replacement engines
- Thread starter gosnell
- Start date
testrider
Active Member
richarduk said:
They are reasonable short and pretty torquey too. They're know as 'White Block' engines due to their all alloy construction. It's a modular design available in 4,5 or 6 cylinder configurations, with or without a turbo.
The 4 and 5 cylinder ones are only in transverse front wheel drive cars (S/V40, 850 and S/V/C70) whereas the 6's were available in the late 960 which was rear wheel drive. As far as I know the bellhousing bolt patern is the same on all the blocks so any of the transverse engines could be fitted longitudinaly with the correct gearbox.
I could measure the 5 cylinder 2.4 in my V70 if needed?
ghce
Well-Known Member
could always try one of thesehttp://www.pivotalengine.com/news.html
Hullo, Jap conversions are quite popular downunder due to a good supply of good used units. The Datsun L20B engine with a 5speed transmission is a good match for the Rover P6 2000SC. Aesthetically it looks like a P6 engine to the untrained eye, has similar power range, is of similar dimensions and similar exhaust/inlet configuration.
I like your discussion threads on the P6, you are certainly a dedicated lot of people keep up the good work. These vehicles are well worth keeping on the road, and they are not too expensive to upkeep, especially if your income is a pension!!!
sincerely,
D'arcy
I like your discussion threads on the P6, you are certainly a dedicated lot of people keep up the good work. These vehicles are well worth keeping on the road, and they are not too expensive to upkeep, especially if your income is a pension!!!
sincerely,
D'arcy
We colonials are quite clever at adapting what is available to keep our classics going. We are a long way away from the sources of supply, but our classics still keep "rolling on". Try buying parts for Rovers down here. One soon developes a make do approach to engineering problems that in the end are of a better quality and better performance than the original.D'arcy 8)
A 2000 with a T5 certainly would sound nice, and make a very brisk, and interesting conversion. Another conversion which could be very usable, would be a Mazda twincam from an MX-5, in 1.8 form, as with 140 bhp, and its lovely revvy nature, it could be a fun drive, particularly if the astounding five speed manual could be incorporated!
ewokracing
Active Member
Holden 186 or 202 with a Trimatic was apparently a popular conversion for 2000's back in the day.
A rotary wouldn't have enough torque unless it was a 13bt.
A rotary wouldn't have enough torque unless it was a 13bt.
Demetris
Well-Known Member
I am resurrecting this old thread because i had some ideas lately.
So far, in this forum, i have seen people substituting the Rover 4 cyl mainly with equivalent modern units for various reasons: Power (Turbocharged Rover T series, SAAB 2.3), everyday use (Ford 2 litre), economy (PSA diesel). My thoughts though are far from such motives. It's a well used "what if". Indeed, what if BL in the early seventies, instead of developing the 2200 4 pot engine, used the BMC inline E6 in 2200 or better still 2600 forms?
The idea is dismissed by Chris York some posts before, but i have second thoughts on this. Yes, the E series might not have been an exceptional unit, but the E6 was exceptionally smooth, and more or less within the same weight and dimentions with the terribly long and heavy Rover 4 cyl. The E6 2600 notably was used in the South African SD1s instead of the more common Triumph derived six, and people that have experienced both, state that the performance of the cars with the different engines was rather comparable. One can only take this as a compliment for the old BMC desigh.
On the other hand, the perception of the 4 cyl P6s by the early seventies has changed. It wasn't any more the sporty advanced 4 seater that used to be at it's launch. It was rather a quality car for those that they weren't really in a hurry. In this prospect, a smooth straight six with comparable if not better performance compared with the 4 cyl units would suit the car much better. I hasten to add here that my current TC doesn't have to worry. I believe that i should preserve as much as possible the original character of this car. But if i had a second P6 i would really like to try to create that "what might have been" along these lines.
So far, in this forum, i have seen people substituting the Rover 4 cyl mainly with equivalent modern units for various reasons: Power (Turbocharged Rover T series, SAAB 2.3), everyday use (Ford 2 litre), economy (PSA diesel). My thoughts though are far from such motives. It's a well used "what if". Indeed, what if BL in the early seventies, instead of developing the 2200 4 pot engine, used the BMC inline E6 in 2200 or better still 2600 forms?
The idea is dismissed by Chris York some posts before, but i have second thoughts on this. Yes, the E series might not have been an exceptional unit, but the E6 was exceptionally smooth, and more or less within the same weight and dimentions with the terribly long and heavy Rover 4 cyl. The E6 2600 notably was used in the South African SD1s instead of the more common Triumph derived six, and people that have experienced both, state that the performance of the cars with the different engines was rather comparable. One can only take this as a compliment for the old BMC desigh.
On the other hand, the perception of the 4 cyl P6s by the early seventies has changed. It wasn't any more the sporty advanced 4 seater that used to be at it's launch. It was rather a quality car for those that they weren't really in a hurry. In this prospect, a smooth straight six with comparable if not better performance compared with the 4 cyl units would suit the car much better. I hasten to add here that my current TC doesn't have to worry. I believe that i should preserve as much as possible the original character of this car. But if i had a second P6 i would really like to try to create that "what might have been" along these lines.
ghce
Well-Known Member
I can see the logic in your thinking and very much agree. The 4 cyl unit by the 1970's was pretty outdated from the point of view of presenting a P6 as an up to the minute modern car. The 6 would have been a good update, in as much as I love the V8 it is an underpowered lump for its capacity and the 2.6 could have easily eclipsed that with an internal rework and fuel injection.
Graeme
Graeme
Demetris
Well-Known Member
I don't really see the straight 6 as a substitute for the V8. The V8 although not so much powerfull for its displacement, has its own character, it's a different car.
I would like the straight 6 for it's own merrits, the smoothness, the refinement, the sophisticated noise, i believe all these were indispensable for the target buyers of Rover back then.
The length was a problem at the late 50's, early '60s when the Rover 4 pot has been designed. Due to certain decisions on the engine specifications (square bore X stroke, wide crank journals) this engine turned up almost at the length of a six! I have seen quite a few confused on their first glance under the bonnet. In comparison, the contemporary Mercedes 2 litre 4 pot looks tiny. The E6 on the other hand, was designed a few years later with the target to be as short as possible. It was fitted sideways on the landcrab with a side radiator too! I have yet to look into exact numbers, but it seems to be significantly shorter than the Triumph / SD1 six.
I am also aware of the Rover 5 cylinder version, but with the technology available at the time it was a dead end. This engine wasn't any smoother than the 4 cyl equivalent, and they never managed to sort the fueling. The funny 3 carb arrangement of the photo says it all. Remember that Audi and Volvo had success with the 5 pots quite a few years later only with fuel injection and counterbalanced shafts.
Have noticed that for a few years now 2 litre 6 cylinder engines are not available anymore? Everybody, even the so called "premium" makers have abandoned them, in favour of the cheaper 4 cylinder ones.
I would like the straight 6 for it's own merrits, the smoothness, the refinement, the sophisticated noise, i believe all these were indispensable for the target buyers of Rover back then.
The length was a problem at the late 50's, early '60s when the Rover 4 pot has been designed. Due to certain decisions on the engine specifications (square bore X stroke, wide crank journals) this engine turned up almost at the length of a six! I have seen quite a few confused on their first glance under the bonnet. In comparison, the contemporary Mercedes 2 litre 4 pot looks tiny. The E6 on the other hand, was designed a few years later with the target to be as short as possible. It was fitted sideways on the landcrab with a side radiator too! I have yet to look into exact numbers, but it seems to be significantly shorter than the Triumph / SD1 six.
I am also aware of the Rover 5 cylinder version, but with the technology available at the time it was a dead end. This engine wasn't any smoother than the 4 cyl equivalent, and they never managed to sort the fueling. The funny 3 carb arrangement of the photo says it all. Remember that Audi and Volvo had success with the 5 pots quite a few years later only with fuel injection and counterbalanced shafts.
Have noticed that for a few years now 2 litre 6 cylinder engines are not available anymore? Everybody, even the so called "premium" makers have abandoned them, in favour of the cheaper 4 cylinder ones.