I cannabilized a TR8 for my Rover V8 engine for an MG B. Is that OK?
Larry Dickstein
Kansas City, MO
MGMagnette@aol.com wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Use a Rover, NOT an Buick V-8
> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 12:32:30 EST
> From: MGMagnette@aol.com
> Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
> To: mgb.roadster@juno.com
>
> Hey All-
> Someone said:
> "I doubt that the 63 Buick 3100 series engine was under-powered, compared
> to the first Rovers. " It was.
> Strangely enough there is a story in the February 1998 Issue of Classic And
> Sportscar. In that issue they compare a Rover P5B Coupe and a Buick LeSabre
> 400. They compared the two cars ofcourse because they have "the same" engine.
> But they aren't the same. Let me quote two sections...
>
> "The Rovers ability on the motorway is still a thing of wonder. Moving
> naturally into the outside lane, the P5B sits at 85mph, ebbing and flowing
> with the quickest of moderns. Kickdown delivers enough thrust to shift past
> liines of uphill, middle-lane queues and onto speeds that will cost you a
> license before they'll worry the P5B. That's thanks to the British
> interpretation of the Buick V-8.
> When the engine came over to be developed for the P5B, a Buick man came to
> help. (re-read that, "developed" means the engine was changed). Rover wanted
> it to rev higher than its top whack of 4400 rpm, and the American couldn't
> understand why. So Rover put him in a 6 cylinder P5 with a development driver
> and send him up the newly opened M6 at 100mph plus. He returned white faced
> and wise to the demands placed on British cars. (Re-read that, it means it
> red lined where you'd just start going until Rover got ahold of it) In due
> course, the Buick 3.5-litre V8 became Rover's own, giving 184 bhp gross at
> 5200rpm, a 30 percent hike on the original. "
>
> Ah, 30% hike. That might just mean faster. Ok, so we've established that
> from the beginning, the Rover versions had more horsepower and a higher rev
> line. Sounds like the Rover might make a better sportscar engine... Let me
> quote some more.
>
> "On the motorway, the Rover just dissapears. The Buick pulls well to about
> 60mph but then begins breathing hard, just at the point where the Rover
> explodes into the distance." You want to breath hard at 60 or explode into
> the distance at 60?
>
> Someone completely different said:
> "You encourage people to use the Rover engine in their conversions then
> ask them not to use certain Rovers, the very Rovers that use the BOP
> engine. See anything contradictory in this? If you are concerned about
> saving P5Bs or P6s then encourage the converter to use the BOP engine."
>
> Yes, we should save the remaining P5Bs and P6s, but I've never minded anyone
> dismantling a Range Rover. You engine choice is gonna be a compromise between
> availibility, price, power, and maybe a desire to save British Classics. The
> BOP (Buick Olds Pontiac) engine doesn't have the power. That leaves Rover
> Engines. While price and availiblity change from region to region, ripping
> the heart out of a Range Rover doesn't make me too upset, but destroying a P5B
> would be tragic. Obviously if any of these cars are beyond repair why not
> give the engine another life, but most trashed cars have trashed engines. So
> for most, a Range Rover engine will be the greatest compromise.
>
> Then someone said:
> "I have to disagree with your statement, "You'd be just as happy with a
> normal MGB, and a nice restored Rover to drive to work". You obviously
> haven't driven a high performance sports car. No one who enjoys cars and
> has driven a MGB V8 would make such a statement."
>
> I guess the V-12 XJ-S I drive everyday isn't a high performance car... What
> is a V8 MGB? It's called a TVR, why don't you get one of those? You've
> obviously never driven a Rover to work. No one who enjoys cars and has driven
> a Rover would make such a statement.
>
> I again put out my plea to stop the destruction of Rovers for the sake of a
> hotrod MG. I say this as an owner of 3 MGs, and former Rover owner.
>
> Ofcourse, this information isn't meant to criticize, just to enlighten, please
> accept it in the manor it is given.
>
> John
|