Not withstanding mitigation the issues with the high CR, I think a supercharger would be a better way to go over turbocharging, if you're looking to do forced induction.

The oil pump is a legitimate concern. Will it be able to flow enough oil to both turbos, and still meet the oiling demands of the engine, especially with the increased combustion chamber pressures? Does the stock oil cooler (provided you even have the option) have enough capacity to deal with the added heat introduced by the turbochargers?

The engine cooling issues are mitigated easily enough by installing a larger capacity radiator, and a lower temperature thermostat.

 

Just put a small block chevy in it

 

I always look for feedback on these, too. seen them offered for a few years, but not much in the way of review/feedback.

 

Boom that's what I meant. I would switch the rotating assembly in it before I would swap the engine.

T/v, yes it is a crap motor, I'm not saying the 4.0 isn't crap either, but its just not as bad as the 4.6.


Again, I say turbo it. You can address what needs to be addressed and get a long life out of the motor with a turbo.

 

The RV8 has always been a motor that responds exceptionally well to forced induction, because the heads are so damn restrictive... Leyland had a twin-turbo TR8 at lemans in 1980, and Turbo Technics and Janspeed's twin-turbo conversions in the SD1 and RangeRovers was the stuff of legends in the UK.

That stuff on pg1 looks very impressive, but also exceptionally voodoo like. A pair of GT17's from a Saab will be matched exceptionally well to this engine, and are available in almost any junkyard - integral wastegates make things very easy of course.

The CR is a little on the high side, but you'll take 6 psi all day long on Premium with intercooling, and sufficiently set up on a dyno.

There is no way that rover installed a gerotor that wouldn't be able to flow sufficient oil to supply a turbo, or even a pair of them - I wouln't worry one iota about that part.

Factory Fuel pump is likely just fine for 6PSI, alternativly use the existing pump to feed a swirl pot, and a walbro 255 fed from the swirl pot to the rail, returning back to the swirl pot, which itself also returns to the tank. This is effectly using the stock pump as a lift pump - and is very easy to implement.

Cooling. Are you going to use your turbo engine to do foot to the floor runs up Pikes Peak or non-stop 0-60 drags pulling a boat? How about a track day with hard cornering, riding up the butts of other cars, then flat out acceleration? No? Well you'll be fine. Just put a gauge in there, add a mustang intercooler pump for circulating the water on shutdown if you need. Put variables into your map to pull advance and add a little fuel if the coolant temp starts rising as a minimum.

Which brings us neatly to controlling the beast. Personally, I'd leave my Rover ECU in place. Stick resistors across the coil pack harness and injector harness and whatever else so it still thinks things are all good and proper. Put the mass flow sensor between the filter and a Y feeding the turbo's. Add another throttle pot to the linkage. Now use an aftermarket computer to control the sparks and injectors, using the "new" throttle pot and piggy-back off the existing crank sensor - or just mount another one off the crank pulley.
Final "ESSENTIAL" item, is a PAIR of wideband O2 sensors; one for each bank. If you can't pony up the $350 for a pair of AEM's up front, then do not even think of attempting this project... Oh, and set aside a grand for some dyno time.

I have turbo'd many vehicles, and so long as you do things properly, build them appropriately per your intended end-use, adopt the wide-band O2 sensors, and above-all, have mechanical sympathy to pull your foot off the loud pedal when something doesn't sound or feel right, it is the cheapest and most addictive horsepower adder of all - ok, the cheapest and addictive HP adder that doesn't need re-filling.

 

so after a long explanation, your money could be better spent

 

Hola
You have raised a very important question because the originator or this thread lives in Colorado and and the city of C/S is part of the front range emissions IM240 program. Currently OBD2 compliance in Colorado is "advisory" but by year 2015 full OBD2 compliance will form part of any smog test. A conversion will obviously subject to that E test if you want to get it licensed. Things like "readiness monitors" will be part of the test and if California is anything to go by then you will have only one readiness monitor not closed to get a pass; more readiness monitors out/not closed and no certification. I can also see a ratcheting down of levels and NOx I bet will get a few percentage points shaved off of it; the current max level is 2,00 ppm. (Nox the brown cloud maker).
Whatever the expediencies of doing conversions like this are either from practical or armchair "pipe smoking" (interpret that how you like its Colorado!) the whole exercise might be a big waste of money as quickly pointed out by another contributor. (^^^^drowssap)
Personally I could think of better things to spend my excess cash on and it isn't trying to squeeze a few extra horses out of a Landrover engine.
T/V

 

Again, we haven't had emissions testing in El Paso County in almost ten years. The air quality was deemed acceptable and they got rid of it, with the exception of diesels. Nobody complains about saving $25 every registration period, so it's doubtful it's coming back, especially since vehicles and tailpipe emissions are getting cleaner with every model year.

I'm not exactly embarking on a project like this because it is straightforward, easy, or cheap. It'd be a fun project despite the costs and headaches.

Back in the day, everyone said turboing a Saturn was impossible or idiotic (back when everyone was souping up Hondas and rice burners, the only things with aftermarket support). But 215 horses in a 2200lb car sure made some heads turn and was serious fun at the track. Obviously a Rover wouldn't have nearly the same driving dynamics, but the originality and usefulness of the extra power can't be denied.

I could apply what I learned in turboing a factory engine with zero aftermarket support nicely to the Rover engine. Obviously widebands and a little dyno time is a must, but once the tuning is "safe," most of it can be done on the road. The only unknowns I have at this point is how to integrate the Rover ECU so that it still is able to perform communication with the BCM, all the fun security stuff so the engine still starts, etc.

 

Thanks for the feedback. My suspicion was that the oiling and cooling system would be sufficient for all but the most aggressive driving. Still this is something that can be tested for and addressed later if it presents a problem (obviously BEFORE bad things happen . I've never heard of a factory gerotor oil pump being anywhere near its limits in volume for a stock setup. The cooling system, I'm not so sure about because of how hot-natured these things are to begin with, but cooling performance is easy to quantify by watching temps real-time using the Torque app or similar device.

Something I hadn't thought of is the dual widebands, I'd assumed one was sufficient, but one on each bank would be a whole lot safer.

I think the 8 cylinders requires the high-dollar Megasquirt if I want sequential injection. I think the cheaper units do batch fire, but not sure how essential or desirable this is. Makes sense to do it right the first time, however.

 

then just buy a used Paxton centrifugal blower, bolt it to the front of your motor in place of your ac compressor it's the easiest down and dirty way to do.