Engine and Transmission Tech

Todd, I wonder if these problem motors were torque plate honed ? Gapless top ring ? I've seen inadequate oil return, on oem rover pistons. I have modded them with more/better return holes. Thermal coated oem piston, with modded oil holes, lived at 20lbs+ boost, for a while. Eventually torched an edge hole to the top ring= zero compression. Cheers, roverman.

I'm sure that had something to do with it. The shop that was responsible for these engines doesn't even own a torque plate, nor do the machinists he farms the work out to. Honestly, how do you build and sell a stroker engine for top dollar and you don't even use a torque plate? Either way, I've soured on the Rover engine. The LS3 I recently picked up will do much more for much less than a Rover ever will.

Yes, The basic 215/Rover V8 just made "senior" status at 55 years old. Where will the LS3 be in 55 years ? Hard to deny the advantage of 50+ years of design/manufacturing evolution. For some, that's not the only criteria. Onward, roverman.

[QUOTE tr8todd] My experience with really big cams in the Rover on street driven cars is not good. Seen several different engine builds where the cylinders wash down with gas and the rings never properly seat. By the time your willing to admit something is wrong, the cylinder walls are trashed and the pistons look like they have been to war. Last one I saw was torn down after around 600 miles. Needed a new block and pistons, not to mention a different cam. Plan on installing a vacuum pump if you go big. You will need it just to keep the gaskets, and dipstick from popping out from all the crankcase pressure. [/QUOTE]

Todd, how big is "really big" for the cam?

On the "ruined" blocks, they needed liners, or something more?

I'm thinking if they are in otherwise good condition they would be candidates for an upgrade to flanged or "top hat" sleeves.

What vacuum pump would you recommend?

Its more of the big duration cams than anything else. Lots of fuel at idle speeds seems to be the culprit. Seen cams with well over .500 lift that haven't caused a problem as long as the duration isn't ridiculous. The builds I have seen issues with were 4.9 stroker builds where the bore was already .20 over. At that bore, given the depth of the cylinder wall damage, there just wasn't room to bore and fit new pistons. It was just easier and cheaper to grab another 4.0/4.6 block. Around here those things are almost as common as small block Chevys. I recently picked up a running driving clean as a whistle 2001 Range Rover 4.6 HSE for $1000. Plan was to just yank the engine but the wife liked the Rover so much, its now here daily driver. To answer your question about the top hats, yes, they could have been installed. Nobody around here wants to do that... at least not for a reasonable cost. Last estimate I got to install top hats and bore was around $2K. Thats what ultimately led me down the Chevy LS3 path. I'm not a purist, and never have been. I want to go as fast as possible for the least amount of money. FWIW LS3 heads will flow 340CFM on the intake side and support up to 600 normally aspirated HP right out of the box. They have hollow stem 2.16" intake valves and 1.60" sodium filled exhaust valves in support of a stock 4.06" bore.

Yeah, that LS is going to be your best bang for the buck when you're going for those real high power levels. 600 hp in an MGB is like what, a 4:1 power ratio? Pretty insane, that.

Jim

Posted by: Dan Jones Date: February 16, 2016 06:08PM
I'll try inserting periods to keep the forum software from screwing up the column spacing:


I don't know if this forum supports them, but "code" tags around the data set will prevent consecutive spaces from getting concatenated most places. You might still have to play with some editing for spacing purposes as even forums which claim to be WYSIWYG usually aren't.



Posted by: Dan Jones Date: February 16, 2016 06:08PM
Note the ported Rover TA heads outflow the highly regarded AFR 165 heads


Very nice. Good job to TA.


Plus 300 cfm would be amazing.

Todd and Jim, yes, any Chevy based swap would likely be more cost effective on a horsepower per $$$ basis.

Todd, I asked about the sleeves as over here Darton makes them in two sizes, the larger being 96 mm and I have this potentially demented idea about using LS 3 pistons with blank crowns in a Rover.

Not that I am likely to find a 4.6 block scrapped for that salvageable a reason here. :(

Test of formatting using code tags:

Ported TA Performance Rover Heads
 
 Valve
 Lift   1.94"  1.60"
 Inch   CFM    CFM
 0.100   78.3   63.8
 0.200  129.4  108.5
 0.300  185.1  146.7
 0.350  206.2  -----
 0.400  225.8  177.0
 0.500  251.3  189.8
 0.600  252.8  199.4

Dan Jones

> I don't know if this forum supports them, but "code" tags around the data set will prevent consecutive spaces from getting concatenated most places.

Thanks Todd! I tried pre-formatted, block quote, non proportional font and a few others and none seemed to have an effect on the spacing in this forum but you prompted me to give it another try and I realized I was using the wrong bracket style ([...] instead of <...>).

Dan Jones

FWIW, my WAG is intake port height is becoming a flow limiting factor, on the higher valve lifts ? roverman.

Dan Jones' report of porting TA cylinder heads

Stock 4.6 heads with 1.575" intake valves,
vs. ported 300 heads with 1.775" intake valves
vs. out-of-the-box TA heads with 1.94" intake valves
vs ported TA heads with 1.94" intake valves
vs ported TA heads with back-cut 1.94" intake valves

'back-cut' means the valves were given a 30 degree back-cut.

---

Intake

Lift	4.6	B 300 P	Orig TA	Ported	back-cut
dia.	1.575"	1.775"	1.94"	1.94"	1.94"
0.100	60.2	66	67.7	76.8	78.3
0.200	105.4	129	105.4	120.4	129.4
0.300	132.4	174	143.0	173.1	185.1
0.350	135.5	187	164.0	198.7	206.2
0.400	135.5	191	185.1	224.2	225.8
0.500	n/a	196	220.9	255.9	251.3
0.600	n/a	200	225.8	(n/a)	252.8

---

Exhaust

Lift	4.6	B 300 P	Original	Ported
dia.	1.35"	1.5"	1.6"	1.6"
0.100	57.4	47	47.9	63.8
0.200	92.5	104	70.2	108.5
0.300	103.7	130	102.1	146.7
0.350	106.9	139	114.9	n/a
0.400	106.9	146	126.0	177.0
0.500	n/a	152	137.2	189.8
0.600	n/a	153	140.4	199.4

I'm very curious to understand why the ported 300 heads did so well. I've heard Vizard suggest that shallow, open heads benefit from a 30 degree valve job - better low-lift flow. I'm wondering what magic Dan performed on these 300 heads.

Paul

AIR., Mr. Vizard only discussed 30deg on intake side, but not comparing heads with measurable shrouding of the intake valve, by being located off-center in the bore, (Buick/Rover). I suspect a 30 deg. int. would be more prone to shrouding. Onward, roverman.

Hah.

I think Paul is the poasting professional you need to ask for advice. If you view page source, you can see that he's using table, td and tr tags.

I feel like such a noob.

Hey Dan, do we have flow numbers for most of the OEM Rover heads? I'd be curious to see Olds numbers, I'm sure you Rover guys would like to know if there are certain Rover castings that really suck.

> I'm very curious to understand why the ported 300 heads did so well.

Those Buick 300 heads were fitted with larger seats and Ferrea 6000 series Buick V6 Stage 1 stainless steel valves (1.775" intake and 1.5" exhaust). Intakes have a 10 degree "Super Flo" head shape while the exhausts are 29 degree tulips. The heads were hand ported by Jon Carls of JDC Engineering in Minonk, IL. I supplied Jon with a corroded Buick 300 head which he used to determine the casting material thickness limits. Given that the unported heads flowed 154/116 CFM @ 0.600" lift, he did a very good job. The exhaust to intake flow ratio and low to mid-lift numbers are quite good. I added a set of Harland Sharp Harland Sharp adjustable roller rockers on new shafts and D&D end stands. The plan is to dyno test those on the 5.0L Rover mystery motor. That engine is supposed to be very high compression (flat top pistons with welded chamber extrude-honed Rover cylinder heads) so the larger chambers should put the compression ratio in the right ballpark for a pump gas high performance street motor. If the engine needs new pistons, I might put the TA Performance Rover heads on and sell the ported Buick 300 heads and matching Huffaker intake. We won't know until we dyno it for a baseline and then tear it apart which won't happen before May at the earliest.

Dan Jones

P.S. Thanks for putting the flow data in a table, Paul.

> I'd be curious to see Olds numbers,

I've not flowed any Oldsmobile heads myself but have some numbers in the database
from the September-December 2003 issue of the British V8 Newsletter. In that
issue, Kurt Schley reports the results of a maximum porting effort on a set of
Olds 215 heads (the 51 cc version, casting suffix -746). Those larger combustion
chamber Olds heads were destined for a 289 cubic inch stroker Olds 215 (welded
iron 3.75" stroke crank). The porting was performed by Dwayne Porter (c/o Motion
Machine 802-951-1955). The article does not say what pressure drop the heads were
tested at but states the flow numbers were corrected to 28" H2O. This means the
heads were flowed at some lower pressure drop and ratio'd by the square root of
the ratio of the pressure drops. Valve train used:

 Ferrea P/N F6223 (Intake valve for a Ford 2.3L), 1.74" head diameter, 
 11/32" diameter stem, 4.8 long, 0.4" tip.
 Ferrea P/N F6224 (Exhaust valve for a Ford 2.3L), 1.50" head diameter, 
 11/32" diameter stem, 4.8 long, 0.4" tip.
 Comp Cams valve springs P/N COM-901-16 (ouer spring with damper)
 1.5" OD, 1.080" ID, 110 lbs @ 1.65" load at checking height, 
 290 lbs @ 1.150" load at open height , 1.110" coil bind height
 Comp Cams retainers P/N COM-743-16 steel 7 degrees lock angle.

The valve head diameters were reduced to 1.62"/1.4", so the stock valve seats 
could be retained.

