V8 Conversions

andre1969

...that when that little 215 V-8 came out, it was a compact car engine, meant to compete with the likes of Slant Six Valiants and Lancers, and Comets with some of the most lethargic little engines imaginable.

I think in base form, the 215 had 155 hp, which is favorable compared to the 225 Slant Six's 145 hp. That little Ford 221 V-8 only put out 145 hp, and their 260 only put out 164.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah, but you get in a Ford 260 and romp on it, and the car actually feels like it's going somewhere. A 215 really is a dog, wasteful on gas, slow on the uptake and highly resistant to any coaxing for more power. It's not an engine to inspire admiration.

isellhondas

My '62 Buick Special may have been a lot of things but it really wasn't a dog.

That little 215 engine could keep up with a 283 Chevy at the time.

In spite of a spotty reputation it never gave me any trouble and it ran well when I sold it with something like 80,000 miles on it.

My parents bought it new and gave it to me. I drove the hell out if it and it never complained.

Just don't ask about the Dual Path automatic!

Mr_Shiftright

Well, nostalgia is invariably kind

andre1969

...pretty much bear that out. IIRC, they tested either a Special or an F-85 with the base 155 hp 215, and it did 0-60 in around 13 seconds.

Usually, when they'd do their big-car comparo, the Chevy would be saddled with a 283, and get tromped by whatever Pontiac, Plymouth, and Ford they trotted out next to it. A typical base 283 automatic would only do around 13 seconds, and the Chevies got worse as they got heavier in later years.

CR tested a '68 Impala with a 307, and it did 0-60 in something like 14.5 seconds. Just for comparison, they tested a '68 Dart with a 225 and 2.76 gears; 0-60 in 14.0 seconds. '67 Valiant with a 225 and 2.93 gears: 13 seconds. Most compacts with their little base 6es of the time were more like 17-20 seconds, if not more.

Mr_Shiftright

Well, maybe Rover just made it worse than it was originally.

ndance

My gut feeling on all of this (not being a professional engine builder) is that pushrod V8's are all about alike in terms of potential. I suppose the 215 is limited in terms of size (I've heard of a bit over 300 CID done here, but no more) but on the street (I doubt anyone is building an offshore racing or sprint car engine out of the 215) it would be a matter of development in cams, heads and intake manifolds.

I suppose somebody has worried about flow in that motor just for the sake of TR8 ralley cars or whatever...this of course is where the small block Chevrolet really shines, umpteen zillion man hours of fiddling with intake and exhaust tracts, piston shape, cam grinds, etc.

I could be totally off-base, but I'll bet you'd have to be careful buying a 40 year old BOP engine due to corrosion problems...people running ditch water instead of antifreeze...not sure.

Mr_Shiftright

I think one reason the 215 is kind of a dog of an engine is that you can't get very much power out of it, at least not in relation to what you have to put into it. You need to drive a 90s Range Rover to realize how little millions of dollars and 30 years of research have done for this engine.

Some V8s just are not receptive to modification. They don't breath right, their combustion chambers aren't right, they are heavy or lazy or whatever, or maybe not strong enough to take what it takes to boost HP.

On the other extreme, some V8s (mostly European) are so well developed that you aren't going to get much more out of them because the factory did all the work that could be done. It was $500 to make it go faster but $3000 more to keep the car in one piece.

Sometimes a V8 that is "easy" to modify can work against you. People who bought Sunbeam Tigers and then beefed up the orginal Ford V8s found out to their dismay that the Sunbeam rear end and suspension wasn't up to the task.

Time and money can work miracles (I mean, some people even won bigtime races with a V-12 Jaguar E-Type) but there are definitely better building "blocks" for high HP than just picking any old V8 IMHO.

speedshift

It all starts with the combustion chamber of course. Some are prone to detonation and others can handle high combustion pressures. Sometimes the intake and exhaust porting is small or has weird angles. Sometimes they have tiny valves that won't let them breathe and sometimes they can't breathe because they have huge valves but they're shrouded.

