Is it suicide to want to swap a built chevy small block into

Ancient suspension + low weight + lotsa power = death machine
fucking do it, OP

Small blocks are pretty tame for just cruising around.

Oh wait you said built. RIP.

>>17365133
You'll probably shred differentials at least once a year.

>>17365133

Sure if you want, I don't really see the point though, it will never be fast and the stock I6 is plenty enough to rip decent skidz

File: 1475594314839.jpg (78KB, 1464x1079px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1464x1079px

>it's a "let's ruin another classic car with the most uninspired swap in the world" episode

File: 1980-Triumph-TR8[1].jpg (159KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1024x640px

You are now aware that Triumph made a V8-swapped TR7, and that TVR made a 5.0l version of the Rover/Buick V8 these cars used.

>>17365155
The point is I just love the way it looks and have been working with small block chevys basically since I learned to drive
>>17365151
I kinda figured axle swap of some sort would be required.

Seems light enough too that I could sacrifice a good bit of low end torque for power and have it still be remotely driveable. Chief use will probably be tooling around empty farm roads at incredibly hihg speed

>>17365171

So why not just work on the factory engine?

It's pretty simple, not exactly a modern hyper electronics thing.someone with basic mechanical knowledge can take care of a Triumph

>>17365181
Because my first choice would be to find one with a destroyed engine or other sort of basket case car beyond saving in stock form. Cheaper, and then I'm not desecrating a classic. A stock TR6 would be nice but the prices on good condition ones have gone up a lot in the last few years.

>>17365133
Why would you do that when the MGB V8 exists?

>>17365204
MGBs are smaller though

>>17365181
>So why not just work on the factory engine?
Because they'll end up constantly working on it. Old British roadsters are beautiful but their reliability is nightmare-tier.

>>17365204
a chevy sbc, or better an lsx, will be cheaper and easier to make power with.
>>17366432
>Because they'll end up constantly working on it. Old British roadsters are beautiful but their reliability is nightmare-tier.
That isn't completely true. The quality control was pretty shit in the 70s because brits were all communists pissed that NHC didn't include dental service. They are pretty reliable for their age and once you get those manufacturing defects taken care of they are fairly reliable. I DD a tr6 in college and a few years after.

OP, so you will need to do something about the diff depending on how much power you plan on putting out. If you are going for a cheap build check width, the engine bay is narrow, i don't think your distributor will clear the hood.

Before the LSx the most popular engine swap was a ford 5.0.

If you want to be really weird, swap in a jeep 4.0. The tr6's engine is pretty torquey.

The american engines had pretty low compression.. i would be tempted to find a suitable blow through carb and turbocharge it.

fucking do it op, just dont ruin a good one, find one with a fucked engine. Maybe swap something other than an SBC in though, maybe a 351c? or some aluminium V8, if you dont mind lack of power a buick 215 might be a fairly straightfoward swap since BL used the engine for some of its cars. maybe an aluminium LS on carbs so you dont have to set it up for EFI. An alloy engine is probably best though, these cars are pretty light and it would be a shame to make the front end heavy (I know the original engine was iron, still should go for something lighter to make it better to drive)

>>17366935
See >>17365168, the Buick 215/Rover V8 is sometimes even used in 5.2l form in racing applications. It's got potential.

>>17365168
>Dem 5mph bumpers tho.

>>17366940
wouldnt say its got potential, iirc its a somewhat weak block (no idea what sort of power in can handle), but great for racing cause its so light and pretty compact