Ok so the idea of Lotus 907 heads on a Rover sounds like a pretty cool project. I know Art is considering doing this project. I hope he does so I can see it happen vicariously. So I looked around a little and learned a lot in a short period of time. The bore spacing is correct, the head bolt holes are at the right width but wrong place for the block so the block needs some modifying for that. Some fabrication for the intake and exhaust.
I welded up my own headers. It's not easy but mostly just time consuming. It's actually kinda fun. The intake could be approached the same way with tubes and webber carbs or injection bosses and throttle bodies.
So not a lot of guys are gonna want to build this but I thought I'd start a thread to discuss the possibilities.
Just for fun I searched ebay for 907 heads. I found a whole engine for $100. LOL!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Lotus-907-Engine_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem2ea8f828b3QQitemZ200403331251QQptZMotorsQ5fCarQ5fTruckQ5fPartsQ5fAccessories
Here's a couple pix of a guy mocking up the heads on the Rover block:
Picture-13.jpg
Picture-12.jpg
It looks like you could just mill off the webs on each end of the lifter valley and bolt a plate on there. It might actually add some strength to the block. What do you do with the lifter oil galleries? Like just block the passages from the pump? Then there's the timing belts. Should they use separate belts? Like one for each side? I'm assuming you would use the crank pulley from the 907 and adapt it to the crank nose. Would it spin at the right speed for the cams?
Just trying to get the ball rolling.
Yea suure Nic, like "set the hook" in the old guy. Actually, (2) 907 crank spockets(1 for each head), an maybe Vega timing belts so "poly vee" on backside drives the accessories as tensioners. Gut the cambearings and "shrink-fit" a heavy walled/steped , alum.tube, where cam was, "notched" for killer strokes. This will beef the main saddle area upstairs and add oil resevoir to feed the mains? But wait, for a few $'s more... why not VVT? Stock 907 rod weighs 928 grams! Top fuel anyone? Problem with 2L. is not enough tork, with puny 2.75" stoke, huh? Plenty of recip. weight, 1" dia hvy. wall pins. I think we can lighten-up a little here. Nice, right side headers already available. Need to duplicate-mirror image for left side.Use nipped Rov. bathtub, why-not. Heads are soo stong, you could tie them together but not needed. Block is stronger with "tube" and no valve train inside.West Coast RacingCyl.Head is claiming 305cfm.@ 28" and .450" lift.2.3L. produces 265hp.,na.on gas.Port velocity is good through-out the range. Eight cyl. should do better than double as a 4.6L,(reduced parasitic losses). Plan is for my 74 JH. roadster. JHPS already"hates me". I'm going to DESTROY resale value! Let the spewing begin. roverman.
Plenty of valve area but those intake ports look kinda small. Can't see the exhausts but likely as not they do too. Something needs to be done about that for sure. That mismatch on the studs might be the biggest problem though, depending on where they hit on the block. The deck isn't thick enough to just drill and tap new holes. Since the lifter galleys feed the mains you can't just block them off unless you run external lines to the mains but since an external pump will be needed, why not? Maybe feed them using Art's cross bolts. With all that welding going on. might as well just weld a plate across the top of the lifter valley too.
Jim
What you are saying is the path the oil takes goes through the lifter galleries so we can't just block off those galleries. SO we use a blank like Art's talking about for the cam bores. That seems easy enough. Then we need a crossover of some type. We could use holes through Art's cam blank. We could put a hole through every journal location. Still gotta deal with the lifter bores. Do we just press in blanks there too? I guess that would work fine. It doesn't need to be leak proof just needs to keep the pressure up, right? Nothing's moving here so we don't need to worry about stuff wearing out.
Good point about the oil pump. We're probably going to have to need an external pump because of space needed for the timing belts, right? I suppose we could ditch the front cover all together. Use a crank triggered EDIS for distribution. There is probably not room for the oil pump because of the timing belts, right? Then we have to deal with making some type of housing for the front seal.
OK Art. I've got to do some decoding of your post so bare with me. I skipped over the VVT for now. We should talk more about that but later. Are you saying that we could use the Lotus piston and rod? That would be with the stock 2.8" stroke, right? I'm thinking we could do this for a bigger displacement though. Not like the ones I've been discussing in the stroker options thread because it would be cool to really wind this thing up. Get some major revs out of it. What kind of RPMs are they running with that West Coast motor?
Backing up: So we drive the oil pump off one timing belt and the alternator off the other one. Make sense?
Ok what the hell is "nipped Rov. bathtub"??? Sounds like pornography. LOL.
Plug the galleys feeding the lifter bores, won't needum. Feed oil to cam replacement tube/oil resevoir to priority-fed-mains. Easy take-off from this to feed heads. I belive a belt driven Mopar(gerotor) sbm.,oil pump should be adequate. Less bleed-off than all those, "leaky" lifterbores. push rods and rockers. Lotus, rod,pin and piston-dumb. Waay too heavy.We want around 600 gram sbc rods and lite pins/pistons. Jim and all, wer'e "used" to looking at 2 valve ports for adequate flow. they need to be "big", because there port velocity doesn't measure-up to 4 valve specs. Granted the 907 ports need opening-up for maximum flow, larger vales are reasonably priced. "If" the "worked" 907's do indeed flow 305"@ .45" lift, thats enough .Nic, "nip the bathtub", it's not a "video", trim the stock, sheet metal, intake gasket, sometimes refered to as "bathtub', to fit up/to the 907 heads. Kinda like "wildcat" does. I'll have to check where max hp. was-thought 6,500-7k. Drive a distribtor off end of a cam or belt, frequently done in aftermarket. We don't have "tons" of valve train loads trying to split the valley in this build.The block likes this.This motor will be heavier, 3 more cams and the heads are beefy. Big stroke, no problem, but kinda like chosin a cam/cams, how big you need? Nic, now when you say,"we're", you mean vicariously-right? Stay tuned, it mite get bumpy,roverman.
I guess I do mean vicariously but I do say "we" because I want to build this engine! It captures the imagination.
Thanks for the clarification. The "bathtub" makes sense now. What do you think of eliminating the front cover? I bought this water pump for my engine build. Cheap and mounts anywhere:
http://www.daviescraig.com.au/Electric_Water_Pumps-EWP80__12V__ELECTRIC_WATER_PUMP___PART_No__8005-details.aspx
You can control the temp with a thermal switch. Nice. SO remote water pump, remote oil pump, cams up in the heads so there's no need for the front cover, right? On my Rover block, opposite the starter there is a little port that faces the flywheel. It seemed to me that there could be a crank trigger setup using the flywheel... Just thinking out loud.
I thought the late Rover crank trigger was back there? I need to look at the late Buick V6 rear drive blower arrangement. Distributor or accessories out or way for a way short engine.Why have front tim. cover if doun't need? Belt guards, a good idea. This motor wants' injection, slideplte-best. roverman.
Your cam replacement tube is going to get complicated. For one, if longer strokes are to be considered it will have to have reliefs cut in it for the rods to clear, and may need them for the shorter strokes also. Full cam bearing diameter is going to stick out farther than any cam lobes you could get. And there's no point in filling a big tube full of oil, that's just trouble looking for an excuse. I actually kinda liked Art's idea of using hollow cross bolts to carry oil to the mains but it might be a challenge getting enough oil in there that way, still, just a function of pressure I suppose as it's a hydraulic system. Could run it right on up there as far as needed to get the flow. Also all those lifter plugs would have to be necked if you expect oil to go around them. That's another invitation for disaster having all those plugs in a vital system. Probably better to shrink a thinwall stainless tube into the galley full length and then drill it back out as needed. As I recall the hole is drilled from the main up past the cam bearing and into the lifter galley. So after tubing the galleys just re-drill those holes. If you want some sort of a one piece cam replacement use a billet and turn down the lobe areas to the base circle at the same time that the plug sizes are machined and put o-ring grooves for sealing so that it doesn't require massive force to press 5 plugs into place at the same time. The area between the o-rings can be recessed for oil flow between the galleys.
Access to the oil galleys can be front or rear and there is some logic in plumbing to the rear, as well as using external plumbing for the pick-up, although tieing in at both front and rear would be an option. An oil pump driven by one cam belt is not a bad idea, provided it used a toothed pulley and was therefore on the inside of the belt. Alternator could be either way. A simple aluminum plate with a seal for the crank could also act as a backing plate for the timing belt covers. Matching to the pan shouldn't be difficult. Rover did in fact use a notched flywheel for crank trigger. No reason the starter ring gear couldn't be used as well. I think Mega-Squirt could handle a 300 tooth wheel last time I looked so it's feasible.
Jim
Using the flywheel teeth as trigger is pretty cool. EDIS is out then because it uses a missing 36-tooth rig. I like the idea of turning down between the journals. I suppose it might be easiest to just index some cam bearings and press those in to block the cam oil galleries. That would be pretty easy. What do you guys think? It wouldn't do anything for load sharing but we could do that differently anyway..
The thinwall sleeve in the gallery is nice. I really like that idea. Then use some sort of different crossover. I'm with you on the lifter plugs about having a bunch of them sitting in there waiting to fall out. I'm not tracking on the lifter plugs needing to be necked. Is that to get oil to the cam journals? Well that's not necessary anymore if we loose the crossover in the cam plug idea. If you're talking about obstruction in the gallery side isn't it already like that with the lifters in place normally? Not really an issue if we ditch the lifter plug idea anyway.
Ditching the lifter plugs is a real good idea for more than one reason. Longitudinal flow down the galley depends on the necked area of the lifters because the lifters bisect the galleys and a straight sided lifter would block it off. I think. Might want to check that. Anyway visualize the restriction in oil flow down the galley past all of those lifters, even with the necked down area. No wonder the rear rod journals get starved. So with the sleeve in place all those 8 restricters per side just magically go away and the rear bearings get full pressure.
Some of the mains are fed from one lifter galley, some from the other. So both have to have pressure and flow.
Jim
Back to my post on 08, heavy wall tube means any wall thickness less than solid. Milling (2) flats-90deg apart between journals-easy for machinist. This is a beefy, heavy walled, main webb reinforcement.Dry ice-it preheat block and you got plenty of clearance/time to install. Plug your solenoid controlled ,Accusump into this galley,bore to be determined, and "viola", you got the oil right were you want-it to prelube for start-up. I think I count maximum (5) plugs for lifter galleys? Why is there oil even going there? Back-tracking from mains? Ok lets put small thread-in plugs bottomed-out to prevent? I think with this lay-out, "side-oiler" is not needed. Isn't this fuun? roverman.
Art, isn't the block already pretty stiff in that area, what with the cast areas that contain the existing oil galleys? How does a big chunk of metal down the middle add anything? I could see the sense in something like a girdle plate but especially with the cam and lifters gone the lifter valley seems plenty strong enough already. As far as plugs to block off the lifter galleys from the mains and cam bearings, you'd have to put a plug in the bottom of a small (3/16-1/4") hole nearly 5 inches long which opens into a larger channel. No step to cut threads for a plug unless you drill the holes out larger. Taps long enough to do that job are scarce and pricey and it's too small for a tapered pipe thread. So not as simple as it sounds. Maybe you could drill through the top of the lifter galley and go in from that end, I'm not sure. If the holes don't line up pretty close to centered it could get nasty.
But as long as we're doing... might as well bore the cam bores out so they are all the same size, that way you can use a uniform stock size of hollowbar. I have no idea if you can get aluminum hollowbar in TGP (turned, ground, and polished) or if you can get it with the over 2" OD and something like a 1/2" ID but if you can that might work and you could then hone the block to fit. Incidentally, the trouble comes, not from the amount of time you have before the plug warms up, but from contact with the bore. For something like this, with 5 journals and the plug packed in dry ice it'd still be a real good idea to heat the block in an oven to get as much clearance as possible and even then try to hold the interference down to .001" Getting it in and getting it properly positioned front to rear and rotated correctly so that your flats line up in the right place and your oil holes mate up properly will still provide you plenty of opportunity for error, at which point you will have created wholesale scrap. Not that it can't be done, but getting it right the first time? Maybe, maybe not. And about that plug... sounds simple to you maybe, to me, not so much. Expensive, hard to source, easily damaged material, needing end fittings (lathe operation) and "simple" milling that isn't all that simple. First you have to determine the angle between the flats, then the longitudinal position and depth. Then you have to set up a mill with a degree head, and either it has to be a pretty good sized mill or you will have to reposition the work at least once to get both ends of the part. Next you have to have oil holes to communicate with the main oil drillings in the block and some go right and others go left so you have to get that part right and it has to meet the passage properly. That doesn't sound very simple to me, especially compared to just turning o-ring grooves and clearances on a bar of round billet, where none of the tolerances has to be very close. But if you don't like the idea of using tubing to block off the lifter bores and you're dead set on adding a third oil galley maybe you could use hollowbar instead of solid and cross drill it into the oil grooves between the o-rings. Another thought, I bet you could find drill rod that could be shrink fit into the lifter galleys, thereby eliminating them entirely. No threaded plugs that way, but hey, maybe it'd stiffen the block! ;-)
Jim
Guys,
Don't know if this schematic of the rover oiling system helps, it appears to me that you could just plug/weld the oiling holes to the cam bearings and lifter gallery and the oiling to the mains would still be retained and with better pressure.
Don't have the benefit of a bare block in front of me so I could be wrong.
Kevin.
V8oilgalleries.jpg
If this is true then the mains are fed through one side of the lifter gallery. SO we don't need to worry about crossing over. I'm thinking Jim's solution of pressing a stainless sleeve done the right gallery would work best. Just leave the rest open. We could drill the holes for the mains in the tube first. Drill them larger than the main ports so indexing isn't mega critical. Or drill them after like Jim was saying.
Seems like the simplest solution there. On the front seal. How do we do that? Usually the seal mates with the balancer housing. Do we have it seal on the nose of the crank instead since it needs to go behind the timing gears?
I was thinking about the head oiling. The best way to tackle that would be to make an external bypass. Like a braided ss line, right? We could take off the back of the block maybe and run a couple -4AN lines to each head oil gallery. What do you guys think of that idea? I guess we could just use a small manifold of fittings as it feeds the main gallery. I was just thinking it'd be nice to feed the mains first instead of the other way around. I guess it probably doesn't matter though.
On the cam timing. How does that work? I mean will the valves be timed right if we just put the 907 cogs on the crank and cams? I mean will they be spinning at the right rate? On that note do the cams need to be billet or something?
For the max RPM it seems like the limiting factor wouldn't be mechanical as much as flow. I bet this thing could really spool up. What do you think?
Thanks for participating in this thread. It's pretty fun for me. I hope it is for you guys too.
This comment may not be relevant but, generally 90 degree double overhead cam per bank V formation engines are too wide to fit in a car such as an MGB and the others on this site.
Nick,
The way I read the drawing is that the mains are fed after the cam bearings and the lifter bores are fed by the gallery to the right of the cam in the schematic, this feed then goes up to feed the valve gear in the rover heads, the feed to the left bank is not shown.
If the drawing is accurate then i see no reason why the holes in that gallery which feed the cam bearings cant just be blocked with threaded plugs or possibly welded but that might cause stress problems. You would have to a hole of suitable size in the bottom of the bearing housing to allow direct access to the oil holes but that should not be a problem.
The lifter gallery could just be blocked at an appropriate position either to maintain the feeds to the heads or block it if so desired.
Jim,you appear to have a good working knowledge of the oiling system, is this a viable proposition?
Unfortunately I can't open the pictures showing the 907 heads, any way they can be opened in the normal way.
Kevin.
Yeah. Sorry about the pix. I'll go back and fix that momentarily.
QuoteThis comment may not be relevant but, generally 90 degree double overhead cam per bank V formation engines are too wide to fit in a car such as an MGB and the others on this site.
Ok. It is a British V8 though. OR you could just make the car wider, right Jim!? LOL. (that is what Jim did to his car.) Seriously though, are you saying we should talk about how to deal with that in this thread? Ok. I'm in.
How about swapping the heads from side to side and run the exhaust over the top into a turbo. We could build 180º headers to feed the turbo then! Then feed the intakes with logs on the sides. Just barely slipping under, between the fender wells and the block. I think the intakes would point down then. Anybody?
I guess we don't necessarily need to feed a turbo with it though. Maybe we could squirrel up the header pipes and run one big tube down one side of the engine at the rear.
Nick,
We'd make it fit, actually from memory the lotus heads aren't that wide compared to some modern engines.
Kevin.
OK first a couple of corrections. The 215 does in fact feed all five mains from the left side galley, (the 340 feeds at least the rear main and I think one, maybe two others from the right side) and the galley is offset enough from the lifter centerlines that a straight sided lifter or plug *should* cause no significant restriction although they certainly would cause turbulence. The feed is to the left side lifter galley then down past the cam to the mains. Transfer from the left to the right side galley is through the front cam bearing, to the groove in the front cam journal, around the cam, and through the cam bearing into the right side galley so isolating that galley is very easy. The feed to the left galley comes out just in front of the #2 cylinder and makes a 90 degree turn into the front cover. Tapping into that galley at that point would be fairly easy. Drilling from the top to plug the galley end of the drillings to the mains would have to go right through the web reinforcements so not a real good idea there, and the communicating holes to the cam journals are small and would need to be enlarged if the feed was through a tube in the cam location, but they could be easily blocked by "incorrectly" installed cam bearings for main feed via tubed left side galley. head oiling could be via either internal or external lines.
Nic, my car is only wider on the outside, inside it's no different.
Jim
Ok so on a 215 block we can ignore the "right" (when looking at the front of the engine) gallery all together. On a later block, like the 340, maybe even the Rover blocks, we need some type of crossover from the "left" gallery to the "right". Is that what you're saying?
On the main "left" gallery (at least on the 215) we could put your stainless steel tube idea and redrill from the main side to open it back up again to just the mains. That would effectively block everything else and we could then feed the heads externally or something. You were thinking like tubes in the lifter gallery with fittings off the main gallery, right?
BTW everybody should be able to see those pix now.
On the oil pump we're talking about using something like this?
(http://www.onedirt.com/photos/data/523/pump_1stgDFP.jpg)
I was thinking I could order a 907 head gasket and see where the holes end up but my engine is totally assembled now. Anybody else willing?
I wonder of the patterns for those Lotus heads are still around. Seems like a few tweaks, like location of head bolts, would solve some problems.
I think that one of the reasons that engines like Ford 4v 4.6 didn't catch on more was the cost of changing four cams when you wanted to change the cam.
But I totally love the concept; home brewed indy race engine.
What were you guys going to call it? Rotus? Loter? With the Lotus heads on top of a Rover block, seems like it should be Loter.
I think my ,dream has went roug. Maybe this is like a think tank or a cross word puzzle for deranged engine parts? Anyhoo, I did a prelim mock-up about 25 yrs ago? I never said I was fast. (4) cams from cast billet, iron alloy(cheep), will need to be made. Lotus not responding to sell their R&D cams. I feel the central tube has merit for strengtening the main webb areas-top side, somewhat like a girdle does on bottom. Anyhow, all this bench-engineering means little unless someone goes in some direction, so it isn't,"lost in committee". I prefer to ruin the value of my Jensen Healy, it will look at home there. Why ruin a perfecty good MGB? Are we having fun yet? roverman.
Dude. I'm totally having fun. The home grown indy engine. It's so Burt Monroe! I'm hankering for a new long term engine project which is why I've been stewing the math so much lately with the Rover stroker options thing. Then you got me rolling with this idea, Art. It really captures the imagination.
What haven't we covered... Induction?
I realize the 180º headers out the top is not functional for a front engine car but this engine in a kit car would be really cool. Like a Pantera or the Ultima GTR or something. So my question is: is it possible to flip the heads around or is the oil drainage all wrong then or something?
I'm thinking side draft carbs coming in from both sides and a tangle of 180º headers popping out the top with a big tube right out the middle of the rear deck of some mid-engine kit car would be SWEET!
I was thinking GT40 kit car. ZF transaxle. I saw rebuilt ZF's advertised for sale on the Portland Craigslist.
Fuel injection. Very tractable around town, tons of torque, high RPM capable. Refined manners.
The Superperformance SPF GT40 weighs 2500 lbs with a 351w aftermarket block stroked to 427 cubic inches. I was reading a list of engine weights today and recall that the 351w, a light engine, weighs 510 lbs (although you could buy aluminum heads and lose 50 lbs). I'll guess a Loter would weigh about 350 lbs? and make 350 hp and improve the weight distribution.
Nic and all, I hope we're not," mind propagating", this just so it will look cool? Form Fit and Function-Nic,"focus". Are you strokin to the beat of a "Medusa Motor" in that Vega? I feel slideplate/port injection best, in leiu of blower- maybe later. I like a 3.3" stroke with 2.1 journal and larger fillets, strong. Enough torque and lots-o-rpm. I'm tryin to track down the rear drive poly vee set-up on some Eaton blowers usedon Buick V6's. Anybody? Might make for a really short motor. So, consensus time, I think I can bolt-on .75" thick deck plates-no welding, but will need "long" liners and rods= wider/taller motor or weld-on head adapters with std. deck height? I'm leanin, the std. deck as I have no qualms of welding the block. Rotus Marathon V8 ?
Nic and all, I hope we're not," mind propagating", this just so it will look cool? Form Fit and Function-Nic,"focus". Are you strokin to the beat of a "Medusa Motor" in that Vega? I feel slideplate/port injection best, in leiu of blower- maybe later. I like a 3.3" stroke with 2.1 journal and larger fillets, strong. Enough torque and lots-o-rpm. I'm tryin to track down the rear drive poly vee set-up on some Eaton blowers usedon Buick V6's. Anybody? Might make for a really short motor. So, consensus time, I think I can bolt-on .75" thick deck plates-no welding, but will need "long" liners and rods= wider/taller motor or weld-on head adapters with std. deck height? I'm leanin, the std. deck as I have no qualms of welding the block. Rotus Marathon V8 ?