I don't know what in particular held back the Buick V8 but you'll note that even when that same basic engine (but iron) was brought out to 350 CID it was never the racers' favorite. The undersquare design may have had something to do with it but the 300 and even the 340 versions used the same valve sizes as the 215.

ndance

*******
Some V8s just are not receptive to modification. They don't breath right, their combustion chambers aren't right, they are heavy or lazy or whatever, or maybe not strong enough to take what it takes to boost HP.
*********

You are making my point and not at the same time. Since breathing is the crux here...rpm limits aren't going to matter on the street...air flow can be modified on anything. Witness the number of aftermarket head designs for common V8's. If the heads and intake are allowed 'modifications' (up to and including complete replacement) then most of the low hanging fruit is here. The short version of my opinion is there isn't much to be gained by shortblock choice.

Having said that, I wonder what Travers and Coons' reactions were when they got the AMC contract for the 1970 Trans-Am. Probably broke apart a 304 and thought, holy s***, now what.

As far as 'well developed' European V8's are concerned...none pop to mind (at least from 30 years ago). All I can think of is the Mercedes V8, and that always struck me as sort of a boat anchor.

speedshift

There's a Rover site that says a head and oiling redesign a few years ago greatly improved the V8. That might be part of the problem: the engine is based on the V6 that came out in late 1960 so it was probably on the boards in 1958 or so. Then it goes into limbo for years before it lands with an automaker that probably doesn't have either the cash or desire to update it. That's a long long time to be using 1958 technology.

argent

The Buick 215 was NOT based on the V-6 -- it was the other way around. The 215 was introduced in the Buick Special for 1961. The original V-6 came for the '62 model year. It shared the architecture and tooling of the V-8, but was all iron, initially displacing 198 cubic inches. (It was pretty rough, being a 90-degree V-6 with no balance shaft, so Buick gave it ultra-soft engine mounts to soak up vibration.) In 1964 Buick replaced the 215 with the iron-block 300 cid engine, still using most of the same tooling, and the V-6 was bumped to 225 cubic inches. As with the aluminum V-8, Buick abandoned the V-6, selling it to Kaiser-Jeep in 1967. They bought it back in '74 and put in back in production, again sharing the line with the small V-8. They bored it out a bit, bringing it to 231 cubic inches. It has been considerably refined since then, becoming the later 3.0, 3.3, 3.8, and 4.1L V-6s GM used throughout the eighties, and it survives as the 3800 Series II used in the larger B-O-P line.

andre1969

...that came out in 1960 or whatever? Was that related in any way? I always thought it was kinda strange that GM's first V-6 would be built for a truck application!

Mr_Shiftright

Well the V-8 in a 1988 Mercedes 500SL will put out 389HP from 365 cid--that's not bad at all, certainly up to Chevy short block standards for a stroker 350, and enough to punch a 4,500 car to 0-60 in 6.1 seconds.

But what I mean by fully developed is that to get more HP out of them requires fairly radical methods. This is why I suspect that AMG cars cost so much when they modify the Benz engines. It's so much easier to breath on a well-designed American V8 because they are so crudely built and they leave so much on the table for the modifier to improve. For one thing you aren't dealing with four overhead camshafts as you would be on a 500SL--you just have one to change out.

speedshift

Yes you're right, I slipped there. The V6 was based on the V8, a quick fix to keep manufacturing costs down since the cars weren't selling well.

That's why the V6 was the V8's 90 degrees instead of the usual 60, and why it was heavier than it needed to be--aluminum engines, at least in those days, needed more meat in the block for rigidity and the V6 used much of the same tooling as the aluminum engine.

As a point of interest, the '64 Buick 300 still had aluminum heads and intake.

I had a four barrel 215 in a '63 Skylark and agree with Isell that the car moved out well even with the two-speed automatic. It was just a small engine in a fairly heavy car so you were never going to go out and bag hemis.

It would have amazed someone in 1964 to know that the V6 and V8 would still be around almost forty years later, long after better engines were discontinued. And they're related to each other. Just amazing, a real monument to engineering inertia.

The GMC V6 was apparently similar to the W block 348--both had the combustion chamber mostly in the piston, not the head. The similarity makes sense--both were designed by GM for truck use in the late '50s.

ndance

*************
Well the V-8 in a 1988 Mercedes 500SL will put out 389HP from 365 cid--that's not bad at all, certainly up to Chevy short block standards for a stroker 350, and enough to punch a 4,500 car to 0-60 in 6.1 seconds.
*************

I see the disconnect now...we're talking about different eras. Since the 215 is a product of the '60s, I was drawing conclusions about engines of that era in general.

argent

And despite its all-aluminum construction (quite a novelty in those days), there was nothing particularly special about the 215 in its breathing or architecture. It didn't have hemispherical heads, it didn't have overhead cams, it didn't have any of the high-tech accountrements that are practically standard issue on modern engines (fuel injection, distributorless electronic ignition, variable-length intake runners, variable valve timing). It was just a small, oversquare V-8 that had less displacement than most sixes of the period. Viewed in that context it's respectable, if not that impressive. It's ironic that the V-6 derivative, which originally was considered something of a dog, ended up being a better (and equally long-lived) engine in many respects, although there've been so many changes to it in the last 25 years that it's like the old story about the axe: if you replace the blade, later replace the handle, and replace the blade again, is it really the same axe?

Mr_Shiftright

Ah, got it.

Well there aren't really too many Mercedes V8s in that era except the one they put in the 600 in 1963. That was a pretty good engine for power, putting out 300HP sae @ 4100 rpm out of 386 CID and a top speed of 144 mph at 5530 rpm engine speed. But that was a lot of cubes.

There was the 3.5 liter V8 in 1969 which might be more of a comparison with the 215 Buick.

It was 213 CID and put out 230 HP and 231 ft. lbs of torque and accelerated a 3800 lb car in about 10 seconds 0-60. In contrast the Buick 215 V-8 put out 155 HP. So the Benz engine is putting out 75 more HP, and consequently accelerating faster with 1,000 lbs more weight. No doubt this was all due to internal engine design, overhead cams and fuel injection.

The Ford 260 cid V-8 of 1963 put out 164 HP. A base Chevy 283 CID engine of 1963 put out about 195 HP. The 1963 Chevy 327 cid engine with 4 bbl. carb was about equivalent to the Benz 213 cid in horsepower, a bit more at 250HP.

The point of all this is that European engine technology was often quite ahead of American engines in the early 60s, pound for pound and cube for cube.

argent

Keep in mind that before 1972, you _really_ have to take advertised horsepower ratings with a big grain of salt. Up to that point, advertised power for U.S. engines was SAE gross, which was calculated with a specially prepped engine on a test stand, minus its accessories and standard exhaust...then subjected to a whole array of "adjustments" for business purposes. Sometimes the marketing folks would inflate the numbers for advertising purposes, especially on the bread-and-butter engines. Sometimes they'd purposely _reduce_ the numbers, either for racing classification purposes (where racing class was determined by advertised shipping weight divided by advertised horsepower), to suit corporate regs (this is why a Pontiac 400 was advertised at 360 hp in a GTO but only 325 in a Firebird), or to avoid alarming regulators and insurance companies. A stock 2-bbl 215 didn't put out anything like 155 _net_ horsepower...probably more like 100, 110 at the clutch, installed.

European makers, in converting their horsepower ratings from DIN standard to SAE gross, tended to play particularly fast and loose with the numbers. Some were low (the 300 hp rating of the big Benz 6.3L V-8 was probably very conservative), some exaggerated.

It's true that European engines generally made more horsepower per cubic inch in the 60s, but it wasn't until everybody started quoting power in SAE net numbers from 1972 on that you could make a more reasonable direct comparison. (SAE net numbers are at the flywheel, as installed in the car with all accessories; they are NOT, contrary to some belief, taken at the drive wheels!)

Road test performance figures aren't necessarily a good point of comparison, either. Aside from the question of whether some of the testing was, er, fast and loose (who was reading the numbers, how performance was calculated, whether cars were strictly stock or not, etc), there were various other factors involved. MOTOR TREND, for example, did its road testing with two testers and more than a hundred pounds of equipment aboard, so its numbers (at least through the latter 60s) were more conservative than, say, CAR AND DRIVER.

Also, even if the test conditions are balanced, there are other things at work. A late 60s Mercedes 300 sedan had a four-speed automatic transmission, usually set up with rather firm shifts, keeping the engine closer to its peak through more of its speed range. A '61 or '62 Buick Special almost certainly had the old Buick Twin Turbine automatic, a non-lockup torque converter autobox for which the term "slushbox" might've been coined. That makes a big difference, as do things like tires and axle ratios.

Mr_Shiftright

The Benz 6.3 engine was definitely a smoker, and the 3.5 V8 performs nicely pushing a big car. To put it another way, I don't think dropping a 215 Buick into a full size Benz would give you the same results, even with the Benz tranny. Even if we penalized the Europeans 10% for lying, it's still a signficant power to cubinc inch advantage.

Of course, the Americans in the 60s would never lie about HP

argent

I wasn't suggesting that Mercedes lied about its output -- if anything, the 180 hp (200 DIN, I think) rating of the 3.5L V-8 was probably MORE accurate than, say, the 195 hp rating of an early sixties Chevy 283 -- but with all the vagaries of ratings and testing, it's tricky to directly compare its output with American engines just based on _advertised_ horsepower. Again, a lot of engine ratings -- especially from GM, which had various weird corporate restrictions on advertised power and power-to-weight ratios -- were pretty arbitrary.

speedshift

The four barrel 215 had 185 hp which would give you your Benz level of performance right there. ;-)

The "turbosupercharged" Olds 215 had 215 hp as long as the water/alcohol held out. Then poof.

BTW the Olds and Buick 215s had different heads. I wonder if Olds based its 330 smallblock on its 215 heads?

andre1969

...300 in gross hp out of something that's 386 CID was nothing spectacular back then. Chrysler's B-engine of '58 was in that ballpark, right in the beginning. The 350 had 280 hp with a 2-bbl or 295 with a 4. The 361 had 295 hp with the 2-bbl, and 305 with the 4.

They did cut 'em down after a few years though. In '61, the 361 2-bbl only had 265 hp. And for some reason, the 383 2-bbl was low on power in '67. At least I remember the '67 Newport I had only had 270 hp.

Mr_Shiftright

I never meant to insist that the 6.3 output per cubic inch was exceptional, only to suggest that it was a very sophisticated and efficient powerplantfor its size and that a 215 V8 or a '58 Chrysler might be viewed from an engineering standpoint as primitive and brutal in comparison.

Nowadays, fuel injection, variable intakes, use of alloys, and computer engine management all give the pushrod V8 a new lease on life, but back then they were just using cubic inches for power, and things like fuel efficiency, rev ability, noise, vibration, endurance, were not much of a concern. Power and a 90 day warranty, that's what you got.

speedshift

I don't know much about European engineering in the '50s and '60s but I don't think there's any question Detroit was mostly getting by on cubic inches in those days.

The one exception I can think of is the Chevy fuelie and even that's just a very good sedan engine with excellent factory development (heads, cam) and mechanical fuel injection.

As far as specific output, Roger Huntington says the '57 283/283 put out about 240 net hp, the '61 283/315 280 hp and the '65 327/375 about 300.

Some of Detroit's engineering departments had their strengths, often to compensate for a weakness in an engine. For example nailvalve Buicks had some of the best exhaust manifolds and one of the early examples of a factory high overlap split-duration cam because the small combustion chamber didn't leave much room for an exhaust valve.

And Chrysler did some work with ram tuning. But that's about as fancy as it got. Even the killer drag racing engines were just more of what the street engines got. I think it's telling that Chrysler and Rambler backed away from fuel injection in the late '50s.

Mr_Shiftright

Aside from the Benz mechanical injection system, which worked very well but gave rich mixtures sometimes, non of the other injection systems devised were very reliable for everyday use. They just couldn't deliver under all the various loads speeds and temperatures an everyday car endures. It really took the microcomputer to put a non-fussy injection system into ordinary everyday cars like the 1968 VW squareback where the Bosch system first appeared.

Can anyone name the first full production car using a V8 engine? (close is good enough).

argent

Again, comparing RATED horsepower in 60s engines is tricky. Looking at performance testing, while hardly exact either, suggests that's it's not cut and dried. A Mercedes 300 6.3 was typically tested with quarter mile times in the high 14s in the low 90-mph range. That's very similar to the test results for a 440-powered Plymouth GTX, which weighed approximately the same, but rated 375 gross horsepower compared to the Benz's 300 rating. There's some variation in axle ratios (although the Benz was actually taller) and transmissions (the Benz had a 4-speed fluid coupling autobox -- no torque converter -- next to the Mopar's 3-speed Torqueflite), but still, either the 440 wasn't quite making 375 hp or the Benz was making more than 300. I suspect the real answer was probably somewhere in between...

Early automakers tried damn near every configuration at least once, and V-type engines date back to the beginning of the automobile. But the first major production V-8 was, I think, the 1915 Cadillac engine. It was 314.5 cubic inches, very undersquare (3.125 bore and 5.125" stroke) with a whopping 4.25:1 compression ratio. It was rated at 70 gross horsepower at 2400 rpm, with 180 lbs-ft of torque at 2000 rpm.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes, very good. It was the first V8 offered as standard equipment by a volume producer of cars.

If you wanted to get really technical about it, the first V8 in an American car, and possibly any "real" car, was the 1908 Marmon, but I've never seen one and I suspect very few were made. Possibly none even survive. This engine was air-cooled and was rated at 60HP. It may only have existed in a catalog for all I know.

There is some evidence that the French used a few V8s for marine use before 1900.

speedshift

Just FYI Roger Huntington thinks the 440/375 put out around 330 net hp. I raced a '70 Road Runner with this engine at the strip with my 360-hp HO GTO and we were side by side until he missed the 3-4 shift. I ended up with an ET in the 14.9s at around 94 mph IIRC.

Great race. My brother was riding shotgun and went nuts when I pulled away from the RR, not knowing he'd missed a shift. I guess he thought I'd cut in the afterburner or something. The RR was so close to me I thought for a second I'd missed the shift instead of him.

Just thought I'd share.

BTW I ran across a guy with a site who claims he put a boneyard '70 Buick 350 with, he thinks, a '79 Pontiac automatic into an early '60s Mercedes. No photographic proof of this, which is probably just as well. He also has all but two of the entire line-up of models Plymouth offered in 1955. These he does have photos of and they're mostly junkyard hulks.

Mr_Shiftright

I kinda doubt a V8 would fit in a very early Mercedes. I have seen a Ford 289 in a 1971 Mercedes 280SL roadster and it was a very tidy, lovely installation, and might have been justifiable in that it turns a pretty boring car into something fun to drive. Given that 280SLs are only worth money if they are extra nice, it might be okay to build yourself a Mercedes 289SL from a decent driver rather than restore it to factory specs. You'd have to do something about the differential though, or you'll have a car geared way too low for the V8 power.

andys120

with a Sprint or Mustang motor (260/289), massaged of course to Cobra specs (271-305hp). You'd paint it Oxford white with blue LeMans stripes.

Normally I don't go for those half-car half truck things but I'd make a exception for this one.

Too light in the rear? I'd find an old side-oiler block that's not doing anything and park it in the bed. It's the perfect parts rumnner for the discerning Cobra, GT-350 or GT40 owner, of which sadly, I am not one.

speedshift

Shifty, remember that aluminum V8 in the SL? You posted it on the Coupes board. That's the same engine as the Buick 350, granted probably a little shorter and narrower because of the lower deck height. The only awkward thing about that engine is the oil filter that sticks out from the front but that can be relocated. Might work.

Mr_Shiftright

But those later V8s SLs are slightly bigger, wider, longer and a LOT heavier, over 1,000 lbs more! This turned them into gas-hungry cows on wheels. it's not a pleasant car to drive, and for all that extra engine, it goes a mere 6 mph faster in top speed and is the same 0-60 as the lighter 6 cylinder 280SL.

So from my point of view, nothing was gained by putting in the V8 except making it more suitable for lazy Americans to putt around on the boulevard. From a sales perspective however, it was an outstanding success, so Mercedes gets to laugh at Shiftright all the way to the bank.

rea98d

I'm going to find a big Jag Mark X, drop in a honkin' huge V-8, and sell it for nearly 30 grand! That's what this guy did:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1876577902&category=6278

Anyway, I seriously doubt that car will sell, as a Mark X is probably the least collectable Jaguar made, and a 504 engine alone isn;t worth that kind of money. The sad thing is, for what that guy spent on the Jag, he could have had a very very nice, brand new XJ8, that at least would take 3 or 4 years to depreciate, rather than being worth peanuts the instant it's finished. Shifty, your opinion on what the beauty is really worth?

argent

Actually, there were stock V-8 Jaguars in the 60s--sort of.

In 1960 Jaguar bought Daimler (not to be confused with Daimler-Benz!), which had just developed new V-8 engines. Jaguar was impressed with the engine, so from 1962 to 1969 they produced a Daimler version of the smaller Mark II sedan (the Daimler 2.5 V-8, rebadged Daimler 250 in 1967). It was a modestly restyled Mark II body slightly modified to fit the V-8 engine. There weren't many left-hand drive models, though...only about 725 of the 18,000 or so produced were LHD. Jaguar also continued to sell the Daimler Majestic Major saloon, which had a bigger version of the V-8, through 1969. After 1969 the V-8 engines were dropped and all subsequent Daimlers were just loaded, upscale Jaguars, with all-Jag mechanicals.

The small Daimler V-8 had aluminum heads with hemispherical combustion chambers and two SU carburetors. It made 140 hp and 155 lbs-ft of torque from 2548 ccs, which wasn't bad for its day (it was designed in 1959). It was actually lighter than Jaguar's inline-six, too. The bigger engine was 4.6L, making 220 hp.

andys120

the infamously ugly Daimler SP-250. In an era when everybody wished they had a V8 in their little sports car they couldn't sell those things
cuz they were soooo fugly.

rea98d

I thought that little car was called the "Dart." They were hoping it would be the car that saved Damlier. Thankfully, the company was bought by Jaguar, who's founder had enough sense of style to put the car out of its misery.

Mr_Shiftright

It was called both those, by name and by number.

Aside from the questionable looks, the rubber chassis didn't help. But from what I've gleaned at car shows, once you got the frame re-inforced and worked out all the bugs, it was a fairly competent car---still unfortunate genetics though.

rea98d

"once you got the frame re-inforced and worked out all the bugs, it was a fairly competent car"

Of course it was! It came from the same country that gave us Austin-Healy, MG, Triumph, and (my personal favorite) Jaguar! After all, didn't the British invent the sports car? (Along with the oil leak, the short circuit, rust...)

Mr_Shiftright

Hmmm...I don't know if the British invented the sports car...interesting to think about that...I'd have to say that the Italians and French did the inventing but that the British developed it into modern form---to about the 60s.

now of course a new generation has a completely different understanding of a sports car, more like what a GT car was 40 years ago.

andys120

Mr_Shiftright

hahahaha...don't worry, we're safe here!

0patience

Interesting topic.
I've done v-8 swaps on may types of vehicles.
SB 350 into Vegas were popular swaps. Did 4 in 3 months one year. A 427 into a Chevy Luv was an interesting one. 327 & 350s into Jeep CJ3As were also very popular.
The 64-66 Chevy and GMC pickups with 6 cylinder to V-8 swaps were also very common, easy too. LOL!
I think my favorites were always the 65-72 Nova big block swaps. The car seemed to be the right size for the power they produced. Combine the big block with a 6-71 blower and nitrous oxide and it was a pretty good runner. LOL!
Those days are mostly gone now, unfortunately.

andre1969

...how did those unitized Novas hold up with the big block engines? Nowadays it seems the Nova has been replaced by the '78-81 Malibu coupe by people who do that kind of conversion. Did the '73-74 and '75-79 Novas ever go through that stage when it was popular to big-block 'em?

Mr_Shiftright

V8 conversions are so dependent on the level of professionalism, especially with big blocks. It's easy to build a totally disagreable car if you don't plan it right.

ndance

should be a piece of cake with the later cars.

Since BBC Novas (in both 396 and 427 CID) were built from '68-'70, just use those parts in a 73/74 car. I'm not certain about the '75/'79 cars, but I'll bet that they are so closely related to post 1970 Camaros that a person could just use motor mounts/radiator set/etc. from a 1970 or 71 SS-396 Camaro.

As for doing it 'right', those unit body Chevy's (well, unit body from the firewall back) look like they could stand some stiffening fer shure, especially if a standard transmission is used. That whole subframe connector / cage thing has been solved so many times I expect there are a zillion catalogs with those parts.

andre1969

...if anybody's ever tried to stuff a big block in the engine bay of an Aspen/Volare, or any of the cars based on that platform (LeBaron/Diplomat/Gran Fury, Cordoba/Mirada/Imperial). I know you can get a big-block in the old Dart/Valiant (heck, even a few Hemis ended up in those things). I think with the newer F/M/J bodies though, about the most people do with them is put in a crate 360.

Those old Novas were supposed to make excellent copcars. I don't know how they compared to the Dart/Valiant police packages, but they totally dogged the later Volare/Aspen police packages. In fact, I read that the best thing to happen for the Mopar cheering section back then was when Chevy switched the compact police package from the Nova to the Malibu! Even though the newly-downsized Malibu was more modern than the Nova, evidently it wasn't as well-suited to police duty.

ndance

I've stumbled on quite a few 440 powered Diplomats, Aspens, etc. on the web. I only have a thimble full of Chrysler knowledge, but seem to remember there being some issues with k-members(?), exhaust path, and a few weirdnesses between platform (I seem to think that a few have fore/aft torsions and a few don't...I'm not sure).

I'm a big fan of the 1975/79 Novas in 4 door trim. They are cool looking, cheap, and have great mechanical interchange. As I turn into an old fart, the thing that keeps me away from doing a 502CID/6 speed/4dr Nova is a combination of hassles with the smog police, and (mainly) the fact that you end up with $20k-$25k into a car you could sell for $5k. Better off dumping the money into an early Camaro or Chevelle.

One bad thing about disco Novas is the lack of support for body panels, trim, interior parts, etc. except for junkyards...and junkyards tend to crush them in any case.

0patience

how did those unitized Novas hold up with the big block engines?
Actually, they held up pretty well. Most of them we sub-framed though.

Did the '73-74 and '75-79 Novas ever go through that stage when it was popular to big-block 'em?
The 73, no. Not sure why, but it was never a choice of the hot rodders I knew. The 74, yes. It was almost as popular as the 72.
The 75-up, didn't seem to be much interest in them, although I'm sure times have changed. LOL!

A hemi powered dart was tough competition for the big block Nova. Great to watch though. LOL!

andys120

Years ago I actually built one of these, in 1/25th scale, by inserting a Fuelie 'Vette 327 into a Maserati 3500GT in place of the Twin-cam 6. It looked very cool but of course didn't run worth a darn. </:^(

I was no doubt inspired by the Iso-Rivolta, Bizzarini GT and other efforts at marrying Italian style with American V8 power.