Hi everyone, I've done quite a bit of research but I don't know if I'll ever get the information I need without asking the question directly. I would like to build a Rover V8 for a future project (I'm hoping for a Triumph GT6 but we'll have to see how that goes). So far the components I'm partial to are '64 Buick 300 heads, the Rover 4.6 bock, and a Leyland P76 crank. I have found sources for all of these parts and its looking like if I went ahead with them I would be looking at around $900.
I know the topic of building these motors has been covered extensively, but determining whether all these (and others) are the right components to go with is difficult by reading other's posts because I want to come in under $5000 for the total engine build--so yeah, Wildcat heads would beat the aluminum 300 heads hands down but I don't want to blow over half the budget on one component. I am looking for good low and medium range torque and good reliability (it would go in a weekend car that I want to have fun in, not a top-speed racer). As a side note, I haven't found solid technical info on how to make the P76 crank work either.
Thanks for the help, it looks like there are a lot of knowledgeable folks here.
Just how set are you on this particular build? The premier Forum on Rover engine build is the UK based V8 Owners Forum.
http://www.v8forum.co.uk/forum/index.php
Guess what, not much interest in this over there. It can be done, it has been. What you get for your money may not be what you expected. Investigate the machining costs, rods, & custom pistons.
The P76 mains are slightly bigger, so they have to be turned down or the 4.6 block line bored. Rear seal is bigger on the P76. Flywheel PCD is different. Counterweights must be machined. Oil pump will not be driven by the crank (like the 4.6). So, older front cover, intake, & cam with gear.
No way would I drop that much in a Rover engine without have tophat cylinder liners installed. I have friend that had an expensive Woody Cooper 4.6 that slipped a liner. I do not trust Rover blocks with their pressed-in liners.
A Chevy LS4 would be waaay better, cheaper, & more reliable.
Interesting approach, to build the engine first and then get the car. It's usually done widershins. Possible though, if you just have a particular love for that engine.
The P76 crank has a 3.5" stroke. I'm guessing that is the attraction. With the 3.7" bore of the 4.6 that gets you to about 5 liters. With $5K in pocket you can certainly get there but is it really the best thing to do?
Where are you located? It makes a difference. Would you consider a car slightly larger than the GT6 such as the MGB-GT? Again it makes a difference. What sort of a car are you building? Corner carver, track day car, drag racer, grocery getter? Again, difference.
Jim
Thanks Carl (and Jim), I will explore things on the UK forum. I have always thought the Buick/Rover V8 was a neat motor, ever since reading about them in a 1970's Hot Rod Magazine. The longer stroke of the P76 is part of the attraction, but also the fact that it would be different (which always costs more money, and is less efficient). I figure starting with the motor can make sense, because I would rather have an engine sitting around for possibly years rather than an engine and a car...
I generally agree with Carl... but I've been thinking of starting my own "Rover V8 Build $5000 Budget" thread.
My Buick 215 shortblock has been perfectly reliable since I built it over 25 years and ~60,000 miles ago. Occasional track days. Plenty of barnstorming on mountain roads. Long road trips. I don't think I'll ever wear out the bottom end. My original build wasn't anything special. Nothing about it was balanced or blueprinted. Mundane components. (0.030" over Silvolite low compression pistons, stock timing set and valvetrain, etc.). And my only complaint is that its always dripped oil on the floor. I love this engine's light weight, and I'm determined (through other projects) to get my MGBs weight under 2000 pounds.
So, I want to build the very, very best short-stroke BOPR short block and valvetrain possible. I'll swap my Rover 4.0 heads and custom EFI / custom electronic ignition onto it. Honestly, I don't care very much about horsepower or torque numbers. Throttle response, smoothness, reliability, and durability are much higher priorities. I drive my old Buick 215 right up to 6000 rpm more often than sensible. It goes there and back smoothly and without complaint. The new engine should be bulletproof even further across the tach.
What would the ultimate short stroke BOPR short-block look like? And what valvetrain would complement it?
Curtis, I would start with a 3.9 block with top hat liners. 6" Chevy rods with 305 Chevy pistons. A cam like Carl has (Crower 50232)would be great in a 3.9. You could put your heads on with larger valves, Chevy Z28 springs and ported. Everything balanced and aluminum flywheel.
I would have to say a Rover 4.0 or 4.6 block would be a better option (cross bolted mains to withstand higher RPMs). Supposedly the 4.6 blocks are less likely to have sleeve problems. Then if you stuck with a 215, 3.5, 3.9, or 4.0 crank you would end up with 241ci, with the shortest stroke possible without going custom.
Casey, You are correct on the crossbolts. The later 3.9 had the caps but were undrilled. Also 4.0 went to larger mains and rod journals. My second choice would be 4.0 with top hat sleeves. I'm with Carl on the worry over the sleeves.
Why the extra hassle with P76 crank ? Whenever you get into a serious machining it will cost money. And remember, P76 is an old engine and fining parts in good condition may be difficult. 4.6 litre engine is an easier choice, apart from the liner issue. And not all blocks suffer from it. I doubt that I have that much invested in my current 4.6 engine, albeit with the last winter´s EFI conversion it is pretty close to that number.
A nice 4.6 short block, nice heads and decent cam will provide an easy 250-280 hp which will move any GT6 pretty fast. The big problem is: if you can fit the Rover engine in a GT6.
The easy button for good power is just build a nice 4.6L. Nothing over the top because you are limited by the heads anyway. Just top hatting a block alone will eat up $2K. There are +.020 pistons available now for the 4.6 for around $400. Find a 4.6, bore if you have to, grind the crank if you have to, and install a good cam. That will set you back $3K to $4K or so depending on what you pay for the engine. That leaves money for all the other stuff you will have to find in order to install it in a sports car. I've seen many "big" engine builds eclipse the $10K figure only to blow up shortly there after. If you really want to throw one in a GT6, just build a good old 3.5 and be happy with 200 HP. Then spend your money building a rear end that can handle that kind of power. There is a guy near me that built a GT6 with a Buick 215 and a T50 trans. Don't know what he did for a rear end thou. Its a real low budget build, but it goes pretty good.
[The big problem is: if you can fit the Rover engine in a GT6.]
It's been done before, small block Ford, GM LS1 and Buick 215 :
http://www.britishv8.org/Triumph/JonCook.htm
http://www.carcentric.com/GT8.htm
http://www.britishv8.org/Triumph/MattKline.htm
I think Curtis like Carl likes the 2.8 stroke the 3.9 has. Also if you think about it the later 3.9 can be crossbolted and has more meat down around the crank due to the smaller main journals. There is a guy on you tube that ordered the top hat liners and pulled his own to save machining costs. $600 for the liners and $500 to install. I just wouldn't chance the slipped liners.
I'd still take the hit on the extra 80 lbs and go with the Buick 300. It would be more difficult to fit into a GT6 but for starters, that $2K that went for top hat liners is nearly enough to pay for fully assembled TA heads, or bare TA heads with aggressive CNC porting work. Just add valves and springs. (Buying the parts and a spring compressor is much less expensive than doubling the cost of the bare heads. BTDT) Then go the route Chris did with the crank, rods, and pistons and it would be pretty easy to complete the build within the budget. Shoot the block with silver powdercoat and it'd be a stealth engine that few could tell from a Rover, put Rover valvecovers on it and who would know? And it would be nearly bulletproof, understressed, and reliable.Even with a stock cam the output would be around 300hp. With a roller cam and those heads 500 would easily be within reach.
Jim
Jim B. I agree in regards to Casey. The T/A heads are great but expensive. The results on porting I've seen compares to the better Ford aluminum heads. Bang for the buck though, the 300 aluminum heads have been ported to 200 IN and 150 EX which is good to about 400 HP. Curtis mentioned valvetrain also. Years ago there was a discussion on hydraulic roller lifters on this site using 2.2, 3100 and 3400 FWD short roller lifters. Art had some cam blanks made. It is still being talked about on the Turbo V6 site. I also like the Volvo B20 steel adjustable rockers modified to fit the Rover shaft. Or the 5/8" by 1 1/2" plate with 7/16" stud rockers.
http://forum.britishv8.org/read.php?6,12402,page=3
Normally I get tired of posing a specific question and hearing a lot of suggestions that don't necessarily have to do with the question posed. I realize that its all in an effort to help, but if we all dictated our choices by what would be the cheaper/easier/more effective route everyone on this forum would be driving a Miata with a SBC to get their small, powerful car fix. This talk of doing a 300 build instead though has caught my interest, is it really only an 80lb difference between the blocks? Are there considerable dimensional differences? The man I'm speaking to about his '64 heads has them on a complete engine and has an aluminum 4 barrel intake he would sell with it, maybe it would be better just to pick up the whole package...
Yes, Casey. That would be a much better route than what you originally proposed.
I've weighed the 215, 300, and 340 blocks. The 300 is 80 lbs more than the 215, the 340 is 82 lbs more. Some say the late rover blocks are 30 lbs more than the 215 which would make the weight difference only 50 lbs.
The decks are 9/16" taller.
Jim
Thanks Jim, that's the info I needed. I was curious about why 300 and 215 heads were interchangeable but not intakes, the increased deck height makes sense of it.
That 300 is a cheaper better way to go for sure. Finding a four barrel and aluminum heads to go with it is a great score. Now you just need a flywheel and a bell housing and an older Chevy pattern T5. Bell housing is easy. Anything with the BOP pattern will fit. All over eBay for under $150.
Mike Moor says the 300 is 3/4" taller than the 215 as measured to the intake manifold carb flange. It's a bit wider, as well. The Buick 215/Rover V8 headers will work on the 300.
The height would depend on the intake of course. The width is a function of the deck height only and that should be 0.583 to 0.590" according to TAPerformance. Meaning the extra width should be 0.824" if my math is correct. The extra height exclusive of the intake would be half that or 0.412". However, using port spacers to adapt a 215 intake will add another 0.412" making the total close to Mike's stated 3/4".
Jim
Large journal/small journal ? What is the first motion of deflection ? I say the crankshaft is. Given the same load/stress the small journal will deflect more. Will the .100" increased wall thickness of cast aluminum, around the small journal crank, without cross bolted mains, make the bottom end/bottom of cylinder bores, stronger/more reliable ? Casey, just think, if you use a 300 block, you can install a 340/350 Buick crank and have 3.8" of stroke ! I'm getting a quote, from a local auto machine shop, to install my flanged liners,(Wildcat) with "sleeve retainer compound". IF this works well, it will get a hyd. roller cam,( I know a guy with a LOT of blanks and lifters). Logical choice for heads is Merlin or TA.
Will the 3.85" crank fit the Rover block and clear the pan rails? Seems that might be a problem.
Jim
Art is referring to the 340/350 crank in the 300 block. Actually 3.85 stroke.
It looks like if I do go with the 300, it would make sense to find a 340 crank. If I go with the extra weight I may as well squeeze the extra displacement out of it. Hmmm...
"Will the 3.85" crank fit the Rover block and clear the pan rails?
Jim"
Yes.
Greg
With the rods on it I presume?
Some clearancing required:
http://forum.britishv8.org/read.php?6,29211,29998,page=4
Using a front cover with the integral pickup is helpful. The crankcase oil pickup inlet has to have some meat ground off otherwise. Also two spots inside the crankcase have to be ground away beneath the front and rear cylinder. Otherwise, looks like it can be made to fit cleanly.
Greg
Greg, About time you got on here!
It would need either a pan spacer or a modified pan of course.
Jim
Check out the Aluminum V8 web site for some information and ideas.
I wonder if the P76 crank will fit a 4.6 block. The main journal diameter might be too small. You can use an earlier 3.9 block.
I would guess that the P76 crank has 2" rod journals. Your choice of rods includes the stock 215 rods, Chevy 327 rods, and Buick 300 rods. Rover 3.5, 3.9, and likely the 4.2 rods will probably fit up, too. I use the Keith Black/Silvolite catalog when I'm browsing for pistons for a stroker lash-up. Of course, you'll have to do the math to calculate compression height to search for a piston.
The Buick 300 heads are about right for what you're doing. The 215 intake is a low-profile design and is usually used in swaps.
Good luck.
Paul
Thanks for the info Paul, I will have to decide which way I want to go. I would still like to answer the initial question--so lets say I end up with $900 in the aforementioned parts, then $1100 in liners via this guy's method (http://www.landroversonly.com/forums/f40/my-diy-cylinder-liner-sleeve-removal-top-hat-install-video-pics-inside-68210/). Is $3k enough to get the rest done? Going with a 300 or other crank would lower the parts and machining cost, so that would probably need to be done away with (if my math is correct you would lose 12ci, but I think the increase in RPM would likely make up for it).
The 300 crank needs a seal adapter to fit it to the 4.0/4.6 block and a custom flywheel. An alternative is a 4.6 crank offset ground from 3.22" to 3.375", but you'll have to find a machine shop that can do the work. My point is that you might ask around to see if there's reliable shop to do the offset grind. It simplifies the job to use the original type crankshaft.
4.6 stock 3.22" stroke is 277 ci.
The 3.375" offset stroke is 290 ci.
The Buick 300 3.4" stroke is 292.5 ci.
A P76 3.5" stroke in a 3.9 block is 301 ci.
4.0/4.6 w/340 3.85" crank is 331 ci.
Buick 300 w/340 3.85" crank is 340 ci.
If you can get the P76 crank, look for a 3.9/4.2 block. That seems like the best combination. The 300 heads have bigger chambers to help keep the compression ratio reasonable.
I favor using the 4.6 crank in the 4.6 block. I'll consider pricing the offset grind of the 4.6 for my projects, but if I really want more, I'm going with a stroked Buick 300 (stroked to 340). Transmission fitment is easier on the Buick 300 block - stock manual bellhousing fits a T-5, and the 200R4 automatic 4 speed with overdrive is a compact, strong transmission with a good first gear ratio.
Yes, $3k is more than enough to get the rest done.
Fun!
Update, added the 4.0/4.6 with 340 crank combo. I'd forgotten that this has been done with a 3.5 block. Seems like a good combination for the kind of daily driver that some of us would like. Since I have a 4.0 and a 340 crank, this might be the eventual build I go with.
The 4.2 blocks are not given good marks by Glenn Towery, Woody Cooper, & Justin Broome.
Just wanted to add that it is not clear if this is with the original 2 bolt main block or the later "interim" block that had the capability to be turned into a 4 bolt main block.
I left a message with the man who owns the engine asking to know what he wants for the complete motor and swapping the 2 barrel intake for the 4. I figure then I can have my options open for either a Rover build or a 300 based build. My question is, how many cubic inches do the ported 300 heads support? I don't want to go trough the trouble of maximizing displacement if the heads won't breathe sufficiently anyway (and TA heads plus porting are not in the budget...).
Casey, The 300 head was THE head before the T/A head came out. Larger valves and seats are the key. 2.3 Ford 1.74 IN and 1.5 EX are what I used years ago. 305 Chevy are the same with taller stems. Ported have gone 200 IN and 150 EX which should be good to 400HP. I would use studs or steel thread inserts in rocker hold downs.
We need to dig up the thread where Dan Jones has the flow numbers for ported 300 aluminum heads.
I have found the thread you speak of and contacted the same company he used (JDC Engineering) to get a quote on porting. The 340 crank mains are 3 inches correct? Would it be possible to offset grind them for a gain of say, .4 inches, for a total stroke of 4.25? Of course you would have to find a rod to compensate but that would yield 375ci with a stock bore or 385ci going .050 over. Just an idea.
Hi Casey, Grinding the mains will not provide an opportunity to offset grind the rods journals. As it is, the 340 crank is already about the biggest you can fit into a Rover block. Some grinding will be needed to make it fit.
I had forgotten that the 340 crank can be fitted to the Rover block and I'm thinking that's my next engine project.
Other recent projects;
351 'Clevor' stroked to 393 for a 70 Mustang
224 Studebaker bored and stroked to 308 in a 1952 R1 pickup truck
Potential new projects;
Ford 2.8 V6 stroked to 3.5 for a Sunbeam Alpine
Rover 4.0 stroked to 5.4 for an MGB
Ha! Well that's my moment for the day... Sometimes the hands type faster than the mind thinks. I am interested to see how the 340 crank in the Rover block would work though.
340 and 350 cranks are the same.
215 vs 300
(http://www.teambuick.com/reference/library/images/215_hrm_5.gif)
Thanks for that picture Carl, I was searching to find a visual side by side comparison. I wonder how many cars that size is the difference between a go and no-go? I don't have a lot of experience with small engine bays, my last two projects were a '49 Ford F6 that went to Canada and a '67 Ford Falcon Futura that went to Australia before that. The gentleman with the engine said he would let me know by Saturday what he decides and the price.
My all-time fav Buick 300 powered MGB. I have driven it many times. It is so sweet!
http://www.britishv8.org/MG/MikelMoor.htm
M favorite too. Can't wait to see Chris' though.
Jim
QuoteMy all-time fav Buick 300 powered MGB. I have driven it many times. It is so sweet!
Probably the nicest MGB V8 on the road.
I have a Rover 4.0 engine, Buick 300 heads, crank, and 90% of the parts needed to build a D&D Stroker motor.
Would love to sell this package for a very reasonable price. i've had it sitting around for a long time and realize I will never build it.
QuoteQuote:
My all-time fav Buick 300 powered MGB. I have driven it many times. It is so sweet!
Probably the nicest MGB V8 on the road.
I agree 1000%.
Yours is right there with it, Dan! Even if you do have a Blue Oval under the bonnet. ;)
I thought I would give an update on some things. Martyn gave me a wonderful offer on his setup, but getting it across the border proved cost prohibitive. If anyone in Ontario is looking for a great start on a stroked Rover they should contact him. I contacted a auto yard in AU regarding a P76 crank; they said it would be $100 plus shipping. Shipping was $300. Greg has one with a flywheel for sale for $400 so that is probably the best deal your going to get if you are stuck on a P76 crank. The gentleman with the '64 Buick got back to me and said he would take $600 for the engine and aluminum 4 barrel intake-- a great deal as far as I'm concerned but he got cold feet and I didn't push him. In the mean time I have procured a complete '98 4.0 (craigslist, $75) and a set of stripped '64 300 heads (ebay, $150 after shipping).
I am still tossing ideas around on which direction I want to head eventually. The 4.0 would make a great high rev engine in its stock form (6.111 length rods works out to a 2.182 rod ratio), but as I am most interested in low to mid range torque it is not very appealing. The combo that is looking good right now is a 4.6 crank (I might be able to get if for free semi-locally if I trade some parts off the 4.0) and use the 4.0 rods with forged Icon 305 pistons (1.133 comp height) and the rod ratio works out to 1.892. Still spectacular. I would be .102 below deck and the compression ratio would be 9.8:1 but could easily be increased to whatever I want by milling the heads. 283 cubic inches would probably suit me just fine.
Doing this would allow me to use a lot of the parts I already have (covers, rods, etc) which would be nice. I haven't torn the engine apart yet but the seller said it ran when pulled, albeit a bit roughly. I am tempted to forgo the tophat liners and just pin the block. If they slipped in the future all I would be out is a set of rings, gaskets and my time (assuming I didn't allow the problem to go undetected for a long amount of time). With all this said I would plan on dropping the budget closer to $3000. I think its definitely doable whether I choose to go carbuerated or Megasquirt EFI. At any rate, it looks like the $5000 Rover V8 isn't a thing anymore.
Edit: I forgot to mention I would need to bore the wrist pin holes in the pistons .0179.
Edit: The 1.133 comp height Icons have a -10cc dish which I mistook to be a +10cc dome (Summit states all values as +x cc's even if its referring to the dish volume). The better option would be the 1.265 flat top Icons. They have a negative volume of 3.2ccs (valve reliefs) and would come .030 above deck for a compression ratio of 10.8:1 with the stock 300 chambers.
FWIW, I just got back my 4.6 short block. Picked up the whole 2003 LR it was in for $250 and got most of that back on scrap value, so buy in was just the time I spent. Block had 2 out of round cylinders and needed to be bored. So did the 4.0 block I dropped off at the same time. Could not find oversized pistons for a 4.0 so that block is wrapped up and stashed in the garage. Found +.020 4.6L pistons in England with rings delivered to me for $350. Machine shop services and a new camshaft came in at around $1800. Estimate to do the heads with porting, Chevy 305/350 springs, cut the spring pockets for the new springs, and install new larger Vitesse valves was $1400. All in I should be right around $4K for a basic rebuild with a cam and head work just for the long block. Still need flywheel, tranny, clutch, bell housing, headers, intake, oil pan, and a bunch of other stuff. Luckily I have most of those parts. Further confirms my premise that if you are starting from scratch, just go get a LS variant. The LS3 package thats in my other current project was a $9800 buy in for everything. It was in a wrecked 2010 Camaro SS with 11,000 miles. Lost track of the parts I have sold off to recoup my initial outlay, but in the end, the LS swap is going to be about the same price as the 4.6 swap, and make close to twice the HP with an indestructible 6 speed transmission.