Ford Mustang vs Triumph Stag
Discussion
Vanin said:
Did you keep the standard Stag engine?
Just imagine what a success the car would have been with a Rover V8, especially in America where that engine came from.
Here lies the problem. Triumph specifically wanted to distance itself from Rover, so actively decided not to use the Rover / Buick V8. Piss poor management really.Just imagine what a success the car would have been with a Rover V8, especially in America where that engine came from.
As you said if it had it would have been mostly reliable and far cheaper.
Amusing really that many ended up being fitted with the very engine they avoided.
Vanin said:
Did you keep the standard Stag engine?
Just imagine what a success the car would have been with a Rover V8, especially in America where that engine came from.
Back in the day that was exactly what quite a few people did (replaced Triumph engine with Rover 3.5 ltr). I seem to recall that despite the slightly larger capacity due to the lower rpm of the Rover engine the car was slower. Not that a Rover engine out of a scrap yard was going to be trouble free. Engine was susceptable to poor maintenance, usually in the form of knackered lifters. Just imagine what a success the car would have been with a Rover V8, especially in America where that engine came from.
Why bother with the Rover V8, an American V8 so good they tried to hide it under a tarp and hope everyone would forget they ever made it. It does manage the all-American trick of burning lots of fuel without making any real power though.
Lexus V8 is the way to go these days - same size, twice the power for half the fuel. Not so common over here yet but increasingly popular in NZ/Aus.
Lexus V8 is the way to go these days - same size, twice the power for half the fuel. Not so common over here yet but increasingly popular in NZ/Aus.
V8 Fettler said:
StuntmanMike said:
V8 Fettler said:
The Yanks loved the Stags, it could have been a goldmine for BL if only they had got the engine right. Mustang of that era is rough and raw by comparison.
I believe they did, and it was just piss poor construction, recent evidence and all that..I'll start with five design issues:
Electrolytic action between heads and block
High water pump
Angled head studs
Air flow through radiator
Head hot spots
I admit I don't know much about them, but then again I found the Stag more pleasing to the eye than the Mustang, truth be told I wouldn't own either.
The_Burg said:
Vanin said:
Did you keep the standard Stag engine?
Just imagine what a success the car would have been with a Rover V8, especially in America where that engine came from.
Here lies the problem. Triumph specifically wanted to distance itself from Rover, so actively decided not to use the Rover / Buick V8. Piss poor management really.Just imagine what a success the car would have been with a Rover V8, especially in America where that engine came from.
As you said if it had it would have been mostly reliable and far cheaper.
Amusing really that many ended up being fitted with the very engine they avoided.
P.S always thought the RV8 was a piss poor engine anyway.
//j17 said:
Why bother with the Rover V8, an American V8 so good they tried to hide it under a tarp and hope everyone would forget they ever made it. It does manage the all-American trick of burning lots of fuel without making any real power though.
Lexus V8 is the way to go these days - same size, twice the power for half the fuel. Not so common over here yet but increasingly popular in NZ/Aus.
Despite your obvious disdain the Rover V8 was a decent and successful engine.Lexus V8 is the way to go these days - same size, twice the power for half the fuel. Not so common over here yet but increasingly popular in NZ/Aus.
I suspect for many classic car owners putting a modern Japanese engine in their classic car is a step too far.
mph said:
//j17 said:
Why bother with the Rover V8, an American V8 so good they tried to hide it under a tarp and hope everyone would forget they ever made it. It does manage the all-American trick of burning lots of fuel without making any real power though.
Lexus V8 is the way to go these days - same size, twice the power for half the fuel. Not so common over here yet but increasingly popular in NZ/Aus.
Despite your obvious disdain the Rover V8 was a decent and successful engine.Lexus V8 is the way to go these days - same size, twice the power for half the fuel. Not so common over here yet but increasingly popular in NZ/Aus.
I suspect for many classic car owners putting a modern Japanese engine in their classic car is a step too far.
People forget that the 3.5 ltr Rover engine was discontinued by Buick/Olds as just not being powerful enough (even in a 'compact' car like Olds F85) Even Fords early 60's attempt for a small capacity 3.6 ltr 221 cu in OHV V8 for the then expanding USA 'compact' market was a dismal failure - it was discontinued after a few months and replaced with the 4.2 ltr 260 cu in engine. And this only lasted a year or so, as again it wasn't powerful enough even for the lightweight early Mustang and Falcon and was replaced with the 4.7 ltr 289 cu in. It seems that Rootes bought a job lot for the Tiger.
Hi Vanin, I bought the modified Stag years ago fitted with SD1 engine enlarged to 3900cc and hotter cam, mated to SD1 5 speed gearbox. Car goes well when needed and driving sensibly managed 26mpg on a recent Italian tour.
Edited by samuri on Saturday 15th August 21:50
Edited by samuri on Saturday 15th August 22:42
roscobbc said:
Rover V8 was only successful when correctly maintained (i.e. regular oil changes) and used in a light weight car. A better engine option was the 289/302 cu in small block Ford engine which was not significantly heavier but because of the larger capacity had far more torque. It is generally acknowledged if looking for ultimate performance with the Rover engine, whilst big numbers are achieveable the same amount of £'s pro-rata put in to a Ford V8 (or Chevy) yields better results.
People forget that the 3.5 ltr Rover engine was discontinued by Buick/Olds as just not being powerful enough (even in a 'compact' car like Olds F85) Even Fords early 60's attempt for a small capacity 3.6 ltr 221 cu in OHV V8 for the then expanding USA 'compact' market was a dismal failure - it was discontinued after a few months and replaced with the 4.2 ltr 260 cu in engine. And this only lasted a year or so, as again it wasn't powerful enough even for the lightweight early Mustang and Falcon and was replaced with the 4.7 ltr 289 cu in. It seems that Rootes bought a job lot for the Tiger.
The Buick engine was discontinued because of advances in thin wall casting that allowed iron engines to be made almost as light and more importantly - more cheaply. Also the demand for small capacity engines in "compact" cars simply didn't materialise as expected. In fact the opposite.People forget that the 3.5 ltr Rover engine was discontinued by Buick/Olds as just not being powerful enough (even in a 'compact' car like Olds F85) Even Fords early 60's attempt for a small capacity 3.6 ltr 221 cu in OHV V8 for the then expanding USA 'compact' market was a dismal failure - it was discontinued after a few months and replaced with the 4.2 ltr 260 cu in engine. And this only lasted a year or so, as again it wasn't powerful enough even for the lightweight early Mustang and Falcon and was replaced with the 4.7 ltr 289 cu in. It seems that Rootes bought a job lot for the Tiger.
No doubt other engines are more powerful for less money but that wasn't the issue.
mph said:
roscobbc said:
Rover V8 was only successful when correctly maintained (i.e. regular oil changes) and used in a light weight car. A better engine option was the 289/302 cu in small block Ford engine which was not significantly heavier but because of the larger capacity had far more torque. It is generally acknowledged if looking for ultimate performance with the Rover engine, whilst big numbers are achieveable the same amount of £'s pro-rata put in to a Ford V8 (or Chevy) yields better results.
People forget that the 3.5 ltr Rover engine was discontinued by Buick/Olds as just not being powerful enough (even in a 'compact' car like Olds F85) Even Fords early 60's attempt for a small capacity 3.6 ltr 221 cu in OHV V8 for the then expanding USA 'compact' market was a dismal failure - it was discontinued after a few months and replaced with the 4.2 ltr 260 cu in engine. And this only lasted a year or so, as again it wasn't powerful enough even for the lightweight early Mustang and Falcon and was replaced with the 4.7 ltr 289 cu in. It seems that Rootes bought a job lot for the Tiger.
The Buick engine was discontinued because of advances in thin wall casting that allowed iron engines to be made almost as light and more importantly - more cheaply. Also the demand for small capacity engines in "compact" cars simply didn't materialise as expected. In fact the opposite.People forget that the 3.5 ltr Rover engine was discontinued by Buick/Olds as just not being powerful enough (even in a 'compact' car like Olds F85) Even Fords early 60's attempt for a small capacity 3.6 ltr 221 cu in OHV V8 for the then expanding USA 'compact' market was a dismal failure - it was discontinued after a few months and replaced with the 4.2 ltr 260 cu in engine. And this only lasted a year or so, as again it wasn't powerful enough even for the lightweight early Mustang and Falcon and was replaced with the 4.7 ltr 289 cu in. It seems that Rootes bought a job lot for the Tiger.
No doubt other engines are more powerful for less money but that wasn't the issue.
StuntmanMike said:
V8 Fettler said:
StuntmanMike said:
V8 Fettler said:
The Yanks loved the Stags, it could have been a goldmine for BL if only they had got the engine right. Mustang of that era is rough and raw by comparison.
I believe they did, and it was just piss poor construction, recent evidence and all that..I'll start with five design issues:
Electrolytic action between heads and block
High water pump
Angled head studs
Air flow through radiator
Head hot spots
I admit I don't know much about them, but then again I found the Stag more pleasing to the eye than the Mustang, truth be told I wouldn't own either.
roscobbc said:
mph said:
//j17 said:
Why bother with the Rover V8, an American V8 so good they tried to hide it under a tarp and hope everyone would forget they ever made it. It does manage the all-American trick of burning lots of fuel without making any real power though.
Lexus V8 is the way to go these days - same size, twice the power for half the fuel. Not so common over here yet but increasingly popular in NZ/Aus.
Despite your obvious disdain the Rover V8 was a decent and successful engine.Lexus V8 is the way to go these days - same size, twice the power for half the fuel. Not so common over here yet but increasingly popular in NZ/Aus.
I suspect for many classic car owners putting a modern Japanese engine in their classic car is a step too far.
People forget that the 3.5 ltr Rover engine was discontinued by Buick/Olds as just not being powerful enough (even in a 'compact' car like Olds F85) Even Fords early 60's attempt for a small capacity 3.6 ltr 221 cu in OHV V8 for the then expanding USA 'compact' market was a dismal failure - it was discontinued after a few months and replaced with the 4.2 ltr 260 cu in engine. And this only lasted a year or so, as again it wasn't powerful enough even for the lightweight early Mustang and Falcon and was replaced with the 4.7 ltr 289 cu in. It seems that Rootes bought a job lot for the Tiger.
RV8 3.5 was of its time, it did and can continue to run with various faults that would defeat other engines, chronic head gasket failure being one. My understanding is that there would not have been enough RV8s for the Stag, all were required for the P6 and the Range Rover.
Two Hinckley four pots and a bit of fabrication would be the perfect solution for 2015.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff