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

[TWFAUST@xxxxxxx]

<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. 

I can't say that my E-type was not usually willing to run, main problems that
I can recall were overheating and a tendency to disassemble itself. Windows
would tend to fall into the doors, etc. I remember my aunt had a new XJ-6 in
the late 70's. In those days warranties were 6 months. It spent 4 of its first
6
months at the dealer. Afterwards it was converted to Chevy and was kept for a
number of years.

 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. 

"What did you do to your E-type"? Well not much. This was in the early 70's,
they had not achieved "classic" status. They had poor reputations and were
cheap.

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." 

All true, but for the average motorist low end torque may be a more important
factor than horsepower.  I do remember that the acceleration seemed turbine
like, as opposed to the punch in the back received from a high torque V8.

 (Only slightly off-topic: Why do you see serious carburetors on American
V8's in marine applications, but never on the street?)

Marine applications differ from street applications in that the motors are
always under load. They never "cruise" as do cars. This may have an effect on
the carburetors they can handle.

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
 (and Rolls-Royce, Bentleys. Few of those used by limousine services have
their original power. I am giving this some thought. My local car donation lot
has a '71 Rolls for $4000.00)
are seemingly much more common-

(the 350 conversion is most common in the sedans. The E-type conversion was
almost always a Ford. Had to do with exhaust location and the front
distributor
on the Ford)

-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

 (I had an Iso Rivolta for a few days, I had bought it to sell it. It had a
327 mated to a Laycock D'Normanville tranny)

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.) 

How about for daily drivers that are not in competition, just providing
yeoman service?

 To me, engineering is about getting the most from the least, so specific
output is very important to me. 

You must be very rich, and unconcerned with delays for service and
adjustment. I have some sympathy.  Being an accumulator with a barn, I have a
Norton and
a Harley. The Norton for chic and espirit, the Harley for looks, power and
"I'm an American". (perhaps I saw Easy Rider a few times too many)

 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?

"Nuff said?"  I suppose the conversation is endless. It is all in what floats
your boat.

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