I just dropped off a set of assembled TA Rover heads (1.94" diameter intake valves, 1.6" exhaust) and Willpower single plane intake at a local cylinder head specialist. I removed the valves from one cylinder and he examined the ports, chamber shrouding, seat margins and valve angles and asked me some questions about the engine the heads will be going on (a higher compression 4.2L Rover), along with how I plan to use the car (Triumph TR8, purely street). He also asked if I was going to run EFI or a carb, suggesting you can get away with somewhat larger ports with EFI. He thought the size of the as cast ports were fine, needing only detail work, and that the best bang-for-the-buck would be to work around the existing valve job. He also threaded a spark plug in and indicated he would do a little chamber work around the plugs. Looking at the intake ports, he thought they should go to 250 CFM fairly easily which would be plenty for my application.
The plan is to flow bench the TA Rover head in as delivered condition then let him have a go at bowl porting and port matching the heads and intake. He indicated that getting the port floor of the intake manifold to work with cylinder head port floor was especially critical. I'm going to drop the block, gaskets (intake, exhaust and head), a header flange with pipe stubs and some bolts off this weekend so he can mock it up. I think I'll also take an OEM 4.6L Rover cylinder head along to flow bench as don't have any data on unported Rover heads.
Given the bore size and chamber design, he suggested no less than 11:1 compression and we briefly discussed camshafts. I mentioned the short block should handle a decent amount of RPM (cross-bolted mains, 3.03" stroke Rover nodular cast iron crank, Carrillo rods, forged flat top pistons) and I was considering running either a solid flat tappet or a hydraulic roller camshaft. He put the valve springs on a tester and said they were ideal for a hydraulic roller camshaft but recommended titanium retainers for a bit more RPM. He said they would also work with a solid flat tappet cam if offset locks were used to reduce the seat pressure. If running a solid flat tappet, he recommended using lifters with EDM holes supplying oil directly to the cam lobe/lifter face. On the tester, the springs were quite close to the advertised specifications. Note these assembled heads were delivered with TA's upgrade spring package for a hydraulic roller cam (TA p/n 1160) and have the following specs:
Dual springs without damper
O.D. 1.385
160 lbs @ 1.900"
360 lbs @ 1.400"
400 lbs/in
Coil Bind 1.175"
Max Lift 0.650"
He also likes the blue Viton metal clad valve seals, mentioning the white Teflon seals don't pass enough oil to the guides for most applications (uses them in race applications where the springs are flooded with oil over the top of the guides).
Dan Jones
That's pretty cool Dan.
Been a long wait to see what these heads are all about.
It will be exciting to get some numbers to run through the D5 to see what can be had.
Are you worried about shrouding? That's a pretty tight fit on the 94mm bore.
Live like you mean it.
Fred
> Are you worried about shrouding? That's a pretty tight fit on the 94mm bore.
A little. TA moved the valve centerlines to the center of the bore to be able to fit the larger valves so that will help with shrouding. We'll mock the heads up on the block to see what they look like. In the past, I've played around on the flow bench with moving the tube that replicates the cylinder wall closer to valves to test shrouding but that was with canted valves that unshroud themselves as they open so those results probably don't apply. The other issue with the relocated valves is piston-to-valve clearance. The notches in my forged pistons were cut for larger valve but in the original location. I may need to cut the notches larger.
Mike Tomaszewski of TA Performance posted the following on porting the TA Rover heads:
"On the exhaust have him start by opening up the exhaust outlet, make the port wider, The port will respond by doing this. Then have him removing very little to none on the back side of the exhaust bowl. Just blend the machined throat area into the back side. He should end up with a slight bump even, on the back side. Blend the rest of the bowl how he see fit."
I need to get a hold of Woody and see if he can provide an exhaust port template for his larger diameter tri-y headers. I've got a flange with pipe stubs but it's a generic part and may not match the TR8 headers. Also, the exhaust port is raised 3/4" on the TA heads so that may cause some header fit issues.
> It will be exciting to get some numbers to run through the D5 to see what can be had.
I recently updated to the latest version of Dynomation and it's predictions are quite a bit more optimistic than the previous version I was using. I had the previous version tweaked so that it did a good job in matching the engines we've had on the dyno. I need to spend some time with the new version to see if I can get a better match but luckily, I saved an older version off so I can switch between the two.
Dan Jones
QuoteI think I'll also take an OEM 4.6L Rover cylinder head along to flow bench as don't have any data on unported Rover heads.
Please do! I believe that the late 4.0 & 4.6 heads are the same.
Are you using custom pistons?
> I believe that the late 4.0 & 4.6 heads are the same.
Yes.
> Are you using custom pistons?
Yes but they were designed for different heads so the notches will likely have to be altered. I've got a dry sump 5.0L Rover V8 mystery motor with ported Rover V8 heads sitting at the dyno. Plans are to swap a set of ported 1964 Buick 300 heads and Huffaker intake on it but it would be interesting to try the TA heads on the 5.0L but chances are there will be piston-to-valve clearance issues due to the larger relocated valves.
Dan Jones
I had the same problem with Merlin heads. Two sets of notches are not pretty...
It will be interesting to hear how the heads perform. Any ideas about the cam spec, I assume pretty stout ?
Jukka
Merlinnotches.jpg
Interesting that you guys are having to cut these valve notches. My 340 (with 300 heads) is zero decked (10.6:1 cr) and at .500 valve lift I had 1/4" of valve to piston clearance. Checked with clay. Of course, that was dynamic, not static clearance.
Jim
> I had the same problem with Merlin heads. Two sets of notches are not pretty...
What size valves do you have in your Melins? IIRC, Art's Merlins use 1.77" intake 1.5" exhaust valves.
> It will be interesting to hear how the heads perform.
Yes. It will be a awhile as I still have another car to finish up before getting serious about the Rover stuff.
> Any ideas about the cam spec, I assume pretty stout ?
Not yet. I'll wait until I have the cylinder head flow numbers in hand before designing the cam. The car is a street car so I don't want to get too carried away. The lift may be more than your typical Rover build since I can use up to a 1.7:1 rocker arm ratio. TA suggested 1.65:1 but, depending upon the lobes available, I might go 1.7:1 intake and 1.6:1 exhaust.
Dan Jones
Jim, I did a dummy build without head gaskets and had some marks on the pistons. I have steel gaskets so the true clearance was marginal. So I cut the notches. Zero decked, steel gaskets and Rover 4,6 heads with 28 cc chambers. Should have had more clearance but did not. When I fitted Merlins I did not even bother to check, I simply cut the notches.
Dan, I have the std valves 1.73/1.40 somthing. The heads were modified with cnc machined seats last winter but ignition gremlins did not allow any chassis dyno runs. I am currently replacing the dizzy with coil packs ... Forget the KISS principle 😊
" 250 cfm" let's see...figure/figure, max power , 4.2L = 8200 rpm ? I hope you go with hyd. roller. IMHO 400lb springs will flat kill a rover F.T. cam(iron), lifter hole or not. Beehive springs, with their tiny steel retainers, would be a good cost to weight alternative, to ti retainers and heavy springs. Cometic head gaskets, a good idea. Let er rip ?
!
> " 250 cfm" let's see...figure/figure, max power , 4.2L = 8200 rpm ?
This is a street car so I'm thinking 7000 RPM. With the 4.2L, it looks like it only needs around 200 CFM of intake flow so I won't be taxing the heads. At least they'll have the flow should I decide to put them on a larger displacement engine.
> I hope you go with hyd. roller.
That's the plan. I've got some solid flat tappet cams in the parts stash that I could test for grins. One is a very high RPM unit (256/266 degrees @ 0.050 on a 108 LSA) with an advertised power range of 4000 to 8200 RPM. The other is more sensible 240 degrees @ 0.050" on a 110 LSA. Given the difficulties with breaking in flat tappet cams, I probably won't try either one.
Speaking of hydraulic rollers, Woody mentioned the cam grinder will only grind a 110 degrees lobe separation angle on his cam cores for larger durations and lift. With the relatively small valve Rover and Buick heads, he has seen better results with narrower lobe separation angles (down to 106 degrees LSA on his 4.9L stroker Rover). The larger valves in TA Performance heads don't want as narrow an LSA in a given combination. 110 LSA would be in the right ballpark on an engine like Woody's with the TA heads 1.94" diameter intake valves. Also Woody is looking into having some smaller hydraulic roller cam cores made for
smaller displacement Buick/Rover engines.
> IMHO 400lb springs will flat kill a rover F.T. cam (iron), lifter hole or not.
Agreed. The springs for the Schneider cam mentioned above are specified at 340 lbs/in.
> Beehive springs, with their tiny steel retainers, would be a good cost to weight alternative, to ti retainers and heavy springs.
Doug Herbert has inexpensive titanium retainers ($60 and up). I have beehives on another application with the tiny steel retainers but I've not checked if there is a drop-in beehive and retainer package that will fit the TA valves yet.
> Cometic head gaskets, a good idea. Let er rip ?
I'd like to use the commonly available 0.050" Rover gaskets. Looks like Fel Pro and Victor Reinz both list head gaskets for the larger bore Rover blocks but it's not clear what their compressed thicknesses are. I downloaded their catalogs but could not find the thickness specs. They list the same gaskets for both the early 3.9L/4.2L which used thin head gaskets and the 4.0L/4.6L engines which used the thicker ones.
I cc'd the pistons this weekend only to notice the dish in the piston is right where the quench pad is on the TA heads so, even with an 0.040" quench distance, there won't be a quench effect as the dish is another 0.040" deep. The pistons were designed for Rover/Buick heads which had no quench effect to speak of so it didn't matter at the time. Bugger.
Dan Jones
Just a quick update on the TA Rover heads. The head porter is supposed to get started on the Rover heads late this week. I dropped off the block, exhaust header flange, gaskets and head studs off last week so we could do a preliminary fit check prior to porting the heads. We positioned the TA heads and Willpower intake on the block without intake or head gaskets and the intake manifold bolt holes lined up with the holes in the heads and the intake ports were closely aligned with the unported TA head intake ports. Given the fact that the TA Rover heads are deeper, I expected the intake to sit up higher in the V and the holes in the intake need to be slotted but that wasn't the case. I assume TA must have adjusted those to match the wider head so the intake lines up. I didn't run the studs all the way down while I was there but the head bolt bosses are taller so its possible they won't be long enough. I'll check that this weekend. The blue Fel Pro Buick 300 intake gaskets (p/n 9944) are 0.042" thick and should work with the 0.050" Rover composite headgaskets. The gaskets are a decent fit but will likely need a bit of trimming and be shifted up perhaps an 1/8". I'll glue those to the intake before installation.
I discussed Mike's information on porting the exhaust side and we put machinist dye around the exhaust port and bolted a header gasket in place. Widening the port per Mike's advice, he scribed an outline. The resultant port is sized for a 1 1/2" ID primary tube header. That means a 1 5/8" OD. The TR8 tri-y TR8 headers from the Wedge Shop are available in two sizes:
Standard: 1 1/2" diameter primary, 1 3/4" secondary, 2" collector
Big Tube: 1 5/8" diameter primary, 1 7/8" secondary, 2 1/4" collector
I'll go with the big tube but the exhaust ports on the TA Rover heads are raised 3/4" and Woody says his headers tuck up close to the chassis so won't have the vertical clearance required. I'll have to cut and lengthen them.
My block appears to be unmilled and specs for the Buick 215 and Rover show a nominal deck height of 8.96". The forged pistons have a compression height of 1.25". Crank stroke is 3.03" and connecting rods are 6.2" center-to-center:
rod length + crank stroke/2 + piston pin height = 6.2 + 3.03/2 + 1.25 = 8.965"
If the block is 8.96", that would put the piston 0.005" out of the hole at TDC. Close enough to zero deck. In the parts stash, I have a couple of larger bore Rover headgaskets:
Rover ETC-7819 0.018" compressed thickness embossed head gasket
Rover ERR-7217 0.050" compressed thickness composite head gasket 3.77" bore
Unlike, the OEM Rover heads, the TA Performance Rover heads have a quench chamber. The usual quench distance goal is 0.040" +/-0.003" and the quench effect is supposedly negligible at 0.060". On the minimum side, you need enough clearance to compensate for piston rock at TDC and rod stretch at maximum RPM so the piston doesn't contact the head. Since aluminum blocks have a greater coefficient of linear thermal expansion, can probably run a little tighter quench. If I got my units correct, my back of the envelope calculation suggests maybe 0.006" difference between a cast iron and aluminum block for a 100 deg F temperature difference. Even factoring that in, the thinner headgasket is too thin to be safe. The thicker gasket will be thicker than desired but might be useable if the compression works out.
The combustion chambers are nominally 35 ccs but will get polished so will likely end up around 40 ccs. I cc'd the piston dish and valve notch at between 11 and 13 ccs, depending upon whether I cc'd them with alcohol or white sand. Compression with these assumptions and the thinner headgasket would be 10.85:1 and 9.89:1 for the thicker headgasket. A 0.040" thick headgasket would give 10.17:1 compression ratio and the goal quench. Given the aluminum heads, small 3.706" bore and expected cam overlap, I'd like to be at 11:1 compression. That would be no problem with quench heads and quench pistons but the custom pistons I have were designed for Buick/Rover heads which have no quench to speak of and are dished in the location of the quench pad on the TA heads. The pistons were also designed for heads with the valves in OEM locations but the TA heads have relocated them to the center of the bore to permit larger valves. From the initial mock up, I should be able to modify the existing valve pockets for clearance, though the extra cc's will have to be figured into the final compression ratio. Given that Woody runs 11:1 compression in some of his engines that use Rover or Buick 300 heads, I should be able to run 11:1 without the quench effect. We'll see where it all ends up during the final mock up assembly but I'll likely have to mill the heads to get the desired compression ratio.
I could buy another set of custom pistons designed for the TA Rover heads and swap the pistons over to the stock short block Rover 4.2L that I have. It will get ported OEM Rover heads but I'd also need to buy another set of 6.2" small (2.0") journal rods to make the compression height work out. Come to think of it, the guy I bought the parts of off tossed in a second set of 6.2" rods but I believe he said they weren't narrowed properly. Worth a look anyway.
I also dropped of an OEM Rover 4.6L head for flow testing.
Dan Jones
That is really good information Dan. I'm very curious to see what numbers you get for the TA heads before porting, as eventually I may be buying a set for my 340. With the forced induction I will probably not port them, provided they are close to being on par with the stock cast 340 or 350 heads.
Jim
Dan, Have you plotted dynamic compression(s), for your desired cam profiles ?
> Dan, Have you plotted dynamic compression(s), for your desired cam profiles ?
Not yet. The cam profile is a function of the head flow which I don't have in hand yet. I did some preliminary work based upon my ported Buick 300 head flow and assuming AFR 165 just to see how cam specs and expected power varies. Once I have the ported TA Rover head flow data, I'll plug that in. Dynomation plots pressure traces which should be more accurate than the dynamic compression calculators. However, the question becomes how much can a small bore cylinder withstand on 93 octane with and without quench. I know Woody has done several 11:1 engines with Rover and Buick 300 heads but I don't know the cam overlap and intake closing points associated with those engines.
Dan Jones
Dan, I'm fascinated that you are being so attentive to the quench/squish effects. I think it is a low cost and under-appreciated way to optimize an engine. My machinist thinks I'm trying to squeeze more compression from the engine but I care less about the CR and more about combustion dynamics. I'll be very curious to hear your final results.
Just got word from the head porter that the TA Rover heads should be ready for pickup next week. He said they flow near 260 CFM intake and 200 CFM exhaust. He noted that once you get past the intake port entries, the center of the ports looks like they were designed for a considerably larger displacement or higher RPM maximum effort application. If you raised the intake roof a 1/2" and epoxied the floor, he thought it would flow well over 300 CFM with a larger intake valve. Given the intake port sizing, he thinks the engine would run better with EFI than with a carb. He is really excited about the heads and the lightweight Rover/Buick engine and thought I should ditch the hydraulic roller, go solid flat tappet and spin it to 8000 RPM. He called a local engine builder over to look at the mock up of the heads, intake and block just because he thought it was so neat.
More when I pick up the parts and flow sheets.
Dan Jones
Dan, that is wonderful to know, thank you for posting. :)
I read in your post that the engine you are building is a 4.2.
How much larger displacement does your head porter think would be appropriate?
5, 5.3?
With that kind of port flow I would think those heads would easily support a 350 cid build, and that is close to the practical limit for a SBB based engine. I think there was some speculation that you might get up to around 370 but I don't know of one that's been done yet.
Based on an engine like Chris Gill's 300 based 350 or my 340 based 350 it should be a potent package. You do pick up 80-82 lbs with the iron block but that's still a pretty light engine.
Jim
Jim, I don't doubt it, 260 CFM is what the AFR 165s I've got on my 331 SBF are supposed to flow.
I know with that flow 5.4 liters makes for a "spirited" engine. ;)
A better way to phrase my question would have been "how much displacement do they recommend for your type of build?"
My favorite part of the port size vs displacement combination I have is how it's responsive lower in the rev range, but doesn't stop pulling till the limiters trip. :D
I've wondered what mine would be like on a 351 or 408 (5.8L & 6.7L, latter being a lower RPM torque monster I'm sure, ;) ).
> I read in your post that the engine you are building is a 4.2L.
Yes.
> How much larger displacement does your head porter think would be appropriate?
With 1.94" diameter intake valve, good for a 5 to 5.7L. With a 2.02" valve and further portiing, they could support over 6L.
Dan Jones
My heads are being poffesionally ported,he rang me up,wanting to know where I'd bought them,he couldn't stop going on how good they were,and it's been a long time since he'd seen such good quality heads.
Sorry to interrupt your thread Dan,really enjoying your write ups
Bryan
> My heads are being professionally ported
Let us know how they turn out. The should work really well with your supercharger.
> he couldn't stop going on how good they were,and it's been a long time since he'd seen such good quality heads.
Good to hear.
> Sorry to interrupt your thread Dan,really enjoying your write ups
Feel free to interrupt and add anything you hear back from your head porter.
Dan Jones
I've gone with a roller cam,with a good lift,
image.jpg
Wow.
Quite a lot hotter than my cam. (which I felt was about as much as I could run in a daily driver) That looks pretty much like a full race grind to me.
Is it even possible to put 2.02" intake valves in those heads?
Jim
> I've gone with a roller cam,with a good lift
Are you using the stud mount rockers or the TA shaft mount rockers?
> That looks pretty much like a full race grind to me.
Maybe not. The duration at 0.050" isn't shown on the cam card. Looking at the TA Performance catalog, the slightly larger seat duration 298R lobe has 237 degrees @ 0.050". Woody Cooper runs solid flat tappet cams in the 240 degrees duration @ 0.050" range on some of his street driven 4.9L Rovers and those are generally on a tighter LSA so the overlap is larger than if it were on the 110 LSA of that TA0296R HL grind. Also, solid rollers of a given duration start pulling a little earlier than hydraulic cams of the same duration. That said, small valve heads like the OEM Rover or Buick 215/300 need more overlap (and a tighter LSA) for a given performance level than larger valve heads. Due to the larger valves and higher intake flow, the TA Performance heads should need less duration and a wider LSA than OEM Rover heads on the same displacement engine.
> Is it even possible to put 2.02" intake valves in those heads?
TA Performance says up to 2.02" intake and 1.6" diameter exhaust valves will fit but Bob thought they would require larger seats for the 2.02" intake valves. 2.02" + 1.6" = 3.62" so it's conceivable a 2.02" would fit in a 94mm Rover bore but it might not work any better due to shrouding. Should work for a larger bore block like a 300, though.
Dan Jones
Dan, thank you. :)
At present I'm using the stud mounted rockers,
Do you think I should upgrade to the shaft mounted rockers ?
You said it yourself, "upgrade".
The studs are costing you power.
Cheers
Fred
Dan, you could be right on the duration but I was also looking at the lift. I know some cams go up over .700 but .650 is a whole lot of lift on a street cam, and is asking quite a lot of the springs if you want long term durability. IMO.
Jim
> Do you think I should upgrade to the shaft mounted rockers ?
I'm going with the stud mounted rockers but I won't be running the spring pressure that you will be running. Shaft mounted rockers earn their keep on bigger solid roller valve springs and higher RPM.
> I know some cams go up over .700 but .650 is a whole lot of lift on a street cam
Agreed. The HL on the TA part number stands for "High Lift". Given the small base circle of the Buick/Rover cams, that is a bunch of lobe lift. Good springs seem to hold up longer these days and you can check them on the car but the valve guide life with the big lift suffers. You really want to get the valve train geometry spot on.
Dan Jones
Picked up the ported TA Rover heads today. Heads were ported by Bob Stiegemeier of Stiegemeier Porting Service (http://stiegemeier.com/) in St. Charles, Missouri and were tested at a 28" pressure drop on a SuperFlow 600 flow bench. Intake ports were flowed with a clayed radius around the intake port. No pipe was used on the exhaust except for one test with the stock 4.6L Rover head (noted below). Flow is in cubic feet per minute (CFM) and lift is in inches. Intake valve diameter is 1.94" and exhaust diameter is 1.6". Note that the heads were purchased assembled and Bob worked around the existing valve job. For my application, only minor work was required on the intake side so most of the effort was concentrated on the exhaust. Heads were flowed unported, ported and ported with a 30 degree back cut on the intake valves. Columns are as follow:
1 = out of box intake ports
2 = ported intake, no back cut on intake valves
3 = ported intake, 30 degree back cut on intake valves
4 = out-of-box exhaust ports, no pipe stub
5 = ported exhaust, no back cut on exhaust valves, no pipe stub
I'll try inserting periods to keep the forum software from screwing up the column spacing:
Valve....1........2.........3........4........5
Lift.....1.94....1.94....1.94...1.60...1.60
(Inch)..CFM..CFM..CFM..CFM..CFM
0.100 067.7 076.8 078.3 047.9 063.8
0.200 105.4 120.4 129.4 070.2 108.5
0.300 143.0 173.1 185.1 102.1 146.7
0.350 164.0 198.7 206.2 114.9 -------
0.400 185.1 224.2 225.8 126.0 177.0
0.500 220.9 255.9 251.3 137.2 189.8
0.600 225.8 ------- 252.8 140.4 199.4
Bob noted the flow for the ported intake with back-cut valves was for the first one he did. He got closer to 260 CFM peak on subsequent valves. He believes he can do better if starting with heads without a valve job. The exhaust port was sized for a 1 5/8" OD header primary (the larger of the two available tri-y headers for the Triumph TR8). For reference, here's what my ported 1964 Buick 300 cylinder heads flowed with 1.775" intake and 1.5" exhaust valves:
Lift 1.775 1.5
0.100 066 047
0.200 129 104
0.300 174 130
0.350 187 139
0.400 191 146
0.500 196 152
0.600 200 153
I had also previously flowed a stock Buick 300 head with 1.625" intake and 1.312" exhaust valves at 154 CFM intake and 116 CFM exhaust. The unported Rover 4.6L head flowed:
Lift 1.575 1.350
0.100 060.2 057.4
0.200 105.4 092.5
0.300 132.4 103.7
0.350 135.5 106.9
0.400 135.5 106.9 (114.8 with pipe stub)
The ported TA Rover heads flow nearly double the stock Rover 4.6L heads! I dug up some small block Ford AFR 165 head flow numbers (CNC ported but earlier version with the 11/32" diameter valves) from a magazine article (Mustang 5.0 magazine, November, 2000, "Having our Heads Examined"):
AFR 165 1.9 1.6
0.100 060 051
0.200 123 108
0.300 176 149
0.400 210 174
0.500 232 184
0.600 232 188
Note the ported Rover TA heads outflow the highly regarded AFR 165 heads (best of the smaller valve size, stock port location, SBF heads).
Bob clearanced the chambers to around 42cc then milled them 0.020" to get them to 37cc. He also installed thin wall bronze sleeves in the pushrod holes. The intake valves had sharp edges around the keepers and damaged some of the valve stem seals during dis-assembly so he smoothed the sharp edges and installed new seals. The intake valves (appear to be SI brand) were out of round so Bob cut them to get them round. The exhaust (Ferrea) were round and needed no adjustment. The intake manifold had a low spot on one of the flanges that he welded up and milled back down. The intake and heads were then port matched on the block. He tested the springs with and without the inner springs. With the inners in place, they are 170 lbs on the seat and 400 lbs @ 0.550" lift. With the inners removed, they are 120 lbs on the seat and 280 lbs @ 0.550". Bob said he can adjust the seat pressure with offset keepers once I decided on the cam. He'd really like to see me run a solid flat tappet cam with EDM lifters and beehive springs and spin the engine to 8000 RPM. Given the intake port size, he thought I'd want to run a narrower lobe separation angle than the intake valve diameter (to cubic inches ratio) might suggest with a bunch of initial timing and a short advance curve. He also suggested 11:1 compression and thought EFI would work better than a carb with the large intake ports. Given the very strong exhaust port, he thought a single pattern cam would be the way to go. He mentioned that while the exhaust would flow even more with a pipe stub, adding a full length header usually gets it back to what the naked exhaust port flows so he likes to flow them without a pipe stub. Bob was really jazzed about the TA heads and lightweight Rover V8. He noted there was room on the cylinder head to raise the roof a 1/2" and thought that raising the roof, filling the floor and use a larger intake valve, he could get well over 320 CFM out of the intake ports.
Photos to follow later this week or weekend.
Dan Jones
Excellent results Dan.
As expected, simply slapping on an out-of-thebox set of heads should give a noticeable improvement. With porting it is a huge boost.
Jim
Dan, so what kind of H P does this let you predict on say a 5L engine build? Are any of the TR8 race people going to be allowed to use these heads? Maybe your TR8 on the road this summer? bash!
Any various "shapes" of spark plugs tries ? Indexed ? Intake valve is solid ? Hollow SS Ferrea will give you XX more rpm ? Pida tube smoke testing ? Thanks for all the info.
> Dan, so what kind of H P does this let you predict on say a 5L engine build?
See below. These are Dynomation predictions for an 11:1 compression, 5.0L Rover (3.7" bore by 3.5" stroke), Willpower single plane intake, 700 CFM carb, 1 5/8" long tube headers, 0.565"/0.535" lift hydraulic roller cam optimized for 4000 to 7000 RPM best average. The first is for a "Standard Flow" single plane intake and the second is for a "high flow" single plane. Given the low profile of the usual Rover single planes (Willpower, Harcourt, Huffaker), they are probably somewhere in between but I won't know until I gather some real dyno data. As a point of reference, Woody built an 11:1 compression hydraulic roller 4.9L Rover with Jon Eales max effort ported Rover heads and Harcourt single plane and the engine made 391 HP on the dyno. Top line assumes ported TA Rover heads (1.94"/1.6"). Bottom line assumes ported Buick 300 heads (1.775"/1.5"). Note: The smaller valves and ports of the Buick 300 heads required approximately 10 degrees more overlap in the cam.
(http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l621/danielcjones2/Buick%20Olds%20Rover%20Aluminum%20V8/Rover_50L_head_comparison_std_flow_zpsm1izktn7.jpg)
(http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l621/danielcjones2/Buick%20Olds%20Rover%20Aluminum%20V8/Rover_50L_head_comparison_high_flow_zpsoqakbkmm.jpg)
The simulation suggests perhaps as much as 50 HP over the ported Buick 300 heads which are already worth a bunch more power than the unported Buick or Rover heads.
> Are any of the TR8 race people going to be allowed to use these heads?
I dunno.
> Maybe your TR8 on the road this summer? bash!
Plan is to take two weeks off at the end of March to finish the Pantera then start on the Rover stuff. Need to decide if I want to put together a temporary engine for the TR8 while we play on the dyno or wait until one of the engines is finished.
Decisions, decisions...
Dan Jones
> Any various "shapes" of spark plugs tries ?
No but we did need to find a longer reach plug to get the electrode out of the spark plug hole.
> Indexed ?
No. When I think of indexing, it's for the combustion event but now that you mention it changing the orientation to be parallel insead of perpendicualr to the flow would have a minor effect on flow
> Intake valve is solid?
Yes, the intake and exhaust valves supplied with the assembled TA Rover heads are solid. I discussed hollow valves with Bob and he had a lost an engine when a hollow stem valve failed but that engine had a solid roller cam. Also, the Crower retainers are chrome-moly steel. I may substitute titanium retainers and maybe look into beehive springs depending upon the cam selection.
> Hollow SS Ferrea will give you XX more rpm ?
That's the claim. They are quite expensive though.
> Pida tube smoke testing ?
Pitot tube? No we didn't do any smoke testing or swirl. I'll have McLain swirl test the heads and also test with the intake bolted to the head like I did with the Buick 300 heads.
> Thanks for all the info.
You're welcome. BTW, did you ever follow up with Vizard on your heads? Week before last, I sent him a couple of SBF intake manifolds to test for his upcoming book. I may have him run my Rover data through his cos-cam program.
Dan Jones
My experience with really big cams in the Rover on street driven cars is not good. Seen several different engine builds where the cylinders wash down with gas and the rings never properly seat. By the time your willing to admit something is wrong, the cylinder walls are trashed and the pistons look like they have been to war. Last one I saw was torn down after around 600 miles. Needed a new block and pistons, not to mention a different cam. Plan on installing a vacuum pump if you go big. You will need it just to keep the gaskets, and dipstick from popping out from all the crankcase pressure.
Todd, I wonder if these problem motors were torque plate honed ? Gapless top ring ? I've seen inadequate oil return, on oem rover pistons. I have modded them with more/better return holes. Thermal coated oem piston, with modded oil holes, lived at 20lbs+ boost, for a while. Eventually torched an edge hole to the top ring= zero compression. Cheers, roverman.
I'm sure that had something to do with it. The shop that was responsible for these engines doesn't even own a torque plate, nor do the machinists he farms the work out to. Honestly, how do you build and sell a stroker engine for top dollar and you don't even use a torque plate? Either way, I've soured on the Rover engine. The LS3 I recently picked up will do much more for much less than a Rover ever will.
Yes, The basic 215/Rover V8 just made "senior" status at 55 years old. Where will the LS3 be in 55 years ? Hard to deny the advantage of 50+ years of design/manufacturing evolution. For some, that's not the only criteria. Onward, roverman.
[QUOTE tr8todd] My experience with really big cams in the Rover on street driven cars is not good. Seen several different engine builds where the cylinders wash down with gas and the rings never properly seat. By the time your willing to admit something is wrong, the cylinder walls are trashed and the pistons look like they have been to war. Last one I saw was torn down after around 600 miles. Needed a new block and pistons, not to mention a different cam. Plan on installing a vacuum pump if you go big. You will need it just to keep the gaskets, and dipstick from popping out from all the crankcase pressure. [/QUOTE]
Todd, how big is "really big" for the cam?
On the "ruined" blocks, they needed liners, or something more?
I'm thinking if they are in otherwise good condition they would be candidates for an upgrade to flanged or "top hat" sleeves.
What vacuum pump would you recommend?
Its more of the big duration cams than anything else. Lots of fuel at idle speeds seems to be the culprit. Seen cams with well over .500 lift that haven't caused a problem as long as the duration isn't ridiculous. The builds I have seen issues with were 4.9 stroker builds where the bore was already .20 over. At that bore, given the depth of the cylinder wall damage, there just wasn't room to bore and fit new pistons. It was just easier and cheaper to grab another 4.0/4.6 block. Around here those things are almost as common as small block Chevys. I recently picked up a running driving clean as a whistle 2001 Range Rover 4.6 HSE for $1000. Plan was to just yank the engine but the wife liked the Rover so much, its now here daily driver. To answer your question about the top hats, yes, they could have been installed. Nobody around here wants to do that... at least not for a reasonable cost. Last estimate I got to install top hats and bore was around $2K. Thats what ultimately led me down the Chevy LS3 path. I'm not a purist, and never have been. I want to go as fast as possible for the least amount of money. FWIW LS3 heads will flow 340CFM on the intake side and support up to 600 normally aspirated HP right out of the box. They have hollow stem 2.16" intake valves and 1.60" sodium filled exhaust valves in support of a stock 4.06" bore.
Yeah, that LS is going to be your best bang for the buck when you're going for those real high power levels. 600 hp in an MGB is like what, a 4:1 power ratio? Pretty insane, that.
Jim
Posted by: Dan Jones Date: February 16, 2016 06:08PM
I'll try inserting periods to keep the forum software from screwing up the column spacing:
I don't know if this forum supports them, but "code" tags around the data set will prevent consecutive spaces from getting concatenated most places. You might still have to play with some editing for spacing purposes as even forums which claim to be WYSIWYG usually aren't.
Posted by: Dan Jones Date: February 16, 2016 06:08PM
Note the ported Rover TA heads outflow the highly regarded AFR 165 heads
Very nice. Good job to TA.
Plus 300 cfm would be amazing.
Todd and Jim, yes, any Chevy based swap would likely be more cost effective on a horsepower per $$$ basis.
Todd, I asked about the sleeves as over here Darton makes them in two sizes, the larger being 96 mm and I have this potentially demented idea about using LS 3 pistons with blank crowns in a Rover.
Not that I am likely to find a 4.6 block scrapped for that salvageable a reason here. :(
Test of formatting using code tags:
Ported TA Performance Rover Heads
Valve
Lift 1.94" 1.60"
Inch CFM CFM
0.100 78.3 63.8
0.200 129.4 108.5
0.300 185.1 146.7
0.350 206.2 -----
0.400 225.8 177.0
0.500 251.3 189.8
0.600 252.8 199.4
Dan Jones
> I don't know if this forum supports them, but "code" tags around the data set will prevent consecutive spaces from getting concatenated most places.
Thanks Todd! I tried pre-formatted, block quote, non proportional font and a few others and none seemed to have an effect on the spacing in this forum but you prompted me to give it another try and I realized I was using the wrong bracket style ([...] instead of <...>).
Dan Jones
FWIW, my WAG is intake port height is becoming a flow limiting factor, on the higher valve lifts ? roverman.
Dan Jones' report of porting TA cylinder heads
Stock 4.6 heads with 1.575" intake valves,
vs. ported 300 heads with 1.775" intake valves
vs. out-of-the-box TA heads with 1.94" intake valves
vs ported TA heads with 1.94" intake valves
vs ported TA heads with back-cut 1.94" intake valves
'back-cut' means the valves were given a 30 degree back-cut.
Intake<table border="3">
<tr> <td>Lift</td> <td>4.6</td> <td>B 300 P</td><td>Orig TA</td> <td>Ported</td> <td>back-cut</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>dia.</td> <td>1.575"</td><td>1.775"</td><td>1.94"</td><td>1.94"</td><td>1.94"</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.100</td> <td>60.2</td> <td>66</td> <td>67.7</td> <td>76.8</td> <td>78.3</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.200</td> <td>105.4</td> <td>129</td> <td>105.4</td> <td>120.4</td> <td>129.4</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.300</td> <td>132.4</td> <td>174</td> <td>143.0</td> <td>173.1</td> <td>185.1</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.350</td> <td>135.5</td> <td>187</td> <td>164.0</td> <td>198.7</td> <td>206.2</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.400</td> <td>135.5</td> <td>191</td> <td>185.1</td> <td>224.2</td> <td>225.8</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.500</td> <td>n/a</td> <td>196</td> <td>220.9</td> <td>255.9</td> <td>251.3</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.600</td> <td>n/a</td> <td>200</td> <td>225.8</td> <td>(n/a)</td> <td>252.8</td> </tr>
</table>
Exhaust<table border="3">
<tr> <td>Lift</td> <td>4.6</td> <td>B 300 P</td><td>Original</td> <td>Ported</td></tr>
<tr> <td>dia.</td> <td>1.35"</td> <td>1.5"</td> <td>1.6"</td> <td>1.6"</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.100</td> <td>57.4</td> <td>47</td> <td>47.9</td> <td>63.8</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.200</td> <td>92.5</td> <td>104</td> <td>70.2</td> <td>108.5</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.300</td> <td>103.7</td> <td>130</td> <td>102.1</td> <td>146.7</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.350</td> <td>106.9</td> <td>139</td> <td>114.9</td> <td>n/a</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.400</td> <td>106.9</td> <td>146</td> <td>126.0</td> <td>177.0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.500</td> <td>n/a</td> <td>152</td> <td>137.2</td> <td>189.8</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.600</td> <td>n/a</td> <td>153</td> <td>140.4</td> <td>199.4</td> </tr>
</table>
I'm very curious to understand why the ported 300 heads did so well. I've heard Vizard suggest that shallow, open heads benefit from a 30 degree valve job - better low-lift flow. I'm wondering what magic Dan performed on these 300 heads.
Paul
AIR., Mr. Vizard only discussed 30deg on intake side, but not comparing heads with measurable shrouding of the intake valve, by being located off-center in the bore, (Buick/Rover). I suspect a 30 deg. int. would be more prone to shrouding. Onward, roverman.
Hah.
I think Paul is the poasting professional you need to ask for advice. If you view page source, you can see that he's using table, td and tr tags.
I feel like such a noob.
Hey Dan, do we have flow numbers for most of the OEM Rover heads? I'd be curious to see Olds numbers, I'm sure you Rover guys would like to know if there are certain Rover castings that really suck.
> I'm very curious to understand why the ported 300 heads did so well.
Those Buick 300 heads were fitted with larger seats and Ferrea 6000 series Buick V6 Stage 1 stainless steel valves (1.775" intake and 1.5" exhaust). Intakes have a 10 degree "Super Flo" head shape while the exhausts are 29 degree tulips. The heads were hand ported by Jon Carls of JDC Engineering in Minonk, IL. I supplied Jon with a corroded Buick 300 head which he used to determine the casting material thickness limits. Given that the unported heads flowed 154/116 CFM @ 0.600" lift, he did a very good job. The exhaust to intake flow ratio and low to mid-lift numbers are quite good. I added a set of Harland Sharp Harland Sharp adjustable roller rockers on new shafts and D&D end stands. The plan is to dyno test those on the 5.0L Rover mystery motor. That engine is supposed to be very high compression (flat top pistons with welded chamber extrude-honed Rover cylinder heads) so the larger chambers should put the compression ratio in the right ballpark for a pump gas high performance street motor. If the engine needs new pistons, I might put the TA Performance Rover heads on and sell the ported Buick 300 heads and matching Huffaker intake. We won't know until we dyno it for a baseline and then tear it apart which won't happen before May at the earliest.
Dan Jones
P.S. Thanks for putting the flow data in a table, Paul.
> I'd be curious to see Olds numbers,
I've not flowed any Oldsmobile heads myself but have some numbers in the database
from the September-December 2003 issue of the British V8 Newsletter. In that
issue, Kurt Schley reports the results of a maximum porting effort on a set of
Olds 215 heads (the 51 cc version, casting suffix -746). Those larger combustion
chamber Olds heads were destined for a 289 cubic inch stroker Olds 215 (welded
iron 3.75" stroke crank). The porting was performed by Dwayne Porter (c/o Motion
Machine 802-951-1955). The article does not say what pressure drop the heads were
tested at but states the flow numbers were corrected to 28" H2O. This means the
heads were flowed at some lower pressure drop and ratio'd by the square root of
the ratio of the pressure drops. Valve train used:
Ferrea P/N F6223 (Intake valve for a Ford 2.3L), 1.74" head diameter,
11/32" diameter stem, 4.8 long, 0.4" tip.
Ferrea P/N F6224 (Exhaust valve for a Ford 2.3L), 1.50" head diameter,
11/32" diameter stem, 4.8 long, 0.4" tip.
Comp Cams valve springs P/N COM-901-16 (ouer spring with damper)
1.5" OD, 1.080" ID, 110 lbs @ 1.65" load at checking height,
290 lbs @ 1.150" load at open height , 1.110" coil bind height
Comp Cams retainers P/N COM-743-16 steel 7 degrees lock angle.
The valve head diameters were reduced to 1.62"/1.4", so the stock valve seats
could be retained.
Test #1 Stock head 1.525"/1.35" valves
Test #2 Stock valves but full head porting, intake opened to 1.70" x 1.00",
30 degree back cut on valves, competition valve job
Test #3 As Test #2 but with 1.62" intake valves, 1.40" exhaust valves
(intake and exhaust backcut)
Test #4 As Test #3 but intakes opened to 1.80" X 1.00", fully polished
runners, guides streamline
Test #1 Test #2 Test #3 Test #4
Valve Stock Olds Ported Olds Pored Olds Ported Olds
Lift 215 heads 215 heads 215 heads 215 heads
(inch) Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust
1.525" 1.350" 1.525" 1.350" 1.620" 1.400" 1.620" 1.400"
0.100 43 35 48 36 51 45 51 46
0.150 63 52 72 55 77 64 77 64
0.200 85 65 95 73 104 76 104 78
0.250 104 73 111 85 128 88 128 90
0.300 116 77 124 96 146 99 147 101
0.350 122 80 138 105 159 108 161 112
0.400 128 81 150 110 168 114 172 118
0.450 133 84 158 114 168 119 173 123
0.500 134 84 165 119 170 124 174 126
0.550 136 84 168 120 173 126 176 129
0.600 136 84 168 122 174 127 178 130
> Hey Dan, do we have flow numbers for most of the OEM Rover heads?
I've only flowed the one set of 4.6L Rover heads listed above. I've got some
numbers in the database from a local head porter who is no longer in business
for 3.9L Rover heads. Those heads look very similar to the post SD1 3.5L
Rover heads I've seen. The baseline and light port were with the OEM valves
but I don't know the valve sizes for the Stage 4 heads:
Rover 3.9L Rover 3.9L Rover 3.9L
Lift aluminum heads aluminum heads aluminum heads
Baseline Light Port Stage 4 Porting
0.200 92.2 72.2 101.4 78.7 96.7 80.1
0.300 132.6 85.7 136.5 94.0 143.9 106.6
0.400 143.3 89.5 149.8 100.6 177.1 127.0
0.450 145.7 90.5 152.7 102.5 180.6 134.3
0.500 147.7 91.3 153.0 103.5 181.0 139.7
0.550 148.0 91.6 153.0 104.4 181.0 142.8
The guy I bought the assembled TA Performance Rover heads from has a set of
maximum effort Jon Eales ported Rover heads on his Woody Cooper 4.9L Rover.
Woody mentioned they were $3500 plus shipping. I wonder if he has the flow
sheets on those. Woody runs a set of ported and extrude honed Buick 300
heads on his 4.9L Rover stroker. I think I asked and he said he didn't have
any flow bench numbers on those.
One of the guys on the TR8 list, had larger intake valves installed in his
Rover 3.5L heads ported with larger intake valves. Results were:
Rover 3.5L
Lift Intake Intake
Inch Unported Ported
0.100 47.0 55.9
0.200 96.5 113.6
0.300 135.7 156.6
0.400 146.1 171.4
0.500 147.2 175.9
> I'm sure you Rover guys would like to know if there are certain Rover castings
> that really suck.
The later 4.0L/4.6L heads look to be the best of the lot with slight larger
ports and valves but, in unported form, your probably only talking a difference
of 10 CFM or so. That's in the noise when comparing results from different
benches and pressure drops.
Dan Jones
QuoteThe later 4.0L/4.6L heads look to be the best of the lot with slight larger
ports and valves but, in unported form, your probably only talking a difference
of 10 CFM or so. That's in the noise when comparing results from different
benches and pressure drops.
They still aren't very good, but the latest Rover heads are a good deal better than the stock Buick 215 heads.
The Buick 300 heads on my 4.6 SD1 flow 193 cfm at 550 thou (1.75 inlet).
They were done on a flow bench by Holden/Ford V8 head guru Eddy Woods at the Head Stud Development Co in Melbourne, and they were originally destined for a 5.0 litre Leyland P76 motor
Standard P76 was about 132 cfm at the same lift (P76 heads were the same as the early Rover P6B heads). I think the later post 1976 SD1 Rover heads flowed about 148cfm at the same lift, with Stage 4 Rover heads around 181. Stock 300 heads flow 153 cfm at 550.
In the UK, Merlin F85 heads have been maxed out to flow about 185 cfm.
I believe Lanocha in the US has flowed over 200cfm from Buick 300 aluminium heads which was sufficient to support 425 hp on a maximum-effort, high-compression, normally aspirated 5.0 litre TR8, and that's using a single-four-barrel Daemon Racing carb on a Willpower open plenum inlet manifold, not efi.
I finally got around to taking some pictures of the TA Rover heads. As mentioned earlier, they received a bowl porting and chamber polishing:
(http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l621/danielcjones2/Buick%20Olds%20Rover%20Aluminum%20V8/TA_Rover_heads_combustion_chambers_polished_50percent_zpsfimzbjsf.jpg)
(http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l621/danielcjones2/Buick%20Olds%20Rover%20Aluminum%20V8/TA_Rover_heads_chambers_with_and_without_valves_50percent_zpsewqee72e.jpg)
On the intake side, only a minor amount of material was removed to match the ports to the Willpower single plane intake manifold (drilled for EFI):
(http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l621/danielcjones2/Buick%20Olds%20Rover%20Aluminum%20V8/TA_Rover_heads_intake_port_50percent_zpspm8wmkzg.jpg)
(http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l621/danielcjones2/Buick%20Olds%20Rover%20Aluminum%20V8/TA_Rover_heads_backlit_intake_port_50percent_zpseniobq4b.jpg)
(http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l621/danielcjones2/Buick%20Olds%20Rover%20Aluminum%20V8/Willpower_polished_50percent_zpsgdjmx5xl.jpg)
The exhaust ports received the bulk of the porting and were enlarged to fit larger 1 5/8" primary tri-y headers (Kirk Racing design as sold by Woody Cooper of the The Wedge Shop and Ted Schumacher at TSI):
(http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l621/danielcjones2/Buick%20Olds%20Rover%20Aluminum%20V8/TA_Rover_heads_exhaust_ported_unported_50percent_zpszbzxvppm.jpg)
Here's a shot showing the TRS logo (Triumph Rover Spares) and also the TA Performance logo:
(http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l621/danielcjones2/Buick%20Olds%20Rover%20Aluminum%20V8/TA_Rover_heads_TRS_logo_valves_50percent_zpseesgqcv1.jpg)
Dan Jones
What difference does indexing plugs make with heads like these vs less precisely engineered stock heads? Does indexing plugs make much of a difference anyways?
Just curious Dan, did those heads come direct from TA or through TRS? (Wondering if their logo is a part of shared development costs.)
I like what you've done with the exhaust ports. That's always been a weakness with Buick heads.
Jim
Nice job on the porting/chambers. Got ported cc's of int./exh. ? Cheers, Art.
> What difference does indexing plugs make with heads like these vs less precisely engineered stock heads? Does indexing plugs make much of a difference anyways?
I've never tested indexing on a dyno. Joe Sherman says he has never seen any power increase from indexing but did say he's seen a 5 HP increase from long reach plugs.
> did those heads come direct from TA or through TRS? (Wondering if their logo is a part of shared development costs.)
Directly from TA.
> I like what you've done with the exhaust ports. That's always been a weakness with Buick heads.
200 CFM on the exhaust is quite a lot for the cubic inches. I'll most likely go with a single pattern cam.
> Got ported cc's of int./exh.
I've not measured the runner volumes but can add it to my list. In general, I use runner length and minimum/maximum cross-sectional areas instead of runner volume. Bob clearanced the combustion chambers to around 42cc then milled them 0.020" to get them to 37cc.
The ported OEM Rover heads off of the Rover 5.0L look pretty good. They are based upon 3.9L casting and have had the chambers welded to 23 ccs. I'm going to get them flow benched soon and will post some pictures later.
Dan Jones
>Direct from TA
I suspected as much. This seems to confirm my early suspicion that TRS subsidized the development of these heads, also buying all or most of the first production run as part of the deal. Certainly a valid way to conduct business, hopefully TRS managed to recoup their investment. It's fortunate for us (and TA of course) that the heads can be bought directly at a price consistent with their other offerings. I am a bit surprised however, that their website did not list them as aftermarket heads for the 300 and 340 Buick engines. Most enthusiasts would figure this out, but that probably lost them a few sales.
Jim
Jim, I got to hold one of the machined bare castings at TA in Phoenix (while standing next to a pallet of them :D ).
In speaking with them, I gather TRS committed to buy enough of them justify the investment in the tooling, casting and developing the CNC code for the basic machining (costs I can think of off the top of my head).
Which explains why the Rover heads moved ahead of the Buick 350 heads and intake projects, as a few of us thought at the time. There is no such incentive for either a 300 or 340 intake, and the two markets are spit from each other as well (340 in Buick-land and 300 in MG-land) so I'm pretty confident we will never see an aftermarket intake from TA for either of these engines unless they just run out of other things to do. They are currently back to developing the 350 parts, which we will never use here due to the external engine size, despite ready availability of many cheap engines and good durability. We have better choices.
But the Rover heads represent a potent equalizer in the HP race. You put those on a 300 block at 300 or 350 cu.in. with good pistons and a relatively hot cam, combined with RV8 headers and a decent exhaust and you can make some real power. Dish in some power adders like nitrous or boost and now the SBF's weaker block becomes the limiting factor, as some of the SBB engines have been making reliable power at the 700 hp level.
Yes, the heads are expensive. But so is a 302 conversion kit. I think the cost is basically comparable, so this is a chance to level the field once again between the two brands.
Dan, how would you compare the potential of the TA heads against the more popular brands of 302 heads? You use both, I'm sure your opinion will be essentially unbiased.
Jim
> Dan, how would you compare the potential of the TA heads against the more popular brands of 302 heads? You use both, I'm sure your opinion will be essentially unbiased.
The TA heads have quite good potential and can rival similar valve size SBF heads. Exhaust is (after the porting that mine received) likely better than most SBF heads. There are many SBF heads with various combustion chamber volumes, spring packages, valve diameters and minimum cross-sectional areas so it's easier to match a head against an engine with a particular displacement and RPM range but I think the bigger discriminator are the supporting parts. The SBF benefits from having several excellent intake manifolds, larger base circle cams, larger diameter lifters, larger rocker ratios, etc. Some of the better flowing SBF heads like the AFR 165 have moved to valves with smaller 8mm stems which could also be applied to the TA heads.
Dan Jones
Dan,
Have you measured the actual stroke of your 4.2 crankshaft? Kevin Jackson (castlesid) said his was less than 3.03. In fact, he stated that his Land Rover data sheet lists the range as 76.222-76.759mm. Kinda messes with the calculations, a bit.
I am very interested in your build. I am doing a very low budget version. :) I have two 3.9 Rovers in my garage. One is a complete engine, the other is a crank, block, rods, & heads, plus a set of late 4.0 heads with springs for the Crower 50232 that I bought many years ago. Thanks to Glenn Towery, I also have a 4.2L crank I plan to use, along with an Edelbrock manifold & a NASCAR Holley 390 for autox.
Quench. I have been playing with various piston & rod length choices trying to find a good combination with good quench & reasonable compression with my late Rover heads. Doesn't seem possible. Then i look at the Rover heads & wonder why I am even worrying about quench. Quench, what quench? These things are nothing like SBC.
I'm a bit late to this party but glad I found this thread. I'm building a 4.0L with TA heads for an MGB V8 racecar. My heads are box-stock as received from TA and I just them put on a flow bench:
Lift Int Exh
.100 65.2 56.1
.200 113.8 84.1
.300 161 110
.400 198.2 126.6
.500 230.7 136.5
.600 242.1 141
.700 240.3 143.5
Springs are TA1125AL offerings, 145lbs closed pressure and 325 open. I'm using the stud mount rocker setup and Crower roller rockers. I've got a Willpower intake being ported now to match the heads and do some cleanup in the plenum, it appears there was core shift during casting so it's a little off center. I'll post some photos when I have the intake back. My short block has custom forged pistons for ~12:1 compression and I'm running a Crower Cam, grind 50305 (INT/EXH - Dur @ .050" Lift: 256°/262° RR: 1.6/1.6 Gross Lift: .536"/.549" LSA: 108° RPM: 3000 to 6500 Redline: 7500).
Dan - do you happen to know what water neck fits the Willpower intake? I haven't bought that yet and am not sure what fits, I was hoping for a small block chevy piece to bolt on. Also, can you tell me what plug you ended up choosing?
If a water neck is the same thing as thermostat housing I used a factory Rover V8 EFi thermostat housing on my Willpower manifold.
Looks like the TA heads really benefit a lot from exhaust porting in particular. I'm glad to see that. Maybe a set of TA heads are in my future at some point.
Jim
Doug, Break-in of that cam, with those springs, will be critical ! Can't run a roller ? Good Luck, roverman.
Remove the inner spring for cam break-in.
> Have you measured the actual stroke of your 4.2 crankshaft?
I have not. The new-old-stock 4.2L is still assembled and wrapped in plastic. However, the high RPM 4.2L is disassembled so I could check that crankshaft.
> Kevin Jackson (castlesid) said his was less than 3.03.
I can believe that. Also, the deck height can vary.
> I am very interested in your build. I am doing a very low budget version.
Is that a low budget version of my low budget 4.2L or my high RPM 4.2L?
> along with an Edelbrock manifold & a NASCAR Holley 390 for autox.
Have you used the NASCAR Holley 390 before? I've wondered how well those would work. They are optimized for much larger displacement engines that use the carb as a restriction. I'd be surprised if the tricky bits of the calibration (bleeds, PVCRs, etc.) are even in the ballpark for a Rover V8.
> Quench. I have been playing with various piston & rod length choices trying to find a good combination with good quench & reasonable compression with my late Rover heads.
You're probably looking at custom pistons. I've got a request for a quote for forged pistons but haven't heard back on price or lead time.
> Quench, what quench? These things are nothing like SBC.
My ported Rover 3.9L heads have had the chambers welded up to 23 ccs and have a distinct quench pad. Likewise the ported TA Performance Rover heads have a quench chamber. A friend is looking to have his ported 300 heads welded up as well. With unmodified Rover combustion chambers, it looks like a circular dish with a flush outer perimeter providing quench from 360 degrees around would be as good as you could do.
Dan
> Springs are TA1125AL offerings, 145lbs closed pressure and 325 open.
That's more spring pressure than I'm comfortable using on a flat tappet cam these days. If your heads came with steel retainers you might consider offset titanium retainers to provide a bit less pressure.
> I'm using the stud mount rocker setup and Crower roller rockers.
What ratio did you go with? TA recommended 1.65:1 ratio.
> Dan - do you happen to know what water neck fits the Willpower intake?
I was told it takes a small block Chevy water neck but have not confirmed. I also need the fuel injection rails.
> Also, can you tell me what plug you ended up choosing?
I haven't chosen plugs yet. I still need to measure the reach required. Might be worth a call to TA and see what they recommend.
Dan Jones
Thanks for the comments all. I do plan to break the engine in without the inner springs in, just thought I'd give the normal specs for reference. It's a lot of cam/spring for a solid tappet, but the roller conversion was out of my budget. I'll be keeping a close eye on things and this engine won't accumulate a ton of hours being a race engine before freshening up so hopefully all goes well.
For rockers I'm using Comp Cams Ultra Pro Magnum 1.6 ratio units, they are reasonably priced and have a good design in terms of stiffness. I've got a small block Chevy water neck due in from Summit today, will report back when I check the fit on it to the Willpower manifold. Same goes for the plugs, I was planning to talk with TA so will share what I learn from them.
A comment on the 390 Holley - I sourced one from Keith Dorton (circle track builder) which he put together with some smart mods based on what they can (or sometimes can't) do per the rules. They NASCAR version essentially uses the carb as a restrictor in some classes but in Vintage racing when you don't have any carb rules they can more liberally apply mods. According to them mine should flow around 500 cfm which should be a nice balance of primary size and flow to not over-carb the engine.
Hi everyone,
Please forgive my ignorance, hopefully it doesn't shine through too brightly...
Carl said:
"Quench. I have been playing with various piston & rod length choices trying to find a good combination with good quench & reasonable compression with my late Rover heads. Doesn't seem possible. Then i look at the Rover heads & wonder why I am even worrying about quench. Quench, what quench? These things are nothing like SBC."
Could y'all help me understand the scope of the issue here? If I read the thread correctly, no known crank/piston/rod/head combo exists for the Rover v8 or Buick 300 that provides a meaningful quench effect.
Hypothetically, how much of a HP/efficiency effect would the quench effect provide in a BOPR or Buick 300 engine?
Is quench in the BOPR design an achievable thing? Would a custom piston set solve the problem, or is it a limitation of the head casting?
Dave
For spark plugs I use NGK -BCPR7ES I've gone for a cooler plug as mine is supercharged.
Mine was on the dyno yesterday,but having problems with oil drain back ! Roller cam and lifters fitted,pushrods have 80 thou holes,going to use 20 thou holed pushrods to try and limit the oil flow to the head.Heads are coming off again,to open up oil drain back
Did manage to run the engine in (5 gallons of fuel ) couldn't run over 4K revs.But am very impressed with how it's all going,pulleys are 20% underdriven for running in purposes,have a selection to take me to 10% over !
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
Doug, did you talk to Comp Cams about having the cam "Nitrided",(generic name, they have a fancy process name). ? EDM hole in the face of the lifters, to better lube the lobe faces ? Bryan, look like a 6V-71 blower ? You want to share your build and results ?
QuoteIf I read the thread correctly, no known crank/piston/rod/head combo exists for the Rover v8 or Buick 300 that provides a meaningful quench effect.
It is do-able. Not cheaply, though. No clue how much it would really help.
To answer Dan's questions:
For now low budget of your low budget. Gonna use all the on hand parts I can. Maybe custom pistons down the road, if I don't give up & build an aluminum LS with a 4.8 crank.
No, I have not tried/used the NASCAR 390. I have spent much time tuning my 750 DP on my Camaro, if that counts. I have read that it will work on smaller engines, too. I am done trying to get along with the Edelbrock/Carter 500 for track days & autox. I do get 25-27mpg on the highway with it, though.
D R, have fun!
https://www.uempistons.com/index.php?main_page=calculators
How large a quench area can be achieved is a function of the piston and head design. A dished piston and a small chambered head can usually achieve a larger quench area than an large chamber. The 300 could be characterized as a larger chambered head, however it isn't really right to say that no meaningful quench area can be achieved. You would have to take a pattern of the chamber and overlay it on the piston to see how much quench area there is. The quench area is essentially restricting the flame to the chamber and the piston dish. There is a good bit of theory on why this is a good thing and how much is desirable, but conventional design leaves .040" between the piston and the head to avoid contact under any conditions. A piston dish allows this close contact around the outer edge of the piston, that area may be up to about 1/2" wide. The volume of the dish determines the compression ratio, along with the chamber volume and head gasket thickness, often with a zero piston height and a .040" head gasket.
All heads reduce this squish area by the area of the valves over the piston rim and by the area over the spark plug. 300 heads are no different here except possibly in having more area around the plug.
Obviously more modern head and engine designs will be a bit more refined, but I built my 300 headed 340 for .040" quench. You don't have to bother with it of course, it is really one of those smaller things that can make a little difference. Read up on the theory if you are curious, a web search will bring up plenty of study materials.
Jim
I understand quench. I had no trouble when building my 400hp 350 in my Camaro. It is a real challenge with the Buick 215/Rover V8 engines. Plus there is very little quench area anyway. Not sure it would be worth much.
Jim, an 89 Buick 3.3 V6 piston has a bore of 3.700", compression height of 1.31", pin diameter of .9054". I calculate the dish at about 20cc.
So, a Rover 3.7" block, with a Buick 340/350 crankshaft, Chevy 5.7" rods and Buick pistons ought to come within about .025" of zero-deck. Steel shim gasket. That makes about 331 CI or 5.4 liters.
I expect you'd want to use aftermarket cap-screw rods to clear the camshaft.
Pistons with compression heights as low as 1.1" are available, so rod lengths of 5.9" can be fitted.
Paul, I'm not sure the crankcase on a Rover is big enough to accept a 340/350 crank.
Jim
I think I may have discovered a new problem. The TA heads have a slightly relocated oil drain as compared to a stock head. I bought a set of Cometic gaskets and in test fits I'm seeing a problem with the alignment of the gasket to the oil drain. In the attached photo you can see that the hole provided in the cometic gasket doesn't line up well with the block or TA head. If this were a composite gasket I wouldn't worry about it, but since these gaskets rely on the raised embossment to create a seal I'm afraid there might be oil seepage out at the joint near the drainback. You can see in the pic that only a portion of the embossment is captured in the block/head joint. I did put the cometic on a stock head and it's a different situation - the production head has cast material all around the oil drainback hole in the gasket, however there still won't be anything on the block side of the joint.
Maybe I'm over thinking this but the last thing I want to deal with is leaky heads when i get this thing running. I'm on a tight timeline to get to the Brian Redman at Road America next month and don't have time to change head gaskets after firing it up. Anyone else seen this with Cometics or had any similar problem?
Ive had problems with the oll drain backs,I'm probably going to put in exterior oil drains from the head to the sump,watch this space as it's an ongoing build !
Have you blocked your oil feed holes in your block ? You will need to do this if you're using MLS gaskets.
"Have you blocked your oil feed holes in your block ? You will need to do this if you're using MLS gaskets."
Argh, didn't think of that. One more reason to switch to the composite gaskets. With no boost I don't think there's much risk there.
So you're having trouble with oil drain back in just normal running?
Yes,that's why the dyno session was cut short,wasn't getting the oil back to the sump quick enough,
I will be doing a full write up when sorted
I started a new thread since this isn't about TA heads. I just chimed in because Dan is using a similar short block.
I moved some posts. Some are shown as quoted instead. New thread started here.
http://forum.britishv8.org/read.php?6,56190
Do you guys know if a stock type composite gasket will be sufficient to seal off the oil passage on the block face? My shortblock is already assembled so I can't really go in now and put a plug in it. I'm hoping that the seal ring and composite main gasket body are sufficient to contain the oil pressure.
You could try driving tapered pins into the holes.
The saga continues for me... I was close to firing the engine, went ahead and built it up with Cometic MLS gaskets but upon filling the cooling system and pressure checking it I've got major water leaks at the block/head interface into the valley and a little on the exterior. The surface finish on the block deck face was not horrible but I was a bit concerned, guess I should have trusted my gut on that one. Heads are coming back off and composite gaskets going on in their place.
Using Rover heads, home ported due to no flow bench access. I pay a lot of attention to squish and as we run a flat top piston the Rover does have a decent amount of squish. The motor we run now is specced as a 3.9 block overbored to stock 305 chevy size, 0.037 overbore if I remember correctly. Stock bore and stroke Keith Black Ikon forged pistons, Scat 6" rods narrowed on the big end to suit the Rover, piston ends up 0.003 out of the bore, we run a 44 thou Copper head gasket. Works great and I think would be manageable on decent gas normally aspirated with the right camshaft. We run the Real Steel blower cam, 4-71 blower, enderle bug catcher on methanol. Best guess on HP based on times and speeds suggests 470-490HP at 5% overdrive giving around 12-16 lbs of boost. We ran 20 lbs plus on a 3.5 with cast Volvo pistons so next step is more boost. Best ET 8.84 @149.3 but I am sure there is a fair amount to come.
Alan