RE: Westfield SEIGHT | Spotted
Discussion
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.
NewUsername said:
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.
A RV8 is not hugely heavier than boat anchors like the B-series or Pinto, if you're willing to squint a bit (though it is heavier), but engines like the Crossflow and CVH are much lighter (the CVH is similar to the Crossflow, at about 110-115 kg dressed).
ChezzaV8 said:
I never really saw the point of the SEight. The rover V8 is not an engine for a sports car, not revvy, not powerful, and expensive to get any power out of. They make a nice noise, but that's about it. The idea of big engine in a small car makes sense when that big engine puts out big power, but the RV8 just doesn't!
Clearly you have either been living under a rock, or countless sports car makers didn't have a clue ... 
ChezzaV8 said:
I never really saw the point of the SEight. The rover V8 is not an engine for a sports car, not revvy, not powerful, and expensive to get any power out of. They make a nice noise, but that's about it. The idea of big engine in a small car makes sense when that big engine puts out big power, but the RV8 just doesn't!
Rubbish. I assume you’ve heard of TVR? A 4.3 decat Griff is still one of the best sounding cars ever. Only 280hp but does 60mph in 4 seconds and 100mph in 11. Pretty special back in 1992 and still mighty quick today.wormus said:
ChezzaV8 said:
I never really saw the point of the SEight. The rover V8 is not an engine for a sports car, not revvy, not powerful, and expensive to get any power out of. They make a nice noise, but that's about it. The idea of big engine in a small car makes sense when that big engine puts out big power, but the RV8 just doesn't!
Rubbish. I assume you’ve heard of TVR? A 4.3 decat Griff is still one of the best sounding cars ever. Only 280hp but does 60mph in 4 seconds and 100mph in 11. Pretty special back in 1992 and still mighty quick today.I’ve tried one and it felt pretty ‘sporty’ to me but ymmv
I used to own a TVR 420se quite a few years ago with the rover v8 engine.
The previous owner to me had the engine capacity increased to 4.4 litres, but I was not happy with the power delivery.
So I went to JE engineering in Coventry and had the engine balanced and blueprinted. I retained the existing kent 234 cam as I liked a rising power curve, rather than lots of bottom end torque.
The engine was dynoed at 293 bhp at 6500 rpm. Torque was 290 lb/ft at 5000 rpm.
That engine was definitely a revver. Very aggressive, immense sound, like a racing car.
The acceleration available at reasonable road speeds was incredible. (Widow-maker handling though, which is why I sold it).
Now the Westfield SEIGHT weighs considerably less than the TVR.
I remember having a magazine article at the time where they tested a Westfield SEIGHT with a rover v8 based JE Engineering engine of 4.4 litres with 4 x twin choke Dellorto carbs, and that was dynoed at 330 bhp.
That road test car was doing 0 - 100mph in around 9 seconds, and that it was the fastest accelerating car that they had ever tested.
I would imagine that the Westfield would be an amazing driving experience.
The previous owner to me had the engine capacity increased to 4.4 litres, but I was not happy with the power delivery.
So I went to JE engineering in Coventry and had the engine balanced and blueprinted. I retained the existing kent 234 cam as I liked a rising power curve, rather than lots of bottom end torque.
The engine was dynoed at 293 bhp at 6500 rpm. Torque was 290 lb/ft at 5000 rpm.
That engine was definitely a revver. Very aggressive, immense sound, like a racing car.
The acceleration available at reasonable road speeds was incredible. (Widow-maker handling though, which is why I sold it).
Now the Westfield SEIGHT weighs considerably less than the TVR.
I remember having a magazine article at the time where they tested a Westfield SEIGHT with a rover v8 based JE Engineering engine of 4.4 litres with 4 x twin choke Dellorto carbs, and that was dynoed at 330 bhp.
That road test car was doing 0 - 100mph in around 9 seconds, and that it was the fastest accelerating car that they had ever tested.
I would imagine that the Westfield would be an amazing driving experience.
apc321 said:
I used to own a TVR 420se quite a few years ago with the rover v8 engine.
The previous owner to me had the engine capacity increased to 4.4 litres, but I was not happy with the power delivery.
So I went to JE engineering in Coventry and had the engine balanced and blueprinted. I retained the existing kent 234 cam as I liked a rising power curve, rather than lots of bottom end torque.
The engine was dynoed at 293 bhp at 6500 rpm. Torque was 290 lb/ft at 5000 rpm.
That engine was definitely a revver. Very aggressive, immense sound, like a racing car.
The acceleration available at reasonable road speeds was incredible. (Widow-maker handling though, which is why I sold it).
Now the Westfield SEIGHT weighs considerably less than the TVR.
I remember having a magazine article at the time where they tested a Westfield SEIGHT with a rover v8 based JE Engineering engine of 4.4 litres with 4 x twin choke Dellorto carbs, and that was dynoed at 330 bhp.
That road test car was doing 0 - 100mph in around 9 seconds, and that it was the fastest accelerating car that they had ever tested.
I would imagine that the Westfield would be an amazing driving experience.
Fast Lane timed theirs at 0-100 in 7.7 secondsThe previous owner to me had the engine capacity increased to 4.4 litres, but I was not happy with the power delivery.
So I went to JE engineering in Coventry and had the engine balanced and blueprinted. I retained the existing kent 234 cam as I liked a rising power curve, rather than lots of bottom end torque.
