Most pointless engine.
Discussion
We've had threads about good and bad engines, but not, as far as far as I can find pointless engines.
The one that occurs to me is the 3.0l V8 that was developed for the Triumph Stag. Pointless in that engines of a similar power were already available - inline 6 of 2.5l (Triumph)and 3.0l (Austin), 2.8 to 4.2l (Jaguar)and 2 V8s, 2.5l Daimler and 3.5l Rover.
The Stag engine was a failure, under developed and horribly unreliable for the first couple of years. Timing chain stretch, cooling marginal, and other problems.
It did nothing the Rover V8 couldn't do better, so pointless.
Any others?
The one that occurs to me is the 3.0l V8 that was developed for the Triumph Stag. Pointless in that engines of a similar power were already available - inline 6 of 2.5l (Triumph)and 3.0l (Austin), 2.8 to 4.2l (Jaguar)and 2 V8s, 2.5l Daimler and 3.5l Rover.
The Stag engine was a failure, under developed and horribly unreliable for the first couple of years. Timing chain stretch, cooling marginal, and other problems.
It did nothing the Rover V8 couldn't do better, so pointless.
Any others?
dbdb said:
That is the one saving grace of the Stag V8 - it really does sound marvellous.
Unfortunately it was also the killing grace, because it broke. I worked for a BL dealer when they came out. It looked, sounded and went great and grenaded the engine all too often. (plus a lot of poor build quality issues, the warranty costs were huge).If they had used the Rover V8 it would have been a huge success.
Dr Interceptor said:
It was more powerful than the Rover V8, 145hp from 3.0l capacity, versus 143hp from 3.5l in the Rover. Plus the Stag V8 produced a noise the Rover engine could only dream of.
Most of the reported problems weren't design flaws, but production issues associated with an unmotivated BL workforce. The engine in my Stag completed 78,000 miles and 40 years service before I took the plunge this spring and put it in for a rebuild. Did it need doing? Not really, I could have got away with some head work, but now it'll come back like new, well actually, better than new.
True, if the Stag engine had worked properly it would have been great. The problems with it were things that should have been engineered out, like the excessively long simplex cam chains built to too low a standard and misplaced temperature sensor. Too much rush to get it to market.Most of the reported problems weren't design flaws, but production issues associated with an unmotivated BL workforce. The engine in my Stag completed 78,000 miles and 40 years service before I took the plunge this spring and put it in for a rebuild. Did it need doing? Not really, I could have got away with some head work, but now it'll come back like new, well actually, better than new.
Looked after carefully, the later ones were better - I guess yours isn't an early one...
Raygun said:
eldar said:
Looked after carefully, the later ones were better - I guess yours isn't an early one...
Sorry but I have to take issue here!For my sins I am on my fourth stag, it makes no difference if it's early or later model, if it hasn't been looked after you run the risk of trouble (I found this out with the first one I bought which was a 76) but general maintenance and they are reliable. BL was buying in British Steel up to 1974 and then in their wisdom decided to import steel I do believe from Italy so the early cars did tend to fair better.
What is a pain now is the poor quality parts available!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff