mgb-v8
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215

To: mgb-v8@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215
From: "Chad White" <yt_one@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:58:00 GMT
Reply-to: "Chad White" <yt_one@hotmail.com>
Sender: owner-mgb-v8@autox.team.net
>From: "Larry" <larry@larryembrey.com>
>Reply-To: "Larry" <larry@larryembrey.com>
>To: "Larry Hoy" <larryhoy@prodigy.net>, <DANMAS@aol.com>,   "MG V8 List" 
><mgb-v8@autox.team.net>
>Subject: Re: Ford 302 vs BOP/Rover 215
>Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:09:09 -0700
>
>I would tend to agree.  Using my Intakes as an example, we get the
>following.
>
>Stock 2bbl Iron intake: 42lbs
>Aftermarker Alum intake: 15lbs
>This yields us a 2.8:1 ratio.
>

<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

>I have a alum water pump on the way, once I get it, I will weight both and
>let everyone know.  The Alum block HAS to save more than 30lbs, that just
>seems a bit on the low side now that I look at it.  Probably means that the
>iron block weighs more than 127lbs..

Keep in mind aluminum is not as strong (depending on alloy) or stiff as 
steel, therefore more aluminum is required to match the strength and 
stiffness of steel. So, an aluminum block may require more material to match 
the strength of the steel block, hence the disparity between the actual 
block weights and the material weights.

Chad
'71 BGT - '94 Cobra 5.0 power in the works!

_________________________________________________________________________



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>