miserableoldgit
|
| posted on 9/8/05 at 10:32 PM |
|
|
V8 Engined
Has anybody put a Rover V8 into a Book Chassis - and what mods did they make to the engine bay and tunnel layout?
Youth and vitality are wasted on the young
|
|
|
|
|
VinceGledhill
|
| posted on 10/8/05 at 07:31 AM |
|
|
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.
Regards
Vince Gledhill
Time Served Auto Electrician
Lucas Leeds 1979-1983
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 10/8/05 at 08:50 AM |
|
|
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.
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 10/8/05 at 08:57 AM |
|
|
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]
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 10/8/05 at 10:01 AM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
quattromike
|
| posted on 10/8/05 at 12:43 PM |
|
|
Yeah i agree just think of the thunderous roar you'll get from a nice big V8
|
|
|
RebelGT
|
| posted on 10/8/05 at 01:23 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
VinceGledhill
|
| posted on 10/8/05 at 01:34 PM |
|
|
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....
Regards
Vince Gledhill
Time Served Auto Electrician
Lucas Leeds 1979-1983
|
|
|
timf
|
| posted on 10/8/05 at 02:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VinceGledhill
Know what you mean about the V8 roar.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 10/8/05 at 02:37 PM |
|
|
Now that does sound nice...
David
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 10/8/05 at 04:11 PM |
|
|
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.
Mid-engine Locost - http://www.midlana.com
And the book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/midlana/paperback/product-21330662.html
Kimini - a tube-frame, carbon shell, Honda Prelude VTEC mid-engine Mini: http://www.kimini.com
And its book -
http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/kimini-how-to-design-and-build-a-mid-engine-sports-car-from-scratch/paperback/product-4858803.html
|
|
|
miserableoldgit
|
| posted on 10/8/05 at 09:46 PM |
|
|
V* Engined
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?
Youth and vitality are wasted on the young
|
|
|
Bigfoot
|
| posted on 11/8/05 at 05:20 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 11/8/05 at 05:48 AM |
|
|
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.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Fred W B
|
| posted on 11/8/05 at 05:57 AM |
|
|
Count me in on the V8 as well. Can't wait to hear this run
Cheers
Fred WB
 
exhaust2
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 11/8/05 at 08:30 AM |
|
|
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.
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 11/8/05 at 11:17 AM |
|
|
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!!!!!!!!!""
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 11/8/05 at 11:31 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 11/8/05 at 11:39 AM |
|
|
sounds a particularly fine goal to me!!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 11/8/05 at 12:42 PM |
|
|
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!!!!!!!!!""
You're perfectly right, of course, if the car was to be used in a sensible manner or for competition, but sometimes a V8 is just
the only choice.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 11/8/05 at 02:01 PM |
|
|
too true!!!
Smoking the neon lit chavs in Citroen Saxos is certainly a fair sport in my book!!!
|
|
|
paully_mb
|
| posted on 11/8/05 at 05:02 PM |
|
|
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!!!!!!!!!""
Here's a newbies 2 cents...
I agree with all that you've said... but some of the torque of a v8 can be mitigated using taller rear end gearing, larger tyres and adjusting
the rear suspension. In a straight line acceleration and top speed a properly tuned v8 7 will be faster. But on a tight road course the extra weight
may come into play. To repeat what others have said some small v8s don't weigh any more then iron block 4s.
-p
|
|
|
miserableoldgit
|
| posted on 11/8/05 at 10:10 PM |
|
|
V8 Engined
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
Youth and vitality are wasted on the young
|
|
|
ADD
|
| posted on 11/8/05 at 10:44 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
VinceGledhill
|
| posted on 12/8/05 at 08:27 AM |
|
|
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
Regards
Vince Gledhill
Time Served Auto Electrician
Lucas Leeds 1979-1983
|
|
|
