[alfa] Re: V6 Engine Swaps - Another Rational Idea

[Joe Elliott <jee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--On Tuesday, January 6, 2004 2:03 AM +0000 alfa-digest 
<owner-alfa-digest@domain.elided> wrote:


> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 18:13:52 EST
> From: TWFAUST@domain.elided
> Subject: [alfa] Re: RE: V6 Engine Swaps - Another Rational Idea
<snip>
> First, who ever heard of a "smooth,reliable" Jaguar XK-E. Many moons ago I
> had a '66 4.2. It came with a sign on the dash that read "Get home before
> dark".
> As to the 300hp, it should be remembered that the old 265hp rating for the
> 4.2 was pre-smog. After EPA the rating quickly dropped to around 170. I
> will say, that when it ran, it was smooth. They were cheap in those days,
> I don't think I paid $3,000.00.

Well, the six cars my parents have had with that engine ('52, 59, '63, '66, 
'67, '87, cleverly avoiding the BL years) have been perfectly reliable. 
While I have enough faith in my Alfa to do the driving that I need to do, I 
have enough experience with Jags that I get borderline furious when people 
suggest that they're chronically unreliable.  Not to be rude, but what did 
you do to your E-type?  All of my parents Jags have been daily drivers, all 
were used cars, mostly old enough to be considered "vintage," and several 
had well over 100k miles on them.  The only "breakdown" they ever suffered 
was when a known-bad AC compressor on the '87 seized and threw all the 
belts.  My dad says there was one Ohio winter in which his triple-Webered 
E-type was the only car in town besides the VW's that started.  (Sadly his 
other E-type had the stock SU carbs and didn't start that winter...I never 
said Jags were infallible.)

The Ford 302 also saw power outputs in the <200hp range with the dawn of 
emissions control, if I recall correctly, so I'm not sure how that's 
relevant.  It seems to me that the Corvette was also down around 190hp for 
awhile.  You can pull all the emissions control devices off a Jag and 
install triple Webers just as easily as you can pull the same devices off a 
Mustang and install a performance "carburetor."  (Only slightly off-topic: 
Why do you see serious carburetors on American V8's in marine applications, 
but never on the street?)

And for what it's worth, my original post was about the Ford 302 in 
particular, which I probably should have made more clear since Chevy 350 
swaps into old Jags are seemingly much more common--I'm well aware that the 
GM V8 is a fairly flexible engine that's been used in many race cars and 
even some exotic Italian road cars over the years.  But I still don't have 
much respect for engines that require twice the displacement of the 
competition in order to be competitive.  (Group C sports cars being the 
exception, because it was a matter of 6.0L production engines against 3.0L 
F1 engines, and I love diversity on the race track.)  To me, engineering is 
about getting the most from the least, so specific output is very important 
to me.  I'm well-aware that pushrod V engines can be fairly compact, and 
that's their role in life, I guess.  The Rover (nee Buick) V8 and some 
current American engines take advantage of this trait to be fairly 
lightweight, but most have been unnecessarily heavy due to excessive use of 
iron.  'Nuff said?

-Joe
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided