Discussion
Bit of tuning advice here from Burton power.
160 BHP from a standard engine might be a little optimistic....
There are a lot of factors trying to squeeze power from any engine...I pushed my 280i from a measly 140bhp to 213bhp...It cost 5K mind and it failed eventually down to mis-matched heads...You could get in touch with John Toovey racing which is something I wished I had done instead of installing a supercharger...
Even so...When she was running good its still not the same as a V8 with less bhp...My advice would be what everyone on here told me 5 years ago.."If you want more power then get a V8"...I wish I had listened...Dont get me wrong I loved that Wedge and still do but she was my first love and it didn't work out...Time to move on.
We had tears...Sadness...Laughter and fun...Unforgettable.
Even so...When she was running good its still not the same as a V8 with less bhp...My advice would be what everyone on here told me 5 years ago.."If you want more power then get a V8"...I wish I had listened...Dont get me wrong I loved that Wedge and still do but she was my first love and it didn't work out...Time to move on.
We had tears...Sadness...Laughter and fun...Unforgettable.
The measurement standards changed a bit over the years, but 150bhp ish sounds about right, 160 probably a bit overstated.
It's possible earlier ones did make 160, as the cams got a little softer over time (emissions etc).
The 2.9 was officially 150bhp, and it had a slightly softer cam than all the 2.8 versions.
I have to say if I was looking today for a really powerful wedge, I would buy any of the V8 range and swop the engine for either an LS1 series, or a Toyota V8, both are easily available here and cheap (NZ and Aussie) and you can get gearboxes to fit/adapt.
It's not just the V8, it's also the modern 4 valve per cyl and variable valve timing with adaptive engine control that really makes the difference. But then of course it's not original, which makes it unacceptable for some (and that's fine, each to their own)
Some of the newer V6 engines put the old Cologne to shame... for example in the wedges, approx numbers 2.8V6 = 150, 3.5V8 = 190, 3.9V8 = 240?
Whereas modern Toyota V6 (2GR-FE) 3.5V6 = 270 (295 for Lexus) and yet returns 35mpg or more.
Older Toyota 4.0V8 (1UZ-FE) 261bhp and newer 4.3 version (Lexus) = 290bhp
LS1 gets 345 bhp and upwards.
These are all physically smaller than a Rover V8 lump (so I'm told) AND THEY RUN PERFECTLY ON UNLEADED 91 ...
It's possible earlier ones did make 160, as the cams got a little softer over time (emissions etc).
The 2.9 was officially 150bhp, and it had a slightly softer cam than all the 2.8 versions.
I have to say if I was looking today for a really powerful wedge, I would buy any of the V8 range and swop the engine for either an LS1 series, or a Toyota V8, both are easily available here and cheap (NZ and Aussie) and you can get gearboxes to fit/adapt.
It's not just the V8, it's also the modern 4 valve per cyl and variable valve timing with adaptive engine control that really makes the difference. But then of course it's not original, which makes it unacceptable for some (and that's fine, each to their own)
Some of the newer V6 engines put the old Cologne to shame... for example in the wedges, approx numbers 2.8V6 = 150, 3.5V8 = 190, 3.9V8 = 240?
Whereas modern Toyota V6 (2GR-FE) 3.5V6 = 270 (295 for Lexus) and yet returns 35mpg or more.
Older Toyota 4.0V8 (1UZ-FE) 261bhp and newer 4.3 version (Lexus) = 290bhp
LS1 gets 345 bhp and upwards.
These are all physically smaller than a Rover V8 lump (so I'm told) AND THEY RUN PERFECTLY ON UNLEADED 91 ...
Edited by RCK974X on Tuesday 27th December 22:36
RCK974X said:
I have to say if I was looking today for a really powerful wedge...
yadda yadda...
Some of the newer V6 engines put the old Cologne to shame... for example in the wedges, approx numbers 2.8V6 = 150, 3.5V8 = 190, 3.9V8 = 240?
Whereas modern Toyota V6 (2GR-FE, as in my Toyota, also used in Lexus) 3.5V6 = 270 (295 in Lexus) and yet returns 35mpg or more, and
older Toyota 4.0V8 (1UZ-FE) 261bhp and the 4.3 version (Lexus) = 290bhp and they are both physically smaller than a Rover V8 lump (so I'm told)
AND THEY RUN PERFECTLY ON UNLEADED 91 ...
...or you could just leave it as the factory built it and buy something else if you want to go really fast?yadda yadda...
Some of the newer V6 engines put the old Cologne to shame... for example in the wedges, approx numbers 2.8V6 = 150, 3.5V8 = 190, 3.9V8 = 240?
Whereas modern Toyota V6 (2GR-FE, as in my Toyota, also used in Lexus) 3.5V6 = 270 (295 in Lexus) and yet returns 35mpg or more, and
older Toyota 4.0V8 (1UZ-FE) 261bhp and the 4.3 version (Lexus) = 290bhp and they are both physically smaller than a Rover V8 lump (so I'm told)
AND THEY RUN PERFECTLY ON UNLEADED 91 ...
It's not as if they were fundamentally great cars to start with.
I can't remember the last time anyone suggested putting a Japtastic engine in a DB5, E-Type, Alvis 21, Bentley S1 Continental because they weren't fast enough
Wedg1e said:
...or you could just leave it as the factory built it and buy something else if you want to go really fast?
It's not as if they were fundamentally great cars to start with.
I can't remember the last time anyone suggested putting a Japtastic engine in a DB5, E-Type, Alvis 21, Bentley S1 Continental because they weren't fast enough
Very true, but I don't think I would be able to buy a DB5, E-type, etc. for quite the same money as a 350i ... and anyway ZIG STARTED IT !! It's not as if they were fundamentally great cars to start with.
I can't remember the last time anyone suggested putting a Japtastic engine in a DB5, E-Type, Alvis 21, Bentley S1 Continental because they weren't fast enough
Seriously but, quite a few passengers have said to me how well my wedge rides the road, so it's not bad for a pile of bits put together in Blackpool. As I've said elsewhere on here, I always think of my wedge more like a kit car, so I'm more inclined to swop engines etc....
If the NZ modification rules were less onerous, I would have probably done it by now...
Wedg1e said:
...or you could just leave it as the factory built it and buy something else if you want to go really fast?
I have to agree with Ian on this...My journey in the search for more power Mr Zulu ended in tears...And if the blower had worked or I had plopped a small block or large V8 in there then I would still be driving it now and forever....But I'm happy with my 180bhp Rover V8 as its fast enough to kill myself in and makes a sound like an angry Lion...With a crystal ball I would not of spent 9K on a 280i ..(Sorry Delilah)...I could of bought a useable 390SE or 400SE for less ..
MADNESS said:
I was thinking more exhaust system/air intake
So you don't fancy "just" dropping a Toyota V8 in?With its 2 ports for 3 cylinders the 2.8's exhaust is always going to be a limiting factor, a bit of cleaning up and port matching on the inlet side can't do any harm. Beware up-rated cams, while they can give a few more horses they can also be very rattley (sound like tappets need adjusting), a chap on the S series Forum with a 2.8 engined S1 found out the hard way.
I achieved 5bhp more from modifying the air intake...The original set up just pulled air from the rad...I fashioned a 3" plastic elbow to apart it to an intake hose in the nosecone with a K&N on it and then later on had an air box made to replace the existing...Ill dig out some old pics...In my quest for more power Mr Zulu i looked into the consensus surrounding the Siamese port but apparently some testing was carried out by some Cologne tuners and there wasn't much difference between a shared and a 3 port system...Swaymar who produced a turbo nutter bast job had a three port exhaust made only to help exit the gases escape quicker from the 3.1ltr big vlave turbo nutter...
Making sure the tappets are adjusted correctly can yield some missing horses....You are limited to what you can do on the Cologne unless you have it professionally rebuilt by someone like John Toovey racing who can squeeze 200bhp out of a N/A V6 Cologne....And if you talk to him you might be very tempted as pound for lb it is very enlightening...
Making sure the tappets are adjusted correctly can yield some missing horses....You are limited to what you can do on the Cologne unless you have it professionally rebuilt by someone like John Toovey racing who can squeeze 200bhp out of a N/A V6 Cologne....And if you talk to him you might be very tempted as pound for lb it is very enlightening...
Hhhmmm. Difficult one this. Series 1 FHC are pretty thin on the ground so it would be great to keep originality.
On the other hand the 2.8 is a pretty poor performer in both output and weight.
If it were me. I'd keep the 2.8 and get it rebuilt with some general tidying up of the castings, matching of openings and a wilder cam. Would consider a capacity increase as Mr Z suggests. Adding a cold feed is an acceptable improvement in my eyes. It'll never rip the tarmac off the ground but should be sprty enough for fun time happy smilies.
