Thinking of buying a rover V8 for my Luego Viento.

How heavy are they ?

Will I be able to fit it in the back of my fiesta to collect it.

Will two people be able to lift it.

Thanks for your help...

http://www.v8church.co.uk/v8_rover_technical_info.html

Thanks.

320lbs = approx 145 kilos.
or 72.5 kilos per person.
In other words, I'd think very carefully about picking hte bugger up with muscle power alone.
Having said that, they are still lighter than the Ford Pinto (boat anchor!)

My brother and I carried a Pinto and a 2.0L DOHC between us (not at the same time but one hr apart) and managed - JUST!!!

You should be able to sort this out but make sure you have ropes and some sort of prybar to assist

Oh BTW - My bro is 22 stone (solid muscle) and i'm 16.5(not so solid)!!! Were not lightweights so maybe we have a little more strength that the average Joe!!

[Edited on 10/2/05 by chunkielad]

The following is copied from a post on "Piston Heads" under the Engines section. It was posted by Marquis Rex who use to work at BL.

Am tired of the hype surrounding the RV8 engine. Man, I've heard figures as low as 130 Kgs being banded about for its weight. It's a widely used readily available engine- and there's a lot of tuning knowledge out there for it (some of the tuning is questionable).
But lets put things into perspective here:

These are the true weights of a late Disco 4 litre engine, compliant with all the modern emissions and refinement criteria.

Accessory Drive Belt - (1) 0.341kg
Air Cleaner Body 0.977kg
Air Cleaner Element 0.299kg
Air Cleaner Top 0.467kg
Air Flow Meter 0.226kg
Air Hose/Duct - (1) 0.325kg
Alternator 7.196kg
Engine Complete 177.000kg
Engine Management - E.C.U. 0.390kg
Starter Motor 4.060kg
Viscous Coupling 2.942kg
Engine Oil 5.676kg

The above comes to 200 kgs. Now an earlier vehicle will probably NOT have the reduction gear starter motor fitted and so you can expect that to weigh about 8 kgs, the accessory drive won't be poly belt driven but individually driven So that will weigh quite a bit more. The above also does NOT include the flywheel, which on the Rover is very very heavy compared to it's contemporaries. So we're already looking at way over 220 Kgs. The extra capacity over the 3.5 litre will lose some in the crank area, but because the RV8 doesn't have a fully counterweighted crankshaft- not as much as you might imagine. The block has been reinforced since the early days, but I can't see that adding much more then about 5-6 kgs. So these silly figures of around 140Kgs are Science Fiction.
Other points of note are the fact that the valve timing does its own thing about about 4000 rpm due to the flex in the pushrods and rocker shaft location-this has a HUGE effect on top end power, an area where the undervalved Rover V8 struggles already- enlargening the capacity further will just boost low speed torque with little effect on peak power due to the restrictive nature of the cylinder heads- you’ll end up having to go to specially made Wildcat heads to get the top end back unless you’re particularly fond of the feel of a “diesel-esque” torque curve. Now don't get me wrong, the RV8 is a great "working class hero" of an engine- readily available. I TOTALLY understand the emotional reasons behind choosing this legendary stalwart powerplant, or retaining it for a sense of originality- fair play. But when biased folk start to pitch this motor, on function, against the Chevy C5 motor or a twin cam Jag, BMW, or Porsche V8s spending thousands upon thousands and seriously believing all the hype, they're on shaky ground. It's the engine equivalent of chavving up your Vauxhall Corsa with 20,000 pounds instead of buying a thoroughbred. Probably the same kind of people who think that MGBs, Triumphs or other BL stuff were "British Engineering at its best". They were characterful, fun cars, that perhaps can leave some of us with a warm feeling inside- but woefully under developed. It's a shame, because I for one would have loved the opportunity in developing the Rover V8 the way the Chevy C5 or Porsche 911 air cooled flat-6 engine was…..

it's a bit like "how long is a piece of string" ...

The only fair comparison is between two engines ready to bolt in to the same car - complete with injection/carbs, dizzy/ecu, flywheel, ancillaries, exhaust system, etc

... and then there's the weight of the gearbox (Ford vs Rover), or adaptor/bellhousing if using the same box

Cymtriks,
Firstly I will admit that I am a Rover V8 fanatic and will defend the beast to the death...

However, ChrisG did an objective scrapyard comparison of various engines back in April ast year and found the Range Rover V8 to be 160Kg's with the exhaust manifolds attached. I have personally weighed my exhaust manifolds at 16Kg's leaving the engine at 144Kg's. This comes close to the figure of 318lb's which has been quoted many times elsewhere.

Check out this thread for details:
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=12640

Sorry Cymtriks but 220 Kg's is just plain wrong. To put this in perspective, I am a fit and healthy 32 year old weighing 12 Stone and I can man-handle an RV8 single-handed by walking it across the bed of my trailer with all ancillaries attached. I actually find it easier to handle than an A-Series mini engine and gearbox!!

I agree with some of the comments about high RPM breathing being a problem with the RV8 but it will spin to 5500-6000 RPM happily so what's the problem? Yes modern BMW or Porsche V8's may well be better but you can't get them for under £200 like you can with a Rover V8!!

At the end of the day it is easily capable of 200BHP and can be bought for about £200. It sounds good and pulls beautifully from idle to 6000RPM. It's simple and can be rebuilt by just about anyone without great expense. In fact it is an ideal Locost engine in many respects so leave it alone...

Cheers,
Craig.

My 4.6 with no manifolds, carbs, alternator or starter was 130kgs on (overloaded) bathroom scales.
So I think craig is right.
Bob C