I think the point Mark was making was that the 2.8L V6 is a dog. Their
longevity prospects never were bright.
During my sentence in the local Pontiac/GMC dealership, that particular
engine caused us more headaches than any two other engine types combined.
Add that the odd bellhousing and very limited choices for trannies, and
it's really a no brainer.
Good 215 BOP engines that are salvagable are probably as availible as
good 2.8's.
Plus they tend to last a bit longer too.
Rick Morrison
72 MGBGT
74 Midget
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:43:31 -0400 Trevor Boicey <tboicey@brit.ca>
writes:
>Mark Snowdon wrote:
>> Being in the auto salvage industry, both in Canada and in the
>states,
>> let me tell you that you are mistaken if you think low mileage 2.8L
>> chevy motors are plentiful.
>
> Plentiful might not be the right word, but would I be off
>base in saying they are a lot more common than 215ci Rover/Buick
>engines?
>
> I suspect that rebuilding the V6 would be cheaper than the
>Rover/Buick as well, both from lower parts count and good-old
>availability.
>
>> If you were going to go with a V6, the better choice would be the
>3.8L
>> Buick motor that the Rover V6 is based on.
>
> What's the physical size and weight like?
>
> I have no real preference for the 2.8L engine, but it is
>the one that was used in any MGB->V6 conversion I have seen
>so far, so I figured it would have at least enough merit to
>investigate it.
>
> I'll consider anything, but I wasn't really aiming for
>a full engineering and design project. I was considering
>the engine that at least one local car is set up with,
>so I could hopefully clone the install.
>
>--
>Trevor Boicey, P. Eng.
>Ottawa, Canada, tboicey@brit.ca
>ICQ #17432933 http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
>
|