bought meself a cossie :)

Pah, my Abrams A1M3 rev.62 MBT would see all three of you off the drag strip in about 3 seconds. Although the Grandad might need a second round, so lets say 4 seconds to be safe.

Reply to
Questions
Loading thread data ...

Think about PSA XU engines though. Essentially they are largely the same but some of them are very different. Some of them are even Diesel. (c:

I can't compare the 2 ford V6s in question because I've never driven a car with either, but I think the the characteristics of an engine can be changed dramatically by a reasonably small amount of factory fiddling.

Douglas

Reply to
Douglas Payne

But take all 1.9i/2.0i 8 valves and they're all more or less the same. Obviously if you start going from 8v to 16v, n/a to turbo, petrol to diesel etc it becomes different, but that's not the case here.

At the end of the day the engine was an outdated pushrod design - I cant imagine any sort of fiddling (without resulting to forced induction) would have made a huge amount of difference. I'm happy to be proved wrong though :)

Reply to
Carl Gibbs

There's nothing wrong with pushrods, so long as you don't need to rev the nuts off it. All those Rover V8 kits and conversions, with grunty-big power, that's a pushrod engine. Hear mine bark and roar, revise "outdated and gutless".

Having said that, the same engine in Landrover guise *is* gutless, and that's because it is tuned to deliver loads of torque for dragging a heavy landrover about through a four wheel drive box.

It's really all horses for courses.

NB if you go overhead cam, it is easier to add a second camshaft and set of valves just by making the chain slightly longer and go over both sprockets. To do the same thing on a pushrod engine, you have to find somewhere to put the extra followers. This is non-trivial. My Rover engine has a camshaft in the V, short chain from crank to cam so the chain lasts forever.

Facing the cam on each of the banks is a section holed for the followers, which fit into these holes and are pressed against the camshaft lobes by the pushrods which are held down by the rockers and valve springs.

There isn't space to drill another set of holes for more followers, and the cam lobes fill all the available space, so there's no way to add them. At the other end, using each rod to drive two rockers and two valves is feasible but will significantly enhance loading and wear all through the system for obvious reasons. Triumph managed to make this work on a four pot slant four 16v, but I dunno how reliable that was.

Basically, when you have a pushrod engine, you have a 16v (or 8v on a four pot engine).

This isn't 100% bad. The rover engine manages very respectable power through a single inlet valve, so long as it is the SD1 heads with decent inlet valve area. 200 to 300 horses. This is helped by easy breathing inlet manifold, easy extracting tubular exhaust manifold, and so forth. And the bestest of all, 8v engines are very different to drive, you get the power from lower down rather than having to rev it up all the time and change gear a lot.

Hey ho. Anyway, all this is beside the point as the Rover is a nice aluminium design that has been embraced by the aftermarket market. If you are getting a Ford v6 engine, there is only one option there, and it comes from Northampton rather than Cologne... :)

Reply to
Questions

I'm not saying all pushroad engines are necessarily gutless (although it is an outdated design), I was referring to the Ford lump in particular.

The Cologne's cam is gear driven off the crank.

..or 12v on a v6 :)

Which was part of my point. When I got the XR4x4 I was expecting a nice torquey, relaxed drive which I didnt get. In fact the MR2 (1.6 revvy nutter engine with funky variable inlet manifold) felt a lot more torquey low down. This was a bit of a disappointment.

Exactly. The Rover V8 is a well designed engine and makes the most of what it's got, which is why it's still being used today, and why it was so widely used in the first place. The Cologne doesnt, which is why its not being used in anything else today. It's heavy and (relatively) underpowered.

Reply to
Carl Gibbs

Major advance has been variable valve timing. Much easier with TOHC.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Mate of mine acquired one recently - it's an auto, got next to no miles on it (40mph. Sucks fuel though!

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

erm... SteveH... Is that the same SteveH who has been a serial Alfa owner?

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

If you meant "valve" then I'd love to know how 16 valves were spread amongst six cylinders...

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

And electronic injection. 2.8s were remarkably economical though.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Haven't alloys been standard (even if they're the base steel look alloys) on all the current, and last, version (E whogivesastuff) 3 series coupes?

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Dammit if I still had the Volvo - you'd have been screwed at the top end.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Diesel. Auto. A Class. Would beat you off the line, top end, and in the bends.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Er..cough...

Slip of the keyboard.

I must have been on the booze :)

Reply to
Trust No One®

my estate is quicker than tiff's lotus :p

Reply to
dojj

does this mean there is no despute that hes got a hairdressers car then? :)

Reply to
dojj

but the 24V is much more economical than the 12V it was develpoed from plus it gained at least another 30% more power

Reply to
dojj

mine is showing (at the moment) an average of 37mpg on the trip computer and another 450 mies worth of fuel left in the tank :)

but it's for the old man to pootle about in not for me to go racing about in (and besides, he's burnt out 2 clutches in the space of a year so i think an auto is going to last a little longer :)

Reply to
dojj

That's what happens when you over-rev it...

Reply to
Halmyre

Most of the time I think walking is quicker than Tiff's Lotus.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.