RE: The Rover V8 will burble again
Discussion
apache said:
The rv8 was not from a german company but a scandinavian company
THE RV8 was originally a BMW design and used in their 507 sports car of the 1950's, when BMW stopped using it, Buick copied it and this evolved into the RV8 as we know it today
I posted something about this ages ago, with a link, buggered if I can find it now though
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=13&t=125666
Its a load of tosh. A wifes tale. BMW had nothing to do with the RV8. Lord knows why someone invented this silly lie - but thats all it is, a lie. BMW could never make a truely great engine.
And what must be remembered is that the RV8 had quite a lot of work done to it by Rover after they bought it from Buick. It had a new (and better) Rover patented sand casting method and a lot of work was then done to the design of it too.
We live in a country obsessed by BMWs. We'll have a post claiming that BMW invented the wheel soon..
>> Edited by red_rover on Monday 27th February 00:58
And what must be remembered is that the RV8 had quite a lot of work done to it by Rover after they bought it from Buick. It had a new (and better) Rover patented sand casting method and a lot of work was then done to the design of it too.
We live in a country obsessed by BMWs. We'll have a post claiming that BMW invented the wheel soon..
>> Edited by red_rover on Monday 27th February 00:58
Quote from austin-rover on the origin of the RV8.
During the late Fifties, the US car industry turned to aluminium as a material to build their engines from. The reasons for this have been well documented, but primarily it was the quest for lighter weight and greater efficiency that led the producers to choose this route. One such manufacturer who embraced aluminium with both arms, and so developed a compact V8 for their Buick range of cars. The engine displaced 3528cc and because of its compact size and low weight, proved very easy to package. Of course, the late Fifties were not a time for the Americans to be countering profligacy, and this resulted in these benefits largely being overlooked by GM, and that fact made them susceptible to persuasion.[i]
During the late Fifties, the US car industry turned to aluminium as a material to build their engines from. The reasons for this have been well documented, but primarily it was the quest for lighter weight and greater efficiency that led the producers to choose this route. One such manufacturer who embraced aluminium with both arms, and so developed a compact V8 for their Buick range of cars. The engine displaced 3528cc and because of its compact size and low weight, proved very easy to package. Of course, the late Fifties were not a time for the Americans to be countering profligacy, and this resulted in these benefits largely being overlooked by GM, and that fact made them susceptible to persuasion.[i]
So the "Rover V8" is rumoured to have been sold from BMW to Buick.
Also, to someone, an earlier BMW V8 in cutaway looked "familiar" to it.
That's very interesting, but I'll be convinced when I see something more substantial than rumour and conjecture.
As much as we hate to admit that the venerable "Rover" lump is not British at least we don't have to admit it's sauerkraut just yet. Unless anyone can come up with some real indisputable evidence?
Also, to someone, an earlier BMW V8 in cutaway looked "familiar" to it.
That's very interesting, but I'll be convinced when I see something more substantial than rumour and conjecture.
As much as we hate to admit that the venerable "Rover" lump is not British at least we don't have to admit it's sauerkraut just yet. Unless anyone can come up with some real indisputable evidence?
Here is an abbreviated history of the BOP V-8:
GM experimented with aluminum engines starting in the early 1950s, and work on a production unit commenced in 1956. Originally intended for 180 in³ (2.9 L) displacement, Buick was designated by GM as the engine design leader, and decided to begin with a larger, 215 in³ (3.5 L) size, which was deemed ideal for the new "senior compact cars" introduced for the 1961 model year. This group of cars was commonly called the BOP group or A-bodies.
The 215 had a 4.24 in (107.7 mm) bore spacing, a bore of 3.5 in (88.9 mm), and a stroke of 2.8 in (71.1 mm), for an actual displacement of 3533 cc. The engine was the lightest mass-production V8 in the world, with a dry weight of only 318 lb (144 kg). It was standard equipment in the 1961 Buick Special.
Oldsmobile and Pontiac also used the all-aluminum 215 on its mid-sized cars, the Oldsmobile F-85 and Pontiac Tempest. However the Oldsmobile version of this engine, although sharing the same basic architecture, had cylinder heads designed by Oldsmobile engineers, and was produced on a separate assembly line. Among the differences between the Oldsmobile and Buick versions, it was somewhat heavier, at 350 lb (159 kg). The design differences were in the cylinder heads: Buick used a 5-bolt pattern around each cylinder where Oldsmobile went to a 6-bolt pattern. This was supposed to alleviate the head-warping problems that came about on the higher compression ratio versions.
At introduction, Buick's 215 was rated 150 hp (112 kW) at 4400 rpm. This was raised soon after introduction to 155 hp (116 kW) at 4600 rpm. 220 ft·lbf (298 N·m) of torque was produced at 2400 rpm with a Rochester 2GC two-barrel carburetor and 8.8:1 compression ratio. A mid-year introduction was the Buick Special Skylark version, which had 10.25:1 compression and a four-barrel carburetor, raising output to 185 hp (138 kW) at 4800 rpm and 230 ft·lbf (312 N·m) at 2800 rpm.
For 1962, the four-barrel engine increased compression ratio to 11.0:1, raising it to 190 hp (142 kW) at 4800 rpm and 235 ft·lbf (319 N·m) at 3000 rpm. The two-barrel engine was unchanged. For 1963 the four-barrel was bumped to an even 200 hp (149 kW) at 5000 rpm and 240 ft·lbf (325 N·m) at 3200 rpm, a respectable 0.93 hp/in³ (56.6 hp/liter).
Unfortunately, the great expense of the aluminum engine led to its cancellation after the 1963 model year. The engine had an abnormally high scrap ratio due to hidden block-casting porosity problems, which caused serious oil leaks. Another problem was clogged radiators from antifreeze mixtures incompatible with aluminum. It was said that one of the major problems was because they had to make extensive use of air gaging to check for casting leaks during the manufacturing process, and not being able to detect leaks on blocks that were as much as 95% complete. This raised the cost of complete engines to more than that of a comparable all cast-iron engine. Casting sealing technology was not advanced enough at that time to prevent the high scrap rates.
Although dropped by GM in 1963, in January 1965 the tooling for the aluminum engine was sold to Britain's Rover Group to become the Rover V8 engine, which would remain in use for more than 35 years. GM tried to buy it back later on, but Rover declined, instead offering to sell engines back to GM. GM refused this offer.
[edit]
300
In 1964 Buick replaced the 215 with an iron-block engine of very similar architecture. The new engine had a bore of 3.75 in (95.5 mm) and a stroke of 3.40 in (86.4 mm) for a displacement of 300.4 cu. in. (4.9 L). It retained the cylinder heads, intake manifold, and accessories of the 215 for a dry weight of 405 lb (184 kg). The 300 was offered in two-barrel form, with 9.0:1 compression, making 210 hp @ 4600 rpm and 310 lb-ft @ 2400 rpm, and four-barrel form, with 11.0:1 compression, making 250 hp @ 4800 rpm and 335 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm.
For 1965 the 300 switched to a cast-iron heads, raising dry weight to 467 lb (212 kg), still quite light for a V8 engine of its era. The four-barrel option was cancelled for 1966, and the 300 was replaced entirely by the 340 in 1968.
The engine was never used in the Pontiac.
Hot Rodders built 305 inch versions using the 300's crank and alloy heads which were improved over the 215 inch version.
Bob
>> Edited by Bob Riebe on Monday 27th February 06:08
GM experimented with aluminum engines starting in the early 1950s, and work on a production unit commenced in 1956. Originally intended for 180 in³ (2.9 L) displacement, Buick was designated by GM as the engine design leader, and decided to begin with a larger, 215 in³ (3.5 L) size, which was deemed ideal for the new "senior compact cars" introduced for the 1961 model year. This group of cars was commonly called the BOP group or A-bodies.
The 215 had a 4.24 in (107.7 mm) bore spacing, a bore of 3.5 in (88.9 mm), and a stroke of 2.8 in (71.1 mm), for an actual displacement of 3533 cc. The engine was the lightest mass-production V8 in the world, with a dry weight of only 318 lb (144 kg). It was standard equipment in the 1961 Buick Special.
Oldsmobile and Pontiac also used the all-aluminum 215 on its mid-sized cars, the Oldsmobile F-85 and Pontiac Tempest. However the Oldsmobile version of this engine, although sharing the same basic architecture, had cylinder heads designed by Oldsmobile engineers, and was produced on a separate assembly line. Among the differences between the Oldsmobile and Buick versions, it was somewhat heavier, at 350 lb (159 kg). The design differences were in the cylinder heads: Buick used a 5-bolt pattern around each cylinder where Oldsmobile went to a 6-bolt pattern. This was supposed to alleviate the head-warping problems that came about on the higher compression ratio versions.
At introduction, Buick's 215 was rated 150 hp (112 kW) at 4400 rpm. This was raised soon after introduction to 155 hp (116 kW) at 4600 rpm. 220 ft·lbf (298 N·m) of torque was produced at 2400 rpm with a Rochester 2GC two-barrel carburetor and 8.8:1 compression ratio. A mid-year introduction was the Buick Special Skylark version, which had 10.25:1 compression and a four-barrel carburetor, raising output to 185 hp (138 kW) at 4800 rpm and 230 ft·lbf (312 N·m) at 2800 rpm.
For 1962, the four-barrel engine increased compression ratio to 11.0:1, raising it to 190 hp (142 kW) at 4800 rpm and 235 ft·lbf (319 N·m) at 3000 rpm. The two-barrel engine was unchanged. For 1963 the four-barrel was bumped to an even 200 hp (149 kW) at 5000 rpm and 240 ft·lbf (325 N·m) at 3200 rpm, a respectable 0.93 hp/in³ (56.6 hp/liter).
Unfortunately, the great expense of the aluminum engine led to its cancellation after the 1963 model year. The engine had an abnormally high scrap ratio due to hidden block-casting porosity problems, which caused serious oil leaks. Another problem was clogged radiators from antifreeze mixtures incompatible with aluminum. It was said that one of the major problems was because they had to make extensive use of air gaging to check for casting leaks during the manufacturing process, and not being able to detect leaks on blocks that were as much as 95% complete. This raised the cost of complete engines to more than that of a comparable all cast-iron engine. Casting sealing technology was not advanced enough at that time to prevent the high scrap rates.
Although dropped by GM in 1963, in January 1965 the tooling for the aluminum engine was sold to Britain's Rover Group to become the Rover V8 engine, which would remain in use for more than 35 years. GM tried to buy it back later on, but Rover declined, instead offering to sell engines back to GM. GM refused this offer.
[edit]
300
In 1964 Buick replaced the 215 with an iron-block engine of very similar architecture. The new engine had a bore of 3.75 in (95.5 mm) and a stroke of 3.40 in (86.4 mm) for a displacement of 300.4 cu. in. (4.9 L). It retained the cylinder heads, intake manifold, and accessories of the 215 for a dry weight of 405 lb (184 kg). The 300 was offered in two-barrel form, with 9.0:1 compression, making 210 hp @ 4600 rpm and 310 lb-ft @ 2400 rpm, and four-barrel form, with 11.0:1 compression, making 250 hp @ 4800 rpm and 335 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm.
For 1965 the 300 switched to a cast-iron heads, raising dry weight to 467 lb (212 kg), still quite light for a V8 engine of its era. The four-barrel option was cancelled for 1966, and the 300 was replaced entirely by the 340 in 1968.
The engine was never used in the Pontiac.
Hot Rodders built 305 inch versions using the 300's crank and alloy heads which were improved over the 215 inch version.
Bob
>> Edited by Bob Riebe on Monday 27th February 06:08
Hello 
As a rank newcomer I must say this is a fantastic site. However,while not wishing to get off on the wrong foot, I must agree with "tom7" who wrote "Considering this is a (TVR) enthusiasts forum, there is an awful lack of knowledge and propogation of urban myths etc. by a lot of posters, luckily there are some who appear to know a bit to redeem the situation." I am a Morgan owner/driver/racer of over 40 years and would gently point out that Morgan were the first non-Rover manufacturer to be granted rights to use the V8 engine. I spent 21 years developing the V8, mainly, but not exclusively,for Morgans, and drove a 4.2 twin-plenum Vitesse as my road car. We even prepared a couple of TVR's, but I cannot say I was very impressed, but then I drove a 289 Ford engined "real" Griffith way back when, now that WAS a lethal piece of kit!
Lest you think this is b/s I quote from Tony Dron, "Classic Cars" mag "The performance of the ******** Morgan calls for purple prose; it just thunders down the straights like a rocket, leaving racing AC Cobras in its wake, as ***** was to prove in the last race of the day." Lots more if you want to be bored witless!
As a rank newcomer I must say this is a fantastic site. However,while not wishing to get off on the wrong foot, I must agree with "tom7" who wrote "Considering this is a (TVR) enthusiasts forum, there is an awful lack of knowledge and propogation of urban myths etc. by a lot of posters, luckily there are some who appear to know a bit to redeem the situation." I am a Morgan owner/driver/racer of over 40 years and would gently point out that Morgan were the first non-Rover manufacturer to be granted rights to use the V8 engine. I spent 21 years developing the V8, mainly, but not exclusively,for Morgans, and drove a 4.2 twin-plenum Vitesse as my road car. We even prepared a couple of TVR's, but I cannot say I was very impressed, but then I drove a 289 Ford engined "real" Griffith way back when, now that WAS a lethal piece of kit!
Lest you think this is b/s I quote from Tony Dron, "Classic Cars" mag "The performance of the ******** Morgan calls for purple prose; it just thunders down the straights like a rocket, leaving racing AC Cobras in its wake, as ***** was to prove in the last race of the day." Lots more if you want to be bored witless!
Tee Hee!!
Well said red_rover! I have conclusive proof that the design dates back to the still-born "upside down" air-cooled V8 Sopwith Camel which the Hon Bertie (RFC dec'd) crashed behind enemy lines in 1916. The design was nicked by Fokker who flogged it to Heinkel. They resurrected it in the Isetta bubble car, but the remains of the first test drive (or the driver, come to that) were never found. GM aquired it in dubious circumstances, and the rest, as they say, is history. LoL!
Well said red_rover! I have conclusive proof that the design dates back to the still-born "upside down" air-cooled V8 Sopwith Camel which the Hon Bertie (RFC dec'd) crashed behind enemy lines in 1916. The design was nicked by Fokker who flogged it to Heinkel. They resurrected it in the Isetta bubble car, but the remains of the first test drive (or the driver, come to that) were never found. GM aquired it in dubious circumstances, and the rest, as they say, is history. LoL!
You know....I dont own Marcos or the like, I do own the Rover sedans. I think that the marvel of the V8 is wonderful and has been a great find for many auto manufactors that have used it in there cars. Kinda says alot about Rover, dont you think? Most other manufacturies would never thing of letting there motor in any other car unless it had there name....
Cheers
David
Fuquay Varina, NC
Cheers
David
Fuquay Varina, NC
cool4n2 said:
You know....I dont own Marcos or the like, I do own the Rover sedans. I think that the marvel of the V8 is wonderful and has been a great find for many auto manufactors that have used it in there cars. Kinda says alot about Rover, dont you think? Most other manufacturies would never thing of letting there motor in any other car unless it had there name....
Cheers
David
Fuquay Varina, NC
Errrrrr not really.
BMW MINI has a donor engine and that sells bucket loads. The Ford cologne engine used to be used in lots of kit cars as did the pinto and beetle flat4. In europe GM (as Vauxhall/Opel) used a BMW diesel in its flagship saloon (sedan) and the Toyata Yaris engine appears in Daihatsus (not sure if there are any familial ties there).
And thats just thinking about it for a few moments.
Boosted Ls1 said:As Audi pride themselves on have a reputation of achieving astronomical milages, have they done something special to make it reliable then?
One of the reasons for the audi being so short is that it's rod bearings are very narrow, quite amazing as you need bearing width for high loads. I think they are the narrowest bearings for the loads being imposed on them, sort of a world record.
Boosted.
wedg1e said:
I think the piece means it rolled out of the factory with displacements up to 4.6 litres. Others then bored it out further "aftermarket".
Is anyone still fitting this to new cars? I guess Defender V8s?
I doubt it since the casting plant is being (or has already been) bulldozed...
i saw rover blocks being cast at a foundry in walsall about 3months ago....
Red Rover,
Were you (like Jeremy Clarkson) frightened by a BMW salesman as a baby?
Rover did not design the V8, they did a very good re engineering job however and kept the engine going for years.
As for BMW never designing a decent engine, let me point out the following.
1500cc 4 Cylinder in production from the 1960's, went formula one racing in the 80's and gave 1500BHP in qualifying trim (road car block)
Various M3 Engines.
Maclaren F1 V12?
The best road car 6 Cylinder Deisels known to man (take your pick, too many to mention).
Magnesium Alloy 265BHP 3.0 liter in the new 130i & Z4 3.0i(facelift)
Reasonable engines surely?
Rover "K "Series, "O" Series, "M" Series & "T" Series engines (remember those?). Burned Valves & Blown Head Gaskets. All models.
I was once involved in a fleet deal for 50 420SLi Rovers in 1993. 48 of them blew their valves or head gaskets within 50k miles. That fleet went German shortly afterward. Come to think of it, so did I...
So is it Red Rover or Red Robbo???
No one talks about the MGR V8? Brilliant fun, if crude. Great drift car.
Were you (like Jeremy Clarkson) frightened by a BMW salesman as a baby?
Rover did not design the V8, they did a very good re engineering job however and kept the engine going for years.
As for BMW never designing a decent engine, let me point out the following.
1500cc 4 Cylinder in production from the 1960's, went formula one racing in the 80's and gave 1500BHP in qualifying trim (road car block)
Various M3 Engines.
Maclaren F1 V12?
The best road car 6 Cylinder Deisels known to man (take your pick, too many to mention).
Magnesium Alloy 265BHP 3.0 liter in the new 130i & Z4 3.0i(facelift)
Reasonable engines surely?
Rover "K "Series, "O" Series, "M" Series & "T" Series engines (remember those?). Burned Valves & Blown Head Gaskets. All models.
I was once involved in a fleet deal for 50 420SLi Rovers in 1993. 48 of them blew their valves or head gaskets within 50k miles. That fleet went German shortly afterward. Come to think of it, so did I...
So is it Red Rover or Red Robbo???
No one talks about the MGR V8? Brilliant fun, if crude. Great drift car.
Mark M said:
Red Rover,
Were you (like Jeremy Clarkson) frightened by a BMW salesman as a baby?
Rover did not design the V8, they did a very good re engineering job however and kept the engine going for years.
As for BMW never designing a decent engine, let me point out the following.
1500cc 4 Cylinder in production from the 1960's, went formula one racing in the 80's and gave 1500BHP in qualifying trim (road car block)
Various M3 Engines.
Maclaren F1 V12?
The best road car 6 Cylinder Deisels known to man (take your pick, too many to mention).
Magnesium Alloy 265BHP 3.0 liter in the new 130i & Z4 3.0i(facelift)
Reasonable engines surely?
Rover "K "Series, "O" Series, "M" Series & "T" Series engines (remember those?). Burned Valves & Blown Head Gaskets. All models.
I was once involved in a fleet deal for 50 420SLi Rovers in 1993. 48 of them blew their valves or head gaskets within 50k miles. That fleet went German shortly afterward. Come to think of it, so did I...
So is it Red Rover or Red Robbo???
No one talks about the MGR V8? Brilliant fun, if crude. Great drift car.
Snigger. I was never frightened by BMW salesman. I just never believed the lies or the over rated trash that was bought into Britain for the Yuppies back in the mid 80's.Lets go back in time, when Rover built the wondeful Straight sixes that are renowned for being more refined than most modern Straight 6s today. These straight sixes were available on the P4, and came with over 100mph capabilities back in the early 50's. The O, M and T are all related - just small budget make overs - which goes to show how impressive the technological capabilties of the cash strapped Austin-Rover, Rover group et cetra. But thats not strictly Rover. Lets also remember, Rover built the first naturally aspirated 2.0 that could pass the 100mph limit - back in 1964. It built Jet powered turbine engines, built engines for race cars that won le mans et cetra.
And I don't believe your crummy remark on 420's - how and why should I believe you?
Your very original - saying 'buy german'. Its what you get from middle aged women and I.T personnel that usually say stuff like that.
BMW made Nazi fighter plane engines - but the crappier ones, Benz made the decent ones. Rover were building the Merlin engine - which powered tanks right up untill 1992.
And as we're onto the K-series, the big K-series trouble happened when BMW took over - and cheapened the parts used in the engine - such as plastic gaskets et cetra. BMW also rushed out the KV6 in the 800 - not letting Rover develop it, because they didn't want to pay Honda royalties. Says alot about BMW imo.
Also another point - what is BMWs budget? How much time and resources do BMW have? Did you know when Rover went into administration, the new G-series (commain rail diesel of the L-series) was nearing production. It in 2.0 form, had capabilities of over 200bhp. As standard, 130bhp was easily attainable - it was going to replace the BMW diesel (M47) unit that suffers from turbo failure and other assorted problems. Also on the day MG Rover went into administration, Power Train were in USA showing off their new camless engine - which has had NO media coverage at all - even though its another engine that is very close to being productionised. Thats proper engineering - small budget and small resources. If BMW were ever put on a tight budget, they'd be flogging bubble cars again.
>> Edited by red_rover on Saturday 4th March 00:02
>> Edited by red_rover on Saturday 4th March 00:28
leorest said:
One of the reasons for the audi being so short is that it's rod bearings are very narrow, quite amazing as you need bearing width for high loads. I think they are the narrowest bearings for the loads being imposed on them, sort of a world record.
Boosted.
I don't know but I was at Bentley a while back and they have these parts on display. The bearings are very narrow so I guess Audi must know the exact loadings they are expected to sustain.
Boosted.
ferg said:
I'd also read that the Metro 6R4's engine was Rover V8 based. Obviously, I did not think that they had any parts in common, but...
old64er said:
The original test mule metro with a chopped RV8 never saw the light of day.
The V64V engine was not related to the RV8 in any way, shape or form.
...not even cylinder block height or bore center spacing? Those are the only things I figured that the two engines might have in common. Just wondering...
David Wood, who designed the V64V had built a lot of BD engines and DFVs and wanted to use stuff that was proven. Cosworth supplied Valves, springs and guides as well as pistons from the DFV. The heads were also Cosworth castings based on the Mercedes 190 design.
SO...
In conclusion: NOT Rover V8, similar to Cosworth GA, but with DFV topend stuff!!!
The original 6R4 engine was the V62V engine, which was literally a Rover V8 with 2 cylinders chopped off and a plate welded in place befor final machining. It had 2 valves per cylinder operated by pushrods off a single camshaft etc. If you want one here’s one for sale:
www.6r4.com/product_info.php?pName=v62v-30l-development-6r4-engine&cName=engines
This engine powered the 6R4 during '83 for chassis development and on into '84, competing on events which it was never intended to do and scoring the cars first victory. It was replaced by the bespoke V64V for the '85 season.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff