New convertible project - Update

#1
For all those interested - I have tonight finally removed the B/C post, so that it can be moved back to allow for the extended front doors ( when I work out how much to extend ). I drilled out all the spot welds, put a cut through near the top with the air saw and pulled the pillar out... simple eh ?
Trouble was I bought some spot weld drills, the type that cut round the weld, basically a small hole saw, cost me about £12 for 2, these were wrecked after about 20 welds, the teeth sheared off all 4 cutting edges, pretty rubbish, I wouldn't recommend them.
Instead I purchased some Sykes-Pickavant spot weld drills off ebay, £20 for 5, these are basically a flat ended drill bit with a small central tip for centering, they arrived today, and I finished off the drilling in about 1/4 of an hour, far superior, and the one bit I used still looks brand new.....

Anyway, here's a couple of pictures of the crucial moments....







One interesting point you can see from the last picture is that the outer section of the sill does not continue under the post. Also the middle sill section is not welded on the top seam to the inner section inside the pillar either. I will have to fabricate a section to continue the outer sill lip, although I'm considering replacing that lip with a much stronger section to add a bit more strength to the sill.

Richard
 
#2
Is yours the website with the article about a Rover 827 engine transplant ? Have you put the Honda V6 into a P6 ?
I know most things are possible but how do you make it fit ?
Dave
 
#4
Thanks, it helps when the base unit comes free !, although would probably cost a fair bit to find a replacement in the same condition.

As for the 827 transplant, yes thats my site, I haven't managed to make it fit yet, although I haven't tried very hard. There are a few problems, 1st is getting a rwd gearbox to fit, the honda lump was never used in rwd configuration so there is no standard box that fits, so its adaptor plates and supra gearboxes..... A couple have been used in kit cars so it can be done. 2nd problem is that the 2.7 is very wide, its a 90degree V (like the v8) but it has overhead cams, so the heads are much larger than the V8, I measured up and worked out there would be a 1inch either side spare !

I haven't given up hope yet, but I am also looking at fitting the T16 2ltr 800 lump as another option, in standard form with a 5speed gearbox fitted (there are standard fitments available) it would make for a very fuel efficient P6. There is also the option of the 200bhp turbo version, which would make it pretty rapid.

I'm doing the convertible bits first, while I collect other parts to attempt to engine transplant.

Richard
 
#5
Why not be really radical and fit the V6 transversly and have a front wheel drive P6 ? I suspect the engine bay is not wide enough...
I read your website thinking you had done the transplant and had just not got round to writing how !
What alternative engines have been fitted by others ? I think I heard of one with a Ford Pinto but that's not much more powerful than a 2000TC
I think you have a lot of work ahead of you
Good luck
Dave
 
#6
Thanks, loads of work ahead !, I'm currenty re-fitting the b/c post on the drivers side ready to start modifying the doors. I was going to move the post back 8 inches, but after measuring a number of coupe / 2 door cars, many are over 12inches longer than the p6 doors, but I don't want to go that far so I think I'll settle on 10 inches.

Richard

P.s. Front Wheel Drive, thats a backward step !



Edited By webmaster on 1118847115
 
#7
webmaster said:
P.s. Front Wheel Drive, thats a backward step !
I'm toying with the idea of a 2.9 24 valve granny cossworth powered p6 at the moment, if I mate this to the running gear of a sierra ghia estate that would give me 4 wheel drive. not sure what the best way to do it is tho :)
 
#8
Hello Richard,
the article printed in Practical Classics for Spring 1996 re: Four Rare Rover P6s looked at Bob Gardner's cars the first mentioned was the prototype Rover 2000 convertible says that the "central door pillar moved back 10cm (4") ............. rear wing extended by some 60cm (2ft) ..."
Does this help?
Regards, John.
 
#10
I was thinking about your project the other day (and daydreaming about a coupe project for myself!). Wondering what would you do with the D-posts?

On the car you're working on they look to be in good condition but if the starting point was a rougher car do you think you could get away with removing them completely?
 
#11
John, I've just been out measuring again, and there seems to be a slight problem with those measurements.

The standard rear door + door to wing gap = 34"
If the rear wing were extended by 24" (60cm/2ft) then we have 10" left. They say the b/c post was moved back 10cm/4" , that leaves 6" missing !!, now I'm pretty sure they didn't shorten the whole car by 6", so either the wing was extended by 2'6" or the b/c post was moved back by 10".

Having measured a load of 2 door cars in the carpark today, I would suggest the the b/c post was move back 10" rather than 10cm. Standard P6 from door is 39", 220 coupe door is 51", 800 coupe door is 53", golf door 51", saxo 47", alfa spider 48", clio 50" This gives an average around the 50" mark. By adding 10" to the p6 door I would have a 49" door, which sounds about right, Plus gives an extra 10" to get past the front seat into the back.

BB - The D posts on this car are pretty much perfect, so I'll leave well alone !, but my previous convertible was in a fairly sorry state when I built it, I simply cut out any rot and made rough panels up to repair. As you would probably put a solid plate across the remains of the rear door opening, I don't think there would be a problem removing the d post, the plated over opening would add far more strength than the d post offered.

I've taken a few more pictures which will will post up a little later, with the b/c post positioned 8" further back ! But I think I'll have to try 10" now as a test.

Keep the questions coming, I could talk for weeks about this project !

Richard



Edited By webmaster on 1118865736
 
#12
Not a lot to add about the body mods, absolutely fascinating. I was especially interested to see what was left underneath after you took the pillar off.

As to the engine configuration, the suggestion about front wheel drive set me thinking.

Of course we all know that, far from being sacriligious, converting to front drive would merely return the car to the original Rover design. T4 at Gaydon is the true P6 pre production prototype. The move to a piston engine and rwd was a last minute loss of bottle when they couldn't get the fuel consumption within reasonable limits on the gas turbine. The strange front suspension layout has always been touted as being necessary to get the low down width of the turbine into the engine bay. And of course it was front wheel drive. That might also have quite a lot to do with the rather brutal and not properly developed design of the 2000 lump (flat head for simplicity, inadeqate front chain design, rather crude valve operation etc) Half an hour lying underneath T4 also makes clear how we finished up with the de dion rear end. T4 has a semi trailing link set up. The de dion just makes use of the pre engineered strong points in the shell with the minimum modification. Probably helped that Spen King was already familiar with the layout from his Rover special racers.

And then again a 4wd saloon is also well within the true Rover tradition. Anyone who has seen the glorious P8 prototypes will understand. As a quick primer this was Rover's replacement for the P5. All the tooling was ordered and installed and then BL cancelled literally at the very last moment on the basis that it would destroy the Jag XJ. The 4.4 engine popped up in Australia in the Leyland P76 and evelntually made it home as the 4.6 with a bigger bore. The 4.4 crank and std bore gave us the 3.9. I have a sneaky feeling, albeit not sure, that the P8 also donated its ZF 4 spd auto with attached centre diff to the Range Rover Classic.

So how about this: Use the front hubs from a Granada / Scorpio 4wd and use a Range Rover engine and auto box. Alternatively the Cosworth 24v Scorpio engine is a gorgeous and much underrated engine (only appeared in the Scorpio which really wasn't the best platform to enjoy it in!) and you could use the Ford transfer box that goes with it.

If you wanted to stick with front drive only this has certain merits for a convertible in keeping as much as possible of the powertrain loads at the front of the shell.

All power

Chjris
 
#13
Richard,
what you say sounds right to me! I was hoping to find something else in my vast store of magazine cuttings but have not as yet!
Why not talk to bob Gardner? - Just thought, he and his cars appear on one of the club videos so I'd better go and watch it, just in case!
Regards, John.
 
#14
In reply to 1970 2000 sc.

I dont think you could convert to 4wd as the engine itself is probably slightly bigger dimensionally to start off with. Then you would have to fit the front axle with COMPLETELY differing suspension - not to mention a MILES bigger gearbox with a whacking great transfer box on the side of it!

I workied for Ford as a technician. Clutches on 4x4 Sierra's and Granada's - URGHHH! The box is massive, weighs a ton and fits VERY SNUGGLY in that HUGE tunnel that Ford built! So much so that the box has to be turned through 45 degrees on it's spigot shaft before you can cleanly remove it / replace it from the car. On a ramp, it used to take 5 people to hold it and mess about until it finally went in. Not a nice job!

Why not just fit it to a Supra box - or even the original 2wd Ford box (if it would fit)?

Johnny.
 
#15
or I could use the Landrover running gear :D

I know its not top quality like some of the pics people post here, but I don't think its that bad for 5 minutes work with paint :blues:

and I must say sorry again to who evers p6 I keep using
 
#17
A couple of points.

The convertible looks very interesting, a very brave project and can't wait to see it in all it's glory.

The other point is the T4 was based on a 1960 prototype P6.. not a P6 as such. There were several body styles considered, David Bache wanted the P6 front with no conventional grille... You can see that on T4. Rover made several running prototypes each with very different arrangements at the front such was the beauty of the base unit approach.

Also, the suspension arrangement of T4 especially at the front was deliberate to make enough room for the twin spline 2S160 under the bonnet. Spen King carried it over into the mainstream P6 as it offered many advantages over a conventional set-up. The De-Dion arrangement at the back was a Rover-customised set up with a sliding DeDion tube, planned at the very start. In the absence of any credible RWD fully-independent suspension (Maserati and Lotus both used the De-dion arrangement in F1 at the time) it was the best solution. FWD was chosen for T4 because it has no conventional gearbox, rather a step-down reducer gearing from 35,000rpm to something more appropriate to drive the wheels. More importantly, the lag involved in dialling up the engine, lack of any flywheel effect and subsequent engine braking, it was felt that RWD would be quite an overly-exciting proposition. The P6's brief at conception in '58 was always RWD.

As for piston engined, the Heron 2-litre was also in the original brief, it was certainly not a hasty lash-up, the engine was in development for a total of almost 6-years, all new as Rover had nothing suitable. Considering the straight six 2.5L Westlake could develop 110bhp in a P4, it was a heavy and thirsty engine. The Heron engine could develop 90Bhp and run at 30mpg quite happily. Wilks himself considered it too thrashy but in the 200TC it could be tuned up to 110Bhp and quite a rapid car it is. In terms of engine design for the early 1960s it is an advanced engine.

As for the Rover jets, it wasn't fuel efficiency that killed the project, they had got that up to 20mpg using regenerative ceramic heat-exchangers to improve efficiency. Neither was reliability of the 2S160, a testament to the engine means that T3 and T4 are still fully working cars.

What killed it was the cost of production, if I remember right, a P6 cost about £1,500 in the 2000 form in 1965, a turbine was costed up at over £5,500..... more than an E-type Jag.

The jet project was canned completely in 1966 after the last Le Mans racer attempt in '65. Then again, in '65 Martin-Hurst literally tripped over the Buick 215 at Mercury Marine had some crated up, engineered into a P6 taking out Wilks for a trip in it. Needless to say, the alledged quote was 'This is the first P6 that isn't underpowered.'

But that's another story for another time.
 
#20
alimorg said:
Johnny said:
Ummmm.

Hasn't Alimorg already got something similar?

:D

Only Joking!!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ho ho!
Cheers
Al
This is what I like so much about this site. Members can joke and the "other" member takes it on it's intent. NOT as a flame or flaming "back".

Love it here and am looking forward to further posts on this project. I respect anyone who "thinks outside the lines"!
 
Top