BritishV8 Forum

I think so too Carl.

I have long said that for the *average* driver the 60 degree V6 is the perfect compliment to the MGB. It's just the right size, both physically and in terms of power and has some room for upgrades. It transforms the car and is very driveable. OTOH, the BOPR has the ligitimacy of a factory build for those to whom such things matter, and they appear to be in the majority since that swap still remains the most popular one. Upgrades from there are numerous and powerful, ranging clear up through the Buick 340 with a 5.7 L build being fairly simple to do. The SBF swap has proven itself and a less expensive route to power has not been discovered. This makes a very fine car. And finally at the upper end we have cars like the MGB-Roadmaster 455 Buick, the LS series swap that Pete is working on, my blown SBB 340 and a few others, very tractable and feasible conversions but largely untested and unproven. In the next year or so we should be seeing just how well the car holds up to these power levels, as well as how some alternative rear suspensions perform.

I agree with Dan M that 300hp is a very good power level for the MGB. Spend just a little time with one and it will make a believer out of you. Formerly I felt that 240hp was really all you could want, but I was wrong. Before that I felt that 200hp would just make an exceptional car. And I was right. As does 140hp. So my point is that with this car any substantial increase, say of 50 or more additional horsepower, is going to simply cause you to be ecstatic about the improved performance of the car. So in that sense *every* swap will be the right one. But it's a good idea to look to the future because as good as the new power level is (and it will be very good indeed) there is still more to be had if you want it. You can satisfy yourself at any point and say that the suspension or the tires (or the driver) might not handle the extra power and that could be true. But we continue to prove that it ain't necessarily so. And as much as I do appreciate Carl's dominance of the autocross course with his truly magnificent driving skills, out on the mountain roads, horsepower rules. (well, that and huevos)


Jim

Quit embarrassing me, Jim. There are quite few drivers in our group. My car is just set up better than theirs.  

"out on the mountain roads, horsepower rules"

Probably not so much on roads like the Tail of the Dragon.

cojones.

cojones.

The key to driving those roads.

Amazing Jim and Dan. Using a word that actually comes from Galicia Spain. It is galician dialect.

I said 300 only because I've never driven one with 400.  It may be that 400 is the "just right" number?

Carl, who was in front last time we were on the Dragon?

JB

I was until I pulled over & let someone else lead.  

Wrong !!!!! I am going for the max 347 ci 500 hpVortech Supercharger, going for 7-9 psi good for an extra 150-200 plus  (street boost)---700 hp NOW what it really counts 650 + lb of torque rear wheel numbers. Oh yes some juice good for another 100+ hp. do not want to go overboard.
This package will be control by an ECU with 1000 cfm throtle body.

I should be able to crusie the streets at speed limit, enter the FWY like everyone else, ok! just a bit faster, drive at over the speed limit by 10-15 mph, I will be able pass anyone when I have to, except a police car.

Then I can drive the car to the local road course for track days and dirve it a half throtle or less.
When I park the B in the garage, I will figure a way to get more power from it, it is never enough.  LOL Just having fun guys.

On a serious note. There is no magical number to say it is enough, not sir. Enough is when you have reach the limit of the engine you have or satisfied as Mr. Masters. Now if we take Mr. Masters GT and.....nooo it is just right as it is.

The magical number could be 200 or 900 +

I've been observing from the distance.  This is exactly what I was hoping for.  Thanks for chiming in everybody.  I've gotten a 'sense' of what I'm looking to accomplish.  Honestly, I think the 300hp/tq range sounds about right.  As I mentioned earlier, I'm using Ted's front end, he also set me up with a Ford 8" off a Grenada (I think).  It has 3:27 gears with an Auburn positraction and the Willwood disc brakes.  I'll use the T-5 transmission.  For the rear suspension I've read some about the 3-link setup, though I'm using the 1" lowering springs, tube shocks and sway bar.  The only issue I have'nt ironed out is the rear wheels/tires.  I'd love to put a little flare on there, for looks, but also to get enough rubber on the car.  Unless I mail the car to somebody the only way to get flares is to do it myself.  I've got some decent welding experience over the past 5 yrs, but maybe the welding is the least of my worries on a project like that...  
Anyway, from all the banter on this thread, I think the 300 range, with the drivetrain setup, sounds like a nice fit.  Any comments welcome.  Thanks again, guys.

what does 200hp feel like?  I know what 150hp mgc feels like Maybe I need 300 to enjoy
Have quite a bit tied up in 215 conversion stuff.  Wanted 100hp nitrous shot on 215 olds to make that 300.  Cost big bucks for forged pistons though.  Any ideas what it would cost to build 300 hp rover block vs 215 olds

Until recently there was a tuner car shop a block from our hanger/shop/hangout.  Though none were what I would refer to as World Class Tuners, they were amazed at the performance of a Bucket and, as a general rule, only tried their luck once.  I would always tell them Horsepower is great, but its torque that makes the world go around and if you doubt that go drive a big block.  Buckets, no matter how well engineered run out of down force and aerodynamics about three feet off the line and past 100 miles an hour or so become rather intimidating so given enough distance some would catch us and blow our door off (we only have one door on the passenger side you know) but being about half their weight doesn't hurt and that's something LBC's have going for them.      "P"

PS: Any contest of speed was done at the airport.  Understanding the need for getting from one red light to another and how precious our time really is, we don't condone or support street racing.

Hi Brian,

The arguement over hp and torque has been going on forever. It all boils down to the car and how it feels. Torque is what gets you moving and what you percieve. Horsepower is what gets you the high speed rush. In a lighter car torque becomes less of an issue due to traction and weight differences. Idealy you would want just enough torque to keep your tires planted and enough, horse power to mph where you want. But life ain't that simple. In my shop we sit down with the customer and spend a considerable amount of time to determine what they expect out of the car. Almost every time we build a less agressive car. The big burly v8 is attractive but isn't as fun as you would think. In our (British etc. ) cars it is too heavy. It destroys any sembelance of handling, and causes severe suspension and frame problems. Good choices seem to favour the higher rpm japanese v8s or the cadillac northstars et al.  My own car is a stretched B with a 4 turboed 6.0L jag v 12. It's retardedly fast in a straight line (11.12 @127mph) but it won't out corner a pu truck.  What do you want your car to do?

Cheers
Fred

"The big burly v8 is attractive but isn't as fun as you would think. In our (British etc. ) cars it is too heavy. It destroys any sembelance of handling, and causes severe suspension and frame problems."

That's an intersting statement. It's also untrue.

Fred wrote:

QuoteMy own car is a stretched B with a 4 turboed 6.0L jag v 12...

We need to see lots of pictures of this one!


(click here for How-It-Was-Done form and photo submission tips)

I've had 3 different versions of a SBF in my car, 200hp, 300hp, and now 400hp/378lbs with the 331 stroker. I have no special suspension or brake upgrades, in fact I'd call it a ratrod compared to 99% of you guys! Except Carl of course. The car seems to handle it just fine and the torque is great, but I think 300hp is a good number to shoot for, especially if getting decent fuel mileage is a concern.

I like torque more than power in a V8. I have the usual Ford V8 (maybe 280 ft/lbs at the wheels and a fairly flat curve). It is fun to get strong acceleration from 1500 rpm in any gear and I do enjoy running it up to 6,000 rpm - the power peak is at about 5,800 rpm. Starting from rest in third is easy as well. I have been considering stroking the engiune to 331, the only advantage being even stronger acceleration in the higher gears, especially 5th. But in terms of starting fron rest and accelerating through the gears, the limitation now is traction, so a 331 would not improve things (except possibly on a drag strip with a stickier surface). But it would improve real world acceleration for times when I am too lazy to down shift. That brings up the interesting concept of using a modern 5 or 6 speed automatic with the "300 hp engine". Such a transmission has many gear ratios to choose from and down shifts every time. The instantly available torque multiplication from a lower gear ratio (or two) would go a long way towards filling the gap between a 300 hp engine and 400 hp engine by keeping the torque at the wheels near the traction limit more of the time with the smaller engine. This would be especially true with a "300 hp engine" like mine with a relatively flat torque curve between 2000 and 6000 rpm.

Larry, Good post. That is what I plan to do with the AW4 Jeep tranny(A340 Toyota)but mine is only 4 speeds, manual solenoid shift,OD 4th,narrower than GM. Jim Blackwood's is a bit wilder, with the 8 speed Lexus tranny. I plan on 300-400 HP which I think will be just right. Jim Blackwood is being pretty conservative in his 300+ HP estimate. I think the dyno numbers will be more like 450+ and give the Roadmaster a run for the money.

When are one of you going to make an AWD MGB V8 similar to Stuart's Midget?
http://gallery.brit-cars.com/showphoto.php/photo/6198/ppuser/447

Trevor, I wouldn't count on it anytime soon, Sierra 4WD units are a bit scarce on this side of the pond and I haven't run across anything else that looks like it would fit a Spridget. (Yes, I've looked, the temptation was just too great after seeing Stuart's car)

Until Stuart submits a How It Was Done article, I'm not sure I believe his Midget even exists.

AWD has advantages... but certainly not for every car and application. You might for example recall that some constructors worked quite hard to put AWD on Formula One cars, and it was an extremely costly mistake. What would it really do for a MG except add a lot of cost, complexity, weight (much of it unsprung), and rotating mass?

Here in Colorado, when I explore unfamiliar mountain roads it's not uncommon to have a twisty and smooth paved road suddenly turn into a gravel road.  AWD might be nice on those occasions...

"Here in Colorado, when I explore unfamiliar mountain roads it's not uncommon to have a twisty and smooth paved road suddenly turn into a gravel road. AWD might be nice on those occasions..."

I sure know what you mean about those roads out there. I took a trip one weekend around Beulah and somehow wound up in the San Isabel National Forest. On the other side of the mountain was 16in of snow and ice on a dirt road. I was sure glad I had my superduty and 4wd then. Best road trip I ever had. If I get another job out that way I might buy a house out there. Colorado is the most beautiful place in the world in my opinion.

This is a wonderful thread.  I have two questions.

1. At 300hp and beyond, and assuming a rust-free shell, wouldn't shell reinforcement become part of the equation?

2. With 300hp as a target, what would you suggest should be specified in a reman 302 engine without aluminum heads initially?

1978 MGB, chrome bumper conversion,rolling painted shell (Merc Brilliant Silver)

The MGB body shell is generally considered to be satisfactory at the 300 hp level, especially the chrome bumper models. On rubber bumper models it can be considered worthwhile to add a reinforcemet from the foward spring hangers to the cross member just foward of it. Some also add reinforcement on the left side to compensate for the absence of a battery box there (chrome bumper cars have two battery boxes, rubber bumper cars just one box). It is also wise to consider the effect of body modificatons such as plastic fenders and excessively large holes for through the fender headers. But I am sure others have different opinions on this subject.

It is always best to use a roller cam 302 block as the roller cams offer more performance at low modification levels than flat tappet cams. Essentially, roller cams generaly open and close the valves faster so there is more time at higher lifts without excessive overlap and duration. It is also a good idea to go with through the fender headers from the start as the freer flow makes higher power outputs easier.With these factors taken into account, any stock block Ford 302 will be able to make 300 hp at the flywheel with just a head upgrade (even keeping the stock cam). Heads are the main limitation on a Ford 302 in that the flow is limited, especially at high lifts. Thus, adding a high lift cam or high ratio rockers gives little benefit with stock heads. But with aftermarket heads that show flow increases up to 0.6 inch lift (or even more) cam upgrades can make a big difference. But stock cams in Mustangs are not bad, and with high lift rockers (1.7 ratio) and aluminum heads can give over 350 hp at the flywheel. If you want to upgarde the cam now, before adding aluminum heads, be aware that the stock valve springs cannot tolerate high lifts and it is probably best to wait untl aluminum heads are added to consider a cam upgrade. With all stock heads and most aftermarket heads, exhaust flow suffers in comparison to intake flow. Also, the header situation in MGBs hurts exhaust flow, so I prefer dual pattern cams that have more exhaust duration than intake duration. Kelly Stevenson has such a cam (a Comp Cams XE 266 HR) and he had the highest output of any 302 at the dyo session last year.

For induction, hood clearance is limiting. All that can fit without a scoop is an Edlebrock performer (not a performer RPM). This will still easily support 350 hp at the flywheel (with the right heads) but there is no use planning on using a high rpm cam or overly large carburetor with it. Therefore, this manifold with a 575 to 625 cfm vac seconbdary carb will be satisfactory for both an iron head 302 and an upgraded aluminum head 302 with just some jetting changes. You can also use the Ford fuel injection system (most likely with hood modifications) like Kelly used and this will work with both the stock and improved engine. That is, the later injection systems (with mass flow?) can be used on most modified engines without retuning, but the earlier systems are not so adaptable.

As a disclamer, my experience with engine tuning is limited and you might want to get further advice.

RE: For induction, hood clearance is limiting. All that can fit without a scoop is an Edlebrock performer (not a performer RPM).

Larry knows way more than me but the above depends on where you put the motor.  I'm using the fastcars IFS with ford mounts -- sets the motor back (far enough that clipping the corners of the firewall by the heater shelf is required) & low.  I'm waiting on my 1 1/2" drop base to arrive but if my measurements are right using a 2" filter it'll clear the stock hood with no bulge and my Performer RPM air gap (clone).  Base should be here by early next week; will know for sure then.