Discussion
irocfan said:
They did once - MG-C. The MGB GT V8 looked, performed (and sounded) better. Modern LS lump would be the way to go - huge range of power to suit whatever taste, low, narrowish, light
Err that is why I suggested it!Whilst an LS or another (non Rover) V8 might sound appealing the tech around a 2005-2014 year donor 3 litre BMW engine is low, so they can transplanted easier and around 230 BHP in a MGB GT - is 'enough'?
LS engines and the ancillaries will make this very expensive too?
Shezbo said:
irocfan said:
They did once - MG-C. The MGB GT V8 looked, performed (and sounded) better. Modern LS lump would be the way to go - huge range of power to suit whatever taste, low, narrowish, light
Err that is why I suggested it!Whilst an LS or another (non Rover) V8 might sound appealing the tech around a 2005-2014 year donor 3 litre BMW engine is low, so they can transplanted easier and around 230 BHP in a MGB GT - is 'enough'?
I’m guessing you guys know the V8 in the factory car was down rated power wise from other RV8 powered cars at the time simply because the drive train wasn’t up to it... iirc the dif was a MGC item which was a bit beefier than the B item and also gave the right ratio... probably off base with figures here but if you’re going much over 150hp with big torque you’ll need to look at a different drive train and back axle set up... I’d definitely be looking at ditching the rear cart springs.. have a look frontline engineering they’ve done some great things with the BGT, might get some ideas off their website...
Sorry, should have added brakes and suspension too... most of the bits on the B were designed in the ‘50’s
Sorry, should have added brakes and suspension too... most of the bits on the B were designed in the ‘50’s
Edited by baconsarney on Tuesday 2nd February 15:19
Edited by baconsarney on Tuesday 2nd February 15:20
The MGB is fundamentally a very good car and only takes a few tweaks to the suspension and breathing to make it pretty good. Nothing wrong with a Rover V8 that's had some basic tuning work to give a solid 170-180 bhp. I'd prefer a really well built 1900 B Series to any modern 16v stuff tbh. And sod the fuel economy. The Oselli one I drove a few years ago was really sweet to drive.
Touring442 said:
The MGB is fundamentally a very good car and only takes a few tweaks to the suspension and breathing to make it pretty good. Nothing wrong with a Rover V8 that's had some basic tuning work to give a solid 170-180 bhp. I'd prefer a really well built 1900 B Series to any modern 16v stuff tbh. And sod the fuel economy.
I’ve owned two BGT’s and a BGT V8, and still own a ‘72 roadster. All were modified to one degree or another except the V8. 170-180 Bhp is ok but too much torque will break the gearbox... it’s partly why many of the V8 conversions went with a Ford 5 speed box...baconsarney said:
I’m guessing you guys know the V8 in the factory car was down rated power wise from other RV8 powered cars at the time simply because the drive train wasn’t up to it...
I thought the lower power was purely as a result of the much more strangled vertical carb install at the rear of the intake manifold, so as to get enough clearance under the hood so as not to need a new bonnet pressing like the MGC....??
Greg the Fish said:
baconsarney said:
I had a factory MGB GT V8. If you’re saying that car was ‘utter s
te’ then you should hand your PH card in and feck off now
If you’re referring to the RV8 then you should know PH started life as a TVR enthusiasts forum.
The one I drove was horrible, when I eventually squeezed into it. The same mate had a normal (?) GT that wasn't good but didn't understeer like a lunatic. Maybe my only experience of one was a proper crap one? Enough to put me off them for life.te’ then you should hand your PH card in and feck off now If you’re referring to the RV8 then you should know PH started life as a TVR enthusiasts forum.
The RV8, never really understood that. (Same mate also had one, probably still does,) from new.
Tannedbaldhead said:
If you can fit a Mazda MX5 engine and gearbox in an MGB a la MGB LE50 and the Jaguar XF 3,0 V6 in the MX5 then an MGB GT V6 can be mine......
......can't I?
Im sure it could be done, but I'm guessing the Jag V6 is probably chunkier than an RV8. So I'm not sure the cost in converting would be worth it.......can't I?
A nice 4.0/4.6 RV8 can quite easily be made to give a reliable 230-250hp. The V6 isn't making anything extra and I'd argue wouldn't sound as good either.
I'm sure lots of engines have been fitted to B's over the years and in the USA certainly Chevy 350's and the like.
But if you are in the UK. I think you need a hugely good reason not to go RV8, unless you just have money to burn.
LS1 I think you'd struggle. Not the fitting, but the rest of the car isn't likely up to it. Axle, suspension type, even the shell is likely to twist. Of course it is possible, but it might just be cheaper to buy a TVR instead.
The BMW S6 has a bit of an appeal, but again why do this over an RV8?
Really the only V6 I think I'd contemplate swapping in would be a Rover KV6. These are very small and compact and lightweight. The aim here would be a car lighter with better weight distribution than an RV8. The KV6 is also a lovely little revvy engine. And it would be keeping in the 'house' if you know what I mean.
KV6 was only transverse though, so getting it longitudianlly mounted might require a bit of head scratching.
300bhp/ton said:
Tannedbaldhead said:
If you can fit a Mazda MX5 engine and gearbox in an MGB a la MGB LE50 and the Jaguar XF 3,0 V6 in the MX5 then an MGB GT V6 can be mine......
......can't I?
Im sure it could be done, but I'm guessing the Jag V6 is probably chunkier than an RV8. So I'm not sure the cost in converting would be worth it.......can't I?
The Jag V6 used in the X and S Type is just the Ford Duratec V6 with a few changes, notable VVT. All alloy and compact with a 60deg V angle, its the same engine as Noble used in the M400 (with a couple of hairdriers added)
aeropilot said:
I thought the lower power was purely as a result of the much more strangled vertical carb install at the rear of the intake manifold, so as to get enough clearance under the hood so as not to need a new bonnet pressing like the MGC....??
I think the MGB GT V8 used the low CR variant of the RV8 from the Range Rover. The axle/diff and gearbox were not really up to the task otherwise as a production car.Even with the low CR lump it was still 4-5 secs faster to 60mph than a regular B and quicker than cars that would appear later on such as a Golf GTI or XR3i.
However as an ex MGB owner. I feel the TR7 is a much better platform. Slightly bigger but minor weight difference. But a platform much more upto the task of handling a heck of a lot more power. The official TR7 V8's all used the high CR version of the RV8 and were a fair bit quicker (not so much the USA only TR8 which had to meet much stricter emissions standards with less hp than the UK versions). The TR7 was also quite a good rally car with upto 350bhp from an RV8.
aeropilot said:
I don't think it is.
The Jag V6 used in the X and S Type is just the Ford Duratec V6 with a few changes, notable VVT. All alloy and compact with a 60deg V angle, its the same engine as Noble used in the M400 (with a couple of hairdriers added)
I don't have sizes, but the RV8 is pretty light for a V8 even today. It isn't the narrowest, but its width is low. Most DOHC units are much more bulky as they need extra height and width for the heads and cam covers. And a longer front for the complex belt routing.The Jag V6 used in the X and S Type is just the Ford Duratec V6 with a few changes, notable VVT. All alloy and compact with a 60deg V angle, its the same engine as Noble used in the M400 (with a couple of hairdriers added)
I don't have any direct pics, but the RV8 is not hugely different in size to an LS1 and I think is actually a little lighter. The Rv8 os probably wider across the heads, as the rocker covers are flat, not at an angle.
This pic is an Ls1 and a Nissan DOHC V6. I suspect the Ford/Jag unit might be a bit smaller, but probably in the same size class as the Nissan engine.
OHV V8 engines are compact by their nature.
Edited by 300bhp/ton on Tuesday 2nd February 16:43
An LS, any capacity with T56 fits into a TR7, piece of cake and with space to spare. They have a huge engine bay and turbo space to. Yank rear axles say, Thunderbird come with an 8.8" lsd inside and fit also.
The car's met with crash test regs as well so you've got some protection if the worst happens. Mind you, the front bumpers a 5 stone battering ram so few issues there. The seats have side protection from the sills.
The car's met with crash test regs as well so you've got some protection if the worst happens. Mind you, the front bumpers a 5 stone battering ram so few issues there. The seats have side protection from the sills.
300bhp/ton said:
aeropilot said:
I thought the lower power was purely as a result of the much more strangled vertical carb install at the rear of the intake manifold, so as to get enough clearance under the hood so as not to need a new bonnet pressing like the MGC....??
I think the MGB GT V8 used the low CR variant of the RV8 from the Range Rover. The P6 engines were by that time down to 9.something by then, down from the 10.something of the P5b and early P6 engines.
Another reason the B V8 was down on power was (kinda referred to above) the engine bay in the B is quite narrow so the exhaust manifolds on the V8 had to turn sharply down to fit, a free flowing manifold would have had to be routed through the inner wings... I still have a set of MG RV8 manifolds that I bought for my factory V8 but I couldn’t bring myself to butcher the engine bay 
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff