Cosworth/Rover V8
Cosworth/Rover V8
Author
Discussion

Markh

Original Poster:

2,781 posts

305 months

Sunday 13th January 2008
quotequote all
Anyone know what development work has been done these new Rover V8 blocks (as seen in this months Sprint) its early days I know but are they better and why?

Zumbruk

7,848 posts

290 months

Sunday 13th January 2008
quotequote all
And is it worth buying one and stashing it away "just in case"?

Boosted LS1

21,200 posts

290 months

Sunday 13th January 2008
quotequote all
I don't get sprint but obvious improvements would be improved oil ways, larger camshaft journals and increased distance between the camshaft and crankshaft. Pity they don't work the heads instead, that's always been the real issue with rover engines. If they made the cylinder bore size 100 mm they could use chevy pistons which are plentiful and cheap.

cmr2payne

1,129 posts

264 months

Sunday 13th January 2008
quotequote all
Email TVR power they are selling them so will know about them

Link to power


spend

12,581 posts

281 months

Sunday 13th January 2008
quotequote all
I thought these were recent 4.0/4.6 late large journal blocks, pretty standard. Main advantage being the QC of the wasted casting areas ~ ie thickness of walls in the jacket? which people seem to attribute cracks & dropped liners to even with LR sonic testing/grading? It seems various information has been written in different places, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt wink

Dave

Markh

Original Poster:

2,781 posts

305 months

Sunday 13th January 2008
quotequote all
Boosted LS1 said:
I don't get sprint but obvious improvements would be improved oil ways, larger camshaft journals and increased distance between the camshaft and crankshaft. Pity they don't work the heads instead, that's always been the real issue with rover engines. If they made the cylinder bore size 100 mm they could use chevy pistons which are plentiful and cheap.
That was going to be my next question, will the heads be re-cast with improvements

Boosted LS1

21,200 posts

290 months

Sunday 13th January 2008
quotequote all
Markh said:
Boosted LS1 said:
I don't get sprint but obvious improvements would be improved oil ways, larger camshaft journals and increased distance between the camshaft and crankshaft. Pity they don't work the heads instead, that's always been the real issue with rover engines. If they made the cylinder bore size 100 mm they could use chevy pistons which are plentiful and cheap.
That was going to be my next question, will the heads be re-cast with improvements
Lol, after all these years I very much doubt it! Somebody could sell lots of heads to the existing owners if prices came down for bulk runs but nobody wants to risk the investment. I can't see it happening, ever. Pity the buick v6 wasn't made in aluminium, at least I don't think it was. That's the engine which had all the development the rover never got.

spend

12,581 posts

281 months

Sunday 13th January 2008
quotequote all
Wildcat heads? Haven't Real Steel casted their own heads?

Dave

rev-erend

21,624 posts

314 months

Sunday 13th January 2008
quotequote all
spend said:
Wildcat heads? Haven't Real Steel casted their own heads?

Dave
Wildcat take too long to make the heads.. waits of 1 year are not unusual ..

So - they cannot make the volume - seems a very manual process when I was there watching them make them..

350Matt

3,912 posts

309 months

Sunday 13th January 2008
quotequote all
Th real steel heads look like good value to me from the flow figure they've quoted but I've not heard of any dyno results other than Real steels at the mo'

Matt

Boosted LS1

21,200 posts

290 months

Sunday 13th January 2008
quotequote all
I think the wildcat heads are based upon the Buick grand national design which were probably the pinnacle in buick development. The buick heads had huge potential and factory support, downside was it had only 6 cylinders so couldn't be grafted onto a rover very easily. That said, if it was copied in v8 design for the masses it would be a winner! It's what the rover always needed.