Just out of curiosity

[pwd95]

Would one of these fit in to a wedge??
www.v8tuning.com/shop/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16219&category_id=271
Seems good value per bhp compared to a new RV8
Edited to say: What does a RV8 weigh??

>> Edited by pwd95 on Tuesday 14th June 11:58

>> Edited by pwd95 on Tuesday 14th June 12:07
Sorry forgot to put the link in!

>> Edited by pwd95 on Tuesday 14th June 12:07

[chassis 33]

pwd95 said:

Would one of these fit in to a wedge?? Seems good value per bhp compared to a new RV8 Edited to say: What does a RV8 weigh?? >> Edited by pwd95 on Tuesday 14th June 11:58

One of which? can i cat a guess at an LS1?

[19560]

Don't know what you're talking about but this might help

Marquis_Rex said:

Am tired of the hype surrounding the RV8 engine. Man, I've heard figures as low as 130 Kgs being banded about for its weight. It's a widely used readily available engine- and there's a lot of tuning knowledge out there for it (some of the tuning is questionable). But lets put things into perspective here: These are the true weights of a late Disco 4 litre engine, compliant with all the modern emissions and refinement criteria. Accessory Drive Belt - (1) 0.341kg Air Cleaner Body 0.977kg Air Cleaner Element 0.299kg Air Cleaner Top 0.467kg Air Flow Meter 0.226kg Air Hose/Duct - (1) 0.325kg Alternator 7.196kg Engine Complete 177.000kg Engine Management - E.C.U. 0.390kg Starter Motor 4.060kg Viscous Coupling 2.942kg Engine Oil 5.676kg The above comes to 200 kgs. Now an earlier vehicle will probably NOT have the reduction gear starter motor fitted and so you can expect that to weigh about 8 kgs, the accessory drive won't be poly belt driven but individually driven So that will weigh quite a bit more. The above also does NOT include the flywheel, which on the Rover is very very heavy compared to it's contemporaries. So we're already looking at way over 220 Kgs. The extra capacity over the 3.5 litre will lose some in the crank area, but because the RV8 doesn't have a fully counterweighted crankshaft- not as much as you might imagine. The block has been reinforced since the early days, but I can't see that adding much more then about 5-6 kgs. So these silly figures of around 140Kgs are Science Fiction. Other points of note are the fact that the valve timing does its own thing about about 4000 rpm due to the flex in the pushrods and rocker shaft location-this has a HUGE effect on top end power, an area where the undervalved Rover V8 struggles already- enlargening the capacity further will just boost low speed torque with little effect on peak power due to the restrictive nature of the cylinder heads- you’ll end up having to go to specially made Wildcat heads to get the top end back unless you’re particularly fond of the feel of a “diesel-esque” torque curve. Now don't get me wrong, the RV8 is a great "working class hero" of an engine- readily available. I TOTALLY understand the emotional reasons behind choosing this legendary stalwart powerplant, or retaining it for a sense of originality- fair play. But when biased folk start to pitch this motor, on function, against the Chevy C5 motor or a twin cam Jag, BMW, or Porsche V8s spending thousands upon thousands and seriously believing all the hype, they're on shaky ground. It's the engine equivalent of chavving up your Vauxhall Corsa with 20,000 pounds instead of buying a thoroughbred. Probably the same kind of people who think that MGBs, Triumphs or other BL stuff were "British Engineering at its best". They were characterful, fun cars, that perhaps can leave some of us with a warm feeling inside- but woefully under developed. It's a shame, because I for one would have loved the opportunity in developing the Rover V8 the way the Chevy C5 or Porsche 911 air cooled flat-6 engine was…..

[pwd95]

Try again i've put the link in now

[jmorgan]

Ah, I see. Been thinking of your £? spent on the weekend?

>> Edited by jmorgan on Tuesday 14th June 12:14

[19560]

pwd95 said:

Would one of these fit in to a wedge??

Initially it doesn't look good at about 1" wider IIRC (and you have to hit the manifold to get the RV8 in) and 60kg heavier but then the White Elephent and the 660 SEAC have done it somehow.

[pwd95]

jmorgan said:

Ah, I see. Been thinking of your £? spent on the weekend? >> Edited by jmorgan on Tuesday 14th June 12:14

Just dreaming Jeff

[rev-erend]

The small block chevy is going to be heavier than the RV8.

You also need to factor into the price :

Carb / injection
Extra cooling (rads / fans)
custom manifolds
cost to make engine mounts
gearbox / adaptor plate
clutch

and worst of all - Time off road to do all this ..

3.5K is just the start of it..

[19560]

rev-erend said:

The small block chevy is going to be heavier than the RV8.

See my earlier post.

rev-erend said:

You also need to factor into the price : Carb / injection Extra cooling (rads / fans) custom manifolds cost to make engine mounts gearbox / adaptor plate clutch

But would still be no more expensive than a tuned 5+litre RV8 however chassis mods may kill it.

rev-erend said:

3.5K is just the start of it..

Yes but could you do it for less than double that?

[302wedge]

The Chevy V8 is a great engine that makes lots of HP even in stock form, One of the best things is the ability to swap parts like cams, heads, intakes, oil pump, timing gears, flywheel......on an egine that had a +35 year run. That makes for cheap (speed)parts too. The bad news, it was introduced in 1955. Granted, very little remains the same as the 265ci original, but there was no concideration for weight back in 1955. The reason the parts are interchangeable is the engine block is still the same, HEAVY. Ford made a decision in 1962 to go with a new tech thin wall casting, light weight motor of 221ci (later 260,289,302). It took them years to catch-up to the Chevy proformance (and reputation)but when they did they had a big advantage in weight. Jack Griffith and Carol Shelby never concidered the Chevy V8. I found the Ford 302 and 5spd. to be the same weight as the 2.8 Cologne and much smaller then the Chevy. I mounted the 302 Ford in the ONLY position (+/-2cm) that didn't require any suspension or frame rail modification (2.8 Tasmin) and can't imagine what it would take to fit a Chevy V8. That said, I am sure it can be done. It would be a good challenge (or read "Challenger".

[rev-erend]

I'm not against anyone doing it - but it is just so much easier to do 2 things :

1) sell wedge and buy a bigger engined TVR (wedge or other..)

2) upgrade a small v8 wedge for a large Rv8..

Changing engines is just hard work - I've done in
(RV8 into a cortina Mk1) ..

It's often off the road for years - it can be hard to justify spending money on it - as it often has no resale value.. the word "Unfinished project" springs
to mind.

Good luck if you do it though

[19560]

rev-erend said:

I'm not against anyone doing it - but it is just so much easier to do 2 things : 1) sell wedge and buy a bigger engined TVR (wedge or other..) 2) upgrade a small v8 wedge for a large Rv8..

But they fail to reach 400+bhp.

[302wedge]

Rev is right again. If the RV 8 cars were available in the US I would have been souping up one of them instead. My car was off the road for over a year and the "budgit conversion" got de-railed long ago.

[grahamw48]

Sadly, it wouldn't fit in my basket.

[302wedge]

The Chevy V8 is 7-8cm wider then the Ford and 130 lbs. heavier. The 302 was a nice compromise. It can make lots of torque down low and still revs very well and has propelled many 3500lbs Mustangs through the 1/4 in the less then 11 sec.

[grahamw48]

302wedge said:

The Chevy V8 is 7-8cm wider then the Ford and 130 lbs. heavier. The 302 was a nice compromise. It can make lots of torque down low and still revs very well and has propelled many 3500lbs Mustangs through the 1/4 in the less then 11 sec.

- Been following your exploits.

Have you had it out on the road yet ?

[302wedge]

Graham, congratulations on your new Wedge. I have had mine out a few times but still working out the small bugs and doing it slowly (as measured in time not MPH). I found a crack in the R/H header and about to take it off for a repair. Even with the smaller 302, it is a full day's job just to remove and replace a header. I wish I had a RV8 Wedge to compair to. As you know 3500cc to 4000cc is a big improvement. 5000cc makes that little roadster a rocket. It'll smoke the tyres from a standing start in second gear.

[grahamw48]

Well, great to hear it's coming to fruition.

My tyres are too expensive to smoke !

The 390 is (to use a much overused expression)AWESOME !
Thank goodness I'm a bit older and more restrained now.
20 years ago I'd have killed myself in it.

[rev-erend]

302wedge said:

Rev is right again. If the RV 8 cars were available in the US I would have been souping up one of them instead. My car was off the road for over a year and the "budgit conversion" got de-railed long ago.

Thanks - I've been there and it is not easy.

So congratulations in making yours work.

I found out the hard way that it's just easier to see and buy the car you want..

For instance if you have a 280i and want it to go like a 450 SEAC then yes - you could spend 6K and it would be nearly as quick as a SEAC but would it be worth 9K..

err .. no.

Maybe 4 ~ 5 if you are lucky..

So - sometimes the easy route is financially better and you get your money back but if your desire is a street sleeper then why not put a huge engine in something like a 280i..

Bit like the Thorpedo..
(Tuscan Race chassis, Small block Chevy, 280i body)

[firefox1712]

Hmm - very interesting.

I was working on the idea some years ago of a lightweight high power sports car, and through various routes I seem to have come back to the idea of a V8 - probably a Chevy small block V8.

I believe some of the parts are interchangeable between old and new engines; the original design was that good.

I look back at the various Chevy powered racers and sports cars over the years - Scarab (King Hussein I believe was connected to this), Lister, Chapparal, Lola, McRae, Surtees, Trojan, Iso (though they then changed to Ford - or is it the other way round - I know a friend's car has the 302 Ford) et al, and the Chevy was considered to be better than the Ford.

The real problem with the Chevy is the block is cast iron and so it is heavier. I was interested to read that the Ford is narrower than the Chevy which is narrower than the RV8, and that the Ford is lighter than the Chevy by quite a margin.

The highly successful McLaren Can Am racers of the 60's/70's used the Chevy engine in a special aluminium form specially developed I think by Reynolds Aluminium or was it Alcoa/AlCan? - but this was quite possibly a large block? Some aluminium block small block Checys were made and tried out for development reasons I think, but not productionised.

There is an intersting article on the small block Chevy V8 in last month's (June issue) of Classic & Sports Car, which covers some of the details, but as so often they don't seem to say enough.

The real advantage of the RV8 is that it was always aluminium from the start. Anyone up for buying the rights to manufature it? Then to buy the DOHC heads design from Repco?