That's Fair enough, I would be replacing hoses now while your swapping motors also flushing heater cores and radiator.

Change it if it is out of balance, cracked or looks like its on its last legs, but I dont see why you would need to. One thing with a new motor make sure that the water pump is new or overhauled, never replace a motor without overhauling the Water Pump. A good set of headers go a long way on those motors too and they are just so cheap.

Nothing wrong with the rochester carb, you may get a bit more perforance out of the holleys but if its DD I would stick with the rochester.

If you have a SMC in there already and replacing it with the same its its definetly going to be the cost effective, next option find an LS, if you want V12 go and buy another car with one in it will be so much easier and cheaper.

As far as your seats go i don't know what's a good price or not, It all depends on how badly you want those seats and if the seller knows how badly you want them, sometimes you get get the whole car cheaper than that you just need to search for them.
Good luck

 

Good advice here. The shallow first gear on the 3-speed GM transmissions plus the 2.88 rear gear doesn't do your engine any favors. If you're buying a crate engine, consider getting a beautiful reman'd complete 383 off eBay for around $3,000. My brother did this for his old Nova. They're worth the money. There's more low-end torque than he knows what to do with!

 

Why was it over heating...be sure to solve or at least understand that problem before the new motor goes in.

While the motor is out...check and replace rack, rack bushings, hoses and front sub frame bushings if necessary. Degrease, clean and paint. Also check for rust where the frame rail meets the body by the transmission tunnel. Repair as necessary and / or clean and apply additional undercoating.


If the rubber that bonds the balancer to the hub is OK, then go with it after a simple test. Give the end a mild tap with a hammer while holding the snout, should not ring but have a thud and feel somewhat isolated. Compare it to one you can get at a local big box parts store that is returnable.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so see it before you buy it. Everyone's different but for me red interior gets old fast. It looks great at a car show in a Corvette, Porsche, Jag, etc...but not so much for a daily driver. Some people perceive the color red as a powerful stimulator and find it enticing so after awhile it can become an irritant.

 

i guess if youre into blocks that have their own gravitational field, a qaudrajunk in which you can have a choke or a throttle but not both, the fuel economy of a 13b, and the power curve of a Honda D series then SBC is the motor for you my friend!

 

First let me say I'm of fan of the Buick 3800 it's comparable to the SBC and I believe there's no reason to refer to it as junk...here's why.

The fully dressed SBC tips the scale at about 500lbs, the buick V6 with 2 less cylinders just 400lbs. That would be a displacement to weight ratio of 1.14:1 for the 5.7l for the SBC and just 0.95:1 for the 3.8l buick so minor advantage for SBC. The SBC recieved its first optional Fuel injection system in 1955. Around 1984 fuel injection was widely available and mostly standard for both the SBC and the Buick 3800... Prior to 1984 both the Buick and SBC used GM's Rochester Carburetor family. You do know that they are both made by GM and are very similar in design, oiling, valve arrangement and metallurgy...right? Were you aware both the SBC and the Buick v6 were often manufactured side by side at GM's engine plants like Tonawanda. As for fuel economy, the SBC is a large engine, as such it is less fuel efficient but there were many economy SBC versions. One was as small as 4.3L and were efficient enough to be NYC cabs at the time.

 

im not sure i understand your math here. your disp to weight ratio is CC per lb?

 

Yeah I think he is saying the sbc weighs X more but has y more displacement.

I don't know where you stand here m90, but I am not a fan of big engines (in that way) . I think they can be engineering marvels and masterpieces (like the 8l bentley) but the "no replacement for displacement" elementary school drivel associated with small clock chevys and fords is idiotic.

The sbc is pretty lazily engineered and the only reason Im okay with the small block buick in my Land rover is because it is all aluminum (something GM hadn't the mind to figure out, even in their sports cars)

In terms of creating something the sbc is just an easy answer because it has so much aftermarket. It terms of an engine there are many more lighter and just as powerful and many the same size and more efficient. You don't see Miata drivers putting Mg 1800s in their cars, why are we dropping sbcs into everything?
Forced induction overcomes displacement by a landslide. There very much is a replacement for displacement.

I think the sbc has retained its use and popularity because it is so dated. It easy for shade trees to wrap their minds around a pushrod engine, and they find comfort in it. Then they go on to perpetuate it being "badass" to have cars that can't turn and create 400hp unstreetable uncomfortable hp with a 6 liter engine. It is sad that the vast majority of the car crowd belittles others for appreciating more complex engineering and more efficient engines.

 

^^ i agree wholeheartedly ^^

my point about the displacement to weight ratio is that im pretty sure hes a decimal place or two off.
my beef with the SBC is that the only thing they offer is aftermarket support. they dont sound good, they dont run good, the archaic fuel injection that was available through the 80's was complete garbage in TBI form, and just as guttless in tune port. distributor ignition isnt awful, i guess, if you dont care about having temp and knock based timing curves......
the argument that some SBC's are built for economy and some are built for power..... so you can have one or the other but not both? how does the fact that a 4.3 which is slightly more economic than the 5.7 support the argument for putting a big 350 in a jag? and i dont think taking a 100bhp hit on your motor swap makes sense (sure there are performance parts available, but that argument goes for both engines). my little buick v6 with "two less cylinders" (as ive been repeatedly told) is already up on power over the SBC in Naturally Aspirated form!
but enough about that. there are definitely better 6 and 4 cylinder platforms out there, but i enjoy my little buick 6 cylinders. easy on fuel and 14psi of boost when my foot is feeling heavy.

 

The Rover V8 in your landi is based on the Buick 215 which was Aluminum and available in production GM cars for the 1961 model year. In any case whats your point? Other non GM marques like BMW & Mercedes and others used iron blocks well in to the 2000's

Although cliché there is no displacement for displacement except for forced induction which effectively increases displacement. If there was a replacement for it many racing series wouldn't need displacement rules. There are many ways to get to a given level of performance, sometimes its using displacement. Nothing wrong or lazy about it.

Yes. It is an easy answer, what's wrong with that? Get the engine installed, running, tuned quickly and move on to driving, trim, paint or tweaking the suspension. The self flagellation aspect of taking the road less traveled or the difficult path isnt for everyone. When doing so the costs are high and the outcomes are uncertain. Life it too short for that unless you are paid to do it.

Not so much...I've mentioned this before in other threads....BMW's twinturbo V8 makes less power, weighs more and is less fuel efficient than Chevy's new LT1 which will be available in cars costing 1/2 what the BMW costs. Chevrolet Introduces The All New LT1 V8 Engine For The C7 Corvette | car news @ Top Speed

You have some dated and serious misconceptions about the SBC / LS world. Some platforms GM or otherwise are popular because they are flexible and durable. Elvis is old and long out of production too...and he's still popular. Maybe theres a lot of sketchy shade tree mechanics who just happen to work on Chevy's in your corner of the marble. It stands to reason that a platform with broad appeal and accessibility has a wide and varied level of skilled participants. When you order parts from a catalogue they don't give you an IQ test. Around here there is lots of stuff done at a high level. You could see that at other sites like thirdgen.org, gearhead-efi.com or yellobullet.com. There are some very advanced "shade tree" mechanics posting and detailing how to properly tune and make great power while achieving high power levels, smoothness and drivability with there SBC's and LS's. There are other sites where the scientific aspect of engine tuning and performance are discussed at a high level on various platforms including GM's older engines.

Who is belittling complex engineering and how? Most people would agree complexity with out performance is less valuable or less useful than simplicity with performance. The whole point of engineering is to achieve a specific level of performance with the least complexity and cost. Some people, companies, engineers, etc are better at it than others. The opposite is a Rube Goldberg project, some people like those too. If you're into that than good for you, it doesn't mean something simple yet effective is junk.

 

If it were me..... I would go bbc 427 all the way. It's my favorite motor. Having spent much time around them. I like the sound and power curve.
I almost did this swap untill I factored in the cost of getting and rebuilding the motor and all the parts required to reconnect the drive train I had converted to manual.
Then I bought the v12 that icsamerica mentioned in his video that came out of his xj12c.

Nothing wrong with the v8 swap especially since bbc and sbc are probably the two most researched and modified motors in the world. And you can make any amount of power from 300-3000hp with the right formula

 

The SBC and the L67 were good in their time and properly setup, each one can be good now. It really depends on what you like and what you want. However, neither of them can possibly compare with today's technology.

Get rid for your old-a$$ engines and get an LS! For the money they cannot be beat. You'll get aluminum or iron block options, great engine management software, excellent aftermarket support, and a better torque/horsepower/economy/refinement balance than you can squeeze out of any engine platform today without breaking the bank. Period.

Forced induction is your thing? No problem. They do that too. There are off the shelf supercharger kits that will take you up to 650+ hp with a torque curve like a tabletop. There are plenty of vehicle-specific turbo kits for both cars and trucks. Want to go the OEM route? You can retrofit a CTS-V or ZR-1 supercharger onto your LS engine with all factory parts. They do it all. That's why people swap LS engines into more vehicles than you'd imagine!

 

I really don't get the concept of SBC bashing. Doesn't make sense to me and seems a bit rigid. My engine mods are OK and yours are junk? WTF! Doesn't seem right to me.

https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/x...14/#post957601

 

Ahhh, [sigh] I remember the old days when 'lumping' debates were simply a matter of Jaguar engines vs. American V8 engine. Now it's down to debating *which* American engine ! Gah!

As for old school SBCs being, well, old school, it doesn't seem altogether unfitting to use 'em in old Jags....which are pretty old school themselves !

You guys can duke it out but I can find something to like in all the engines mentioned in this thread, including the Jag engines !

Cheers
DD

 

Im still learning this site and its secret hallways but I will post the lictures of the doodoo I removed from the carthank you for the tips.

 

Any ideas

 

re-read post 6 and 7 on this thread. The answer to your question is there.

 

In light of what you have posted on the jag V12 I am confused by the above statement.

 

Mods as in modifications....I guess you missed that qualifier. As In I dont get why general consensus here is that it's OK to modify a V12 with all sorts of new technologies or Buick motors which are kissing cousins to the SBC but once you cross the SBC line...thats too far. Whats up with that?

As for what I've posted about the V12...What exactly are you referring to? I've posted quite a bit but as for my criticism of it...I'm just pointing out the obvious and talking from experience. If I posted something wrong or inaccurate point it out. I've never criticized someones choice to keep it but post in response to those who rigidly oppose the SBC swap. The rest of the posts here from others and their challenges with the V12 as originally designed speaks for itself. If you like your V12 you should keep your v12, if you don't for some reason and you choose an alternative the choice shouldn't be criticized strictly because its a SBC.

 

Ok so now I have the hood off.scrapping off the doodoo shield

I have the new motor.. it is a 84 Corvette block. Edel brock intake

I need to purchase a diagonal thermostat housing -----Tips?

Will need a new Carb... nothing crazy ---Tips?

Will be getting rustoleum for the hood primer and high heat... should I still find a shield or is it not a necessity?

and I have the 1-2-1 headers ....should I keep or do pipes... ?

Also as a sidenote Im replacing small hardware in the engine bay with stainless steel . No more rust bolts ! Sponsored by Fastenal

 

Sorry can't really help, I don't play with Chev's

I would say Yes put some shielding under the hood, the big problem with the XJS there is nowhere for that hot air to go its sealed up pretty well. I'm just getting vents pressed into mine, until that's done I have no idea how much it will help but on a flat bonnet use the insulation it will save your paint.

I would say keep them, any headers are better than none, I think the tri-y system gives more torque than the 4 to 1.

Just be careful when replacing bolts, if they have either 3 , 6 or 8 notches on the bolt head Do not use stainless, those bolts are high tensile, even though stainless is quite hard its tensile strength is not up to it.