The all aluminum V-8 was the one Buick/GM sold to British Leyland for the Rover, if I remember correctly. Any thoughts on the old "nailhead" Buick engines?
What is missing is the 225 V6 introduced in 1964. This is the predicessor to
> the 3.8L V6. If you work out the math the 3.8 L V6 was not to the Buick 350
> (5.7L), but the 225 was 2 less cyl than to the 300 engine. The 225 was an
> all cast iron engine. It was the 300 engine minus 2 cylinders. This was a
> very good engine from the start. They were compared to the Chevy 283 for
> long lasting. It was also used in the Willys Jeeps. The 300 engine used
> alumium heads, and it came in model with 11:1 compression. The 225 V6 was
> the V6 that was used until around 67. The 198 all aluminum Engine just saw > 2/3years.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Eric McClatchie ( snipped-for-privacy@mcclatchies.com)
> > westin* snipped-for-privacy@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) wrote: > >
> > >
> > >Kinda like the 3.8 being a Buick 350 with two cylinders missing and
> > >several decades of development.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Actually, it is the other way around. The 3.8 V-6 was a derivation of
> > the 215 CID aluminum V-8 that Buick and Olds used in the F-85 and the
> > Special from '61-63. In it's ogiginal configuration it was odd-fire
> > and 198 CID (3.3L).
> >
> > The tooling and design of the aluminum V-8 was sold to the Brits and
> > used by Rover until just recently (highly modified, of course). > >
> > In 1964 when GM went to the larger "A" body Buick developed the
> > 300/330 V-8 - iron block and heads, basically the V-6 with 2 cylinders
> > added back in. That engine was used through the 1967 model year when
> > Buick developed the last series of V-8s they would do: the 350 /
> > 430-455 family. A lot of changes where made (like stud rocker pivots
> > instead of the aluminum rockers on a steel shaft used in the 300/330 -
> > I HATED those damn things, but did make a bunch of money over the
> > years rebuilding the valve train in those engines).
> >
> > GM used the V-6 in some cars through 1966 but converted to using the
> > Chevy inline 6 in the "A" body cars (rumor was they did not want to
> > spend the $$ to work on emissions compliance for both the Chevy I-6
> > and the Buick V-6, and since the Chevy engine was cheaper to build and
> > also used in more lines than the Buick, the Buick V-6 lost out). After
> > sitting on the shelf for a couple of years, GM sold the design /
> > tooling of the V-6 to Kaiser-Jeep, which American Motors bought in
> > 1970. The engine was used in a lot of Jeeps in the 70s, but GM needed
> > a V-6 for the Monza / Shyhawk / Omega in the mid-70s (engine
> > compartment would not take an inline 6 and the Vega-based 4 was too
> > wimpy and being phased out for the Pontiac "Iron Duke" 4) so they
> > bought the V-6 back from AMC. Most of you know the rest of the story
> > - engine converted to even-fire, etc.
> >
> > Of the first-generation 3.8s, the best of the bunch (in my humble
> > opinion) is the FWD 1986-1987 "C" motor: fuel injection, DIS ignition
> > and roller lifters. GM used that engine in mostly "C", "H" and "E"
> > body cars (except Cadillac). As time has gone on the engine has been
> > "improved" but has gone backwards in some ways, witness the intake
> > manifold problems in recent years.
> >
> > But if someone had to pin me down to the best of the CURRENT GM V-6s,
> > I's still take a 3.8 over anything else GM makes in a V-6 (and my
> > LEAST favorite would be a tie between the 3.4 and the 3.5
> > "ShortStar").
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bill Bowen
> > Sacramento, CA
>
>