Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





1963 Olds Convertible

pttaylorpttaylor Posts: 34
edited March 11 in Oldsmobile
I am considering obtaining a 1963
Oldsmobile Convertible from an
elderly gentleman. It is,
according to this man, a T-85
model and has a V8. Does anyone
have any idea of the engine
displacement (cubic inches)?
General Motors had so many
different engine sizes for the
varied makes that it is a
mystery just what Oldsmobile had
available in 1963. If you
happen to have any idea what
size engine this is please
e-mail me at:

pttaylor@webtv.net

Thanks!!!

Comments

  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,641
    It's a 215 cubic inch V-8, and it's an F-85, not a T.

    This is a troublesome engine and I'd be certain to have it carefully inspected.

    Value would depend heavily on condition, but a very nice one should cost around $5,500-7,000 tops.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,350
    Buick used that engine in the specials and Skylarks from 61-63. My parents bought a 62 new. It was actully a great car except for the troublesome automatic transmission.

    Still, those engines didn't have a good reputation at all.

    So, Buick sold them to the brits who still (I think) use them in the VERY troublesome Land Rovers of all things!
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,641
    The old Buick V-8 that Rover used went through many, many changes and is hardly recognizable except that it still gave trouble. I think Rover uses another engine now. The old Buick really had trouble pushing those Range Rovers around on the freeways. Still, the design hung in there for many many years. I think only a British car maker could have gotten away with that for so long.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,350
    The troublesome 215 Cubic Inch Aluminum Buick engine...With a Lucas distributor!
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,641
    I'm surprised more people weren't eaten by lions in those things...(actually, if you stay IN the 4X4, the lions dont' bother you, but if you step out to fiddle with the ignition, you're breakfast).
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,350
    Fiddle with Lucas electricals?

    Lucas must be the lion's best friend!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,590
    Hey guys,

    I saw a 90's Rover in a Car Max parking lot a few years ago, popped the hood, and the engine looked like a Buick unit...distributor in the front at an angle and everything! Are they still using some form of that engine?
    -Andre
  • Yes, much, much modified and still the mediocre engine it was 35 years ago, I'm afraid. Ask any Range Rover owner about the gas mileage and the power output.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Posts: 1,598
    And not one that many people will care about, but reading this thread reminded me that the engine Buick replaced the 215 with, the '64 Skylark 300, was apparently based on the aluminum 215. It also had aluminum heads (but cast iron block), and the valve sizes were the same. The '65 had cast iron heads, but they used the same valve sizes through the '67 340 (which explains why that engine was never a world beater). Had a '63 Skylark V8, a remarkably pleasant and weird-looking car. Hard to look good driving that car, unless you were a circus clown. Also had a '67 Skylark, a mini-luxury cruiser that could barely get out of its own way but made up for that by getting poor gas mileage. My parents' 283 Impala was quicker.
This discussion has been closed.