Have you guys seen this?
http://www.v8tuner.co.uk/category.php?id=31
How about a 317-cube Rover long-block complete from England for $7,949?
I'm not sure how the VAT works for exports, so it may be 15 percent less. Of course I'm not calculating import duty either, so I don't know what the true cost is.
How do they get 317 ci out of a rover block without moving the cam? You tell me.
Supposedly these are new castings. Blocks are $1,700, BTW (exchange rates current today via XE.com)
pic12.jpg
They have to be sleeving for 3.8" or something. Pretty sweet.
I found some info that said these are made by "Coscast."
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/RPi-Land-Range-Rover-P38-V8-Engine-Motor-4-6-4600-HSE_W0QQitemZ270365076606QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMotors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories?hash=item270365076606&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318
I think I have it figured, math-wise. What it looks like from the sump up, I'd like to see.
Using the following formula, we get to 311 ci at a stock 4.6 block bore and the optional 92 mm stroke crank that the V8tuner.uk site states they use for the 5.2 engine package:
Engine Cubic Inch Displacement = number of cylinders x .7854 x bore squared x stroke
cylinders = 8
Bore = 94 millimeter = 3.7007874015748 inch
Stroke = 92 millimeter = 3.6220472440945 inch
Cubic Inch Displacement (CID) = 311.69028682624 inch
I'm not sure if the block will take .1 overbore, but that would yield 328 cubic inches.
Another thought, the 340 and 350 use a 3.850" stroke and this crank can be made to fit the Rover block with careful attention to the rod bolts and some crankcase clearancing. It gives a short rod ratio but with a new block casting it would be a simple thing to open up the crankcase area to allow the use of that crank. Then with that 3.800" bore size the displacement is 5.7L, although a short skirt piston with a high wrist pin is likely to be needed. This isn't as much of a problem as it may sound like though, the piston pin height of stock pistons is real tall anyway. You could probably pick up close to 3/4" right there without getting into the ring package.
Jim
I found some more information, including another Rover aftermarket head manufacturer.
http://www.mahle-powertrain.com/C1257126002DFC22/CurrentBaseLink/W26MPKWM032MARSEN < -- This is from the conglomerate that manufactures the block casting. Mahle appears to have bought Cosworth, and is using its technology (COSCAST) to cast better blocks.
http://nigeldean.co.uk/chapter5.htm <-- this is an in-process build of a sports car with Rover power, using the Mahle block and a "Merlin F 85" head.
http://realsteel.co.uk/ <-- this is where you can buy the aforementioned Merlin head, which is different than the Wildcat head. You can get to the mention of the Merlin by clicking on "Rover," and then read page 6.
I've continued to surf around, thinking in particular about Jim Blackwood's post regarding a 350 Buick crankshaft.
Our Newsletter's article about a buick 300 being stroked to 348" with a 350 crank in 2002 seems to indicate that this sort of thing can be done, albeit with a higher-strength cast-iron block. http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/MonsterMotor.htm Does anybody know how that motor worked out or if it blew up right away? The photo archive has the owner with a 215 Olds in his B.
My next thought was what about fitting this 350 crank into the new block, as suggested by Jim. The above article seems to indicate that the Rover/BOP 215/Buick 300 has a lower cam line in the block than the Buick 350. The Buick 350 may also have a higher deck (I don't know). assuming that the 350 can be fit into the stock (not rebored) Coscast 4.6 block, the cid would be 331.305."
Third, I thought about doing something similar to the Buick 300 swap, but this time with the Buick 350 -- with the coming TA aluminum heads. http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?t=130745&highlight=aluminum+heads+350
Fourth, I thought about stroking the Buick 350, and the v8Buick.com site suggests there is a fairly costly setup involving a custom crank and Honda rods that gets the package to about 370." http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?t=121014&highlight=350+stroker+kits
Finally, I went back to my 215 sitting in my Skylark. Let's assume that you could use a 350 crank with said Honda rods, or perhaps with the grinding noted in the top article. With a stock bore, the cid would be 296," and 301" with a .030 overbore to clean things up.
All that musing led me to some questions -- does the 350 have a raised cam line? How about the deck? I know the bore centers are the same.
Thinking about the choices presented here, I think I most like the Buick 350 with the aftermarket heads.
What do you guys think?
You will have to wait at least a couple more years for 350 heads but the Rover style heads should be near completion early next year sometime. It MAY be possible to fit the Rover style heads to the 350 but the lifter locations are different because of the different port arrangement and a 215/300/340 cam will not work in a 350, even if you could make the bearings match. So that means a custom cam, very likely billet, in order to make it work, which is expensive. The 350 cam will not work because the valves are arranged differently. I don't know if it would be possible to change the firing order and make it work but I doubt it. The 350 and 340 have a taller deck than the 300 which has a taller deck than the 215/Rover. Between the 215 and 340 the difference is about 1-3/16". Aluminum intakes for the 340 are not available, except for paired IR stacks, which are expensive, and then you need a lifter valley cover which would be a custom piece. All SBB/Rover engines share a common crank/cam spacing and crank/cam clearance on the 340/350 is critical. A spun rod bearing on one of these engines usually means a broken cam and often a destroyed block. Any increase in valve lift comes at the cost of a reduced cam base circle. 340 uses a 3.85" stroke and a 3.75" bore, 350 is the same stroke and 3.80" bore. Use of 3.80" sleeves and 340/350 crank gives 350 cu.in. Bearing size, throw clearance, and cam/rod clearance are the major issues but several minor ones exist also, such as pan clearance and seal configuration.
Any investigation of the use of a 340/350 crank in a Rover block should begin with a rod/piston combination that will clear the counterweights and still give the correct compression height and it's understood the engine will have a short rod ratio. Due to the sharper rod angle cam clearance is likely to need attention.
At the present state of things there does not appear to be a cheap, easy, bolt together solution. The '64 300 with factory alloy heads is perhaps one of the best compromises. When the new TA head becomes available next year that will change somewhat, as they will bolt on to the 300 or the 340 (which will usually take a .050" overbore after a sonic check, making it 350 cid) but there is still the issue with the intake and 340's were only made for 2 years and are getting a little hard to find. The 300 alloy intake will also be pretty restrictive for that head.
Another possibility is the Australian Rover 4.4L block which comes with raised deck and a Willpower single plane intake is available for it. This intake can be made to fit the 300 with spacers and a custom lifter valley cover and would compliment the new heads nicely. 300's were made for a number of years and are still reasonably common. Another advantage of using the Australian block is an improvement in the rod ratio over the 215 but they are pretty hard to find in the states. They should have about an 80 lb weight advantage over the iron blocks but are not as strong obviously.
Jim
TA is also doing an aluminum intake for their 350.
Thanks for your thoughts, Jim.
Hello Gang, I contacted the Company making the Rover V8 long blocks. They have no interest in selling short blocks or bare blocks. I'm still awaiting reply from Mahle/Cosworth for same. Suggestions anyone?? roverman.
Art,
Have you tried TVR Power they had the Coscast blocks for £999.00 + VAT which you do not have to pay.
http://www.tvrpower.co.uk/
Alternatively RPI in the UK have New 4.6 half engines with the Coscast blocks for approx £1900.00 inc VAT so could be £1650.00 without VAT search e-bay UK for their regular ads.
Kevin.
It is tough trying to find a decent core when you are only looking for the block. I managed to find one here in the USA for $200 but it was in pretty bad shape. I ended up putting at least another $1500 into it to bring it up to standards. (that's with flanged liners)
I will say it is a pretty tough block aside from the cracking-behind-the-liner problem. The core I got was heat cycled pretty bad. Two slipped liners and a fried main bearing. One liner looked like it welded it self to the piston. LOL!
My point is, for $1500 (£990) is a pretty good number for a bare block.
I would agree especially as they are cast to far higher standards than the originals and are being offered with a 3 year guarantee.
I must admit I got pretty lucky when collectong parts for my stroker engine.
I bought a 3.9 half engine from a known reliable source off e-bay with no reserve, stuck in a bid of £56.00 and nobody out bid me.
Got lucky again with the 4.2 crank, bid £160.00 and got it, the crank was ground +10 and tuftrided.
