Hello All,
I am new here but not new to the British car or V8 worlds.
I grew up around my Father's automotive shop which specialized in British cars, turning wrenches for him on occasion.
My best friend growing up was into american V8s so I also spent many days working with him on his cars.
I bought my TR8 about 10 years ago and instantly started planning upgrades, including a more powerful engine.
I poured through all of the UK tuners websides, bought and read both David Hardcastle books right away, and then the Des Hammel book after it came out in 2005.
I am finally at the point where I am making my dream of building up a big rover V8 a reality but need some input. I seem to have consumed too much info and while anything seems possible, need input on what is practical.
Here is what I am currently have:
complete running 1996 4.6L engine assembly with no leaking liners.
complete 1964 buick 300 heads
Here is my plan:
reliner block with tophat liners which will allow for at least a 96mm bore.
The local shop that puts tophat liners in rovers wants $3000+ for this, I have talked to D&D but they were cagey as to how much bore I can go. I do not want to spend $1500+ for tophat liners and not get any significant displacement out of the job. Anywhere else besides D&D can do this job for less than $2000? Also, V8 developments in the UK says they can go all the way up to 97mm, any thoughts on this?
port/polish 300 heads and fit larger valves, at least 1.7 intake and 1.5 exhaust.
How big can I go on the valves in this head? I am willing to have new seats installed. Suggestions on exact valve setups others have used would be nice.
Assuming I can get at least 96mm bore I want to keep the stock 4.6 stroke and reuse the stock crank & rods with new rod bolts (does ARP make bolts for the 4.6 rods? if so what part #?)
For pistons I would like to go forged but other than that I assumed I would get a set custom made. I know that off-the shelf would be cheaper so if anyone knows of any off-the shelf pistons that would work with the above setup please let me know.
I was planning on getting a Cloyes true roller timing setup. Anyone have thoughts on their street roller set VS Orig true roller set?
ARP head stud kit seems like a must.
For valvetrain I want to stay hydraulic. My intent for this engine is street use with occasional track days. I want a free reving engine that will pull to a solid 6K. That said my thoughts were:
stock valvetrain with outrigger posts and possibly roller tip rockers such as the ones sold by TSI automotive for $425.
I have not decided on a cam but given my goals, my thoughts were to get a fairly radical cam and tame it down with Rhoads lifters. Cam suggestions and valve spring suggestions would be appreciated.
Fuel delivery will be via Megasquirt and Ford EDIS.
I am currently fabricating a one per-cylinder throttle body setup to bolt on top of the stock 4.6 EFI intake using individual 1.5" diameter throttle boddies.
Thoughts and suggestions welcome, especially specific part combinations that work.
Thanks,
Robert
Two bits of info I forgot to add:
1. Maybe it's not realistic but I was shooting for at least 300 RWHP
2. I want to be able to run on premium pump gas, what is the maximum compression I can run?
Robert,
Difficult to achieve what you want without going to a longer stroke.
Real steel in the UK do a 5.0 litre stroker kit which includes forged pistons which will fit into a 4.6 block witjh only a little relieving of the block required.
They sell this for a very reasonable £1626.00 inc VAT so for export it should be £1414.00 + shipping and taxes at your end.
http://www.realsteel.co.uk/
Real Steel are also now producing the Merlin Heads as listed and with the dyno read out for when mounted on the 5.0 engine.
As an afterthought, with the Buick 300 heads which I have on my 4.35 engine, you will need a flat top piston to achieve a decent compression ratio.
This recent post from Dan Jones on the subject of the Merlin and Buick 300 Heads shoul be of help.
http://forum.britishv8.org/read.php?6,12170
Kevin.
Robert, Welcome aboard. Whats your "total" budget for engine build? Auto,5spd or 6 spd.? Completed vehicle weight? My sugestion is to read every post here about Rover/Buick builds. May want to peep V8 Buick site for sbb's. Here will you find data not covered in the "books". Regarding re-sleeving your block for $3K-pass. You "mite" buy a Wildcat block for that or for a fraction , a new Coscast block, (demand a sonic report). I'm assuming you have a "pink", paint code block with thicker alum. around sleeves? Pressure Check is cheep,relatively ,and a good basic test for cracks in water jackets.If I had a pink block that passed, I mite have it sonic checked,$80., with sleeves in place, yes sounds weird but I had it done. They must "calibrate" the meter on similar sleeve/alum. of "known" thickness, say caliper thickness at "dogbone" on deck? If your destined to re-sleeve, find a shop that specializes in or does a lot.They'll be much less and "probably better". Watch there procedure. Suggest using, "Loctite Sleeve Retainer"-anerobic sealer/locker made for this. If they look like Chipanzees with baseball bats....If you decide to keep your sleeves, you could o-ring the deck for cheep insurance. Isky Cams rents the tool and the copper wire prob. about $5-$10.If you go roller rockers,sugest 1.6/1 ratio= easier to get lift with these little base circle cams. We don't have the final numbers-yet, but looks like the "Merlin " head should beat the "worked 300" on bang-per-$. TA's for under $3k? If you "ditch" the Rover rods, you could off-set grind the crank to 3.4" stroke,$250., and use sbc rods, a bargain, and say sbc 305" pistons? Good Luck on your research, roverman.
One option to do the 3.78" bore would be to pack in the 96mm liners. Then you could use some of the Ford 2.3 "truck" pistons with a 1.33" compression height. Then use some Eagle 6" Chevy rods. 2.1" journal. That leaves the piston a mere 15 thou below deck. Less after you deck for the liners.
Leave the sleeves a couple thou above deck for better cylinder sealing. Relatively inexpensive set of rods and pistons. There is really no need to go forged on the pistons for a street machine IMO if you don't need custom sizes. The Ford "truck" pistons are Hypereutectic.
Rods: $200
http://www.flatlanderracing.com/eagle-chevysb.html
Pistons: $190 (two sets of 4)
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/UEM-3185H-STD/
Based on my recent sessions on rolling road or chassis dyno to US people I´d say that if you aim at 300 rwp you might have to spend some cash. You would need really good flowing heads and usually this comes at highish revs so you also need sturdy short motor -> more cash. Having said that, I don´t know your budget but simply replacing that 3,5 with std size 4,6 litre engine makes a huge difference. With good Rover heads and nice cam you will be close to 300 hp at flywheel and TR7 being a light car this equals to 4 sec 0-60 sprints and low 13s at strip.
As for the block, most specialists in UK seem to feel that factory hardware is good enough. Mains being crossbolted and rods having cap head bolts. I reused the on my engine but fitted ARP head studs. I reused also factory rods, crank and pistons so my short motor is simply a used short motor. I´ll send you a PM later, I am planning to have a TR7 convertible for the next project.
Heads are definitely where you should focus your money. That's why I was suggesting going with the very common Chevy/Ford parts. Higher quality for less.
If it was me I'd consider the offset grind on the crank. For the money stroke makes the biggest difference in displacement. If you just keep it under control, Don't be like me! LOL. Something like what Art is thinking for his Rotus Brossom engine, 3.3in. stroke combined with your 3.78" bore and you end up at 296ci.
Why not find a 300 engine, alloy intake, flywheel and bellhousing. Punch it + .030 for 5 liters and with a lot less effort and money get 300+ BHP at the rear wheels.You're looking at < 80 lbs difference in weight.
Now Dave.....that's WAY to easy and makes to much sense!
OK then, use the 300 and put the 350 crank in it. More trouble and expense, but more displacement too. About 5.6L I think?
Jim
ok, Thanks for all the responses!
I guess I should clairify a few things:
1. no $ for new heads, so it's either the 300 or 4.6 rover heads with work done on them.
2. I am definitely going with the 4.6 block, so a SBB is out of the question.
3. stroking is only an option if it will not hinder my goal of building a free reving motor that will pull solidly to 6k
I also was really hoping to get some concrete answers to the following questions from my orig post above:
Are there other shops besides D&D that can install 96mm bore tophat liners for less than $2000?
V8 developments in the UK says they can go all the way up to 97mm bore, any thoughts on this?
How big can I go on the valves in the 300 head?
Opinions on Cloyes street roller set VS Orig true roller set?
Thanks!
Robert
There's not a thimble full of difference between good quality timing sets. They are chump change with $$$ you seem ready to spend.
You seem dead set to spend $10,000 on a 300 HP engine when you don't need to. Go for it and good luck.
ok, this is not the first time I have gotten this reaction so I have to ask, what am I going to be doing that costs so much $?
If I was buying a wildcat 4" bore block and their top of the line heads I could see that, but even the MOST expensive 4.6 based UK tuner long motors barely touch $10,000.
I've already got the 4.6 engine and 300 heads so lets run this down here:
tophat liner job: $2k
Cloyes true roller $112
ARP head stud kit $128
TSI roller tip rocker set $425
Rhoads lifters $176
D&D outrigger posts $200
Cam est $160
valves/springs/retainers est$400
Pistons est$500
Total = $4101
Even if I stroke it (new rods + crank grind) and have bigger valve seats put in that's a far cry from $10K
-Robert
Indeed. I've spent about $6700 on my engine with some major modifications:
The whole engine is balanced. The parts are blueprinted to eachother. The connecting rod beams are shaved and deburred by my machine shop. The pistons are Ford 255 60 over with custom valve reliefs and cut for Chevy pins. The block is sleeved with Westwood flanged liners (3.7) bored 40 over. I had the cam bearings indexed and new smaller oil holes drilled.
The heads are '64 300 with Stage I v6 valves. 1.73 int. 1.5 ex. TA springs. Hand ported by my machine shop. TA solid lifters with oil holes on the lobe. Erson custom cam. New rocker shafts. D&D shaft gussets. Harland Sharpe 1.6 roller rockers. Comp Cams HiTech 5/16" rods.
I should make more than 300 hp. We'll see. Maybe it'll just blow up. LOL. I could have gotten better pistons and rods and still have some to spare before I get to 10K.
