Oh, how compact is it for a V8? Is it, say, twice the width of a zetec?
[Edited on 26/1/07 by DIY Si]
looking at engines at the moment,
Zetec:
-engine = 200
-webers= 300
-manifold=100
-Engine management = 300
- odds & sods = 100
thus 1000+ tunning + all different parts to get it to fit in (water pipes etc )
Total = 1250 POUNDS ich = 275BHP
Rover V8 :
one complete rebuilt engine with every thing fitted = 1000
odds and sods 100
Total = 1100 ich = 220BHP
is this not easier? and sounds better?
or am i nuts?
(sorry pound sign does not work)
[Edited on 25/1/07 by Arthur T]
Whilst it may have more out right power, it's how that power is given (ie power/torque curves), and the weight and size of the engine has to be
taken into consideration. The RV8 is fairly heavy, compared to a zetec, and the power comes in very low down, which may not be the best option for
such a light car. The engine is also fairly large, needs two exhausts ect, so may be more expensive to install. Besides, a bike engine will cost about
the same, although it's not everyone's cup of tea.
Oh, does that say 275 bhp form a zetec? That's some very well prepared one if so! 150+ is more likely.
[Edited on 25/1/07 by DIY Si]
What about the Ford V6? My Duratec produces 200 bhp quite easily and it is very light for a V6.
I've worked with both engines fairly closely in both road and race cars.
I would say it depends what you want.
They are both very different, if you know the type of performance you want, it should be an easy choise.
what about gearbox price too.
Cheers,
James
Yep the RV8 gets my vote!
Contrary to what Si is saying above, it's not that heavy in reality as it has an alloy block and heads. Wikipedia says of the engine, "The
compact engine was extremely lightweight..." There are various figures quoted but I'd say 140Kg's wouldn't be far away with
essential ancillaries fitted. It's no K-series or bike engine but if weight is your primary concern then a bike engine is what you want, end of
story.
I would also disagree with the statement that all the power comes in low down. Power on an SD1 3.5 litre engine peaks at 5250 RPM. However, peak
torque is developed at 2500 RPM and the torque curve is very flat so you get ooomph right across the rev range. This makes for very relaxed but swift
cross-country cruising. You can also blow away the boy racers in their VTEC's without sounding like you are even trying!!
Here are a couple of useful links:
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?engineroverv8f.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_V8_engine
Good luck!
Craig.
Fair enough, I assumed (wrongly it would appear) that the engine was heavier than that. And that the power came in lower down, as in a just off tick
over kind of way. They do sound good though.
Oh, how compact is it for a V8? Is it, say, twice the width of a zetec?
[Edited on 26/1/07 by DIY Si]
Add to this...
Bellhousing for chosen gearbox
Chosen gearbox
Exhaust
Rover V8 - good one :- £ 300
Pair Audi S4 turbos:- £ 147
Pair R5 Intercoolers:- £ 15
Stainless for new exhausts £ 200
Pipework for i/c's £ 50
Emerald £ 550
Total £1262
Obviously, if you get an engine for £100, and use MS, you should be able to save £400ish, so may have 300bhp for just over 800 quids
I think that sounds like a plan
ATB
Simon
Wouldn't a big chevy be cheaper? Although that does indeed sound like a plan!
Oh, just how long do you intend a set of rear tyres to last?! 
LS7...? Someone's got to!! 
DIY Si,
I doubt it will be twice the width of a Zetec as it fits in a standard width Locost. My Locost is +4" to make it easier but I am assured that
people have fitted them in a standard chassis. Try fitting two Zetec's in a Locost and you might struggle... 
Simon, you are mad.....mad I tell you!!
Cheers,
Craig.
I'm playing with a v8 at the moment. It would take twice the width of the zetec not including exhaust routing of course. It doesn't weigh
much more than a pinto in real terms. The height would be the same as a zetec in my opinion. Power, to get 225 bhp would cost more than £1000.
Standard rover v8s range from 95bhp to 145bhp in normal form. It would depend on the original vehical that it was put into.
I wouldn't even consider putting one into a 7 type car. ford duratec gets my vote.
I'm not saying it is twice the width, just trying to get a picture in me head. I've only ever seen them hidden in the depths of rangies before, so have no idea how big/small they actually are.
quote:
Originally posted by DIY Si
Wouldn't a big chevy be cheaper? Although that does indeed sound like a plan!
Oh, just how long do you intend a set of rear tyres to last?!
quote:
Originally posted by ayoungman
I'm playing with a v8 at the moment. It would take twice the width of the zetec not including exhaust routing of course. It doesn't weigh much more than a pinto in real terms. The height would be the same as a zetec in my opinion. Power, to get 225 bhp would cost more than £1000. Standard rover v8s range from 95bhp to 145bhp in normal form. It would depend on the original vehical that it was put into.
I wouldn't even consider putting one into a 7 type car. ford duratec gets my vote.
quote:
Originally posted by ayoungman
Standard rover v8s range from 95bhp to 145bhp in normal form. It would depend on the original vehical that it was put into.
Early Rover RV8 mass
Having found various posts on here re the mass of a Rover RV8 motor, which seem to disagree, thought I would weight the one I have in the garage.
It is a very early 3.5 motor from a P6, engine number 4550100886A, which was built between 1967 and 1976, according to www.rimmerbros.co.uk
The total mass, including starter (9kg!) , water pump, alternator, engine rubber mounts, inlet manifold and distributor came to 125 kg.
Note that the following were not included:
Standard Exhaust manifolds (5 kg each)
Flywheel to suit manual gearbox (14 kg)
Clutch (6 kg)
Carbs
Fan
Oil Filter
Oil
Water hosing
Water
So a complete motor with exhaust manifolds, flywheel and clutch but without other items mentioned above would weight 155 kg or say 340 UK pounds. (1
kg = 2.20462 pounds)
Cheers
Fred W B
engine front view
[Edited on 26/1/07 by Fred W B]
Rover V8 is a good choice. But
Zetec
Engine 100-200 quid max
Bike carbs 30-40 quid
Bike Fuel pump 5 quid
Manifold 100-200 quid unless u make one up
Type 9 50 quid max.
Megajolt 100 quid
500 quid plus exhaust.
Decent power light engine...
You have to consider the grin factor of the V8 rumble aswell
Id go V8 even with the amount of ear bashing I get from the MNR Hairdryer crew .
The v8 is cheap ( apart from the fuel !! )
Gearboxses are the main issue a good SD1 will be ok but finding a good one these days is geting harder the later r380 ( are alot better ) then there
are the getrags ( bmw ) and T5 ( ford ) John earls will do you a bellhousing.
Real steel will sell you a Tremac box and bellhousing but we are talking ££££.
Grin factor every time. PS its makes crusing easy 5th or drop it into 4th for overtaking !!!
one thing to add to the equation for the V8 is depending on the ratio in your gearbox you may need to source one of the 3.14 diff ( and I would sugest
an LSD ! ) this is going to add to the build cost.
Regards.
agriv8
Law of diminishing returns
Excluding the induction and ignition a Zetec cost roughly 80 quid, plus a few bits from other Ford models to fit it.
Really no point in aming for more than the 180bhp which is relatively easy to get with all standard internal parts because a Seven style car with
180bhp is already much much faster than anything you can imagine unless you have driven one before.
For induction and ignition just megasquirt it with bike throttle bodies or a Rover manifold.
With the ancient wheezing 1950s designed Rover lump everything has to be bigger and heavier --- gearbox, battery, starter, alternator, exhaust (x2)
fuel tank.
No Rover V8 I have driven ever produced anything like the power that was claimed for it, in fact if you want Rover power it is probably easier and
cheaper to produce a 200bhp from K16 or T16 Rover engine for a lot less weight.
[Edited on 26/1/07 by britishtrident]
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Really no point in aming for more than the 180bhp which is relatively easy to get with all standard internal parts because a Seven style car with 180bhp is already much much faster than anything you can imagine unless you have driven one before.
i would go V6 duratec if you can pay it else i would go zetec.
The V8 engines we talk about are like bus engines they are made to pull not to run fast... i wet a zetec car with 30BHP less is faster as a V8
lump.
Cornering?Wheelspin?
nah every engine to its thing.. and a V8 is not for a seven IMO, a seven needs to be quick and agile not a cruise chip there are other cars that are
better for that..
Tks
nah u want a decent V8.. there aint nothin like em... the sound alone makes the V8 a top contender
p.s.like your install simon.. i had a similar idea after to long in the pub..
[img][/img]
quote:
Originally posted by tks
i would go V6 duratec if you can pay it else i would go zetec.
The V8 engines we talk about are like bus engines they are made to pull not to run fast... i wet a zetec car with 30BHP less is faster as a V8 lump.
Cornering?Wheelspin?
nah every engine to its thing.. and a V8 is not for a seven IMO, a seven needs to be quick and agile not a cruise chip there are other cars that are better for that..
Tks
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Really no point in aming for more than the 180bhp which is relatively easy to get with all standard internal parts because a Seven style car with 180bhp is already much much faster than anything you can imagine unless you have driven one before.
With the ancient wheezing 1950s designed Rover lump everything has to be bigger and heavier --- gearbox, battery, starter, alternator, exhaust (x2) fuel tank.
No Rover V8 I have driven ever produced anything like the power that was claimed for it, in fact if you want Rover power it is probably easier and cheaper to produce a 200bhp from K16 or T16 Rover engine for a lot less weight.
[Edited on 26/1/07 by britishtrident]
nowt wrong with v8. a 3.5 can be bought quite cheaply to give 3.5 without too mcuh work, getting a 4.6 will be more £££ and give even more bhp.
parts are cheap since there are 2 Land Rover part supplies - paddocks/craddocks.
easy to work on two.
I personally wouldn;t fit one in mine since it would require bonnet bulges but if you desing chassis/body work so that iw ould be a neat fit, then no
reason not too; also I would want the exhaust on my driver's side.
re: sizes:
First I went V8 cos I wanted that V8 rumble.
I have a 3.5 Rover V8, and its giving me 179 BHP at the flywheel.
To Get much more costs a LOT more. 400Bhp is only possible if you start with a 4.6 lump in the first place.
With a 3.5 250bhp is probably tops, without spending silly money.
Now...
On a steady run at 80mph I get 25Mpg, which is just brill for a Carb'd (Webber 500 - 4 barrel job) car.
The Engine I built cost me:
£50 for the engine.
and then another £1700 and that includes:
rebore / new pistons and rings.
ALL new bearings (not that expensive)
Viper hurricane Cam
Rhoads Bleed Down lifters
Steel Rockers (old ones knackered)
Cloyes Timing chain and cogs (Good)
New core plugs
Chemical clean of the block (why refurbish and leave the shite in there to wreck you new engine)
New Water pump
New oil pump
New Clutch, cover plate and release bearing
Gasket set
Valve Springs
Mallory Dizzy
So refurbing a V8 ISNT cheap.
It goes well:
Standing 1/4 mile at Santa Pod 14.849 secs. Including Full wheelspin in 1st gear, short spin in 2nd, and Missing 3rd gear half way down the track.
That was my first ever go on ANY track. I can do better.
Santa Pod Run
Whilst mine isnt that quick, The BEC's are only a second or so better.
The V8 is what I call Lazy Power. Its relaxed (in std and mild tune) driving, and holds a good speed and acceleration without believing there is an
Angry Wasp in your Helmet
Nowt wrong with BEC's, its each to their own.
I am Happy with my V8, its what I have wanted for Years.
If I did it all again, then I think a Turbo'd Zetec or Duratec would be the way. 2 Litre, and plenty of power but it would have to make 300BHP or
it would be back to a V8 again!.
Just my 2d worth.
EDIT:
Think of a V8 as TWO 4 cylinder engines, that twice the exhaust pipe and silencer costs, plugs, etc etc. Thats why they get expensive so quickly when
rebuilding.
[Edited on 26/1/2007 by wilkingj]
The only V8 I'd consider are the ones made from two bike engines. Best of all worlds then (apart from huge expense!).
quote:
Originally posted by wilkingj
I have a 3.5 Rover V8, and its giving me 179 BHP at the flywheel.
resonably cheap v8 power could be made with my setup which is a 95 3.9 lump which has the 8.1 pistons in already with a buick turbo manifold from
boost performance and a holset hx35 turbo v3 msns should be good for over 300hp at 10psi and monster torque. i love my bike engined kitten but i
certainly wouldnt want to drive any distance in it
How much does a zetec weigh anyway?
I've just done a quick analysis of an 179 BHP RV8 vs 1998 carbed R1 in an otherwise identical seven. The RV8 car weighs 100kg more than the
BEC.
The V8 pulls a short lead in 1st gear, assuming you control wheel spin. The BEC catches up and overtakes before 60 MPH and it's lead grows until
you reach 120 MPH, which is max revs in top gear. Only then does the V8 start to catch up. It will take nearly 0.9 miles to catch up from a standing
start.
V8 burble and the ability to cruise at 1000 RPM is all very nice but a zetec or a BEC of the same power would be better.
the power arguement is slightly flawed as if you compare torque the rv8 is miles ahead.
it is a rather inefficient deisgn by modern standards though (it is an iold design fullstop!) in terms of power/torque (comparatively) vs
cc's.
it is still a quick and cheap engine if you find a good one, especially cheap for a v8.
Ned.
Geoff,
I'm surprised that £1700 only bought you 179BHP since the David Hardcastle books I have read suggest that 220BHP should be possible with that
sort of expenditure. I don't have the book to hand but I'll look up the mods he was recommending later and see if I can price them up. The
Vitesse 3.5 litre produced 193BHP so I would expect you could easily break 200BHP with just a free-flowing exhaust system and a K&N air filter.
Did you get your car optimised on a rolling road?
Cheers,
Craig.
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
I've just done a quick analysis of an 179 BHP RV8 vs 1998 carbed R1 in an otherwise identical seven. The RV8 car weighs 100kg more than the BEC.
The V8 pulls a short lead in 1st gear, assuming you control wheel spin. The BEC catches up and overtakes before 60 MPH and it's lead grows until you reach 120 MPH, which is max revs in top gear. Only then does the V8 start to catch up. It will take nearly 0.9 miles to catch up from a standing start.
V8 burble and the ability to cruise at 1000 RPM is all very nice but a zetec or a BEC of the same power would be better.
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
I've just done a quick analysis of an 179 BHP RV8 vs 1998 carbed R1 in an otherwise identical seven. The RV8 car weighs 100kg more than the BEC.
The V8 pulls a short lead in 1st gear, assuming you control wheel spin. The BEC catches up and overtakes before 60 MPH and it's lead grows until you reach 120 MPH, which is max revs in top gear. Only then does the V8 start to catch up. It will take nearly 0.9 miles to catch up from a standing start.
V8 burble and the ability to cruise at 1000 RPM is all very nice but a zetec or a BEC of the same power would be better.
Oh well that settles it then eh...
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
I've just done a quick analysis of an 179 BHP RV8 vs 1998 carbed R1 in an otherwise identical seven. The RV8 car weighs 100kg more than the BEC.
The V8 pulls a short lead in 1st gear, assuming you control wheel spin. The BEC catches up and overtakes before 60 MPH and it's lead grows until you reach 120 MPH, which is max revs in top gear. Only then does the V8 start to catch up. It will take nearly 0.9 miles to catch up from a standing start.
V8 burble and the ability to cruise at 1000 RPM is all very nice but a zetec or a BEC of the same power would be better.
Oh well that settles it then eh...
quote:
Originally posted by Stu16v
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
I've just done a quick analysis of an 179 BHP RV8 vs 1998 carbed R1 in an otherwise identical seven. The RV8 car weighs 100kg more than the BEC.
The V8 pulls a short lead in 1st gear, assuming you control wheel spin. The BEC catches up and overtakes before 60 MPH and it's lead grows until you reach 120 MPH, which is max revs in top gear. Only then does the V8 start to catch up. It will take nearly 0.9 miles to catch up from a standing start.
V8 burble and the ability to cruise at 1000 RPM is all very nice but a zetec or a BEC of the same power would be better.
Oh well that settles it then eh...
Anyone who thinks that an installed V8 is going to be within 20kgs of the average 4pot (Pinto, XE, Zetec) is dreaming. Engine weights are one thing, installed weights quite another. Dont believe me? Go and ask the Westfield boys and girls. RV8 installs in otherwise comparable cars make the car substancially heavier.
And that in turn impairs the performance of the car - on track at least. Again, go ask for proof if not convinced.
But for a tourer etc, no question. IMHO V8's should be fitted to Cobra's and tow barge's - not lightweight sports cars!
Kin gr8!! stick one of these in it.
The ports on a Rover head are very restrictive and without any mods to the throats any other work is quite pointless - it is well established that
port work on a bog standard engine will release 30-40BHP at the wheels.
Most of the Vitesse additional power over the stock SD1 was changes in to the ports/valve area.
Any money/time on the rover is best spent on the heads first. even stage 1 is a massive power gain.
Airfilters and exhausts etc make very little improvement as from stock they are not where the blockage is.
However every BHP after that initial gain is hard fought for and best released with forced induction.
Cheers
Andrew
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
Geoff,
I'm surprised that £1700 only bought you 179BHP since the David Hardcastle books I have read suggest that 220BHP should be possible with that sort of expenditure. I don't have the book to hand but I'll look up the mods he was recommending later and see if I can price them up. The Vitesse 3.5 litre produced 193BHP so I would expect you could easily break 200BHP with just a free-flowing exhaust system and a K&N air filter.
Did you get your car optimised on a rolling road?
Cheers,
Craig.
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
Stu, I don't think anyone has disputed that (although the Pinto is heavier than the RV8) but if you go to the Westfield website here you will see that the published 0-60MPH times for a V8 and Duratec engine of equal power (200BHP) are within 0.1 seconds of each other - 4.3 versus 4.2 resp. That's as near as makes no difference!
Each to their own but to me I want a sports car which is as different as possible from my daily commuting car so it's either BEC or V8. Anything with a 4-pot is just like a faster, less comfortable version of my regular car.
Cheers,
Craig.
The one with the better mechanical grip - which is a mile away from anything engine related.
Andrew
quote:
Originally posted by Stu16v
.......Throw in some bends, and see which car clearly comes out first...
I had a 3.9 Rover V8 in my Robin Hood (picture attached) - lightened and balanced flywheel, Holley, Edelbrok inlet, Mallory ignition and type 9
gearbox - rolling roaded, 248bhp @5750 at the wheels and pulled VERY nicely from tick over up to 6000 and would take on (and mostly beat) virtually
anything on the road
A
Rescued attachment KIF_0058.JPG
quote:
Originally posted by Andy S
The one with the better mechanical grip - which is a mile away from anything engine related.
Andrew
quote:
Originally posted by Stu16v
.......Throw in some bends, and see which car clearly comes out first...
quote:
Originally posted by Agriv8
quote:
Originally posted by tks
i would go V6 duratec if you can pay it else i would go zetec.
The V8 engines we talk about are like bus engines they are made to pull not to run fast... i wet a zetec car with 30BHP less is faster as a V8 lump.
Cornering?Wheelspin?
nah every engine to its thing.. and a V8 is not for a seven IMO, a seven needs to be quick and agile not a cruise chip there are other cars that are better for that..
Tks
TKS Your quite entitled to your opinion.
But my v8 is light, nimble, agile just dont need to keep changing gears to overtake stuff.
Wheelpin this is easilly avoidable by controlled use of the acelerator !
Cornering - No problems most rover v8 is in the bottom Crank / Flywheel ect.
But hey I am biased
Regards
Agriv8
"a low reving V8 is a "puller" not a race engine"
Try telling that to Audi and their torquey diesels winning at Le Mans!
------------------------------------------------
BTT who cares what you power it with
I wanted a Rover V8 engine cos I like the sound and the relaxed cruise - which given the congestion on most of our roads is all we can do.
I like the fact I can plant the throttle in any gear (except first, as I don't use it), and blat past anything, though I may have to change down
(from top at 30mph!!) when the Jag diff goes in.
I wasn't building something that will give the german cobblers italian motor a race, I was building a car how I wanted it.
The engine is standard (9.35 c/r), apart from the turbo's and injection, so I'm hoping to keep most of the torque characteristics of the
engine, though, once boost comes in, things should get a little more interesting.
With the Jag diff (ratio 2.88:1), I'm hoping for very good consumption figs (like 35 - 40mpg) on a run.
I may well, once mods are done, go on a trackday or two, maybe even go to the Pod to get some idea of performance. As I said, I'm hoping for
300bhp, and the Jag diff will give a theorectical top speed of 156.
Who knows, if it works nicely, I may bin the 3.5, get a 3.9 and a pair of K04 turbos (presently K03's and may aim for 400 bhp). It's
my car, built how I wanted it.
Like it or not, I don't really care - just so long as you appreciate the effort I put into it!
My next project may well be lightweight and DIESEL, and I want 80 mpg at 80 mph
ATB
Simon
[Edited on 26/1/07 by Simon]
quote:
Originally posted by DIY Si
Fair enough, I assumed (wrongly it would appear) that the engine was heavier than that.
Cymtriks,
All I can say to that is that it is at odds with just about every other source of weight data I have seen for the RV8. Even experts like David
Hardcastle and Des Hamill who have written authoritative books on the RV8 will confirm it is around 140Kg's for an engine with ancillaries. I am
of course talking about the SD1 engine because the range rover engines have all sorts of extra bits including a massive flywheel pulley and larger
alternator, bigger sump etc. I'm pretty sure that RPI engineering also have quoted the figure of 318 lbs (144 Kg's).
Someone else on this forum did a weight analysis of the SD1 engine. I'll try to dig up a link.
Stu16v, I think you will find that the difference on the track is less than you might think because remember that the weight is what generates grip
from the tyres. Provided the front-rear balance doesn't end up at 70/30 or something then there shouldn't be a major problem.
Simon, you are spot on when you stress that the V8 is what YOU want (and me) and this is why those on opposing sides of the fence will never agree on
this one. I drive a 4-pot (Seat Cupra R 225) every day to work and back and it's great but for an out and out sports car I want something a bit
different. If I was a bike fan then I might go for a BEC but to be honest I would find it too quirky I think.
The RV8 is "Simple Power" especially if you take it in simple form straight from an SD1 (ideally a Vitesse) and it is very reliable,
forgiving and robust. The flat torque curve will yield more useable power than the peak power figure would have you believe. Remember that it is
average power across the RPM being used which is important - peak figures are meaningless. Add to that the gorgeous V8 burble and I'm in
heaven!!
Anyway, 'nuff said from me. Over and out!
Cheers,
Craig.
Just a quick question os the V8 Vs L4 or BE wars...
What if??
I have the V8 donor already and consider building the chassis to suit...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:89-93_Mercury_Cougar.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Cougar
What sort of engine is it? I'm guessing an iron block V8?
If so then build a Cobra!
All the best,
Craig.
Yeah, I agree, if it's cast iron, it will be incredibly heavy - like 5-600 lbs. So something where the engine will be a lower percentage of
car's weight, might be a better option.
Craig,
Have you booked your SVA yet
ATB
Simon
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
Craig,
Have you booked your SVA yet
ATB
Simon
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
What sort of engine is it? I'm guessing an iron block V8?
If so then build a Cobra!
All the best,
Craig.
Hi,
Okay, if you want to build a Locost with an iron block V8 then you will need to make some changes to the chassis to improve stiffness. Check for posts
by Cymtriks for details. It included changing some of the tubes from 1" x 1" to 2" x 1" around the bottom of the engine bay. You
will probably need to do the same at the top of the engine bay as well. Obviously you will need to ensure that there is enough room in the engine bay
for the engine so I would suggest you go at least 4" wider and probably 2" or more longer in the engine bay. The extra width is mainly
required to allow the engine to go far enough back without reducing pedal space below the minimum.
While you're at it you might want to add a bit of chassis height (1-2" if you need to, to reduce any bonnet bulges. I wish I had added
1" to my chassis height as it would have made life easier.
Obviously, if you go down this road then you will need to make custom body parts and you will need to make each chassis tube to suit rather than
cutting tube angles from a plan. No big deal but certainly more work for you.
In the end, it's do-able but you might be better passing on your iron V8 and either try to pick up an alloy one or look at other engine options.
I'm afraid even I would draw the line at using an iron V8 in a Locost.
Good luck though!
Craig.
There's a lot of nonsense talked about with regards to putting v8s in a seven normally by people who haven't driven one. I had a 4.6 in my
old westfield which put out about 300 brake and about 300ftlb. I was utterly brilliant. Overtaking was effortless, handling wasn't a problem
(just as good as my old xflow westfield) and was fine in the wet. You could spin up the wheels if your throttle control was shite but if that's
the case then what are you doing in a 7 in the first place? The only thing that let it down on track was the gearbox which was a bit clunky but could
go round the outside of elises so if anyone tells you v8 engined 7s don't handle pass them a bung for their arse
quote:
Originally posted by dern
so if anyone tells you v8 engined 7s don't handle pass them a bung for their arse
quote:
Originally posted by dern
I was utterly brilliant.
quote:Lol, oops... it was brilliant, I was shite
Originally posted by Stu16v
quote:
Originally posted by dern
I was utterly brilliant.
And modest to boot...
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
"a low reving V8 is a "puller" not a race engine"
Try telling that to Audi and their torquey diesels winning at Le Mans!
------------------------------------------------
BTT who cares what you power it with
I wanted a Rover V8 engine cos I like the sound and the relaxed cruise - which given the congestion on most of our roads is all we can do.
I like the fact I can plant the throttle in any gear (except first, as I don't use it), and blat past anything, though I may have to change down (from top at 30mph!!) when the Jag diff goes in.
I wasn't building something that will give the german cobblers italian motor a race, I was building a car how I wanted it.
The engine is standard (9.35 c/r), apart from the turbo's and injection, so I'm hoping to keep most of the torque characteristics of the engine, though, once boost comes in, things should get a little more interesting.
With the Jag diff (ratio 2.88:1), I'm hoping for very good consumption figs (like 35 - 40mpg) on a run.
I may well, once mods are done, go on a trackday or two, maybe even go to the Pod to get some idea of performance. As I said, I'm hoping for 300bhp, and the Jag diff will give a theorectical top speed of 156.
Who knows, if it works nicely, I may bin the 3.5, get a 3.9 and a pair of K04 turbos (presently K03's and may aim for 400 bhp). It's my car, built how I wanted it.
Like it or not, I don't really care - just so long as you appreciate the effort I put into it!
My next project may well be lightweight and DIESEL, and I want 80 mpg at 80 mph
ATB
Simon
[Edited on 26/1/07 by Simon]
Tks,
Race engines produce high revs because they are usually have a limit to engine capacity and therefore the only way they can produce considerably more
power is by raising the revs. Remember power is proportional to RPM. This is how an F1 engine produces 850BHP+ out of 2.4 litres.
IMO engine revs is irrelevant, it is average power in the useable band which is important (ie. from the revs just before changing up a gear to the
revs just after the upwards gearchange. If you have a nice fat power curve in this area (which in turn depends on the torque curve being nice and
f(l)at then you won't have any problems making good lap times.
Also, with a torquey engine you have the option of not changing down a gear when you might otherwise need to in a "revvy" engine and still
have useable power. This is particularly handy in wet conditions or if you need both hands on the wheel to correct a slide mid-corner.
As was said above, look at the Le Mans winning diesel if you want proof that low revs is not necessarily a disadvantage...
ATB,
Craig.
From Wikipedia (on the Audi R10 diesel engine):
"The main novelty of the R10 is its engine: a TDI turbodiesel engine, running on Shell V-Power Diesel. It is a 5.5 L (335.6 ci) all-aluminium
bi-turbo 90° V12, with common rail direct injection of more than 1600 bar (23,206 psi). Its output should be 650 hp (485 kW) (regulated) and 1100 N·m
(811 ft·lbf) of torque, and its usable power band is between 3000 and 5000 rpm. Its benefits are a broad range of usable power, high torque and
economy. Two Garrett TR3076R turbochargers limited by the regulations to 2.94 bar (42.64 psi) absolute breathe through two 39.9 mm intake air
restrictors. It uses the latest Bosch Motronic (MS14) management, provided by Bosch Motorsport, 1600 bar piezo injectors, and makes a low noise for a
race car."
Notice the high revving nature of the engine Similar in fact (if not weight or economy) of a turbo'ed Rover V8
ATB
Simon
Interesting article Simon.
Another thing to consider is the fact that it is very difficult to design an engine which will run efficiently at all RPM's, especially if the
RPM range is very wide. You can only really tune exhaust/inlet tract lengths and camshaft characteristics to suit a narrow RPM band, often known as
the "power band". The more power you try to squeeze out of the engine the narrower and peakier the torque and power curves become. VTEC
engines get around this to an extent but at the expense of complexity.
In a race engine this peaky curve is not such a problem because a close ratio gearbox is used to ensure that the RPM never goes very far either side
of peak power. Also, there are often more ratio's available and 1st gear can afford to have a high ratio (like a normal 2nd gear) because you
don't spend much time going slowly.
However, in a road/track car which is sometimes driven slowly in traffic you need to have a sensible 1st gear ratio. Also, the standard spacing
between gear ratio's can be enough to knock a highly tuned engine "off the boil".
With a large capacity, "lazy" engine like the RV8, the engine has not been tuned to a particular RPM range and is able to pull well at all
RPM's. It uses brute force, or cubic inches (no substitute!), to make the power.
So to answer the question of this thread "Rover V8 --- simple power?" the answer is a resounding "Yes!"
Cheers,
Craig.
[Edited on 29/1/2007 by craig1410]
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
Interesting article Simon.
So to answer the question of this thread "Rover V8 --- simple power?" the answer is a resounding "Yes!"
Cheers,
Craig.
[Edited on 29/1/2007 by craig1410]
Simon,
Sorry mate, not aimed at you - that would be preaching to the converted!
Just a general justification aimed at the thread owner.
Cheers,
Craig.