Ideal engine swap...

ghce said:
For example you have 3500 V8 when it comes to engine recon time do you upgrade the cam from factory spec? do you put in a hi flow oil pump? do you replace the factories woeful poor timing gears? maybe fit SD1 heads? and even furthur do you replace the mechanical fuel pump?
Graeme
I once thought I'd never make any mod's to our P5B's original engine. But now she needs a new camshaft & with Harveys sage counsel, a 3.9 item is going in. Also a pair of P6 HiF6's (already sourced from GrimV8) & when I can find them, a pair of SD1 heads, timing cover & oil pump (any offers??). If it's acceptable for Harvey in the tightest of his anoraks ( ;) ) then I'm prepared to go for it too. After all they were Rover factory improvements. And she already has an electric fuel pump, albeit as back-up for the mechanical item.
I won't, however, be fitting an Alfa Romeo T spark to any of my cars (Cue discussions on the merits & foibles of that particular lump. :LOL: ).

quattro said:
Fitting a roll bar which stops the dreaded lurching into corners is a godsend, brilliant piece of kit.


Something I'm considering for Bruiser, but they're expensive aren't they? Is there only the one source for these?
 
I won't, however, be fitting an Alfa Romeo T spark to any of my cars (Cue discussions on the merits & foibles of that particular lump. ).

No thanks, not after the one I had with a fist sized hole in the block and bits of rod, pistons etc everywhere....
 
webmaster said:
I guess it depends how much you use it, very easy if it stays in a nice warm garage, but a daily driven car will inevitably need welding, bodywork, exhausts, etc... and it can be very hard (and expensive) to get original parts for some jobs.

My car is used daily, in any weather, it's parked outside, exactly what it was intended for. Yes, it needed welding, and it still needs bodywork. Which original parts are hard and expensive to get?
 
Junkman said:
We all know that the Rover P6 never was intended to be a sports saloon. It is a cruiser befitting the gentleman driver. This is what it is meant to be.

I'm not sure you can say that of the P6 (P5 yes). It was aimed at the younger, more thrusting executive market & an attempt to shake off the more staid image of Rover. The fact that it took many of their 'staid' customers along with it is testament to the fine compromise between the two demographics Rover instilled into the design.
 
Junkman said:
EccentricRichard said:
Why have a 90bhp all-iron engine with a 4-speed manual in a 1200kg+ P6 (which will only do 30mpg tops) if you could get a modern all-aluminium turbocharged four in which would give comparable economy and double the power, not to mention better weight distribution? Even the V8 can be improved so you can get better performance and/or economy.

Why? I can tell you why. Because having a 90bhp all-iron engine with a 4-speed manual in a 1200kg+ P6 (which will only do 30mpg tops) is preserving national heritage, while kitting it out with a newfangled all-aluminium turbocharged four is destroying the same.
You do not fit triple-glazed PVC windows into a gothic mansion either. You do not re-varnish a Stradivarius.

If you find a car's engine inadequate, then it is not the right car for you. Leave it alone and buy something that suits your requirements better. An original engine is a car's heartbeat, it provides it with its unique character and personality, something which is completely lost with this modern rubbish.

No offense, but I have the impression that the old car hobby is completely lost on you. We preserve these cars not DESPITE their "inadequacies" (read CHARACTER), but BECAUSE of them.

Oh, nonsense. It's not destroying heritage upgrading a car! All it does is enhance it... sometimes things can't be preserved just for their own sake. Surely better a P6 sympathetically modified than a P6 scrapped?
 
Junkman said:
Hence I find it rather tiresome and leaden when someone constantly goes on about what he considers inadequacies, which in fact are exactly the things which make a Rover P6 what I want it to be, and suggests alterations which are clearly aimed at building something the car never was intended to be and likely will not be even with these mods carried out. To top it off, it is subsequently not even DONE, or do I miss the posts where this uber-P6 is being built and the progress shown?

Gadzooks, I thought this is 'The Classic Rover Forum' and not 'Fast P6' or 'P6 Lacks Power' or 'how to remove sweat stains from your seatbacks'.

Junkman, I'm merely coming up with ideas. I'm not in a position to put any of them into fruition at this stage in my life - I'm only 19 FFS! - but it's a case of accruing knowledge, getting feedback, hearing of others' experiences... and what I'd hoped to do is do away with a few inadequacies of the P6 which may possibly make a P6 what YOU (not all of us, just you) want it to be, and I'm sure Spen King would have no problem with upgrading to a more modern engine. Inventiveness is the offspring of necessity and engineering pragmatism, after all... and what is the thing about seatback sweat stains about?

Anyway, I've had enough. Moderators, please ban me from this forum, I've had enough of it and I've not got enough time to waste like this. Thanks for completely putting a young potential P6 owner right off the whole idea. You stuffy middle-aged purists will still be moaning about modified cars as you watch the last P6s rust away and get crushed...
 
EccentricRichard said:
Oh, nonsense. It's not destroying heritage upgrading a car! All it does is enhance it... sometimes things can't be preserved just for their own sake. Surely better a P6 sympathetically modified than a P6 scrapped?

There's not much you can't buy for a P6 :? If what you say were true, there would be no museums or listed buildings :eek:
If parts become that scarce then fair enough, but I wouldn't scrap a car just for pure maintenance which were still available.
I appreciate enhancing a vehicle, but like I said before, if you remove all the foibles it would be characterless for some and no longer a P6 in their eyes as one mans mod is another mans poison.
As you know I have a very modified MK 1 Capri, some loathe it, but if all the standard cars were gone how sad would that be? :cry:
 
EccentricRichard said:
I'm sure Spen King would have no problem with upgrading to a more modern engine. Inventiveness is the offspring of necessity and engineering pragmatism, after all... and what is the thing about seatback sweat stains about?

Anyway, I've had enough. Moderators, please ban me from this forum, I've had enough of it and I've not got enough time to waste like this. Thanks for completely putting a young potential P6 owner right off the whole idea. You stuffy middle-aged purists will still be moaning about modified cars as you watch the last P6s rust away and get crushed...

I remember watching Chop Shop and the late Spen King (whom my other half knew) was not impressed when they put a non Rover engine into what was the Jet 1 replica :)
 
Like Kman1600, I'm an enginer by inclination and by training and therefore have an inbuilt tick to improve what I find in front of me. My personal preference faced with Richard's convertible / coupe project would be to improve a Rover 4 pot in the way that Rover had / would have sought to. That would mean a 2200TC as the start base and it would have to have EFi as Rover nearly succeeded in launching in 1970.

But Richard doesn't actually have an engine at all for his project, so this question is far from academic. For my money I'd want to do something in keeping with the character of the car and which I could visualise Rover themselves having done in a parallel universe. So 16 valves would be out (too thrashy and not enough torque) and so would be turbocharging (restricted rev range). A five speed gearbox would be in as could be a supercharger (or combined supercharger and turbo like the Mercedes system) and a five cylinder. So I actually have a bit of a problem with Richard's preferred solution of an M16 or T16 Rover (aka Austin) engine. I think the nicest solution I've heard of remains an in-line version of the 5 cyl Volvo petrol. Mildly eccentric, a reference back to the 5 cyl Rover produced for the P6 and known to be a good engine.

Chris
 
Junkman said:
webmaster said:
I guess it depends how much you use it, very easy if it stays in a nice warm garage, but a daily driven car will inevitably need welding, bodywork, exhausts, etc... and it can be very hard (and expensive) to get original parts for some jobs.

My car is used daily, in any weather, it's parked outside, exactly what it was intended for. Yes, it needed welding, and it still needs bodywork. Which original parts are hard and expensive to get?

Original exhaust parts and original spec tyres for instance are tricky to get, panels are expensive and replacements for things like light clusters are very expensive. Not that I'm suggesting you fit fiesta wings because they're cheaper :LOL:

I guess that depends on your definition of expensive, if something costs me more than £10 I class it as expensive, but then I'm a terminal cheapskate.
 
Let's keep this sensible and not stray into the realms of fantasy - ie putting an engine from Concord into a P6
There comes a point if you fit another manufacturers running gear , that the car is no longer a Rover
Let's keep to reality and not live in dream worlds
 
chrisyork said:
Like Kman1600, I'm an enginer by inclination and by training and therefore have an inbuilt tick to improve what I find in front of me. My personal preference faced with Richard's convertible / coupe project would be to improve a Rover 4 pot in the way that Rover had / would have sought to. That would mean a 2200TC as the start base and it would have to have EFi as Rover nearly succeeded in launching in 1970.

But Richard doesn't actually have an engine at all for his project, so this question is far from academic. For my money I'd want to do something in keeping with the character of the car and which I could visualise Rover themselves having done in a parallel universe. So 16 valves would be out (too thrashy and not enough torque) and so would be turbocharging (restricted rev range). A five speed gearbox would be in as could be a supercharger (or combined supercharger and turbo like the Mercedes system) and a five cylinder. So I actually have a bit of a problem with Richard's preferred solution of an M16 or T16 Rover (aka Austin) engine. I think the nicest solution I've heard of remains an in-line version of the 5 cyl Volvo petrol. Mildly eccentric, a reference back to the 5 cyl Rover produced for the P6 and known to be a good engine.

Chris

Actually Chris, I think your first paragraph supports the case for the T16, it is (mostly) a Rover design, certainly more so than the V8, ok I understand your lack of enthusiasm for the 16valve nature of the engine, but it is essentially the engine Rover DID use in the P6 replacement (albeit a couple of generations removed). I've been considering a supercharger installation as opposed to the turbo as this would partially negate the perceived lack of torque in the 16valve engine, I love the twin charging idea, and have toyed with this in the past. :LOL:
 
But Richard! The T16 isn't a Rover engine! It's a linear descendant of the dear old BMC B series! Just cos someone had the gall to stick a Rover badge on its cam cover doesn't make it one. Just as a Wolseley 1300 was quite clearly NOT a Wolseley and a Riley 4/72 clearly NOT a Riley.

A better argument might be that Rover at least got as far as twin cam heads with the 2200 engine that was destined for P10 and which donated its capacity to the P6 4 pot.

Chris
 
The beloved V8 isn't really a Rover design either, it's an old buick cast off, after it was found America wasn't ready for lightweight aluminium blocks.

Regarding originality, I for one prefer cars that have been used. Original condition, for me, would be brand new as it left the factory, not a restoration to original condition. I mean no disrespect to anyone who restores their car to original concourse condition, but if you've taken everything apart and rebuilt it, then the car's not been assembled by rover. It's been built by the restorer from original rover parts. For me, the history of a car doesn't stop at when the car leaves the factory, it evolves through the life of the car. Who's to say when a period mod stops being a period mod, and when it becomes a modern abomination. I try to use my P6 as a daily driver, and so have fitted uprated lights and electronic ignition. I try to stick with mods in keeping with the character of the car, so no big spoilers and chrome spinners for me :LOL: I wouldn't be adverse to a set of Rostyles though. Would that count as a new mod, or a period mod? Maybe in 30 years time someone will view my electronic ignition as a period mod?

Personally, I think there's a fine line between modification and spoiling a car. I'd welcome anything that allows me to use my P6 every day more effectively. So for me, diesel conversions are in, as is EFI, providing it doesn't spoil the character of the car though. Personally, I'm not after anything that would make it especially faster. I've got the XJR if I want to scare passengers :) As for handling, if I want something that handles like an elise, I'll buy an elise, but something that tightens up what's there isn't a bad thing.

I think it's a mistake to assume the factory spec P6 is what Rover's engineers intended. I work as a designer in an engineering/design office, and the designs we produce are invariably a compromise based on what we can achieve in the time, and what budgets will allow. Given free reign, the designers and engineers would produce a technically superior product, you'd just have to pay more for it. I like the idea of mods that bring the product more in line with what the designers and engineers were aiming for.

Out of interest, on my daydream list of engine swaps would be:

BMW 2.5tds straight 6 (if it fits length wise). Cheap, readily availably, improved fuel economy, and refined for a diesel.
Jag V8. It's a cracking engine, far more powerful than the old Rover V8, and cheaper for the same power. Don't know if it would fit though. In supercharged form it would be a rocket ship (if the shell held up) but even the basic 3.2 would shift.
TDV6. I have no idea how the home mechanic would go about fitting this, but it's a great engine in the XF, I've driven one and it really didn't feel like a diesel. I think it would really suit the P6 character as a compact executive saloon.
As for modding the stock engines, I like the idea of EFI on a 4cyl. Rover experimented with this themselves, and I think it would greatly improve the usability without really effecting the character of the car, unless you count heavy fuel consumption as a character trait worth saving.

Tom
 
Tom W said:
As for modding the stock engines, I like the idea of EFI on a 4cyl. Rover experimented with this themselves, and I think it would greatly improve the usability without really effecting the character of the car, unless you count heavy fuel consumption as a character trait worth saving.

Tom

To me that sounds the best option, you would end up with a very usable engine and it would still be a "Rover"
As an aside some of the comments on turboing an engine point out that the higher revs to gain usable HP make it unacceptable however this is not a fixed outcome from a turbo'd engine, my Mitzi GTO achieves peak torque at a mere 2400 rpm 427 N·m (315 lb·ft) making the car a real tree stump puller at very low rpm indeed around town it is unusual to get much above 1200 rpm thru the gears, so i am sure something like the GTO system could be implemented in a 2200 rover lump.

Graeme
 
I prefer supercharging to turbo charging, having owned cars with both. The supercharger gives a useful flat torque curve with instant torque on tap and no lag. I know for ultimate power, a turbo is more efficient, but it doesn't necessarily make the car feel the best on the road. Whether the stock rover engines are suitable for forced induction with long term reliability is another point.
 
I would agree with that re the super charger but instant power on tap as the super charger delivers may be a little too much of a good thing :LOL: I have owned and driven both turboed and super charged cars and never liked turbo with there delivery of power in the stratosheric rpm range until I got my GTO and it low rpm almost zero lag turbo, up until that time I had in my mind put turbo's in the nice to have in a deisel catagory.

Graeme
 
Any one ever considered using a BMW 3-series engine and box? If i ever find myself with the time and money I'd be tempted to drop a 320d lump complete with an auto box into a P6. Considered it a few years ago when I had my 2200SC auto (2 speed most of the time :x ) but engines were expensive at the time. Must be plenty of rolled ones about now that could donate engine, box and wiring loom. Lots of torque and good economy.
Regards,
Dave
 
dmcsweeney said:
Any one ever considered using a BMW 3-series engine and box? If i ever find myself with the time and money I'd be tempted to drop a 320d lump complete with an auto box into a P6. Considered it a few years ago when I had my 2200SC auto (2 speed most of the time :x ) but engines were expensive at the time. Must be plenty of rolled ones about now that could donate engine, box and wiring loom. Lots of torque and good economy.
Regards,
Dave

Assuming that you're referring to the m47 diesel variant they were also available in the rover 75 and freelander, though in transverse format. The engine itself is quite compact, and has a high oil filter, and if the bmw variants are like the rover 75, the air con pump (if fitted) is seperate to the main auxilary belt so can be removed to clear the front crossmember. A trip to a local breakers with a camera and tape measure would give you a clearer idea :wink:
 
Back
Top