Best smoker barges 1-5 large [vol8]
Discussion
Krikkit said:
dme123 said:
The Mercedes specific power outputs were a bit low at the time. The Jaguar AJ-V8 from 1996 managed 280BHP from 4 litres - 70bhp/litre, and various BMW V8 engines were managing the same from the mid 90s onwards. I was always mystified that MG Rover spent so much money on the development and then hobbled it with such a crap engine.
Because the engine cost nothing and was compact enough to easily fit into the bay with minimal modification.
t because of budgetary, packaging and resource limitations, not wasted the money on such an obvious folly. I drove one not long after they came out because the idea sounded so great, and while it had a certain agricultural charm it really wasn't very good. The charm might be enough now they are a couple of grand but for the original asking price it was madness.The 2.3 5 pot in my elderly Volvo manages more or less the same power output with half the displacement and 50% better economy, and that's hardly cutting edge technology. Perhaps supercharging the KV6 and sticking with FWD would have been less glamorous sounding than a RWD V8 but it probably would have made a far more worthwhile (and marketable) car.
E65Ross said:
I'm not saying the rover is similar to the Ferrari. You say 20% is very similar.... Yet that's not far of the difference between the Merc and the Ferrari.
I'm sorry but 20% is quite significant! In statistics, 5% or greater is the widely accepted figure. With 20% you would easily be able to tell a difference (eg if a car had 20% more power) and thus it's not exactly similar.
In any case, I don't see the Mercedes engine being that much better than the Rover's V8. Which is why I bought a 55 AMG because despite the bhp/litre, there was more bhps altogether. I'm sorry but 20% is quite significant! In statistics, 5% or greater is the widely accepted figure. With 20% you would easily be able to tell a difference (eg if a car had 20% more power) and thus it's not exactly similar.
Agent Orange said:
Something tells me that would need some major bravery to take a plunge on 
Chicane-UK said:
Agent Orange said:
Something tells me that would need some major bravery to take a plunge on olly22n said:
This looks tidy - http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&alt=...
For me, the E32 is the best looking 7 Series by a country mile. I'd go as far as to say it is one of the best looking BMWs. Edited by olly22n on Wednesday 4th March 21:45
BGarside said:
American engine. Also I think those wheels are the originals. Wonder if the LPG works properly?
Ford Modular V8 - it can't be a bad engine if Koenigsegg also used before developing its own V8.I have the 2-valve version (vs. the 4-valve of that Rover) which produces 235 hp, or 51 hp/per liter.
It is tuned for low-down torque which is enough for everyday motoring - I wanted the V8 for its sound in the first place. And this engine is supposed to be very durable as well... so far I'm pretty pleased with the laid-back 'old-schoolness' of the package!
dbdb said:
olly22n said:
This looks tidy - http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&alt=...
For me, the E32 is the best looking 7 Series by a country mile. I'd go as far as to say it is one of the best looking BMWs. Edited by olly22n on Wednesday 4th March 21:45
optimal909 said:
Ford Modular V8 - it can't be a bad engine if Koenigsegg also used before developing its own V8.
I have the 2-valve version (vs. the 4-valve of that Rover) which produces 235 hp, or 51 hp/per liter.
It is tuned for low-down torque which is enough for everyday motoring - I wanted the V8 for its sound in the first place. And this engine is supposed to be very durable as well... so far I'm pretty pleased with the laid-back 'old-schoolness' of the package!
With the low-tuned engines and people saying they have more "low down torque".... I'm not so sure to be honest.I have the 2-valve version (vs. the 4-valve of that Rover) which produces 235 hp, or 51 hp/per liter.
It is tuned for low-down torque which is enough for everyday motoring - I wanted the V8 for its sound in the first place. And this engine is supposed to be very durable as well... so far I'm pretty pleased with the laid-back 'old-schoolness' of the package!
Judging by its torque figure of 300lbft I'm pretty confident to say it isn't a very high revving engine but 300lbft from a 4.6 is also far from special. BMW's early M62 4.4 (before the technical update) made a bit more torque and a bit more power from a slightly smaller capacity. And I'm not so sure the shape of the torque curve is any better on the rover either.
E65Ross said:
With the low-tuned engines and people saying they have more "low down torque".... I'm not so sure to be honest.
Judging by its torque figure of 300lbft I'm pretty confident to say it isn't a very high revving engine but 300lbft from a 4.6 is also far from special. BMW's early M62 4.4 (before the technical update) made a bit more torque and a bit more power from a slightly smaller capacity. And I'm not so sure the shape of the torque curve is any better on the rover either.
Probably it is not the torque figure, but the timing that is tuned to deliver at low revs hence the low specific output in terms of horsepower. But to be frank, it is pure speculation as I haven't seen any torque curve, all I know is that in town I rarely see revs above 2000 (which is probably true for all reasonably large V8s).Judging by its torque figure of 300lbft I'm pretty confident to say it isn't a very high revving engine but 300lbft from a 4.6 is also far from special. BMW's early M62 4.4 (before the technical update) made a bit more torque and a bit more power from a slightly smaller capacity. And I'm not so sure the shape of the torque curve is any better on the rover either.
Chicane-UK said:
Agent Orange said:
Something tells me that would need some major bravery to take a plunge on BigBen said:
Chicane-UK said:
Agent Orange said:
Something tells me that would need some major bravery to take a plunge on optimal909 said:
Probably it is not the torque figure, but the timing that is tuned to deliver at low revs hence the low specific output in terms of horsepower. But to be frank, it is pure speculation as I haven't seen any torque curve, all I know is that in town I rarely see revs above 2000 (which is probably true for all reasonably large V8s).
You are not using the V8 correctly then, the only way to enjoy the sound is to give them a bit of a rev. optimal909 said:
Probably it is not the torque figure, but the timing that is tuned to deliver at low revs hence the low specific output in terms of horsepower. But to be frank, it is pure speculation as I haven't seen any torque curve, all I know is that in town I rarely see revs above 2000 (which is probably true for all reasonably large V8s).
If you account for gearing I can't see there being any difference in it. "low down" for an engine that revs to just 5k rpm isn't the same for one which recs to 8k,for example, in my opinion (eg 1500rpm would be the same work rate as the other doing 2400rpm) E65Ross said:
If you account for gearing I can't see there being any difference in it. "low down" for an engine that revs to just 5k rpm isn't the same for one which recs to 8k,for example, in my opinion (eg 1500rpm would be the same work rate as the other doing 2400rpm)
That is true and I have only 3 gears + an overdrive. It is what it is, and I love it.
I give it a burst occasionally (and it is fairly brisk), but if I wanted to have something for hooligan driving, I haven't bought a 2-ton body-on-frame cruiser.
Output Flange said:
dbdb said:
olly22n said:
This looks tidy - http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&alt=...
For me, the E32 is the best looking 7 Series by a country mile. I'd go as far as to say it is one of the best looking BMWs. Edited by olly22n on Wednesday 4th March 21:45
There have been a few nice E32's available over the last few years but there have also been some very rotten ones. In tracking down the rhd E32 and E38 Alpina's I discovered that none of the E32 cars are MoT'd and taxed.
I did discover the ex-Shah of Malaysia London car which was a very rare rhd lwb Highline E32 in Calypso red with extended ivory and ameythyst leather, fridge, loud-hailer, external cameras and microphones, flag-holder, VHS player and Monitor, phone, full rear air con, and not blinds but OEM electric curtains all round.
It was gorgeous and when my Alpina hunt nearly dried up I had arranged to see it with a view to buy but then the lwb B12 appeared on my radar.
BigBen said:
derin100 said:
No....I'm sure they were £90K at least to actually get then because there was such a waiting list.
I had a neighbour in Glasgow just before we moved to Shropshire when they first came out. He wanted an SL55 and had £125K (IIRC) ready to pay for one...but such was the waiting list he couldn't have one. He was only considered for the SL55 if he agreed to take an SL500 first which should have been £90K but he had to agree to take that first for over £100K just to be in line for an SL55.
To actually get an SL55 was well, well over £100K.
In fact, I remember that SL500 definitely cost my neighbour £90K because he asked me to drive him to Glasgow Airport one day in and bring it back to his house. It was only a couple of junctions up the M8 but I remember being absolutely st-scared driving it. I'd never driven anything so valuable. Still haven't actually......
£89k list for the SL55. So not only paying £90k for a car but paying £90k for a £70k car! I would do neither and will continue to grin smugly every time I drive my 15k SL55 I had a neighbour in Glasgow just before we moved to Shropshire when they first came out. He wanted an SL55 and had £125K (IIRC) ready to pay for one...but such was the waiting list he couldn't have one. He was only considered for the SL55 if he agreed to take an SL500 first which should have been £90K but he had to agree to take that first for over £100K just to be in line for an SL55.
To actually get an SL55 was well, well over £100K.
In fact, I remember that SL500 definitely cost my neighbour £90K because he asked me to drive him to Glasgow Airport one day in and bring it back to his house. It was only a couple of junctions up the M8 but I remember being absolutely s
t-scared driving it. I'd never driven anything so valuable. Still haven't actually......Edited by derin100 on Tuesday 3rd March 19:53
Ben
With extras £90k doesn't seem unreasonable.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff