Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.
MG MGB GT V8 Factory Originals Technical - Those that put 289's or 302's in a MGB
|What was you engine weight (with everything on it)?|
Also what all did you have to do to make it fit (everything from motor mount to what ever)? Thanks
|Jim, there is a website listed further below under the "Engine weights" thread giving details of the engines you asked about. I have not done the conversion myself in this particular engine but check the archives section as well. Pete, Sydney, Australia.|
|I do not have any exact weights, but a local guy in the Shelby and MG clubs said he has weighed the parts from each and that a 289/302 fully ready to run weighs just a hair less than a MG 1800 in same trim. Basically they are within a few pounds of each other.|
|I don't have the weight for the stock MGB engine, but I have weighed a Ford 302 myself. Complete, ready to run, but minus oil and water, the Ford weighs 424 pounds. That's with aluminum heads, intake, and water pump, a lightweight starter, and a lightened flywheel.|
In a couple of weeks, I'm taking my MGBGT to Fast Cars, Inc, in Wayland, MI, to have a Ford 302 installed. During the process, I will have the B engine weighed, and settle the weight difference once and for all.
The problem with the weights listed in various sources is that they never tell you what components were included.
Naturally, the conversion of my GT will be fully documented in the British V8 newsletter as it progresses.
|BAH!! blast you Dan! :-)|
I'm jealous, I have been working on my conversion for 2 years now (1yr gaining parts another building up). I want her done but I am flat broke with the car 99% done..
and NO it is not for sale.. ;-)
|That's closer than I am. But my problem's not the money, it's staying on the job. Getting back on it now though and hope to be driving by spring. Of course it's not a 302 either...|
What all was needed to make the conversion (parts/modifications to the car.) Thanks.
|Hello Ford comverters,|
I know this is not the place to sell "Stuff" but couldn't resist. I have a complete rebuild Ford 302 withall the good stuff on it from Summit. Complete for $1200. Never run engine. Calculated HP is 285.
Anybody out there that is interested? This makes a good start for a V8 conversion.
|Werner Van Clapdurp|
No need to be jealous - you'll probably still be done with your MGB before I am with my TR6, and I've been working on it, off and on, for 7 years! I just turned 61, and I want to DRIVE one of these before I get too old. I hear they won't let you have one in the old folk's home ;-) I really love working on them, but, dang-it, I want to drive one too.
I will be documenting the entire process in future issues of the British V8 newsletter, so stay tuned. If you have any interest in the process so far on my TR6 conversion, see http://members.aol.com/danmas/1971.htm.
This is the kind of detail I want to include in the newsletter for the MG conversion.
|Jim,you must fabricate everything.Motor mounts, headers,exhaust,fan mounts,throttle cable bracket,the list goes on and on.I did my '77 in 4 months,then another year to get straightened out.I used a GM one wire alt so I wouldn't need to add a voltage regulator and the late starters have a built on solenoid and are 10 lbs lighter,so ne need for a fender mounted solenoid.It is a much larger endeavor than a Rover conversion,and is no cheaper in the end.But I like the power and compactness of the Ford.|
For ME the biggest issues wer/have been notching th crossmember and now making the headers. Unlike the Rover/BOP folks there are no headers made by any company that can be dropped in to fit like the RV8..
Aside from that the engine mount also need to be made. I followed Dale's example and am mounting off of the crossmember, since it was already out of the car and being modified. The engine side mounts can be done in a number of ways. Dale used a stock rubber mount, I set-up mine differently and am using solid metal mounts with MG crossmember pads as isolators as I wantred to limit movement as much as possible.
|I have weighed the Ford SVO crate engine with 375 HP|
it comes in at 350 lbs. with water pump, flywheel and oil filter ( no oil or water ) I also have this 302 in my MG. The motor mounts that I used came from PAW, they are used for putting a 302 on a Ford Ranger, in their 1999 catalog you will find them on page 1150. Part # TDP - 9716. You do have to make new frame mounts that will be located (centered) on the rear cross member bolts, simular angle to the factory mounts.
Kurt asked me to write up a piece so I said sure. It's probably about 1/3 done and is pretty detailed, but I've been having headaches the last few days and can't tolerate the screen for long. When's the due date?
You just couldn't imagine. The level of fabrication, it boggles the mind. Not your garden variety 215 swap.
I like mounting off the crossmember as it's a bit heavier. Headers can be fun if you're not in a big rush. I actually managed to get all the primary tubes within 1/8" and these are definitely not shorties. Made a big difference with the Buick 4 bbl but were slightly big. With the blower they should be just right. I had 80 hrs in the set, and calculated my material costs including sending them out for coating at $750, with the header mufflers.
And for all of you Ford guys,
I've installed the EEC-IV fuel injection system, along with the distributorless ignition! Still fiddling with some switches in the console so it'll be at least a couple of days before I crank 'er up, but hey, the trail has been blazed, and it ain't that bad.
|Thanks for all the information.|
|I have been talking with a couple people. The current Consensus has the 302 coming in ~14lbs heavier than a stock 4cyl, and the Rover ~44lbs lighter than stock. Time will tell.|
Was that with alum heads and intake? Also what did you do about headers?
That is with Alum heads. However, I heard form other people that the STOCK 302 was equal weight. Thankfully, Dan M is doing full weighing of his block as it is built up.
What heads did you use?
|GT40X (best flowing of the GT40 heads) with basic home porting and polishing.|
|Wouldn't the basic weight difference be mostly in the block. For example, if the Ford engine has aluminum heads, then the only thing that is not aluminum on that engine that is aluminum is the block. (unless the intake manifold is cast iron). Let us assume this is correct, and if so, then the basic difference in weight between the Ford and Rover engines would be the difference in the weight of the block.|
Does anybody have the weight of the bare block for the Ford? For the Buick?
The weight of a bare Ford block is 127 pounds.
|According to my early MGB shop manual the weight of a MGB engine is 358 pounds. The other day I weighed a 3 syncro MGB transmission. First I weighed myself (on an old bathroom scale) at 195 pounds, then I picked up the transmission and weighed both of us. Together we weighed 265 pounds, which means the transmission weighs 70, meaning the total weight would be 428. I read in this thread and maybe elsewhere that Dan's small block Ford with all of the aluminum goodies weighs 424. According to the V8 newletter a T-5 weighs 80 pounds meaning total weight would be 504. I think I read 509 somewhere. Assuming 509 and if my shop manual is correct and if I weighed my old B transmission correctly the Ford setup would weigh 81 pounds more than the stock MG setup.|
I think 320 is generally accepted as the Buick/Rover weight. If that is true then the 215 plus T-5 should weigh 400 pounds, more that 100 lighter than the Ford power unit and 24 pounds lighter the MGB power unit.
The only way this will be settled in my mind is when Dan Masters actually weighs his B engine the same way he weighed the Ford. If the weight diffence between the Ford and MG power units is really only 14 pounds, seems like Ford (if you can afford all of the aluminum parts) is the way to go. Maybe even worth it at 81 pounds.
I put a Buick 215 and T-5 in my '67 B, and I really like the extra power, but a little more power would be OK, too.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.
|I'm with ya, Al.|
I'm having a hard time buying only 14 lbs. heavier than stock. Of course, even if it is 60 lbs. I see a shift to the 302 Ford coming. It just makes sense.
Instead of weighing engines & trannies and the ancillaries, let's weigh the cars! I think Dale said his '77 weighed in somewhere around 2475 lbs. Mine is a '79 with a Buick 215 & T-5. It weighs just over 2300 lbs. Now Dale's MG should lose more than a few pounds when he finally gets rid of that automatic tranny. :)
|I have been told by 3 independant local sources that a 302 does way the same (or they claim less) than a stock motor. One guy is a high ranking member in our local MG and Ford Shelby clubs, he has bits and pieces of both motor all over his garage..|
Now is Dan would HURRY UP!! and get the intake carb and distrib on his he could weigh it and make us all much happier..
Course there is always a Alum 302/5.0L block for thos really interested in weight.. They come from factory fully race prep'd, just add your rotating assembly and go... a Mere $3400-3500.. But the block only weighs like 95# and is stronger than the Iron version.
I'll have to agree, 14 pounds seems like an awful small difference. However, I have actually weighed a TR6 engine/tranny combo, and found the Ford to be 25 pounds lighter. Which would mean then, that the B engine/tranny is only 39 pounds lighter than a TR6 engine/tranny - not an unreasonable number, if not altogether reasonable.
Never fear, though, as we WILL have valid numbers for the B in the very near future. When Ted pulls my B engine/tranny, he is going to weigh them together, on the same scales as the Ford (with God and Steve Carrick as witnesses<g>).
The 14 pounds I quoted is based on B engine info posted to this forum, and not on my own numbers. I do stand firmly behind the Ford numbers.
When you start weighing entire cars, though, you run into the same trouble we're having obtaining comparable conditions. A simple difference in tires and wheels, for example, could mask a significant weight variation - as much as one hundred pounds or more. How much gas in the tank? Spare tire?
I don't think anyone will be surprised to find that the Ford weighs more than the 215, the only surprise may be just how little the difference is. Or how large it is, depending on the results.
Having said all that, I still think, for most of us, the 215 is the engine of choice for an MGB. That conversion is a known factor, all the conversion parts have been developed by and are available from folks such as Dan Lagrou, all the questions have been answered, and the 215 is certainly capable of enough power.
|I actually thought about the 302 back when I first did my conversion. Having read much about the Sunbeam Tiger though, I became concerned about the weight. I don't have the numbers anymore though, and I liked the idea of the aluminum engine and that the factory had done it. I do remember that my weight calculations at that time showed the car should have been 30 lbs lighter with the Buick 215 and Warner T-50. From the above I suspect this was accurate, as the T-5 is almost certainly around 10 pounds heavier. Of course, that's further back in the car too. Anyway, I've probably added 30 pounds or more back to the front end of the car. I don't think it'll make that much difference.|
|Carl makes a good point.I also think the 302 is going to become the trend.It makes sense,with all the after market go fast goodies available.It may be a bit more work to clear the oil pan,but the results are worth it.I have driven Dale Spooners' and Steve Carricks' cars.They are scary fun.Anyone just getting started should consider the Ford.Another option is the Buick 300.They have alot of torque.|
|About 3 years ago I was emailing with a guy on this BBS who was contemplating the same MGB to 302 conversion. He weighed his 1974 B motor, bellhousing, clutch, tranny (no overdrive) combo as it came out of his car and got 448 lbs.He also said his B 4 speed was 100 lbs. |
Anyway, I have a question for the group who have done or are doing the 302 conversion. What is the difference in the depth of the front of the oil pan between the Mustang Dual Sump and the rear pickup pan that can be found on the other Fords? Does the rear pickup pan still require notching of the front crossmember?
|It'd be really easy to modify an oil pan if that's the only problem. Hot Rodders used to do it all the time and that's where a lot of the weird looking racing pans came from. It's nothing more exotic than mild steel sheet metal after all, and most bends you might need could be done by hand. For anyone the least bit handy with an acetylene torch the welding would be a piece of cake. Just add the same or more volume that you take out.|
Modifying an oil pan is "sorta" easy. The pan itself is not the problem, it's the oil pump and the oil pickup that creates problems with a Ford 302. You can reduce the front pan depth a bit, but you can't go too far without getting into the oil pump assembly. You have to have room for the pick up tube to run from the oil pump itself back to the rear sump. I haven't actually checked to see just how low you can go in the front, but I don't think you can reduce the depth much over that found in the "dual-sump" pans used by some Fords. I can check if anyone is interested.
One of the problems I have with the "dual-sump" pans is the need for two drain plugs. In an MGB, it might not be a problem, but in my TR6, the front drain plug fell smack over the crossmember, making for a messy oil change situation. To solve that, I cut out the center of the oil pan and and Ted Lathrop is welding in sheet metal to connect the front and the rear. Now, I not only have but one drain plug to fool with, I also have a much larger oil capacity. You can't go wrong with more oil capacity.
|The issue is not the pan, it is the PUMP.. 302's are Front oil pump. That is why they have the deep front end. A rear Sump pan or a late model Mustang pan both require nothing the crossmember. I am not sure if I have a Stang or a truck pan on mine, I think it is a truck pan. But it did not require huge amounts of notching..|
|I'm curious enough to ask for a rough estimate of dimensions on the cutout. Now I understand the problem. So OK, whatta we do next? Dry sump? Graft on a Rover crank mounted pump? Well that sorta sounds rediculous I guess. Can't wait to see what you guys have done, but I don't know how long it will take for cutting the crossmember to be seen as a good thing. So another alternative would sure make sense if there was one.|
Here's what I don't understand though. The Buick pump hangs off the front of the engine with the filter sticking down below it. That can be fitted in although it means moving the radiator forwards. Does the 302 pump stick out more to the rear than the Buick one does? I follow you guys on the pick-up tube, but it could maybe be crowded up along the side enough to get out of the way I would think. Am I right in thinking the distributor on those sticks straight up?
Well, I probably just displayed my ignorance. Hope it didn't sound altogether stupid.
|The more I read this thread the more I wanna be powered by Ford. I have never ridden in or driven a 302 powered B, but I did ride in Mikes 300 Buick powered car in Champaign in May of '98. Saying it has a lot of torque is really an understatement. It has lots and lots and lots of torque. I also got to drive Mikes car in Cleveland (Sept 2000 , Thanks Mike!) and it's got a lot more grunt than my 215. I've read several articles about using a 300 crank to stroke a 215. Seems like a lot of extra work and expense just to save some weight and get the extra cubic inches. If you're lucky enough to have a 300 engine with aluminum heads and aluminum four barrel manifold, I think would makes sense just to use it as is. I don't know how many '64 300 engines were made, but I suspect they are scarce. Maybe the only advantage over using a Ford is that all of the bolt on stuff (like headers and motor mounts) made for Buick/Rover will also work on a 300. |
I'm really looking forward to the 2002 British V8 Conversion Convention in August. I've already made my hotel reservation and sent Steve the money for track time. Hope to see a lot of you there.
|A picture is worth 1000 words; here's 3000 words|
|Dan your link is not working...|
Check this link..(go to the Pre Jan2001 link) www.embreyfamily.com/mgb/TechRoom/MYMGB302Conversion/
On the front of the block you see 3 holes on a flat section, that is the pump mounting location. The pump then hangs down a good 4+ inches into the oil pan and then the pick-up arm hangs off the pump.
I just tried it, and it worked. Try it again, please, and remember - it's AOL you're dealing with.
|Heh, very true Dan. I am so happy I got away from them..|
|Ouch. That hurt to look at. I guess an external pump would be the only alternative, huh?|
|That could be done Jim, but the cost would be high and the complexity un-warranted. THe Notching is not very hard, I mean I did it with my neighbor on the welder. Beats running race equipment on a street car..|
|Curious. After notching the crossmember and boxing it back in, has anybody mentioned anything about strength and flexing?|
Dale Spooner has had his car done for years and has run it hard on a Race course with no problems, his is notched more than Mine from what the pictures show. Time will tell, but his seems to be holding up just fine. A guy local up here also cut his crossmember a number of years ago and has been running it in our rainy weather ever since with no problems.
I just returned from Michigan, where I got a chance to drive Steve Carrick's 302/MGB. If you ever drive his car, you may not want a Ford, but you WILL want more power! Awesome car. And FAST!
I also have some weights for you:
520# - Steve Carricks 302/T5 with a 27# flywheel
509# - My 302/T5 with a 15# flywheel
495# - Stock MGB/tranny with OD
465# - Stock MGB/tranny without OD
440# - BOP/Rover 215/T5
I also have more info on the 302 oil pump problem. The oil pump situation is not as bad as it first appears. One thing to keep in mind is the depth of the block. On the 302, the block ends at the centerline of the crank, whereas on the BOP/Rover, the block extends about 2 1/2" below the crank centerline. This effectively reduces the Ford oil pan depth by 2 1/2" when compared to the BOP/Rover.
Why would you say you may not want a ford?? Does his seem like too much power? IS THER SUCH A THING!?? :-)
Anyway, thanks for the weight info. I am guyessing those are equally outfited motors (complete and running sans fluids etc..)
I finished my wiring this weekend and testeds the started and distributor for the 1st time, everything works. Get the headers done and it is just hooking up hoses and on the road!
I only said that because some folks are still hung up on the weight issue. There is abolutely NOTHING wrong with that car - it drives and handles like a dream. You won't believe how wickedly quick that car is.
Yes, the weights I gave are for similarly equipped engines - starter, alternator, intake manifold, exhaust manifold/headers, carburetor, distributer, flywheel, clutch, tranny/bellhousing - everything except fluids.
I am eagerly awaiting your first drive report.
|SWEET!! Good to hear Dan.|
Time is the issue now. I ned to get my hands on a welder so I can start fitting, tacking, fitting etc the headers..
|Dan, are the 302 weights that you cite for engines with aluminum heads or cast iron? If they're iron heads, another 40 pounds could be lost with aluminum replacements. Good info, thanks for posting.|
Those weights are with aluminum heads.
Another point of interest: with the Ford Motorsport "short" water pump, the Ford is an inch shorter than the BOP/Rover, and, depending on which BOP/Rover we are talking about, from one to two inches narrower.
Thank You! for the kind review of "Barney". I don't think that the extra weight has ANY bearing on the handling of these cars, it boils down to ONE thing, do you want a Rover, GM, or Ford. Parts and are available for all of the above. Ted and I will be developing parts for the 302 and hopefully have a kit by late spring.
|I know it is farther back in the chassis, but we could consider lighter transmissions than the T5. An Aluminum Muncie or, a little more exotic, a Jerico. That could save another 20 odd pounds (69lbs). Was the weights above with an Al bell or a scatter shield, which weighs a lot more?|
We could also consider a lightened rotating assembly to save another 15lbs of dead weight. This is unneeded in <400 hp engines. Many Sprint Car mechanics can get about 15-25 lbs of dead weight off a block too! Consider poly rocker covers, Al oil pan, & sheet metal intake. Al radiator should also be an option.
So, if you take all the weight savings availabe to you including a smaller mutliple clutch setup that can save another 5 or so pounds, and an Aluminum driveshaft (propshaft) you might be able to get an iron block to be competitive. Still avoiding the cost and hassle of an Al block Ford.
Along with weight, shouldn't the Ford have a CG advantage with Al heads over a iron headed 1.8? You could always dig deep for an Al hood to save ~17 lbs over steel. And for those like me, dumping the polar weights of RB off the nose wouldn't hurt :)
Rostyle in rear and minilights in front? Or is this taking it too far for weight dist? How much extra weight to the rear is the new differential going to add back there to even things out including the panhard and anti-tramp bars?
|I have a question: Is the cross member bolted in or welded. I guess what I am asking is can I get a spare one notchit mount motor mounts on it? Thanks.|
The cross member bolts in. Just remove four bolts, and the entire front end assembly drops out (you do have to disconnect the brake lines, but everything else comes out with the crossmember - springs, shocks, verticle links, a-arms, etc)
Your talking spring vs unspring weights, and they do not equate to each other well. Wheel weight has more to do with tracking, acceleration etc, in terms of starting and stoping. While both important are important it is for different reasons. Dropping the RB is the best way to bring the Ford into stock weight range, as well as the AL hood..
Yes that is the best option. BUT the stock 4 Cyl is so narrow you can do all the crossmember work and still use the stock motor. I did this with mine. I had the crossmember notched and the mounts installed, then re-installed the stock motor and drove the car for a number of weeks. That is the nice thing about this. YUou can leave the stock motor mounts until you are completely ready to convert.
Pulling the crossmember also makes notching much easier, and you can get full access to it for cutting and welding. JUST BE CAREFULL, to much heat can warp the crossmember. Mine tried to warp a touch, but I bolted it back to the frame while still hot and it settled back out.
|Thanks Larry for the information.|
|Trying to keep this info going.|
|I got a question. Are the fron cross members the same for all MG's or are the 76 up different. Just asking because I wanted to get one from another car and build the motor mounts off of that one. Thanks.|
|I cannot remember the exact year they changed, I think it is 74 or 76, but the later cross members have a 1" addtition to them, that is how they raised the cars the 1" to meet new US safety standards.|
It will be hard to build the mounts without having the cross member and motor in the car. fitment on the 302 is a bit tight, the base of the 302 is quite wide and then you also have to take into account the oil filter mount which is on the driver's side front of the engine. I am using a 90deg exitting remote filter base to get the clearance needed. I also ended up shifting the motor a bit to the passenger side just to a little security clearance for the remote base. I think it was about 1/4" but I eye-balled it as I was more concerned with clearances than measurements.
|Here was my plan to get one off of another MG and do the mounts on it. That way if I ever want to go back factory I could with out tomuch problem. Thanks for the information.|
|Jim, one (well 2) problems with that plan.|
1. You HAVE to cut the stock engine mount off the frame to get the 302 in there. The oil filter mount is exactly were the driver's side motor mount is on the chassis.
2. You will have to cut holes in the wheel wells for exhaust routing.
So returning to stock will be not quite as simple as a crossmember swap..
BUT, you can still get a second crossmember and alter it, that way no in/out of car, and you can enjoy the car while that 1st step is being taken..
|You guys with V8 Fords what kind of headers are you using?|
|Unfortunately the kind you have to make...|
|Yes handmade headrs is the only option, there is NO off the shelf header that will fit, I have looked at hundreds of different style for the 302.|
Check my website, Feb 2002 update for the outloine of the work on the headers, it took 2.5 weeks of working every night, and I still have leaks to seal..
Thanks for the info on the headers. I have a question. Any way in getting around the cutting of the inner fenders?
|Not unless you shoose a radical motor mounting style and not utilise the Ford mount location. Simply put the engine mounts are right were the headers need to route.. Believe me I looked at everything, my biggest fight was trying to get the exhaust done without cutting the fenders.|
This thread was discussed between 31/12/2001 and 13/03/2002
This thread is from the archive. The Live MG MGB GT V8 Factory Originals Technical BBS is active now.