Printable View
This is AULRO, after all. Just count yourself lucky it didn't degenerate into a discussion involving K&N filters and how the country is going down the gurgler and we'll all be rooined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
Anyway, for a high mileage like yours I'd say that's pretty much okay. BUT, this is an engine that's likely to be on its way out, given how they go through camshafts.
Did anyone mention volumetric efficiency? :)
That is what i figured. I plan on measuring cam lift this weekend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davo
Actually, if you plug the figures in to a VE calculator the 4.0 l V8 comes up quite well.Quote:
Originally Posted by BathurstTom
Where's 400HPONGAS when you need him to curse the inefficiency of Rover heads??? :p
The last I heard (Apr 12) he had major health issues and was no longer able to come online.Quote:
Originally Posted by Davo
Well, sorry to hear that.
I am going to call bad calibration on the gauge for the high compression readings. To get that high of a comp' test without any modifications, something is amiss.
EDIT: This is in regards to the 170-185.
I always use compression ratio *15 to get my minimum acceptable pressure for an engine that's been run for a couple of minutes to ensure that the rings aren't sitting cold and dry.
Best I've ever seen out if a rover engine was 220psi but then it wasn't precisely stock or 300k km old either.
Via the modern day equivalent to smoke signals fromsome place other than the cave where my hat hangs.