What output would you expect....?

Oldskoolrob

Active Member
Hey groovers, My project is in limbo while I move house so I'm doing some bench-racing. At the moment it's a stock 8.13:1 3.5. I do however have another 3.5 that I'm hoping to build up. The parts I have accumulated so far are a 9.75:1 short block, a set of reconditioned 4.6L heads, Edelbrock intake and Holley 465 carb (I also have a 390 at my disposal) and a new cam. I've attached the cam specs as I'm new to reading cams. The goal is to make the most of what I've got. Would it be worth using the tin head-gaskets for some extra compression or not worth the hassle? So with a decent electronic ignition what would be a reasonable expected HP output of this combo? Cheers :)264 Profile Specs - 1.5 Rocker Ratio.jpg
 
Heads, stage II ish cam, improved breathing and Kp needles is worth 25-30 bhp when set up on a rolling road on a 10.5:1 motor. I have no idea with alternative carbs.

You'll get nowhere before you start with the 8.13:1 engine unless you are turboing it.

The 9.75 I reckon 165 on a good day with SUs the rest is down to your carb. I think your Holley is too big and the 390 is a better bet.

Raw BHP is always difficult on the standard headers and exhaust. Any 3.5 is a struggle to get to 190. Even a 4.6 will make less than 220 but will have crazy torque.
 
In my reading the rockers are listed with a ratio of 1.6. The 4.6 cam I have data for is a bit unusual - ERR5250 - 14,70,64,20 - not sure what those degrees are relative to - some measure starting lift at .050". The more common 3.5 cams are 30,75,68,37 (both 285 dur). More compression via shim gaskets will drive the torque peak upwards, other things being equal - drive a P6B with 10.5:1 and 9.25:1 CR and you will certainly notice the difference, especially in a manual. If your heads are HRC2479 (last casting no) there are some sharp corners in both ports that should be smoothed off. These heads are deigned for composite gaskets, they are 1mm thinner than earlier units. When you say you have a 9.75 short block, you mean its engraved as 9.75, but the CR is determined by the piston crowns, so check them - part no on crown?
 

Attachments

  • rv8cams.pdf
    135.5 KB · Views: 4
The compression ratio is down to the pistons, heads and thickness of gasket regardless of what it says on your block. I built mine to run at 9.75 by measuring the volume of the piston crown, and also the cylinder head, then added the correct amount for the gasket.

The stock SD1 distributor is actually very good and is electronic.

Go for the 390, the 465 is too big for a 3.5.

It would be best to find out what cam that is, and find out what it is designed for. Don't just put any old thing in there as it may give you problems. Is it's new, make sure you use new followers, if it's second hand, use the followers that it came with it and in the right order.

The full lift seems to be around 0.43" at 1.6.
 
You'll get nowhere before you start with the 8.13:1 engine unless you are turboing it.
Yep the 8.13:1 is in there at the moment because it's a good runner. Once the car has passed engineering and is registered I'm going to put together the 9.75:1. It had crossed my mind to throw a blower on the 8.13:1 instead, or as a side project, but the car wont pass inspection with a blown motor in my locality so that will have to be an 'after it's registered' consideration :cool:. My original goal was to get it registered and as an understated cruiser....my new goal is to also see if I can get it in the 14sec bracket down the quarter, because why not lol. Online ET calculator suggests it's possible with my 922kg car and 160/170hp. But that's all conjecture, isn't it!
 
generally Rover cams stayed pretty much the same till eighties when they were gradually tightened up. The final 4.6 cams have far less overlap and the engine has far more low down torque than previous iterations.
Unless you are revving well over 6000 rpm a 3.5 will never breath 390 cfm, chances are the secondaries will never get to open even at that size when tuned correctly.
My car currently runs its 3.5 with a little over 11 - 1 compression, full 1 1/4" headers into 2" collectors into 2.5" exhaust with two straight through silences (in name only) plus blueprinted, match ported and widened P6B heads and otherwise standard manifold and carbs. Oh and a stage two cam by Heatseeker advanced five degrees. It gave 226 lb ft at 3000 and over 200hp just over 4000 (we stopped at that speed in case something broke...) on the rolling road. Which is kinda awesome but down below 2000 it was still pretty ordinary so not too quick around town till I changed the diff to the 3.54 ratio of the 2200. the point here is that the 3.5 needs revs to work in near standard form and if your driving on the street your better off with small overlap cam. same deal with the lift. High lift is great for the high end of the range but at low speeds the gas flow slows down to much creating mixture, gas inertia and distribution issues.
A standard 8.13 - 1 engine can be tuned quite nicely for road use if run on low octane petrol with lots of advance. they feel gutless because they are seldom tuned for power and they use the same cam (and gearing) as the 10.5 - 1 engines which have to much overlap for them.
 
In my experience (2 different cars) 9.25:1 CR is the sweetest - good low down torque but still spins up well, good for a manual box, especially a 5 speed. 10.5:1 in a manual is a bit too peaky for my driving.
 
In my experience (2 different cars) 9.25:1 CR is the sweetest - good low down torque but still spins up well, good for a manual box, especially a 5 speed. 10.5:1 in a manual is a bit too peaky for my driving.
I have never heard any RV8 described as "peaky" before. Even in TVR.
 
Well thats what I call it when its low rpm power is much less than a 9.25:1 CR engine, and its noticeable on a manual gearbox. Not so noticeable in an auto.
 
generally Rover cams stayed pretty much the same till eighties when they were gradually tightened up. The final 4.6 cams have far less overlap and the engine has far more low down torque than previous iterations.
Unless you are revving well over 6000 rpm a 3.5 will never breath 390 cfm, chances are the secondaries will never get to open even at that size when tuned correctly.
My car currently runs its 3.5 with a little over 11 - 1 compression, full 1 1/4" headers into 2" collectors into 2.5" exhaust with two straight through silences (in name only) plus blueprinted, match ported and widened P6B heads and otherwise standard manifold and carbs. Oh and a stage two cam by Heatseeker advanced five degrees. It gave 226 lb ft at 3000 and over 200hp just over 4000 (we stopped at that speed in case something broke...) on the rolling road. Which is kinda awesome but down below 2000 it was still pretty ordinary so not too quick around town till I changed the diff to the 3.54 ratio of the 2200. the point here is that the 3.5 needs revs to work in near standard form and if your driving on the street your better off with small overlap cam. same deal with the lift. High lift is great for the high end of the range but at low speeds the gas flow slows down to much creating mixture, gas inertia and distribution issues.
A standard 8.13 - 1 engine can be tuned quite nicely for road use if run on low octane petrol with lots of advance. they feel gutless because they are seldom tuned for power and they use the same cam (and gearing) as the 10.5 - 1 engines which have to much overlap for them.
I understand what you're saying about the Holley - but I'm much more comfortable with tuning them than CV style carbs due to my Australian upbringing :). I chose the 390 because when you factor in the way 2 barrel and 4 barrel carb cfm is measured, the primaries on the 390 are smaller than a 350 2 barrel. With vacuum secondaries you get the best of both worlds.
 
In my experience (2 different cars) 9.25:1 CR is the sweetest - good low down torque but still spins up well, good for a manual box, especially a 5 speed. 10.5:1 in a manual is a bit too peaky for my driving.
When I was in ownership of a Rover SD1 I used to have the 3.5 EFI 9.75:1 motor with the Land Rover 3.9 camshaft fitted. It was a complete revelation; any hill, get the engine to 2000 rpm, and in top gear, it just slogged up the hill with no effort. Made a nice roar while going up too.

I've just fitted the LR 3.9 camshaft to my father's 3500S, but it has fuelling issues to sort before it can be properly assessed as to it's hill-climbing abilities.
 
When I was in ownership of a Rover SD1 I used to have the 3.5 EFI 9.75:1 motor with the Land Rover 3.9 camshaft fitted. It was a complete revelation; any hill, get the engine to 2000 rpm, and in top gear, it just slogged up the hill with no effort. Made a nice roar while going up too.

I've just fitted the LR 3.9 camshaft to my father's 3500S, but it has fuelling issues to sort before it can be properly assessed as to it's hill-climbing abilities.
I think the cam I got for this was very similar to the 3.9. I asked the manufacturer for a good road cam that I could use with the standard springs, as I don't want to start mucking around with the fresh heads I have.
 
Bonus question: During assembly, how would you get this engine to perform at it's best? I'm planning on having the rotating assembly balanced, accurate ring-gaps.....what else?
 
Back
Top