Can I put a Rover engine in place of the Buick 215?

Hello there...

My name is Mike and I'm a Newbie posting for the first time...

I have a 63 Buick Skylark that I want to change the engine on because it's siezed... I would like to put in a Rover 3.5 or 3.9 or something cheap that is available as this is a car that will be used in the movies and it just needs to run... I currently have a seized engine so anything that runs will be better even if it burns a little oil but that seems to be very hard to find nowadays but the Rover engines are pretty plentiful but if you call the guy in Michigan, he tries to sell you a $900 kit before you even buy an overdrive transmission and have your drive shaft shortened and what not which I don't want to do... I want to use the original 2 speed transmission in there that does not have transmission lines and has those aluminum fins. supposedly there's a difference in the size of the crankshaft as far as size and depth but I'm not really sure. If anybody knows the actual sizes I would like to know... Supposedly the Rover engine is smaller and there's very little information known about the automatics it seems like everybody knows more about the manual transmissions... But being that the original transmission has those aluminum fins that come off the torque converter, I would like to machine that thinner if that's the case because I feel that would be very easily achieved because I've done that with another much more expensive torque converter from a Dodge diesel that I put into a V10 to get the durability and to lower the stall speed... Any help with sizing it up as far as bolting a Rover engine to the original 2-speed automatic would be greatly helpful...

Thanks
Mike in Long Island NY...

by "guy in Michigan", i assume you mean www.AluminumV8.com

i don't know what you mean by saying that the Rover is "smaller". 3.5 Liter is the metric displacement equivalent of 215ci the same as 7.5L is the metric equivalent of 455ci. being that the Rover was produced to metric dimensions, obviously there are going to be minor variances in part dimensions and i wouldn't try swap something like pistons or bearings without having a machinist check / rework everything but Buick parts are used with Rovers all the time. one particular favorite is using a 300ci crankshaft to stroke the Rover blocks.

Rovers, as a practical matter, are the same size externally as 215ci and have the same bell housing pattern. and this includes the 4.6L.

i can't speak to the variances in crank diameter but i'm sure people on BritishV8 would know all about this. www.TAPerformance.com may also be able to answer this question as they have a set of high performance heads available for the Rover / 215.


https://www.teambuick.com/reference/...uminum_v-8.php

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp...od-any-engine/

The previous sentences to where you just mentioned, explains how the back of the crank is smaller but also possibly deeper, meaning it sticks out more... But I'm not sure... I wasn't talking about cubic inch displacement.

Another idea would be to install a 198 V6. In that way the original Dual Path automatic can be reused. The V6 was not offered on the '63 Skylark, but it was used on some lesser '62-63 Specials.

This early V6 has an unusual galloping lope at idle which could show up in the movie sound tracks:shifter:.

Another idea would be to install a 198 V6


oof da. that's about a unicorn. if he happens to have one to hand, sure, that's not a bad idea.

good luck finding one though.



explains how the back of the crank is smaller but also possibly deeper, meaning it sticks out more

yes, there are differences in the crankshafts. no, i don't know exactly what they are.

but anyone with access to a micrometer could tell you within seconds which one has a larger diameter or if they are the same size.

as i said before, the guys on the BritishV8 forum should know all about these specs, they swap this stuff all the time.

here is the Engine and Transmission sub-forum:
http://forum.britishv8.org/list.php?6