1963 F85 215 V8

**Bill Pritchard** · #1 03-06-2007, 04:43 PM

I am not familiar enough with those to know if the Buick & Olds motors were different or not

One thing I noticed is the mention of the 0-60 time of 14.5 seconds.....if that isn't a misprint, I don't think I'd be bragging about it

442w30 · #2 03-06-2007, 05:53 PM

I don't know what carb was in that road-tested car, but eve the turbo Jetfire was not that fast. I suspect turbo lag was a probem.

Also, wasn't it water-injected?

**PeteLeathersac** · #3 03-06-2007, 06:02 PM

I always thought it was the same block w/ different heads/intake too and basically the engine that ended up in cars like the TR8...wasn't it the same one in the low production original MG-GT V8 too?.

~ Pete

**olredalert** · #4 03-06-2007, 06:29 PM

------Those engines were even in Range Rovers for quite awhile. Man,,,were they slugs! Probably 5000lbs and only 215 cubes??? I went back and looked at the convertable and there are a bunch of differences between the two engine compartments. I think this car lost its original engine and someone dropped a Buick in it. The little convert is a very cool car by the way.........Bill S

StriperSS · #5 03-07-2007, 01:51 AM

I could be mistaken, but I believe it was an alcohol solution, and that you could get it from GM in a container with a part number. My Cutlass parts books are 64 + up so I can't look it up.

John

**olredalert** · #6 03-07-2007, 04:09 AM

-------Yup, John,,,That stuff used to be referred to as "moose-milk". I had a low mile 1963 Jetfire a long time ago and an older longtime Olds mechanic referred to that stuff that way. I dont know the makeup of it but know it did contain alcohol along with other stuff........Bill S

StriperSS · #7 03-09-2007, 05:55 PM

Here's what one of those V8's is potentially good for.

http://www.speedsportlife.com/photop...offeetable.jpg

John

TC · #8 03-19-2007, 04:25 AM

http://cgi1.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/e...sPageName=VIP:

I thought this one looked like a good deal!
the motor looks to be more correct than the one above too.

Tom

**olredalert** · #9 03-19-2007, 07:43 PM

-------That is the correct engine configuration, TC. The rare Cutlass to have in 63 would have been a 4-speed. They pop up now and then but not often do you find a good one. The automatics in these 62/63s were awful. Anybody who has ever driven one will agree with me. The reason I have any interest in these size GM cars at all is the size. The GM compacts should have stayed this size as far as I am concerned. Can you imagine if they had and the power kept on escalating. Oh well,,,I guess thats progress........Bill S

Dedicated to the Promotion and Preservation of American Muscle Cars, Dealer built Supercars and COPO cars.