I get wanting to have an English V8 in an English car, but there are so many better V8s out there for this application I don't think I could resist.

 

It's not really an English V8, but a Buick. Still, they made them in England and they were stock in a lot of British cars including MG's, Triumphs, Morgans and TVR's, besides Rover cars and Land/Range Rovers. So I imagine this is a stock engine option for the car, but in this case, a new RPI crate motor with a lot of upgrades was swapped in.

The Rover V8 was probably the best mass-produced V8 until the LS which didn't come until 1997. Before then, there were more powerful iron-block V8's like the Chevy and Oldsmobile but those would be lame in a tiny MG sports car, while there's nothing superior about them other than size. Besides that maybe Ferrari made some nice lightweight 3 liter V8's but it wouldn't make sense to try to source something like that for an MG.

Now for a more authentically British powerplant, the XK6 is hard to beat but like the Ferrari V8's, it outclasses the MG.

What else is there? Some Yamaha V8's (Volvo and Taurus SHO).

For the ZF Auto, some BMW straight 6's bolt right up, but I believe they're heavier and not more powerful than the Rover V8.

On paper the LS motors are brilliant. The power to weight, the fuel efficiency, the reliability, everything is incredible and nearly impossible to best. Doing an LS swap on almost anything historical is going to offer gains without losses of anything but authenticity (they weigh less than most older 4-bangers). But somehow they just don't have any appeal to me.

 

More of the same, 0-60 pdq

 

The MG model that came with the V8 from the factory is a MGD. It came with the 3.5 and was a blast to drive from what I have seen.

The Rover V8 is a popular conversion for these for couple of reasons. First is the size as you can see it slots in the engine bay quite nicely. Second is weight, the RV8 actually weighs in a few pounds lighter than the heavy original 4cyl. So handling is not effected really. Third, it's the best equation in the car world, light car and 8 cyl. Remember the MGB had a 65 horsepower in stock form. With a ton of coin you can get it to the 100 hp mark with fair reliability. Or you can spend half that drop a 3.9 carb V8 in there and gain stock to stock about 85 horsepower (conservative guess of 150)in a car that has a curb weight around 2000 pounds. That is a recipe for fun. Most guys by the way aren't throwing them in stock though.

My MGB is a blast with 65hp, I'd love to throw a 4.6 with a high lift cam, head work, headers etc in one and die with a smile. Most likely though mine will get either a 3.4 GM V6 SOHC or a Saab 2.0/2.3 Turbo motor.

 

Also Rover V8's are the small block Chevy of europe, they are cheap and everywhere

 

Being that this is in Europe, I can see using this over an LS. I'm sure it is the cheaper option over there. I just meant if I had one here in the states it would be hard to pull the trigger on that. These aren't rev happy V8s that a sports car should have. They are basically truck V8s in sports car metal (aluminum). A BMW S54 (e46 M3) would be enticing or even the S52 (easier to hook up electronically). BMW also made a 3 litre V8 for a short time in the 90s that would be fun. There are many possibilities, obviously. The rover V8 to me though just seems like a less fun albeit more true option.

 

It depends on how you set them up. Repco in Austrailia set them up to win Forumula 1 championships for Brabham in 1966 and 1967. They're not truck motors. But they're not modern either.

Racing is one thing, but in the TVR they were about as sporty as you could get a stock/production motor to go: TVR Griffith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the Rover, we want them to be more like a truck motor, but without the weight. But that goal kind of conceals how remarkable they really were in a historical context. Admittedly, they don't meet modern standards but that's hardly fair 50 years later.

 

Wow, I never knew that about the Rover V8 in the TVR. Getting 340hp out of a 5 litre 16 valve is impressive even today. Being my first rover, I have a lot to learn about the history.

 

The books say a Rover executive saw the Buick in a Mercury Marine application while he was there to sell Rover diesels. But we know that at the time, the Series was not too exciting in the North American market. It was powered to compete in the 3rd world export market, not against Detroit. By the end of the 60's, it was woefully inadequate compared to American Scouts and Broncos with 266, 304, and Windsor V8's or the iron Buick Dauntless V8 and later AMC V8's in the Jeep Wagoneer. Rover made a good deal and acquired a great, all-aluminum V8 with plenty of power and no more than 12 lbs over their 4 cylinder engine (it was indeed lighter than many other 4 cyl's). It gained weight over time due to modifications, but remains much lighter than all the iron block V8's.

Towards the end of its life it gained a reputation for blowing head gaskets and dropping liners. But other than that it doesn't really have any major flaws or shortcomings for it's era. No doubt this issue was a serious problem for a consumer-oriented product in a SUV market that was fire-hot at the time of the Discovery II/P38, and growing with new options from BMW, Lexus, Mercedes, Acura and so on. Bush people had loved the Rover V8's in their Range Rovers, Series, 90's and 110's for decades.

I think a lot of people believe diesels were what all the overland and bush cars were fitted with. That's not true at all. Almost all the Series were fitted with Petrol motors. All the early Range Rovers were Rover V8's. When a diesel was offered in the Range Rover, it was a horrible option. In short, none of the diesels in Land Rovers were any good at all until the Discovery launched in 1989 with the 200TDI. That is the first time one would have a good reason to consider a Rover diesel. It was cheaper to operate, and the Discovery was oriented toward the cheaper tier. Of course, if you could afford to operate the V8, that's what you wanted. The 300TDI was perhaps the best diesel Rover ever offered and it's chief advantage over the V8 is range, but otherwise the V8 is better. The TD5 was too sophisticated to be operated in the bush. It had to be to meet European regulatory requirements. But in the bush, the V8 is better.

But this new brand of SUV consumer was different. They didn't operate in the bush. They wanted promises of problem-free commutes and mall cruising for 100,000 miles. They wanted 6-year warranties. They quickly got the motor from the BMW X5, and then some Ford/Jaguar thing. It wasn't about offering a better motor for overland use, but about pandering to affluent consumers seeking to acquire a status symbol and demanding suitable performance.