Page 1 of 1
253 adaptor
Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:49 pm
by Carl Coight
Hey guys, i'm chaseing an adaptor plate for a 253 to Rover 4spd in my 1978 2 door. If anybody knows of 1 please let me know.
Cheers Carl.
Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:55 pm
by Dozoor
I have a marks adapter for chev to rover but it also has another bolt pattern on it , i,ll check the part numbers and see if its a match .
Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:16 am
by Carl Coight
From what i understand there is little difference between the two.
I'll look foward to hearing back from you.
Carl
Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:27 pm
by Gwagensteve
Chev and 253 are a different pattern as far as I am aware.
If you don't mind me asking, why pull out an elegant alloy V8 that the car was built around for a cast iron motor that will not make terribly much more power or torque (not to mention much less power to weight, much less HP per litre and possibly even worse economy?:shock: )
sorry of this seems like I am being aggressive but it doesn't seem to be a very obvious swap.
Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:33 pm
by Loanrangie
I agree, gwagen, a cast iron boat anchor like a 253 wont be any better than a good 3.5, plus when you add the conversion costs and mods involved , it just aint worth it. Even if it was a 308 you would be better off buying a 4ltr short. And yes the 253 and trimatic pattern 308 are different to a chev pattern, you can use a chev adapter with a 308 turbo pattern block though.
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:01 am
by Carl Coight
Sorry to upset the apple cart boys but the 253 has had a lot of work done to it, so it WILL go harder then the 3.5. Also the motor was at the right price.
My first choice was an injected 5lt and auto out of an ss but funds are tight, so i will settle for the supercharged 253 i have already.
Cheers Carl.
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:49 am
by Dozoor
had a look at there site , marks - They sugest all 253,s come with a trimatic bolt patern , , The plate i have is a chev turbo- buick olds,
- so its a no go -
Sound like it would be an ok swap to me considering you got the motor
carl, People often say there heavy ect , but only by about 50/70 kgs
Those same people usually have an extra hundred kilos in bull bars and dual batterys and junk hanging well past the front axle ,
Jmo.
Larry
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:41 pm
by Gwagensteve
Not all of them Dozoor...
I run no bull bar, spare on an alloy, no rear seat, no sound deadening, no winch, fixed race buckets, two optimas (probably lighter than the stock monster battery)and very little interior trim. stock fuel tank,etc etc etc.
A G is 2175kg dry and mine is 2500kg wet, packed with full tools and equipment, engel, driver 5X35's and 10mm centred beadlocked wheels.
In my expericence, cars never end up as light as you'd hoped - the 660cc sierra project I helped build was planend to be 1000kg and came out 1200kg.
As Lloyd Novak (US conversion guru) once said, "just because you have a good engine doesn't mean you have a good engine conversion"
But that said a supercharged 253 might be quite interesting. It's a shame that there are no trimatic adapters still made. I think that Yanucellis 4X4 in brisbane used to make trimatic to transfer case adapters back in the mid eighties.
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:08 am
by Dozoor
I know what you mean about the weight steve ,
The two door with the chev conversion was 1890kgs on the papers
Im hoping mine will come in under 1400kg-
Did the zook have a 1.3 1.6 -
Larry
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:59 pm
by Gwagensteve
Sorry for the thread hijack-
The zuk is gregs - started as a 1.3 WT and was weighed pretty empty, but it does have a winch, a pretty extensive cage and beadlocked 34" swampers.
We used an F6A which is cast iron blocked, but the gearbox is very light- 1.0 litre size. I'm guessing all up the f6a and gearbox was slightly lighter than the 1.3 with box.
The lightest car on the day was Bigsteves (minus bigsteve
) I think it was 1060kg (or maybe 1020??) with 34's but stuff all else - no top, doors, trim, bumpers, and empty, but with me in (i'm all of 75kg)