102hp engine

All Models and Years
User avatar
ossieoz
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:41 am

102hp engine

Post by ossieoz »

Is the 102hp engine a total ‘disaster’ as a Greenbrier engine?

I’ve read a few things about the 102hp being not so good at lugging a full load in a Greenbrier or Rampside. But if I’m not planning on lugging stuff around in my FC, could this 102hp engine be usable/suitable?


1961 Greenbrier, 1962 Rampside and 1964 Monza cab.
User avatar
bbodie52
Corvair of the Month
Corvair of the Month
Posts: 11866
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:33 pm
Location: Lake Chatuge Hayesville, NC
Contact:

Re: 102hp engine

Post by bbodie52 »

The 102 hp engine, in many ways, is in the same reliability/workhorse category as the 110 hp engine that was introduced in 1964. The early engine has a 145 CI displacement, while the displacement of the 110 hp engine was increased with a longer stroke crankshaft to 164 CID. The 110 hp engine was fitted with a harmonic balancer in place of the solid crankshaft pulley to protect the long-stroke crankshaft from potentially damaging vibration harmonics.

The attached 1963 and 1964 Chevrolet Corvair GM Heritage Center Specifications documents outline the specifications applicable to the 102 hp powertrain and to the 110 hp powertrain beginning on page 38 of each attachment. Both engines have the same compression ratio (9.0:1) and are fitted with nearly identical carburetors, cylinder heads, and exhaust systems. The camshaft lobe and timing specifications are somewhat different...

102 hp Lobe Lift: 0.2519 (Intake and Exhaust) Valve Lift: 0.3779 Duration (Intake/Exhaust): 352°/353°

110 hp Lobe Lift: 0.2605 (Intake and Exhaust) Valve Lift: 0.3907 Duration (Intake/Exhaust): 340°/340°

Output Specs Comparison - 102 hp vs 110 hp Corvair Engines
Output Specs Comparison - 102 hp vs 110 hp Corvair Engines

Image

Both engines have a good reputation for reliability. The additional torque of the long-stroke 110 hp engine might be somewhat helpful with heavy loads. Both engines can tolerate the same fuel octane and will provide similar fuel mileage.

The 110 hp engine was fitted with a light weight magnesium cooling fan, which helped somewhat in improving fan belt reliability. It can be fitted to the early engines (using the 1964 fan). A Positive Crankcase Ventilation (PCV) system was fitted in 1963, and was slightly improved to eliminate the PCV valve and replace it with a fixed orifice vacuum control in 1964 and later engines. The PCV system provided improved evacuation of crankcase gases and oil contaminants over the road draft tube that was fitted in 1962 and earlier engines.

An alternator replaced the generator in 1965. Alternator systems can be fitted to earlier engines (the oil filter adapter must be changed to match the different alternator mount).

:chevy:
Attachments
1963 Chevrolet Corvair GM Heritage Center Specs.pdf
1963 Chevrolet Corvair GM Heritage Center Specs
(3.11 MiB) Downloaded 29 times
1964 Chevrolet Corvair GM Heritage Center Specs.pdf
1964 Chevrolet Corvair GM Heritage Center Specs
(2.57 MiB) Downloaded 19 times
Brad Bodie
Lake Chatuge, North Carolina
Image 1966 Corvair Corsa Convertible
martyscarr
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:33 am
Location: Eugene, OR

Re: 102hp engine

Post by martyscarr »

Hello ossieoz

Is your Greenbrier a manual or powerglide? Do you know what ring and pinion ratio you have?
User avatar
ossieoz
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:41 am

Re: 102hp engine

Post by ossieoz »

bbodie52 wrote:The 102 hp engine, in many ways, is in the same reliability/workhorse category as the 110 hp engine that was introduced in 1964. The early engine has a 145 CI displacement, while the displacement of the 110 hp engine was increased with a longer stroke crankshaft to 164 CID. The 110 hp engine was fitted with a harmonic balancer in place of the solid crankshaft pulley to protect the long-stroke crankshaft from potentially damaging vibration harmonics.

The attached 1963 and 1964 Chevrolet Corvair GM Heritage Center Specifications documents outline the specifications applicable to the 102 hp powertrain and to the 110 hp powertrain beginning on page 38 of each attachment. Both engines have the same compression ratio (9.0:1) and are fitted with nearly identical carburetors, cylinder heads, and exhaust systems. The camshaft lobe and timing specifications are somewhat different...

102 hp Lobe Lift: 0.2519 (Intake and Exhaust) Valve Lift: 0.3779 Duration (Intake/Exhaust): 352°/353°

110 hp Lobe Lift: 0.2605 (Intake and Exhaust) Valve Lift: 0.3907 Duration (Intake/Exhaust): 340°/340°

Output Specs Comparison - 102 hp vs 110 hp Corvair Engines.jpg

Image

Both engines have a good reputation for reliability. The additional torque of the long-stroke 110 hp engine might be somewhat helpful with heavy loads. Both engines can tolerate the same fuel octane and will provide similar fuel mileage.

The 110 hp engine was fitted with a light weight magnesium cooling fan, which helped somewhat in improving fan belt reliability. It can be fitted to the early engines (using the 1964 fan). A Positive Crankcase Ventilation (PCV) system was fitted in 1963, and was slightly improved to eliminate the PCV valve and replace it with a fixed orifice vacuum control in 1964 and later engines. The PCV system provided improved evacuation of crankcase gases and oil contaminants over the road draft tube that was fitted in 1962 and earlier engines.

An alternator replaced the generator in 1965. Alternator systems can be fitted to earlier engines (the oil filter adapter must be changed to match the different alternator mount).

:chevy:
Thanks for the info/input :)


1961 Greenbrier, 1962 Rampside and 1964 Monza cab.
66vairguy
Posts: 4498
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: 102hp engine

Post by 66vairguy »

Brad made some good points. Yes the 64 fan was magnesium that fit the "smaller" bearing and was a one year only fan. In 65 the top cover was revised for a bigger (more durable) bearing. The 65-69 fans that fit the larger bearing are common. Some folks with EM engines change the top cover to use the bigger bearing and common magnesium fan.

Keep in mind most of our "hobby" cars aren't driven that much and making improvements to enhance long term use is not that critical.

If you had access to a 65-66 110HP engine that would be a great fit in a FC that wasn't going to haul heavy loads. It's a durable and peppy engine that also is a great match to an automatic (PG). The extra stroke helps the low end response. With the magnesium fan and the belt guides on LM engines, you'll find fan belt issue are rare (if everything is aligned - the fan bearing height is critical according to an article in CORSA).

Keep in mind the 64 engine had the longer stroke, but they were still called 102HP engines.

The lower HP FC engines were designed to suffer a lot of abuse and operate on low octane fuel to be economical even when loaded to the maxium gross weight. If your Greenbrier isn't over loaded then the 102 or 110HP engine will perform fine.
User avatar
ossieoz
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:41 am

Re: 102hp engine

Post by ossieoz »

66vairguy wrote:Brad made some good points. Yes the 64 fan was magnesium that fit the "smaller" bearing and was a one year only fan. In 65 the top cover was revised for a bigger (more durable) bearing. The 65-69 fans that fit the larger bearing are common. Some folks with EM engines change the top cover to use the bigger bearing and common magnesium fan.

Keep in mind most of our "hobby" cars aren't driven that much and making improvements to enhance long term use is not that critical.

If you had access to a 65-66 110HP engine that would be a great fit in a FC that wasn't going to haul heavy loads. It's a durable and peppy engine that also is a great match to an automatic (PG). The extra stroke helps the low end response. With the magnesium fan and the belt guides on LM engines, you'll find fan belt issue are rare (if everything is aligned - the fan bearing height is critical according to an article in CORSA).

Keep in mind the 64 engine had the longer stroke, but they were still called 102HP engines.

The lower HP FC engines were designed to suffer a lot of abuse and operate on low octane fuel to be economical even when loaded to the maxium gross weight. If your Greenbrier isn't over loaded then the 102 or 110HP engine will perform fine.
Thanks, feeling better about putting in the 102hp in the Greenbrier :) I do have a 110hp in my Monza cab but don’t want to use that as my ‘new’ motor. The 80/84 hp engine will come out and I’ll renovate it... save it as a spare.


1961 Greenbrier, 1962 Rampside and 1964 Monza cab.
User avatar
bbodie52
Corvair of the Month
Corvair of the Month
Posts: 11866
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:33 pm
Location: Lake Chatuge Hayesville, NC
Contact:

Re: 102hp engine

Post by bbodie52 »

66vairguy wrote:Keep in mind the 64 engine had the longer stroke, but they were still called 102HP engines.
I believe that in 1964 the increased displacement to 164 CI also produced an increased horsepower rating for both normally aspirated engines to 95 hp and 110 hp. The turbocharged 1964 engine was an exception, in that the increased displacement did not increase the maximum horsepower output beyond 150 hp, because the capacity of the turbocharger was not increased in 1964 and the turbocharger determined the maximum horsepower rating of the engine. In 1965 the turbocharger capacity was increased with a modified design and the horsepower rating went up to 180 hp.

According to the 1964 Chevrolet Corvair GM Heritage Center Specs, the two normally aspirated engines were referred to as "Turbo Air 164 Standard" (95 hp) and "Turbo Air 164 Hi-Performance" (110 hp)
1964 Engine Specs
1964 Engine Specs
Attachments
1964 Chevrolet Corvair GM Heritage Center Specs.pdf
1964 Chevrolet Corvair GM Heritage Center Specs
(2.57 MiB) Downloaded 17 times
Brad Bodie
Lake Chatuge, North Carolina
Image 1966 Corvair Corsa Convertible
joelsplace
Posts: 1939
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:51 pm
Location: Northlake, TX

Re: 102hp engine

Post by joelsplace »

Lots of people say to never use a 102 in an FC but I've had other people that I know say it's a great engine. I had a Greenbrier with a 145 of unknown HP and a car '64 4-speed that worked great in all situations except starting from a dead stop on a hill. That was a big problem.
157 Corvairs, 5 Ultravans and counting
Northlake, TX
Post Reply

Return to “Ask your Mechanical Questions here”