The Legendary Rover V8

[barney]

a bit of light reading;-

The Rover V8 began life as the Buick 215, an all-aluminium engine introduced for the 1961 model year. The compact engine was lightweight, at just 144 kg (318 lb), and capable of high power outputs: the most powerful Buick version of this engine rated 200 hp (149 kW), and the very similar Oldsmobile "Jetfire" turbocharged version made 215 hp (160 kW) (both numbers SAE gross). Based on sales volume and press reports, the engine was a success. Buick produced 376,799 cars with this engine in just three years. A comparable number of Oldsmobile 215 engines were produced. The aluminium engine was relatively expensive to produce, however, and it suffered problems with oil and coolant sealing, as well as with radiator clogging from use of antifreeze incompatible with aluminium. As a result, GM ceased production of the all-aluminium engine after 1963, although Buick retained a similar iron engine, as well as a V6 derivative that would prove to have a very long and successful life.

In January 1964 Rover gave American operations head J. Bruce McWilliams permission to investigate the possible purchase of an American V8 engine for Rover cars. It is usually said that McWilliams first saw the Buick V8 at the works of Mercury Marine, where he was discussing the sale of Rover gas turbines and diesel engines to the company (Mercury did indeed use the Land Rover diesel engine in marinised form). However, it seems unlikely that McWilliams was unaware of the Buick engine before this. In any case, McWilliams realised that the lightweight Buick V8 would be ideal for smaller British cars (indeed, it weighed less than many straight-4 engines it would replace). McWilliams and William Martin-Hurst began an aggressive campaign to convince GM to sell the tooling, which they finally agreed to do in January 1965. Retiring Buick engineer Joe Turley moved to the UK to act as a consultant.

As well as appearing in Rover cars, the engine was widely sold by Rover to small car builders, and has appeared in a wide variety of vehicles. Rover V8s feature in some models from Morgan, TVR, Triumph, Land Rover and MG, among many others.

The Rover V8 has long been virtually the standard engine for hot rod use in Britain, much as the Chevrolet small-block V8 is for American builders. Even in the US there is a strong contingent of builders who select the Buick or Rover aluminum V8 engine for use in small sporty cars like the MG MGB and the Chevy Vega. (Note also that the 1964 Buick iron-block 300cid engine had aluminum cylinder heads and a longer stroke crankshaft which with minor modifications can be used with the Buick 215 or Rover engine blocks to produce a high output, very light weight V8 with displacement of up to about 300cid.)

The demise of the MG Rover Group in 2005 led to a halt in production of the famed "name" Rover V8 after 40 years. The last Rover to have a real Rover V8 was the Rover SD1 Vitesse which was replaced by the Rover 827 Vitesse with a 2.7 Honda V6 unit, The Rover V8 remained with Land Rover until being sold to Ford by BMW. However, Land Rover desired for production of the engine to continue, and they arranged for production to restart in Weston-super-Mare under MCT, an engineering and manufacturing company. Although Land Rover has switched to the Jaguar AJ-V8 engine for new applications, MCT will continue limited production of the engine for the indeterminate future, supplying engines for aftermarket and replacement use.

3.5L

The initial Rover version of the engine had a displacement of 3528 cc. It used a sand-cast (rather than pressure die-cast) block, pressed-in iron cylinder liners, and a new intake manifold with two SU carburetors. The Rover engine was heavier but stronger than the Buick engine, with a dry weight of about 170 kg (375 lb). It was first offered in the 1965 Rover P5B saloon, initially making 160 hp (DIN) (118 kW) @ 5200 rpm and 210 ft·lbf (285 N·m) of torque @ 2600 rpm on 10.5:1 compression.

3.9/4.0L

Land Rover used a 3.9 L (3946 cc) version of the Rover V8 through the 1990s. Revised in 1995 (and thereafter referred to as a 4.0 to differentiate it from the earlier version, although displacement remained the same at 3946cc) with a new intake and exhaust system, extra block ribbing, revised pistons, and larger cross-bolted main-bearings. The 1995 4.0 produced 190 hp (142 kW) and 236 ft·lbf (320 N·m).

Production of the 4.0 ended in 2001. The final version of the engine, used in the Land Rover Discovery, produced 188 hp (140 kW) at 4750 rpm and 250 ft·lbf (339 N·m) at 2600 rpm.

