weight of the 1960's small block Chevy.

Moving on.

Mark Beckman:

"I was employed restoring 50's and 60's Triumphs, BSA's and Norton motorcycles for 4 years and the weight of British engines parts and other castings in alloy in general of those periods is bloody terrible and sometimes pourous to boot.

I hope you dont mean a Holden Red 6cly as they are reconised as one of the lightest mass production 6cly's in the world even though they are cast iron top and toe..."

I did mean the six. They may have been relatively light, and extremely robust, but they didn't make much power. About 120 bhp from 3 litres IIRC. After fitting a 186 into a V4 Transit, I realised that a FIAT 2 litre would have given me more power, torque, the option of a 5 speed gearbox and less intrusion.

Ray:
"One wonders, however, about these poms and their engines... all that alloy and the engine weight is still in the same range as the Chevy's iron lump!"

Assuming your question is not rhetorical, I'll plough on. I agree that much (most?) of UK mass production was crap. The bikes were direct throwbacks to pre-War production, and the cars little better. My opinion, is that British industry was protected by the Empire and Commonwealth. Whatever rubbish came out of the UK was guaranteed a market . With a chronic lack of capital, no effective investment in production technology, and management ruled by class rather than ability, the first comptitive winds blew industry away.

My exposure to this was as a teenage biker. "They will never last" was the bigoted response to the power made and revs pulled by those thoroughly engineered and beautifully detailed Japanese bikes. Instead of having a BSA leaking oil in the garage while you waited for daylight, you could buy a bike wich started and ran, and would get you home after dark.

Those manufacturers which were open to competition survived. When I get into a plane with RR on the engine cowlings, I don't tremble with fear for my safe arrival.

Cheers
S

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Engineguy


On the Repco Brabham F1 V8 (1966)…

“…the dimensions the standard F85 (Oldsmobile) cylinder block were such that, with a crankshaft of 60.3mm stroke, the cylinder face would be so far away from the crankpin even at top dead centre that an unnecessarily heavy and long piston would be needed, with an unwanted mass of metal above the gudgeon pin, or alternately an unusually long connecting rod would have to be employed. In the interests of minimizing reciprocating weight the latter alternative was to be preferred, and it was found that the standard connecting rod of the 4.5 litre V8 Daimler Majestic engine was admirably suited to the role.

This rod was 6.3 inches between centres, which is 2.57 times the piston stroke. Thus the maximum piston acceleration at 8,000 rev/min was kept down to 97,200 ft/sec², whereas the use of a connecting rod of conventional proportions (that is to say, twice as long between centres as the length of the piston stroke) would have involved a substantially heavier piston reaching a maximum acceleration 8 percent higher at 105,000 ft/sec². Once again, the use of an existing component in quantity production could be recommended on further practical grounds, for these Daimler rods cost but £7 a time.”

From: The Grand Prix Car 1954-1966, LJK Setright

I don't know why Setright finds this so odd or extraordinary...perhaps he had never heard of a good old-fashioned hot-rodding technique. Part of the beauty in destroking a production engine is exactly what he describes: it permits a longer rod within the block's original deck height. Improved S/B and R/L ratios, decreased inertia loads, increased valve area relative to displacement; destroking is pretty much all good (except for the displacement reduction of course.) Here they reduced the stroke about 11mm, then went looking through the parts books for a suitable, proportionately longer connecting rod to get the piston back up to nominal compression height. It's been done that way since the beginning of time. I can't imagine anyone spending more than .001 second considering a taller piston for this job. It's contrary to the whole point of the exercise.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by McGuire


I don't know why Setright finds this so odd or extraordinary...perhaps he had never heard of a good old-fashioned hot-rodding technique. Part of the beauty in destroking a production engine is exactly what he describes: it permits a longer rod within the block's original deck height. Improved S/B and R/L ratios, decreased inertia loads, increased valve area relative to displacement; destroking is pretty much all good (except for the displacement reduction of course.) Here they reduced the stroke about 11mm, then went looking through the parts books for a suitable, proportionately longer connecting rod to get the piston back up to nominal compression height. It's been done that way since the beginning of time. I can't imagine anyone spending more than .001 second considering a taller piston for this job. It's contrary to the whole point of the exercise.

I don't think found it odd so much as he was just laying out the options, and throughout the chapter he was bemused by the simplicity of the Repco V8 and how all the production parts like £11 engine blocks and £7 con rods came together to win the WC against the likes of Ferrari, Honda, and the Westlake Gurney. You have to remember this was written in 1966. The word Cosworth only appears in the book once... and of all the engines covered in the book only one, the 1965 Coventry Climax 1.5L V8, is more oversquare than the Repco. He does make some statements here and there that are just plain wrong though.

I don't know what all engines people were destroking back then... the one I can think of is the popular Chevrolet 283 crank in 327 block from the time the 327 was introduced in 1963 until the factory themselves did it for the 302 in the '67 Z28. Virtually all of those did use stock length, 5.7" rods, with custom taller pistons, though the difference in stroke was not as great as the Repco destroke. Aftermarket rods weren't very common then IIRC except aluminum rods (mostly fuelers until late 60's?) and a few very very expensive Carillos. I think it was early 70's when Chevy made unfinhed big block rods available to be machined as heavy duty longer than stock small block rods.

[AS110]

Originally posted by McGuire

In short it looks to me like Holden did a very nice job, especially for what was by General Motors standards very low production volume for a from-scratch engine. But then I don't know any of the local lore on this engine -- what is its reputation? Any recurring problem areas?

The 253 V8 was based on the 6 cyl,the 186 I think.I don't know about interchangability but pistons,rods,valves,springs etc look identical to the 6cyl stuff.I've had plenty of both apart,but not at the same time and been able to mix things up on purpose or by accident.Holden also lopped the rear 2 cyls off the 202 and made the ghastly Starfire engine,the only way out of this crap job was to ship them all to New Zealand,they came as standard in the first Commodores,man,we hated that thing!

I don't remember any big problems with them,although some of the 308s had camshaft problems - a Crane cam was supplied as a replacement,I don't know if that came from Holden,we just got a 308 cam from Repco and stuck it in with new lifters.The unadjustable valves were a drama with the later motors when things got worn - I've had to cut the bridge in half,adjust each valve individualy (grind or shim the pedistal) then weld it together again.Doing the job properly would have been the better option - but sometimes we didn't have options,we just made cars go again.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Engineguy


I don't think found it odd so much as he was just laying out the options, and throughout the chapter he was bemused by the simplicity of the Repco V8 and how all the production parts like £11 engine blocks and £7 con rods came together to win the WC against the likes of Ferrari, Honda, and the Westlake Gurney. You have to remember this was written in 1966. The word Cosworth only appears in the book once... and of all the engines covered in the book only one, the 1965 Coventry Climax 1.5L V8, is more oversquare than the Repco. He does make some statements here and there that are just plain wrong though.

Depending on how you look it, you could say the Cosworth DFV was either the last or first of its kind. The DFV was essentially a V8 version of the FVA four, which was itself based on a Ford of England production engine, the Kent 116E. But whatever it was, the DFV was so advanced and well-executed that it put an end to all the marginal, bargain-basement methods of race engine manufacturing, in F1 at least.

I think people tend to forget there didn't used to be all this silly money in motor racing. Racing simply didn't have the budgets for the ways we take for granted, like engines invented totally from scratch, each and every component perfectly idealized for its purpose. Everyone knows that many winning F1 chassis were built up from Triumph spindles, Morris steering racks, VW transmission bits and such, but perhap snot everyone knows that often, the engines were built pretty much the same way. A racing engine was an assemblage of the most suitable found objects that could be gathered together from existing production designs: bearings from this engine; con rods from that one, valve gear or sprockets from another. In the case of the Repco Brabham, a whole cylinder block was cribbed, from an Oldsmobile of course. When GM introduced the BOP alloy V8, it caught the attention of many racers, just as it did with Jack Brabham. At that time, aluminum V8 cylinder blocks did not exactly grow on trees like they do today. At the economic scale at which racing operated back then, to tool and cast one's own would have cost a king's ransom.

The Vanwall F1 engine was the bottom end of a Rolls Royce B40 industrial engine married to a top half made up basically of four Norton motorcyle upper ends lashed together. The original Ferrari V12 has hidden within it the souls of three Fiat fours, rearranged in racing order. We all know the origins of the Climax FW series as a fire pump engine, but it was also an industrial skid engine, a marine engine, a Lotus production car engine, and tipped up on its end it even became an outboard -- anything to amortize its design and tooling costs across a wider market so it could make some economic sense. Otherwise "purpose-built" motor racing engines like the Climax did not make a whole lot of economic sense.

So back then a good racing engine designer was a kind of master chef, mixing together the most ideal ingredients in the perfect proportions to produce a winning engine. It took a great deal of flexibility, creativity and ingenuity, as well as a comprehensive knowledge of all the technical developments, practices and specifications across the auto industry, because that's where all the bits and pieces were likely to be coming from. In a way, it's rather too easy today.

[Ray Bell]

So we still don't know about the top end of the Daimler 4.5 V8?

On the subject of the Holden V8, it did use rods and pistons (and valves?) from the six... and yes, local manufacture rules did account for some of its coming into being, I'm quite sure.

The 308 used 186 pistons, the 253 used the smaller (171?) engine of that time's pistons.

Don't forget that Repco made a fair fist of building a F5000 engine out of these things, with massive torque alongside the typical Chevy and plenty of wins to their credit. Drivers did choose to use them instead of the Chevy, but then Repco lost interest and the development stopped.

There was still plenty of hotrodding going on, and racing. Up until the early nineties they were still required to be used in Holdens in racing, and as already mentioned they continued in a few cars (by choice still) including Larry Perkins' last VL despite the availability of the Chev.

There were big port versions too, made for the L34s and A9Xs, and probably carried over into the Commodores. The L34 had a cheap roller rocker set fitted so that valvegear 'of the same type as original' could be fitted for touring car racing. Ford got sprung cheating on this in 1978 as they didn't have rollers homologated.

The one problem I have heard about with them in the F5000 days was that there were hotspots in the valve seat area and that Phil Irving did a bit of work to ensure that the valves always rotated properly to overcome this.

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by AS110


.Holden also lopped the rear 2 cyls off the 202 and made the ghastly Starfire engine,the only way out of this crap job was to ship them all to New Zealand,they came as standard in the first Commodores,man,we hated that thing!

I don't remember any big problems with them,although some of the 308s had camshaft problems - .

Yep with early 308's that had a misfire (that was also the common name for the Starfire 4!) you first checked the points then took the rocker covers off and checked for valve lift. :

Actually when I was with Toyota the Starfire 4 was introduced into the locally made Corona XT130 and if you ran an aftermarket oil flush for a few minutes before each service it kept away the lifter problems that they suffered badly from and anyway, no hotted up Red motor is worth its salt without 'Starfire' conrods so they ended up useful for something !

The 308 was developed over a 20 year period including, as Ray mentioned F5000 and was very cheap for a streeter to get good cheap HP from - far cheaper than a Chev.

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
I'm trying to find out a little bit about Daimler's 4.5-litre V8... as used in Majestic Majors etc in the sixties, probably the late fifties.

I believe it was an all-alloy engine... and it's well possible it had hemi-style combustion chambers with pushrod valve actuaction via angled rockers. This is something I'd like to confirm or deny.

Any pics or cutaways of the engine would be greatly appreciated... either post them on this thread or, should you not be able to, please e.mail them to raybell@ramojan.com

Thanks folks...

Oh back to the guts of this thread..

Which Jag had the alloy V8 ?

If similar I can tell you that I sold 4 sets of Triumph 750 (motorbike) pistons to a Guy in Brisbane with one and he only lightly modded tham to fit.

Someone mentioned along the way it was also a Turner motor which figures.

If so this make it hemi head.

Tomorrow I will ask someone I know who I bet has worked on one.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman


Oh back to the guts of this thread..

Which Jag had the alloy V8 ?

If similar I can tell you that I sold 4 sets of Triumph 750 (motorbike) pistons to a Guy in Brisbane with one and he only lightly modded tham to fit.

Someone mentioned along the way it was also a Turner motor which figures.

If so this make it hemi head.

Tomorrow I will ask someone I know who I bet has worked on one.

#
This one was known as the 250; it had the 2.5 litre engine originally installed in the Daimler SP250 which was alleged to produce 140 BHP. ALl cars had automatic transmission (ugh).

Years ago in the motor trade it was said that there were quite a few 7-cylinder ones around....

PdeRL

[AS110]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman

Actually when I was with Toyota the Starfire 4 was introduced into the locally made Corona XT130

They also had a Cortina gearbox,the most mixed up car I've ever seen come out of Australia.

I used to prefer driving the Daimler 250 to the Jag,mainly because they usualy had an auto box and power steering.If Edward Turner had anything to do with it you can be sure every part had more than one function,could be used in another product or had design elements from something else he did.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by AS110


They also had a Cortina gearbox,the most mixed up car I've ever seen come out of Australia.

I used to prefer driving the Daimler 250 to the Jag,mainly because they usualy had an auto box and power steering.If Edward Turner had anything to do with it you can be sure every part had more than one function,could be used in another product or had design elements from something else he did.

I doubt that Turner had anything to do with the Daimler/Jag 250. I think that the transmission was the ubiquitous Borg-Warner Type 35 that was fitted to so many cars of that period.

PdeRL

[AS110]

The motor was Turners from when Daimler were part of the BSA group.Jag just did some badge engineering and had a motor to try and use.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by AS110
The motor was Turners from when Daimler were part of the BSA group.Jag just did some badge engineering and had a motor to try and use.

Yes AS, and I suppose that the 250 project came about because Jaguar found a pile of 250 engines in the "shed" at Daimler's.

I have seen the internals from one of these and it looks as though it would be expensive to make.

Not Bill Lyons's way

PdeRL

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman




Tomorrow I will ask someone I know who I bet has worked on one.

As I thought my Dad would have worked on them, I just needed to ask him first.

He's only worked on a couple but remembers some things.

They were hemi head and he seems to remember Ricardo having something to do with the design.

He says your best bet is to have a look at an early 70's Toyota "2T" 1600 engine (Celica, O/S Corolla) for a similar layout of valve gear and head.

He seems to think from memory they had seperate tubes for the pushrods and they were a source of annoying oil leaks.

They were of low horsepower because of particuly low compression, around 7:1 as they were used for Limo's in South Africa to suit their fuels.

Now heres what I'm guessing your chasing Ray, he remembers that someone used the engine in a racing special maybe in NSW, "in the Frank Klieneg ilk".

He's going to have a think about it and will tell me more as he remembers (and he always does).

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by VAR1016


Yes AS, and I suppose that the 250 project came about because Jaguar found a pile of 250 engines in the "shed" at Daimler's.

I have seen the internals from one of these and it looks as though it would be expensive to make.

Not Bill Lyons's way

PdeRL

After seeing the 2.5 pistons, rods and valves, I also see lower production costs as the piston slugs, conrods, bearing journals, valves ect were already all in production for Triumph motorcycles.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman


After seeing the 2.5 pistons, rods and valves, I also see lower production costs as the piston slugs, conrods, bearing journals, valves ect were already all in production for Triumph motorcycles.

Was the bore and stroke the same then?

PdeRL

[Cociani]

Here is the website to a restorer and collector of British cars in my area. He has an SP 250 for sale and last time I visited him he had a second un-restored car.

http://www.drakesbri...her-marques.htm

The fellows name is Len Drake. He has an amazing collection of cars, check out the Keeper section of the site. There are many more not listed there. He has a Kaiser Darin, several TVR's several Jensen Intercepters, an early Morgan Plus 8. The list goes on and on... Anyway Len may be able to answer some questions as he has recently worked on that breed of engine.

[McGuire]

Gentlemen, thanks to all for the Holden info. I have a few books coming...can't wait.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman
.....He says your best bet is to have a look at an early 70's Toyota "2T" 1600 engine (Celica, O/S Corolla) for a similar layout of valve gear and head.

.....Now heres what I'm guessing your chasing Ray, he remembers that someone used the engine in a racing special maybe in NSW, "in the Frank Klieneg ilk".

He's going to have a think about it and will tell me more as he remembers (and he always does).

Not at all, actually... I was just chasing some useless information, some knowledge of something I've never seen.

But it's important to note that I'm only chasing information about the 4.5 engine, I've seen the insides of the 2.5 many years ago. And indeed, it does have valvegear like the Toyota you mention, which is just like the Gordini I mentioned earlier, similar to the Peugeot post 1948 and the Chrysler Hemi... all of them are similar. And there are others.

But I would love to know if someone ever used one in a Special! Methinks that any used in Specials, however, would have been 2.5s. Lost in the depths of that narrow Jag engine bay, they would be perfect in a Special, of course, and I know there was one Manx that used one (Terry Gallery springs to mind... what a blocker he was!). No, please, let's restrict this to the 4.5...

[Ray Bell]

Finally got some information...



Very much a larger version of the 2.5, valves with an included angle of 70 degrees, duralumin pushrods, chain driven cam, the plumbing looks a bit different to the norm, Lucas distributor sitting high up... and don't you just love the twin SUs! Just like the Rover 3.5 carby setup.

Where is marion5drsn when all this is being discussed? V8s are his territory...

Gear type oil pump, twin breaker ignition inside that Lucas distributor. Pic is from the Daimler brochure, courtesy of a member of a Daimler/Lanchester forum.

[Mark Beckman]

Excuse the aside but I can just see the acronyn for the airfilter from a modern Japanese carmaker..

"QICIWW"

(quadruple inlet chrome induction with wingnut)

[Stephen W]

The Daimler V8 was a popular budget engine choice in Formula Libre, Hillclimbing and Sprinting at one time.

In the late Sixties Wally Cuff ran a 4.6 version in a Cooper T51 whilst Martin Brain had a 2.6 version in his Cooper T87. The Brain car went to Clive Oakley who campaigned the car mainly in the North of England.

In 1969 Channel Islander Maurice Ogier ran a 2.4 unit in a Sand Racing special the Wellanier which he also hillclimbed.

By 1970 when the Chevvie V8s were becoming so popular with F5000 the humble Daimler was outclassed.

[Ray Bell]

I wonder, however, if it could have been different?

If someone had put the time into a Daimler, would they have overcome the huge development programme to which Chevys had been subjected for over a decade. And if its potential weight advantage could have helped it be a force in F5000?

Of course, the very limited production numbers could have augered against this ever happening.

By the way, I've had someone e.mail me a lot of detail, lots of it. But it's in PDF form. I've asked them for a jpg scan of the engine cutaways.

[JwS]

Didn't Mark Donahue run a Daimler for a while, I remember it from his book I think, there were some fundamental things that limited the engine like the oiling system or something.
That may have been the smaller one though, not sure.
JwS

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


Thanks for the responses, folks... I'm hoping for more, but I might go check out that forum...

My only interest is in the 4.5 engine. I wonder how it would have gone in F5000? And the rods in the Repco engines were surely from the 2.5?

One wonders, however, about these poms and their engines... all that alloy and the engine weight is still in the same range as the Chevy's iron lump!

A late Chevy small-block (not LS engine) with aluminum heads, in street form, was 535 pounds.

An all iron one would be well over 550 pounds, far more than the 498 pounds for the Daimler 4.5.

I believe, if someone had made a serious effort with the Daimler,it would have defeated the Chevy quite easily.
Chevrolets greatest assest, at that time, was parts, not horsepower. Richard Petty once said "If you want horsepower, use a Ford, AMC or Mopar, but if you need parts, use a Chevy."

On another forum, at least a year ago, someone said the only difference between the two Daimler engines was bore and stroke, which makes sense as with the two engines listed in the post above the one quoted, the weight difference is probably due to the fan assembley and other components.
(There is a site which lists engine weights, I do not remember it now, and the author of the site says one problem with listing engine weights is differents sources include different parts in total weight, a bare engine is far lighter than a fully equiped one.)

One question that would have to be asked is, to get to 305 in.cu. would the bore spacing allow simple boring or would it have to use a longer stroke.
If it is possible find the bore spacing on the two Daimlers, then one will know instantly if they are the same block.(finding bore spacing for US engines is fairly simple, for euro engines damn near impossible.)

On what I have read about the Holden engine here, one thing I should say, I have a book on the engine, it is a strictly Australian design and owes nothing to any other engine any more than it is impossible for an engineer to not learn from previous designs.
Look up, or call on the tele. C.O.M.E.(I called them a few years back) as they now are casting new Holden engines, they bought the tooling, and can tellyou all there is to know about them.
Bob

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by Bob Riebe


If it is possible find the bore spacing on the two Daimlers, then one will know instantly if they are the same block.(finding bore spacing for US engines is fairly simple, for euro engines damn near impossible.)

From www.southward.org.nz
4.5 ltr V8, twin SU carburettors, double exhaust, 95.25 mm bore, 80 mm stroke, 4561 cc, ohv, 220 bhp at 5500 rpm. Borg Warner automatic transmission, four wheel disc brakes, vacuum servo assisted.

The 4.5L had 95.25mm bore x 80mm stroke (3.75” x 3.15”) a 1.19 B/S ratio.

To drop to 2.5L by destroking only would require a 44mm (1.73”) stroke… giving a 2.16 B/S ratio… nearly a modern day F1 ratio… not likely.

Assuming the 2.5 had a somewhat normal B/S ratio, for example using the 1.19 ratio they used on the 4.5L, we get a 78mm bore x 65.5mm stroke (3.07” x 2.58”).

The 4.5L would have at least 4.2” bore centers in the day… that would be pretty excessive on the 2.5L… I would guess they did not share the same block.

[Ray Bell]

Who is this crowd casting new Holden engines?

They would have a bit of a market for replacement blocks, from what I gather. Most get bored to the max for the first rebuild, so a lot of second rebuilds need a new block. And I know some split bores too...

As for the possibility that the blocks were shared... no possible way! The 2.5 was quite a small engine, certainly not big enough to squeeze 2.5 litres into it.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Engineguy

From www.southward.org.nz
4.5 ltr V8, twin SU carburettors, double exhaust, 95.25 mm bore, 80 mm stroke, 4561 cc, ohv, 220 bhp at 5500 rpm. Borg Warner automatic transmission, four wheel disc brakes, vacuum servo assisted.

The 4.5L had 95.25mm bore x 80mm stroke (3.75” x 3.15”) a 1.19 B/S ratio.

To drop to 2.5L by destroking only would require a 44mm (1.73”) stroke… giving a 2.16 B/S ratio… nearly a modern day F1 ratio… not likely.

Assuming the 2.5 had a somewhat normal B/S ratio, for example using the 1.19 ratio they used on the 4.5L, we get a 78mm bore x 65.5mm stroke (3.07” x 2.58”).

The 4.5L would have at least 4.2” bore centers in the day… that would be pretty excessive on the 2.5L… I would guess they did not share the same block.

According to this:

http://www.google.co...ch=&safe=images

(click on cybersnippets ,in catched formula, bore stroke in the article on what we are speaking of will be highlighted. I could not cut a pre-cached version)

The 4.5 came first and the 2.5 is just a smaller version of said same.

A gent in the UK, made a top fuel ( not sure what class that it would run in, A/F?) out of the 2.5 blown and running on nitro.

This is supposed to be Robin Read's old dragster:


Bob

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Who is this crowd casting new Holden engines?

They would have a bit of a market for replacement blocks, from what I gather. Most get bored to the max for the first rebuild, so a lot of second rebuilds need a new block. And I know some split bores too...

As for the possibility that the blocks were shared... no possible way! The 2.5 was quite a small engine, certainly not big enough to squeeze 2.5 litres into it.

http://www.comeracing.com/

This is the enterprize with the Holden engines.

The site is a bit hard to navigate but click on the left tool bar for latest info, or something like that, and one with no title from 2002 has a blurb on the alloy version of the Holden engine.
There used to be more on it but either I could not find it or they removed it as that info was from 2001.
Bob

[Engineguy]

The motorsnippets.com quote Bob found:

"The Majestic Major was the first Daimler to use a V-8 engine and this 4,561cc unit was exceptional. It was designed by Edward Turner and used a hemispherical combustion chamber with inclined valves operated from a camshaft high up between the two banks of cylinders. Turner had previously worked on motorcycles with Triumph and Ariel and this influence was apparent. The smaller V-8 engine of 2,645 for the sporting SP250 and the larger Majestic Major engine were designed with the same bore spacing so that they could be manufactured on the same production line. It is very easy to insert the larger engine in the SP250 and the performance is stunning!

The front suspension of the Majestic Major was one of the last designs by Lawrence Pomeroy Junior and employs long lower wishbones that almost meet in the centre line of the chassis. The handling and performance of this large car are quite outstanding. On test at MIRA the larger engine gave 240bhp compared to under 200bhp for the 7-litre Oldsmobile Toranado. The SP250 was praised for the oversquare V-8 engine (76.2 x 69.85) but it was less attractive in the handling department and the fibreglass body was considered rather cheap but 2,645 were made, the American version with an automatic gearbox in place of the 4-speed manual.

When Daimler was bought by Jaguar in June 1960 it succumbed to the same fate as Lanchester 30 years before and almost immediately lost it's identity. The last real Daimler was the DS420 limousine which replaced the Majestic Major in 1968 and unfortunately lost the superb chassis and engine. It was also the last home of the 4.2-litre twin overhead camshaft Jaguar engine.
The small V-8 Daimler engine had however found it's way into the Mk II Jaguar body shell and from 1962 to 1969 it was known as the 2.5-litre/V-8-250. This was a very good car and over 17,000 were built."

If this is accurate, it must be the heaviest 2.5L gasoline engine of its era by a substantial margin! Was there a taxation angle on this?

[Philip Whiteman]

Er... I think you'll find Jaguar's 2.4 was just about the heaviest 2.5 litre (approx) of its time.

Manual 250 saloons were built, in tiny numbers (see Paul Skilleter's definitive book on Jaguar saloons). Reputedly, they made the XK engined 240 look very sluggish, thanks to 10-20 more hp and much less engine weight to shift. Similarly, experiments were made with putting the 4.5 litre Daimler engine into Mk Xs, which were much more rapid for the transplant.

IMHO the 250 (Jag body, pukka Daimler engine) was more like the 'last Daimler' than the XK-engined DS420 limo. I have a mid 1980s 'Daimler Double Six' (no notes expressing sympathy at my bad luck etc, please) that I've given up calling a Daimler...

[Bob Riebe]

In the US ( I used to have such a manufacturer bookmarked before my "puter went insane) it is comaparatively easy, if one has the money to take an engine or blue prints for an engine, to a manufacturer, and have "improved or modified" versions cast, or CNC machined.

As at one drag site, they lamented that the Daimler and other such Brit engined machines, were killed by US kit racers; It would seem, that since, the Daimler engine has no problem surviving at 80 percent nitro, in street form, that an overall enlarged, version (aka the first after market Hemi engine was an enlarged and modified version of the old 392 block) could be cast, and the UK would have a Top Fuel engine capable of challenging anything from the US.

Just a thought.
Bob

PS-Dove Engineering in the US, makes all alloy, belt drive versions (the belt drive alone saves near seventy pounds over the original chain) of the 427 SOHC Ford engine, so it can be done.
Obviously a new block with larger bore centers is a bit more of a task, but with computers now, it is not near the ordeal it once was.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Philip Whiteman
Er... I think you'll find Jaguar's 2.4 was just about the heaviest 2.5 litre (approx) of its time.

Manual 250 saloons were built, in tiny numbers (see Paul Skilleter's definitive book on Jaguar saloons). Reputedly, they made the XK engined 240 look very sluggish, thanks to 10-20 more hp and much less engine weight to shift. Similarly, experiments were made with putting the 4.5 litre Daimler engine into Mk Xs, which were much more rapid for the transplant.

IMHO the 250 (Jag body, pukka Daimler engine) was more like the 'last Daimler' than the XK-engined DS420 limo. I have a mid 1980s 'Daimler Double Six' (no notes expressing sympathy at my bad luck etc, please) that I've given up calling a Daimler...

My mother had an auto 2.4 MkII. Shame they didn't have turbos back then, it would have been perfect for that. But the engine wasn't the really the cars problem, it was the manual steering which was very heavy. The Daimler 250s all had power steering, and considering the class of car, they benefited from having it.

[AS110]

Every Daimler 250 I've driven has been auto and power steer,a far better car to drive than any with Jag power.Here in NZ in the 70s we had a speedway midget powered by a Daimler V8,seemed to go well enough and wasn't put to shame by an Offy.The rumour was that Turner had used some Triumph Twin parts in his V8,which would be typical - I thought it was the pistons,but at 76.2mm they are too big for a Triumph.76.2mm?? doesn't sound Turnerish,I'd say a converion from Imperial,Turner's motorcycle engines were round figure metric bore and stroke.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Engineguy
"The Majestic Major was the first Daimler to use a V-8 engine and this 4,561cc unit was exceptional. It was designed by Edward Turner and used a hemispherical combustion chamber with inclined valves operated from a camshaft high up between the two banks of cylinders. Turner had previously worked on motorcycles with Triumph and Ariel and this influence was apparent. The smaller V-8 engine of 2,645 for the sporting SP250 and the larger Majestic Major engine were designed with the same bore spacing so that they could be manufactured on the same production line. It is very easy to insert the larger engine in the SP250 and the performance is stunning!

(...)

If this is accurate, it must be the heaviest 2.5L gasoline engine of its era by a substantial margin! Was there a taxation angle on this?

Oversized architecture like this was also rather common in the first generation of postwar American OHV V8's. The Studebaker and AMC engines had relatively tiny bores (3.375" and 3.5" respectively) but enormous bore spacing at 4.75". The Pontiac also used large bore spacing (4.62" if I recall correctly) which allowed the displacement to be expanded from 287 CID in 1955 all the way out to 455 CID by 1970, an increase of 58%.