Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Ford\s+302\s+vs\s+BOP\/Rover\s+215\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215 (score: 1)
Author: DANMAS@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:48:26 EDT
All this talk about Ford vs BOP/R V8s has gotten me to thinking. I've got about 15 minutes before all this thinking puts me to sleep, so I thought I'd try to summarize my thoughts before I nod off.
/html/mgb-v8/2000-09/msg00045.html (15,472 bytes)

2. Re: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215 (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <larry@larryembrey.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:45:15 -0700
WOW!! What a brain dump. A chime in for the Ford. Your pricing is right on, although with a little patience and shopping most people should be abe to find a 302 for cheaper. I scored a long block for
/html/mgb-v8/2000-09/msg00046.html (18,953 bytes)

3. Re: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215 (score: 1)
Author: Kevin & Deana Brown <MGTRAutoXr@sprintmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:43:42 -0500
I've got a spare 215 block in my garage and it weighs far less than 97 pounds - and that is with two pistons still in it. I'll weigh it next time I'm in there. Kevin Brown
/html/mgb-v8/2000-09/msg00047.html (18,368 bytes)

4. RE: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215 (score: 1)
Author: "Larry Hoy" <larryhoy@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:46:46 -0600
block from Ford weighs 97 pounds (per the FMS catalog), for a weight savings Dan, that doesn't look right. I think the weight ratio between aluminum (6061), and Iron (or at least mild steel) is abou
/html/mgb-v8/2000-09/msg00048.html (9,054 bytes)

5. Re: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215 (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <larry@larryembrey.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:09:09 -0700
I would tend to agree. Using my Intakes as an example, we get the Stock 2bbl Iron intake: 42lbs Aftermarker Alum intake: 15lbs This yields us a 2.8:1 ratio. I have a alum water pump on the way, once
/html/mgb-v8/2000-09/msg00049.html (9,879 bytes)

6. Re: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215 (score: 1)
Author: "Chad White" <yt_one@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:58:00 GMT
<lurk mode off> ;-) The 2.9 factor is from comparing the densities of steel and aluminum: Steel = 490 lb/cu. ft, Alum. = 170 lb/cu. ft Keep in mind aluminum is not as strong (depending on alloy) or
/html/mgb-v8/2000-09/msg00050.html (9,522 bytes)

7. RE: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215 (score: 1)
Author: "carney_fam_ark" <carney_fam_ark@email.msn.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:33:36 -0500
This one's going in the file. Thanks. I've been wondering about that new 4.6 liter Cobra engine. Anybody know the dimensions & weights on that? Cheers, Jim Carney '64 4-banger B SNIP All this talk a
/html/mgb-v8/2000-09/msg00051.html (9,434 bytes)

8. RE: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215 (score: 1)
Author: "Larry Hoy" <larryhoy@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:26:28 -0600
I guess I hadn't considered the aluminum and iron blocks would be different. It's my understanding that 6061 T-6, 7075 T-6 or 356 T-6 aluminum alloys have essentially the same strength of mild steel,
/html/mgb-v8/2000-09/msg00052.html (9,605 bytes)

9. RE: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215 (score: 1)
Author: "Chad White" <yt_one@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:00:26 GMT
I think the main difference is stiffness - steel is also 2.9 times "stiffer" than aluminum. An aluminum block would require thicker webs, more gussets, etc. to control flexing under load, even though
/html/mgb-v8/2000-09/msg00054.html (10,211 bytes)

10. Re: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215 (score: 1)
Author: DANMAS@aol.com
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:22:51 EDT
Larry, I built my own for the TR6, but that design won't work on the MGB. Ford makes a nice motor mount that bolts to the chassis with one bolt, and to the block with two. If you want, I can scan a p
/html/mgb-v8/2000-09/msg00055.html (12,539 bytes)

11. Re: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215 (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <larry@larryembrey.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:02:53 -0700
No offense taken at all. Just trying to help us all "figure it out.." My "limited" brain capacity is just suprised that an alum block would only save ~35lbs.. I was trying to extrapolate it based of
/html/mgb-v8/2000-09/msg00057.html (14,647 bytes)

12. Re: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215 (score: 1)
Author: FJ40Jim@aol.com
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:49:02 EDT
savings (6061), made of steel; Larry, You are correct about the relative densities of the 2 metals, but the FMS block has steel sleeves and a bunch of extra material to strengthen the block for racin
/html/mgb-v8/2000-09/msg00059.html (8,838 bytes)

13. Re: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215 (score: 1)
Author: Kevin & Deana Brown <MGTRAutoXr@sprintmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:40:59 -0500
I just went out and weighed my spare Buick 215 block - 69 pounds - and that includes 2 pistons and connecting rods. So that is quite a bit less than the 302 block. Personally I don't want any more we
/html/mgb-v8/2000-09/msg00065.html (16,030 bytes)

14. Re: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215 (score: 1)
Author: DANMAS@aol.com
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:46:39 EDT
absolutely (in DSP Kevin, Thanks for the info, that's good information to have. Assuming the pistons/rods weigh 2 pounds each, that means the block weighs 65 pounds, or 36 pounds less than I guessed
/html/mgb-v8/2000-09/msg00076.html (11,025 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu