5.0l 500BHP NA Rover V8 take 3

5.0l 500BHP NA Rover V8 take 3

Author
Discussion

rev-erend

20,644 posts

243 months

Tuesday 10th April 2018
quotequote all
Simple answer is yes.

M256 has inlet 48, Exhaust 43 Total 91

H404 I am unsure of but it probably falls between the

M248 has inlet 43, Exhaust 41 Total 84

and

M238 has inlet 34, Exhaust 37 Total 71

Datasource:
http://www.wolfitt.com/kentcamdata.htm

It would be interesting to have the cam values from TarmacV8 - with his roller cam.


Edited by rev-erend on Tuesday 10th April 14:07

TarmacRV8

49 posts

32 months

Wednesday 11th April 2018
quotequote all
I would have to dig up blueprint sheet, but rollercam is great. Its a billet item.
Fast ramp, less friction, etc
Id try 7 plugs. I run 7's on street, 8 on track

TarmacRV8

49 posts

32 months

Wednesday 11th April 2018
quotequote all
Our pump fuel is 98 octane , whats uk?

TarmacRV8

49 posts

32 months

Wednesday 11th April 2018
quotequote all
Cams not big, tq peak at 4200

rev-erend

20,644 posts

243 months

Wednesday 11th April 2018
quotequote all
UK is 98 octane too ..

I have also run NGK 7's but same result.

Wildcat or Roland at ACR recommends 6's.

Hopefully the miserable UK weather will give us a break this weekend for long enough to get the car outside for a bit of mapping.

TarmacRV8

49 posts

32 months

Wednesday 11th April 2018
quotequote all
Ok, but your prob on the right track about your wasted spark thoughts . Good luck

Boosted LS1

19,458 posts

219 months

Wednesday 11th April 2018
quotequote all
I found 7's to cold on a turbo engine. They used to foul up in daily use so I switched to NGK 6, projected nose plugs.

TarmacRV8

49 posts

32 months

Saturday 14th April 2018
quotequote all
Yes the plug number be what power/heat your making majority of engine time.

rev-erend

20,644 posts

243 months

Monday 16th April 2018
quotequote all
Seem to have solved my inlet spit back issues after a 2 hours mapping session at home on Sunday.

Seemed to be down to a combination of issues:

Base timing
Throttle body balance (bank to bank)
Ignition & fuel mapping
and remembering to turn off compensation when mapping..

We now progress to the next stage .. more mapping biggrin




TarmacRV8

49 posts

32 months

Wednesday 18th April 2018
quotequote all
Progresssmile
Im tossing up a new 2 hall dizzy on old ignition set up or new approach with latest haltech, 8 coils and crank trigger.

Then will give engine its head for final tune.

rev-erend

20,644 posts

243 months

Wednesday 18th April 2018
quotequote all
Tough choice.

The 2 hall dizzy will be much cheaper.

TarmacRV8

49 posts

32 months

Friday 20th April 2018
quotequote all
Yes i lean towards the simpler cheaper option.
I do wonder if going full sequential with individual cylinder management , exhaust lambda's, tuning on the run , e act crank truggering etc would make any significant difference with low rpm throttle response and burn efficiency anyway. Considering the jed has injectors a foot away from valves anyway. Its sorts itself out with velocity and just cant get that at low rpm

TarmacRV8

49 posts

32 months

Friday 20th April 2018
quotequote all


Rover 5.0 . TA heads. 10.5 comp, pump fuel, race / rally solid roller.

This is my engine bed in graph and check all safe to get some miles on it, semi slicks were spinning on rollers 11% so actual figure on day be around 300rwkw with road tyres. Injectors were at 97% duty at 5250.
lost traction where it falls over.
Sorting ignition and fuel system, look fed to returning to add timing and take to 7500rpm.

rev-erend

20,644 posts

243 months

Friday 20th April 2018
quotequote all
Impressive.

Those injectors are right on the edge.

I just fitted some flow matched 36lbs Bosch gen 3's from Five o motor sport in USA which are good for 520bhp at 90% duty (43.5 psi).

My CR is the same as yours at 10.5 to 1 but at some point I might up this to 11.0

AW111

5,998 posts

92 months

Friday 20th April 2018
quotequote all
TarmacRV8 said:


Rover 5.0 . TA heads. 10.5 comp, pump fuel, race / rally solid roller.

This is my engine bed in graph and check all safe to get some miles on it, semi slicks were spinning on rollers 11% so actual figure on day be around 300rwkw with road tyres. Injectors were at 97% duty at 5250.
lost traction where it falls over.
Sorting ignition and fuel system, look fed to returning to add timing and take to 7500rpm.
Unless I'm mistaken, my office is about 20 metres from where that photo was taken smile

TarmacRV8

49 posts

32 months

Saturday 21st April 2018
quotequote all
Hi aw, that would make it a small world then!smile where might you be? This photo was taken in the Wild West of Melbourne

AW111

5,998 posts

92 months

Sunday 22nd April 2018
quotequote all
TarmacRV8 said:
Hi aw, that would make it a small world then!smile where might you be? This photo was taken in the Wild West of Melbourne
Then that's not the dyno I thought it was.
I'm in Lilydale (outer East).

Transmitter Man

Original Poster:

4,200 posts

183 months

Sunday 22nd April 2018
quotequote all
TarmacRV8 said:


Rover 5.0 . TA heads. 10.5 comp, pump fuel, race / rally solid roller.

This is my engine bed in graph and check all safe to get some miles on it, semi slicks were spinning on rollers 11% so actual figure on day be around 300rwkw with road tyres. Injectors were at 97% duty at 5250.
lost traction where it falls over.
Sorting ignition and fuel system, look fed to returning to add timing and take to 7500rpm.
Tarmac,

Find yourself a hub dyno next time :-)

Nice figures nevertheless.

Phil
420 SEAC

mk1fan

9,885 posts

184 months

Tuesday 24th April 2018
quotequote all
Speaking in a very general way.

If the performance increase given by these heads is as advertised, then it does seem to be good value when compared to the cost of an engine swap - to LS for example.

A lump of money in itself though smile

TarmacRV8

49 posts

32 months

Wednesday 25th April 2018
quotequote all
I would have loved to put the engine on builders superflow engine dyno, but as Hes never done a rover before he didn't have access to a bellhousing drive etc to rig it up.
So went to his recommended tuner and chassis dyno. A hub would be nice.
I'll put on road tyres, soften up rebound on shocks and add some sandbags next time.
I never considered a ls for many good reasons.
1.The car becomes a hotrod, looses its soul and value.
2. You rule yourself out of many competitive events and classes.
3.The MGB series chassis is near on 50/50 weight distribution from factory.
4. The rover sounds better hands down.
In oz here I'm always at car shows or club comp events and amazed at the amount of ls and Holden/ford/chev owners that come up to ask me 'what the hell is in that'!
5. Power to weight, these dinky English cars aren't American iron with loungechairs.
6. A high winding 3.5-5 litre will move a well balanced car with less chance of traction loss than a nose heavy 5.7-7 litre car with heavy gearbox/clutch/ diff upgrades to handle the excessive torque for chassis.
7. Its more satisfying and unique.
8. To get reliable and substantial increase in power from an ls beyond factory internals, it involves the same work I have carried out on rover anyhow.

Yes the ls is better with the advantage of 50 yrs of knowledge, will give heaps more hp, torque, fuel efficiency and longevity any day over an equivalent rover. But i didn't want to put a Honda or Briggs and Stratton in my ride on mower smile