Quote from: TABuickMike;1359917It's estimated that the rover head patterns will be done and at the foundry in 8-10 weeks.
These heads are expected to outperform the Wildcat heads at a fraction of the cost. Current catalog pricing would indicate that a set of complete heads should be right around $2000 minus rocker shafts. They are expected to be on the market in less than a year.
Jim
Update:
Default Re: What's the Deal with the buick/Rover head for TA Performance?
For those who were wondering what the head might look like, take our V6 head and imagine another cylinder on it and viola! thats basically the new head. We're also expecting flow numbers around 300 cfm or more (intake).
__________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Click To Visit <<<<<<<<<<<<<
Michael Tomaszewski Jr.
Website/Catalog/Ad Management
My Car: 1970 Skylark 350-4
Jim
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wizkid45/sets/72157617480262913/
could we turn down the journals on a 350 cam so that the revised valve order of the 350 heads would work with a BOP Rover block??
Or are there plans for a menu of cam offerings?
maybe I'm missing something -- the threads that I've been following on the V8Buick board didn't mention a TA rover head, but maybe I am looking in the wrong place. straighten me out, Jim.
Have you seen this one?
http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?t=172229
Okay -- my bad. I had my head turned around on this.
Sorry for mucking up the thread.
Here is the TA V6 head in action:
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/buick_v6_turbo_block/index.html
WOW I'd only heard that they MIGHT be working on it. That looks great so far. I wish I hadn't just finished two years worth of work on my heads. LOL. Well I guess I know where I can go if my plans don't work out and they suck.
I wonder if I could use the same headers I just finished. The ports are higher but it can't be more than an inch, right? It might work.
I've seen availability estimates of as little as 12 weeks. Personally I think that is probably optimistic, heck I'd be tickled to see them by the end of the year. But somewhere between is probably going to be on the money. The plan is to follow that with an intake, but no word yet of anything for the 300 or 340. Then they go on to the 350 intake followed by heads for that motor. Nothing has been said one way or the other about it, but if sales of the Rover and 350 head do well it might be reasonable to hope for an aluminum 350 block after that to join their lineup of the V-6 and big block "Tomahawk" aluminum blocks. Those are extremely stout and even with my preference for iron blocks I would not hesitate an instant to use one as the basis for even the most extreme engine build. The 350 would require yet another header design for use in the MGB, but it is otherwise identical to the 340 and therefore an easy fit into the engine bay. With a classy hood scoop of course.
Jim
Do you think the 350/340 would make the use of a scoop mandatory?
I'm sure it would be challenging to shoehorn it in without one, but that would be my goal.
Matt. I think the only way to do it without a scoop would be to build a custom intake manifold. We considered this on the Roadmaster project but logistics have sent us in another direction. One possibility would be a twin-log efi intake, perhaps running to the rear of the lifter valley with a pair of "U" bends to twin throttle bodies and air filters. Done in stainless or aluminum this could make an attractive and functional design. In fact, any port injection design could remove the throttle body and filter to a remote location and get the needed space, so any intake with injector bungs could be made to work. I think there is a limited selection of aluminum intakes for the 350 but nothing I know of with injector bungs so those would have to be added. For the 340 there is only cast iron. Carbs generally don't work too well with a long intake tract.
I hope to have the 340 installed in my roadster sometime this summer and that will help to visualize how much clearance is actually there, but the deck of the 340/350 is 1-3/16" higher than the BOPR engines. This does not necessarily demand that the carb flange be higher, but it is likely. It depends almost entirely on the intake.
Jim
Here's what I was thinking intake-wise, headed towards the cowl. Hat-tip to the moderator, whose installation gave me the idea:
act_westfield.jpg
Thinking about it now, anything more than two inches above the valve cover would probably require the scoop.
Perhaps something like this, but with oval logs just above the trumpet-attachment area.
DSCF2181.JPG
I don't remember who posted this on the Buick V8 forum, but here's a bunch of rover intakes to get one's noodle turning: http://www.mez.co.uk/ms12.html
That crossram style on the bottom is a good idea! Beats fabricating new horns and plenum. Interesting.
(http://www.mez.co.uk/rovermanifolds/crosso10.jpg)
OK. THAT is frackin' bitchin'!! I want to do this.
A fellow club member had a GT6 with a Rover installed and the builder there used a fabricated adaptor from the original intake manifold back to Weber DCOE to get it under the stock hood. The Weber ended up being located low and just behind the intake manifold with the intake routed through the cowl similar to what Curtis did. The car ran ok and seemed to start pretty easily so that intake runner length with a carb didn't seem to be too bad. I agree with Jim though, injection would be better.
How about this -- for only 3,000 pounds (!!!)?
Roverxsmall.JPG
So.. Not knowing crap about these systems what would I need to make this work?
http://sdsefi.com/
I already have the single plane manifold with injector bossses.
You'll need coolant temp, MAP, knock and TP sensors. I can't tell if it uses one or two O2 sensors. Then a VR pick up and crank wheel adapted to the crank. Then you need a fuel rail and injectors. Well and the associated fuel system. Higher pressure pump and regulator. Oh yeah the throttle body.
I thought it was interesting that they showed the coils in the pic since it doesn't come with it. I doesn't show the wiring harness but that's a plus. Ok I just realized that they do mention the coil packs in the first kit for $1900.
I don't know what other guys here would say but for $1450 you could probably get all this and a Megasquirt controller already built. The SDS probably has some stock maps already loaded in but those aren't going to matter much because of the custom application. It looks like the SDS has some pretty simple manual controls like the lean rich knob. That's pretty cool.
If I was building an EFI system; I'd use the Ford EDIS stuff for the pick up sensor and spark distribution. They are pretty cheap and easy to use. I bought the entire thing for $99. Here's a pic of the parts:
(http://i16.ebayimg.com/03/i/000/e1/2d/5a4f_1.JPG)
Then buy a prebuilt, well I'd probably try to build my own but I'm not advocating that, Megasquirt with spark control. I can't remember what it's called... Like Megasquirt II v3 or something like that.
Here's the top-o-the-line MS II 3.57 box prebuilt: http://www.diyautotune.com/catalog/megasquirtii-ems-system-smd-pcb357-assembled-unit-p-165.html
That's $405 totally assembled and it's a board you can't even purchase to build yourself. . It doesn't include a serial cable but those are cheap. That's really the same thing as the SDS kit but the interface with the ECU is different. It is WAY simpler with the SDS interface but you've got to spend another $1000 to get it. On the other hand you program the MS with a simple Windows program. It's clunky but works great.
Then get some injectors and fuel rail and the sensors we mentioned. I'm betting you can get a bunch of this stuff used on ebay or something. With the Ford EDIS and preassembled MS II v3.57 we're up to like $520. That leaves almost a grand for the other parts.
All this stuff can get overwhelming pretty quick. It took me a few months to totally comprehend it. When I did I realized it's actually pretty simple from a theory standpoint. I just breaks up the fuel delivery and ignition into individual parts with sensors to keep tabs on what's happening. The benefits are a totally programmable fuel and spark curve for optimal performance and economy. The deficits are pretty obvious: WAY more parts to go bad, complicated and more expensive. From a cost/benefit analysis with a cheaper less complicated carb and distributor you can tune for performance and get it pretty easily but it is always a compromise between performance and everyday economy. It's also sort of a stab at the best case scenario. With this type of system you can tune it for both and be pretty damn accurate to optimize performance and get the most economical consumption.
I ended up with spark control and a carb with a TPS. It's a lot of monkeying around and tuning to make a computer controlled system work. I want to do it but I've got so many other details to work out with the overall project that I needed to simplify one part to get it completed. I figured I'd work into it.
This should probably be a different thread, right?
Here's the lastest pics on the TA heads:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wizkid45/sets/72157617480262913/
Better start saving my pennies.
Word on the street is the first sets are going to the foundry by Mid July.. Maybe I should put the brakes on my 64' Buick 300 head development.
Quote from Mike Jr.
"Update on the Rover Head, I'd post the pictures but I took quite a few. Hopefully it'll be to the foundry in the next 5 weeks or so, give or take."
That was 2 days ago, so inside 2 months I expect we'll be seeing some foundry photos. Since these heads will be built on the V6 tooling lead time after that shouldn't be long at all, my guess is 3 months at the outside.
Now the question is, what can I ebay to raise the necessary funds?
Hey Carl, we've got to figure out that Volvo rocker shaft setup. Shouldn't be that much work to cut and splice them. (wonder how it works out cost-wise?)
Jim
I'll have to check again, but I thought I decided against that for some reason. May be that the rocker ratio is different?
About those "Volvo" rockers, I used to buy them from "Gary at Rocker Arm Rebuilders" Los Ang.,CA. I believe he moved somwhere in Nevada. Have'nt got current phone or webb address. To use these bad boys requires billet stands because shaft dia's are larger and wall is thicker. All the better to get geometry right with-out shims. No end supports needed for most serious cams. Tooling required : minimum (2) precision guide pins fitted in hold-down holes and precision slotted track for pins to ride in assuring correct index alignment while (2) halfshafts are pressed into center splice tubing(heavy walled, with internal shoulder), to assure correct assembled length. Properly done, all four hold-down bolts will fit. As I recall, ratio is 1.6/1 at nominal. Will accept at least , 1.25di. springs. I will verify this and try to post pictures of assembly. Rock-on, roverman.
T&D machine makes shaft rockers for the Buick 215 as well as contract work for T/A.. So It isnt much of a stretch to see a matched set come out of T&D for the new heads.
I just wrote about these in the cam option thread. I contacted a guy in WA who builds Volvo's for racing applications. He had a bunch of these rockers sitting around for like $5 a piece. I was considering doing this mod until I found the Harland Sharp rockers. I think it would be cool to have someone flesh out the idea for the average guy. I wonder what the racing teams did to adapt them... Larger shafts? or bigger bushings?
The Volvo rockers come from the 16b engine. They are very close to the stock dimensions but the shaft bushing is a bit bigger ID. It looked like 20 thou or so. Here's a pic for comparison:
(http://forum.britishv8.org/file.php?6,file=3267)
This one is missing the adj stud. I'm pretty sure it uses a ball with a cup on the rod if I remember right. The ratio is different too. 1.55:1
Hello again buget minded, Volvo rocker type people. Gary or Blane at Rocker Arm rebuilders, Phone(530) 378-1075, in Anderson ,C.A. Complete, rebuilt assemblies, their #B20, outrite. Hardchromed/ground shafts with bronze bushed rockers. 4 cyl. set. Lash-out at the valve, in a good way. roverman.
roverheadcore.jpg
http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?t=172229&page=4
Jim
OH MAN! These are going to be sweet!
There was some talk on the V8Buick site about casting these with the Buick 350 valve cover pattern. Pretty good idea. I started thinking about it a bit and looked up adapter plates to use Ford or Chevy valve covers. I'm gonna have to do something like this because of the roller rocker setup. After mocking up the heads with the covers it looks like I'm gonna hit the underside of the valve covers.
So I started thinking about welding in bosses for the valve cover bolts. Anybody done this? The cheapest adapters I found were like $80 from UK without shipping.
Thoughts?
They may add the bosses for the Chevy pattern. As long as the flanges will match up there's no reason not to use a SBC cover.
Coming into this late. Do the TA Performance heads require a custom intake and headers (i.e. are the ports relocated and/or resized)?
Dan Jones
Not relocated. The ports match their V6 heads. More rectangular and without the step in the exhaust port. Standard headers should match up just fine.
Jim
Thanks Jim. Looking forward to these hitting the market.
Dan
TA picked up the head castings from the foundry today. WOO HOO!! Based on former results, these new heads will hit the market before Thanksgiving for sure! Maybe even around the end of the month. Remember, the tooling is already in place for their V6 heads.
My advice, if you're in the market for a set of the ultimate Rover style heads, call them up and place your order now. These are going to get snatched up quick. At about $2500 a set complete they are very cost competitive.
Jim
Mike Jr. couldn't give me an exact count but he thinks they had 8 or more sets of forgings made for this first run. They will have to write the CNC program to machine them (which will be essentially a copy and paste operation on the V6 program so that will go quickly) and then machining and assembly will go pretty fast. Undoubtedly several sets are already spoken for but there should be at least one or two sets available out of this run. Better jump on it if you want them.
Jim
OMG! I am a little bummed I have my heads all ready for me. I've spent that much already and I'm certain these will kick the shit out of mine.
Hopefully I can get a couple years in and then justify buying a new set...
Mike Jr's estimate was off a bit, They only cast 4 sets. Of those, "several" are going to Ian at Triumph Rover Spares in Australia, leaving maybe one set available. Mike Sr. would be the contact for these.
I get it Nick. Mine are done and on the engine. Not nearly as extensive as your work up, but if we'd known they were coming this soon, who knows? I'd love to keep the thought in mind of swapping on a set of these one day. Realistically with the blower on the 340 it's hard to imagine the need, but as we know horsepower is addictive. I might have to have parity or better with a certain big block GT!
Jim
And now, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat! Nuthin' up my sleeve...
Presto! A guy in the pacific NW has a Buick 350 short block that somebody put 340 heads on! Apparently it had been run that way. Details are still a bit sketchy, but he says pushrod clearance is not a problem.
That means a cheap, abundant supply of lightweight iron short blocks of 350 cu.in displacement, alloy aftermarket heads that are the best you can get at a reasonable price, and all that's left to sort out is the cam. I think that's pretty big news. Soon you will be able to build that big inch BOP/R style motor, retain the appearance and hold the weight at about 400 lbs.
Jim
So he must have put a BOP/R style cam in it then? The 350 has a different cam journal size, right? So custom cam, right? Maybe not. I suppose you could make or use OS bearings. About the push rod clearence. Why would that be an issue. they come up in the same places right?
A sturdy 400 lb 350 is pretty frickin' hot. That's got the small Ford beat. Unreal. I'm so hot for this it's obscene.
STOP! Focus, Nic. YOu're almost done with your current engine... Hey, I'm almost done with my current engine!! LOL!
Better finish that engine Nic!
The BOP/R has the center lobes splayed a bit to clear the siamesed center ports, where the 350 has the front and rear runners paired. The center offset is close to 3/8" at the cam so you probably couldn't run a 340 cam in a 350 even with oversized bearings. That is part of what we are trying right now to figure out. Undoubtedly a custom cam, he mentioned that the lobes were well centered under the lifter bores. Possibly it will have some markings on it that can be used to identify the source.
Jim
Seems to me the hot ticket would be the 300 block with the 340/350 crank.
If the 340/350 is a taller deck version of the 300, there ought to be a way of doing it.
Paul, I "think" the 340/350 has monster 3" mains? 300 has 2.5". Your thoughts on this? Anybody? 340/350 block being both taller and wider than 300, fitment issues in likes of MGB's etc.? Old School method in strength to effort ratio was using 427" Ford main bearings,2.75" dia. Using a #8620 or #9310(better) material for "roller" cam, is strong enough to get the base circle small enough to clear the 3.85" stroke. Giving-up some lobe lift to clear, you can get back with rocker ratios. Monster torque or high rpm. HP.? Can't have both with this set-up. roverman.
You could do that, if you were willing to go with custom pistons and move the pin up so that you could keep a favorable rod ratio. Also have to cut the mains down as Art mentioned. Now that I think about it, the cam is no more of an issue than it would be in the 340 or 350 block, since all of these engines use the same timing set. The smaller stroke engines do indeed have more cam clearance, something I may have mis-stated.
Anyway, the extra width is not an issue, but the extra height might have to be dealt with, depending on your choice of induction system. It may be as much as 1-1/2" taller than the 215. (Which, with the stock intake was a short engine to begin with.)
Jim
Art, that's good information. Yeah, my first thoughts would be to turn the mains down, losing the rod/main overlap.
It's pretty much idle talk from me. I do have a 340/350 crank kit, but no intention of doing anything with it besides selling it. But for a MGB application, it might be a fun option partly because it allows the use of an automatic transmission with a BOP pattern, something like the 200R4.
But Jim is right about the incremental issues like hood clearance.
BTW, are roller cams ever used in these Buick/Rover engines? I didn't see anything with I did a quick search with google.
http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/MonsterMotor.htm
Ah ha! I had read that, but I had read so much stuff recently, I couldn't remember it clearly. It would be interesting to hear what Dave Michel did with the engine.
348 cubic inches. Reading Blackwood's description of his work, I find a reference to block weights that says the 340 block weighs 82 pounds more than a 215 block. I'll guess that the 300 block weighs about 55 pounds more than a 215 block.
Hmm. I have the chance to weigh the 340 crank and the 215 crank. I'll do that soon.
That would put the stroked 300 with T5 maybe 50 pounds more than the original 1800 w/OD?
You guys have got me going again, must dash out and buy some more lottery tickets!
That combination would make some serious power without having to worry about the inherent fragility of the Rover block.
Curious to know how you would overcome the alignment problem of using the 350 block with it's different cam lobe and presumably lifter bore spacing with either the 215/340/Rover/ TA head pattern if you used a cam to match the TA heads arn't the lifter bores going to be in the wrong position?
Also what is the advantage of using the 350 block as opposed to the 340?
I love thinking out of the box and this has wetted my appetite, now thinking well built 350 bottom end TA heads, decent induction system, Meagasquirt ECU and a 250 shot of gas should make for a 600-650 BHP motor, now that would give my friend Perry something to think about, he's the guy with the extremely rapid 4.6 engined MGB GT now doing regular quarters at 10.66 at 126MPH and looking to get it down to minus 10 seconds, I'm just dreaming but who knows,
Kevin.
Jim's point about the 350 block is that its WAY more plentiful than the 340. Ok so here's a conundrum I've always been confused about. Why does the 300 weigh more than the 350?
I've seen a number of references that show the 300 at 462 lbs. and the 350 at 450 lbs. If the stat Paul laid out above is right then the 340 must be 489 lbs. I know the '64 300 heads are about 17 lbs each. so that means the '64 300 should be about 407 lbs. The references I've seen put the 300 weight at 400 lbs. so was the '64 using an aluminum intake? The weight savings for the 350 can't be just in the heads and intake, it's got to be in the block too, right? There's some savings in the intake because of the shared runners compared to the 340 but it's gotta come up with 39 lbs. from somewhere. Anybody got a 350 block handy to weigh? I bet it comes pretty close to the 55 lb mark of the 300.
The Lord's light shine on Buick for being so fixated on engine weight. The lightest, torquiest 455 and the lightest all iron 350. Lightest by a LONG shot.
Some weights for you guys to ponder, based on actually placing the parts on the scale. The 215 block weighs right at 60lbs. The 340 block is exactly 82 lbs heavier than the 215, so 142 lbs. The '64 300 engine is 80 lbs heavier than the 215 exactly (according to Mike Moore). Piston weights are very similar, rods likewise, we're talking grams here. Cranks typically weigh in around 50 or 60 lbs and are very similar also and I may have an exact weight around here somewhere, I can weigh a 215 crank if you like but there isn't much to be gained there. Bear in mind the change in main bearing size from 300 to 340/350 matches an increase in hole size in the block.
The light weight of these engines is due to pioneering work that Buick was doing on thinwall castings during that time period, and they continued to refine their skills as they developed the 350 and the 455 engines. As a result, these were some of the lightest iron engines ever built in terms of weight/displacement. In the case of the 455 they pushed it far enough in the early 70's that over the next few years they felt they had to add weight back in for critical areas and the mid 70's 455's are therefore a bit heavier. This was not the case with the 350 however and to the best of my knowledge it remained the same weight during the entire production run. Developed progressively up through the displacements, by the time they derived the 350 from the 340 they had it pretty well dialed in.
As the lightest iron V8 in the line, the 350 is the obvious choice when combined with aluminum heads and intake, bringing it within spitting distance of the original B series engine weight. It also had the greatest production numbers, well into the tens of millions if I remember correctly, where the 340 numbered maybe 3/4M at best over two years of production and the 300 wasn't that much higher. The actual numbers are in a thread on the V8Buick site so if I get a chance I'll look for them. The iron block is quite strong, having stood up to power output levels of 1000hp without problems like block flex or thread pull-out that plague it's aluminum brethren. The more modern bellhousing pattern is also a plus.
From one owner who claims to have a 350 block with 340 heads, pushrod interference is a non-issue, though the pushrods do appear canted slightly. Tip wear is even. Since the guide holes in the heads are only about a quarter of the way down the pushrod, the effect of the lobe offset seems to be fairly minor.
A 215/300/340/R cam CANNOT be used in this engine without extreme efforts. The journal sizes do not match and the lobes have different spacing, off by perhaps as much as 3/8" at the center lobes. (I don't think this has been verified by actual inspection though, and cam bearing spacers are an option) Therefore, a custom cam is the most likely solution. We are waiting on Randy to respond with more information about this mystery engine, hopefully he can find some cam markings which might help us to identify the source of the cam in his engine. If so, we may find a source for the correct cam blanks.
However, TA has contracted a limited run of 350 roller cams which have shipped to the customers. Somewhat expensive as they were billet items, the original intent was to have them made with a firing order swap (5&7 I believe) for a more performance oriented configuration. The actual parts manufactured came with the standard firing order due to a miscommunication, but this just illustrates that for equal money any lobe pattern (BOP/R for example) could be used.
So at this point it's just money. But it's not that far out of line for a light strong badass of an engine. Heck, if you powder coat the block silver very few will even know it isn't a Rover!
Jim
If the lifter bores for the centre two ports are 3/8th off line for the 215/300/340/Rover heads would this not put a lot of side thrust on the lifter bores and valve gear?
Kevin.
Not that much. That's about 3/8 in 12 or more inches or a ratio of about 30:1 or greater so for 300 lbs of lift pressure you'd get 10 lbs or less of side pressure. The valve train can easily handle that, provided the lifter isn't spring loaded in that direction. If it is, solid spacers instead of springs would solve the problem.
Jim
Regarding canted pushrods, my Olds heads have offset rockers. I wonder if they'd help cure the canted pushrod problem.
Re; 300 vs 350, I'll have to do a search, but I think the 350 block is taller, and that might be a deal breaker in an MGB. But the weight of the 350 block being the same as a 300 is pretty impressive.
It would be great with these, out-there, engine builds to see a price tag, maybe dyno results? Just for me, I would turn down the counterweights vs. cutting down the pistons underneath. With lighter pistons/rods vs., oem.,one might not need that much heavy metal to balance. Has anyone out there run "deck plates" on a BOR. with the new sleeves through it all ? Other than the core shift issues, I don't see the late Rover block as all that fragile.roverman
I suppose you could destroke a touch to get it to fit a late Rover block. Do they make OS journal bearings up to like 50 thou or something? Maybe it would be possible to destroke a 350 crank to 3.75" and use the SBC 5.7" rod with a custom 10 over 305 piston.
Then again that's a lot of work and money for only 50 lbs weight savings. It would be a dimensionally smaller engine though. Smaller cid too: 330. The rod ratio would totally suck though.
See that's where you need to take advantage of the low pin position on the Buick pistons and move the pin up to get a better rod ratio. You still run into the problem of interference between the crank counterweights and the piston skirts though and I don't know how severe that would be with a 3.85 stroke in a Rover block. Maybe custom forged pistons would solve it, maybe you would need to cut the counter weights as Art suggested. But his point that with lighter rods and pistons the weights could be reduced is a good one and it might be worth talking to an engine balancer about. After all, any decent sized lathe could handle that job easily. Personally I'd rather have the iron block, and building a 350 by using a 300 block is certainly feasible if deck height is a real concern.
But as far as build cost goes, I have probably around $1500 in my reciprocating assembly and that's with Venolia forgings and 7" Scat rods. The other costs have been largely comparable to any standard rebuild except for a few things like o-ringing the deck. So while I can't give you a total, I'm quite comfortable in saying that I could duplicate the engine for under 3 grand, not including induction or assembly costs.
Now if I was starting over with a 350 short block and putting nominal costs at about $1500, plus the TA heads for about 2 grand, plus a custom roller cam and lifters at around another grand, plus an intake at about five hundred, that might get us in the ballpark of what such an engine would cost to build. So for around 5 grand or so, a pretty hot engine that doesn't need zink additives in the oil and can run about as hard as most guys are willing to push it. That's not too bad, and really, no custom machine work and the short block is bone stock or close to it so it's a cheap and easy replacement if needed. The heads can be rebuilt indefinitely. That's not such a bad deal. Horsepower of such an engine would be a very flexible thing, depending on cam choice, etc. but over 300 would be the baseline with a stock cam and it would go up significantly from there.
Jim
If I just had a P-76 block, I could commit to a 32 valve with 3.85" stroke. No "bump" issues on the cam, there all upstairs in the Lotus heads. Reworked heads with bigger valves reported to flow 305 @28" and .450" lifts.In other words, these heads would adequately support the inches. Jim, did you say "7" rod? Compression distance on your piston? Go with the flow, in a good way, roverman.
Yep, 7" C-C. They are FHF rods so they use the Buick bearing inserts and have a 3/4" piston pin. That's a mite small perhaps and the pins I ended up with are thin wall. But very light. That's the one place in the engine I feel might be a little weak, but what's done is done. The pistons have a 1.283" compression height so with a 10.208" deck, 20cc dish and 52cc chambers the compression came out to 10.6:1. The pistons are actually a bit proud of the deck, maybe .008" depending on rock and .050" head gaskets.
But the compression height on regular Buick pistons is closer to 1-7/8". Depending on your ring package you could easily get down to 1-1/4" so that's 5/8" you have to play with on rod length and stroke, maybe more.
Jim
I just got word that TA is halfway finished with the programming and setup to machine the 4 sets of new head castings. Based on that I'd say they will be ready to ship by about Thanksgiving. At last check there was one set out of the three that wasn't spoken for. Price is going to be in the 2000-2500 range and those who have seen the heads on the MGB-Roadmaster 455 will recognize that these are quality pieces. This is actually a rare opportunity and I wouldn't be surprised if the 4th set aren't already spoken for, but I'd like to see one of my peers get them if possible. How many sets are made will depend entirely on how well they sell. If these first four sets go out the door right away they will order up some more immediately. If not, no more will be made until the last set sells, and maybe not until another set after that is ordered. You see how this works? A small volume producer can't afford to tie up a lot of assets in inventory. So if you're on the fence, calling them up to see if you can get that last set does two things. It either gets you a piece of a very exclusive production run, and if not that at least gets you in at the beginning (They are probably numbering them and the other sets are going to Australia), and it insures that at least one more set of castings will be run. Both good things for you and the rest of us. I'd do it myself if I could.
Jim
P76 block with a Buick 3.85" stroke crank...
Yeah, I've seen one of those.... Be nice with a set of those TA heads and a 3.75" bore...
Greg
350_crank_7.jpg
350_crank_5.jpg
How-bout a "Swan Neck? Peeped on the JE(John Eales) site.Separate IR man's.(ram-tuning) for ea. bank/any deck height,cost,360 sterling. Looks like a copy of the factory "works" set-up. Set-up for DCOE's but how bout twin flow meters and port injectors, or better yet,slide plate? "May not clear a std. MGB bonnet-results may vary",roverman.
The TA heads made it into their catalog. Although the price is listed as "to be determined". The idea of changing the valve angle to put them closer to the centerline of the cylinder is pretty smart. 2.02 intake 1.6 exhaust is pretty awesome. Would work great with a larger bore.
I don't know, guys. I'm pretty keyed up to get these. I'm a bit surprised they built these heads before the 350 though. Interesting. They're showing pix of the rough cast with the flanges and deck finished. No CNC work on the ports yet. I'm pretty sure they were talking about doing that. I was also thinking they were going to sell them with valve gear installed. Having bosses for their valve covers would be great too. I'm pretty sure they were talking about doing that too. I do like the more parallel valve cover flange. The "flatter" stock flange really doesn't help much in regard to room for larger valve lifts.
Those V6 heads of theirs are pretty great. I'm hoping they are ready to by this summer.
I think there's a MUCH bigger market for the Rovers than there'll ever be for the 350 and making them work on the early SBB's is just an added benifit.. It was a smart business move.
If anything they should work on developing a "kit" to retrofit a 350 with these heads (cam, rockers, intake, headers/manifolds), rather than go through all of the R&D to make 350 heads that they may never even break-even with.
Marty at EELCO makes aluminum intakes for the Nailhead, was in developement of a SP 'nail intake (quit due to poor flow #'s), is IN developement of a DP 'nail single-quad intake.. perhaps some poor sap could convince him to work on Rover-BOP-SBB intakes???
I don't know how many of the 350 guys will go for these, they are a pretty fanatical bunch. But a few will if the parts are available. The rest are still hanging on promises that TA will make the 350 heads, and TA is still promising to do it. You can't really blame them, it's really been a fantastic engine.
As far as which market would be the best one, that's a complete crap shoot with no way to tell. 350 production numbers are something like double all of the BOP/Rover and early SBB combined if I remember right but of course many are long gone. What the actual market is, nobody really knows.
But I'm glad they are making these heads, even though I consider them overpriced based on their other heads. They should perform very well.
JB
Their other heads are between $1200 and $2500. That seems pretty reasonable. Are they planning on charging more than that? I mean it is more than the SBC heads but there is a LOT of competition there. I wish they were less expensive too but I'll probably buy them. LOL!
Their final price isn't set yet but they were talking a couple grand over those prices last time it came up. Personally I think they've lost their way. Hopefully they may recover because I think their volume will go way up if they can stay close to current pricing, but this deal with TR Spares has them seeing dollar signs so I don't know. We may have another part for the rich racers only on our hands. I don't know how much of that the world can stand, especially in these troubled economic times.
JB
Ok, This is "probably" a reach, but what if there was a better performing head for street use, that the average gearhead could install? Say like a 907 "kit" ,I'm thinkin Rover head market is a fairly small niche anyway, might be enough 907 heads to go around ? Yes I know, would'nt the "valves" cost twice as much? roverman
Seriously?! That's way off. $4k!!? That's a bit depressing. I hope they'll come around.
Yeah, I'm not in that market.
Looks like TA are thinking that if Ian Richardson at Wildcat can charge what he does then why not up the price,
Ian may only sell a handfull of sets of heads a year so you can see why his price structure is what it is, I would have thought that TA were looking at a higher volume production and sales and therefore their pricing should reflect that.
We will no doubt see in due course.
Kevin.
I hope they come to their senses. Mike's been seduced away from their traditional market and that's good for Rovers but could be very bad for TA. We'll see.
JB
I would truly enjoy putting a "smart" hemi head, into the mix,( bigger valves in a smaller bore), but just a bit much on my plate already. You know, the "ancient", early hemi, just placed an, awe inspiring, 3rd place in the "Engine Masters Challenge" ! That means there were 37 "modern" engines behind it !! As an antique myself, that makes me feel pretty good. roverman.
Art, What's the bore spacing on the 53-57 241-270-325 Dodge Hemi? Hey, I know this is a Buick thread but you got me thinking, and you mentioned it first! Found it!Bore spacing early Dodge=4.1875,Desoto=4.3125.
It sounds cool but aren't those heads like 1000 lbs.? I wonder what the new hemi's bore spacing is... Nevermind, it's 4.46".
Jim, " one casting-one casting only".Nic'," there is no box-feel the force". Rover could finally be the "Lead" dog. Don't forget Plymouth thru 56', roverman.
Art, Plymouth were Polysphere,but block could be used with Dodge heads.In addition to Buicks,Pontiacs,Chevy's and Ford,I've had a few early Hemi's. Still have a pair of Red Ram valve covers hanging in the shop. There is 55 270 Dodge Hemi in an old wrecker sitting in the field down the road. I ask if he wants to sell and he keeps saying " I'm going to fix it up someday" Yeah, right. It's been about 10 years now. It would be cool in a T-bucket.
Jim, "one casting, one casting only". Get it ? roverman.
Yes,Roverman (aluminum with new Hemi chamber) or Rotus Brossum 4 valve- actually bathtub chamber,right!
Rotus=pentroof. MGB=bathtub. Modern/smart hemi,aka. 5.7 and 6.2L Mopar ,has relatively shallow chamber, squish, quench, turbulence and a fast burn. Of course, it's not a real hemi.
Didn't know where else to dump this for ya!
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1581985.htm
Clan, Where does the time fly to ? It was back on Feb 19, 2009, Mike Jr. at TA, felt the tooling for the heads would be done in April-09. If their NOT in an exclusive with "OZ", the end result, sure seems the same ? At least we have Rover roller cams, in eager anticipation,Perhaps then, we could "possibly" , make over 400 hp., all motor. ? roverman.
Yep, we've been waiting patiently. And now, since I've heard that you, Art are to be shipped a set of bare TA Rover style heads, at least a few of us are very curious to see some photos of them.
As the matter now stands, it appears that an engine based on the 300 Buick block, using a 350 Buick crank, the TA heads, possibly a Willpower or one of the intakes on this page: http://www.mez.co.uk/ms12.html
along with a suitable set of rods and pistons with a short pin height around 1-1/4" would result in about the strongest and most durable engine available in this weight range for the MGB, displacing 350 ci or 5.7L with a .050" overbore (sonic check cylinder walls of course). Roller cam and possibly roller rockers eliminate the need for zinc additives in the oil and neoprene front and real seals used. EFI and crank trigger/COP ignition optional. The price wouldn't be too bad either, the fit is good and the weight is within about 50 lbs of stock.
JB
What "irks" me, is some magazines. I give kudo's to Hot Rod Mag. for even doing an article on the sbb. I buy Engine Masters Mag. for motor builds but they tend to be Big 3 Only. How many hundreds of different builds can you build with those-why ? Sales, thats why. Just like" Dear Abby", their recyling articles, for motor builds,(shamefull) ! I would like to see a sbb/Rover build-off. Anybody ? Jim B., it's doubtfut anyone will change your mind about cast iron 300 blocks, and that's ok. It leaves more Rover blocks left over, for those of us, who don't know any better, lol. In a lengthly talk with Mike Sr. of TA., it appears the TA ports are cast quite small, with potential to become quite large, ie. lots of porting. This way you get to pay for his cnc porting, to save many hours of hand work. I wish I could get a drawing, of intake ports/heights, so I could build a suitable manifold. Cheers, roverman.
How relative a term is "small" in Mike's vocabulary though? Small in relation to their V6 ports (which are kinda huge), or what?
JB
Jim and clan, aluminum 300 size or smaller. This head makes no pretense of being a street head, so why so small ? Why not cast net-size ? No one could seriously consider these for a 3.5 OR 4L. There's "real $'s" in cnc porting. Nuff said. roverman.
I just spoke to Mike Jr. today, there's been a delay. I'm as shocked as anyone. It seems it's tough to find good machinists these days. He said to call back in a month. roverman.
Well, I just called, another 4-6 weeks. So "maybe" a hemi, not so crazy ? roverman.
Seems that delivery schedule has slipped just a tad, eh?
Jim
A few sets have been sold here in Australia over the last 12 months...
IMHO, The first person to successfully electron beam weld the Stage II Buick V6 aluminum head together, for the Rover V8, will conquer all. Onward, roverman.
Or just MAYBE... go the OTHER way and weld it together like a SBB 350 head and CONQUER ALL!!!
Jim
Jim and clan, I defer to the flow bench. Approximately everybody and their sister-in-law, can make about 340 cfm at .600" lift. Your 350 sbb heads flow ?? EB weld cast iron ? Got Grudge Race ? Cheers, roverman.
No silly, cut and weld the alloy V6 heads the opposite direction so they FIT a 350.
The English Wildcat heads look like Buick stage 2 based to me??
Sam & Issy @ C.O.M.E here in Melbourne had some fancy V6 heads almost at the production stage a few years ago....They said an 8 cyl version would be possible, too.
Would I be correct in assuming 3.8 buick/Holden pattern would be more 350ish than Rover? These guys already have runs on the board producing aftermarket Holden V8 alloy heads.
Aw, it's just a joke. Those Buick 350 guys have been crying about alloy heads for so long it's gotten monotonous. "How come the BBB guys have heads and we don't?" "How come the V6 guys have heads and we don't?" "How come the Rover guys have heads and we don't?" "Wah, wah, waaaah!!" They feel like 2nd class citizens.
I totally understand though, just nothing I can do about it.
For the 350, Buick took the incredibly "understandable"? step of changing the port layout to siamesed center exhausts like on the BBB. Why? Well, why not? But in doing so they split the line and orphaned both ends. Now it is possible to put Rover heads on a 350, but nobody makes the cam you would need to do it, and nobody seems to understand why that would be a good thing. The 350 guys have this idea stuck in their heads that the 350 port layout is somehow inherently "better", and the Rover guys haven't caught on to the idea that there are a blue million big capacity blocks out there just waiting to be snatched up for pennies on the dollar.
But hey, it's all good. In a perfect world, TA will make the 350 heads next week and we'll all be happy forever more. (Yeah, right. Like that's ever going to happen.)
Jim
There is sound engineering why exhaust ports work better when separated from each other. Wet intake manifold engines must be tuned to the "hottest" cylinders,(companion exhaust ports). Case in point, Penske Camaro, sbc powered, had large pyrometer in the car,(center cylinders), for the driver to watch. Bbc oval port heads flow 20% less on 1/2 of the cylinders, (intake) because the charge is aimed at the cylinder walls. Chevrolet LS has isolated exhaust ports as do nearly all, made for racing engines. I suspect sbc and sbb went with paired exhaust to help the inlet side,(longer/more equal runner lengths and better fuel distribution). Stage II Buick V6 head is built as (3) indentical cylinders for pure racing performace. Almost 28 years after is debut, this head is still one of the best flowing inline valve heads for given valve/port size. They were so good, back in the day, to be used on sbc's, for Nascar. I suspect TA might have considered, it's port layout, but "knew", there would be whiners about having to buy an intake manifold to match. Onward, roverman.
The ever-elusive TA heads are scheduled to arrive, this week. "OZ" is claiming 300 cfm with a 1.94" intake,.600" lift ? 3.7" bore, not likely. Plan is to build a suitable sp 4bbl intake manifold. Reportedly, intake port roof will go .5" taller. 2.02" intake, is on my list,(3.9" bore). Onward, roverman.
jim,
i don't like the 350 top end either. heads are old world and not much can be done to them. at least i can make a single plane intake to alleviate half the induction problem.
if i could afford 2 pairs of the aluminum v6 heads, you know i would be cutting them up to fit the 350. you would think t/a would at least make a single plane intake............
john
I know Johnny, surely the numbers are there. But oddly there seems to be this idea that 350 guys don't have any money. Maybe that is supported by their buying patterns, I dunno. It's really too bad. A big aluminam head and single plane would transform that engine.
Jim
Another problem with the 350 sbb head, besides exhaust ports paired together, is the intake runners paired in four corners. This creates unequal swirl within the cylinders. Unequal swirl means different burning, tuning and power output, between cylinders. Onward, roverman.