The engine was dynoed at 293 bhp at 6500 rpm. Torque was 290 lb/ft at 5000 rpm.
That engine was definitely a revver. Very aggressive, immense sound, like a racing car.
The acceleration available at reasonable road speeds was incredible. (Widow-maker handling though, which is why I sold it).
Now the Westfield SEIGHT weighs considerably less than the TVR.
I remember having a magazine article at the time where they tested a Westfield SEIGHT with a rover v8 based JE Engineering engine of 4.4 litres with 4 x twin choke Dellorto carbs, and that was dynoed at 330 bhp.
That road test car was doing 0 - 100mph in around 9 seconds, and that it was the fastest accelerating car that they had ever tested.
I would imagine that the Westfield would be an amazing driving experience.
The amusing footnote under the times was
Taken at Millbrook Proving Ground in dry conditions
apc321 said:
I remember having a magazine article at the time where they tested a Westfield SEIGHT with a rover v8 based JE Engineering engine of 4.4 litres with 4 x twin choke Dellorto carbs, and that was dynoed at 330 bhp.
That's the actual car I drove, back in period.Splitting hairs, but the JE Engineering engine was quoted as 3.9 litres and 270bhp on quad Dellortos.
It was later replaced (in the same car: registration H782GEA) with a 4.3 litre (94mm bore x 77mm stroke) engine built by TVR Power that was the 330 spec. engine (though I've seen it quoted that it was actually dyno'd at 341bhp and 318bhp.ft of torque).
Whatever... it was an animal. A quick check on the DVLA website suggests that H782GEA still exists and is now up to nearly 42.000 miles (albeit hardly any of them done in recent years), which is quite impressive - I felt sure that someone would have binned it by now!
Equus said:
That's the actual car I drove, back in period.
Splitting hairs, but the JE Engineering engine was quoted as 3.9 litres and 270bhp on quad Dellortos.
It was later replaced (in the same car: registration H782GEA) with a 4.3 litre (94mm bore x 77mm stroke) engine built by TVR Power that was the 330 spec. engine (though I've seen it quoted that it was actually dyno'd at 341bhp and 318bhp.ft of torque).
Whatever... it was an animal. A quick check on the DVLA website suggests that H782GEA still exists and is now up to nearly 42.000 miles (albeit hardly any of them done in recent years), which is quite impressive - I felt sure that someone would have binned it by now!
When Fast Lane recorded their times it was on Avon CR36s ( road legal ) pre-warmed with tyre-warmersSplitting hairs, but the JE Engineering engine was quoted as 3.9 litres and 270bhp on quad Dellortos.
It was later replaced (in the same car: registration H782GEA) with a 4.3 litre (94mm bore x 77mm stroke) engine built by TVR Power that was the 330 spec. engine (though I've seen it quoted that it was actually dyno'd at 341bhp and 318bhp.ft of torque).
Whatever... it was an animal. A quick check on the DVLA website suggests that H782GEA still exists and is now up to nearly 42.000 miles (albeit hardly any of them done in recent years), which is quite impressive - I felt sure that someone would have binned it by now!
With the Goodyear Eagles on it would only ‘just’ beat the F40
300bhp/ton said:
ChezzaV8 said:
I never really saw the point of the SEight. The rover V8 is not an engine for a sports car, not revvy, not powerful, and expensive to get any power out of. They make a nice noise, but that's about it. The idea of big engine in a small car makes sense when that big engine puts out big power, but the RV8 just doesn't!
Clearly you have either been living under a rock, or countless sports car makers didn't have a clue ... The 7 type cars suit themselves to high revving four pots like bike engines, high comp twin cams etc. No doubt, you can make a rover V8 powered 7 very quick, but there are far more powerful/suitable engines to use and if you really want to stick a V8 in it then choose something a little more potent.
s m said:
NewUsername said:
Exactly....I remember from experience it can fit in a similar hole to a 1.6 ford cvh, and is lighter.
Lighter?Rubbish
edit, thinking about it it probably had all fluids in too.
Edited by NewUsername on Wednesday 15th July 20:14
s m said:
When Fast Lane recorded their times it was on Avon CR36s ( road legal ) pre-warmed with tyre-warmers
With the Goodyear Eagles on it would only ‘just’ beat the F40
Fast Lane's road test was 'only' with the 270bhp/3.9 litre engine, too, though! If it's the same road test I have in front of me, though, the 0-100 time was 8.7 seconds.With the Goodyear Eagles on it would only ‘just’ beat the F40
Equus said:
s m said:
When Fast Lane recorded their times it was on Avon CR36s ( road legal ) pre-warmed with tyre-warmers
With the Goodyear Eagles on it would only ‘just’ beat the F40
Fast Lane's road test was 'only' with the 270bhp/3.9 litre engine, too, though! If it's the same road test I have in front of me, though, the 0-100 time was 8.7 seconds.With the Goodyear Eagles on it would only ‘just’ beat the F40
NewUsername said:
1.6 cvh with turbo with intercooler and all pipework etc
edit, thinking about it it probably had all fluids in too.
Yes but you didn't say turbo cvh, and the rv8 will likely have fluids in two. It's a small light V8 but it would have to be a hell of a I4 to be almost half the engine and heavier than it! Essex V6 is heavier I understand, but thats a heavy V6!edit, thinking about it it probably had all fluids in too.
Daniel
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff