Engine and Transmission Tech

Quote:

TABuickMike;1359917
It's estimated that the rover head patterns will be done and at the foundry in 8-10 weeks.

These heads are expected to outperform the Wildcat heads at a fraction of the cost. Current catalog pricing would indicate that a set of complete heads should be right around $2000 minus rocker shafts. They are expected to be on the market in less than a year.

Jim

Update:

Default Re: What's the Deal with the buick/Rover head for TA Performance?
For those who were wondering what the head might look like, take our V6 head and imagine another cylinder on it and viola! thats basically the new head. We're also expecting flow numbers around 300 cfm or more (intake).
__________________

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Click To Visit <<<<<<<<<<<<<

Michael Tomaszewski Jr.
Website/Catalog/Ad Management
My Car: 1970 Skylark 350-4


Jim

[www.flickr.com]

could we turn down the journals on a 350 cam so that the revised valve order of the 350 heads would work with a BOP Rover block??

Or are there plans for a menu of cam offerings?

maybe I'm missing something -- the threads that I've been following on the V8Buick board didn't mention a TA rover head, but maybe I am looking in the wrong place. straighten me out, Jim.

Have you seen this one?

[www.v8buick.com]

Okay -- my bad. I had my head turned around on this.

Sorry for mucking up the thread.

Here is the TA V6 head in action:
[www.hotrod.com]

WOW I'd only heard that they MIGHT be working on it. That looks great so far. I wish I hadn't just finished two years worth of work on my heads. LOL. Well I guess I know where I can go if my plans don't work out and they suck.

I wonder if I could use the same headers I just finished. The ports are higher but it can't be more than an inch, right? It might work.

I've seen availability estimates of as little as 12 weeks. Personally I think that is probably optimistic, heck I'd be tickled to see them by the end of the year. But somewhere between is probably going to be on the money. The plan is to follow that with an intake, but no word yet of anything for the 300 or 340. Then they go on to the 350 intake followed by heads for that motor. Nothing has been said one way or the other about it, but if sales of the Rover and 350 head do well it might be reasonable to hope for an aluminum 350 block after that to join their lineup of the V-6 and big block "Tomahawk" aluminum blocks. Those are extremely stout and even with my preference for iron blocks I would not hesitate an instant to use one as the basis for even the most extreme engine build. The 350 would require yet another header design for use in the MGB, but it is otherwise identical to the 340 and therefore an easy fit into the engine bay. With a classy hood scoop of course.

Jim

Do you think the 350/340 would make the use of a scoop mandatory?

I'm sure it would be challenging to shoehorn it in without one, but that would be my goal.

Matt. I think the only way to do it without a scoop would be to build a custom intake manifold. We considered this on the Roadmaster project but logistics have sent us in another direction. One possibility would be a twin-log efi intake, perhaps running to the rear of the lifter valley with a pair of "U" bends to twin throttle bodies and air filters. Done in stainless or aluminum this could make an attractive and functional design. In fact, any port injection design could remove the throttle body and filter to a remote location and get the needed space, so any intake with injector bungs could be made to work. I think there is a limited selection of aluminum intakes for the 350 but nothing I know of with injector bungs so those would have to be added. For the 340 there is only cast iron. Carbs generally don't work too well with a long intake tract.

I hope to have the 340 installed in my roadster sometime this summer and that will help to visualize how much clearance is actually there, but the deck of the 340/350 is 1-3/16" higher than the BOPR engines. This does not necessarily demand that the carb flange be higher, but it is likely. It depends almost entirely on the intake.

Jim

Here's what I was thinking intake-wise, headed towards the cowl. Hat-tip to the moderator, whose installation gave me the idea:


Thinking about it now, anything more than two inches above the valve cover would probably require the scoop.

Perhaps something like this, but with oval logs just above the trumpet-attachment area.



I don't remember who posted this on the Buick V8 forum, but here's a bunch of rover intakes to get one's noodle turning: [www.mez.co.uk]

That crossram style on the bottom is a good idea! Beats fabricating new horns and plenum. Interesting.



OK. THAT is frackin' bitchin'!! I want to do this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2009 10:16AM by NixVegaGT.

A fellow club member had a GT6 with a Rover installed and the builder there used a fabricated adaptor from the original intake manifold back to Weber DCOE to get it under the stock hood. The Weber ended up being located low and just behind the intake manifold with the intake routed through the cowl similar to what Curtis did. The car ran ok and seemed to start pretty easily so that intake runner length with a carb didn't seem to be too bad. I agree with Jim though, injection would be better.

How about this -- for only 3,000 pounds (!!!)?

So.. Not knowing crap about these systems what would I need to make this work?

[sdsefi.com]

I already have the single plane manifold with injector bossses.

You'll need coolant temp, MAP, knock and TP sensors. I can't tell if it uses one or two O2 sensors. Then a VR pick up and crank wheel adapted to the crank. Then you need a fuel rail and injectors. Well and the associated fuel system. Higher pressure pump and regulator. Oh yeah the throttle body.

I thought it was interesting that they showed the coils in the pic since it doesn't come with it. I doesn't show the wiring harness but that's a plus. Ok I just realized that they do mention the coil packs in the first kit for $1900.

I don't know what other guys here would say but for $1450 you could probably get all this and a Megasquirt controller already built. The SDS probably has some stock maps already loaded in but those aren't going to matter much because of the custom application. It looks like the SDS has some pretty simple manual controls like the lean rich knob. That's pretty cool.

If I was building an EFI system; I'd use the Ford EDIS stuff for the pick up sensor and spark distribution. They are pretty cheap and easy to use. I bought the entire thing for $99. Here's a pic of the parts:



Then buy a prebuilt, well I'd probably try to build my own but I'm not advocating that, Megasquirt with spark control. I can't remember what it's called… Like Megasquirt II v3 or something like that.

Here's the top-o-the-line MS II 3.57 box prebuilt: [www.diyautotune.com]

That's $405 totally assembled and it's a board you can't even purchase to build yourself. . It doesn't include a serial cable but those are cheap. That's really the same thing as the SDS kit but the interface with the ECU is different. It is WAY simpler with the SDS interface but you've got to spend another $1000 to get it. On the other hand you program the MS with a simple Windows program. It's clunky but works great.

Then get some injectors and fuel rail and the sensors we mentioned. I'm betting you can get a bunch of this stuff used on ebay or something. With the Ford EDIS and preassembled MS II v3.57 we're up to like $520. That leaves almost a grand for the other parts.

All this stuff can get overwhelming pretty quick. It took me a few months to totally comprehend it. When I did I realized it's actually pretty simple from a theory standpoint. I just breaks up the fuel delivery and ignition into individual parts with sensors to keep tabs on what's happening. The benefits are a totally programmable fuel and spark curve for optimal performance and economy. The deficits are pretty obvious: WAY more parts to go bad, complicated and more expensive. From a cost/benefit analysis with a cheaper less complicated carb and distributor you can tune for performance and get it pretty easily but it is always a compromise between performance and everyday economy. It's also sort of a stab at the best case scenario. With this type of system you can tune it for both and be pretty damn accurate to optimize performance and get the most economical consumption.

I ended up with spark control and a carb with a TPS. It's a lot of monkeying around and tuning to make a computer controlled system work. I want to do it but I've got so many other details to work out with the overall project that I needed to simplify one part to get it completed. I figured I'd work into it.

This should probably be a different thread, right?

Here's the lastest pics on the TA heads:
[www.flickr.com]

Better start saving my pennies.