I bought my liners from UK when the exchange was at 1.6 something. They cost about $600 or so. Now the exchange rate is at 1.49. Good time to buy. Then I had my local machine shop press'em in. They happen to have experience with pressing sleeves in aluminum blocks already. That cost about $500. Total roughly $1100.
Going larger on the bore for the sleeves is a gamble but starting with a 4.6 vs. a 4.0 is beneficial. It's up to you. I think it's a cool idea but there is some risk involved. I'd do it but I've sorta got a devil may care attitude about this type of thing. Makes life worth living! The lure of larger displacement is especially compelling to me. I figure it probably is for you too. Some mountains just need climbin'. You feel me?
On the issue of free reving... hmm. Seems a bit relative. The limiting factors for strong high RPM with these engines is in the valvetrain. The shafts will tend to break, hence the D&D shaft gussets. I don't think this is what you are talking about though. You're talking about throttle response perhaps? Some functions that may contribute to what you are looking for is a well balanced rotating assembly. You could lighten the flywheel. Maintaining a decent rod ratio around 1.7ish. I just don't have enough experience with these engines to speak to the feel you are looking for while advocating increased stroke. Someone that my give you another point of view on this is Woody at the WedgeShop. Good guy. Lot's of experience with our engines.
The stage 1 V6 valves are a pretty tight fit. I mean it's close. You might be able to get away with another 20 thou. 1.75 and 1.5 in.
I'll vote for the true roller set...
It's all relative of course, but I think the point David was making is not that you'll be spending 10K exactly, but that you can get to your target for a lot less with a slightly different approach. You want 300hp-NA and a 6 grand redline. There are several ways to get there but the cheapest is increased displacement and the cheapest displacement increase is to start with the largest stock bore and stroke. The 4.6 isn't a bad starting point, but there does come a time when it makes good sense to trade weight for power. You seem set on using the block you have. You also seem set on sleeving it. That is a considerably bigger expense than moving up to a bigger block. Plus your rod ratio will not favor a free revving engine as much as the one of the bigger block would. So you are fighting an uphill battle on three fronts, displacement, cost, and rod ratio. You can still get there that way, but as David pointed out, for a true 300hp output don't expect to get there on a budget. BTW, if you take Nic's $6700 and add the TA heads you do hit that $10K figure so it's not that out of line.
Jim
Well put, Jim. The TA head crack is pretty funny even though it was meant to support the 10K argument. LOL! I also neglected to mention that number also includes a Harcourt intake from S. Australia I stayed up until 1 am to purchase for $290 shipped. Ha ha ha. And the Holley 650 double pumper with Adjust-a-Jet blocks. I think you get my point though. And Jim's point and Dave's hyperbole is valid as well. The budget piles up pretty quick.
I actually started out my above post thinking I was going to suggest sticking with the stock bottom end with a piston upgrade for better CR then spend all your money on the top side. The bulk of my engine expenses went to custom machine work. A big share of that was in the block. It is still necessary to prep the block separate from the sleeving expense. The rest went to the heads, mostly. The heads make up probably $2500 if not more. I'm not looking at my cost sheet right now but I spent a lot on the heads. That's where the power is so that's where the money went.
Some blocks need the flanged liners either way. In my case I had a 4.0 block to start with. I'm not sure if it is cracked behind the liners but the probability is high so I moved to flanged sleeving because it was necessary. I briefly considered moving to the larger 96mm liners but I figured I was already in the margin on the 4.0 block so I changed my mind. The 96mm liners are more expensive too by a few hondo so that factored in.
It sounds like you have a solid bottom end. You could start with that and a piston swap. Keep the cost low there. The stock short block is good. Then focus your capital on the top end. Solid induction, heads, and functional headers will go a long way toward getting to your NA 300hp goal. Shoot for 275hp. That's a lot in a 2700 lb. car. I regularly take out my 2850 lbs. SRT4 with 245hp for high speed track days, and it's a total blast! Granted the turbo does afford me a pretty wide powerband but I still do pretty well against totally prepped BMWs in the long straight. FUN!
OK you asked for input/opinions and you got'em. All practicality aside, the real question is this: Is this just something you have to do? I'm not trying to get all philosophical on you... well, yeah I am, but somethings are just about doing something regardless of logic. If I started my project with practicality in mind then I would not have started with a Chevy Vega. This whole hobby is a waste of money. I set out to build my engine using parts from many engines just to see if I could do it. I took a long time to do it to facilitate the expense. The journey has been very satisfying and worth every penny. If that is what this project is for you then do it!
I will close by saying one of the criteria for my engine build was to build it as tight on budget as possible while not sacrificing quality. That number is a slim as I could make it, and it went a LONG way. I had a LOT of custom work done for that number. I saved the money waiting for deals to come my way on the parts. I didn't include the additional $1300 in mistakes and plan changes I made to get there. I recouped a bunch of that by selling the parts I amassed but I couldn't make up for about $600 in wasted machining costs because I changed my mind. I'm ok with it because it was about the climb. You feel me?
.
Robert,
Lots of good advice above, With the the 4.6 it's fairly easy to get to around 280 flywheel BHP after that it gets progressively and rapidly more expensive. For 280BHP you need stage 3 heads a cam thats drivable on the road a ported Edelbrock performer manifold and an Edelbrock 500 carb and with a rev limit around 6K you can get away with the standard rocker gear but end support brackets for the shafts would be advisable.
I would just have the 4.6 block pressure tested and if ok,run it as is. you will be running it at a lower temperature than the Range Rover spec which is partly what causes the problem
Your Buick 300 heads with the valves you already have and some decent port work to the throats and bowl areas should flow roughly the equivalent of stage 3 Rover heads as they already have much larger port runners.
The problem with the 300 heads is the large 54cc. chambers so this will need to be reduced down to approx 47cc and with a flat top piston you can get to around 9.75/1 comp ratio.
This is where it starts to get tricky as with the standard bore size you are into custom pistons and possibly rods unless you use the combo I suggested on another thread, and that is to use the modular ford 4.6 big bore piston and a set of bushed 4.0 rods which should work out to be quite economic.
Factor in the cost of a full balance a flywheel and decent clutch.
For over 300 BHP you will need to take the heads to the next stage and improve the induction system either with a fully ported EFI manifold trumpet base and plenum with the throttle body increased to 71mm. approx £600 .00 in the UK and a megasquirt ECU .or proper throttle bodies
Also factor in all new bearings including the cam bearings, gasket set, a decent set of chrome moly push rods and add a sum for machining work to the heads, possibly the decks the rocker pillars to correct valve gear geometry, the valve guides, valve reliefs in the pistons, it all adds up!
My 4.35 engine built on a 3.9 block with KB chevy 305 pistons,chevy rods and a 4.2 crank, Buick 300 heads to the above spec came out around £3250.00 say $5250.00 and I had all the other parts to make it run.
not familiar with the TSI rockers but they do sound very cheap do they actually fit the rover engine?
Hope thats a help.
Pistons from here
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270321335131&viewitem=&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT
Kevin.
Now, the other side of the story. You said a SBB was out of the question but gave no reason so we must make assumptions about that. If because you already have the 4.6 short block, I know where you can probably pick up a 300 reman short block for somewhere around $400. Recover the $100 or more your 4.6 is worth, slap on your 300 heads, good valve springs, a decent cam, induction and exhaust. and you're going to be right at your 300 hp/ 6000 rpm goal for very little money, certainly under 2 grand at worst and conceivably less than 1 grand, depending on the deals you can find and the parts you already have. True you pick up 80 lbs but NOT ONE of the guys who has done it has made even the first complaint. That has to tell you something.
Jim
Technically, he needs another 10hp for the extra weight so let's call it 310hp.
Since I've recently weighted my stroker engine and came up with 280 lbs., less the starter and headers. Even if I add 20 lbs. for that, I'm still at 300 lbs. dry. So swap out the block with a 300 and you got 380 lbs. That's pretty frickin' awesome!
I'm still trying to figure out how my engine weighs less than it should. I'll handle that in my other thread though.
So the question is, Jim, will it rev "freely" though? It's got the rod ratio, that's for sure. The crank is externally balanced. That's a drawback. You run one of these, right?
Jim Stuart and Mike Moore both run the 300, and a handfull of others. I've not personally run the 300 but my 340 is coming along. I got spoiled running the blower on my 215 and quickly realized that torque is where it's at, regardless of your redline, and wanting both I naturally opted to increase the displacement. It may not be cheaper to build a Buick to stock, but on a price per cubic inch basis it's kinda hard to beat. My cost to build this engine is less than Nic's budget and perhaps significantly so. I haven't added it all up and I'm not going to. But I've spent much less on the heads. Nic is right, that's where the performance is. But instead of spending the money to get the heads to flow I just decided to force feed them. Not a whole lot of money spent there either, but it's not everyone who can make their own blower intake so yes, I cheated. I did put a bit into the bottom end, Scat rods and forged pistons. And I hope the wrist pins don't cave in the first time it goes over 7 grand. But if they do... well I just may have to start all over at that point with a whole different car. I've had this one a long time and abused it horribly and if you know where to look it is pretty obvious. Be kinda fun to start over, correct all of the mistakes and make a whole batch of new ones.
Jim
Robert - then there's always the 100 h.p. shot of progressive nitrous for when you OCCASIONALLY need that extra 100+; that's the route I'll be taking with my 4.6 that's arriving tomorrow!
Thanks again for all the responses.
People seem to want to know my motivations for my choices.
So, you may not agree with some or all of my reasons, but here they are. I have though them out over the past 10 years and am pretty much set on these things so argument over them would be a bit pointless IMO.
There are multiple reasons why I want to use the 4.6 block
First and most important to me is the weight.
As pointed out it is easy to compensate for the weight in straight line performance, but weight affects handling as well.
I am building my car as a streetable track car and have factored weight into everything I have done to it.
I chose to stick with 13" aftermarket wheels for weight/handling reasons.
I completely striped out the interior panels, carpet, and factory sound deading (it had all gone bad anyways), which, in case you were curious, weighed a total of 60 lbs.
I straight piped the exhaust as much for weight as sounding good (thats 2 cats, 2 mufflers, and 2 resonators)
I replaced the factory cooling fans and starter with lighter aftermarket units as much for weight as function (my originals still worked)
I relocated the battery to a more forward position in the trunk.
I replaced the heavily weighted convertible front bumper with a much lighter coupe front bumper.
Second, I bought my TR8 beacuse it is a rare, unusual British car with some performance potential.
As such, when modifiying the car I care as much about keeping the "spirit" of the car as much as possible, even at the expense of cost or all out performance. That said, when I think of the "logical successor" to the original 3.5L Rover V8 in my TR8, I think of all generations of Rover V8s that came after it, so that is what's going in my car. Personally, when I look TR8s that have been built up with a 350, T5, and Ford 9" rear I don't see very much TR8 anymore. I don't want that.
Third, I can certainly appreciate the benefits of torque, but at least for me, torque is not king (yes I know HP is torque per unit time). My current engine has a torque curve that looks like the rock of Gibraltar, which is the only reason my car is at all quick, but as a car enthusiast and and a manual transmission enthusiast I hate with a passion the effective 4500rpm redline that comes with it. A friend of mine has a 13 second Dodge Dart with a built up 360 in it, and it's the MOST BORING 13 second car I've ever experienced because he built it as "torque monster" that doesn't rev worth a damn.
The most enjoyable V8's I've ever driven were the solid lifter commando 273 in my friend's 1967 barracuda, the 4.6 DOHC in my cousin's 1996 cobra, and the 2003 Z06 I test drove. Why? cause they loved to rev!
That said one person I talked to suggested I build up a 4.0L Rover V8 instead of a 4.6L because of it's shorter stroke and longer rods, but I do recognize that displacement is the easiest way to make more power and that it would be even more difficuilt to meet my power goals with a 4.0L
Speaking of the 4.0, castlesid suggested I run 4.0L rods in the 4.6L. I've thought about this but was concerned I would not have enough compression height on the piston. According to my calculations with the 4.0L rod and the factory 4.6 crank I would only have a maximum of 31.384mm = 1.2356" of compression height with the piston all the way to the top of the bore.
In looking around it seems like most pistons have much more compression height than that.
Mr. T, while I would prefer not to use nitrous, part of the reason I want to go with forged pistons is so I can in case I change my mind or don't meet my power goals.
Well, I'm sure that's more than enough of my reasons for everyone so I'll end it here.
-Robert
Hmmm. If I wanted a 'logical successor' to the 3.5 with its 2.8" stroke, an engine that can spin up pretty good, I wouldn't be putting in a big stroker crank.
Have you thought about offset grinding a 4.0 crank to get a 2.9875" stroke with a 2" journal, using long rods to reduce the piston acceleration? That will get you a smooth 4.2 with a reasonably short stroke.
I'm reading Hardcastle's book about tuning Rover engines. He seems to think that the 4.6 isn't as smooth as the 4.0, and recommends using the 4.0. I can only imagine that the Buick 300 crank will make is even less smooth.
But, as they say, your money, your choice.
Well put, Robert. Your issues with weight are exactly why I worked so hard to build my engine and why I chose it. I was regretting not just going with an LS over the past couple years but now that I've actually gotten the chance to weigh things I'm really glad I built this engine. At the end it's looking like it's going to come in at a mere 300 lbs. That beats the LS by 45 lbs.
My intentions are identical to yours. I have stripped my car down to it's essentials for the sake of weight savings for track days. I built a wicked straight-cut T5 dog-box to sit behind it for the significant reduction in power loss through the trans. It also helped me save 30 lbs.
It just so happens that just this morning I weighed my car with some simple chassis scales. I've worked very hard to balance my car as much as possible but I still ended up with a little more weight in the front than I wanted: 184 lbs heavy in the front. My weight dist is 53/47 with a total weight of 2616 lbs. with me in it and 80 lbs. of fuel. If I added another 80 lbs. to the front then my dist goes to 55/45. Not terrible but I want to do all I can... I guess technically "all I can" would have meant chopping the firewall and moving the engine back farther. I was able to move it back 2" right up to the firewall though. That had to help. Here's a pic:
DSC03787.jpg
DSC03788.jpg
I like the idea of using the 4.0 rods. You could pair that with the Ford 4.6 forged pistons. Nice pistons. and your rod ratio would be up almost 1.9! That's pretty hot. I bet you could build a pretty bitchin' 4.6 that way.
You could even add more stroke and use the Ford 4.6 stroker piston (1.19). You could do the 3.3 stroke with a small offset grind.
I feel ya Robert/Nic regarding the weight issue. My car is under 2200 with 50.5/49.5 (or maybe 51.5/48.5 - can't quite remember) balance and could probably shave another 50 with switching from LT-77 to T-5 and certainly more is to be had (those b lever shocks/rear leaf springs are freakin heavy), but since this a street car that's good enough. I had been contemplating possibly replacing my 3.9 with buick 300 or ford 302 (makes since from $ standpoint), but there's something about that "little aluminum engine that could", sticking with a british engine in a british car and weight wise I just didn't want to go the opposite way.
Robert, you really should give Woody a call. He can do an offset grind on your crank, set you up with a schweet cam and has worked out some lightweight (saves 1.5 lbs.) reciprocating parts that'll get you those revs your seeking.
Robert,
The 4.0 longer rods are used in combination with the 3.7" Modular ford piston with the rods bushed 100 thou. and this should put the piston approx 14 thou. down the bore at TDC, the standard pistons are no good with the 300 heads probably only 8/1 comp ratio.
If you want more than 9.75/1 you could machine the decks for zero clearance height after careful measuring, shopuld get you to over 10/1
The basic engine spec I suggested will rev to 6000 with no problem with the right head mods and camshaft selection, even the Crower 50232 I'm using will rev to 6500 if required. but dont go so wild on the cam that going to put the power band too high up the rev range.
Kevin
Robert,
The comp height of those special pistons is 1.220" and the price has gone down to $315.00
the 4.0 rod is 6.111" being longer than the 4.6 rod.
The deck height is 8.96"
So throw of crank = 1.615 + 6.111" + 1.220" = 8.946" You cant get closer than that prior to decking and a very cheap bottom end will leave you more cas to spend on the heads and induction system.
Kevin.
Thanks for putting numbers to it, Kevin. That's what I was talking about.
Inch and a quarter is plenty of compression height, talk to your piston maker about it. They will happily go quite a bit shorter than that, even to the point of having the oil rings cross the wrist pin bore. I'd guess it probably stabilizes the piston. Very common to be in the 1.220" range.
Jim
Robert-
Sounds like you building a body shell with an engine! I like the approach. Tim Lanocha built a 4.6 with custom pistons and possible rods that make 285 rwhp. He also has a 5.0 that makes over 340 rwhp. I have an older engine of his he built that is a bored 3.5 that is 320hp at the flywheel. There is nothing wrong with building a nice 4.6 at all and it is common but just so you know if you use the 4-2-1 headers and the rover heads you will not buildpower past 6200 rpms. That is the weak point on these motors. Using the Buick 300 heads will get some more rpms but not much. The headers at this point struggle and hold the engine back. The key is a 1-3/4 primary tube with a 4-1 arrangement.
Good info, Mike. I'm glad I went that route.
Kevin -thanks for the specifics on the pistons. That setup sounds VERY attractive!
Anyone got any 4.0 rods they want to sell cheap? :)
Mike -thanks for the info on the headers. I'm not aware of anyone making 4-1 long tube headers for the TR8, do you?
Nicolas -did you get my PM?
-Robert
Robert-
The 4-1 headers will be custom. Tim Lanocha has about 10-15 4.0 liters in various states and I know he might be using the internals as wheel chalks......give him a call.
Group444TR8HeadersTransmissionTunnelCover.jpg
Here is the 4-1 for a stock TR8 in the background and the multipiece Group 44 headers also 4-1.
Welcome to the board, Robert! I'm totally in agreement with your priorities - keeping everything absolutely as lightweight as feasible, sticking with the unique and classic aluminum V8, etc., etc. - A "streetable track car" is exactly what I want too.
So I've been following this thread with great interest... and now even more interest because my buddy just offered me a free Rover 4.2 today.
I'm in Northern Virginia visiting my mom for Thanksgiving, and the engine is here. I have until next Tuesday to do something with it before flying back to Colorado. I haven't actually seen the engine yet - it's recently been removed from a Range Rover and neither I now my buddy know whether it ran when pulled - but I'll get my hands physically on it tomorrow. I want to give it a quick inspection to decide if it's worth rebuilding and using the short block. I rebuilt some Rover 4.0 heads and put them on my Buick 215 last summer... so my 2100# MGB-GT is ready for another big bump in performance, right? If the block and crankshaft appear to be in good shape, I could carry it down to Abacus Racing (3.5 hours south of here, in Virginia Beach) for the machine work... they're the same shop that rebuilt my heads last year, and I know they've re-sleeved and built up Rover V8's for Les Gonda and Keith Burnett - but if this particular block needs sleeves it may be out of my budget. So, my questions are:
1) "What tips can you give me about evaluating the condition of a 4.2 of unknown history?"
2) "How do you feel about the 4.2 block/crank (3.70" bore, 3.03" stroke, and 5.66" rods - right?) in combination with 4.0 (small combustion chamber) heads?
3) Robert, which machine/engine shop have you been working with?
Curtis,
Sounds like the 4.2 may have potential, it's the same block as the 3.9 with the 77mm./3.03 stroke, 3.9 rods and unique pistons for the 4.2 engine..with a different compression height. The capacity is actually 4.276cc. so more a 4.3 than 4.2.
The comp ratio with 36cc. chambers and tin gaskets was only 8.94/1 so a usefull increase in compression can be had using your later 28cc. chamber heads.
The 3.9/4.2 suffered much less than the later 4.0/4.6 engines so you will probably find the bottom end only need a light rebuild and upgrades as desired.
If your heads are standard then if your looking for a bit more power an upgrade to stage 1, seats and throats opened up and blended into the bowls at least will find another 30+ BHP a fast road cam will probably yield another 20 BHP.
The standard seats in the heads can be recut to take the normal big valve sizes of 1.63" Inlet and 1.4" Exhaust
You may know this but if your getting the hotwire EFI with it they are very sensitive to cams with much overlap and a LCA of less than 112deg. Carbs are easier to tune round this problem unless you convert to a megasuirt ECU for the EFI.
Hope thats a help, and thanks for all the great work you do for the Forum.
Kevin Jackson.
Thanks Kevin!
QuoteThe comp ratio with 36cc. chambers and tin gaskets was only 8.94/1 so a usefull increase in compression can be had using your later 28cc. chamber heads.
Are there good piston options for the 4.2? Even with 28cc chambers (and a little extra boost since the heads were skimmed 0.010"), I'm still looking at significantly less than 10:1 compression. I think I'd probably prefer to end up close to 10.5:1, with composite head gaskets.
I think I still have a set of used Rover 4.0 connecting rods squirreled away that might be salvageable. I believe they're 6.11" (vs. 5.66") long, which would seem to be quite a big technical advantage... but is it feasible to find a piston that would let me use them?
QuoteIf your heads are standard then if your looking for a bit more power an upgrade to stage 1, seats and throats opened up and blended into the bowls at least will find another 30+ BHP
I'd love to see (or better yet,
publish!) a detailed write-up with photos of how to properly open up the Rover ports. Abacus did a real nice valve job for me, but I didn't pay for any porting work at all. (There would've been more to gain if I'd been in a position to upgrade either my intake manifold or especially my headers.
Curtis,
In the uk the availability of pistons for the 4.2 engines is limited, and as far as I know there are no oversizes available, I have heard of people machining (topping and tailing) low compression 3.9 pistons as a replacements although I don't think this is suitable for a performance based engine as the top ring land may weakened significantly, I think D&D may offer similar pistons.
Rods, the 4.2 is a small bearing engine so the 4.0 rods can't be used.
My engine used the 3.03" crank, narrowed chevy style 5.85" rods and KB flat top hypreutectic pistons (for the |Buick 300 chamber size) but it does require quite a bit of machining to get the pistons close to the top of the bores, from memory I think we had to take 40thou. off the decks.
With the smaller chamber heads and comp gaskets you need a piston with a bowl size in the region of 15cc to achieve a comp ration of 10.5/1 but I do not know off hand of one available but they may be out there.
Clearly if you can use the rover rods that a big saving but the rover 4.2 pin sixe is .874" and not many after market pistons come with that size unless custom made and expensive.
Perhaps a call to D&D may give some suggestions.
As for the heads, as Dan Jones has often contributed some excellent virtual articles on heads mods for the Rover and Buick 300 heads I would have though he could put it together with his picture library for a specific article.
To my mind engine spec is dependent on what you want the car to do, if you want a car that will be used 80% on the road then you do not want an engine that is over cammed with excessively large valves and ports as this will ruin the drivability.
With my 4.35 engine I modified the heads with the standard big waisted stem valves sizes of 1.63" In. and 1.4" Ex, the seats were opened to seat size and the area below opened up to match that radius and then blended into the bowl areas, the guides were shortened but I purposely left the larger Buick 300 port runners as cast to maintain good fuel suspension at lower RPMs, this in combination with the Crower 50232 cam has produced an engine with excellent characteristics and drivability, it will pull top gear (4th) down to 1500 RPM 35 MPH and pull smoothly away, however drop it down to second and it will take off like the proverbial scalded cat, ask Pete Mantell for a second opinion, it was wet when Pete and I went for a drive so had to be a little gentle with the loud pedal.
I haven't taken the new engine over 5000 RPM yet as it has only just had it's first oil change but there every indication that it will rev freely round to my self imposed red line of 5800 RPM, the Crower 50232 peaks at 5500 RPM but will apparently run strong to 6500 RPM if required.
Regards
Kevin.
Kevin, Are you talking about using Keith Black Chevy 305 pistons with the 5.85" connecting rods? It looks like that leaves about 55 thou to deck the block to get 0. Pretty good plan.
I think you could use the 4.0/4.6 piston if you use Chevy 6" rods. That puts the piston 35 thou down the hole. That could be easily decked. Nice rod ratio for quick revs: 1.98:1. WOW!
Nick,
Pin size of 4/0/4.6 piston is .966" so no good for chevy rods @ .927" I'm afraid.
The 4.2 crank Curtis is talking about is the smaller bearing size also.
kevin.
Opening up the SBC small end by over 30 thou is probably a bad idea...
OK I got another idea from looking up piston availability for Tamas. Wisco sells a VW flat-4 piston that's 94mm bore, pin dia.: .866", with a compression height of 22mm (1.378") that might work. Hmmmm.
Wait, here's another possibility. Forged Mahle VW flat 4 piston: 94mm bore, .866 pin, comp height: 34mm (1.56"). Could use that with your 5.85" rod that puts the slug 35 thou down the hole. That's a little closer. Here's some linx:
http://www.geneberg.com/product_info.php?cPath=31&products_id=534
http://www.importperformanceparts.net/imports/wisecopistons_vw.html
Lastly a link to the 6" small journal chevy rods:
http://www.flatlanderracing.com/eagle-chevysb.html
Another option with the 6.0" rods is either the KB-186 or KB-834 Chevy 305 bore piston. My engine spec is very similar to Kevin's, but I'm using the KB-834 (10cc dish) pistons with the 6.0" SBC small journal rods, a 3.9 block and 4.2 crank, and the 3.9 heads for a static compression ration of about 10.9:1 (8.2 DCR with Isky 282 cam). That's with the block decked about .020 and the composite head gasket. Quench distance of around 0.048". According to Kevin (if I remember correctly), the 4.2L stroke can vary from 3.000 to 3.020, so I've assumed middle ground of 3.010 for the above.
Nic and clan, We should be cautios about using "air cooled" pistons in out motors. Many mfg's use different "cam" profile on skirts, specifically for air cooled motors,(ie. pistons run hotter) and different running clearances. I'm not saying, no, but ask mfg'r?roverman.
Art, I got a similar response from a well known UK specialist. He felt that pistons from air cooled engines run different clearances / are designed with different expansion characteristics compared to wet engines. Having said that, big forged Mahle pistons are used locally in e.g Ford 4-banger race engines and seem to cope well. Again, Fords are iron blocks so who knows. But the Mahle pistons look tempting being forged and having coating on the skirts.
Could be. I was thinking the same thing at first but I got the info from some guys using them in the BMW M10 engines. THanks guys.
Just curious. I know the argument about "it came with one" but if you are changing the engine to that extent, why not consider an LS2? 368lbs dry (without the stock manifolds), 400hp, 400ft/lbs, under $6k delivered with a 2 year warranty. It's about the same size as a 215, so size isn't an issue...
Totally. When I started my project the LS engines were really expensive so I stuck with my initial plan. The main reason to modify the Rover engines is because it's fun.
I think the LS block is actually an inch shorter in length. If I remember right, the LS block is 22", and I think the Rover is 23" or so. Very light and tons of potential. Good engine.
On the weight, not that I'm arguing against the LS here but just saying: My engine ended up just under 300 lbs. dry. So that's a bit of a perk. If I went with the LS I would need to modify the firewall to get better chassis balance for the track. As it is with my 300 lbs engine I'm at 53/47. Another 70 lbs would put me in bad shape. That's just me in my Chevy Vega though. GM built them to be a little front heavy by putting the engine right over the front "axle". I was able to move the engine back 2.5" to put the center of the engine just behind the center line of the front suspension. This isn't as big an issue with the MG cars since the engine is place a little farther back.
I thought the dry weight of the LS was like 345lbs. ?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rover-V8-Wildcat-Heads-Throttle-bodies-TVR-Racecar_W0QQitemZ290376968468QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CarsParts_Vehicles_CarParts_SM?hash=item439bd0e914
Thought this might be the best place to drop this teaser in.
Be sure to show the spousal units and drop a big hint about Christmas.
; )
B
Bernard, I'm hopin Mike Perkins,(wedgewoks), wound-up with that set-up for his 4.02" bore, Rover monster.Mike? roverman.
And Nic, is it "totally" too late for you to mentally congugate....mid-engine, Vega ? U-no ,"Hatch a Rover"? You know I got "them" t-axles. Even further weight savings, you would'nt need those canvas rear seats anymore? LOL and more, roverman.
I was at Hot August Nights in Reno a few years back and spotted a 67 Corvair with its transaxle turned around and an aluminum V8 mounted to that. The quality of work on that car was outstanding. To my mind, the 67 Corvair is better looking than the 69 Camaro.
I'm completely impressed with what Nic is doing; an aluminum V8 in a Vega. The only thing I might do differently is to start with a Vega or Monza wagon.
Paul and all. If it was, mid engine, it was possibly a "Crown Manufacturing" type swap, using Corvair T-axle- with reverse thrust on ring gear. With Nic, I was aludeing to Toyota MR 2 Turbo t-axle(tranverse), I consider a better way to go. Dan LaGrou started the ball rolling with "brand new" 215" Buicks in Vegas, 30+ years ago? roverman.
Robert,
On your question "Are there other shops besides D&D that can install 96mm bore tophat liners for less than $2000? ". If you want to go that way, you might give Russell at Allied Machine Shop 703-533-8355 in Fairfax to see if they can do it. I dont know if he would do it but they work on a lot of Rover engines and he did my 215. They are located on route 7 near the 66 access. Richard
Robert,
On your question "Are there other shops besides D&D that can install 96mm bore tophat liners for less than $2000?" If you decide you want to go that way you might call Russell at Allied Machine Shop in Fairfax on 703-533-8355. They do a lot of work on Rover engines and likely can handle that. Richard
I actually did look into rear mounting my spare Olds in our Rabbit grassroots car. That would have be awesome! I was actually looking at using a reverse bug transaxle. That put the engine right behind the driver though. I think the MR2 idea would have worked well though.
Paul, are you on the H-body.org site?
Nic, no, I've not been to the h-body.org site. I'll check that out tonight when I get home.