The Rover V8. Why bother ?

[Dave W]

Dave W -> what have you got being the LS1/6 if you don't mind me asking?

I have a 5.7 LS1 with an LS6 top end. I bought it direct from an engine builder in the US as a crated engine. It's mated to a 4L80E gearbox with an LT230 transfer box so it's running LR axles uprated with Ashcroft shafts/CVs. Fitted it in 2007 and only transmission damage was a transfer box (forgot to put diff lock in and destroyed the centre diff) and I've twisted off a rear prop shaft when I hit a tree root going uphill and landed with the power still on.

Both of the above transmission failures I count as driver error !

There's a blow by blow account of the installation here if it's of interest...

http://www.yorkshireoffroadclub.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=194

Video of it's first proper outing here...

[smallfry]

Its an interesting read on , "faults" of the RV8" , "having to watch the temp guage in traffic" ," having 2 Rovers with 3.5 v8 , wouldnt rely on them in the bush" .

I would go and recover vehicles in the bush with my 3.9i RV8 110 , for over a decade , never a problem, and found it was able to handle sandhills in 45C+ , when , other engined 4x4 were having to turn off the aircon to stop them overheating , and yet its heat providing ability was a real plus back in the UK in winter . Having replaced it with a diesel, I am now most likely going to fit a webasto FBH to get me comfy !

It is probably not the "Carlsberg" engine , but it is such a good compromise of what majority are looking to tick various boxes . JMHO

You see I WOULD trust it to drive to the back of beyond, but only if it were a rebuilt 3.5, and this is the problem. I could not trust one of the bigger bore engines unless I had personally taken it to bits and had it all sorted out, and even then there would always be a nagging doubt in the back of my mind.

Now if you were to use the Mitsubuki Direblade or something from Germany instead, you could most likely collect it from the scrappers, cobble it together, get it running, thrash it to within an inch of its life for years, and never ever, have to pull the cylinder heads, or change the camshaft/s etc etc, unless YOU wanted to.

I think these comments from from Dave W sums it up nicely....................

I've run all sorts of engines in my Land Rovers, lots of RV8s, even the odd diesel and the absolutely horrible 2.25 series waste of space in both diesel and petrol forms. For general use the RV8 is the most flexible and has probably the best , what in IT terms, is known as, cost of ownership.

The RV8 in the daily drive is a good workhorse but is starting to show the normal RV8 problems, it had new heads a couple of years ago and is now exhibiting coolant loss issues that I'm having to deal with. I'm optimistic that they are external problems (heater matrix) but with any RV8 there is always that nagging doubt that it might be terminal or at least so expensive that it's pointless putting the money into it.

And a friend of mine who does banger racing has got nice low milage Lexus LS400 engine I can have................

[robertspark]

Very nice Dave W!

I'm still progressing slowly on my nut + bolt rebuild & LS conversion. Still like the Rover v8, just thought I wanted a little more power, and the Rover just seemed like a money sinker when looking at the bigger bore blocks (94mm). Wildcat & merlin heads all look good (and work too I'm sure, but then chucking a huge amount at a 1960 engine essentially did not seem to cut it... some would look at an LS engine the same way maybe too)

Engine development costs are huge ($1 - $2 billion USD seems to be quoted on google) trying to recover costs and future emissions standards, it's unfortunate that rover never did a successor to the rover v8 (based on the buick 215ci). I think we are near all Land Rover "enthusiasts fanatics and afficionados" on here, but given there are no more "rover" or "landrover" engines (even LR use someone else's (the AJ's were developed a long time ago now for Jag, back in the days of Ford!) I don't think you could be considered "non-patriotic" to the marque because of engine changes given we still plough huge sums into keeping them on the road in very high percentages.

I may be wrong here but when the defender goes at the end of 2015 that will be the last of the ladder frame chassis vehicles available of the "meccano" set type.... I will be very surprised if there are people modding monocoque chassis vehicles to the level we do, given (European) legislation in continually trying to dissuade the hobbyist, (presumed incompetent ??) where the plan seems to be to have people buy new (or on lease [drip]) with lower emissions and better driver safety aides, and replace and aim to have scrapped within 10 to 15 years (on average). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6222085.stm

[FridgeFreezer]

You see I WOULD trust it to drive to the back of beyond, but only if it were a rebuilt 3.5, and this is the problem. I could not trust one of the bigger bore engines unless I had personally taken it to bits and had it all sorted out, and even then there would always be a nagging doubt in the back of my mind.

Well no-one ever reports when things don't break - so many things have a reputation that is vastly overblown. Yes, the bigger bore lumps can slip liners, but it's not going to stop you in your tracks. I've driven the 4.6 to the back of beyond 3 times now and it's put up with it fine despite being abused every time. If it ever shows signs of liner issues I'd happily top-hat it rather than jump to something else.

The Belgian Collective took a V8 P38 to Ladoga and got it home again, which everyone would tell you is an impossibility for all sorts of reasons!

[elbekko]

The Belgian Collective took a V8 P38 to Ladoga and got it home again, which everyone would tell you is an impossibility for all sorts of reasons!

On air suspension, at that Only thing that was (and still is) an issue there is the transfer box motor.

[Michele]

Thanks for the thread, I'm following and enjoying some quiet reading.

I have no experience to share so I can't comment, but I find it interesting as I've been dreaming of an engine swap for the last 2 or 3 years,

since I bought my 109" SII which I'd love to repower properly one day.

During the last year I've been doing some research and trying to evaluate the different scenarios,

just for the sake of it as living in Italy I'd be an outlaw, and being in an out of jobs I can't really afford a project of such magnitude.

I heard mixed opinions from different people, builders who love the Chevy LS (drool), and mates who find the Rover V8 perfectly fine (Fridge and Nige hello ).
Heck, a friend of mine even agrees with Bill to keep the old 2.25 which is hard to beat for simplicity and reliability!

Being all but a mechanic or an engineer, I'd like to understand a thing or two about the Rover V8...firstly, and pardon my ingenuity and ignorance, but I don't get the CI/power ratio...3.900 @ 180+ hp, 4.600 @ 220? hp, when a 4.8 LS is rated from factory at 295...I know it's a way more recent engine and concept, but for those who like to race their vehicles, what kind of budget is needed to raise the power of the LR engine to such a level?

Secondly, it's fuel economy and thermal efficiency...the LS is said to be very highly efficient.
The LR V8 heads instead seem not to flow very well, and the whole engine to be weak from a structural point (including the crossbolt blocks).

Would some expert chime in and try to explain to me?

Just for the chronicles, the LS plan for me would require the engine (say 1200/1500 GBP), an old Chevy gearbox (200 USD plus shipment), a special adaptor (1000 USD at least plus shipment), a proper radiator (300/500 €), plus new engine mounts and fabrication (xx€).

I need either to win some bingo or to ask Bill to build me one of his crawler boxes...

[robertspark]

Being all but a mechanic or an engineer, I'd like to understand a thing or two about the Rover V8...firstly, and pardon my ingenuity and ignorance, but I don't get the CI/power ratio...3.900 @ 180+ hp, when a 4.8 LS is rated from factory at 295...I know it's a way more recent engine and concept, but for those who like to race their vehicles, what kind of budget is needed to raise the power of the LR engine to such a level?

3.5L Defender spec ~134bhp (depends where you read) - 38.3 hp/l - 8.1:1 comp ratio

3.9L RR Spec 155 hp - 39.7 hp/l 9.35:1 comp ratio

4.0L RR Spec 182 hp - 45.5 hp/l 9.35:1 comp ratio

4.2L RR Spec 200 hp - 47.6 hp/l 9.35:1 comp ratio

4.6L RR Spec 222 hp @ 4750rpm - 48.3 hp/l , peak torque 300 ft lbf @ 2600rpm 9.35:1 comp ratio

5.0L TRV - 340bhp - 68 hp/l ..... although I don't think any believes 340bhp was achieved from a naturally aspirated rover engine, unless it was doing some serious RPM. ---- compression ratio ~ 9.8:1

GEN 3 engines

5.7L LS1 - 345hp @ 5600rpm, 350ft lb@ 4400rpm 10.25:1 comp ratio - 60.5 hp/l

5.7L LS6 - 405hp @ rpm not given, 400ft lb rpm not given 10.5:1 comp ratio - 71.1 hp/l

GEN 4 engines

6.0 LS2 - 400hp @ 4400rpm, 400 ft lb@ 4400rpm 10.9:1 comp ratio - 66.7hp/l

7.0 LS7 - 505hp @ 6300rpm, 470 ft lb@ 4800rpm 11.0:1 comp ratio - 72.1 hp/l

The power is achieved by various things.... allowing the engine to breathe (better intake + exhaust design), higher compression ratios (albeit this has the negative effect of putting the engine closer to knock), better engine cooling + oil cooling, better fuelling / fuelling control (wide band lambda sensors), better components in some cases (LS7) to allow for higher revving applications. Bore to stroke ratios also affect where the power arrives (as do header lengths [intake and exhaust]). Simple answer.... the benefit of time and engine development techniques has allowed the LS engines to produce more HP for a similar engine design (V8, overhead valves pushrod design, 16 valve engine)

Budget for improving a rover to these levels----- who knows, I looked at it a bit.... new heads (Merlin (or Wild Cat)), twin supercharging it (two sprintex chargers), forged crank, crossbolted block (with strengthened sump bracing), forged pistons, etc etc.... more than my LS engine in the end I felt, hence my conversion (which is still underway!!!!)

Outcome, it may have worked (or ended up in the bin trying)... also you could not have raced it being supercharged as some of the race categories forbid charging unless it was factory fitted.

The long and the short answer is you cannot make big power without displacement or forced airflow. Take even the latest range rover 503hp + 461ft lb of torque, that will be supercharged to about 68kPa (9.8lb/sq in of boost). good quick calculator link: http://www.sprintex.com.au.cust.webinabox.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Blower_Calculator.xls

there is a good calculator / equation I came across many years ago on this website under the "tuning" section for calculating horse power, and why it is what it is, and given the website has quite a bit of info on the Rover V8 (in SD1 guise) it is worth a read if you're interested: http://www.roversd1.nl/sd1web/

An age old saying: There's no replacement for displacement!

However, the statement comes back to, how much do you want to spend on all the ancillaries and work to make a more powerful engine work? £8K - £10K will probably get you an LS engine installed, including gearbox, ecu's etc, etc on the road and all sorted... however time is also a factor, besides money as most of the bits to get it to work will be custom (tell me about it).

If you're looking for parts to make and LS engine work....

The simple bit is getting the engine.

Gearbox, Marks 4WD adapters do a conversion kit for the LS engine to LR gearbox, although allowable torque to the gearbox is a consideration http://www.marks4wd.com/products, there is also Advance Adapters in the US http://www.advanceadapters.com/

Rakeway can do a TKO gearbox conversion (5 speed manual bulletproof I understand (anyone broke one??) http://www.rakeway.co.uk/. Very very helpful owner.

You need to remember the ECU and how to programme it (GM Performance Parts do a full stand alone ECU, drive by wire) - allow £1000 + another £500 for the tuning software / interface (unless you pay someone else).

Exhausts

Engine + gearbox mounts.

Custom gearbox, think about gear change arrangement.

MEZ shows how to make an adapter + do an auto conversion, with a TH350, and then an 4L80e http://www.mez.co.uk/chevyupgradeinstalling.html

Don't forget your available space for the conversion..... if it's a 90, there is a chassis member behind the transfer case, limiting your rearward expansion of the new assembly, and as can be seen on MEZ's website, the propshaft down the side of the engine can be an issue, as can the choice of engine oil sump.

With gearbox choice, don't forget ratio's a TH350 (3speed) or 4L80e (4 speed) are nice and bulletproof / can be made that way with the right bits, but ask yourself if after all the work of getting the engine to work, and all you want is 3 speeds or 3 speeds and one overdrive, you may want a little more ... 6L80 / 6L90 (6 speed, with double overdrive) can be controlled from the GMPP ecu, albeit I don't know of anyone putting one in a Landrover, but they would offer a little more economy given you now have so much more power and torque than required if you're cruising with it (not racing).

however.... the 9 speed gearbox in the Evoque is probably pushing the choice a little daft in pursuit of mpg / carbon emissions IMHO

[robertspark]

Oh yes, and before I forget (in case someone did not know).... seems all parts of the world call Horse Power something different.... so there is slight variance in the numbers.....

One obvious bit of sales blurb is ".... ps " .... which is apparently a metric horsepower, the Audi + BMW manufacturers like to quote it, not sure about Landrover (or Range Rover), especially when looking at their high performance vehicles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower

[bill van snorkle]

If you are broke Michele, and look likely remaining that way for some time, stick with the 2.25 litre. Spark plugs last forever, ignition is basic, simple and reliable. Any old oil will do in the sump at a pinch. Even a mix of oil and water and lack of regular servicing doesn't kill em. When I pulled up on the shores of Lake Eyre in the middle of nowhere in Sth Australia some years ago, with a bodged up stake damaged radiator and only enough fresh water for drinking, I was glad to have the all cast iron goodness of the old 4 banger so that I could fill the cooling system with salt water to enable me to get back to civilization. Try that with an ally engine and hot salt water would Roger it in no time. That's what I was referring to when I mentioned 'survivability'. Much of the remainder of Series LandRover running gear, barring the transfercase, I wouldn't give tuppence for however.

[Bowie69]

Robert, you have the 3.9 BHP figure wrong, 155BHP is for the EFI'd 3.5, 182(5)BHP is for an EFI'd 3.9 (they didn't do a carb 3.9....)

*rustle rustle*

[Hybrid_From_Hell]

*rustle rustle*

[BogMonster]

Interesting thread. I have a getting-older Discovery 4.0 auto, and I still love it. It's only got 45000 miles on, and always being garaged is almost as-new except for a bit of superficial chassis rust and the minor paint damage that comes with gravel roads. However, I'm thinking that at some point I need to move it on (though sometimes I think I might as well keep it on the basis that it's already worth nothing, so I could keep it till it breaks and then chuck it away).

Would I buy another V8 of any make? No, but that's mostly a petrol/diesel thing, because of various changes here petrol is now 117p/L against diesel being 68p/L, so the difference in running costs is a bit silly (£25 to fill up my Ford Ranger, £80 for the Discovery). When I bought mine I think petrol was about 35p/L... times change!

My father has a new Disco 4 with the 3.0 SDV6 diesel and the 8 speed auto. It's quieter, quicker, much more powerful (about 250bhp against about 190ish) about twice as much torque and probably still burns less fuel pushing 3 tonnes than my V8 does pushing two. He loves it, and it's very impressive (at least until it breaks down, which should be by about next Thursday).

But, I'm afraid, it doesn't have the Grin Factor that a RV8 - any RV8 - does when you pop it in sport mode and boot it with the windows down. In the next couple of years I'll end up with a 4x4 containing a modern diesel (probably a Landcruiser), because I can't keep the old Discovery for ever and it makes no sense at all to buy another petrol engine, but for the rest of my days I'll miss my last 'proper engine'

It's up there with Concorde, the Spitfire, Harrier, and quite a few other things. Its day has passed, and other things are now much better both on paper and in practice, but in its own way it will never quite be equalled. The one thing you can be sure of is that it might be 'better' but neither the SDV6 nor anything else made today will see a 45 year production life. I guess it's a religion. A bit like Defenders. Amen

[FridgeFreezer]

Does this help?

(From "Austin Rover Online")

[Bowie69]

Thank you Fridge, filed in one of my many pockets

[robertspark]

Thanks Fridge,

.... so much for copy + paste from Wikipedia and transposition errors (I couldn't be bothered to find all the rover books to get the BHPs + compression ratios + bore and strokes (although the standard rover v8 only has two bores --- ~89mm & ~94mm)).

Think bogmonster is right, that give the RV8 it's due it's been used in a lot of things from UK manufacturing + motorsport, and even I think (although in highly modified form) Formula 1 it was tried in the 60's .... but times move on .... although I'd like a belhousing conversion replacement please .... or I'd settle for a T56 to LT230 adapter plate (output shaft not required).

[FridgeFreezer]

You do have to factor in the relative fragility of a lot of modern engines & drivetrains - these days they achieve better power, economy, etc. by all sorts of trickery, and the engines & transmissions only hold together because they do things like electronically limiting torque in certain gears, at certain RPM's etc. so you can't break it. They also do a lot of pratting around to make things feel (drive) a lot more pokey than they really are - my GF's Seat feels very lively nipping around town, but when you try to overtake something the illusion falls apart as it just hasn't got the guts behind it.

Older engines etc. didn't have electronics to protect them so, although they're less efficiently designed and can't extract every last bit of performance, they tend to be more solid as they have to be relatively "over built" to cope with user abuse.

As an example, some gearboxes now have plastic gears - only practical if you have electronics to limit the torque and keep the teeth on!

[missingsid]

Wow so a SD1 Vittesse makes 190bhp out of 3.5l and a RR makes 225bhp out of 4.5l??

35bhp for an extra litre?

OK the RR is made for torque whereas the Vittesse is made for power.

[FridgeFreezer]

I assume the SD1 Vitesse is the twin-plenum jobby, and yes I'd also imagine it's set up for more power rather than torque - remember power is torque x RPM, so just revving higher makes it look more powerful.

[robertspark]

Fridge you are quite right about modern engines and fagility...

Although you have to remember that it's a factor of time and developement (LS engines compared to Rover V8 (originally the Buick 215ci))

When the rover (Buick) was developed... a slide rule was in use (and reportedly got man on the moon too) .... machining was done by eye with a micrometer, there was no stress analysis, flow analysis (FEA - Finite Element Analysis), there were no computers to draw 3D objects with to convert to G-code for a 5 axis CNC to machine to whatever level of precision and analysis your analysis software spits out at the press of a few buttons.

LS engine first became available in 1997.

Buick 215cc first became available in 1960, and Rover incarnation (redesign) 1967

What do you think the forums of 30 + years from now will be saying about the LS engine and the new fangled run on plutonium / unobtainium or what ever other concoction of zero carbon high energy fuel source using infinity variable gearboxes (Torotrak if you've not seen one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYZKBl2uFGE ) (Why on earth do you require 9 speeds in an evoque??)

Yes, and the age old equation of how to work out torque from HP and visa versa gets forgotten all too quickly:

HP = (Torque [lb-ft) x RPM) / 5252

Seems to be a fair explanation of torque and horsepower curves here: http://www.team-integra.net/forum/blogs/surferx/131-hp-torque-analyzing-power-curves.html

[Soren Frimodt]

Wow so a SD1 Vittesse makes 190bhp out of 3.5l and a RR makes 225bhp out of 4.5l??

35bhp for an extra litre?

OK the RR is made for torque whereas the Vittesse is made for power.

And I have the 155bhp version with the 10.5:1 CR in my Rangie FU***RS!!! And she purrs like a kitten

[Tanuki]

"HP = (Torque [lb-ft) x RPM) / 5252"

I've always had problems with this: I offer the edge-case of piston-type steam-engines [which can deliver maximum rated torque at zero RPM]

The one 'interesting' Rover-V8 I can think of is the cut-down V6-with-asymmetric-firing-order used in the Metro 6R4 rally-cars.

Now, *that* engine/transmission would be rather fun to retro-fit into a Defender!

[Soren Frimodt]

"HP = (Torque [lb-ft) x RPM) / 5252"

I've always had problems with this: I offer the edge-case of piston-type steam-engines [which can deliver maximum rated torque at zero RPM]

The one 'interesting' Rover-V8 I can think of is the cut-down V6-with-asymmetric-firing-order used in the Metro 6R4 rally-cars.

Now, *that* engine/transmission would be rather fun to retro-fit into a Defender!

Is that the same as the Buick odd-fire that the yanks use in Jeeps etc? It's derived from the Buick 215 and has 3.8L (I think) and about 150-160ish HP Only problem is its cast steel not Ali block

[Tanuki]

Is that the same as the Buick odd-fire that the yanks use in Jeeps etc? It's derived from the Buick 215 and has 3.8L (I think) and about 150-160ish HP Only problem is its cast steel not Ali block

Don't think so: the V64V had 4 valves per cylinder, two overhead-cams per cylinder-bank, and screamed like a demon.

here's a pic of the 'clubman' single-tract-intake restricted-to-300BHP lump:

http://6r4.performancemetroclub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2.jpg

or the full-on six-tract version used in the Metro:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3180/2412982227_35278a98f0_z.jpg

and the 4x4 transaxle used for [rear-mounting] it in a rally-car:

http://classiccarmag.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/250bhp-V64V-Clubman-spec-engine.jpg

[Soren Frimodt]

Okay, one cool looking engine that is! Maybe you're on to something there, maybe someone should make a couple of DOHC heads for the old RV8 and we'd kick the LS out of orbit with the HP numbers Not sure about torque and drive ability in a 4x4 though

[smallfry]

But, I'm afraid, it doesn't have the Grin Factor that a RV8 - any RV8 - does when you pop it in sport mode and boot it with the windows down. In the next couple of years I'll end up with a 4x4 containing a modern diesel (probably a Landcruiser), because I can't keep the old Discovery for ever and it makes no sense at all to buy another petrol engine, but for the rest of my days I'll miss my last 'proper engine'

It's up there with Concorde, the Spitfire, Harrier, and quite a few other things. Its day has passed, and other things are now much better both on paper and in practice, but in its own way it will never quite be equalled. The one thing you can be sure of is that it might be 'better' but neither the SDV6 nor anything else made today will see a 45 year production life. I guess it's a religion. A bit like Defenders. Amen

God, I had to stand to attention with my bottom lip quivering reading that..........................

Interesting that on FFs list, the 3.9RR was 20hp up on the Disco. How was that done then I wonder ?