"E" series engine

[taximan]

I have a chance of acquiring an ex Interceptor engine, number is 1929 123E is this a goodun with 88k miles on it?( ie: high comp) would use til mine rebuilt.
Shaun.

[zacmarshall]

E series engines were the most powerful that Jensen used (apart from the SP). This is why they kept back a number for the remaining FFs being built when they went on to later engines.

Can't say how good it will be with 88k miles on it.... I can make bacon sarnies but fixing Jensens is beyond me

[taximan]

They would be cold by the time you got to me here
I feel 88k isnt excessive for one of our engines, mine has done an estimated 184k and is still going, albeit not at its original power rating, about half i would say. hence the need for a stripdown and full assessment to see if the original engine is saveable.
Shaun.

[Dion]

A bit confused.
Were there only E and G series engines (383)?
The engine in my car (aug 68 ) is 1074/15D.
Does that mean it is a D engine?
What are the specs on the D engine?

Dion

[taximan]

Fits in with my engine, aug 68, 40 cars before yours, mine is 1025 / 15C so you are closer to an E series than i am, but not close enough! the E's were fitted to 1969 cars i think. 9 engines must have walked out of factory
Specs are lower compression, 9.5 without looking it up, and 285bhp to 300bhp approx when new, conciderably less now without a rebuild. Do a search on the subject, sure its been discussed before.
Shaun.

[Richie]

I went to a Rolling Road event organised by Retro car mag a few years ago - my 383 recorded a somewhat disapointing 206bhp @3,600rpm, though a pretty meaty 330lbft @2,300rpm. I'm not sure whether it woudl affect the figures though puzzlingly this was done in 2nd gear (flat out in 2nd was 96mph). The garage owner that did the event advised that with 104,000 miles on teh clock that wasn't bad and that a good tune up would help. To cut a long story short, it has been tuned, firstly by Steve and Kerry of Monday club fame and the car felt transformed. Steve diagnosed very lean at the top end which would explain the drop off in power at only 3,600. She has been fettled again recently by Ken Bird in Bristol and, whist i was always happy with the way the car drove, particularly after Monday Clubs twiddling, putting my foot down for the first time after Ken had worked his magic scared me! The second time i smiled and the third time, whilst giggling uncontrolably, i ran out of empty bypass...
I've no idea what the bhp is, but clearly a proper tune up by people who know what they are doing has woken up a barnfull of sleeping ponies. It really was like driving a different car.

[taximan]

I think if i had mine tuned i would knock the bottom end out!
looking forward to frightening myself with a new, if temporary lump installed.
Shaun.

[funnycar]

On a chassis dynamometer, the power is measured at the wheels, which will always be lower than 'at the flywheel' where the engine dyno tests are performed.
206 at the wheels accounts for about 70 hp lower than what would be expected at the flywheel at 3600 rpm.
An old Torqueflite auto transmission drivetrain could drain about 20% of the flywheel power, so you should have seen about 220 hp.
The tune-up will have regained the lost power, and if you could feel the difference, you have quite a crisp motor.

[Julian_S]

206 at the wheels accounts for about 70 hp lower than what would be expected at the flywheel at 3600 rpm.
.

That 206 will be at the flywheel, the rolling road operator will (99% likely) have made allowance for transmission losses.

In truth there's probably not even 206bhp available at the flywheel - why not? Find out here:

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/setup01.htm

Julian.

[Richie]

yeah the 206 was the 'adjusted' figure - that's why i wondered if having the test done in 2nd would have made any difference... although hugely improved, (i find it difficult to exaggerate just how much quicker the car is than previoulsy) i'm not about to go back to the rollers to find out by how much - as i said, she's plenty rapid enough now and, for me, is like a new car, though i accept that 39 years and 105,000 miles later, she wil be down on whatever she did make back in 69. i hated every second of my cars time on the rollers, especially when, upon seeing a cloud of black 'smoke' plume out of the passenger exhaust, i though that the engine had let go...turned out to be a load of soot being blasted free - the garage owner asked if i wanted him to carry on to do teh same to the drivers side...my nerves couldn't take anymore...probably wise having discovered a lean top end... low power is better than none, and a lot of the missing grunt seems to have been restored...after saying that, had i not done it, i would never have know that there was a problem to address...

[Julian_S]

yeah the 206 was the 'adjusted' figure - that's why i wondered if having the test done in 2nd would have made any difference......

Second would be perfect.

In first you would need a 1/2 ton of paving flags in the boot (or chaining down) to stop wheel slip. And top would have the rollers going at (say) 160mph!

Julian.

[John Lowney]

My 383 has been rebuilt twice.The heads and block have been on a 250,000 mile ride. 88,000 isn't much at all for a Chrysler V8. The technical aspect for the better is that your block is now "seasoned". That means the bores won't move around and other things that you don't want. Lots of high performance engine builders prefer the seasoned block.
It would be worth while to rebuild the engine to your specs. Chrysler engines made the advertised hp or more,of course prior to 1971 it was gross hp at the flywheel.
My 383 is over 400 hp gross at the flywheel subtract 20% and you get a ballpark estimate of rear wheel HP.
John Lowney