Test #1 Stock head 1.525"/1.35" valves
Test #2 Stock valves but full head porting, intake opened to 1.70" x 1.00",
        30 degree back cut on valves, competition valve job
Test #3 As Test #2 but with 1.62" intake valves, 1.40" exhaust valves
        (intake and exhaust backcut)
Test #4 As Test #3 but intakes opened to 1.80" X 1.00", fully polished
        runners, guides streamline

        Test #1          Test #2          Test #3         Test #4
 Valve  Stock Olds       Ported Olds      Pored Olds      Ported Olds
 Lift   215 heads        215 heads        215 heads       215 heads
 (inch) Intake  Exhaust  Intake  Exhaust  Intake Exhaust  Intake Exhaust
        1.525"  1.350"   1.525"  1.350"   1.620"  1.400"  1.620"  1.400"

 0.100    43     35        48     36        51     45       51     46
 0.150    63     52        72     55        77     64       77     64
 0.200    85     65        95     73       104     76      104     78
 0.250   104     73       111     85       128     88      128     90
 0.300   116     77       124     96       146     99      147    101
 0.350   122     80       138    105       159    108      161    112
 0.400   128     81       150    110       168    114      172    118
 0.450   133     84       158    114       168    119      173    123
 0.500   134     84       165    119       170    124      174    126
 0.550   136     84       168    120       173    126      176    129
 0.600   136     84       168    122       174    127      178    130

> Hey Dan, do we have flow numbers for most of the OEM Rover heads?

I've only flowed the one set of 4.6L Rover heads listed above. I've got some
numbers in the database from a local head porter who is no longer in business
for 3.9L Rover heads. Those heads look very similar to the post SD1 3.5L
Rover heads I've seen. The baseline and light port were with the OEM valves
but I don't know the valve sizes for the Stage 4 heads:

        Rover 3.9L        Rover 3.9L        Rover 3.9L
 Lift   aluminum heads    aluminum heads    aluminum heads
        Baseline          Light Port        Stage 4 Porting

0.200    92.2   72.2      101.4    78.7      96.7    80.1
0.300   132.6   85.7      136.5    94.0     143.9   106.6
0.400   143.3   89.5      149.8   100.6     177.1   127.0
0.450   145.7   90.5      152.7   102.5     180.6   134.3
0.500   147.7   91.3      153.0   103.5     181.0   139.7
0.550   148.0   91.6      153.0   104.4     181.0   142.8

The guy I bought the assembled TA Performance Rover heads from has a set of
maximum effort Jon Eales ported Rover heads on his Woody Cooper 4.9L Rover.
Woody mentioned they were $3500 plus shipping. I wonder if he has the flow
sheets on those. Woody runs a set of ported and extrude honed Buick 300
heads on his 4.9L Rover stroker. I think I asked and he said he didn't have
any flow bench numbers on those.

One of the guys on the TR8 list, had larger intake valves installed in his
Rover 3.5L heads ported with larger intake valves. Results were:

        Rover 3.5L 
Lift 	Intake   Intake 
Inch    Unported Ported
0.100    47.0     55.9    
0.200    96.5    113.6
0.300   135.7    156.6
0.400   146.1    171.4
0.500   147.2    175.9

> I'm sure you Rover guys would like to know if there are certain Rover castings
> that really suck.

The later 4.0L/4.6L heads look to be the best of the lot with slight larger
ports and valves but, in unported form, your probably only talking a difference
of 10 CFM or so. That's in the noise when comparing results from different
benches and pressure drops.

Dan Jones

Quote:

The later 4.0L/4.6L heads look to be the best of the lot with slight larger
ports and valves but, in unported form, your probably only talking a difference
of 10 CFM or so. That's in the noise when comparing results from different
benches and pressure drops.

They still aren't very good, but the latest Rover heads are a good deal better than the stock Buick 215 heads.

The Buick 300 heads on my 4.6 SD1 flow 193 cfm at 550 thou (1.75 inlet).

They were done on a flow bench by Holden/Ford V8 head guru Eddy Woods at the Head Stud Development Co in Melbourne, and they were originally destined for a 5.0 litre Leyland P76 motor

Standard P76 was about 132 cfm at the same lift (P76 heads were the same as the early Rover P6B heads). I think the later post 1976 SD1 Rover heads flowed about 148cfm at the same lift, with Stage 4 Rover heads around 181. Stock 300 heads flow 153 cfm at 550.

In the UK, Merlin F85 heads have been maxed out to flow about 185 cfm.

I believe Lanocha in the US has flowed over 200cfm from Buick 300 aluminium heads which was sufficient to support 425 hp on a maximum-effort, high-compression, normally aspirated 5.0 litre TR8, and that’s using a single-four-barrel Daemon Racing carb on a Willpower open plenum inlet manifold, not efi.

I finally got around to taking some pictures of the TA Rover heads. As mentioned earlier, they received a bowl porting and chamber polishing:




On the intake side, only a minor amount of material was removed to match the ports to the Willpower single plane intake manifold (drilled for EFI):





The exhaust ports received the bulk of the porting and were enlarged to fit larger 1 5/8" primary tri-y headers (Kirk Racing design as sold by Woody Cooper of the The Wedge Shop and Ted Schumacher at TSI):



Here's a shot showing the TRS logo (Triumph Rover Spares) and also the TA Performance logo:



Dan Jones

What difference does indexing plugs make with heads like these vs less precisely engineered stock heads? Does indexing plugs make much of a difference anyways?