Steven Jackson writes:
>>From indirect experience, I've always viewed this engine as a good choice for
>>relatively inexpensive performance. Lightweight, rather compact, responsive
>to
>tuning, strong, easy to find, not so pricey. Lots of tuning shops on both sides
>of the Atlantic produce high performance parts for this engine, Offenhauser, to
>name one in the US. TVR Power in the UK has been doing what may well be the
>best of the tuned versions of these motors to date for their late-model,
>V8-powered cars.
I second the above.
It is unfair to judge the current Rover and TVR incarnations of this motor
by how the original Buick behaves. The problems have almost all been fixed
over the years. The block has been stiffened, and high-performance development
of this motor is now very well understood. See the David Hardcastle Books.
[Due to the huge volumes of Rover-V8-related information already posted on
this list by various considerate people, I will not dredge it all up again.]
>GM did produce large numbers of these things before Rover picked it up, and
>I've also seen the GM versions available for very little money.
>Hmmm. Now, if someone made set of twin-cam heads for it, you could convince
>yourself you had a Cosworth DFV under the hood.
What you would get is pretty much a Lexus 4.0l V8. It's got four cams:
intakes gilmer belt driven, exhausts gear driven off intakes. The stock mains
are cross-bolted. It has an oil pan with a deep, wide reservoir that resembles
those that Hardcastle shows as having been used in endurance racing for
the Rover V8.
I almost bought a Rover V8 for my "FrankenSpit" project, but now I have
a Lexus motor sitting on a stand in my garage. I know it's sacrilege, but
there it is.
> - Steven
Tim
|