4.2L

Land Rover extended the 3946cc engine for the top LSE[4] specification of the Classic Range Rover. The 4.2 L engine had a displacement of 4197 cc, and used the crankshaft castings from the failed "Iceberg" diesel engine project

4.4L

Leyland of Australia produced a special 4.4 L (4416 cc) version of the aluminum V8 for their down under-only 1973 Leyland P76. This rare engine produced 200 hp (149 kW) and 280 ft·lbf (380 N·m) and although export (to the UK) versions were planned, the failure of British Leyland's Australian operations in 1975 precluded the widespread application of this engine.

4.6L

In 1996, Land Rover enlarged the Rover V8 to 4.6 L (4552 cc or 281 in³). The bore remained the same size as the previous 4.0, but the engine was stroked by 10.9 mm. Output was 225 hp (168 kW) and 280 ft·lbf (380 N·m).

Production of the 4.6 ended at Solihull, UK, in 2002. The final version, used in the Range Rover, produced 222 hp (166 kW) at 4750 rpm and 300 ft·lbf (407 N·m) at 2600 rpm.

The last mass-produced application of the Rover V8 was the Land Rover Discovery, up until the vehicle was redesigned in 2005. It is still used by some hand-built sports cars built by some independent manufacturers.

5.0L

A 5 litre variant of the Rover V8 was used in two models by British sportscar manufacturer TVR. These models, the TVR Griffith and TVR Chimaera used the 5 litre unit in their top-end specifications. The factory quotes up to 340 bhp and 350 ft·lbf of torque.


don't blame me if any of this is wrong, i copied it from a group on facebook

[rovercare]

5.0L

A 5 litre variant of the Rover V8 was used in two models by British sportscar manufacturer TVR. These models, the TVR Griffith and TVR Chimaera used the 5 litre unit in their top-end specifications. The factory quotes up to 340 bhp and 350 ft·lbf of torque.


don't blame me if any of this is wrong, i copied it from a group on facebook

How it should of started:twisted:

[barney]

What do you mean? they should've just started with the 5 litre or i should've started the thread with the disclaimer?:eek:

[Bigbjorn]

What do you mean? they should've just started with the 5 litre or i should've started the thread with the disclaimer?:eek:

Rovercare shares my philosophy as to the benefits of cubic inches. GM had already built that engine family at sizes up to 5 litres before selling it off to Rover. Why Rover did not follow on is a mystery. The cast iron V6 variant used by Buick and others was built up to 4.5 litres which equates to a 6 litre V8, so there was obviously plenty of capacity for increase in the basic design.

Rover made quite a number of changes including the change in casting method. Rover's PR people put it about that these were necessary "to meet Rover's higher standards". Actually the changes were necessary to build it on Rover's antiquated plant which dated to 1928. GM built it in a brand new in 1960 state of the art plant. Rover could not afford to rebuild and retool.

[JDNSW]

Rovercare shares my philosophy as to the benefits of cubic inches. GM had already built that engine family at sizes up to 5 litres before selling it off to Rover. Why Rover did not follow on is a mystery. The cast iron V6 variant used by Buick and others was built up to 4.5 litres which equates to a 6 litre V8, so there was obviously plenty of capacity for increase in the basic design.

Rover made quite a number of changes including the change in casting method. Rover's PR people put it about that these were necessary "to meet Rover's higher standards". Actually the changes were necessary to build it on Rover's antiquated plant which dated to 1928. GM built it in a brand new in 1960 state of the art plant. Rover could not afford to rebuild and retool.


There is no mystery to me why Rover did not build a larger variant - at the time, in the mid sixties, 3.5l was a very large engine for the English or European market - which was Rover's market, with relatively few sales elsewhere. When the engine was purchased and production plans made, there were no plans to use it in four wheel drives, and even if there had been, there were no competitors using a larger engine, or in fact, a V8 of any kind in competitive vehicles, although Jeep was about to - but Landrover and Jeep did not compete in the same market to a significant degree, being pretty much isolated between the dollar and sterling currency areas.

And of course, Rover never had a hope of building a plant like GM's - nobody, including GM, could have built one for Rover's market, even if the engine had gone into every car sold in Britain. Until the globalisation of the car industry, that sort of investment could only be undertaken in the US market, and even there only by the market leaders. Nowhere else was the market large enough.

What a lot of people forget is that the design of cars (and virtually everything else to some degree) is dictated by available production methods and facilities. As a prime example, the design of the original Landrover, and hence its descendants to the present Defender, was constrained by the resources available to Rover in 1947. Aluminium panelling? Steel supply restrictions. Bolt together construction? Could not afford tooling. Box section welded ladder chassis? Could not afford tooling. Compare with the contemporary Jeep - its construction used conventional pressed metal and welding, which were possible because of a large initial order, which Rover did not have.