Directing some of the air from the underside of the car to the rear brakes would also be on my mind. Shedding some weight will help performance / dynamics too.
On the other hand the 2.8 is a pretty poor performer in both output and weight.
If it were me. I'd keep the 2.8 and get it rebuilt with some general tidying up of the castings, matching of openings and a wilder cam. Would consider a capacity increase as Mr Z suggests. Adding a cold feed is an acceptable improvement in my eyes. It'll never rip the tarmac off the ground but should be sprty enough for fun time happy smilies.
Directing some of the air from the underside of the car to the rear brakes would also be on my mind. Shedding some weight will help performance / dynamics too.
Hmmm.... (despite Wedg1e's reply above ! and I've been away from UK a long time, so I could be out of date)
If you want to keep it looking as original as possible - modify engine.
1) A capacity increase - 3.5 or 3.7 - I assume you can still get these from specialised engines etc. Expensive but nobody can tell.
2) Go flowed heads before hot cams IMHO. Especially true for the siamesed exhaust ports. Hot cams often ruin light cruising mode.
Notes. I don't think that the common claim about terrible flow through the K 4 port inlet and siamese exhaust is really true - if it was, why is the 2.9 same power output ? It has 6 inlet and 6 outlet, but isn't any better. (except Cossy - but that's a whole other world). I think you can get 200BHP with mods (or go turbo), but it's probably a bit peaky by then.
You can now get digitally controlled CIS (via megasquirt) - again, not cheap, but allows DIY tuning of mixture etc - look up 'FrankenCIS' on web.
Reason is again - no-one will be able to tell.
If I was still living in UK, I would seriously consider a capacity increased Cologne.
Not original - engine and gbox swop
Well, massive choice, but I discovered the narrow series one V6 chassis is a PITA, it's VERY narrow by the firewall, and not much will fit without mods - also the chassis has a big crossmember forcing a rear sump engine (lot less common). V8 chassis doesn't have crossbar, and is wider at back.
I would guess any DOHC 4 cyl would probably go in, possibly even straight 6 (there is a BMW modded one) but most V6 DOHC are simply too wide.
There's some very powerful 4 cyls around and with turbo, but that's not really a 'lazy' cruiser, which would be more what I would choose, but up to you of course.
I think the old Ford 302 is the smallest (narrowest) common V8, don't know how common they are in UK. Almost everything V6 or V8 I measured here in NZ was too wide or too tall .....
I see 2.3 Duratecs are getting cheaper here, and they seem like a pretty good and powerful L4 .... and fit to Mazda gearboxes
If you want to keep it looking as original as possible - modify engine.
1) A capacity increase - 3.5 or 3.7 - I assume you can still get these from specialised engines etc. Expensive but nobody can tell.
2) Go flowed heads before hot cams IMHO. Especially true for the siamesed exhaust ports. Hot cams often ruin light cruising mode.
Notes. I don't think that the common claim about terrible flow through the K 4 port inlet and siamese exhaust is really true - if it was, why is the 2.9 same power output ? It has 6 inlet and 6 outlet, but isn't any better. (except Cossy - but that's a whole other world). I think you can get 200BHP with mods (or go turbo), but it's probably a bit peaky by then.
You can now get digitally controlled CIS (via megasquirt) - again, not cheap, but allows DIY tuning of mixture etc - look up 'FrankenCIS' on web.
Reason is again - no-one will be able to tell.
If I was still living in UK, I would seriously consider a capacity increased Cologne.
Not original - engine and gbox swop
Well, massive choice, but I discovered the narrow series one V6 chassis is a PITA, it's VERY narrow by the firewall, and not much will fit without mods - also the chassis has a big crossmember forcing a rear sump engine (lot less common). V8 chassis doesn't have crossbar, and is wider at back.
I would guess any DOHC 4 cyl would probably go in, possibly even straight 6 (there is a BMW modded one) but most V6 DOHC are simply too wide.
There's some very powerful 4 cyls around and with turbo, but that's not really a 'lazy' cruiser, which would be more what I would choose, but up to you of course.
I think the old Ford 302 is the smallest (narrowest) common V8, don't know how common they are in UK. Almost everything V6 or V8 I measured here in NZ was too wide or too tall .....
I see 2.3 Duratecs are getting cheaper here, and they seem like a pretty good and powerful L4 .... and fit to Mazda gearboxes
And just an extra note -
Despite all my time fiddling with the timing and mixture, the 2.8 still feels 'flat' to me on unleaded, which will be result of retarding timing and disconnecting vac advance. (yeah could have whole discussion here, but this was the 'best' combination of options on mine), and its fuel economy also dropped a bit.
So the idea of a 'modern' engine still appeals to me .... I released last night a Toyota 2.4 4 cyl (2AZ-FE = Camry etc) is also 160bhp and 162 ft/lbs which is identical to the 2.8 It's all aluminium, DOHC, ...... They are cheap here in NZ....
Just sayin'
Despite all my time fiddling with the timing and mixture, the 2.8 still feels 'flat' to me on unleaded, which will be result of retarding timing and disconnecting vac advance. (yeah could have whole discussion here, but this was the 'best' combination of options on mine), and its fuel economy also dropped a bit.
So the idea of a 'modern' engine still appeals to me .... I released last night a Toyota 2.4 4 cyl (2AZ-FE = Camry etc) is also 160bhp and 162 ft/lbs which is identical to the 2.8 It's all aluminium, DOHC, ...... They are cheap here in NZ....
Just sayin'
Oddly enough...No.
2.8 Mfi 160bhp 162 ft/lb (150 bhp later)
2.8 Efi 150bhp 162 ft/lb (Granada)
2.9 Efi 150/160 bhp 170 ft/lb
So really it was just a jump in torque. Of course torque is what gives most of the acceleration, so it will do 0-60 a little quicker.
2.9 had 6 in, 6 out ports, and people still say the siamese port on the 2.8 is restrictive....but evidence doesn't really support that.
just the 2.8 to 2.9 increase will probably give you the extra torque - hardly any difference.
The Cossies were 195/210 bhp and 203 ft/lb. Shows what a 4 valve high flow design head does for an engine.
Turbo Technics kits gave anywhere from 200-250bhp on the 2.8 and more with twin turbo setup as used on 2.9. (can't find torque nos)
So 2 valve + turbo = 4 valve DOHC (NA) at lowest boost level .....interesting numbers.
(No I'm not especially a Toyota fan - it's just that their engines are everywhere here, and CHEAP with all the EFi included....everything from 1300 L4 through to 5000 V8)
2.8 Mfi 160bhp 162 ft/lb (150 bhp later)
2.8 Efi 150bhp 162 ft/lb (Granada)
2.9 Efi 150/160 bhp 170 ft/lb
So really it was just a jump in torque. Of course torque is what gives most of the acceleration, so it will do 0-60 a little quicker.
2.9 had 6 in, 6 out ports, and people still say the siamese port on the 2.8 is restrictive....but evidence doesn't really support that.
just the 2.8 to 2.9 increase will probably give you the extra torque - hardly any difference.
The Cossies were 195/210 bhp and 203 ft/lb. Shows what a 4 valve high flow design head does for an engine.
Turbo Technics kits gave anywhere from 200-250bhp on the 2.8 and more with twin turbo setup as used on 2.9. (can't find torque nos)
So 2 valve + turbo = 4 valve DOHC (NA) at lowest boost level .....interesting numbers.
(No I'm not especially a Toyota fan - it's just that their engines are everywhere here, and CHEAP with all the EFi included....everything from 1300 L4 through to 5000 V8)
Edited by RCK974X on Wednesday 28th December 23:39
mk1fan said:
I'm pretty sure the 2.9 was a reasonable bit more powerful than the 2.8.
RCK974X said:
Oddly enough...No.
According to Wikepedia maybe not but.............In the real World the 2.9 is generally considered to have a few more horses, I think TVR claimed 170, not too unrealistic compared to power claims for some other engines. Mine with a "fast Road cam" (manufacturers claims 10-15 BHP gain) pulled 184.9 on the rollers, even allowing for "inaccuracies" I was happy with that although a nice round 185 would have been better
I've been on several drives around Mainland Europe over the last few years with, mainly, S Series TVR's, so 2.8's, lot of 2.9's and some V8's. Come to a big straight and the extra oomph of the V8's gives them a bit of an advantage but round the twisties there's no separating them, some of us don't feel we need the extra power of a V8 to make up for lack of driving ability
Back to our friend and his 280 Tasmin who is looking for a modest/affordable power gain, it's boring but I'd suggest make sure what you have is giving something like what it should before looking for more? A thirty odd year old engine could well be 10-20% down on power due to wear 'n tear and badly set up injection.
Edited by phillpot on Thursday 29th December 09:58
Gassing Station | Wedges | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff