Has anybody put a Rover V8 into a Book Chassis - and what mods did they make to the engine bay and tunnel layout?

I've done some modifications to my engine bay. Instead of the R tube I have put in 2 Y shaped pieces as per a modification drawing I saw on this site.

If you let me know the width of the Engine I'll let you know if It would fit in my chassis.

I have to question your logic though. I thought about the rover V8 myself originally having built the cobra that is featured in my avatar.

The problem is one of lightness. Since finishing my car I have to wonder. There is so much torque from the RV8 engine that instead of going forward like a misile you will end up spinning the wheels and not going anywhere.

What about scrapping the idea of a Rover V8 and getting a bike engine instead. It's all about powere to weight. 65 Kg instead of 400kg+

Remember the LT gearbox is a big un too... getting that bellhousing in, you won't have any room for you or your passengers feet. Just my thoughts.

this has been done many times, though it seems favoured/sensible to use a +4 chassis (4" wider), please try a search, it will probably answer a lot of your questions as it's been discussed many times before

Ned.

An old work colleague of mine had a V8 westfield. He said it would spin the wheels in the dry in all gears (might have been a bit of bravado). He had a shift light set at 4000 RPM as he was too scared to take it over that. Mind you, 4000 in top was close to 100,000,000 MPH.

Bike engines have half the torque but twice the revs of a car engine. This means that it is less likely to wheelspin and more likely to accelerate. it also means that you can get to 60 in 1st rather than just 30 so you get 1st gear acceleration for longer. You can knock 0.5s off your 0-60 time for not having to change gear. Bike engines + gearboxes are maybe 100kg lighter than a car engine which improves acceleration in a seven by about 20% straight off. The Westfiled 'busa is faster to 60 than the rover V8 powered S-eight.

[Edited on 10-8-2005 by smart51]

But don't forget that the whole point of Locosting is that you can do what you fancy!

I believe that there are a number of V8 Locosts being built, including timf's beast that'll have a monster lump fitted sometime soon.

These may be scary to drive, but each will be their owner's pride and joy.

Each to their own thing!

rgds,
David

Yeah i agree just think of the thunderous roar you'll get from a nice big V8

I considered a V8, but I chose a 3.4L DOHC V6, its torquey, yet has a good top end, fits in the +4" chassis, and keeps the weight back behind the center line of the front axle.

Know what you mean about the V8 roar. I remember going through the tunnels in Leeds in the cobra. Had people asking questions about it at the lights when I pulled up.

Awsome through those tunnels. Awsome all the time to be honest... Now where did I put my 16k for that V8 2l bike engine... put it down somewhere near here....

quote:

---

Originally posted by VinceGledhill
Know what you mean about the V8 roar.

---

Now that does sound nice...



David

Consider the VW VR6. Very small for a V6 (they fit in the same space as a 4-cyl), 200-240hp and around 200ft-lb of torque. That would match the car very nicely and sound nice too. The tranny would be the only issue.

First problem - i have the engine - Rover V8

The build is for effect rather than performance, being an old git I'll bottle out at the same speed with 8 cylinders as with 4 cylinders, I'll just feel better about the sound. Also us old git's are more used to torque up to 6000rpm than screaming bhp up to 18,000rpm.

It is the "R" tube thats the problem in the engine bay, with it the torsional strength is 1000 lb ft per deg. without it drops down to 750 lb ft per deg. Those "Y" beams sound interesting Vince, also I'm considering some form of demountable over-engine cage - ever been done?

I am building a RV8 locost. Chassis is my own design but similar to McSorley. There is plenty of room and it is no heavier than most cast iron 4 cylinder engines. I also prefer low end torque to a screaming bike engine. Mine is geared to do almost 60mph in first gear. A bit tall really but I think it will get away alright.

Acceleration is directly related to torque at the rear wheels. A bike engine is geared lower (diff ratio) to get the required torque, in return it has to rev higher.

People tend to over react to the term V8, but at 3500cc it's only a small one and ideally suited to the locost. Particularly for us "old gits"

Good luck with your build.

This is a great thread. I was building cars when the only "real" engine (for sensible money that is) in the UK was the RV8 and I can concur about the sphincter-relaxing low-rev rumble and wheel spinning on dry roads in the first three gears (mid-mounted 5100cc, 5-speed box, half steel and half fibreglass Beetle).
However, in later years I also discovered the glory of bike engines and the terrific howl they build up when being hammered and the performance benefits they offer in a light weight car.

Count me in on the V8 as well. Can't wait to hear this run

Cheers

Fred WB

exhaust2

checkout craig1410, simon and liams photo archives, they're all fitting engines that have required changing of the engine bay bracing, with some good examples imho.

Ned.

Interesting, all this lot.

I posted this great chunk of writing a while back in the engines section, giving my view on the v8 question.

I love v8's, I'm not criticising, just giving the reasons that I see them as not ideal in a 7.

""The fact is that you need an engine with a power/torque curve which approximately matches the ability of the wheels to put that torque on the road.

Having loads of torque at low revs is of no practical advantage in a seven because the laws of physics (and therefore the traction that can be obtained) mean that the maximum torque that can be transmitted to the road via the driven wheels is very low.

As wheel rpm increases, you can transmit progressively more power (same TORQUE!) through the driven wheels.

What you really need is an engine with a very wide power/torque band and a very big rev range.....................but then that's what we are all trying to achieve!!

As was pointed out, all the reasonably powerful engines can spin the wheels of a 7 with relative ease, the difference is that most of them have bigger rev ranges and their torque tends to fall from the bottom of the power band to the top, hence whilst accellerating, the likelihood of breaking traction decreases with speed through each gear.

Here the v8 becomes a problem as it's rev range (for the cheaper end of the market!) is limited, and in each gear the torque tends to build to a peak and then fall off again (remember that for any engine, the power and torque curves (in bhp and ftlb) cross at 5250 rpm, how does that compare to peak rpm, if it's near the limiter then all your driving will be on the increasing part of the torque curve!!)

The next problem is that with that limited rev range, the time until the next gear is short, and then the problem is repeated all over again!!!

Now contrast that to a revvy 4 cyl or 6 cyl engine (I know this is not scientifically correct, but I am referring to commonly available engines, not the "ideal world"!) where (for my Vauxhall XE for example) the working rev range is basically 5000rpm to 7500rpm. Torque peaks at around 5000rpm (as it does for most roughly square bore-stroke 4 cyl engines) and then falls all the way to 7500rpm, but the power peaks at 6500rpm ish. This means that if you can get away from a standing start fairly cleanly, traction should increase through the rev range, whereas with the v8 it will actually decrease.

Horses for courses though..............v8's sound awesome!!!!!!!!!""

A friend of mine is putting a rover V8 into a morris minor. The alloy V8 weighs the same as the iron I4 that he has removed. Apart from the shortened Jaguar rear axle, he's keeping it standard, on the outside at least. His goal, I think, is to shame people with tarted up saxos and the like.

sounds a particularly fine goal to me!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by NS Dev
Interesting, all this lot.

I posted this great chunk of writing a while back in the engines section, giving my view on the v8 question.

I love v8's, I'm not criticising, just giving the reasons that I see them as not ideal in a 7.

""The fact is that you need an engine with a power/torque curve which approximately matches the ability of the wheels to put that torque on the road.

Having loads of torque at low revs is of no practical advantage in a seven because the laws of physics (and therefore the traction that can be obtained) mean that the maximum torque that can be transmitted to the road via the driven wheels is very low.

As wheel rpm increases, you can transmit progressively more power (same TORQUE!) through the driven wheels.

What you really need is an engine with a very wide power/torque band and a very big rev range.....................but then that's what we are all trying to achieve!!

As was pointed out, all the reasonably powerful engines can spin the wheels of a 7 with relative ease, the difference is that most of them have bigger rev ranges and their torque tends to fall from the bottom of the power band to the top, hence whilst accellerating, the likelihood of breaking traction decreases with speed through each gear.

Here the v8 becomes a problem as it's rev range (for the cheaper end of the market!) is limited, and in each gear the torque tends to build to a peak and then fall off again (remember that for any engine, the power and torque curves (in bhp and ftlb) cross at 5250 rpm, how does that compare to peak rpm, if it's near the limiter then all your driving will be on the increasing part of the torque curve!!)

The next problem is that with that limited rev range, the time until the next gear is short, and then the problem is repeated all over again!!!

Now contrast that to a revvy 4 cyl or 6 cyl engine (I know this is not scientifically correct, but I am referring to commonly available engines, not the "ideal world"!) where (for my Vauxhall XE for example) the working rev range is basically 5000rpm to 7500rpm. Torque peaks at around 5000rpm (as it does for most roughly square bore-stroke 4 cyl engines) and then falls all the way to 7500rpm, but the power peaks at 6500rpm ish. This means that if you can get away from a standing start fairly cleanly, traction should increase through the rev range, whereas with the v8 it will actually decrease.

Horses for courses though..............v8's sound awesome!!!!!!!!!""

---

too true!!!

Smoking the neon lit chavs in Citroen Saxos is certainly a fair sport in my book!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by NS Dev
Interesting, all this lot.

I posted this great chunk of writing a while back in the engines section, giving my view on the v8 question.

I love v8's, I'm not criticising, just giving the reasons that I see them as not ideal in a 7.

""The fact is that you need an engine with a power/torque curve which approximately matches the ability of the wheels to put that torque on the road.

Having loads of torque at low revs is of no practical advantage in a seven because the laws of physics (and therefore the traction that can be obtained) mean that the maximum torque that can be transmitted to the road via the driven wheels is very low.

As wheel rpm increases, you can transmit progressively more power (same TORQUE!) through the driven wheels.

What you really need is an engine with a very wide power/torque band and a very big rev range.....................but then that's what we are all trying to achieve!!

As was pointed out, all the reasonably powerful engines can spin the wheels of a 7 with relative ease, the difference is that most of them have bigger rev ranges and their torque tends to fall from the bottom of the power band to the top, hence whilst accellerating, the likelihood of breaking traction decreases with speed through each gear.

Here the v8 becomes a problem as it's rev range (for the cheaper end of the market!) is limited, and in each gear the torque tends to build to a peak and then fall off again (remember that for any engine, the power and torque curves (in bhp and ftlb) cross at 5250 rpm, how does that compare to peak rpm, if it's near the limiter then all your driving will be on the increasing part of the torque curve!!)

The next problem is that with that limited rev range, the time until the next gear is short, and then the problem is repeated all over again!!!

Now contrast that to a revvy 4 cyl or 6 cyl engine (I know this is not scientifically correct, but I am referring to commonly available engines, not the "ideal world"!) where (for my Vauxhall XE for example) the working rev range is basically 5000rpm to 7500rpm. Torque peaks at around 5000rpm (as it does for most roughly square bore-stroke 4 cyl engines) and then falls all the way to 7500rpm, but the power peaks at 6500rpm ish. This means that if you can get away from a standing start fairly cleanly, traction should increase through the rev range, whereas with the v8 it will actually decrease.

Horses for courses though..............v8's sound awesome!!!!!!!!!""

---

Seems alively debate going on; don't forget this is more for effect than performance. If out and out get-up-and-go was the object then a VX V6 of 2.5L size would be hard to beat. I did dream of using a Triumph Rocket engine (2.1L Tripple) but couldn't persuade the Factory to give me one, they're more powerful than a Hyabussa.

Liam's over-engine bracing bars look very cool and possible. Vince, do you have any pictures or drawings of your "Y" braces you could share with me?

Nigel

to find the 'Y' braces topic try searching for threads with cymtriks involved. He has lots of knowledge on the subject and has employed the 'Y' Brace
Adam

The Y brace is fitted at both sides. It goes in place of the R tube as you can see from the attached image. It is exactly the same on both sides.



You can get a better picture at the following address
http://www.left-handed.com/Vinces_Locost_02.jpg

don't ask where i got this pic from, as i can't remember, think the car might be from Oz though..
Rescued attachment ml_engine_bay_sept03.jpg

Ooooh I can feel the MIG torch in my hand as we speak! That looks just the ticket.

Many thanks to all, Vince and Ned especially. I will post results following completion.

Vrrrum Vrrrum!!!!!!!!

Remember that the amount of torque available is proportional to how hard you lean on the right hand pedal no matter what revs you are at.

The idea is to apply sufficient power to achieve maximum acceleration without breaking traction throughout the rev range and road speed, (its called driving).

If you just want to jump on the pedal in every gear without regard for what is happening, to the car, probably best to stick with a little bike engine.

I'm with the miserableoldgit on this one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bigfoot
Remember that the amount of torque available is proportional to how hard you lean on the right hand pedal no matter what revs you are at.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bigfoot
Remember that the amount of torque available is proportional to how hard you lean on the right hand pedal no matter what revs you are at.

The idea is to apply sufficient power to achieve maximum acceleration without breaking traction throughout the rev range and road speed, (its called driving).

If you just want to jump on the pedal in every gear without regard for what is happening, to the car, probably best to stick with a little bike engine.

I'm with the miserableoldgit on this one.

---

I'm sticking with the boring old 205hp/165 lbft that my vauxhall engine will supply

I'd like a nice V8, but that's going into something mid-engined that only uses tarmac for parking on

Or of course you could go for the 4wd option.

now that does move the goalposts somewhat

but if you release the chain the goal posts will stay in the field and you'll go shooting off around the track!

(its not that cryptic a response in my mind)

Yes Ned you are quite right, Ive never been quite the same since I moved over to this side of the planet. They talk different here too.

I did not choose the RV8 for performance reasons (obviously).

One of my cars is a 92 Tickford built Ford XR8, with injected 302 V8 (5 litre), which makes the Rover look a bit tame and I have built a number of largish Chevy engines for various projects, so I am well aware of the Rover's limitations.

It's just that the Rover was light enough for a locost, it was available and it had the right number of cylinders (for me).

We don't get a lot of the engines here that you have. The Vauxhall sounds great, but there is no way I could get my hands on one. Most of the suitable donors here are Japanese and while there is some good stuff about, they aren't my style.

I don't think it matters what you build really, it's all just for fun.

Why oh why did ford not sell the XR8 in the uk??

I would LOVE to have one of those!

quote:

---

Originally posted by NS Dev
Why oh why did ford not sell the XR8 in the uk??

I would LOVE to have one of those!

---

Its not a 92, its a 2002, I must stop writing mail at midnight.

On the XR8 Tickford change the rear suspension to a fully independant setup, they put wishbones on the front and use much bigger brakes. The engine is blueprinted and signed (engraved) by the engineer for authenticity.

Mine has bigger mags, leather and all the xtras, so its comfortable, handles well for a big car and eats tyres on demand.

I don't have a picture of mine, so Ive tried to attached one in full flight.
Rescued attachment au_small.jpg

One reason I told SWMBO was that I wanted to go "greener" and change the old Xflow for something that ran on unleaded.

I'm still limping from that one

And here was me thinking you were talking about a Ford Sierra

ATB

Simon

Sorry Simon,
We didn't get any V8 Sierra's here that I know of. We did get the Cosworth 4x4 version which was a useful bit of kit.

Our XR8 is an uprated version of the Australian Falcon. It is also available as an XR6 with a 4L inline six, a turbo is optional now too.

The one's like mine are used in the saloon car championship class in NZ and Australia. (there is a newer model out now). There is a further development of the car used for what we call the V8 Supercar series, these have twice the power that mine has. Competion in all classes (road & track) comes in the form of the Holden Commodore, which is sort of like the UK Vauxhall Monaro with four doors. Us Ford blokes have deeper voices of course.

Sorry it's got a bit off topic, for road driving I still prefer a bigger engine. I'd consider a BEC for track use if it was real light.

Cheers
Gerry

Well if people cram 500hp and 500ft-lb of torque into a 2500lb Cobra and say it's enough, I say 250hp and 250ish ft-lb of torque in a 1200lb car is plenty. A modern V6 will do that.

That said, you still won't have the "sound" and, at least around here, it's hard to argue with the price/hp factor of a V8.