Engine re-build...bit by bit. Possible?

[Walford]

Increasing cam lift and valve open time, increases wear,
the extreme example being drag cars running max lift dwell and big springs, and doing rebuilds after a few hundred miles,
this is why power have gone down the large capacity road

[slimtater]

Andy_mr2sc said:

Excuse my ignorance but could someone explain to me how Powers get, and I quote from their website '370hp AT THE WHEELS' from their 4.3 conversion?
On reading their advert for this conversion, the ONLY modifications to the engine that will actively increase the power is the increase in cc and the new cam shafts. Even then there is no mension of a different spec of cams from the original. All of the other mods are to improve the engines strength and reliability so they can offer their commendable warranties.
RG and Simon Armstrong went to massive lengths to get the power and reliability from their head design. This includes a fresh head casting with cnc porting, cnc machined combustion chambers and revised (hotter) cams. Then there's the bucket followers for reliability.
I've recently witnessed first hand a number of these FFF engines, some with the highly critically acclaimed Syvecs management system. They invariably reach 400 to 420hp AT THE FLYWHEEL on an INDEPENDENT rolling road.
Call me a cynic but I find it extremely difficult to believe what is essentially an increase of 300cc and some (arguably as no detail is given) new cams can give a similar hp figure (370 atw is approx 400/410 atfw) on the original management.
Has anyone done a comparative test between the two engine designs on an independent rolling road? I would be very interested to see the results from this.

Do not underestimate the benefit of simply having an engine properly built or to use the old expression, "blueprinted"....

[chris watton]

slimtater said:

Do not underestimate the benefit of simply having an engine properly built or to use the old expression, "blueprinted"....

I have said this on other threads, when I had my first Tam in 2004, there were many threads from that time showing RR results for the 3.6. Many were on the button for power, some showed even higher than the stated 350bhp.

Some later results may show a little less, but in some cases, this was because of the poor state of the cats.

Now, if the 3.6 produces a healthy 350bhp, I have always figured that a 4.3 upgrade, along with the associated rebuild with better parts (and new cats, which I have already bought) would produce significantly more than the original 350bhp. The 4 litre S and Sagaris were supposed be around the 380bhp mark (being generous, based on what I have read over the decade), so why wouldn't a newly rebuilt solid engine with a 4.3 capacity produce less? 400bhp should be more than achievable, surely - especially if cooling, breathing and exhaust is in tip-top condition?

[slimtater]

chris watton said:

slimtater said:

Do not underestimate the benefit of simply having an engine properly built or to use the old expression, "blueprinted"....

I have said this on other threads, when I had my first Tam in 2004, there were many threads from that time showing RR results for the 3.6. Many were on the button for power, some showed even higher than the stated 350bhp.

Some later results may show a little less, but in some cases, this was because of the poor state of the cats.

Now, if the 3.6 produces a healthy 350bhp, I have always figured that a 4.3 upgrade, along with the associated rebuild with better parts (and new cats, which I have already bought) would produce significantly more than the original 350bhp. The 4 litre S and Sagaris were supposed be around the 380bhp mark (being generous, based on what I have read over the decade), so why wouldn't a newly rebuilt solid engine with a 4.3 capacity produce less? 400bhp should be more than achievable, surely - especially if cooling, breathing and exhaust is in tip-top condition?

I would agree with that.

If it helps the debate, I have some back to back figures, albeit ones that will be a surprise to most.

A Tuscan S 4.0 with just changed cans (still catted) made 312bhp at the wheels. On the same day/dyno, mine, a 3.6 T350 with its nostril air intake and larger bore back box made 318bhp at the wheels. The key difference? Mine had a "blueprinted" build from new as (if the old yarn is correct) it was going to a customer that Mr Wheeler didn't want to see stranded at the side of the road...

[m4tti]

They're not blue printed, what blue prints are they using... and power even machine the pistons down on the 4.3 obviously they're not thrown together either but saying they're blue printed is incorrect.

Anyone without any decent knowledge of the cars and engines stumbling onto this thread will be seriously mis-informed.

Edited by m4tti on Sunday 30th November 18:27

[slimtater]

m4tti said:

They're not blue printed, what blue prints are they using... and power even machine the pistons down on the 4.3 obviously they're not thrown together either but saying they're blue printed is incorrect.

Anyone without any decent knowledge of the cars and engines stumbling onto this thread will be seriously mis-informed.

Edited by m4tti on Sunday 30th November 18:27

So what makes you the expert on my car and engine then?

[slimtater]

As I said in my original and the subsequent use of " ", I was very cautious about using the term "blueprinting". But for everyone's benefit:

Engine blueprinting means specifically to create an engine that reflects the design intent through the removal of manufacturing tolerances insofar as that is possible such that the engine literally reflects the actual blueprint created by the original engineers who designed the engine

I am amazed a complete stranger knows more about my engines build than I or the original owner does, but happy to share what I do know.

[chris watton]

m4tti said:

They're not blue printed, what blue prints are they using... and power even machine the pistons down on the 4.3 obviously they're not thrown together either but saying they're blue printed is incorrect.

Anyone without any decent knowledge of the cars and engines stumbling onto this thread will be seriously mis-informed.

Edited by m4tti on Sunday 30th November 18:27

It is clear that you rate RG very highly, and Powers Performance a lot less.

Everything that I have read and been told, both on and off the forums suggests to me that most rate Powers Performance engine builds highly, too.

I did ask if the £12k you mentioned for the RG work was VAT inclusive or not, if it isn't, that's almost £14.5k. Powers is around £9.4k, including VAT, larger injectors and new starter motor.

I don't know about you, but I do consider that (relatively) good value, more so when we consider the warranty, longevity of the engine, peace of mind, and the knowledge that it can produce around 400bhp (again, the 3.6 has around 350bhp, so not that unobtainable from a 4.3/4.5, I would have thought)

[Andy_mr2sc]

I personally not slating Powers Performance. They have a lot of experience at this game and produce some solid performing engines. My own Tuscan has a Powers rebuilt 4.0 in it and is still performing faultlessly after 5yrs and over 25k miles. I had the cam cover off recently to check the clearances as part of the service and it all still looks good as new with no wear.
At the same time one has to respect RG for their fresh approach to the inherent S6 problems. Their use of a roller type half time bearing with a high pressure oil feed supply for example is a superb yet simple piece of engineering. The use of simplex timing gear to save weight and therefore stress is great. The FFF head completes the whole package.
There is obviously a price to pay for this which while being a not unsubstantial amount of money is pretty reasonable considering the number of components changed or modified. One thing I will say about the Powers conversion. It is advertised at £9.5k. I would ask a few people who have paid for this conversion how much their final bill was and where was the extra money spent.

[Sagi Badger]

Simiplex chain fitted by me and yes there is a benefit but the down side will be the wear rate, teeth are working harder as there are not so many. Lets see how long it takes.

My engines are here for a good time not a long time. Do I want an FFF head, maybe but there are cheaper thrills to explore first on my next build.

J

[Walford]

[donutsina911]

Thanks for all the posts on here...

I will try and get to RG for a go in the demo car, but I think £12k + VAT will be beyond me if I also want to do the other bits and pieces on suspension, gearbox and cosmetics...

[spitfire4v8]

The 4.3 kits do very nicely for power Ive mapped a few and they're all over 400hp. The reliability thing about the FFF heads is blown out of proportion too .. how many engines have Power built and how many go wrong? Not many go wrong that's for sure. RG haven't built enough FF engines to get a reasonable sample in the marketplace have they?
I've not run a RG FFF car on my dyno but here's some hp figures for you to mull over. All are bestguesstimation flywheel numbers (2wheel drive version of what surrey rolling road have so directly comparable to their numbers)



RND 4.1 full monty 354hp

Std factory 4.0 Tuscan S 373hp

Rg FFF head 407hp (donkeyapple'scar at surrey RR)

Powers 4.3 built by Str8six 410hp

Rg FFF 411hp (jonrb's car at surrey RR)

Power's 4.3 built by Str8six in Sagaris 420hp

Edited by spitfire4v8 on Tuesday 2nd December 09:39

[leerdam23]

Actually, in reply to to op's original question, I think it is possible to do a rebuild in stages....

1 buy defunct unknown condition speed 6 from any reputable breaker or someone who has decided to go the LS route. £1 - 2k spent.

2 strip engine and get it evaluated. Another £500 hundred quid. Ask Powers or RG for a quote.

3 Start rebuild to your desired spec... £2 - 4k spent. Again get quote from Powers or RG.

4 install engine £500

5 keep original one as a spare or sell for £1 - 2k.

Simples!

[Walford]

leerdam23 said:

1 buy defunct unknown condition speed 6 from any reputable breaker or someone who has decided to go the LS route. £1 - 2k spent.

Sold a 4.0L S6 4 years ago on fleebay for 560 quid

(like the unknown condition bit)

[chris watton]

spitfire4v8 said:

The 4.3 kits do very nicely for power Ive mapped a few and they're all over 400hp. The reliability thing about the FFF heads is blown out of proportion too .. how many engines have Power built and how many go wrong? Not many go wrong that's for sure. RG haven't built enough FF engines to get a reasonable sample in the marketplace have they?
I've not run a RG FFF car on my dyno but here's some hp figures for you to mull over. All are bestguesstimation flywheel numbers (2wheel drive version of what surrey rolling road have so directly comparable to their numbers)



RND 4.1 full monty 354hp

Std factory 4.0 Tuscan S 373hp

Powers 4.3 built by Str8six 410hp

Rg FFF head hp ??

Thank you - You have confirmed what I thought, and have gleaned from reading the many threads relating to the engine rebuilds.

After being away from TVR from 2007-2013, things have changed on the S6 forums. Threads used to be about small mods, like a sports exhausts, SP alloys or Nitrons, but no more than that, generally.

Now, though, it seems S6 owners are spoilt for choice, but there seem to be various 'factions' that have emerged, with people in different 'camps', be it RG, Powers, LS V8's etc. The latter perhaps just want more bhp than anyone else (or have had one engine rebuild too often to trust the S6 ever again..), and the former just want good strong S6, with the added bonus of 50-60bhp more, thus bringing the power bang up to date, and probably would have been the same up in power if TVR were still making cars now. IMOHO, of course.

[m4tti]

spitfire4v8 said:

The 4.3 kits do very nicely for power Ive mapped a few and they're all over 400hp. The reliability thing about the FFF heads is blown out of proportion too .. how many engines have Power built and how many go wrong? Not many go wrong that's for sure. RG haven't built enough FF engines to get a reasonable sample in the marketplace have they?
I've not run a RG FFF car on my dyno but here's some hp figures for you to mull over. All are bestguesstimation flywheel numbers (2wheel drive version of what surrey rolling road have so directly comparable to their numbers)



RND 4.1 full monty 354hp

Std factory 4.0 Tuscan S 373hp

Powers 4.3 built by Str8six 410hp

Rg FFF head 443hp

[spitfire4v8]

m4tti said:

Don1's car seems to be the highest seen from an fff .. donkeyapple's fff / syvecs car made 407hp at surrey though and jonrb's car made 411hp on the same dyno

edit : dunno why it's not done the quote from your post m4tti

Apart from Don1's car I think the Power v RG outputs are very similar? Power have more engines going well out there though ? As I say, RG don't really have many engines out there do they ?

Edited by spitfire4v8 on Tuesday 2nd December 09:40

[chris watton]

m4tti said:

Rg FFF head 443hp

IIRC, didn't Don1 have a lot of other work done on the engine, over and above the FFF head - inlet/outlet mods etc.?

If yes, then if someone threw the same amount of money over and above a 4.3, wouldn't the results be similar?

[m4tti]

chris watton said:

IIRC, didn't Don1 have a lot of other work done on the engine, over and above the FFF head - inlet/outlet mods etc.?

If yes, then if someone threw the same amount of money over and above a 4.3, wouldn't the results be similar?

The 410 for the 4.3 refereed to above is with the ACT exhaust system. I believe that was Mr chips car . Dons was a FFF head with a ACT exhaust and carbon airbox. So no the results wouldn't be similar. Its something i looked into before going the other way.

is there a 4.3 running standard exhaust, catted and with standard air box, to compare to the RG demo car which does 420....

Edited by m4tti on Tuesday 2nd December 09:49