Briggs engines: Iron vs Aluminum

   / Briggs engines: Iron vs Aluminum #1  

Joe1

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
587
Location
San Luis Obispo, CA
Tractor
1998 JD 770 & 2004 Toro LX417
I've read a lot of discussions about how much stronger the cast iron Briggs engines were compared to the newer aluminum. which raises some questions in my mind"

(1) When did Briggs shift from cast iron to aluminum?
(2) What makes the newer ones better?
(3) Do the new ones all use cylinder liners of iron or steel or just the commercial grade engines?
(4) Were the bearings better quality in the older engines?

It would seem the aluminum engine would disipate heat a lot faster than the cast iron engine. Just a curosity on my part but if anyone could enlighten me I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
 
   / Briggs engines: Iron vs Aluminum #2  
Briggs only made a few full cast iron block models throughout their history and thier last cast iron block in 1991 in thier I/C line. If you have a rare chance to come across a cast iron block Briggs, they look similar to cast iron Kohlers. The cast iron Briggs were found mostly on industrial equipment such as heavy duty pumps, very few were used on lawn equipment other than really old stuff from the 1950's. Briggs made themselves famous with aluminum engines, (Actually Mr. Briggs went on to found OMC) and Kohler took the fame for cast iron blocks.

Aluminum does dissipate heat much faster than iron, which is why none of the manufacturers make cast iron small engines any longer, that along with the high cost of iron and fewer places sand casting iron blocks. Pure iron is very expensive now, and recycled iron just does not make the grade for engine components. Hense the cast iron sleeves that are now the norm for high HP small engines. The pressed in sleeve gives the cylinder wall durability that is needed, the aluminum block heat dissipation needed along with making a much lighter small engine. Crankshafts and cams are still cast iron for durability. Some of the smaller HP small engines use Nikasil (Nickel alloy)coated cylinder walls instead of iron liners. GM tried this stuff in a car engine once with the first Vega 151 4 cylinders, and it failed horribly, but it works OK for low hour cheap small engines.

Are the new lined aluminum small engines better than the old cast iron blocks? In some ways yes, they do run cooler, often use less gas, have less emissions, and initially last just as long if not longer. On the other hand cast iron blocks can be overbored multiple times, giving them a much longer lifespan.

It is rare for anyone to bother attempting to overbore a lined cylinder in an aluminum engine, and not often recommended. Once a lined aluminum engine wears out, it is best to just toss it in the scrap pile. Although cast iron block small engines are not made any longer by anyone I know of, new old stock ones can still be found at places like Small Engine Warehouse, but be prepared to pay a pretty penny for one, for instance a Kohler Magnum 18 twin that only has cast iron cylinder jugs fetches around $2000.00.

I would have to say as far as bearings go that hands down the bearings in new engines are far better than anything in a classic engine. Bearing technology has become much better in recent decades, and is one of the factors why it is not uncommon for an automobile engine to run 200k miles today, where it was rare for one to go to 100k miles just 30 years ago.

-Fordlords-
 
   / Briggs engines: Iron vs Aluminum
  • Thread Starter
#3  
Fordlords:

Thanks for the reply.

I'm old enough to remember the Vega when it came out. Part of the problem with the Vega, particularly in hot climates was that because it was a price built car, it did not come with a coolant recovery system. (They were just coming into vogue around that time anyway). With 7.5 quarts of coolant, it would percolate a small amount of coolant out when shut off on really hot days. it didn't take too long before the coolant was so low that the engine overheated. Because the block was aluminum alloy, GM gave the engine a cast iron head to add rigidity to the engine. Unfortunately, when the engine got really hot from loss of coolant, the weight of the cast iron head on the then very soft block would in effect cause the block to sag and distort badly to the point that the engine could not be overhauled because the crankshaft and main bearings no longer lined up. The block could not be reused. As I recall, the Vega 4 did not utilize cylinder sleeves but ran the rings directly in the engine block. This also caused major problems, especially on early production engines.

GM eventually solved most of the problems with this engine, but just like the suspension issues on the Corvair (yeah, unfortunately I'm old enough to remember them when they first came out also) that were eventually solved, the reputation of the car was dead as a DeSoto or an Edsel (I remember them also when new),

I don't recall if GM used cylinder liners in the 215 cu in Buick and Olds aluminum engines in 61 - 63. I know they also had some early casting problems with these engines, but if you got a good one they were excellent engines as evidenced by how long Rover continued to use them. I believe GM wanted to buy that engine back but Rover would not give up their rights to the engine. Too bad, because it would have put them light years ahead of their competition in the 70's and 80's.

Thanks again.

Joe
 
   / Briggs engines: Iron vs Aluminum #4  
I thought I was old remembering the Vega LOL! The first engine was aluminum with nikasil coated cylinder walls, these were the ones that burned up and were all replaced under warranty by an all cast iron version of the 151 called the, "iron duke." The duke was very relaible, remaining in production until 1993. Some makers like Porsche and BMW had very good success with nikasil coated aluminum engines, until BMW had problems with it in the M60 V8 having to replace thousands of engines that had the exact same symptoms as the Vega engine did in 1975. (The coating wore off the cylinder walls.) Nikasil is no longer used in any automotive engines.

I've never seen a Briggs aluminum small engine with nikasil coated cylinder walls go much past the 400 hour mark, these are the under 10 HP ones.

-Fordlords-
 
   / Briggs engines: Iron vs Aluminum #5  
I only buy the Briggs engines with the cast iron sleeves in them. The aluminum bore ones will not last as long.
Ben
 
   / Briggs engines: Iron vs Aluminum #6  
I HAVE A 1973 BRIGGS WITH AN ALUMINUM BORE. IBELIEVE 8 HORSE,#190703-WHAT PART# CYLINDER SLEEVE CAN I INSTALL?
 
   / Briggs engines: Iron vs Aluminum #7  
I don't know the specifics of the Briggs stuff, but I know that bearings have improved greatly in automotive engines. Tolerances for roundness and surface finish have improved greatly. As for cylinder liners, they aren't simply cast iron anymore. They are now made from powdered metal, and they are much harder than the old liners. The surface finish is very tightly controlled.
 
   / Briggs engines: Iron vs Aluminum #8  
I HAVE A 1973 BRIGGS WITH AN ALUMINUM BORE. IBELIEVE 8 HORSE,#190703-WHAT PART# CYLINDER SLEEVE CAN I INSTALL?

Not sure that you can do it. Thought they were cast into the block unlike a wet of dry sleeve farm tractor where they can be removed. But I don't know.
 
   / Briggs engines: Iron vs Aluminum #9  
I used to have a 1972 vega wagon. I loved that car! Wished it didn't burn oil and rust away. I remember reading that GM lapped the cylinder walls with silicone.
 
   / Briggs engines: Iron vs Aluminum #10  
Both my father and me, bought new Vaga's in 1973.

Neither of us had spitting water problems or over heating problems, as I remember, both of the engines held up pretty good...

SR
 
 
Top