John

[bobslandies]

Firstly, how did Rover acquire the engine? GM was dumping it!

Here is a fascinating story that gives an insight into the way Rover missed the boat completely with the enormous potential US market in the 1970s. Read about how the Rover North America subsidiary modified an 88" vehicle with an alloy V8 (COULD NOT be done said Solihull) in 1966 from the ground up, drove it across America, took it Solihull to prove it could be done and saw it canned. The American subsidiary was trying to drag Rover into the real world.

West Coast British (http://www.offroadexperience.com/wcb/naspecials3.htm)
More info here:
This is the story by the son of the man who put it together.
Golden Rod story 1966 (http://www.offroadexperience.com/wcb/naspecials7.htm)
He makes the comment that on the same day he went for a drive in the V8 88" and in the first NADA (North American Dollar Area) Weslake headed Six wagon.
The Weslake version was never available here or in the UK - probably too powerful. Instead Land Rover (as later Range Rover) got strangled derivatives of the car engine when a standard Rover 3litre or the Weslake head version makes a Land Rover great to drive with 4.3:1 ratio differentials. The Americans had already done that too with the V8!

No doubt about it - a 3.5l in a SWB and a 5l in a LWB.
Land Rover could have optioned a Perkins or Turner diesel. These had been tried but the gearbox was not up to them. Santana could later build a six cylinder version of the 2.25 Land Rover diesel then that could have been done earlier.

It took years before the V8 was fitted to the last of the Series 3.

Bob

[101RRS]

I have also heard that the original Dunnydore V6 is from the same family of engines as the original Buick V8 and hence the Rover V8.

Garry

[jimbo110]

I have also heard that the original Dunnydore V6 is from the same family of engines as the original Buick V8 and hence the Rover V8.

Garry
Sure was, from wiki:
Fireball V6

The first engine in this family was introduced in 1961 with Buick's 198 cu in (3.2 L) engine, the first V6 in an American car. Because it was derived from Buick's 215 cu in (3.5 L) aluminum V8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_V8_engine#215), it has a 90° bank between cylinders and an odd-fire firing pattern that include the two 'phantom' cylinders from the V8 pattern.

[Bigbjorn]

Sure was, from wiki:
Fireball V6

The first engine in this family was introduced in 1961 with Buick's 198 cu in (3.2 L) engine, the first V6 in an American car. Because it was derived from Buick's 215 cu in (3.5 L) aluminum V8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_V8_engine#215), it has a 90° bank between cylinders and an odd-fire firing pattern that include the two 'phantom' cylinders from the V8 pattern.

It was made even firing quite a log time ago by rearranging the big end journals relative to each other. Take a look at a crankshaft and it is self evident how this was done. This engine was also just about the first masss production use of distributorless ignition. At peak demand times Buick were making 7,000 of these engines a day.

[Bigbjorn]

There is no mystery to me why Rover did not build a larger variant - at the time, in the mid sixties, 3.5l was a very large engine for the English or European market - which was Rover's market, with relatively few sales elsewhere.

John

Rover's passenger car market was the English upper middle classes, farmers, company cars for sales and factory managers, the upwardly mobile and nouveau riche looking for something with more snob appeal than Vauxhalls and Ford Zodiacs, etc. Larger engines were not uncommon in the cars catering to this market. Top end Austins of the 1950's had 4 litre in-line sixes, Jaguar the 4.2 litre, Daimler had a 4.5 litre V8 in the Majestic, Rolls Royce/Bentley had 4 and bit litre six cylinders before the 6.2 litre V8.

GM were no doubt delighted to find a buyer for an engine family that no longer fitted into their marketing plans. The compact car revolution of 1959-60 which brought about the Chev. Corvair, Buicks and Oldsmobiles with the little aluminium V8, Pontiac Tempest, Ford Falcon, and Chrysler's Valiants had withered on the vine. Fuel was cheap, Americans liked big cars for big people and a big country and the compacts faded from the market place not to be revived until the first Arab oil shock in 1974. American iron foundry technology advanced in leaps and bounds in the late '50's & early 60's with ability to mass produce precise thin wall lightweight and high strength iron castings somewhat negating the need for aluminium engines for decades to come. GM had bad experiences with mass production of large complex aluminium castings. The little V8 and later the Vega and Cosworth-Vega had high rejection rates during the production processes and were by GM's standards, high warranty cost items. They did persevere and developed mass production foundry processes for large complex aluminium items that are now used worldwide. Likewise their experiences with the Reynolds Nikasil process for aluminium cylinder bores. This was again too expensive because of high rejection rates up to 10% and parts of the process being so slow as to create log jams on the production line unless multiple processing stations were installed at the choke points. GM still regard this process as not yet suitable for mass production. It is used by Porsche and Daimler-Benz who, by GM standards, are not mass producers, and are catering to a high price market where the high production and warranty costs can be absorbed. At peak demand times, GM were making 10,000 Chev. small block engines per day, and 7,000 Buick V6 per day.

[Slunnie]

Hmmm, if Rover had enough technology to reduce the V8 to a 3.5 litre, I'm sure that it would have taken less technology to leave it as a larger engine. I agree that 5 litre is where they should have started, or at least run the long throw crank in the 3.5 if they couldn't manufacture the big bores properly... which they never seemed to have done on a consistent basis.

[Bigbjorn]

Sure was, from wiki:
Fireball V6

The first engine in this family was introduced in 1961 with Buick's 198 cu in (3.2 L) engine, the first V6 in an American car.

There was a 5.6 litre V6 in GMC trucks in the 50's-60's. They also made a 11.3 litre V12 in this design buy using four of the V6 cylinder heads on a common block and crankshaft. An engine of most impressive appearance, the V12, sheer size, lots of heads and exhaust pipes. One can imagine the fuel consumption pulling a single drive prime mover and laden trailer. Gasoline was only about 20cents/gallon then.

[JDNSW]

Rover's passenger car market was the English upper middle classes, farmers, company cars for sales and factory managers, the upwardly mobile and nouveau riche looking for something with more snob appeal than Vauxhalls and Ford Zodiacs, etc. Larger engines were not uncommon in the cars catering to this market. Top end Austins of the 1950's had 4 litre in-line sixes, Jaguar the 4.2 litre, Daimler had a 4.5 litre V8 in the Majestic, Rolls Royce/Bentley had 4 and bit litre six cylinders before the 6.2 litre V8.
..............

The cars you quote were not in the same market as Rover's - except for Jaguar they were right at the top of the market and by the 1960s Austin were no longer producing cars with such large engines. And all of Rover's cars either in production or planned were smaller than the ones you mention.

Only in hindsight could you suggest that the engine should have been much larger, it is simply ignoring the realities of the 1960s to suggest otherwise. After all it was larger than almost all engines produced in Australia in the mid sixties, and Australia always had larger engines than the UK.

John

[rovercare]

The cars you quote were not in the same market as Rover's - except for Jaguar they were right at the top of the market and by the 1960s Austin were no longer producing cars with such large engines. And all of Rover's cars either in production or planned were smaller than the ones you mention.

Only in hindsight could you suggest that the engine should have been much larger, it is simply ignoring the realities of the 1960s to suggest otherwise. After all it was larger than almost all engines produced in Australia in the mid sixties, and Australia always had larger engines than the UK.

John

What about the 70's.....80's....90's.....

[JDNSW]

What about the 70's.....80's....90's.....

Good point - but Rover had set up 3.5l production by the late sixties, and almost immediately after that they were in the hands of the disaster called Leyland. No money was available to them until the late seventies, and then it was in short supply - Landrover was treated as a cash cow by Leyland, since it was the only part of the business making money. And by the eighties at least it was clear that the market for four wheel drives was primarily diesels, and a good, more powerful, diesel was obviously more important, although it took until the end of the eighties to produce it. And this necessarily had to be a small, highly boosted engine to meet European tax rules.

The constraints on finance for Landrover in the eighties had a lot of ill effects, but lack of a bigger petrol engine was minor compared to some of the others - for example, the fact that they could not afford to increase body width. An increase in body width of the coil sprung Landrovers along with the increase in track would have made a world of difference, but the cost of tooling (particularly for the bulkhead) was considered excessive.

John

[rrturboD]

I understand that somewhere in the development of the 4l+ motors LR outsourced the development to JE Engineering who had been privately developing the motor and supplying to race car builders
There is probably something more on Welcome to the JE Engineering Website (http://www.jeengineering.co.uk/index.htm)

Tell you what though ... they build some pretty powerfull Rover V8s

[loanrangie]

Hmmm, if Rover had enough technology to reduce the V8 to a 3.5 litre, I'm sure that it would have taken less technology to leave it as a larger engine. I agree that 5 litre is where they should have started, or at least run the long throw crank in the 3.5 if they couldn't manufacture the big bores properly... which they never seemed to have done on a consistent basis.

It was never reduced in capacity as it was a 215 ci when buick first cast it, they later made cast iron variants (after canning the alloy V8) up 350 ci which shared parts with the 3.8 V6 up till mid 77 when the V6 went to even fire with split crank journals.