I am starting a new (not a 40) project that will be using a Olds 215 V8 witch I believe is the same motor as the Rover 3.5.I am looking for advise on parts and ideas used to build up some decent power.I haven't found much in the way of parts in the U.S. , but I know a lot of you have experience with this engine in the U.K.Any help will be appreciated, Thanks
Rover V8 advise
- Thread starter rwbakk
- Start date
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
Hi Roy
the Rover V8 in many guises makes it's way into a number of cars
Power can be got but it is really expensive to get - and a Ford / Chev etc will gove a lot more bank for the buck!
Example my engine
Brand new cost £4000
It was sent to John Eales (British touring car racr / tuner) and £6000 spent on tuning, balancing etc and it now runs at about240 - 250 hp (flywheel) when running efi
These numbers are a lot cheaper with other makes
I bought my car and engine as an unfinished project or would not have gone for Rover power in a Ford replica
Ian
the Rover V8 in many guises makes it's way into a number of cars
Power can be got but it is really expensive to get - and a Ford / Chev etc will gove a lot more bank for the buck!
Example my engine
Brand new cost £4000
It was sent to John Eales (British touring car racr / tuner) and £6000 spent on tuning, balancing etc and it now runs at about240 - 250 hp (flywheel) when running efi
These numbers are a lot cheaper with other makes
I bought my car and engine as an unfinished project or would not have gone for Rover power in a Ford replica
Ian
I'm guessing that Roy is looking at using an Old 215 in large part because of its relatively light weight (all alloy block and heads)...perhaps in something like an MGB V8 conversion, where indeed, weight is a key factor. Saving 100lbs over the front axle of an MGB makes a big difference, not so much on a GT40.
Rob, you can get a bigger displacement version which is similar from a US Range Rover - either a 3.9 or 4.6. The 3.9 came in Range Rovers from about '85 and the 4.6 from about '93. These might give you a little more output for not a lot more weight.
Good luck!
Rob, you can get a bigger displacement version which is similar from a US Range Rover - either a 3.9 or 4.6. The 3.9 came in Range Rovers from about '85 and the 4.6 from about '93. These might give you a little more output for not a lot more weight.
Good luck!
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Roy, I run a 3.5 in my ITS Triumph TR8. I would disagree with Ian (no offense) and make about 210 flywheel hp for a lot less than that with essentially stock components (cam, etc.).
I would NOT start with the Olds block. It is the rarest of the three variants (Rover, Buick nd Olds) and the heads and many other parts are not interchangeable with the Rover and Buick motors.
I'd use the Rover block, and if originality is not an issue, start with the 4.0 (the most prevalent of the "modern" Rover motors). You can make 300 flywheel hp pretty easily and pretty cheaply with the 4.0.
The primary source of all things 3.5 V8 in the US is D&D Fabrications: Engineering & Fabrication Services. Those guys know their stuff, and have all the parts for the 3.5 (all three varieties) that you need.
TSI Imported in Pandora, Ohio also has Rover V8 parts.
Last, there is (as last resort) Victoria British. Check out their TR8 catalog.
In the US, there is RImmer, S&S and a whole host of other suppliers.
I would NOT start with the Olds block. It is the rarest of the three variants (Rover, Buick nd Olds) and the heads and many other parts are not interchangeable with the Rover and Buick motors.
I'd use the Rover block, and if originality is not an issue, start with the 4.0 (the most prevalent of the "modern" Rover motors). You can make 300 flywheel hp pretty easily and pretty cheaply with the 4.0.
The primary source of all things 3.5 V8 in the US is D&D Fabrications: Engineering & Fabrication Services. Those guys know their stuff, and have all the parts for the 3.5 (all three varieties) that you need.
TSI Imported in Pandora, Ohio also has Rover V8 parts.
Last, there is (as last resort) Victoria British. Check out their TR8 catalog.
In the US, there is RImmer, S&S and a whole host of other suppliers.
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
Jeff and cliff
No offense taken by any comment here - after all my comments are my own experiences and may not aply in all cases
200 -210 hp is reasonaby acheivable with reliability in a 3.5 any more anit will get expensive - but then others say a 3.5 is good for 300hp - itall boils down to which dyno you choose and if they are Clydesdales or Sheltand ponies!
Perhaps I can also point out a couple of other things
The later version engines use a serpantine belt system and have a lot more up to date oiling system - nose can be very long though
Older blocks with P6 waterpump give the shortest nose / front dress
Then again if you are able to accept electric water pump only there is a very short solution
Oil in the older engines has to be 20w50 nineral oil Synthetic does not work in the older oiling system - likewise mose do not like any stray from the 20w50 (First start needs 20 mins of running above 2000 rpm or the cam will wear out at a silly rate.
Camshafts form a wearing part on these and any rebuild after 30000 miles will need a replacement cam and lifters that must be changed together or you will immediately kill the next set. After 100 000 miles in a rangerover the cam lobes will be fairly non existant
Then there are numerous fuelling systems that work on these engines from twin SU, 4 SU, 4 barrel, quad dellortos or webbers and a plethora of EFI systems - remember that the Efi systems are old technology on antything other than the newest engines
No doubt these comments will be debated too - however that is how information is gained on these forums
The Buick / Olds engines are good in some respects and some tuners prefer the Buick head casting as a point to start a build
A lot of Rover V8 info can be found here
http://www.v8forum.co.uk/forum/index.php
Ian
No offense taken by any comment here - after all my comments are my own experiences and may not aply in all cases
200 -210 hp is reasonaby acheivable with reliability in a 3.5 any more anit will get expensive - but then others say a 3.5 is good for 300hp - itall boils down to which dyno you choose and if they are Clydesdales or Sheltand ponies!
Perhaps I can also point out a couple of other things
The later version engines use a serpantine belt system and have a lot more up to date oiling system - nose can be very long though
Older blocks with P6 waterpump give the shortest nose / front dress
Then again if you are able to accept electric water pump only there is a very short solution
Oil in the older engines has to be 20w50 nineral oil Synthetic does not work in the older oiling system - likewise mose do not like any stray from the 20w50 (First start needs 20 mins of running above 2000 rpm or the cam will wear out at a silly rate.
Camshafts form a wearing part on these and any rebuild after 30000 miles will need a replacement cam and lifters that must be changed together or you will immediately kill the next set. After 100 000 miles in a rangerover the cam lobes will be fairly non existant
Then there are numerous fuelling systems that work on these engines from twin SU, 4 SU, 4 barrel, quad dellortos or webbers and a plethora of EFI systems - remember that the Efi systems are old technology on antything other than the newest engines
No doubt these comments will be debated too - however that is how information is gained on these forums
The Buick / Olds engines are good in some respects and some tuners prefer the Buick head casting as a point to start a build
A lot of Rover V8 info can be found here
http://www.v8forum.co.uk/forum/index.php
Ian
I actually already have a Olds 215 eng to start with, I am going to put it in a 2nd gen Mazda rx7 so yes the weight of the eng is key. A previous project had on of these in the back of a 67 912 Porsche witch was basically stock with the addition of a high performance cam,I was always a little dissapointed at the amount of power that eng put out.This car will be used for a track day car and some autocross, looking for advise on cam selection,compression ratio/piston selection. I plan on using the stock stroke but have toyed with the idea of sleeving it out to a larger bore.What max rpm do you guys run?
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
Hi Roy
Mine will hit about 6500 rpm - much over 5500 and no power is gained
Anything over about 5500 and the standard lifters have a bit of a pump up problem
In an Rx7 you're going to need an alternative gearbox as the ratios will be unusable with a 6k limit -the rotaries tend to spin a lot faster
Ian
Mine will hit about 6500 rpm - much over 5500 and no power is gained
Anything over about 5500 and the standard lifters have a bit of a pump up problem
In an Rx7 you're going to need an alternative gearbox as the ratios will be unusable with a 6k limit -the rotaries tend to spin a lot faster
Ian
Ron Earp
Admin
I'd second Jeff's writings.
I didn't know anything about these engines until four or five years ago when I started racing with Jeff. Since then I've learned a bit and I think they are pretty cool little motors. Using stock parts as Jeff said, with attention to detail (read not expensive) these motors are easy for 200 fwhp. Use a non-stock cam, 4bbl manifold, 10.5:1 compression and I'd figure a good 225 fwhp is pretty easy to get.
As I recall Jeff got 158 rear wheel hp from a 3.5L motor with the horrible dual carb stromberg manifold, 8.5:1 compression, and the stock TR8 cam which has lobes that have about as much lift as a pimple. Exhaust was good though, with proper sized primaries
(less than 1.5", about 1.25" is good for the 3.5L with Jeff's rule limitations on mods) that merge into 4 into 1s and then down to a single exhaust. Torque was right at 200 ft*lbs and the power band was about 3000-5200, it'd rev to 6k but didn't want to and it wasn't needed.
His current iteration uses the old Rover V8 EFI manifold with standalone ECU control. Rear wheel hp is over 175hp and we expect more as tuning and development continues. Still stock cam, 8.5:1 compression, and same exhaust/heads (we are allowed to port match only with our heads, no large valves, etc.). The motors have potential and are cheap to build.
Neat engines. Light, pretty compact, and parts are cheap. All that said, at least in the US a Ford 5L SB is even cheaper to build and is going to make more power.
