Rover 2000TC- Took the head off and this what I found

Demetris said:
Yes, but you may need different needles, giving a richer air/fuel ratio.


These were the standard factory carbs on the 2000 TC, so in a 2200 TC they should be even better.
Click to expand...

i realize they were standard fitment on a 2000tc, but they are still a lot bigger than they need to be given the engines displacement/power-output
 
Yes, this is why i have also fitted HIF6s to my 2000 TC!
However, what i meant to say is that if Carlos doesn't want to swap carbs at the moment, he can still keep the original HS8s. He doesn't necessarily need to swap carbs if he doesn't feel like doing it right now.
 
I'll be keeping the HS8s on the 2200 I'm building. An SU tuning book I have gives ranges of engine capacity suitability for particular carbs, both single and twin, and two HS8s with 2.2 litres are deemed acceptable – as they are with 2.0 litres. Yes, they do seem a bit large but there's also the possibility of better top-end power than with a pair of HIF6s. Once my engine is run in I plan to take it to a rolling-road tuner to get the needles right. It won't necessarily need richer needles, but we'll see. Who knows – with 2.2 litres and everything as a 2200 TC apart from the bigger carbs, it might bust the 120bhp mark. It will be fun finding out.
 
That would be an interesting configuration John. P6 owners are normally happy to power tune V8s, but usually 4 cyls are left alone.
I remember reading somewhere that a fuel injected Rover 4 cyl was easily over 130 bhp.
 
I keep reading all the posts with deep interest, and I'm evaluating both ways: keep 2000 ( actual) or upgrade to 2200.
I´m not really into performance. I want a car with a healthy engine. Maybe is better to spend more money in 2000 oversize pistons,
rebore a little bit the block and leave the rest as original.
Any way I´ll go, I appreciate all the members interest.
 
Last edited:
Well, the 2200 enlargement was a Rover modification & it's a useful increase in power that won't set the world on fire so l don't think you need worry about turning your car into a tarmac-tearer. You can drive it just as sedately as you want.

However, the four-pot can be turned/tuned into quite a hooligan.
 
The Rovering Member said:
Well, the 2200 enlargement was a Rover modification & it's a useful increase in power that won't set the world on fire so l don't think you need worry about turning your car into a tarmac-tearer. You can drive it just as sedately as you want.

However, the four-pot can be turned/tuned into quite a hooligan.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I understand is a good opportunity to upgrade.
 
Another question...( sorry ). I'm dismantling the block, and taking off the crankshaft chains, tensioners and flywheel ( I guess )
When assembling, do I need to set the valve timing from zero ?
Thanks
 
Carlos said:
Another question...( sorry ). I'm dismantling the block, and taking off the crankshaft chains, tensioners and flywheel ( I guess )
When assembling, do I need to set the valve timing from zero ?
Thanks
Click to expand...

Hi Carlos, camshaft timing is very easy with these engines. You fit all the chains, peg the crankshaft in the EP mark with its pin, and then turn the camshaft through its vernier at the sprocket until the number one exhaust is fully open and you can fit the cam locking pin.
I am not sure if my description was accurate enough, just to give you an idea that it is dead easy. If you have a look at the manual it will be definitely more clear.
 
I would love to know if any of the prototype twin-cam, 16-valve 2200 engines still exist anywhere. James Taylor's book says five or six were built, and the one fitted with Bosch L-jetronic injection made 170bhp. It was the last new all-Rover engine developed by the original Rover company. I'm sure I also read somewhere of a P6 four-cylinder with twin Weber DCOEs, but I can't remember where. They would be quite a tight fit, I think.
 
Demetris said:
That would be an interesting configuration John. P6 owners are normally happy to power tune V8s, but usually 4 cyls are left alone.
I remember reading somewhere that a fuel injected Rover 4 cyl was easily over 130 bhp.
Click to expand...

The idea of a tuned four-cylinder is very appealing. The lighter nose and quicker steering ratio of the four-cylinder cars make them more agile, and as an entirely Rover design the four-cylinder cars are somehow 'purer'. Has anyone ever produced a hotter camshaft for this engine? Certainly no-one sells one now. I suspect that higher valve lift might cause clearance problems between valves and pistons, so some machining of piston crowns would be needed to the detriment of the compression ratio. A better approach might be to keep the standard valve lift and increase the overlap. The standard valve timing, albeit bodily retarded by 4 degrees for the TC, is quite gentle.
 
johnsimister said:
The idea of a tuned four-cylinder is very appealing. The lighter nose and quicker steering ratio of the four-cylinder cars make them more agile, and as an entirely Rover design the four-cylinder cars are somehow 'purer'. Has anyone ever produced a hotter camshaft for this engine? Certainly no-one sells one now. I suspect that higher valve lift might cause clearance problems between valves and pistons, so some machining of piston crowns would be needed to the detriment of the compression ratio. A better approach might be to keep the standard valve lift and increase the overlap. The standard valve timing, albeit bodily retarded by 4 degrees for the TC, is quite gentle.
Click to expand...
I like the idea of tuning the engine and have tweaked mine a little. I’ve wondered about regrinding a spare camshaft for more lift, with the unique camshaft design I’m not sure how easy it would be to change overlap unless we make a new camshaft from scratch. Having said that I could have a go at making one, I’ll just add it to my long list lol.
As for valve timing, the cam sprocket does have vernier adjustment designed in. The general consensus is that advancing cam timing moves the power band down the rev range and retarding moves it up (I may have that backwards, it’s been a while).

The nose isn’t that much lighter on the four cylinder cars (cast iron block on 4s vs alum block on the 8s). But handling is better on the 4s because the lower control arms are longer making for less camber change under cornering loads compared to the shorter control arms needed to fit the V8 in.
 
johnsimister said:
The idea of a tuned four-cylinder is very appealing. The lighter nose and quicker steering ratio of the four-cylinder cars make them more agile, and as an entirely Rover design the four-cylinder cars are somehow 'purer'. Has anyone ever produced a hotter camshaft for this engine? Certainly no-one sells one now. I suspect that higher valve lift might cause clearance problems between valves and pistons, so some machining of piston crowns would be needed to the detriment of the compression ratio. A better approach might be to keep the standard valve lift and increase the overlap. The standard valve timing, albeit bodily retarded by 4 degrees for the TC, is quite gentle.
Click to expand...

Speak to Ranald White of the P6 Club. Pretty sure he's running a new hot cam in his 2000 that he's been using on the Monte for the last few years.
 
Demetris said:
Hi Carlos, camshaft timing is very easy with these engines. You fit all the chains, peg the crankshaft in the EP mark with its pin, and then turn the camshaft through its vernier at the sprocket until the number one exhaust is fully open and you can fit the cam locking pin.
I am not sure if my description was accurate enough, just to give you an idea that it is dead easy. If you have a look at the manual it will be definitely more clear.
Click to expand...
Thanks Demetris, its clear. I took the flywheel off today, and found that there is a pin that locks it with the crank in the right position. No mistake !
 
johnsimister said:
I suspect that higher valve lift might cause clearance problems between valves and pistons
Click to expand...
That's an interesting subject John, today I took the head to a machining shop, and he told me that could be good to make a gentle skimming of the head.
So he told me to look in the manual the clearance between valves and pistons. I've already a set of new +10 pistons and rings.
This is the text from the seller:

[ This is a set of 4 genuine Rover pistons for all 2000 and 2000 TC models with the 9:1 compression ratio engine. 9:1 CR was standard on single carburettor models, although some rare export models had a lower 7.5 CR. Home market TC models had 10:1 CR as standard, but a number of expeot markets used the 9:1 TC engine. With the lower octane fuel now available many people use the 9:1 CR pistons when re-building their TC engines.</p><p>The Rover part number is 563078&lt]

What do you think about clearances with the 9:1 pistons ?
Thanks
 
Hi Carlos,
Are you sure that the +10 pistons will clear the problems of the bore? Normally first you should have a machine shop measure the bores, before deciding on the next piston size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top