Thread: Rolls-Royce B40 Powered 80" Land Rover

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Diana,
John Smith's new book ...

...if you don't have the book yet you should get it), ...

John

I'd have to learn to read first!

If you are interested in this engine and the various uses it was put to think the best source of information so far is the book by Pat Ware called The Rolls - Royce B series engine In National Service. This was published about 15 years ago and is hard cover.

Do not have a copy to hand however from memory the B40 engine was intended to power the military Land-Rovers. This was a policy decision made during WW2 that to make supply easier they would adopt a standard range of engines which all military vehicles would be powered by. No more different engine from each vehicle manufacturer. Land-Rover was not to be an exception.

Rolls-Royce had designed just such a range of engines prior to WW2 that had never gone into production. Rather than start from scratch and so delay replacement of the worn out vehicle fleet they adopted the product as it was. Hence some of the design features of the engine do not live up to what you would expect for the age.

Some more info can be found here RREC - Rolls-Royce Enthusiasts' Club - Clan Foundry Belper

Originally Posted by 3toes

If you are interested in this engine and the various uses it was put to think the best source of information so far is the book by Pat Ware called The Rolls - Royce B series engine In National Service. This was published about 15 years ago and is hard cover.

Do not have a copy to hand however from memory the B40 engine was intended to power the military Land-Rovers. This was a policy decision made during WW2 that to make supply easier they would adopt a standard range of engines which all military vehicles would be powered by. No more different engine from each vehicle manufacturer. Land-Rover was not to be an exception.

Rolls-Royce had designed just such a range of engines prior to WW2 that had never gone into production. Rather than start from scratch and so delay replacement of the worn out vehicle fleet they adopted the product as it was. Hence some of the design features of the engine do not live up to what you would expect for the age.

Some more info can be found here RREC - Rolls-Royce Enthusiasts' Club - Clan Foundry Belper

Not entirely correct, but pretty much. The engines derive from the Bentley engine developed just before the Rolls Royce takeover (which explains why they have some rather dated features!) but did not actually go into production in any form until after the war, when the engine in six cylinder form went into the first post war Rolls and Bentleys. RR proposed it to the War Office in four, six and eight cylinder variants to solve the problem of a multitude of different spares etc.

The four was planned to go into the Jeep replacement, already being designed as the FV1800 in 1944, best known to us as the Austin Champ. But it was not available until 1952, even as a prototype, and since the Landrover was already being used by the Army, the decision was made to test the engine in this.

John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

<SNIP>...when the engine in six cylinder form went into the first post war Rolls and Bentleys. ...<SNIP>

John

Didn't the 6 cylinder B60 version go into the Austin Princess or similar car, manufactured under licence from Rolls-Royce?

Diana

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

John

Didn't the 6 cylinder B60 version go into the Austin Princess or similar car, manufactured under licence from Rolls-Royce?

Diana

The original Austin Princess used the Austin/BMC C Series engine, but I believe the much later (sixties) and smaller Vanden Plas Princess did use a RR engine, a short stroke version of the B60. (confirmed - see Wikipedia)

John

So is that idea of common components across different size engines with different numbers of cylinders used much today? If not, why not? It must surely have advantages in some circumstances.

Originally Posted by vnx205

So is that idea of common components across different size engines with different numbers of cylinders used much today? If not, why not? It must surely have advantages in some circumstances.

Yes

Take a look at the specs of the Isuzu engines. The 4BD1 is 3.9 litres the 6BD1 is 5.8 litres and use the same internal components.

Originally Posted by vnx205

So is that idea of common components across different size engines with different numbers of cylinders used much today? If not, why not? It must surely have advantages in some circumstances.

I was shown an example today by the bloke that came to fix my satellite link - his VW van has an engine that is half a BMW V10. It has been a common idea throughout the history of internal combustion engines, but for a variety of reasons, has rarely seemed to have all the advantages it looks like it ought to.

John