Art, for your cam tube replacement, I've run some quick math on that, but first, a couple thoughts. If you go that way you can plug the left side galley with a nearly full length rod or tube to isolate the main runners. This can be aluminum. The use of low temperature brazing rings and flux in strategic locations on that rod and the cam tube would allow you to seal and bond to the block via oven braze without the hazards of a tight press fit. But the down side is that any way you do it, it's going to be costly. My business is prototype development so I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about here. All of the machining operations add up quickly, and so does the planning, layout, and assembly work. That precision step-ground, index-relieved, and keyed/ported tube is going to run right around a grand to make and more for the precision install of that and the plug, and more for oven braze. By the time it's finished, expect to have $1500 at least in that modification. Feel free to get a second opinion. If you can find somebody to do it I really expect your cost to be significantly higher than that. Also, the wall thickness on the tube is going to have to be at least 1/2" to allow adequate reliefs to be cut and leave enough wall to hold pressure. Remember, should you decide to stroke it later there will be no taking it back out for deeper reliefs and cutting them deeper in place would be horrendously difficult and therefore expensive.
That rear engine idea has some merit. For years I wanted to build a Manta Mirage, but just the same old SBC engine seemed somehow.... well just not in keeping with the uniqueness of the rest of the car. Chances are I'll never do it, but if I did, this engine might be more in keeping with what would be appropriate for that one. A basket 'o snakes out the top of that car would look quite appropriate!
Jim
Good point, Art. I'm beginning to stray here. I really started this thread to "enable" you. I REALLY want this engine to be built. I thought if we had a way of spreading out the concept phase across some good minds it was more likely to happen. I was hoping this forum would be here as resource to facilitate your process. Hopefully get some idea from it.
I'm going to continue to assume that you are going to build this engine. With that in mind. Have you purchased the heads yet? Maybe I could help with that when the time comes. I can look around for the poly vee rig from a SC Buick V6. I'm just saying I'm on board with this project. I'm a computer animator now but before that I did other things:
I was a tool maker and I worked with a contractor to build die sets for production of Molex connectors. We made parts the old fashioned way. Mill, heat treat, surface grinder. Every part was made this way. I got a lot of part fabrication experience that way. Not much help at precision fabricating because I don't own the tools for it. I might have access via some friends. I haven't TIG welded yet but I'm willing to learn stuff.
Before that I rebuilt WWII aircraft engines with a small company called JRS Enterprises. I mostly worked on the Wright 1820. I also worked on a racing Merlin V12 for the company's Reno project called "Tsunami". We ported the intakes, added nitrous injection and adapted super coils from a couple GNX systems. At the end it made 4200 hp. FUN!!
Back on topic here. Jim, I thought your idea of boring all the journals to the same dia is a good one. That would reduce some complications with adding the Cam Blank. On the other hand what about using your stainless steel sleeve idea on both galleries. Feed both of them through the front of the block. That would simplify things a bit, wouldn't it? Then just redrill from the main side to regain access to the galleries. Then we wouldn't have to worry about cross over at all.
On the deck plate. Hmmmm. I'm not a fan but it may be necessary if we can't find a good way to install the heads on the block. It looks like the bolts are placed wider than than the buick by about 1" or something based on that pic at the top. 1/2" out from each is just about the edge of the block casting so it could be you just have to weld some extra metal on the edge of the block on both sides and it could be it'll work out just fine. Art, do you have a bare Rover block or head laying around? What's the distance between the bolt centerlines across the deck? It looks like about 2 7/8" or something like it. The Rotus head looks about 3 7/8". (total guess on my part). That's if the bore centers are indeed the same 4.24" on both heads. Any confirmation on that?
Nic and all, back to your earlier post. It's much easier to move bolt holes in a deck rather than a head, especially with all the parts in a 907. Bore centers match. I'm leanin the standard deck height for fewer special parts like liners and rods and more compact. I haven't verified if wall thickness of block if it "follows" the stepped-smaller cam journals. If so, this mod would weaken the block.If wall gets thicker towards rear, this would also be a good mod for serious push rod motors, allowing .12" larger base circles and resulting stronger cam. I want to add strength not detract. Reason on rear driven poly vee on eaton is a generic solution for a rear drive system for many applications, pumps,dist. etc.? I have (4) heads, bigger valves, springs.I believe Lotus head bolts just barely outside of Rover, shear vs. flexure. Standard base circle on "original" 907 cams are 1.21".Lots of room for adequate lift. Because of work involved, motor needs a serious build to justify. I.E lots of hp., like over 500 n.a.? One could peep some data on 907 from Wikipedia or JHPS. Thank You all for input, roverman.
Ok. Can you talk more about the rear driven accessories. Are you saying off the back of the block? Or the backside of the timing belts?
Nic,It's just, rumor search at this point but "Superchargers and Accessories Inc.", says there are rear drive M90's,( I have one), I need to send them a picture of it. Uses a drive shaft driven, "somehow" off of cam/sprocket. I have no more data at this point. I like the idea as a rearward accessories drive system under intake manifolds. We shall see, roverman.
One of the Caddy's had a carbon fiber shaft which was driven off the accessory drive at the front of the engine. It ran alongside the blower to the rear where it was connected in some manner, I suspect with a small belt. Looked pretty trick but I really didn't see the point.
Jim
Nic.. if I undestand you right you are looking for the distance between the head bolts? They are like 4 1/2 *3 1/8 on my 300cui... Have you considered any other 16V head?
No. you got any ideas? You're saying the two sets of five head bolts are 3.125" apart, right? That would make the Rotus head bolts at about 4.25" apart.
Art does this jive with the dimensions on your heads? Thanks man.
I saw a racing mod that put the alternator on the drive shaft back at the differential. That would leave only the oil pump off the timing belt of one side. Not a very practical solution for the street.
Nic. Yes the two rows are about 3 1/16 - 3 1/8 apart, and the row of five holes has a total of 17 inches in length.
I am inquiring about Volvo's B234 head in another forum to so what the split is between the head bolts, but no answer so far. They can with some work support +300 hp in a N/A 2.5 liter streetable version. They are used on one of Ford's fourbanger in performance applications. Initially developed by Cosworth and fairly available too on both sides of the pond.
Another head that perhaps could be feasible for this setup is SAAB's 16v, but I do not know anything about it more that it looks similar to Volvo's head.
If this works, do you think the bottom could handle +2000 hp turboed? :) I can imagine some racers wanting to do this kind of setup back in Sweden then....
I thought that one of the assets of the lotus heads was that you can drive the cams from either end of the heads, most twin cam heads would not allow this ,which makes life somewhat difficult in an engine in a V configuration.
Kevin.
Yes, would'nt it be great to find a cyl. bore spacing, webb -site and bolt patterns for 2, 3,4 valve heads? Until that happens, it looks like we got hard way. Interestingly enough, It was Charles Pinion of Real Steel who metioned about 25 years ago,(rumor) of using Saab 4 valve heads on Rover. 907 head is all that I've been able to find with correct bore spacing-kind of important. Yes, it's ancient, it's difficult, we haven't "seen" it taken beyond discussion. It's no wonder I'm drawn to the project like a self-imposed Purgatory. Perhaps I've"bad", in the past and this could be sentence? roverman.
Oh, undoubtedly Art, it's Karma right?
I had another look at the 215 block and there is an oil passage over the cam in the front to tie the two galleys together. Don't think the 340 has that but can't unbolt it just yet to check. Maybe in a few days. The 215 is drilled down to the front cover from the top and plugged, the 340 is drilled up from the bottom and gets a sender screwed into the end of the hole.
Jim
Ok, How to move the head bolt holes and keep it strong? Light went on and said- alum. billet, "npt". plugs, say 1/2"-3/4" dia's., to be determined. Machine npt. in deck for adequate clean-up relative to Rover bolt hole, scew in plug real tite and weld on top. Definately will be decking after all welding. Will be using studs in dry holes. Thoughts? roverman.
It SOUNDS good. Did you confirm where the bolts go on the block? Is it at the edge of the block like I was guessing? I'm just wondering where they go.
Thanks Art!
I calculate 1.062" greater between centerlines. I plan to profile machine periphery of decks for a precision fit of head adapter plates. This "may" allow getting a stonger clamp package. Back to lifter valley stresses, even though we take the "tonage" of valve train stresses away, are there not substantial tensiles applied from combustion pressures? Possibly as high as 1,000 psi when plug lights? Spoke at length with," West Coast Racing Heads" today. "Richards" 2.3L.makes 270 hp at 7k and revs freely to 8,600. He took (1) lb. off of rod,pin,piston over stk. 907 parts.12/1 comp. on gas using ported 907 heads and 48 IDF webbers. Reportedly much better torque curve than stock S2000 engine.Lotus 912 heads have measurably larger ports std.vs 907. Reportedly, some motors are getting boosted to 40 psi-short term.They haven't worked on Volvo B234 head. roverman.
Just measured "Volvo". (2) center cyl's are fine, end ones aren't. End cyl's are 4.125" centers. Too much off-set to be viable. Perhaps it's fitting that a British head,(907/912), winds up, "Hot Rodded" onto a Brit. block. Would be good to hear from someone who has max-ported or cross-sectioned a "912".What if Lotus, tranverse bolt distance was enough to, "stud" outside of deck, into main girdle outboard and cam repacement plug on inboard?? I shall investigate. If so, Mega Boost? Ford raw forged crank? roverman.
The 912 head looks very similar to the 907 head. What's the difference? It looks like you can't flip the cam cogs around...
I'm confused by the Main girdle stud idea. Are you saying locate the studs in a main girdle plate or something?
Nic-all. 912 has bigger ports std. Cam towers should reverse like 907. No word if 912 will port further than 907. "If" bolt holes can be moved further apart-tranversly, this would possibly allow use of studs thru heads, external of Rover block, threaded into, wider than pan rail,main girdle and into thick-wall or solid alum. cam replacement plug on valley side. This could really tie-it-altogether for some serious power loads. If by "cogs", you mean belt pulleys? I believe their on center? Lets remember,driverside head is already forward(.842")= rod thickness. This helps getting belt #2 over there. So far, this looks like only heads to go with. Thanks for the intrest, roverman.
Shame these wouldn't work for you:
http://forum.britishv8.org/read.php?3,8505
Greg
FWIW, OS. int.@1.45",67grms.,3.3sq.in(both). OS. exh.1.282",60grms.,2.58sq.in.(both) Bucket 1.375" dia,52grms. I think when you crunch the math against 2 valve set-up, one might see some advantage.Even if 2 valve areas' were equal, 4 valve would likely out perform on street use,(port velocities/flow under the curve=torque ), with given stroke. Yes the impressive, Ford, D3 head flows BIG numbers, but in Nascar it runs 7K-9300 rpm? Were this head scaled-down to fit 3.7" bores, how would it stack-up? Let the Dyno sort it all out, roverman.
Anything happening here, Art?
Not much.Manton Engineering has Rockwell Tester , but only Diamond,("C" scale) tip). I will likely need ball,(brinell scale) for camshaft. What's your final thoughts on cam/lifter, blank-off? Should you decide to build a 4" bore, Bulbous Rotus Brossum, on Miracle Grow......? roverman
I think it may be necessary with the 4" bore to have better support through the cam journals. Is there a reason not to just weld the blank in instead of trying to do the cold fusion press-fit thing?
Nic and all, I see "sensible" amount of interferance fit as a good thing(.001-.002"). Preloading the valley area and then welding-even better. To install, merely freeze plug and preheat block(2 Walmart electric burners will do), drop in plug vertically and its in.I would also pre-heat prior to welding but keep the welding temp down, so you don't loose your press fit. Of course with a 4" bore, an integral deck plate will contribute strength while allowing favorable rod ratios with longer strokes, and possibly external studs?roverman.
Yes, if you read the "title"-Lexus ! According to "Pete Aardema" ,Lexus 4 valve head is SAME bore spacing. No, it doesn't just bolt on ! Infinity is SAME as sbc(4.4"). He is helping a friend for a waay serious Rover motor for Bonneville, (any head allowed). I suggested they "peep" us. I think "TA" should step-up, good promotion. I suggest a peep of Pete's webbsite. He does a lot of very impressive, top level engine mod's. He's listed in EB welding thread. 2010, I like it so far ! roverman.
OK. I'm not following. It does or doesn't have the 4.24" bore spacing? Are you saying he's putting the Lexus head on the Infinity block? There are a few guys putting that Lexus V8 into the first gen Celica. Maybe you could tap those guys.
Lexus head,4.24 B.S. Infiniti head 4.4" B.S.
OMG!! AWESOME!
(http://www.thor-racing.co.uk/images/THOR_UZ_Race_Engine2.JPG)
The VVT infrastructure can't hurt either. How common are these? Nevermind. I can do my own research. Thanks Art. Very cool.
Those heads will go on a Rover or SBB short block? That's pretty awesome.
Jim
According to Pete Aardema, yes. Their considering for "Bonneville Rover" engine. The Lexus V8's seem to start around $900 complete. I would like to see them run a set of TA heads but it's, their deal. Have'nt heard flow potential on "worked", Toyota head. Unless one can regrind the stock cams for enough lift, looks real pricey. roverman.
Well then Grasshopper, your next task is to acquire a Lexus head gasket and see how the bolt holes and water passages line up.
Jim
Uhh Nic... I think he's talkin to you ? I do like the big, "Hooters" on the front.Can I say that heer ?
I'm already on it. LOL. Now that you mention the "hooters" we could vacuum form something more descriptive for corporate sponsorship... JK.
Now there's a project worth pursuing. In fact, I have a homemade vacuum forming cabinet that I've never tried out. Might be just the thing. Wonder if we could get some heavy plastic sheet in the right color?
Jim
Uh... I hope more than one color ? Whats the worst could happen.. someone ask "how's it runnin", we reply," just look at it, it's runnin ti...s" , nevermind.
For the cam bearing journals stiffiner, girdle, whatever yo want to call it:
Why not machine "plugs" in two pieces (one for each side to "sandwich" the cam journal, leaving a hollow in-between for oil flow) with a step to seat them and maybe a receiver groove for an o-ring. A central hole in the plugs which you could run a piece of, say, 1/2" allthread and nuts to cinch down the plugs as well as add a slight preload to add stiffness to the block. Then you wouldn't have any clearence issues with monster cranks either.
Just a thought
I like the concept. Do you think it's possible to get hands in there to weld the blanks? I suppose you could weld the threaded rod/nut after tightening to lock them in.
Weld or use a jam nut to ensure that nothing comes loose.
Shrinking a ally tube into the journals would 1, seal the oilways, and 2 Stiffen the block, as for big throw crank clearance, I would guess the Pan rails would have to ground to nothing before cam clearance is a probem, But theres no reason the tube could not be substituted for a solid machined bar necked for clearance of crank and also gun drilled for lightness, obviously there would have to be some sort of radial groove uut to supply oil to the mains
LOL! Sound familiar, Art? Great minds, right? Thanks Ian.
Nic and clan, are we going to be stuck in "endless re-runs"? lol ! But seriously folks, jus read the granite tablets laid out in the-FORUM, for all to see. May the h.p. gods smile upon us. roverman.
Clan update, Jus' found a local waterjet co. I'm "leanin"deck plates, not neccessarily with "tractor" crank-Nic. roverman.
How high? 1/2" maybe?
Na' least .75" to fully encompass the "time serts", for head studs. Of course they may be,"counterbored" to drop over perihpery of deck to accomodate desired deck height. Still on-the-bubble, regarding external studs. roverman.
Here is a "Tractor" deck plate.
a211_sleeveplate.jpg
Thanks Jim,. Ya see that Nic ? Are ya strokin to the beat of,"Farmer-in-the del"-Yet. That sukka def look to be wantin a "tractor-like" 3.85"= stroke ! Where is all of this goin ?? We seem to be a semi- cohesive group of mad scientist, bent on both destroying and saving the Rover/sbb and"maybe", even the Caddy, from "Dr Evil of Boring "?? When "Luke" was told to "feel-the-force", I don't think it was, Exlax ? Let's just go with the flow, in a good way. roverman.
Wow, thanks Jim. With that picture it suddenly it makes sense. Curious, in the Rover application, would the deck plate be aluminum? And as Art alludes to, that would/could raise the deck height, enabling the 3.85" stroker. Basically, an aluminum Buick 300.
If I was doing it, I would use 3/8" steel to stiffen the block, along with a girdle on the bottom.Or the thick aluminum like Paul said for a 300 height with 350 crank stroker.
Clan, My first choice for block, heads, deck plates and liners is always alum. I like similar thermal growth rates when possible. Next comes the "tractor sleeve", then I'll tork-it from there, oops,take-it.roverman.
OH! Ok. that makes a ton of sense. Cool! Then I can weld the T6 bores on the bottom of the deck too. That will go a long way to seal up the top real tight. I guess we'd need plates for the intake too, if using the Buick heads. For the Buick head I'd only really need 1/2". The it could be welded to the deck of the block with a 40 thou gap for better weld penetration and that brings the Rover block up to the 300 deck height of 9.5". Once they have the pattern then we could use any thickness, right?
Might as well go with the P76 deck height if you can get a big runner P76 single plane or plates to run the EFI. Really you can make the deck anything you like going that route. Base it on your choice of stroke/rod/piston combo. 3/8 seems like a good starting point, remember the top of the cylinder gets the hottest so you don't want to go too thick. Downside, raising the deck height decreases hood clearance by more than the deck increase due to the manifold spacers.
JB
Yea Nic, If your gonna "slam" that Vega, might as well go dry-sump? Jim, is not the formula, deck height increase divided by 1.414? I'm leanin towards a "tractor sleeve", piano wire and hard blok. 2010,not so boring, roverman
Just an FYI- The gal at TA performance tole me that the 300 deck height is 9.543" and the 231 V6 deck is 9.535"
Your formula is correct Art, but if you use spacer plates to use say for instance a Rover EFI intake that doubles the distance.
JB
Good to know, Wesley. That's the first time I've seen that number. It's always listed as 9.5". Thanks.
Nic and clan. Not sure how any of this pertains to 907 heads on a Rover ? If TA is correct, than std. "300" deck is .583" above std. Rover ? Aussie int. for TA heads on a 300 ? I'm thinkin if one is "bent" on using cast block, might as well step up to 340/350? Hood problems not with-standing. If we read-back, the TA head was"supposed" to be here months ago and will probably be more months before there readily available? Aussies have first dib's, because they at least, partially funded ? I think if 350 sbb folks, were after TA int's/heads like OZ, they'd have something to show for it ? 2 cents/no change,roverman.
That's fair. It's a good idea to start a new thread for the deck plate. I can start one to organize any development that happens for it. That was why I started the "907" thread in the first place. The only connection is the deck plate idea, that you had, to secure the heads to the block. Good idea. AND you're point is you need it to be tall enough for the Time Savers.
Clan, "Time Serts", Lay a 907 head gasket on a Rover deck, and you'll get the idea. Lots of, over the edge. Periperal plate or deck plate is mandatory. A deck plate could conceivably be,"bolted in place", including anerobic adhesive, then put flanged liners through the "sandwich", stand back in awe. roverman.
Quotestand back in awe
LOL!! That's precious.
I was thinking about what you were saying about installing the 907 head as a kit. The tough part is that you sorta need to eliminate the front cover because of the timing belt rig, right?
Seems like minimally, you need a damper seal/housing that seals to front of oil pan ? Since we're using HTD belts, seems natural to drive things like ext. oil-pump/opt. dist.? I opt. for Hz. H2O pump. roverman.
How about an electric oil pump? I think that could be done also.
JB
That is thinking out-side the box, but I think electric is better suited for coolant,(hi vol./low press.). Oil being relatively hi- press/lower volume, will be pretty specific about it's pressure curve. I'm "itchin" to try that sbm. "gerotor" pump, along-side the pan. I would really like to use oil as the coolant, but too many "first" on the build already> roverman.
Oil as the coolant? Hmmm...
OK, if we reduce the lubrication oil requirements... fractured rods with caged needle bearings, same at the top. Needle bearings for the cam, roller cam and roller rockers and all that's left are the mains. Everything else can be low volume low pressure and the coolant pump (using oil) could easily satisfy that requirement, leaving only the mains using higher pressure oil. Solve that one and we're home free. Something like a nitrided/hard chromed journal and a diagonal split outer shell insert maybe.
JB
Jim and clan. Fractured,(straight)/machined outer races with no inners. No needles on wrist pins, needles on mains. I suspect fairly decent pressure/low volume,(small feed holes), will be required to fill in the "time window", phasing of supply hole alignment. I like the idea of higher boil temp,( no steam pockets) and reduceded thermal losses ? I think the "Coates", rotary valve motor used conventional bearings. Don't know anything about the "Walker waterless coolant". roverman.
I don't know if anybody ever tried to develop a cap style roller bearing, so far I've not been able to find any evidence of such an attempt, including the patent database. The problem is always going to be with the load imposed on the races at the split. Split cages for the rollers do exist and it is reasonable to think that the inner and outer races could be designed in such a way as to allow the mating of two pieces to present a continuous race surface to the rollers. I can think of a couple of ways that this could be done. At least one approach could be carried out using readily available parts. Once that is accomplished the rest of the low-pressure low-volume oiling system is simple and oil requirements are very minimal. (Think 2 stroke engines, oil carried by the air/fuel mix or incrementally injected into the main bearings. Very little oil needed.)
At this point, separation of the crankcase and your oil cooled cylinders is no longer necessary and a simple electric circulation pump can serve both needs at once.
Jim
Jim, I think "fractured" outer housing should work. As far as I know, 2 strokes use "open design" of needle bearings. They can use needles on wrist pin because their, peak pressure during power stroke is considerably less than 4 stroke. I suspect because of their, enhanced flow through the crankcase, aids in needle lubrication/cooling. I don't see how a split inner race would work. I don't think their necessary on properly prepaired crank. I consider larger loads on outer race as compressise/extensive vs. lateral arc, and these loads will be greater than a comparable displacement 2 stroke. roverman.
For the most part I agree. Which leaves the issue of the parting line on the mains, and the aluminum block. For that you need a bearing shell, and done properly a 2 piece shell with diagonal splits might do the trick. Since bearing races are stress-relieved it should be possible to precisely slice two shells to produce a single mating pair using an abrasive wheel. There are other details of course but that'd be the gist of it. Then for lubrication, the most reliable method is flood, followed closely by injection or splash, but as we know from sealed bearings, maintaining an oil film is much less of an issue than it is with a sleeve bearing and practically any oil supply at all is enough. In fact, considering the windage, just the oil passing through a dry sump might in fact be enough for the rotating assembly. Doubtful of course if any speed is to be produced (Harleys have long used a small plunger type oil pump) but nonetheless possible.
JB
Jim, I thinking , just like fractured rod tech. for outer housing. The "part line" produced is basically at the molecular level, so metal pic-up should'nt be a problem. I don't see why the bearing housing partline needs to be indexed to rod/main cap part lines ?. A reasonable crush amount should be adequate. Needle bearings won't "grab" the crank journals like inserts do. I have a retired tool maker friend, and in their shop, they would "freeze/cryo", the bearing (no inner race), place in a mill vise, bang with a hammer and "viola", low tech fractured bearing ! I would go so far as to, "score" side of housing at centerline to assure the fault line. roverman.
Jim, I'm thinking , just like fractured rod tech. for outer housing. The "part line" produced is basically at the molecular level, so metal pic-up should nt be a problem. I don't see why the bearing housing partline needs to be indexed to rod/main cap part lines ?. A reasonable crush amount should be adequate. Needle bearings won't "grab" the crank journals like inserts do. I have a retired tool maker friend, and in their shop, they would "freeze/cryo", the bearing (no inner race), place in a mill vise, bang with a hammer and "viola", low tech fractured bearing ! I would go so far as to, "score" side of housing at centerline to assure the fault line. roverman.
Sounds workable Art. Since your friend has experience with that it'd be natural to see about having him make up a set. Just have to pick the right size. What do you think about the thrust bearing? Timken maybe?
JB
When you say Timken for thrust, you mean radial-needle ? To be honest, hadn't thought that far. While we're on it, how bout a crank thrust plate on front side of #1, with needles both sides, behind damper ? roverman.
Art, have you seen the Q45 Infinity heads on a small block chevy?
2_195_SSPX0024_1_1.jpg
My, my, my.....
Jim, yes-just now. Looks like something Pete Aardema would be involved in? I've read that "Zeus" heads,the god of hp.?, are the biggest in std. flow #'s for Lotus, but "Very" expensive. If I can make around 300 cfm. otta 907's, save save a ton-o cash. roverman.
Jim, Yes, just now. Looks like the work of Pete Aardema ? But Wait, for just a few $'s more...why not ploppem onna LS alum. block , or -OR, better-yet...a CADDY ? Kinda like a "Big Boy" Northstar ? roverman.
Art,240Sx/S14 heads look like a better fit. They have withstood 9000 RPM and 500 Hp turboed.4.4 bore spacing. Here are some pics:
240sxs14.jpg
3-99-7933-l-k8MUYWwv1hzUDTT2esg4Q.jpg
Jim, Thanks. Got 4.9L bore spacing ? ?
Art, Yes I do! By tape measure 4 3/8"(4.375) Probably 4.4 like Chevy. Head bolt pattern 3.5" up and down,4.5" left to right. Skinny heads, probably limited to stock heads. Porting, polishing ,gasket match,larger unshrouded valves.
At the risk of repeating, os. valves are: int. 1.450",.280" stem x 4.479 oal. and 67 grms. exh.: 1.282",.280" stem 4.479 oal. and 60 grms. I would like to speak to a skilled, "port shop", with personal experience with this head, that woun't feel compelled to charge $1,500 per head ? Maybe I'm out of touch ? I mean, bare/used, "Zeus" head starts at $2,100 ? roverman
Ahh it's right here 8-/
It looks as thought there is room to move the head bolt holes on the head
in 1/2" on each side DSCF0013.JPG
There would probably have to be some welding involved to get the cam towers to seal.
I don't know if the new holes would hit water
but if that isn't a problem , or an easily fixed problem I would think that this
would be a much better solution than adding a deck and sleeves.
I don't have a head so I'm basing all this on online photos but I'm ready to start the project :-)
Yeah, That does look like there is room. Is that a Duratec or Lotus head? Duratec has only 4.02 bore spacing.
Sorry if this has been asked and answered, but how do you deal with the fact that one of the two heads will have the intake and exhaust on the wrong side? The ports aren't symmetric, nor are the valves the same size, so I wouldn't think you could easily swap intake and exhaust.
Gentlemen, please read,"all" the threads. Justin, you want to move ea. head bolt/boss, inward .531"/ea.? Much more work than deck. Billet cams must be made, preferably "LS" firing order. Heads and towers invert, side/side, or "Medusa",(snakes-on-top). Good Luck, roverman.
"Yeah, That does look like there is room. Is that a Duratec or Lotus head? Duratec has only 4.02 bore spacing."
No it's a 907 head without the cam towers to illustrate that there is room to move the head bolt holes on the head without hitting anything mechanical. I don't know if the moved holes will hit water and if they do if it's workable. I'm arm chair engineering, I have no 907 heads to look at but a wealth of 215 blocks.
Art, short of adding a deck plate and sleeving, one couldn't move the cylinder head bolts on the block deck...correct? Not having a head to compare I'm probably missing something important. If moving the head bolt holes in .531" on the head to match the rover block is indeed workable what else would make it a requirement to use a deck plate on the block to use the 907 heads?
Justin, and all, anyone considering this conversion, should get a new/used, 907 head gasket. That's when those "agonizing re-appraisals", set-in. Plenty of folks have went as far as "plopping" a pair of 907's on a Rover block. To date, as far as I know, that's as far as it got ! No Pete Aardema, but "maybe" Rover ? Unless one were to run "lots" of external lines,coolant, oil press/drainage, welding will be mandatory! What's the most expendable/changable item,(including developement labor), block or heads ? You move the bolt holes in the head, now what head gasket? Not Rover ! Making (4) billet cams is mandatory! (8) sleeves that woun't "sink", in the block is mandatory! Scratch- built,intake and exhaust system, mandatory! Pretty serious project, for even the most skilled. Do you feel lucky ? roverman.
Yep I spent some time looking at photos of the head gaskets and realized this was way beyond my capabilities. It looks like even with a deck plate and new liners there will be coolant flow problems under the exhaust ports, that is there will be no flow at all unless external lines are run and so on. Good luck to those brave souls who move forward with this project.
Well technically you can just have a head gasket made:
http://www.cometic.com/custom.aspx
Any thinkness too. I was seriously considering this before my experimentation with the piston recess thing I did on my heads. I do still think the deck plate is probably necessary but it's worth fleshing out any ideas. Cooling under the exhaust ports is a good point...
What I was getting at was not that the head gaskets are different, one could bang out a copper head gasket if need be but that the 907 heads appear to be a bit wider than the rover deck, and that being said there would be no block under the 907 exhaust port coolant passages even with a deck plate unless external lines were run.
Why didn't Lotus figure this out first so our or Arts job would be easier :-)
Justin and clan, doesn't, "halft" to be Art's job. Any one else ? Rumor was Rover, had (2) , 32 v engines/cars and (1) was destroyed on "Autobaun" ? Makes for great print, but weak on supporting evidence. Primary purpose of periperal or deck adapter plates, is not to seal compression, Rover deck will do, but to properly transfer/"angle", feed and drain oil and coolant, with-out external lines. Fewer external lines on anything, to me, is fewer potential leaks. roverman.
AND you were looking at something like 750 thou for the plate thickness, right? So you could mill channels for the drain back and water ports in the top.
I know this is a long shot but would any one know where I could find technical drawings and dimensions for a 907/912 head and a Rover head?
Nic' and clan, using 2 pc. peripheral plates, they could be thicker with no effect on deck height. Angled holes for proper distribution. 2 pc would waste less material and allow step/mitre fitting to block.roverman.
I like that idea. So you mean that some of the deckplate would be below deck, right?. This is probably a bad idea but just tossing it out there: what about milling down the block deck like 120 thou or something to tune the plate position/thickness? Could end up with a pretzel block I suppose...
Nic and clan. Initial build, I envision (2), "L" shaped pcs., profiled to interlock around peripery of deck. No increase of deck and minimal deck machining,(it's weak enough already) ! No monster crank, therefore no need to add deck height. Motor will be wide-enough , with-out. Probably the Rover, flanged, replacement liners. My stg. II Buick heads ,"want" the tractor sleeves.roverman.
Nic and clan, peripheral deck adapter plate will be machined flush, with minimum clean-up of Rover decks. I now have potential to buy (2)" Zeus", raw cast heads. I need to talk with anyone that has worked on same,(especially flow bench types).It's decision making time for me. Thanks, roverman.
Like I need another tangent. "Richard", of WCRCH, claims the ported version flows 425 cfm.! Anybody got bore spacing for same? What if it's 4.25" ? Way wicked Rover ? roverman.
How much can a Rover crank stand anyway? I think "somebody" posted a ("400" hp.shot), was workin ? roverman.
is anything happening here or was it too much work to make it worth while?
Handle here is "DiDueColpi". Fred alluded to having done the impossible. No pictures or dyno report, as of yet, but we are "hopeful". Fred ??
The heads are on the engine and all the cam drives work. The intake looks like it means business, just stalled out on the crank/ cam issue. Home maintenance, trip to Spain and building an ITS Acura and a Soverin Volvo are kinda eating up all the spare time.
Did I mention that I just bought a 82 TR8 in a basket and the clutch is starting to slip on the Esprit?
Cheers
Fred
I've been following this thread for a while now, and it's certainly a cool idea, but at the risk of being a heretic, why not just get a Northstar and eliminate all the problems?
I think people here don't want the easy way, but like to make it their own way.That is most of the fun in it. Plus scrounging for unobtanium parts and adapting and making your own parts. Also what if the factory did this or that.
Well put Jim. If we wanted "easy", we'd all build sbc's . That "antique" Lotus 907 head ,makes 257 hp,2.3L gas/carbs, all motor, in road racing. Two comparably prepped, on a Rover, should make for lead-dog status.
Has anything happened with this? Any pictures of the progress?
Justin, Fred Key has the gauntlet, on this one. You might "pm" him. Cheers, roverman.
Why bother, other than the engineering challenge. Drop in a Jaguar AJ8, quad cam, 32 valve 4 ltr, 290bhp/290 torque out of the box. Plenty of them at the breakers!
David and clan, "We don't do this because it's easy, we do it bcause it's hard". Modifying our lbc's is not easy. Many new cars can be bought with ample features, performance, etc. Why bother, indeed ? For better or worse, "some" like the idea of an RV8 based swap. Maybe because of Costello or the factory GT's. We seem to be a close knit group, of strongly independant taste. Cheers, roverman.
WOW, Sept. 2012, how time flies... I consider making (4) modular cams, more of a challenge, than adapting the 907's, to the RV8.. Time will tell. Cheers, roverman.
I had the good fortune to meet Pete Aardema, last night. Pete and his associate, are top notch, head swappers ! Like 4 valve Porshe heads on a BBC, or Subaru heads, on a Model A block,etc,etc. Pete and crew have been successful at Bonneville, for over 10 years. We discussed at length, the methods of making Lotus 907 heads, work on a Rover. He doesn't think I need a lobotamy, and at least for now, I'll take his word for it. I'll "try" to post pic's, when possible. Onward, roverman.
Modular cams are progressing well. Big question is, "how crooked", after heat treat.Heat treater say's .002" TIR, is not possible. I may need to grind cam journal areas down to 25 mm, for accurate surfaces, suitable for needle bearing support. Plan is to use Honda B16, adjustable cam sprockets,(round tooth).
(4) 907 cams weigh 30.24 lbs. ! I think modular should be 40% less ? Honda B16 sprockets should work by step-turning the 1" spine to 22mm. Next test is to "cryo-split" the 1" needle bearings,(3 center cam journals). Cheers, roverman.
Looks like some one else is playing the Lotus head game.
http://www.speedhunters.com/2014/09/im-sorry-youre-going-mgb/
Appears to be well financed at least.
Jim
They could at least, give Jim Stabe credit for the "Pfat" idea ? Whaats the budget, for a lap record ? Needs Batman to drive. So far out, why not mid ? Good Show, roverman.
Hi guys,
Just wanted to say, that the idea for this came about in 1995, so it was well before this forum was formed.. The first V8 was actually bought in 2007, so it's been planned for a long time, it's only now when I've got the opportunity to build it..
Work is going well on the engine.. We are about to have the liners fitted, we've done all of the mods to get the block able to be machined for the standard lotus bolt pattern.
We have designed and made new bottom end caps for the block to make it strong. We will be using the standard'ish spec Lotus cams and timing,mas we are using a steel flat plane crank..
In the new year, the new front cover for the timing belts will be made and hopefully by April/May we will be ready to fire her up!
There is a full build of the car and engine at www.facebook.com/APSMotorsports..
We're quite open about the build.. It's been my life Lind dream to build this engine and our MGB GT3....
Cheers Peeps!
Jason, what are you doing about the head studs if I might ask? The bolt bossed in the block could be a bit stronger and certainly may be considered marginal for the sort of engine it sounds like you are building, then relocating the studs adds another question. Just curious.
Jim
Jason, Will you be using a "girdle", in concert with the new caps ? A crank like that, in a 90 deg. V8, especially with moderate stroke, creates sizeable force/couple harmonics, directly to the main bearings/bulkheads. Target hp. is ? Not using a Coscast block ? Good Luck. roverman.
Pete Aardema says this engine build is covered in this quarter of "Racing Engine Design", GB. Where to buy ? roverman.
Online here?
https://www.highpowermedia.com/c/31/race-engine-technology
M.
I bought the magazine with the car in,they are hoping to develop a kit to market the heads !
Billet sump,with longer studs to strengthen the bottom end up, I'd be interested in that,
There's no mention of the engine actually running,let alone a dyno session.
But should be going by the fall.
"Kit to market the heads", ok you got the "kit", now all you need is a 180 deg. billet crank and bottom end strong enough to take all of the harmonic hammering, fab-up a well designed IR inlet system and exhaust, OR slice and dice (4), 907 cams, like Fred did, to use the V8 crank. Sounds easy.... roverman.
Got the magazine at Barnes and Noble.
The two pictures shown were mock-ups.
Twin turbos, intercooled "each turbo capable of 650 hp."
"Camshafts specified for an output of 600-800 hp per cylinder bank."
"Maximun rpm,9300" "estimates engine should be capable of 1200-1300 hp using about 30 psi boost."
I think that's too much to ask of a Rover block.
Jim
Jim, I think you're right ! A few 1/4 mile passes-maybe, but the big-N, in Germany ? Big funding and big hp., I'd start with a Coscast block. Bang for Buck, would be TA heads, just not as cool. Onward, roverman.