Saw this Roadster the other day
September 16th, 2014, 01:33 PM
#1
Administrator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Poteau, Ok
Posts: 40,626
Saw this Roadster the other day
Went to get some gas a while back and this was parked in front of me. Owner claims it's an all aluminum 215, but from the Lotus racing team. Pretty cool car!
September 16th, 2014, 04:25 PM
#2
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,451
Well, that's actually an Olds 215 as opposed to a Buford or Rover motor (the heads and valve covers are different on the Olds 215s). The other interesting thing is that the alternator is on the opposite side from factory. The stock alternator bracket mounts to the passenger side.
September 16th, 2014, 04:58 PM
#4
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,451
By the way, here's a 1926 Model T Roadster:
September 17th, 2014, 12:01 AM
#6
'87 Delta 88 Royale
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Margate, England
Posts: 2,513
I'm curious, how many 215's did Oldsmobile build?. I understand the main difference between Olds and Buick versions were Olds had 5 bolt heads and Buicks had 4.
Rover engines used a different casting method, although I don't know how to tell the difference between blocks and heads.
Cars like the beautiful example shown were often seen at British hot rod shows with Rover V8 engines, but for looks nothing beat a dressed up Flathead Ford V8 IMO>
Roger.
Rover engines used a different casting method, although I don't know how to tell the difference between blocks and heads.
Cars like the beautiful example shown were often seen at British hot rod shows with Rover V8 engines, but for looks nothing beat a dressed up Flathead Ford V8 IMO>
Roger.
September 17th, 2014, 06:15 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Red Oak, Texas
Posts: 2,974
According to the definition of a roadster, the T bucket is a roadster. Most T buckets were made from roadster bodies, some were made from the front half of a touring car. T bucket is a term used to describe the appearance of the body looking like a "bucket". It is not the actual definition of the car.
September 17th, 2014, 06:35 AM
#8
Administrator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Poteau, Ok
Posts: 40,626
The main point of my post was that the owner stated the engine was one of a few performance enhanced engines used by Lotus racing. He supposedly has done a lot of research to this fact, which apparently makes it quite rare.
The car is actually called a Roadster Pickup.
The car is actually called a Roadster Pickup.
September 17th, 2014, 06:57 AM
#9
Proud Viet Nam Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Rowlett, TX
Posts: 9,996
Other than the color, I think this is a cool car whether it is a roadster or not. I assume this a local Granbury guy. Since it is Olds powered, he should come to the show next April. I don't know if there is a class for him but who cares.
September 17th, 2014, 07:23 AM
#10
Past Administrator
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rural Waxahachie Texas
Posts: 10,043
September 17th, 2014, 07:33 AM
#11
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,451
I'm curious, how many 215's did Oldsmobile build?. I understand the main difference between Olds and Buick versions were Olds had 5 bolt heads and Buicks had 4.
Rover engines used a different casting method, although I don't know how to tell the difference between blocks and heads.
Rover engines used a different casting method, although I don't know how to tell the difference between blocks and heads.
The Olds heads use five bolt valve covers, vs four bolt for Buick/Rover, and the valve cover mounting surface on the Olds is parallel to the deck of the block. On the Buick/Rover heads the valve cover mounting surface is nearly parallel to the carb mounting flange, just like nailhead Buick motors.
The biggest difference is the number of head bolts. Olds heads use SIX bolts around each cylinder (as can be seen in the third photo above). Buicks use five. Rover started with five and went to four, which actually provides a better seal since the clamping loads are symmetric now.
I don't have the breakdown of production by Olds vs. Buick/Pontiac, but GM built about 750,000 of these motors in three years of production. To give you an idea of production scale differences, that's more motors built in three years than Rover built in three DECADES! Rover did do a couple of nice mods, however. The first is the change to sand casting as you note above. This solved the casting porosity problems GM was having. The second is the introduction of cross-bolted mains (just like a 427 side-oiler) on the 4.0 and 4.6 liter versions. I've got a 4.6 short block that will get Olds heads and a T5 trans for my 62 wagon.
Mickey Thompson also built 215s (Buick versions) to race at Indy in the early 1960s. Jim Hall used 215s in his Chaparral I race cars. They really are the SBC of England.
September 17th, 2014, 01:25 PM
#13
'87 Delta 88 Royale
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Margate, England
Posts: 2,513
Actually, the difference between Olds 215s and other BOPR motors (Buick, Olds, Pontiac, Rover) is the design of the heads. This website provides great comparison photos of Olds heads next to Buick and Rover heads. In these photos, the third from the left is Olds, the rest are Buick and Rover.
The Olds heads use five bolt valve covers, vs four bolt for Buick/Rover, and the valve cover mounting surface on the Olds is parallel to the deck of the block. On the Buick/Rover heads the valve cover mounting surface is nearly parallel to the carb mounting flange, just like nailhead Buick motors.
The biggest difference is the number of head bolts. Olds heads use SIX bolts around each cylinder (as can be seen in the third photo above). Buicks use five. Rover started with five and went to four, which actually provides a better seal since the clamping loads are symmetric now.
Thanks Joe, the pictures give me a much better idea of the differences. I guess the middle head is from a Olds, the second from the right from a Buick an the rest are Rover versions?.
I don't have the breakdown of production by Olds vs. Buick/Pontiac, but GM built about 750,000 of these motors in three years of production. To give you an idea of production scale differences, that's more motors built in three years than Rover built in three DECADES!
To put that in perspective, in 1966 the British automotive industry (which was around its peak production) managed to make something like 1.6 million cars, trucks, buses and vans. The Chevrolet division of GM managed to make rather more cars called Chevrolets, not including other products like Corvettes, Corvairs, Chevy II, as well as various trucks buses and vans.
Yeah, he's full of crap. I don't think Lotus ever did anything with these motors. He's thinking of the Repco Formula 1 motors that were based on the Olds 215 block. The motor in the T-bucket above has NOTHING to do with those.
Lotus developed several European engines for road use, possibly most successfully the dohc version of the Fords Kent engine as used in the Lotus Elan, Lotus Cortina and Escort Twin Cam/
Mickey Thompson also built 215s (Buick versions) to race at Indy in the early 1960s. Jim Hall used 215s in his Chaparral I race cars. They really are the SBC of England.
The Olds heads use five bolt valve covers, vs four bolt for Buick/Rover, and the valve cover mounting surface on the Olds is parallel to the deck of the block. On the Buick/Rover heads the valve cover mounting surface is nearly parallel to the carb mounting flange, just like nailhead Buick motors.
The biggest difference is the number of head bolts. Olds heads use SIX bolts around each cylinder (as can be seen in the third photo above). Buicks use five. Rover started with five and went to four, which actually provides a better seal since the clamping loads are symmetric now.
Thanks Joe, the pictures give me a much better idea of the differences. I guess the middle head is from a Olds, the second from the right from a Buick an the rest are Rover versions?.
I don't have the breakdown of production by Olds vs. Buick/Pontiac, but GM built about 750,000 of these motors in three years of production. To give you an idea of production scale differences, that's more motors built in three years than Rover built in three DECADES!
To put that in perspective, in 1966 the British automotive industry (which was around its peak production) managed to make something like 1.6 million cars, trucks, buses and vans. The Chevrolet division of GM managed to make rather more cars called Chevrolets, not including other products like Corvettes, Corvairs, Chevy II, as well as various trucks buses and vans.
Yeah, he's full of crap. I don't think Lotus ever did anything with these motors. He's thinking of the Repco Formula 1 motors that were based on the Olds 215 block. The motor in the T-bucket above has NOTHING to do with those.
Lotus developed several European engines for road use, possibly most successfully the dohc version of the Fords Kent engine as used in the Lotus Elan, Lotus Cortina and Escort Twin Cam/
Mickey Thompson also built 215s (Buick versions) to race at Indy in the early 1960s. Jim Hall used 215s in his Chaparral I race cars. They really are the SBC of England.
More like the Big block in terms of relative size, remember anything over 2 liters was a big engine by our standards.
The big deal with the Rover engine was weight, shoehorning an iron engine that size into something designed to accept a 4 cylinder would have upset the cars balance terribly.
Strangely it was cheaper to buy a small block American engine than a Rover engine over here, and parts for them were cheaper too.
Roger.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
47 Convertible
Vintage Oldsmobiles
3
March 18th, 2013 09:03 AM
