craig1410
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 09:49 AM |
|
|
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]
Clearly you have never weighed a T16 engine then....I had one in my Rover 800 Vitesse Turbo and it is just about the heaviest lump of an engine you
could come across. Much much heavier than an RV8 and it is far too tall for a Seven.
I don't see why an alternator has to be bigger on an RV8 as you only need an alternator suitable for the electrical load you are consuming which
on a Seven is small. If you use a good battery then it doesn't need to be big either. I doubt the starter is much bigger than most other
starters either (maybe 1Kg heavier - big deal!)
As for the fuel tank, I would expect that a 200BHP RV8 will consume roughly the same fuel as a 200BHP Zetec when driven quickly. The RV8 may be
slighly thirstier but this would not require a substantially heavier fuel tank - again maybe 1Kg difference in extra aluminium sheet)
The SD1 gearbox is quite heavy but you can use other gearboxes and there are a range of bellhousings to choose from. Plenty of second hand options
available as the RV8 has always been a popular donor.
As for not producing the power advertised, I can only assume you have a driven a few duffers because my experience is the complete opposite. Every RV8
car I have driven has performed much better than the figures would suggest. My Dad had two SD1's from new and they both performed way better
than 155BHP would lead you to expect. Of course with the V8 "noise" you feel like you are doing Warp factor 9 just by blipping the
throttle!! 
By the way, check out the performance figures for Westfield's. If you compare a 200BHP Zetec car with a 200BHP RV8 car the 0-60MPH sprint is
only different by 0.1 seconds so the weight of the engine doesn't seem to be a problem. I'd give up 0.1 seconds any day if it meant I
could have RV8 music for free!!
ATB,
Craig.
|
|
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 10:34 AM |
|
|
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:
|
|
|
wilkingj
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 12:22 PM |
|
|
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]
1. The point of a journey is not to arrive.
2. Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
Best Regards
Geoff
http://www.v8viento.co.uk
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 12:24 PM |
|
|
The only V8 I'd consider are the ones made from two bike engines. Best of all worlds then (apart from huge expense!).
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 12:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wilkingj
I have a 3.5 Rover V8, and its giving me 179 BHP at the flywheel.
A tuned 2.0 Zetec can do that and with less weight. Wouldn't that be a better option? I'd only have a V8 if a tuned but usable 4 pot
just wasn't enough. 220 BHP minimum.
|
|
|
froggy
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 12:46 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
rav
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 12:50 PM |
|
|
How much does a zetec weigh anyway?
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 12:57 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 12:57 PM |
|
|
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.
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 01:03 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 01:05 PM |
|
|
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... 
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 01:22 PM |
|
|
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...
what about having the race in reverse gear?
|
|
|
Stu16v
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 01:23 PM |
|
|
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!
Dont just build it.....make it!
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 01:38 PM |
|
|
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!
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.
|
|
|
Bouldy
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 02:29 PM |
|
|
Kin gr8!! stick one of these in it.
|
|
|
Andy S
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 03:08 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Stu16v
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 03:10 PM |
|
|
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.
As you say - each to their own. But you have said the Pinto is heavier. As a bare engine *possibly* (although I personally disagree), but installed, a
Pinto is a lot lighter - no arguement. And the running car is what counts, is it not?
The Westfield figures are only drag strip figures too - hardly what this type of car is about. Throw in some bends, and see which car clearly comes
out first...
Dont just build it.....make it!
|
|
|
Andy S
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 03:36 PM |
|
|
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...
|
|
|
alanr
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 04:03 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Stu16v
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 04:11 PM |
|
|
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...
Yup. Spot on. And Westfield against Westfield, very rarely does the V8 come out on top - because a V8 doesnt work as well in a sportscar that relies
on its lack of weight to give it the advantage in the first place...
Dont just build it.....make it!
|
|
|
tks
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 05:05 PM |
|
|
-
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
Listen mate, every one has his own cup of tea! but the facts are the facts..
a low reving V8 is a "puller" not a race engine...
torque is for pulling / allot of weight...
If a engine makes revs it doesn´t has torque (small stroke) if a engine doesn´t has revs it has torque a long stroke. An high (no revs) or a small
(revs) capacity speeds this further up...
Tks
The above comments are always meant to be from the above persons perspective.
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 08:16 PM |
|
|
"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]
|
|
|
cymtriks
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 08:17 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DIY Si
Fair enough, I assumed (wrongly it would appear) that the engine was heavier than that.
Nope, you're right. It is heavier.
These weights were posted on PH by Marquis Rex:
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.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 10:18 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Angel Acevedo
|
| posted on 26/1/07 at 10:49 PM |
|
|
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
Beware of what you wish.. for it may come true....
|
|
|
fastavatar.jpg){kind=avatar}
