Rover V8 engine, an "old school design?"
#11
12-06-2013, 04:07 PM
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Oregon, north of Salem
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes
on
16 Posts
"It wasn't designed as a 4.0L engine, so over-boring to 4.6 weakens the block."
Right, it was originally designed as a 3.5 L. engine, but a huge number of other engines were not originally designed for their eventual capacity either, as the makers bored them out to increase capacity too--that isn't something that was limited to Rover. The rest of your statement Ain't so. If you bother to look at specs, you will see that the 4.0L and the 4.6L have the same identical bore, 97mm. Extra capacity of 4.6 is achieved strictly from an increased stroke, so they ARE NOT over-bored from a 4.0; both have same bore. Fact is, again if you look into the facts, the 4.6 is not as vulnerable to possibly cracking walls behind liners, as the 4.0, because by that time Rover had been conducting routine production ultrascanning of the blocks coming off assembly line, specifically to determine the thickness of the coolant jacket, aluminum walls behind liners, and using only the thickest ones for the 4.6 L. engine blocks, and using the other, thinner ones, for the 4.0 L engine blocks.
"my 2500HD 6.0L Iron-block push-rod truck, it's less exotic than the Rover, cam-in-block, but was designed with modern advances."
"Both chevy engines are light-years ahead in the reliable department, and yet they are the same basic "tech", but re-designs,"
What are those "modern advances?" What are those "re-designs?"
"One of the results of a modern multiple valve design is what is essentially a hemispherical combustion chamber, which results in a more efficient fuel burn"
Yes, but Jaguar did exactly that, on its all aluminum V12 engine, increasing fuel economy tremendously, and it was on a two valve per cylinder design too, no multiple valve design needed. If that could be done on the V12, to get more efficient fuel burn, the same thing could be done on the Rover. However, maybe it isn't such a good thing if the engine isn't run at higher speeds, such as was the Jaguar?
" the bore/stroke ratio leans more toward power than efficiency" Well, maybe you are on to something here. But, isn't the power, the torque, more desirable on an engine to be used for a really good 4x4; efficiency less desirable?
So far, I give the silver star to Dr. Mordo for his thoughtful suggestions and explanations---thanks for that. Bronze stars to others so far; thanks for that.
Right, it was originally designed as a 3.5 L. engine, but a huge number of other engines were not originally designed for their eventual capacity either, as the makers bored them out to increase capacity too--that isn't something that was limited to Rover. The rest of your statement Ain't so. If you bother to look at specs, you will see that the 4.0L and the 4.6L have the same identical bore, 97mm. Extra capacity of 4.6 is achieved strictly from an increased stroke, so they ARE NOT over-bored from a 4.0; both have same bore. Fact is, again if you look into the facts, the 4.6 is not as vulnerable to possibly cracking walls behind liners, as the 4.0, because by that time Rover had been conducting routine production ultrascanning of the blocks coming off assembly line, specifically to determine the thickness of the coolant jacket, aluminum walls behind liners, and using only the thickest ones for the 4.6 L. engine blocks, and using the other, thinner ones, for the 4.0 L engine blocks.
"my 2500HD 6.0L Iron-block push-rod truck, it's less exotic than the Rover, cam-in-block, but was designed with modern advances."
"Both chevy engines are light-years ahead in the reliable department, and yet they are the same basic "tech", but re-designs,"
What are those "modern advances?" What are those "re-designs?"
"One of the results of a modern multiple valve design is what is essentially a hemispherical combustion chamber, which results in a more efficient fuel burn"
Yes, but Jaguar did exactly that, on its all aluminum V12 engine, increasing fuel economy tremendously, and it was on a two valve per cylinder design too, no multiple valve design needed. If that could be done on the V12, to get more efficient fuel burn, the same thing could be done on the Rover. However, maybe it isn't such a good thing if the engine isn't run at higher speeds, such as was the Jaguar?
" the bore/stroke ratio leans more toward power than efficiency" Well, maybe you are on to something here. But, isn't the power, the torque, more desirable on an engine to be used for a really good 4x4; efficiency less desirable?
So far, I give the silver star to Dr. Mordo for his thoughtful suggestions and explanations---thanks for that. Bronze stars to others so far; thanks for that.
#12
12-06-2013, 06:34 PM
I'd say that most of the advances in engine design (besides the metallurgical part) have been in air and fuel flow/control. So head and fuel injection design drastically in recent years to make more power with less fuel.
It would be a good thing. More air flow means more power, and then you tune the RPM where that power comes online with the camshaft. So, yes absolutely the Rover V8 could be modernized with a freshly designed top end, just like the Jaguar. It doesn't have to be overhead cams and 4 valves per cylinder, but that could potentially be even better than just a redesign of the two valve system. But a whole lot of power could be made from a roller cam and a reworked air and fuel system.
Power is a good thing, but with modern tech it isn't necessary to squeeze every drop of power from a design. A more efficient modern engine could make more power than the Rover V8 while using the same or less fuel. As described above, most of the modernization would come thru a head/fuel system redesign, but once you get that part done a alteration to the bore/stroke might reduce overall power, but would increase efficiency. Basically a complete redesign could create an engine that generates the same power, but gets better mileage, and runs cleaner.
Yes, but Jaguar did exactly that, on its all aluminum V12 engine, increasing fuel economy tremendously, and it was on a two valve per cylinder design too, no multiple valve design needed. If that could be done on the V12, to get more efficient fuel burn, the same thing could be done on the Rover. However, maybe it isn't such a good thing if the engine isn't run at higher speeds, such as was the Jaguar?
Power is a good thing, but with modern tech it isn't necessary to squeeze every drop of power from a design. A more efficient modern engine could make more power than the Rover V8 while using the same or less fuel. As described above, most of the modernization would come thru a head/fuel system redesign, but once you get that part done a alteration to the bore/stroke might reduce overall power, but would increase efficiency. Basically a complete redesign could create an engine that generates the same power, but gets better mileage, and runs cleaner.
Last edited by dr. mordo; 12-06-2013 at 06:37 PM.
#13
12-06-2013, 06:57 PM
First off, I apologize for missing the stroke displacement increase on the 4.0 vs. the 4.6. 
. What can I say, I'm new to rover V8s. I don't even deserve a Bronze Medal...
However, Dr. Mordo hits the nail on the head.
I can't point to a single major "advancement" that set an "old tech" engine apart vs. a "new" one. Instead it's a combination of "little" advances. More of an evolution.
I compared my 6.0 LQ4 on purpose because it is a cam-in block pushrod 2 valve per cylinder V8 with a similar heritage as the Rover (both GM).
Here's a good introductory on the "little" things that set apart a modern Gen III or IV GM V8 vs. an earlier iteration. It even mentions things that require a new block design (to reduce vibration, thus increasing longevity), roller cams, etc...
Vortec 6000 6.0L V-8 LQ4 Tech Article by BillaVista - Pirate4x4x.com
End result? My LQ4 produces 300HP, 360Ft/lbs on regular unleaded, 5w30 for 5-15k miles between changes, depending on workload, and small improvements to reliability that we would all DIE to have in our rover V8s.
A dream Rover V8 based off Gen IV GM tech. would arguably be roughly 250HP (4~4.3L), maintain the aluminum block (for weight savings), keep the flat torque curve, be nearly as reliable as the current GM truck motors (all aluminum blocks need cooling systems monitored, iron blocks soak heat better), possibly 20~30% increase in fuel economy (20~23mpg highway), with a one-spec oil up to 12k change interval depending on service. And since it'd be a Pushrod V8, it'd still be roughly as simple to work on as the current 4.0.
And for the environmentalists among us, it'd be more eco-friendly.
I love my LQ4, but it's a bit overpowered for four wheeling. It was designed for reliability and towing, stuff it does VERY well. But the Rover V8, despite its ancient heritage and finicky personality, remains one of my favorite V8s for the back country.
. What can I say, I'm new to rover V8s. I don't even deserve a Bronze Medal...However, Dr. Mordo hits the nail on the head.
I can't point to a single major "advancement" that set an "old tech" engine apart vs. a "new" one. Instead it's a combination of "little" advances. More of an evolution.
I compared my 6.0 LQ4 on purpose because it is a cam-in block pushrod 2 valve per cylinder V8 with a similar heritage as the Rover (both GM).
Here's a good introductory on the "little" things that set apart a modern Gen III or IV GM V8 vs. an earlier iteration. It even mentions things that require a new block design (to reduce vibration, thus increasing longevity), roller cams, etc...
Vortec 6000 6.0L V-8 LQ4 Tech Article by BillaVista - Pirate4x4x.com
End result? My LQ4 produces 300HP, 360Ft/lbs on regular unleaded, 5w30 for 5-15k miles between changes, depending on workload, and small improvements to reliability that we would all DIE to have in our rover V8s.
A dream Rover V8 based off Gen IV GM tech. would arguably be roughly 250HP (4~4.3L), maintain the aluminum block (for weight savings), keep the flat torque curve, be nearly as reliable as the current GM truck motors (all aluminum blocks need cooling systems monitored, iron blocks soak heat better), possibly 20~30% increase in fuel economy (20~23mpg highway), with a one-spec oil up to 12k change interval depending on service. And since it'd be a Pushrod V8, it'd still be roughly as simple to work on as the current 4.0.
And for the environmentalists among us, it'd be more eco-friendly.
I love my LQ4, but it's a bit overpowered for four wheeling. It was designed for reliability and towing, stuff it does VERY well. But the Rover V8, despite its ancient heritage and finicky personality, remains one of my favorite V8s for the back country.
#14
12-06-2013, 07:26 PM
Baja
Of the 'old school' engines one of the best would have been the Ford Cosworth DFV which was robust and advanced. Stick a turbo on that and you have a real flyer. The problem today is that most engines are 'throttled' by the emissions controls and additional kit. The old Buick based NA Rover 3.5 V8 was a great bomb proof engine in it's time and very under stressed - move on 4 decades and now they are squeezing out 4.6 litres and loaded with emissions junk but with not a lot of performance gain. I'd blame the bureaucrats and their neurosis with emissions and inevitably the disguised taxation. Given their stance we would all be on bicycles soon unless you are a politician and they would still have big gas guzzlers.
A pal of mine owns this company and produces some of the finest race engines at a reasonable price. They are NA and produce serious HP per litre with all steel bottom ends. They are efficient and powerful although very peaky in revs.
http://www.raceline.co.uk/
Another pal owns this company and builds various performance engines. I used to race one of his Vauxhall 2.0 litre engines in my own car producing nearly 300 bhp which was a beast in a 515 kg car. The problem is none of these two companies engines will ever pass emissions testing - that speaks volumes about the restrictive emissions kit.
http://www.sbdev.co.uk/SBD%20Motorsport%20Display.htm
A pal of mine owns this company and produces some of the finest race engines at a reasonable price. They are NA and produce serious HP per litre with all steel bottom ends. They are efficient and powerful although very peaky in revs.
http://www.raceline.co.uk/
Another pal owns this company and builds various performance engines. I used to race one of his Vauxhall 2.0 litre engines in my own car producing nearly 300 bhp which was a beast in a 515 kg car. The problem is none of these two companies engines will ever pass emissions testing - that speaks volumes about the restrictive emissions kit.
http://www.sbdev.co.uk/SBD%20Motorsport%20Display.htm
Last edited by OffroadFrance; 12-06-2013 at 07:40 PM.
#15
12-07-2013, 05:00 AM
Baja
This guy certainly knows how to squeeze the 'grunt' out of any engine. Mr Turbo - Home of the World's Fastest Motorcycles
Years ago I knew Carroll Shelby RIP, his Cobra's were great built around big HP with some tweeks. When one considers the modern F1 engines, albeit they are designed to a limited lifespan, they are the pinnacle of combustion efficiency but pulling 19K rpm, who needs that? The moral of the story is as Dr Mordo says, air, air and more air coupled with a bit of fuel for combustion. Top end design is god and air intake flow with exhaust gas flow produces efficiency but it's no good for emissions and road usability. I run a Honda bike which doesn't even reach the power band until 7K rpm and then revs to 14K rpm which is great for a weekend blast but can be a nightmare in town traffic. Many years ago I owned and raced an AJS 7R and a 500 Manx Norton, these bikes were OK in their day but inefficient and heavy and relied on big flywheels and torque. Then along came the two stroke Japanese multi's, they revved like hell and absolutely flew, of course, until they seized, and then spat you off at 120mph. I still like two stroke engines but the worlds governments hate them as they aren't exactly environmentally friendly.
I love the huge blown dragstrip machines, pure magic, 'now you're cooking on gas'.
Years ago I knew Carroll Shelby RIP, his Cobra's were great built around big HP with some tweeks. When one considers the modern F1 engines, albeit they are designed to a limited lifespan, they are the pinnacle of combustion efficiency but pulling 19K rpm, who needs that? The moral of the story is as Dr Mordo says, air, air and more air coupled with a bit of fuel for combustion. Top end design is god and air intake flow with exhaust gas flow produces efficiency but it's no good for emissions and road usability. I run a Honda bike which doesn't even reach the power band until 7K rpm and then revs to 14K rpm which is great for a weekend blast but can be a nightmare in town traffic. Many years ago I owned and raced an AJS 7R and a 500 Manx Norton, these bikes were OK in their day but inefficient and heavy and relied on big flywheels and torque. Then along came the two stroke Japanese multi's, they revved like hell and absolutely flew, of course, until they seized, and then spat you off at 120mph. I still like two stroke engines but the worlds governments hate them as they aren't exactly environmentally friendly.
I love the huge blown dragstrip machines, pure magic, 'now you're cooking on gas'.
Last edited by OffroadFrance; 12-07-2013 at 05:04 AM.
#16
12-07-2013, 03:58 PM
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Oregon, north of Salem
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes
on
16 Posts
99Discovery: "First off, I apologize for missing the stroke displacement increase on the 4.0 vs. the 4.6. . What can I say, I'm new to rover V8s. I don't even deserve a Bronze Medal..."
__________________________
No need to apologize, though I do appreciate your sincerity and honesty. I don't respect or appreciate someone trying to blow smoke up my dress.
" "little" things that set apart a modern Gen III or IV GM V8 vs. an earlier iteration."
__________________________
Now, that source you offered, 99Discovery, comes close to answering my initial question, and I thank you for it
__________________________________________________ ___________
Dr. Mordo, An especially big thanks to you, for you seem to know your way around an engine; have rare insight not often seen. Now I can more appreciate your title, Dr. Mordo---LOL. What you say makes a whole lot of sense to me; thanks again.
OffroadFrance: " The problem today is that most engines are 'throttled' by the emissions controls" Bingo, I think you are spot on; I have thought this ever since I started to see the added contraptions, hoses, hoses, and more hoses, catalytic converters, charcoal canisters, on and on, beginning in the 1960s or whenever it started. It was depressing, and still is. I remember the days when the infernal combustion engine was simple and easy to work on. Though I love much of what you write, I am sorry, but my eyes get glassed over whenever anyone starts talking racing,
big horsepower, high RPMs, high speed, etc. I seriously doubt if that is what is needed or desired for a high torque top end 4x4. Anyway, thanks, guys, for your thoughtful input. But, the fact that so few guys joined in this thread, I still think that too many guys, having heard that the Rover V8 was developed initially in the 1960s, jump on the bandwagon, and repeatedly say things like this engine is an antiquated old design; not worth a damn, when, in reality, they don't really know what they are talking about, they can't give specifics, when you pin them down.
. What can I say, I'm new to rover V8s. I don't even deserve a Bronze Medal..."__________________________
No need to apologize, though I do appreciate your sincerity and honesty. I don't respect or appreciate someone trying to blow smoke up my dress.
" "little" things that set apart a modern Gen III or IV GM V8 vs. an earlier iteration."
__________________________
Now, that source you offered, 99Discovery, comes close to answering my initial question, and I thank you for it
__________________________________________________ ___________
Dr. Mordo, An especially big thanks to you, for you seem to know your way around an engine; have rare insight not often seen. Now I can more appreciate your title, Dr. Mordo---LOL. What you say makes a whole lot of sense to me; thanks again.
OffroadFrance: " The problem today is that most engines are 'throttled' by the emissions controls" Bingo, I think you are spot on; I have thought this ever since I started to see the added contraptions, hoses, hoses, and more hoses, catalytic converters, charcoal canisters, on and on, beginning in the 1960s or whenever it started. It was depressing, and still is. I remember the days when the infernal combustion engine was simple and easy to work on. Though I love much of what you write, I am sorry, but my eyes get glassed over whenever anyone starts talking racing,
big horsepower, high RPMs, high speed, etc. I seriously doubt if that is what is needed or desired for a high torque top end 4x4. Anyway, thanks, guys, for your thoughtful input. But, the fact that so few guys joined in this thread, I still think that too many guys, having heard that the Rover V8 was developed initially in the 1960s, jump on the bandwagon, and repeatedly say things like this engine is an antiquated old design; not worth a damn, when, in reality, they don't really know what they are talking about, they can't give specifics, when you pin them down.
#18
12-08-2013, 06:33 AM
Baja
Earlyrover and Dr Mordo, a great discussion. I love cars and engines both old and new. I think I was born with Castrol R in my veins. I drool over engines, particularly high performance engines where every ounce of efficiency is being extracted. It's great to see others perspectives and opinions from all around the world and the evolution of their cars and engines. Great and interesting discussion with you guys. 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Rovinfool
Modifications
1
09-03-2010 02:47 AM
luxury1
General Range Rover Discussion - Archived
9
12-23-2008 06:46 AM
