Simon
|
| posted on 18/3/03 at 03:06 PM |
|
|
Radiator for V8
Chaps,
Anyone make any recommendations for a radiator that will cope with my R V8.
Luego have a custom built jobby on offer, but I can't stretch to the £212 they want for it.
Chassis 4" wider than book.
Thanks
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 18/3/03 at 07:33 PM |
|
|
i would suggest that you take a look around a breakers and see whats about.
most cars nowadays have silly thin wide things. I looked for summat as close to the dims I needed with an engine close to the size of mine - 2.4
litres. I used something off a big volvo (240???)
Wit a RV8 its gonna be a bit hard finding cars of that size.........
atb
steve
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 18/3/03 at 11:15 PM |
|
|
Hi,
I'll have a similar problem in a little while so I'd be interested to hear some ideas.
One thing I'd like to clarify is how is the cooling capacity of a cooling system measured and which factors are most important. Is there a formula
where you can relate the effect of having more litres of water with the number of cores on the radiator or the surface area etc etc.
The simplistic way I looked at it was to say, if an engine produces a given horsepower (say 160 BHP), does it matter if this came from a 1.8 litre
turbo or a 3.5 litre non-turbo? I know that my Vitesse (820) produces lots of heat and I would bet that a radiator from one of these would cope with
the needs of an RV8.
Is it therefore more relevant to look at BHP to judge a suitable donor? The only complication I can see is that airflow through the engine bay would
need to be at least as efficient as on the donor car.
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 18/3/03 at 11:17 PM |
|
|
By the way Simon, I've just posted some pics of my chassis with the engine roughly offered up into position along with the gearbox. I'd appreciate
your comments on placement if you get a moment.
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 19/3/03 at 10:06 AM |
|
|
Simon, Craig,
No idea if it's feasible at all but have you considered using 2 smaller radiators?
I've noticed some motorbikes have a twin rad' setup so presumably it is possible.
HTH,
James
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 19/3/03 at 09:19 PM |
|
|
James,
Thanks for the suggestions, that might be a practical idea. I did something similar a few years ago when I put a turbocharged metro engine in my mini.
I fitted a wide but short radiator behind the grill and left the original radiator (cooper version) in the left wheel arch where it belongs. As long
as you couple up the pipes so that the top of one feeds into the bottom of the other or carefully arrange a parallel feed through both by using
appropriate pipe diameters then it should work well.
An alternative along similar lines would be to use two of those aluminium thin radiators (I think my old Fiat Tipo had one) one behind the other. You
could probably braze in a pipe linking them solidly top and bottom so that a simple top and bottom outlet/inlet would suffice rather than having
rubber pipes everywhere. Not sure if the flow rate would be high enough though.
A trip to the scrapyard might be in order this weekend to measure up a few potential donor cars I think.
Cheers guys,
Craig.
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 20/3/03 at 09:48 AM |
|
|
Craig,
"...when I put a turbocharged metro engine in my mini"
See my profile - it appears great minds DO think alike. Turbo'd Mini's, Rover Vitesse's (I had 827), V8 Locosts - what next!!
(I'll be looking for a V8 Vitesse later in the year, for rolling resto job!).
I've had a v.brief look at your site - was out of office yesterday pm. I like!!
I like the progess so far. You probably appreciate this, but I'll mention the obvious anyway. The lower bulkhead rail will be chopped out so the
engine will be able to go back a good few inches, with the top rail determining how far back. This rail also determines how low or high your engine
sits.
I seem to have got a bit carrried away on the low side, and have about 2.5" sump to ground clearance. I reckon once my Sierra uprights have been
reamed (to allow b/j's to fit properly), I'll gain another 1/4", plus a little winding on the springs, another 1/2".
Back onto the subject of radiators, I was talking to someone the other day, who suggested a transit radiator. I've no idea how big these are,
but am inclined to have a look, per Steve's suggestion, of a Volvo.
James, I think I'd need two very small rads! I was hoping to use Sierra item, but it's about 2" in wide:-(
Craig, I'll have a proper look at your site l/time.
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 20/3/03 at 02:32 PM |
|
|
Craig
Just had another run down your site. Very informative.
The gearbox mounting shown in your 18/3 update is presumably the standard Rover item.
Would suggest it's a little large, and looks like it'll interfere (quite a lot) with your transmission tunnel dimensions.
I mentioned in an earlier posting that I was originally going to use a 1.8 CVH/Type 9 combo, and had got as far as making g/box mounting using just
the rubbered centre part of Sierra g/box crossmember.
When it came to the LT77 box, I made up a spacer to raise rear of box, and have kept the type 9 part mentioned above - it's only about 6"
wide (between the two rubber bushes on LT77 is another hole, into which the 12mm bolt as used in suspension pivots fits - check thread of your bolts
first!!)
If in the future I decide it's not up to the job, I'll make a solid (1/4" plate) mounting with big rubber donut!!
I've reloaded the latest pics I'd taken, so you should get some idea on engine height etc.
You'll need to think about routing your steering column through footwell, rather than over, to clear exhausts.
I've also stuck a couple of piccies of my Mini in the archive. Created the right impression I think - had a little Turbo badge on the boot,
which used to shock people when it turned out to be true:-)
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 20/3/03 at 07:27 PM |
|
|
I had a metro turbo once
it was a bit of a design disaster.
they wreck gearboxes every 20k or so.
did you find this?
Nice revvy powerfult engine for a 1275cc tho!
atb
steve
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 20/3/03 at 08:06 PM |
|
|
Simon,
Thanks for the comments on the website although I think you're being too polite 
I am an Oracle Software Consultant and used to be an I.T. Manager and if any of my employees had designed a website like mine I'd probably have
fired them! 
In all seriousness, it is only a placeholder just now to get something on the web. I intend to jazz it up considerably when I get some time (probably
never then eh?)
I'm not so bothered with it being all flashy with bells and whistles, I'm more interested in making it easier to update and better
structured with a search facility and the option of switching on more or less detail as required. Ideally the visitor should be able to clasify
themselves as a casual browser in which case they only see the highlights and milestones. For an enthusiast like yourself you will want to see lots of
gory details most likely which you can switch on and off at will. You get the idea...
Anyway, yes we seem to have common interests and history for sure. I liked my Mini Turbo and given that I had removed the boost modulator and set the
boost at 8 psi solid, it had massive mid-range torque and probably about 120 BHP! 0-60MPH was in the mid 6's (in a cloud of smoke!) I think the
wheels were doing 60MPH long before the car had caught up...
Yes, I know the bulkhead rail will be getting cut out after fully welding. This is a bit of a pain because it makes it difficult to judge where the
engine is going to be going just now. I should be taking delivery of my triangulation tubing this weekend so I can crack on with completing the
chassis and get the whole thing fully welded. Then I can cut the bulkhead lower rail and see how it all fits.
My sump is 1 inch below the bottom chassis rails as per "the book." Are you suggesting a different approach? Did you modify the sump?
Yes, the g/b mount is standard rover and yes I think it will be replaced or modified somewhat. Never mind the trannie tunnel, it hits my leg at
present! I'll figure something out, donut worry.
Steering column - will do.
Exhaust - where did you get the nice little tubes which are fitted to the head? Do you have enough clearance for engine rock between pipes and
chassis?
Your engine certainly does seem very low and far back compared to mine. Do you know what your weight distribution is like yet?
We're going a bit off topic here I guess so I'll close there. Feel free to drop me an email to discuss this further or open a new thread
in the engine or chassis forum.
Thanks once again,
Craig.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 20/3/03 at 08:11 PM |
|
|
Steve,
Yes gearboxes were a problem on the Metro Turbo, that's why MG put on the boost modulator. The wastegate was set too a VERY modest 4 Psi and the
modulator would bleed off wastegate pressure above and below peak torque RPM's to avoid large torque peaks from wrecking the gearboxes. This was
only partially successful as you know! The boost would rise to about 7 or 7.5 Psi above about 5000 RPM by which time peak torque had passed. This gave
it a very flat torque curve which made it feel quite civilised. Without the modulator and with a stiffer wastegate installed it was a hoot although I
didn't have it long enough to worry about the gearbox (no I didn't crash it... I sold it and then the new owner crashed it within 2
months!!!)
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 20/3/03 at 11:00 PM |
|
|
Simon,
Scratch my comments on your exhaust clearance. I see you have a 1" SHS tube as a spacer. I thought that was your chassis tube when I first
looked at it...Doh!
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 20/3/03 at 11:02 PM |
|
|
Craig,
Just a quick point about the boost on the Metro Turbo lump.
The idea (from memory) was that as engine speed increased, so did boost - to the max as you say.
I had to replace the gearbox too, but the biggest bugbear was headgaskets.
I had adjustable boost - and quite regularly popped it up to 14 psi - didn't half make some funny noises!!!!
Given the standard engine was 93bhp, mine had had an overbore, presumably to 1293cc I guess 120bhp wouldn't be unreasonable.
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 20/3/03 at 11:19 PM |
|
|
Simon,
I know exactly the noise you mean. It was a sort of whooshy, gushy, springy noise (if that makes sense) which happens when you exceed the pressure of
the safety release valve (kicked in at 12.5psi IIRC). I had a a split wastegate pressure hose initially which mean't that boost was unrestricted
until it hit the safety release valve whch just dumped air out of the manifold a bit like a dump valve.
It pulled like crazy until about 2500 rpm then cutout.
The modulator allowed full boost (7psi or so) below about 3000 RPM and above about 4800 RPM but capped it to a lower boost between the two limits to
flatten the torque curve (according to the David Vizard A-series tuning manual anyway)
Without this mechanism max torque would have been 25% higher at the peak although power would be largely unaffected because full boost was still
available at peak power RPM (around 6000RPM)
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 20/3/03 at 11:38 PM |
|
|
Craig,
Sending you an email - quite long and, as you say, off topic
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
