RE: Westfield SEIGHT | Spotted
Discussion
CrutyRammers said:
GroundEffect said:
My mate has one with the 4.0 V8 from a Chimaera in it. It doesn't need tuning - honestly. Over a lap it's a little skittish so similar lap times around Brands or Snetterton, but in a straight line it is just gone vs my Elise R.
Pretty sure that one would already count as "tuned". I think the TVR ones were different to the stock ones weren't they?300bhp/ton said:
thiscocks said:
Certainly something different but for the sake of 200hp and a beefier torque curve I'm not sure it would be worth the weight penalty. Something this small and light hardly needs a load of low down torque anyway. I'd agree a high smaller reving 4cyl is a better choice but I'm sure this would be fun to experience.
I think you need to look at it in context. the RV8 is all aluminium. And nothing at like a classic big block V8. It is pretty light and compact, especially compared to the cast iron 4 pots that you may have found when this was first done.I'm betting there is no weight saving running a Ford Pinto or even Crossflow over the RV8.
The idea of the seight has always appealed but sticking a Buick/Rover V8 in a car like this that then 'only' produces 200hp seems very inefficient even taking into account the RV8 is relatively light, similar to a 2.0l Pinto if I remember correctly. If you're gonna have a V8, then at least give it proper V8 thrunge.
CrutyRammers said:
Rv8s must have the most over quoted power figures in history. A standard 3.5 was what, 180hp? There were a lot of "250hp" engines floating around which turned out to be more like 210ish when tested.
I suppose it depends how you define "expensive", as soon as you start tuning any engine you're into multiple thousands, in my experience. Getting 250hp from an Rv8 is going to cost 5k, easy.
Power depends on what era and vehicle it was from.I suppose it depends how you define "expensive", as soon as you start tuning any engine you're into multiple thousands, in my experience. Getting 250hp from an Rv8 is going to cost 5k, easy.
3.5 were 155hp in high CR carb format. And 137hp in low CR guise. EFI Range Rover's 165hp and the Vitesse Twin Plenum 190hp.
3.9/4.0 were 182hp in a Range Rover/Disco and the 4.6 between 214-225hp in a D2/p38
TVR had genuine 240hp 4.0 litre models. Although some made less, but often once older and used.
But you need to remember the stock Rover setup was indeed lazy and primarily designed for 4x4's or large saloons. In race trim the 3.5 could easily make 300hp+ And the works rally cars used to run 280-320hp depending on setup.
However in this day and age a good cam (and exhaust/induction setup) in a 3.9/4.0 will easily give you 200hp+ with EFI or a 4 barrel carb. And a 4.6 will do 250-280hp. Some good heads will make a difference too. But aren't needed to make them perform reasonably well.
I suspect a lot of the false claims simply came from people claiming a tuned engine that was running worn lifters and a mild or factory cam. But with an uncorked exhaust would sound the part.
And also compare, how many mods would a 1990 Vauxhall or Ford 1.8 or 2.0 litre 4 pot have required to make 200hp? Especially if looking for n/a
300bhp/ton said:
Power depends on what era and vehicle it was from.
3.5 were 155hp in high CR carb format. And 137hp in low CR guise. EFI Range Rover's 165hp and the Vitesse Twin Plenum 190hp.
3.9/4.0 were 182hp in a Range Rover/Disco and the 4.6 between 214-225hp in a D2/p38
TVR had genuine 240hp 4.0 litre models. Although some made less, but often once older and used.
But you need to remember the stock Rover setup was indeed lazy and primarily designed for 4x4's or large saloons. In race trim the 3.5 could easily make 300hp+ And the works rally cars used to run 280-320hp depending on setup.
However in this day and age a good cam (and exhaust/induction setup) in a 3.9/4.0 will easily give you 200hp+ with EFI or a 4 barrel carb. And a 4.6 will do 250-280hp. Some good heads will make a difference too. But aren't needed to make them perform reasonably well.
I suspect a lot of the false claims simply came from people claiming a tuned engine that was running worn lifters and a mild or factory cam. But with an uncorked exhaust would sound the part.
And also compare, how many mods would a 1990 Vauxhall or Ford 1.8 or 2.0 litre 4 pot have required to make 200hp? Especially if looking for n/a
My old 450se wedge had a claimed factory output of 320bhp. This was of course complete dreamland. Even taking into consideration age and wear and tear it was probably no more than 150, seriously given the performance in something weighting around 1100kgs. This wasn't my only RV8/TVR experience either. I had a 400se wedge before the 450 and that was equally laughable performance wise. Still loved them though.3.5 were 155hp in high CR carb format. And 137hp in low CR guise. EFI Range Rover's 165hp and the Vitesse Twin Plenum 190hp.
3.9/4.0 were 182hp in a Range Rover/Disco and the 4.6 between 214-225hp in a D2/p38
TVR had genuine 240hp 4.0 litre models. Although some made less, but often once older and used.
But you need to remember the stock Rover setup was indeed lazy and primarily designed for 4x4's or large saloons. In race trim the 3.5 could easily make 300hp+ And the works rally cars used to run 280-320hp depending on setup.
However in this day and age a good cam (and exhaust/induction setup) in a 3.9/4.0 will easily give you 200hp+ with EFI or a 4 barrel carb. And a 4.6 will do 250-280hp. Some good heads will make a difference too. But aren't needed to make them perform reasonably well.
I suspect a lot of the false claims simply came from people claiming a tuned engine that was running worn lifters and a mild or factory cam. But with an uncorked exhaust would sound the part.
And also compare, how many mods would a 1990 Vauxhall or Ford 1.8 or 2.0 litre 4 pot have required to make 200hp? Especially if looking for n/a
They had a mad one in part-ex at the old Cardiff Porsche.. it had a full on TVR power 4.2 v8 with quad downdraught carbs... oh and windscreen wipers. Apparently they were there to clear the screen when the carbs occasionally spat out fuel. Asked the salesman if he had any advice for the buyer. Yes he did...
1. Hang on tight
2. Treat it with respect
3. Don’t bloody smoke!!!
1. Hang on tight
2. Treat it with respect
3. Don’t bloody smoke!!!
Water Fairy said:
The idea of the seight has always appealed but sticking a Buick/Rover V8 in a car like this that then 'only' produces 200hp seems very inefficient even taking into account the RV8 is relatively light, similar to a 2.0l Pinto if I remember correctly. If you're gonna have a V8, then at least give it proper V8 thrunge.
lol yes, because 105-110hp from a Pinto is just so masculine. 
thiscocks said:
Didn't know it was all aluminium. If its a minimal weight gain then it's probably worth it for the V8 sound alone, assuming the gearing isn't too long. Yours sounds pretty nice
Yeah alloy block and heads. Obviously modern DOHC 4 pots from the Rover K-Series onwards and the Honda K20's are much more potent per kg and lighter too.IIRC the RV8's weighs almost the same as the SOHC slant 4 that my TR7 had as standard, and that had an alloy head too. And they are much lighter than the 1850cc B-Series found in things like the MGB.
CrutyRammers said:
GroundEffect said:
My mate has one with the 4.0 V8 from a Chimaera in it. It doesn't need tuning - honestly. Over a lap it's a little skittish so similar lap times around Brands or Snetterton, but in a straight line it is just gone vs my Elise R.
Pretty sure that one would already count as "tuned". I think the TVR ones were different to the stock ones weren't they?Dunno but it replaced the original 3.5 and it's a monster. Fuel and flame spitting monster.
Water Fairy said:
300bhp/ton said:
Power depends on what era and vehicle it was from.
3.5 were 155hp in high CR carb format. And 137hp in low CR guise. EFI Range Rover's 165hp and the Vitesse Twin Plenum 190hp.
3.9/4.0 were 182hp in a Range Rover/Disco and the 4.6 between 214-225hp in a D2/p38
TVR had genuine 240hp 4.0 litre models. Although some made less, but often once older and used.
But you need to remember the stock Rover setup was indeed lazy and primarily designed for 4x4's or large saloons. In race trim the 3.5 could easily make 300hp+ And the works rally cars used to run 280-320hp depending on setup.
However in this day and age a good cam (and exhaust/induction setup) in a 3.9/4.0 will easily give you 200hp+ with EFI or a 4 barrel carb. And a 4.6 will do 250-280hp. Some good heads will make a difference too. But aren't needed to make them perform reasonably well.
I suspect a lot of the false claims simply came from people claiming a tuned engine that was running worn lifters and a mild or factory cam. But with an uncorked exhaust would sound the part.
And also compare, how many mods would a 1990 Vauxhall or Ford 1.8 or 2.0 litre 4 pot have required to make 200hp? Especially if looking for n/a
My old 450se wedge had a claimed factory output of 320bhp. This was of course complete dreamland. Even taking into consideration age and wear and tear it was probably no more than 150, seriously given the performance in something weighting around 1100kgs. This wasn't my only RV8/TVR experience either. I had a 400se wedge before the 450 and that was equally laughable performance wise. Still loved them though.3.5 were 155hp in high CR carb format. And 137hp in low CR guise. EFI Range Rover's 165hp and the Vitesse Twin Plenum 190hp.
3.9/4.0 were 182hp in a Range Rover/Disco and the 4.6 between 214-225hp in a D2/p38
TVR had genuine 240hp 4.0 litre models. Although some made less, but often once older and used.
But you need to remember the stock Rover setup was indeed lazy and primarily designed for 4x4's or large saloons. In race trim the 3.5 could easily make 300hp+ And the works rally cars used to run 280-320hp depending on setup.
However in this day and age a good cam (and exhaust/induction setup) in a 3.9/4.0 will easily give you 200hp+ with EFI or a 4 barrel carb. And a 4.6 will do 250-280hp. Some good heads will make a difference too. But aren't needed to make them perform reasonably well.
I suspect a lot of the false claims simply came from people claiming a tuned engine that was running worn lifters and a mild or factory cam. But with an uncorked exhaust would sound the part.
And also compare, how many mods would a 1990 Vauxhall or Ford 1.8 or 2.0 litre 4 pot have required to make 200hp? Especially if looking for n/a
Water Fairy said:
My old 450se wedge had a claimed factory output of 320bhp. This was of course complete dreamland. Even taking into consideration age and wear and tear it was probably no more than 150, seriously given the performance in something weighting around 1100kgs. This wasn't my only RV8/TVR experience either. I had a 400se wedge before the 450 and that was equally laughable performance wise. Still loved them though.
150hp from a 450 would be broken. But yes 320hp was also not realistic.300bhp/ton said:
Water Fairy said:
My old 450se wedge had a claimed factory output of 320bhp. This was of course complete dreamland. Even taking into consideration age and wear and tear it was probably no more than 150, seriously given the performance in something weighting around 1100kgs. This wasn't my only RV8/TVR experience either. I had a 400se wedge before the 450 and that was equally laughable performance wise. Still loved them though.
150hp from a 450 would be broken. But yes 320hp was also not realistic.AMGSee55 said:
300bhp/ton said:
Water Fairy said:
My old 450se wedge had a claimed factory output of 320bhp. This was of course complete dreamland. Even taking into consideration age and wear and tear it was probably no more than 150, seriously given the performance in something weighting around 1100kgs. This wasn't my only RV8/TVR experience either. I had a 400se wedge before the 450 and that was equally laughable performance wise. Still loved them though.
150hp from a 450 would be broken. But yes 320hp was also not realistic.300bhp/ton said:
lol yes, because 105-110hp from a Pinto is just so masculine.
Well feckin obviously I didn't mean install a pinto instead of a RV8 did I?! What I clearly mean was that for a V8 the RV8 was not heavy but to give it some kind of high ground and identity over a typical installation you would want more than 200bhp from your V8Jeesus
Would have to agree with regard to the performance of a god 4 pot, compared to a V8. When crossing the US in a group of Sevens, we had two V8 cars with us, A Westy being powered by a Chevy Moroso V8, and the Caterham with a Rover V8. we pulled on to an empty 5 lanes in each direction highway, and it was clear the two V8 cars were going to have a bit of a drag race, and were joined with a Texan version of a 7 (think it was called an Ultralite?) which had a turbocharged 2 litre 4 pot.
They pulled into line abreast, and at a signal they all took off, leaving the rest of us behind. the Ultralite just walked away from the V8 cars like they were standing still (it did exactly the same a few days later when we were going round Willow Springs raceway, only even more decisively because of course the race track also has bends in it.
That said I have watched Russell Savory`s V8 Caterham (two 4 cyl bike engines joined on a common crankcase) take off from a standing start, I doubt I have ever seen a car that at one second, was standing in front of me, and coupe of seconds later was just a tiny dot in the distance. I seem to remember he had trouble with transmissions during its development phase, because the engine lunched just about every gearbox and diff he put in it, until he installed a hefty Quaiffe set up, intended for use 1000 horse power race cars.
They pulled into line abreast, and at a signal they all took off, leaving the rest of us behind. the Ultralite just walked away from the V8 cars like they were standing still (it did exactly the same a few days later when we were going round Willow Springs raceway, only even more decisively because of course the race track also has bends in it.
That said I have watched Russell Savory`s V8 Caterham (two 4 cyl bike engines joined on a common crankcase) take off from a standing start, I doubt I have ever seen a car that at one second, was standing in front of me, and coupe of seconds later was just a tiny dot in the distance. I seem to remember he had trouble with transmissions during its development phase, because the engine lunched just about every gearbox and diff he put in it, until he installed a hefty Quaiffe set up, intended for use 1000 horse power race cars.
Water Fairy said:
There was nothing broken about it having previously been rebuilt. It started and ran perfectly with good economy but it was not fast. Certainly not 200bhp per tonne fast. The specialist I used once told me a good one gave 190 maybe 200 and usually they were 170/180. Perhaps mine was a tad more than 150 but not much
Still sounds low. Also not sure I believe your specialist. As said. My cammed 3.5 RV8 was making 230hp on the dyno. And was about 219ft lb.
Which in real life felt about right. It would easily hang with a JDM DC5 ITR in a straight line. And with different gearing was clocked at 144mph.
Water Fairy said:
Well feckin obviously I didn't mean install a pinto instead of a RV8 did I?! What I clearly mean was that for a V8 the RV8 was not heavy but to give it some kind of high ground and identity over a typical installation you would want more than 200bhp from your V8
Jeesus
How much power should it have then ???? You seem to be making some odd posts. The SEIGHT is frickin fast, doesn’t do too bad even by today’s standards. And back in the day when this was available, it would have been among the more powerful engine options for this kind of car. 2004 is really late, these came out in the 1990’s. Jeesus
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff