Does anyone know the actual physical size diff. between an aluminum 215 and a buick 3.8? is it longer? wider? I know they are 200hp from the get go.. how is the lug/torque?

A guy named Martin had a 215 in his SJ like 5 years ago. I haven't heard of him in almost as many years.

I don't know if this answers your question but here are 2 old msgs on the subject:
Ken


That was me. What I actually said was that I had put a set
aside for Dave. If I were referring to what I have in my
own possession it would be more like:

15 Buick 300 aluminum heads
4 Buick 300 cranks
4 Buick 215 engines
1 Rover 3.5L engine
1 Rover 3.9L block (larger bore)
1 Buick 4 speed bellhousing (mounts T5 5 speed)
1 Buick bellhousing adapted to Toyota 5 speed and Celica slave
1 Trans Dapt bellhousing (also mounts up T5 5 speed)
1 TR8 bellhousing and Rover LT77 5 speed
lots of other goodies (carbs, intakes, headers, etc.)

First a little background material before we get into the stroking.
The aluminum 215 V8 engine was a joint Buick and Oldsmobile project
and each company produced their own distinct versions. Pontiac used
the Buick variant. The engines share the same crankshaft, forged rods,

oil pumps and other components below the cylinder heads, though the
Olds turbocharged version had unique beefier main caps. The primary
differences are in the cylinder heads. Buick heads use an oblong
semi-hemisperical combustion chamber of 37 cc's, have 5 bolts per
cylinder and use rockershafts with aluminum stands and rocker arms
with steel tips and sockets. Also, the Buick oils through the pushrod.

The Olds heads have 6 bolts per cylinder, integral stands, steel
rockers, and came in low (51cc) and high (38cc) compression versions
with wedge shaped compression chambers. Despite the different number
of bolt holes per cylinder, both variants use essentially the same
block. Buick just leaves the sixth boss untapped.

Aluminum Buick 300 heads were offered in 1964 only. Later 300 heads
were cast iron. These heads bolt onto 215's and Rovers but have 54cc
chambers and 4 bolts per cylinder. They have larger valves and ports
with more room for porting. The extra chamber size comes in handy
when boring and stroking.

With 6 bolts per cylinder, a beefier bottom end (in the turbo), and
a slightly better exhaust port, you'd think the Olds would have been
the racers pick but it wasn't. Almost all the car and boat racers
used the Buick. The Olds was also an evolutionary dead end. When
Rover picked up the 215, they used the Buick version. The pre-SD1
3.5L Rover is very similar to the Buick and most everything
interchanges. Later version were enlarged to 3.9L (bigger bore) and
4.2L (bored and stroked). The latest Rovers have displacements of
4.0L and 4.6L and used cross bolted mains, cranks with larger
journals, and 4 bolts per cylinder, same as the Buick 300 heads.
There's also a tall-deck 4.4L Australian version called the P76.

The 215 has a bore and stroke of 3.5" by 2.8". Deck height is around
9" and bore spacing is 4.24" which leaves plenty of room for long
rods or boring and stroking. With a Buick 300 crank (3.36" stroke),
displacement can be increased to around 266 cubic inches, depending
upon overbore. Displacements as large as 305 cubes can be had if the
original liners are removed and oversize ones installed. Or you can
use the larger bore Rover 3.9 or 4.2 blocks. For my stroker project,
I'm going to use a Rover 3.9 block and Buick 300 crank for around 289
cubes.

The engines are very light for the displacement possible. Dave's
engine weights list shows them at 318 or 324 lbs versus for 450 lbs
for a 5.0. External size is similar to a 302 and short waterpumps
and timing chain covers, front (Rover) and mid (Buick) sump oil pans
are available to help with swapping situations.

The Buick 300 crank has larger mains (2.5" versus 2.3"), has a
different flywheel bolt pattern, is longer, and is smaller at the
oil seal area. To fit one in a 215 block, the mains have to be
turned down to 2.3" and an adapter/spacer used at the rear.
Inexpensive spacer kits are available that use a Chevy big block
rear main seal. The top of the adapter is screwed to the block
and the bottom is secured to the rear main cap. There are various
ways to address the flywheel/flexplate bolt pattern and location
issues. I've only looked into the flywheel issue so that's all
I'll address here, though similar solutions exist for automatic
tranny applications. Aftermarket steel flywheels are available
that retain the original starter ring gear location and bolt up a
variety of hipo pressure plates. However, I chose to have a Chevy
Monza flywheel reworked for my application (TR7V8) by one of the
Roverheads email list members (Wil Bridges). Here's what he did:

"The Rover flywheel ring gear was retained and installed on a
remachined surface on a Chevy Monza flywheel. This flywheel has
an offset toward the block which makes it easy to reposition the
starter ring back into its original relationship with the starter.
No starter mods were needed. The machined surface on the flywheel
was left about .030 larger than i.d. of the Rover ring gear. The
ring gear was heated in an oven at 450 degrees for an hour then
shrink cooled onto the flywheel with no other means of retaining.
The clutch disk side of the flywheel has a stepdown where the clutch
disk mates. The step was machined off and the remaining groove in
the flywheel surface was left. The stock Rover/TR8 clutch disk
diameter ends at the groove and does not affect clutch performance.
One of the flywheel-to-crank mounting holes was relocated (enlarged)
about 1/8 inch to mate with the corresponding thread in the crank.
The stock Rover clutch cover mates perfectly with the Monza mounting
holes. The three clutch cover locating pins must be redrilled. The
300 crank/Monza flywheel combo results in the flywheel clutch surface
extending into the Rover/TR8 bellhousing an additional .200 in. from
stock. There is adequate clearance inside the bellhousing to accommodate

the flywheel/clutch cover combo with no interference and the hydraulic

clutch actuation mechanism (slave cylinder, pivot pin, throwout arm,
throwout bearing, etc) needs no modification. The reulting flywheel
is around 22 lbs versus 30 lbs for the original 3.5/215 flywheel."

Instead of using a seal adapter, a local racer who runs a stroked
Olds 215 (266 cubes in an ex-Lola chassis) chose to have the rear
of the 300 crank welded up and then ground down to 215 size.

Depending upon the desired compression ratio, connecting rods and
cylinder heads used, there are various off the shelf pistons which
can be used. Usually 215 rods (5.66" long, 2.0" journal, and .875"
pin hole) or 283/327 5.7" rods are used. The Chevy rods require
narrowing by approximately 0.1". Dan Lagrou of D&D Fabrications
put together a table of compression ratios, displacements, for
various off-the-shelf pistons (cast, hyper, and forged) and wrote
a very good article on fitting the Buick 300 crank for the MGBV8
Newsletter. There's also the old Hot Rod article which listed
various combos for bored and stroked versions out to 305 cubes.

The Buick 215 heads have small ports and valves but are sufficient
for stock displacement engines. The bigger port Buick 300 heads
are very desirable for the larger inch versions. The factory seats
for either head can be taken out to Buick V6 valve size (1.7"/1.5")
or larger seats can be installed.

In the States, the 215's are more plentiful and less expensive than
the Rover versions. However, the Rovers received a variety of updates
(stiffened, baffled oil pans, windage trays, cast aluminum valve
covers, etc.) over the years which make them worth a few more bucks
to the typical enthusiast.

Later,
Dan Jones




> Moldex does 300 Buick crank conversions, comes up at 266 in, don't know
> what rods and piston they use. The origional engine came with three
> possible Olds heads, all wedge, the Buick, a polyspehere thing, and the
> Rover, which is either very much like a Buick, or is identical, I don't
> know, I havent seen a Rover head.
>
> For a while, water pumps were a problem, (couldn't get 'em), the 300 Buick
> pump was the workaround, then pistons were a problem unless you used Rover
> parts, very expensive, but now Silvolite has gone back into production of
> that piston. The BOP is about 100lbs lighter than the Ford 302, but the
> engine is as big or slightly bigger than the Ford.
>
> In the mid-sixties this thing was re-worked for really high performance and
> racing. There are still things around like 48IDA manifolds and such, but
> bring money. The Ford is definitly a cheaper engine to work with.
>
> I remember a couple used in Lotus 23's, speaking of ten lbs of potatos in 5
> lb sack. A guy I knew had one in a 23 running a Hewland Mk5 that wasn't
> quite up to the job, he was looking for an HD4 or something, which meant
> that the engine was putting out over 200 hp..
>
> Brian

Ok there it goes