[Transporter]

early Tempest forum with no response, so I am going to ask it here. Other than the normal engine swap issues, and of course adapting the Cammers bell to the Tempest ropeshaft, or vice versa, any other issues anyone can think of?



anyone ever try and put a Sprint 6 into a 63 Tempest? I would think neither length, weight, or height an issue?

[Jeff Hamlin]

I think this would be an interesting project. I've seen Cammers in a lot of different cars one being a 62 Cat wagon so anything is possible

Plumbing and cables for Fuel & Battery on PS.

Custom mounting brackets will be in order,
Firebird engine/frame brackets may be worth looking into as that have a taller support type design over the flat A-Body frame brackets

Cam Housing and/or Carb height may be an issue.

A mock up short block would be a good start just to set it in to start the process.

I can assist with measurements id needed.

[Transporter]

Originally Posted by Jeff Hamlin

I think this would be an interesting project. I've seen Cammers in a lot of different cars one being a 62 Cat wagon so anything is possible

Plumbing and cables for Fuel & Battery on PS.

Custom mounting brackets will be in order,
Firebird engine/frame brackets may be worth looking into as that have a taller support type design over the flat A-Body frame brackets

Cam Housing and/or Carb height may be an issue.

A mock up short block would be a good start just to set it in to start the process.

I can assist with measurements id needed.

Thanks Jeff, appreciate the come back as I do not have a motor in my possession, I guess if possible sometime if you would, get me a length (front edge of fan belt pulley to rear of block, and also a height (bottom of pan to top of valve cover, would probably go with a custom manifold and EFI, or possibly a turbo, so I can add from valve cover, (or should I say cam cover) up, also, no power steering, just alt.

I think that the 4cyl. that I have is a neat enough piece, but it is a factory piece, and I like different, besides that the six would sound much better than the 4, be a LOT smoother, and I think would look killer in that engine bay.

I am guessing here, but I would say the Cammer might even come in a bit lighter than the 4 cyl? Also, that is a rear sump motor, correct?

Besides that, the Cammer , when dressed up, has to be one of the sexiest looking engines that I could stick in there, (at least that is my opinon)!

Thanks Stan

[camerjeff]

Interesting Idea, I would think that everything Jeff said is true, Starter, and Fuel Pump on the Passenger Side causing Plumbing and Wiring Mods. The Top of the Timing Belt cover is usually a height issue on swaps due to the hood line usually slopes down towards the front, but that may not be an issue on a 63 Lemans.
If you plan on using the original Transaxle and drive shaft. Hooking up the Rope Drive would probably require fabrication. I know the Crank shaft of the 326 V-8's installed in 63 Tempests or Lemans had a small difference from the 389/421 cranks for the Big Cars.

[Transporter]

Originally Posted by camerjeff

Interesting Idea, I would think that everything Jeff said is true, Starter, and Fuel Pump on the Passenger Side causing Plumbing and Wiring Mods. The Top of the Timing Belt cover is usually a height issue on swaps due to the hood line usually slopes down towards the front, but that may not be an issue on a 63 Lemans.
If you plan on using the original Transaxle and drive shaft. Hooking up the Rope Drive would probably require fabrication. I know the Crank shaft of the 326 V-8's installed in 63 Tempests or Lemans had a small difference from the 389/421 cranks for the Big Cars.

Agreed, however since the four runs no starter on the engine the six would actually help me as I am sure it bolts to the block rather than the bell, correct? OR, could leave the starter on the transaxle and just use it to start the six, then you would "just" be down to mating the fours bell to the six and modding the hub.

Machining a hub to go from ropeshaft to bolt directly to the six crank hub should not be that big a deal, now what I see as the hard part, not sure I can adapt a four's bell to the six, not sure even if I could if a flex plate will fit in the four's abbreviated bell, I would guess not.

I am guessing going with the six bell, and flex plate and HOPING there would be enough room for engine and full bell in the engine bay?

Motor mounts I can fab up, and the one reason I was looking hard at this is that the 63 does have a rather flat hood, so I don't think bay depth will be an issue, will know better after some measurements.

Thanks Stan

[694.1]

This project would be TOO cool

[Transporter]

Originally Posted by 694.1

This project would be TOO cool

Thanks, glad I'm not alone, I have a coupe in the body shop right now that I have already put way too much money into.

I was just going to restore it, but now that I have this much invested I feel it just needs something more than the four, and I already have a couple of v8 Tempest/Lemans so the six would be the Goldilocks engine, "just right"!

[camerjeff]

Originally Posted by Transporter

Agreed, however since the four runs no starter on the engine the six would actually help me as I am sure it bolts to the block rather than the bell, correct? OR, could leave the starter on the transaxle and just use it to start the six, then you would "just" be down to mating the fours bell to the six and modding the hub.

Machining a hub to go from ropeshaft to bolt directly to the six crank hub should not be that big a deal, now what I see as the hard part, not sure I can adapt a four's bell to the six, not sure even if I could if a flex plate will fit in the four's abbreviated bell, I would guess not.

I am guessing going with the six bell, and flex plate and HOPING there would be enough room for engine and full bell in the engine bay?

Motor mounts I can fab up, and the one reason I was looking hard at this is that the 63 does have a rather flat hood, so I don't think bay depth will be an issue, will know better after some measurements.

Thanks Stan

Stan,

You are correct that the OHC-6 Starter does Bolt to the Block, as for the 63 Bellhousing bolting up, the OHC-6 uses a standard BOP Bellhousing pattern so if the Transaxle bellhousing is also the same pattern it will bolt up. But anouther issue I just thought of is that if I remember correctly the 63 starter bolts to the top drivers side of the bellhousing? if so I do not know if there will be clearance for the starter snout on the lower passenger side. But If you can still use the same starter location on the 63 bellhousing it may be a mute point.
I do have several spare OHC-6 Flex Plates available to measure, and an engine on a stand at the moment if you need any actual measurements let me know,

[Ollie]

Check out forum member "TheSilverBuick" work with a OHC L6
http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=731313

[Jeff Hamlin]

A little fuel for the fire;


These numbers should get you close (+- 1/4'')
The red square represents the mount location.

[Transporter]

Originally Posted by Ollie

Check out forum member "TheSilverBuick" work with a OHC L6
http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=731313

I had been reading his progress, in fact I'm sure in some way it "pushed" me into thinking more about the six in the Tempest.

Originally Posted by Jeff Hamlin

A little fuel for the fire;


These numbers should get you close (+- 1/4'')
The red square represents the mount location.

Hey Jeff, that pic is worth a thousand words, that will help greatly, THANKS!

[Transporter]

OK guys, it looks like the cammer will fit into the engine bay, next question, price and availability of a rebuilt or low mileage sprint 6?

Can I assume that the 69 was the "best" year being it was the last? Anyone have a really decent complete motor they would like to sell?

Thanks Stan

[TheSilverBuick]

I hear my name used in vain? =P Unfortunately I know zip and zilch about a '63 Tempest and less about it's OE drivetrain =/ Glad I can help motivate though!

Other than the displacement difference of 20cid, the big change for the later ones is the orifice hole in the restrictor tube changed size for better oil control and camshaft life. If you get a 230, getting a later restrictor tube installed, or drill out the hole to the larger spec (I don't recall the number off hand) would be the way to go. Otherwise, they should perform about the same, a difference of around 10HP between the 230 and 250 engines (barring the uber rare H-cam'd Sprints).

[Transporter]

Originally Posted by TheSilverBuick

I hear my name used in vain? =P Unfortunately I know zip and zilch about a '63 Tempest and less about it's OE drivetrain =/ Glad I can help motivate though!

Other than the displacement difference of 20cid, the big change for the later ones is the orifice hole in the restrictor tube changed size for better oil control and camshaft life. If you get a 230, getting a later restrictor tube installed, or drill out the hole to the larger spec (I don't recall the number off hand) would be the way to go. Otherwise, they should perform about the same, a difference of around 10HP between the 230 and 250 engines (barring the uber rare H-cam'd Sprints).

Thanks TSB, appreciate the info,

Stan

[camerjeff]

Originally Posted by Transporter

OK guys, it looks like the cammer will fit into the engine bay, next question, price and availability of a rebuilt or low mileage sprint 6?

Can I assume that the 69 was the "best" year being it was the last? Anyone have a really decent complete motor they would like to sell?

Thanks Stan

I have a Complete but not run in 10 years low mileage 67 230 Sprint, I also have a set of Jet Hot Coated Old Long branch Clifford Headers for an A-Body. Available, Also a set of A-body frame and Motor mounts. $1000 for everything if you made the trip up to the Detriot Area.

And as for 69's being the best, I would say like anything else they are improved, but 250's do not rev like the 230's do in stock form. The longer Stroke, and purposely weaker valve springs limit the RPM rang to about 5800rpm. The 230's will rev to 7000rpm in stock form. But if you are looking for low end torque, the 250 is a better choice.
The 69's have a lot of 1 year only parts, The upper timing belt cover was redone, as were the mounting system, the Water Pump is Shorter and requires a 69 only pully, the water pump also has an internal thermostat bypass, that eliminates the external hose and fittings on the 66-68 engines. And if you want to go for max show, I also have a complete 66 Aluminum Timing belt cover set, upper and lower if you want to Polish them up for max Bling factor. Last set I have $200

[Transporter]

Originally Posted by camerjeff

I have a Complete but not run in 10 years low mileage 67 230 Sprint, I also have a set of Jet Hot Coated Old Long branch Clifford Headers for an A-Body. Available, Also a set of A-body frame and Motor mounts. $1000 for everything if you made the trip up to the Detriot Area.

And as for 69's being the best, I would say like anything else they are improved, but 250's do not rev like the 230's do in stock form. The longer Stroke, and purposely weaker valve springs limit the RPM rang to about 5800rpm. The 230's will rev to 7000rpm in stock form. But if you are looking for low end torque, the 250 is a better choice.
The 69's have a lot of 1 year only parts, The upper timing belt cover was redone, as were the mounting system, the Water Pump is Shorter and requires a 69 only pully, the water pump also has an internal thermostat bypass, that eliminates the external hose and fittings on the 66-68 engines. And if you want to go for max show, I also have a complete 66 Aluminum Timing belt cover set, upper and lower if you want to Polish them up for max Bling factor. Last set I have $200

Thanks CJ, price is reasonable enough, now, got to figure out how to hook it up to the ropeshaft?