Returning to the fold
- Thread starter dvdocon
- Start date
Can we draw a line under this squabbling guys, it's not helpful to anyone. FWIW, it seemed like a genuine attempt at humour to me, there are plenty of people called Richard, who have it shortened to Dick. If you want to continue, please start your own FIGHT thread! Cheers
Dave
Dave
happy days
Active Member
Rich what are you doing to me, are you saying my 's' which has a 9:25:1 in it has not got the performance of a 10:5:1 engine. If so in what way as I thought the 9:25:1 was the later far superior unit 
Having just seen josephp6man's new motor, on the members projects section, it inspired me to go & find some pics. of my old beast (the car that is ) as the interior looked similar to mine, when it was completed that is. It looked a lot different to start with though, as you will see. That is once I have found out how to get them up on here. I will probably wait for my daughter to get back from college, to help me, as she is more computer minded than myself.
Dave
Dave
Found this on http://www.roverholic.com/rover-v8-engine-number-database-86.html
engine no. car CR hp
42500001A Rover P6 3500 3528 10.5:1 164 Auto SU HS6 1967-76
42700001A Rover P6 3500 3528 8.5:1 Auto SU HS6 1967-76
43000001A Rover P6 3500S 3528 10.5:1 164 Auto SU HS6 1967-76
43200001A Rover P6 3500S 3528 8.5:1 Auto SU HS6 1967-76
45100001A Rover P6 3500 3528 10.5:1 164 Auto SU HIF6 1967-76
45100001D Rover P6 3500 3528 9.25:1 143 Auto SU HIF6 1967-76
45300001A Rover P6 3500 3528 8.5:1 Auto SU HIF6 1967-76
45500001A Rover P6 3500 3528 10.5:1 164 Auto SU HIF6 1967-76
46600001A Rover P6 3500S USA 3528 Auto SU HS6 1967-76
48100001A Rover P6 3500S 3528 10.5:1 164 Manual 4sp SU HIF6 1967-76
48100001C Rover P6 3500S 3528 10.5:1 164 Manual 4sp SU HIF6 1967-76
48100001D Rover P6 3500S 3528 9.25:1 143 Manual 4sp SU HIF6 1967-76
48500001A Rover P6 3500S 3528 10.5:1 164 Manual 4sp SU HIF6 1967-76
Whether you can use that extra power or not with super unleaded or octane booster though i really dont know!
Rich.
engine no. car CR hp
42500001A Rover P6 3500 3528 10.5:1 164 Auto SU HS6 1967-76
42700001A Rover P6 3500 3528 8.5:1 Auto SU HS6 1967-76
43000001A Rover P6 3500S 3528 10.5:1 164 Auto SU HS6 1967-76
43200001A Rover P6 3500S 3528 8.5:1 Auto SU HS6 1967-76
45100001A Rover P6 3500 3528 10.5:1 164 Auto SU HIF6 1967-76
45100001D Rover P6 3500 3528 9.25:1 143 Auto SU HIF6 1967-76
45300001A Rover P6 3500 3528 8.5:1 Auto SU HIF6 1967-76
45500001A Rover P6 3500 3528 10.5:1 164 Auto SU HIF6 1967-76
46600001A Rover P6 3500S USA 3528 Auto SU HS6 1967-76
48100001A Rover P6 3500S 3528 10.5:1 164 Manual 4sp SU HIF6 1967-76
48100001C Rover P6 3500S 3528 10.5:1 164 Manual 4sp SU HIF6 1967-76
48100001D Rover P6 3500S 3528 9.25:1 143 Manual 4sp SU HIF6 1967-76
48500001A Rover P6 3500S 3528 10.5:1 164 Manual 4sp SU HIF6 1967-76
Whether you can use that extra power or not with super unleaded or octane booster though i really dont know!
Rich.
The original 10.5:1 3500s were rated at 146 BHP (DIN) for the autos and 152 BHP (DIN) for the 3500S, due to the latter having a slightly bigger bore exhaust (both at 5000 rpm). Torque figures were 197lbft for 3500 and 204lbft for 3500S, both at 2700 rpm.
Tha later 9.25:1 engines (introduced for 1974 model year) were rated at 143 BHP (DIN) for both models (at 5000rpm), the bigger bore exhaust being standardised for manual and auto (can't recall if it was the fitting of the BW65 box for 1974 that allowed the bigger exhaust). Torque 202lbft at 2700 rpm for both.
The lower compression ratio allowed the use of 4 star leaded fuel, which was probably done in anticipation of future emissions regs and the fact that 4 star would contain less pead. As far as I recall, those were the only engine changes. Therefore, the 'S' lost 9bhp and 2 lbft, and the auto lost 3 bhp but gained 5 lbft. Whether you'd notice the difference between the two versions now is debateable.
The figures I've quoted are from 1972 and late 1973 Rover brochures.
Tha later 9.25:1 engines (introduced for 1974 model year) were rated at 143 BHP (DIN) for both models (at 5000rpm), the bigger bore exhaust being standardised for manual and auto (can't recall if it was the fitting of the BW65 box for 1974 that allowed the bigger exhaust). Torque 202lbft at 2700 rpm for both.
The lower compression ratio allowed the use of 4 star leaded fuel, which was probably done in anticipation of future emissions regs and the fact that 4 star would contain less pead. As far as I recall, those were the only engine changes. Therefore, the 'S' lost 9bhp and 2 lbft, and the auto lost 3 bhp but gained 5 lbft. Whether you'd notice the difference between the two versions now is debateable.
The figures I've quoted are from 1972 and late 1973 Rover brochures.
happy days
Active Member
Don't use any particular brand , shell, esso etc. always the cheapest though, never had any problems except it runs out quickly :roll:
Hello Dave,
Welcome to the forum..
The downside of running a 10.5 : 1 engine is having to retard the initial timing back to or approaching TDC in order to reduce or hopefully eliminate pinging. Regraphing the distributor is an option, but performance will still be less than what it would have been. Modern engines get around this problem with an engine management system combined with knock sensors so timing can be advanced or retarded as circumstances dictate.
Without such, the 9.25 : 1 engine is in my opinion a better proposition in that the timing can be set as per the manual or advanced further to gain even more performance, but be prepared to have the distributor regraphed if you were to decide on the latter.
It is always better both in terms of fuel economy and performance to run less compression and more timing than the opposite.
The only major difference between the two in terms of the engine are the pistons. Minor differences were the carb needles and slight variations in the distributor advance curves.
Ron.
Welcome to the forum..
The downside of running a 10.5 : 1 engine is having to retard the initial timing back to or approaching TDC in order to reduce or hopefully eliminate pinging. Regraphing the distributor is an option, but performance will still be less than what it would have been. Modern engines get around this problem with an engine management system combined with knock sensors so timing can be advanced or retarded as circumstances dictate.
Without such, the 9.25 : 1 engine is in my opinion a better proposition in that the timing can be set as per the manual or advanced further to gain even more performance, but be prepared to have the distributor regraphed if you were to decide on the latter.
It is always better both in terms of fuel economy and performance to run less compression and more timing than the opposite.
The only major difference between the two in terms of the engine are the pistons. Minor differences were the carb needles and slight variations in the distributor advance curves.
Ron.
Thanks Ron,
after taking on board the advice that I have gratefully received from various members on this forum, I am a bit less rigid on what year car to buy, I would now even consider a non "S", as long as it was a V8! particularly if it had an SD1 box fitted (manual). Even a cloth interior can be changed. (I changed the whole interior on my previous P6) so I am now a lot less rigid in my search .Although I would want a car that was structurally sound.
However, on a related note, I had a phone call out of the blue the other evening, & have finally been granted a business loan to purchase a business that I have been interested since the summer. I had pretty much given up after being turned down by several other banks. All that remains is to negotiate the price, which after an initial chat, looks achievable. The only downside to this is that all my money will be required to complete the purchase, taking into account the additional costs of buying a leasehold business, so the purchase of my Rover will be delayed for a while. Nevertheless the business is well established & will be taking money from day one, so it should not be too long before my Rover dreams materialise, hopefully!
Have a good weekend all
Dave
after taking on board the advice that I have gratefully received from various members on this forum, I am a bit less rigid on what year car to buy, I would now even consider a non "S", as long as it was a V8! particularly if it had an SD1 box fitted (manual). Even a cloth interior can be changed. (I changed the whole interior on my previous P6) so I am now a lot less rigid in my search .Although I would want a car that was structurally sound.
However, on a related note, I had a phone call out of the blue the other evening, & have finally been granted a business loan to purchase a business that I have been interested since the summer. I had pretty much given up after being turned down by several other banks. All that remains is to negotiate the price, which after an initial chat, looks achievable. The only downside to this is that all my money will be required to complete the purchase, taking into account the additional costs of buying a leasehold business, so the purchase of my Rover will be delayed for a while. Nevertheless the business is well established & will be taking money from day one, so it should not be too long before my Rover dreams materialise, hopefully!
Have a good weekend all
Dave
Rudiger Wicke
Member
rockdemon said:
Never came across with a 432- or 466-engined P6 .....
Rudiger