Guest John Adkins Posted August 22, 2001 Share Posted August 22, 2001 Rover/Buick aluminum V8 info page Lots of good info on this page about this motor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted August 22, 2001 Share Posted August 22, 2001 ...or this one: http://www.rover-v8.co.uk/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jens Posted August 23, 2001 Share Posted August 23, 2001 This one is in a z with supra trans http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zedskid/ But it is a australian 4.5 leyland p? version with a higher deck and a stroke close to the buick 300. This engine can only be found in aus and the pistons/rods and crank also. The 3.5 rover version is to small as the heads limits the horsepower at high rpm. Newer Rangerovers use a 4.6 that can be bought for 4000-6000$ but thats way to expensive for a modest horsepower and finding a used one (225 hp stock) is like winning in the lottery. Terrys ford 302 with alu heads weighs 380 pounds compared to the rovers 320 pound it would be a cheaper and easier choice. If 12s 1/4 mile times should be reached on the street it have to use nitrous a ford doesnt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted August 24, 2001 Share Posted August 24, 2001 Hi jens, Yep the car you refer to is mine, as per the signature above your post. I'd agree with your statements, and I did consider the Ford option. The only problem is that the alloy heads (which I'd really want for flow & weight saving) are not cheap. But still, you'd get excellent hp for the money spent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jens Posted August 24, 2001 Share Posted August 24, 2001 That is the specs of your cam and is it a 215 edelbrock intake or a special australian made one. 290 hp with stock heads seems good are the 4.5 heads better like the 250 hp 64 buick 300 alu heads. Have you any 1/4 mile times. By the way how many din hp has this engine in stock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted August 27, 2001 Share Posted August 27, 2001 The Aust. heads are essentially the same as the Rover ones, at least in terms of valve & port dimensions. The only difference is the rockers are pressed steel, on paired pedestals, similar to Chev ones, rather than on a rocker shaft. The cam is IVO/C 31.5/70.0 EVO/C 71.5/29.5, inlet lift 0.405 in. exhaust lift 0.385 in. (at the valve). The power figure is an estimate, based on a chassis dyno rear wheel kW reading of 163 kW and a Desktop Dyno flywheel hp figure of 310 h.p. (which I think is a little optomistic). But sorry, I don't know the factory power figures. I don't think they'd be much up on the Rover. The motor was built for low-rpm hi-torque applications, so the power results of the extra capacity would have been a secondary interest of the designers. I used to run an Edelbrock 215 dual-plane manifold, but I changed to an Australian-made single-plane manifold. I don't think it's made a lot of difference. The chassis power figure above, though, is from a run with the Edelbrock manifold (I haven't re-dynoed it with the single plane, I probably should). Ideally, I'd like to open up the ports & valves. As you said the standard port/valve sizes are really limiting. But these things all cost money of course so it's not a high priority at the moment. No 1/4 mile times, I've been mainly doing circuit stuff and have never timed the car over the 1/4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.