I didn't know anything about these engines until four or five years ago when I started racing with Jeff. Since then I've learned a bit and I think they are pretty cool little motors. Using stock parts as Jeff said, with attention to detail (read not expensive) these motors are easy for 200 fwhp. Use a non-stock cam, 4bbl manifold, 10.5:1 compression and I'd figure a good 225 fwhp is pretty easy to get.
As I recall Jeff got 158 rear wheel hp from a 3.5L motor with the horrible dual carb stromberg manifold, 8.5:1 compression, and the stock TR8 cam which has lobes that have about as much lift as a pimple. Exhaust was good though, with proper sized primaries
(less than 1.5", about 1.25" is good for the 3.5L with Jeff's rule limitations on mods) that merge into 4 into 1s and then down to a single exhaust. Torque was right at 200 ft*lbs and the power band was about 3000-5200, it'd rev to 6k but didn't want to and it wasn't needed.
His current iteration uses the old Rover V8 EFI manifold with standalone ECU control. Rear wheel hp is over 175hp and we expect more as tuning and development continues. Still stock cam, 8.5:1 compression, and same exhaust/heads (we are allowed to port match only with our heads, no large valves, etc.). The motors have potential and are cheap to build.
Neat engines. Light, pretty compact, and parts are cheap. All that said, at least in the US a Ford 5L SB is even cheaper to build and is going to make more power.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Ian, thanks. My sentiments exactly -- just a good exchange of information.
Roy, just a few ramblings, based on what I know about the Olds version.
Ian is right that the best "early" heads are the Buick 300s. Larger exhaust ports and valves. The cylinder head is the numero uno restriction on these cars, and getting good flow is key to power.
However.....talk to Mark at D&D Fabrications: Engineering & Fabrication Services and he will help you. They actually have a lot of information on the Olds version of the motor, and are one of the few people that do. You need big valve heads and a nice port on them -- with the Rover motor that's easy to do but the head bolt design on the Olds is different and I'm not sure whether you can get the nicer, better flowing late Rover and Buick 300 castings to match up.
You have a ton of cam options, depending on where you want your power. You can build a torque monster Olds 3.5 or you can move the power band up the rev range and get maybe more peak power at the expense of lower torque.
The limiting factor on revs is the valvetrain. Mark has corrections for this. Stock, you are risking breaking valve gear anytime you go north of 5800 rpm and with stock-ish cams, as Ron said, you won't be making any more power anyway north of 5500.
That can be changed. The bottom end is stout and with good valve gear - and in particular the rockers and rocker shafts -- you can turn 7000 rpm.
You also can overbore the engines, but I think the max overbore gives you abou 4.0 displacement. Above that you have to stroke it. I am guessing a bit on this, again, Mark is the guy to talk to.
I would guess that a 3.5 Olds punched out to 4.0, with a nice cam and either a good intake and carb or EFI will make 300-350 flywheel hp, and weigh in the 350 lb range fully dressed out.
BUT....Ron is right. As neat as this motor is and even given the light weight, a Ferd 302 or a SBC or Mopar 340 all are going to make significantly more power, cheaper.
Roy, just a few ramblings, based on what I know about the Olds version.
Ian is right that the best "early" heads are the Buick 300s. Larger exhaust ports and valves. The cylinder head is the numero uno restriction on these cars, and getting good flow is key to power.
However.....talk to Mark at D&D Fabrications: Engineering & Fabrication Services and he will help you. They actually have a lot of information on the Olds version of the motor, and are one of the few people that do. You need big valve heads and a nice port on them -- with the Rover motor that's easy to do but the head bolt design on the Olds is different and I'm not sure whether you can get the nicer, better flowing late Rover and Buick 300 castings to match up.
You have a ton of cam options, depending on where you want your power. You can build a torque monster Olds 3.5 or you can move the power band up the rev range and get maybe more peak power at the expense of lower torque.
The limiting factor on revs is the valvetrain. Mark has corrections for this. Stock, you are risking breaking valve gear anytime you go north of 5800 rpm and with stock-ish cams, as Ron said, you won't be making any more power anyway north of 5500.
That can be changed. The bottom end is stout and with good valve gear - and in particular the rockers and rocker shafts -- you can turn 7000 rpm.
You also can overbore the engines, but I think the max overbore gives you abou 4.0 displacement. Above that you have to stroke it. I am guessing a bit on this, again, Mark is the guy to talk to.
I would guess that a 3.5 Olds punched out to 4.0, with a nice cam and either a good intake and carb or EFI will make 300-350 flywheel hp, and weigh in the 350 lb range fully dressed out.
BUT....Ron is right. As neat as this motor is and even given the light weight, a Ferd 302 or a SBC or Mopar 340 all are going to make significantly more power, cheaper.
Similar threads
