Okay, may be looking into another/different car for my 15 1/2 year old daughter, and I'm already thinking motors. I'm wanting to probably use the 4.3 V6, but I'm really wanting the lopey idle but don't want/need the extreme increase in power or drop in economy. My question is this: What about the Mercruiser or Volvo GM motors - would those cams work and give me what I'm wanting? Price is always a factor, but would rather not spend a fortune on a cam kit just to get a bit of extra sweet noise. Will probably run it through a very free flowing exhaust - just enough to muffle it for normal driving, but enough to make some noise when the go pedal it stomped to the floor. It's going to be her first car (the 79 Camaro she was promised, and now the 79 T/A have been inadvertantly crushed) and *I* want it to be reliable, but still give her the sounds she wants. Oh... we're looking at a '63 Buick Skylark for a HAMB friendly vehicle!
It's got a 215 Aluminum V8 in it... Would be cool to restore it, but not the path I'm wanting to take. I figure I'll sell the motor and trans to replace with the 4.3/2004r or 700R4. I know that'll probably piss some people off, but they don't have to work on it or have their daughter in it driving around. And, I'm pretty sure the rings are collapsed on it.
That 4.3 is a great motor. Have one in my 98 blazer, 192k, never pulled valve covers, orig timing chain, etc. Easy on them and they last forever....
Marine cams are not that "lopey", and usually have almost no overlap... That exhaust/water thing can be pretty bad if you **** some up. 4.3 also comes in about 3 different versions and all but the earliest are roller cam. These can also be reground by a good grinder for a healthy pattern. Lots of SBC patterns out there that should work well.
GM makes cams for the 4.3, at least they show them in the performance cataloge. I know they offered the 350hp 327 grind for the 4.3 (may be to lopy). I have a 4.3 that's been laying around for years waiting for me to finish. You can bolt 229 heads on a 4.3 and bump the compression, just like 305 heads on a 350. I have a set cut for 1.94 and 1.6 valves and full ported that are 64cc. If you are interested in the heads let me know, I have no home for the engine right now.
Keep in mind that a lumpy cam works well with gearing that is not very good for gas mileage. Two of my kids have 6 cylinders with stock cams, and it doesn't bother me a bit!
I guess too that with proper carb setting, the idle will lope just a bit. Would rather have the sound, but not too much. Kind of an RV type cam, but nothing major. Oh well...
4.3: 85 may have 2 piece rear seal. Uses non-roller cam. 86 has one piece seal, non-roller cam and uses late V8 balance flywheel. 87-91 uses roller cam and one piece rear seal 92 & up has balance shaft. 85-86 has provision for block mounted fuel pump. Sometime later GM stopped drilling for the pump. Marine cams look good on paper but remember boats run at a pretty constant speed and seldom rev high.
Oh... we're looking at a '63 Buick Skylark for a HAMB friendly vehicle![/QUOTE] Double check the clearance on the oil pan... I believe that the 63 Skylark was "rear steer" (linkage behind the tires) and may interfere with the oil pan on a Chevy V6... The 215 / 225 / 300 / 340 / 231 each had relief in the oil pan (center sump) to clear the linkage vs. rear sump on the Chevy motor. You can move the motor forward, but you get close with the radiator and will hit the front crossmemeber, you can move it back, but the heater box is dead center on the firewall. Just something to consider... Andy
Thanks for the info! I'll be checking and modifying as required. I may wind up changing it to a power rack as well, but for now, I'm just kicking rocks around trying to think things through prior to getting into it.
I installed a GM Performance cam in the 4.3 V-6 in my boat along with a four barrel intake/carb to replace the two barrel. It was just a little bit lumpier but nothing drastic, it REALLY brought that thing to life.
The Jalopy Journal
