V8 into a 2002

[winstontj]

hey I just posted the topic after a buddy of mine that's into Triumphs threw out the idea. He owns a SICK widebody race car and it was a thought, and idea... not a project. And the Rover V8 is the same as a many Buick V8's, and it's aluminum, so it's better than any old cast iron 'merican hunk. The rover V8 puts out about 300hp stock and only weighs 50lbs more....

but yes it was me tearing into that guy about the nissan motor... and no, i'll never do it to one of my cars... only reason why I'll encourage him to do it is because he's got to take out a 225hp @ flywheel race motor and a CR gearbox to fit the V8 Rover motor... that means I've got a friend with a spare CR box and SWEET motor!!!

[TMK-001]

PUT AN ALLOY CHEV BLOCK INTO IT!

I find it hard to believe that a stock Rover motor is 300hp... but I am no Rover expert.

My old boss had a 307 chev with individual throttle bodies in his TR-8 making 410rwhp. The thing required a number of changes and reinforcement to the chassis to be able to cope with the power.

I am a bit lost, ToddK (nice name!) is going to do it? Or you are?

I still see no difference between stuffing an SR20 in the 2002 and putting a V8 in it in terms of being sacrilegious.

[Lee]

Somebody from this board is currently swapping an M5 V8 into a 2002. Actually, the swap has already successfully been done and the next step is to address suspension and brakes (Massive Brakes to be installed). I have seen pictures and it is sweet. I will wait for the owner to present his project when he is ready. Do not ask me for the pictures.

[winstontj]

It was just a thought as far as I know... actually knowing ToddK, he may actually do it. Now that Paul Cain has his project going, and some secret shopper is stuffing an M5 motor in, it almost sounds like a challenge to ToddK. I think it can be done on the cheap only I think you need a full tube frame car to handle the power. If you look at the photos from Paul Cain that's exactly what ToddK will need to do because if you can get that much power to the wheels without something breaking, it wouldn't shock me to see the rear wheels drive right into the front of the fender wells - subframe attached!

[Brandon]

I haven't heard of a rover swap, sorry.

How about a BMW M50 (6cyl - also use the 5-series gear box and rear end) with triple side draft Webers deep-throated by a turbo? That should be enough power to twist the uni-body.

Just a thought – or maybe a dream.

Good luck with whatever your project ends up being. I'm sure it will be sikk.

CJ_AZ

I have an M50 sitting in my garage and I keep looking at this huge engine thinking how interesting it would be to drop it into a 2002. With some bigger pistons, cam/head work, lightened flywheel, and improved intake, I bet the thing could produce some cazy fun...

[Guest Anonymous]

I had a 1992 525i with the M50 and it was awesome. It moved that big car around with no problem and had power that wouldn't quit.

I can't even imagine a 2002 with that engine and the drive train. The gearing would make it a 150+ MPH car on the highway at 3k rpm with no problem.

I was thinking webers so the vanos system and all that crap on the top of the engine wasn't necessary. I'm not sure if you could get the webers jettet properly but it would look awesome with tripple side drafts.

I say do it.

Chuck

[wazzu70]

If you are going with an M50 get one out of the Z3 that was an aluminum block. Also why use webbers? Ick. Go with an ITB setup.

Its all personal preference, but the above mentioned 2002 sounds like a disaster to me. Its a street car with race trim (roll bar, lexan windows) for looks or its a race car with comforts like carpet ect. Its your car and do what you want.

I dont really see the point of upping the power so much on these cars. The chassis can only handle so much power and there isnt a lot of room for really wide tires in the rear making it difficult to put the power down. If you want a lot of power build a turbo M10. You already have the motor, there are a lot of parts available, lots of people have done it so there is info available, and it can output more power than you can handle in the car. Why put excessive weight up front?

If you want to do it to just be different....then go for it. If you want a performance machine there are a lot of less expensive and more practical ways to go about it.

[yeewiz]

Agree with wazzu70. Putting in a 6 or 8 will make the 2002 into a front heavy pig. A fast front heavy pig, though. You'll ruin the balance that makes them so fun to drive.

[winstontj]

If you are going with an M50 get one out of the Z3 that was an aluminum block. Also why use webbers? Ick. Go with an ITB setup.

Its all personal preference, but the above mentioned 2002 sounds like a disaster to me. Its a street car with race trim (roll bar, lexan windows) for looks or its a race car with comforts like carpet ect. Its your car and do what you want.

I dont really see the point of upping the power so much on these cars. The chassis can only handle so much power and there isnt a lot of room for really wide tires in the rear making it difficult to put the power down. If you want a lot of power build a turbo M10. You already have the motor, there are a lot of parts available, lots of people have done it so there is info available, and it can output more power than you can handle in the car. Why put excessive weight up front?

If you want to do it to just be different....then go for it. If you want a performance machine there are a lot of less expensive and more practical ways to go about it.

Both you and "yeewiz" may be misunderstood about the weight factor. Read up in the thread... The Rover/Triumph V8 we're talking about only weigh 50lbs more than the M10.... that's not a whole lot of added weight. Dump your battery in the trunk and you're halfway there.... This idea was only brought up because of the weight and power of the rover motor. I know it would be sacrilige to some but if you've got the motor and transmission laying around in your garage (as in this case), why not. Cost is $0.00. You'll have 300 horses stock out of the box and monster torque to boot... completely different than a turbo M10 - BUT... move your battery to the trunk, add one turbo, intercooler plumbing and oil cooler and now you're even... No weight difference at all. No change in handling, balance... only fuel milage and power....

[NickVyse]

You'll have 300 horses stock out of the box....

you keep saying that, but a stock 3.5 litre Rover V8 is WAY UNDER 200 ponies. Of course, there were tons of different specs over the years - here's a snippet of history:

"The Rover V8 as we know it first appeared in 1967 in the Rover P5B (The 3 litre body with the B a reference to Buick) and was apparently very similar to the previous Buick versions. It had a capacity of 3528cc via a bore of 89mm and stroke of 71mm (figures rounded off for simplicity) and provided true excitement to a range that was previously described at best as being ‘unexciting’. The engine then found its way into the P6 range (Rover 2000) and Range Rover, and did the same for those models too.

With a compression of 10.5 to 1 it was quoted as producing a number of different levels of power, but for simplicity you should expect that this was around the 150bhp mark. This figure will be accurate enough to compare with later and current power outputs, where the method of power measurement is more restrictive and representative of what you see with the engine installed in the car. The lower 8.13 to 1 compression Range Rover spec engines gave about the 135-bhp mark. Torque would be around 200 ftlbs.

An important fact, and I say fact, as this is Land Rover information, is that from October 1970 (nineteen seventy) ALL, yes ALL, V8’s were made with components that were compatible to the use of unleaded fuels. As Land Rover have always been responsible for the manufacture of the V8 from day one to today in their Acocks Green factory, the information is applicable to all Rover V8’s. If the compression ratio is below 9.0 to 1 then no changes are needed for the use of UK 95 RON unleaded, and just retarding of the timing by three to four degrees if your compression is higher than 9.0 to 1 and below 10.25 to 1. For other fuel grades different settings may be required.

The 3.5 was used in the 2591 MGBGTV8s from 1973 to 1976 in a form that was often quoted as being Range Rover specification. This was incorrect and probably due to the fact that the power outputs were similar at 135 (Range Rover) and 137bhp. (MG) In fact the engine was much more akin to the Rover saloons with a unique compression ratio of 8.25 to 1.

1976 saw the first major revision of the V8 under the Rover banner when the SD1 saloon range was introduced. Many detail differences were adopted and these were added to over the following years. Range Rovers adopted a similar series of modifications in 1978. The SD1 power output remained similar at 155 bhp (150 for the Federal injected cars) on a new compression of 9.35 to 1. When the range Rover adopted those engine modifications, it retained the low compression for several years, then with greater emission controls the power went down to 125 bhp.

The next real development was the arrival of the Vitesse using the previous Federal units injection system in a three piece performance inlet casting. Power was quoted at 190 bhp and this would be accurate for the original versions, but later production versions reverted to a standard camshaft so power would be slightly down, by about 10 bhp. Compression ratio was increased to 9.75 to 1 for this engine, and there were some port modifications in the heads. In 1985 the Range Rover adopted this engine with a softer cam and 9.35 to 1 compression ratio to give 165 bhp. Torque for these injected engines was about 10% more than the carbed versions.

Next stage was the arrival in 1988 of the large bore (94mm) engines that gave 3947cc with the original crank. This was for the emission strangled US market where the 3.5 was too restricted. The following year the 3.9 as it is known, appeared in the UK Range Rovers with 184 bhp and around 20% more torque, throughout the whole rev range.

The arrival of the 3.9 was also accompanied by the change of injection system from the early Lucas Airflow Meter System to the more powerful Lucas Hot wire system. This system offered some power advantages over the earlier system and was also seen on the new Discovery in 3.5-litre form. Next development was the long wheelbase Range Rover when the extra bulk of this model was compensated for with the lengthening of the crank throw to enlarge the capacity to 4.2 litres. Externally there were no visible differences other than ‘4.2’ cast into the Plenum casting. Compression was 8.9 to 1 and power rose slightly to 200 bhp, torque took the biggest jump by another 10%."

[winstontj]

Thanks Nick. I had no idea. I've only owned 4-cyl gas and diesel Rovers. I have no idea what ToddK's race motors put out or put up on the dyno. When I say "out of the box" I'm wrong because my "out of the box" means taking one of ToddK's older race motors that he has laying around (he's got like 40+ of them) and putting it in. Again, it's not a stock motor so I shouldn't be saying it like that. The HP/torque numbers published remind me of my International Scout's 345 V-8 with 135bhp and 195lbs torque. Even that's different being all cast iron and gear driven (no timing chain) but similar to the old Rover philosophy (some say IH came out of Rover, some say Rover came out of IH).

Thanks for the info and I stand corrected. Please substitute "300HP out of ToddK's garage" instead of "out of the box"

[JayG]

I was just throwing it out there....

I think an aluminum Mini Cooper engine would be a nice modern twist and since it's BMW it would keep things loyal - only it would be an outright nightmare finding and fitting a gearbox for something like that. I think it would be very nice to have an aluminum block M10 or S14. Same power and less weight would be so amazing.... That's probably what that kid with the Nissan SR20 motor will end up with - a 225hp motor that only weighs in at 150lbs.

Too bad we don't have a nice bolt on option like that. I'd take any BMW aluminum 4-cyl that would bolt up to our gearbox as a direct fit. Fabing motor mounts is easy!

lol you said 150 lbs. I have had a few of them and they weigh a lot more than that.

[Guest Anonymous]

NIck's information seems to be the most correct from what I remember and have been able to ascertain. I also seem to remember that one of the problems with the old aluminum block BOP 215 engine was that high compression and high rpms would rip the head studs out of the block. Their were a number of racers and hobbiests back in the '60s that tried to mod this engine and pull the same rpms they had been able to get out of the Chevy 265/283 or the Ford 260/289 engines and found that the aluminum alloy engines would not stay together. Rover may have been able to correct that problem with a change in alloys or some different engineering - but I have not found any reference to that information.

[ToddK]

Just to set things straight. In stock form a 3.5 Rover is around 160HP with about 225 foot pounds of torque, and weighs about 325 pounds complete with intake, carb, headers, ancillaries and flywheel. A short block can be lifted and installed in the car by hand. Standard mods are a cam, head work, headers and a four barrel carb. They come in sizes ranging from 3.5 to 5.2 liters. Most of the guys I know are running 4.0 versions with 300HP and 325 torque after mods, but I have friends with motors pushing 400HP. If I ever come across a clean shell I probably will do a swap. I have no intention of chopping up the car I have now. It's a nice race car that I am slowly converting over to run in vintage races. It's only about 3 grand worth of stuff from being done. I'm in no hurry because I still like SCCA IT racing. I'm not ready to be a gentleman racer yet. I originally brought this up because Tom is beginning to embark on a long expensive build. I mearly stated that it would be cheaper and faster to do it with the spare parts(Rover and BMW) I had in my garage.

[wazzu70]

50 lbs is still a lot of weight to put over the nose of a car. I would rather have a less powerful and more balanced car, but thats just me. Keep in mind posted numbers and actual installed numbers vary quite a bit. After you add everything to make the engine run it usually isnt the same. I dont have anything against motor swaps, Id just like to see the weight distribution when its done and see how much it actually changed.

If anything it would be a really unique car and if the owner is happy with it so be it. I definately dont think this would be an "ultimate" swap but I guess only time will tell.