What happened to the 27 litre SD1?

[300bhp/ton]

Ages back I started reading about the PPC project to put a Meteor tank engine in a Rover SD1. Some Googling reveals that it did happen and even a few threads on here with the owner/builder. But the trail seems to have run dry. Not found anything newer than 2006...

So anyone know what happened?

[Alan Kee]

Charlie's recently been busy building another similar engine (but on carbs rather than injection) for a guy for his cadillac. The SD1 still appears regularly in his column in PPC magazine so it's very much alive.

[300bhp/ton]

Cheers will have to have a look.


BTW - did they ever do any performance stats with it?

[300bhp/ton]

doogz said:

470bhp at 1600rpm ish iirc.

No idea of the torque figure though.

I suppose it's quite sad to say that 470hp would seem a little disappointing.... although the 1600rpm bit is quite impressive.

[Choppers]

That was a great thread. Didn't it have a bloody great turbo on it as well ?

[GreigM]

doogz said:

Sorry, i should have added, it apparently makes 470ish bhp at 1600rpm.

But i have no idea if that is peak power. The article at the time didn't say as far as i recall, which i thought was a bit odd.

TBH they need a new editor. One that reads and spell checks the articles before it goes to print, it's constantly full of mistakes/typo's/bad editing.

Indeed, there was a huge spelling mistake on last month's front cover....just sloppy.

[markCSC]

This

http://www.ppcmag.co.uk/1981-rover-sd1-27-litre.ht...

In one of the videos it does say it makes 1600lb/ft at 1200rpm.... which is nice

Edited by markCSC on Tuesday 22 February 09:38

[hombrepaulo]

I expected a 27 litre engine to be much bigger than that

[Mr2Mike]

300bhp/ton said:

I suppose it's quite sad to say that 470hp would seem a little disappointing.... although the 1600rpm bit is quite impressive.

The original Meteor had around 600bhp, because it was designed to run on anything vaguely resembling petrol whilst being very lightly stressed. The engine in the SD1 now has proper tubular exhaust manifolds (instead of original cast iron log design) and fuel injection, so would hope they could squeeze a bit more out.

[Mr2Mike]

hombrepaulo said:

I expected a 27 litre engine to be much bigger than that

It's hardly small!

[hombrepaulo]

Mr2Mike said:

It's hardly small!

Meh, I at least expected it to be sticking out of the bonnet blocking the drivers view

[300bhp/ton]

Mr2Mike said:

The original Meteor had around 600bhp, because it was designed to run on anything vaguely resembling petrol whilst being very lightly stressed. The engine in the SD1 now has proper tubular exhaust manifolds (instead of original cast iron log design) and fuel injection, so would hope they could squeeze a bit more out.

I guess it also depends how accurate or which method the 600hp was rated at.

There are many ways of either measuring or deriving HP, as their are indeed many different types of HP also. Tractors for instance are often rated in drawbar HP and not brake HP. I wonder if this would be the case with a tank also.

And lastly, it could always be a blatant lie. Engine makers have been quite accomplished at this over the years.

[renrut]

I think the spelling mistakes add to the charm of the mag, gives it a homebrew feel and the content generally more than makes up for it. However it has got out of hand a few times in the past with the entire end of an article being missing, although I don't think the person who wrote it has written for them since...

The 470bhp iirc was all they could get out at the time because of various factors like engine tune and control. Had to have the ECU sent back to Omex for some hard wiring changes too as it runs 24 injectors so not really a quick support call.

According to this months article it should rev to 2800. Assuming it keeps its torque up, then you're looking at a peak of 900+bhp, without turbos or superchargers and at a rev limit below most diesels. I reckon it'll do that, those engines were capable of 600bhp with 1940s fuel and spark control and on poor quality fuel and poorly cooled.

[markCSC]

hombrepaulo said:

Meh, I at least expected it to be sticking out of the bonnet blocking the drivers view

I'm sorry you're saying this isn't big enough??? It is half in the drivers lap!

[Mr2Mike]

renrut said:

The 470bhp iirc was all they could get out at the time because of various factors like engine tune and control

Actually I think the Meteor engined SD1 runs on LPG, so potential for some power loss there.

[renrut]

300bhp/ton said:

Mr2Mike said:

The original Meteor had around 600bhp, because it was designed to run on anything vaguely resembling petrol whilst being very lightly stressed. The engine in the SD1 now has proper tubular exhaust manifolds (instead of original cast iron log design) and fuel injection, so would hope they could squeeze a bit more out.

I guess it also depends how accurate or which method the 600hp was rated at.

There are many ways of either measuring or deriving HP, as their are indeed many different types of HP also. Tractors for instance are often rated in drawbar HP and not brake HP. I wonder if this would be the case with a tank also.

And lastly, it could always be a blatant lie. Engine makers have been quite accomplished at this over the years.

Even if they made it all up the current car made 470bhp @1600rpm on log manifolds and electronic injection but was rev limited due to ECU problems. That *should* put it significantly up on the 1940s design. It now has tubular manifolds and a new ECU so *should* be better again and allow a fuller rev range.

Still 1000bhp NA doesn't sound *that* impressive for 27L so I can see where you're coming from. Honda S2000 as an example of what can be done NA in a car - 120bhp/litre @27litres -> 3240bhp NA. So best it can hope for with a 2800rpm limit is about 1000bhp NA which looks like they'll get close to. Beyond that it'll be a case of fancy pistons, cams and crank to get higher revs. Can't imagine the bill for that though.

[v8will]

doogz said:

Article on it this month in PPC, he's got the gearbox out for a rebuild.

I remember reading that the car runs a reduction so the gearbox only sees about 1/4 of the quoted torque figure.

[Mr2Mike]

renrut said:

Still 1000bhp NA doesn't sound *that* impressive for 27L

But of course it was never designed to produce high specific power. It was powering a tank in WW2, so reliability, stacks of torque and the ability to run on poor quality fuel were primary requirements. A bit like those massive Sulzer ship engines that produce 109,000 bhp (and over 5.5 million lbft!), but have a displacement of 25480 liters, giving just over 4 bhp per liter!

[Life Saab Itch]

renrut said:

I think the spelling mistakes add to the charm of the mag, gives it a homebrew feel and the content generally more than makes up for it. However it has got out of hand a few times in the past with the entire end of an article being missing, although I don't think the person who wrote it has written for them since...

I did wonder why a certain staff member suddenly stopped writing anything for them.

I agree that the magazine has lost it's direction somewhat. It needs looking at.

More stuff by Charlie, less poncing about with BMW 530Ds.

I like Will Holman's style, but I'm really not interested in diagnosing a flat spot in a BMW diesel's rev range. It's not what the magazine is about.

I've not seen anything about the trackday Rolls Royce since it had it's roof chopped last year...apart from the announcement about a helicopter engine in the last issue.

The Mini with a truck engine was a gash article. It didn't even drive anywhere, what's "practical" about that?

[Lefty]

Is this engine related to the merlin?

The Merlin was supercharged for most aero applications, making way over 1500hp IIRC.