My secret, keep an eye out in the lead up to christmas, a lot of the tuning guys are very quiet at this time and stick a few things on e- bay to bring a bit of cash in, and bargains can be had.
The engine still cost me quite a bit more than I expected though, mainly all the machining required and the headwork.
Kevin.
QuoteThe engine still cost me quite a bit more than I expected though,...
No doubt. LOL. Me too. I'm in for about $6500 now. I'm not disappointed or regretful. It's really been pretty fun and in the grand scheme I spend that kind of money every year fixing my house at least. (that's my wife's hobby.) AND I spent it over a couple years.
Partsrange-usa is selling blocks and other stuff to US customers through ebay. I just checked and there are none listed now, but you can message them here: http://myworld.ebay.com/ebaymotors/partsrange-usa/
Hello Again, Has anyone actually run Wildcat Stage 1 or 2 heads? I have a 4bbl. intake, single plane, with 340" port sizes(raised), from Wilcat, on the way. This to be used on "massaged" 340 heads. So far as I know, no one has, fessed-up, to what these can be made to flow. Has anyone actually been able to buy a COSCAST bare block? I believe a pivotal point in further developing this engine lies with roller cams. .842" dia. flat tappets don't have exciting ramps and I suspect ,apples to apples, torsion the cam more. To be continued, roverman.
Maybe I should post up the 215 block that I originally bought, I would only desire the cost I have in it back. It was already decked and cleaned and checked out by the machine shop, bored out for a size piston that I couldn't find, complete with the crank already installed. It was being built to use 300 connecting rods and a set of higher compression heads, heading towards a stroker engine I think.
FYI, it looks like RPI in England are selling rebuilt short block Rover engines made with the new Coscast blocks. They have them on ebay for $2450 delivered to the US. Looks like a pretty good option for a block that should be even stronger than a top hatted Rover block.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/NAS-Land-Range-Rover-P38-V8-Disco-Motor-4-6-4600-D90_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trkparmsZ66Q3a2Q7c65Q3a3Q7c39Q3a1Q7c240Q3a1318Q7c301Q3a0Q7c293Q3a1Q7c294Q3a50QQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em14QQhashZitem3ef52b80cbQQitemZ270401241291QQptZMotorsQ5fCarQ5fTruckQ5fPartsQ5fAccessories
QuoteI have a cracked block, can i not just have it repaired?
Well the bottom line is, you cant effectively repair your cracked block. You may of heard of Top Hat Liners, this is a short term solution only, and offers little or no guarantee of long term reliability. Also , it is not uncommon for the cost of having your engine 'repaired' to be the equivalent of buying a trouble free, Brand new reliable engine.
LOL! That's a pitch. I haven't heard of anybody having problems with a flanged block.
I bought my block for $200, then bought flanged liners for $600, then spent $400 pressing them in and getting the block machined for them. SO unless they want to reduce the cost to about $1k then they can't really make that claim.
All that said they are really nice blocks.
Can you imagine? It took nearly 50 years... half a century to finally get a block design that has some stability. That and a decent set of heads.....
Frustrating....
Greg
Greg, I can't imagine. The original, designed in the late 50's, production block, was good enough for : Formula 1, Won the championship 2 years. Was good enough for Indy,Mickey Thompson.According to Jim Moorehouse, it was in first dragster ever to go 170mph. in 1/4mi. on alcohol and first dragster to break 200mph. on nitro. This being with modyfied 215" heads! Some would contend the 64', 300 head as pretty decent for a production piece. The 65' head flows even more but of course, it's only 44 years old.This mightymite of a motor was quite well designed for the period and has flogged many a larger adversary in many forms of racing. It must have done something right to be so popular today inspite of it's detractors. When you look at the first, "modern" small block Ford at 221" and the 265' Chev., they wern't exactly fire breathing monsters, first hatched but with the skilled persistance of so many, such as in this forum, I would say they have all evolved rather well. I'll get off the soap box now, roverman.
Here's another new development, block girdles for the SBB:
http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?p=1432988#post1432988
Unfortunately the SBB and the BOPR use a different pan so they won't fit the Rover, but they will fit the 300, 340 and 350. Just another example of where dedicated enthusiasts are taking this engine. As of now we have roller cams (for the 350), roller rockers, and soon aluminum heads and block girdles. Currently these engines have produced in excess of 1000 hp in streetable form and have the potential to go considerably higher. Don't forget, the Buick V6 is part of that family and has seen in excess of 1700 hp. Some things just get better with age.
Jim
It's a strong community. Pretty awesome for a majorly overlooked powerplant.
We may be at a pivotal point in history for the Rover V8! In speaking with Mahle-Drivetrain Division, they are considering the potential aftermarket customer base for potential sales. "IF", they can be convinced with lots of positive feed-back for potential sales, this could be good for all concerened,world wide. I'm suggesting flanged liners in leiu of OEM. and taller lifter bores, suitable for OEM. type Chev. hyd. roller lifters. They seem receptive at this point. They need to be convinced. Do we want this?? roverman.
Evidently not! Anyhoo, anyone used the, "Wildcat"-Turbo-Rover block? Cylinder head attachment, thread bosses are reportedly anchored better. If so, power you could hold with it? roverman.
Art,
Re your post of the 9th, I can think of a lot of guys who would be interested in theUK of the mods to the Mahle Rover block.
The problem is money not lack of interest, the mods you suggest would be beneficial to serious racers and certainly an upgrade to tophat liners would give peace of mind and shouldn't be very expensive to incorporate, most of the feedback I have seen about the Coscast/Mahle blocks is why didn't they fit tophats, you can clearly see the much higher quality of the casting in the pictures I've seen and I believe they come with a three year guarantee so obviously they are confident in their product.
In the Uk there are plenty of used 4.6 engine coming onto the market, usually because they have had a liner problem, mainly they get rebuily with tophat liners to solve the problem which costs £800 - £1000 so the cost of a new Mahle is quite competitive.
Kevin.
About those Rover/Buick blocks, Anyone got/share a dimensioned drawing for Rover and 300-350" girdle? I plan build from billet alum. Regarding movement between the decks, Rover discovered early-on, in their developement, that a well secured one-piece intake manifold tied the two decks together and reduced related movement problems. Anyone willing to share pic's of welded valley areas? about 27 years ago, I built a 215" out to 300", all alum Buick with billet alum. main caps , std. mains with studs. Worked out well in a 77' Celica Liftback, (baby Mach I Mustang),50lbs less weight on front end, somewhat of a "sleeper". roverman.
No doubt you saw the thread on the V8buick smallblock forum about girdles, the title was something about header flanges, multi-page thread. Tom is working on a CAD file and has a connection with a waterjet guy but it may be a couple more weeks before he has anything to look at. The 215 has a different pan rail from the other SBB's. I'd be surprised if anybody here has done anything, but you never know.
Jim
OMG Art!! That '77 Celica GT sounds like a totally bitchin' project. I had one of those in High School. I absolutely LOVED that car. It had their 8" rear end. I bet it worked out great.
You got any pix of it??
Thanks man.
Car belonged to a friend, Steve McLeod. We lost touch 20+ years ago. Facebook anyone? Build: new, close ratio.T-5, Mopar 8 3/4" re. w. 3.55 posi, std. width,(fit), and 84 Vette,"Turbine" wheels. 300"BU., Offy, "cold" man. w. 600 Holley,custom headers, windadge tray, baffle and pistonless acumulator. As I recall, car weighed less when completed. Handled pretty good. Some folks don't know that this motor is lighter tha most cast iron 4 cyls. and has a lower c.g. I'm considering getting a similar car. Maybe an alum. hemi/later. "Elanor" on a diet? Hard car to find.Pictures even harder. Regards, roverman.
Sorry for dragging up such an 'ancient' thread, but...
Celica-02.jpg
Celica-06.jpg
Celica-07.jpg
Celica-08.jpg
And yes, it goes quite well :-)
(When I can keep cams intact...)
Hack
I love it, Dude. That is frickin' sweeet. I'd love to build one of these. It's always been a favorite.
Hack, "cams intact"? More than one? You may want to follow our "serious roller" thread. We would love to see a "how it was done" Looks like a Rover/Triumph BH.? Should weigh pretty close to a stocker? Thanks, roverman.