Race Cars and Motorsports

if it's about racing, spectating, performance driving, or race-prep... this is the place

Go to Thread: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicLog In


John Hamilton
John Hamilton
Navarre, FL
(23 posts)

Registered:
10/28/2009 11:18PM

Main British Car:
1965 MGB 1840 cc MGB

Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: John Hamilton
Date: October 21, 2012 07:00PM

Hey everyone,

I'm slowly building an MGB GT V8 Sebring race car to SVRA regs and as usual, the budget is stretched very thin. I've been looking at alternatives to stock Rover rods and custom pistons at about $1000 a set. Would there be any advantages or disadvantages to using 6 inch 327 rods and Ford V6 pistons? If my math is correct, it would yield about 11.4:1 compression ratio and the cost would be about half of custom pistons. Plus, if I ever hurt the engine, replacement parts are cheap and readily available off the shelf. If anyone has any ideas, pros or cons, please share with the group. If you need specifics on lengths, sizes, clearances, etc. I can provide them from my research.

Thanks!

John
RR after initial trimming.JPG


WedgeWorks1
Mike Perkins
Ellicott City, Maryland
(460 posts)

Registered:
07/06/2008 08:07AM

Main British Car:
1980 Triumph TR8 3.5 Litre Rover V8

authors avatar
Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: WedgeWorks1
Date: October 21, 2012 09:08PM

My 3.5 bored .060 over has 327 h-beam rods with after market piston and an off set ground crank for the Chevy rods. It is a great set up and cheap too.


tr8todd
Todd Kishbach

(390 posts)

Registered:
12/04/2009 07:42AM

Main British Car:


Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: tr8todd
Date: October 22, 2012 08:13AM

What are your displacement limitations in the class? If your limited to 4 liter, just go with a 4.0 or 3.9. Your cheapest end result will depend entirely on your displacement target.


Moderator
Curtis Jacobson
Portland Oregon
(4576 posts)

Registered:
10/12/2007 02:16AM

Main British Car:
71 MGBGT, Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: Moderator
Date: October 22, 2012 11:03AM

As I understand it, the SVRA rules are:
1) nominally 3.5L displacement,
2) stock (2.8") stroke,
3) an overbore of no more 0.047" on the stock bore (3.5")

To get down to that bore size, other racers in this class have used later model Rover (4.0/4.6) blocks with smaller diameter top-hat style cylinder liners installed to reduce bore. Jerry Richards is the exception. He has used Rover 3.5 or Buick 215 blocks, possibly motivated by economics, but he's very quick when he finishes.

SVRA regs for MGB GT V8:
[www.svra.com]


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3188 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: roverman
Date: October 22, 2012 01:57PM

John, Perhaps this worked for "Mike",(.060" overbore) in a 3.5L rover. I am skeptical about reliability, for your application. Stock sleeves are only pressed in place, not cast in place/ribbed like buick/olds. I would not bore .060 os. with them, either because of sleeve shifting, when cast. If the rover sleeves are too thin, they will "migrate". This then becmes a lose/lose situation. Good Luck, roverman.


John Hamilton
John Hamilton
Navarre, FL
(23 posts)

Registered:
10/28/2009 11:18PM

Main British Car:
1965 MGB 1840 cc MGB

Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: John Hamilton
Date: October 22, 2012 03:57PM

SVRA rules state that bore and stroke must remain standard (up to .047 overbore) no stroker motors. Internals are free, so I started looking at alternatives to custom parts. I have a couple of Buick blocks as well as a TR8 and a few SD1 and Range Rover blocks. The overbore will be in the neighborhood of .030 - .040, depending on which piston works best. Economics has a great deal to do with the parts gong into this car, since I'm still racing a 4 cylinder MGB while trying to finish this one. Factory replacement 10.75 or 11:1 pistons are available, but they are all cast. The Ford V6 pistons are hypereutectic flat tops with a thinner ring pack and probably weigh significantly less. Just looking for ideas at this point since the engine build will come after the bodywork, and I've just gotten started on that.

Thanks everyone!


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3188 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Rover 3.5 build, Icon ?
Posted by: roverman
Date: October 22, 2012 04:22PM

John, I suggest a "peep" on Icon pistons webb site, specifically # IC637C. Forged +.060" will give a 3.505" dia. Good Luck, roverman.



WedgeWorks1
Mike Perkins
Ellicott City, Maryland
(460 posts)

Registered:
07/06/2008 08:07AM

Main British Car:
1980 Triumph TR8 3.5 Litre Rover V8

authors avatar
Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: WedgeWorks1
Date: October 22, 2012 09:14PM

Running a .040 over bore with custom pistons to compression up with offset ground Chevy 327 rods is a nice set up. The .060 over bore I have works well and was done professionally to assure the liners would not move. This was done back in the mid-90ies and gone through one rebuilt with numerous 1/4 mile runs. Ken Slagle ran in SCCA GT1 4.0 liter made from a 3.5 block. It was really dependable.


John Hamilton
John Hamilton
Navarre, FL
(23 posts)

Registered:
10/28/2009 11:18PM

Main British Car:
1965 MGB 1840 cc MGB

Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: John Hamilton
Date: October 31, 2012 05:56PM

Does anyone know if I can safely deck the Rover 3.5 block? Can I take off .020 and still get my intake to fit, or do I need to mill the intake as well?

Thanks, John


WedgeWorks1
Mike Perkins
Ellicott City, Maryland
(460 posts)

Registered:
07/06/2008 08:07AM

Main British Car:
1980 Triumph TR8 3.5 Litre Rover V8

authors avatar
Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: WedgeWorks1
Date: October 31, 2012 08:57PM

I know a few TR8 guys that decked the block removing the engine ID numbers and had no issues with the intake.


BlownMGB-V8
Jim Blackwood
9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042
(6468 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 12:59PM

Main British Car:
1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS

authors avatar
Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: BlownMGB-V8
Date: November 01, 2012 08:36AM

Your intake bolt holes are large enough to handle that with no problem. You could probably go. 040"

Jim


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3188 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: roverman
Date: November 01, 2012 11:32AM

John, You "are" going port match the manifold, to the heads-yes ? What heads and manifold ? Cheers, roverman.


DiDueColpi
Fred Key
West coast - Canada
(1365 posts)

Registered:
05/14/2010 03:06AM

Main British Car:
I really thought that I'd be an action figure by now!

authors avatar
Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: DiDueColpi
Date: November 02, 2012 04:27AM

John,
Milling the block is no problem at all.
Like Jim says .040" is probably not an issue (if you need that much, I tend to use the smallest cut possible to keep as much deck strength as I can)
This will do nothing but good things for your engine.
It lets you "zero deck" the engine and square the pistons to the deck.
You can also ''over deck" the block and machine the pistons to fit. Giving you your choice of deck height and eliminating the chamfered edge of most production pistons. This removes the dead zone around the edge of the piston. And improves the quench area.
Don't let the machine shop grind a chamfer at the top of the bore. Or all your work is wasted.
Another advantage of decked blocks and milled heads is that it raises the intake manifold on the cylinder head.
Properly port matched or ported (if allowed) gives you a better approach to the intake valve.
Angle milling the block and the heads is also an option if you are rule limited.
The compression advantage is minimal but the intake improvement is useful as well as the small change in valve geometry. This will require intake manifold machining for sure.
All of these improvements are small but we're racing and it all counts.
Cheers
Fred


John Hamilton
John Hamilton
Navarre, FL
(23 posts)

Registered:
10/28/2009 11:18PM

Main British Car:
1965 MGB 1840 cc MGB

Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: John Hamilton
Date: November 02, 2012 06:05PM

I'm using ported SD1 heads and an Edelbrock manifold. I want to use the 6 inch Chevy rods and possibly Ford 3.0 liter V6 flat top pistons machined to zero deck to get about 12:1 compression. Everything will be port matched when finished, but for now, I'll be using the block hugger headers. This could change, but the budget can't absorb RV8 headers yet.

Thanks for the input, it's been very helpful.

John


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3188 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: roverman
Date: November 05, 2012 12:57PM

FYI, There are some good sbf header designs,(non tri-y), that can be modded to fit the rover, ie. cut-off the Ford head flanges and add the Rovers. The (2) central primaries will need to be moved further apart by approx. an inch ? Good Luck, roverman.



John Hamilton
John Hamilton
Navarre, FL
(23 posts)

Registered:
10/28/2009 11:18PM

Main British Car:
1965 MGB 1840 cc MGB

Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: John Hamilton
Date: November 05, 2012 03:08PM

Do you have any details on the Ford headers? I have a Rover V8 flange kit that could be used to make my RV8 style exhaust.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3188 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Rover 3.5 build
Posted by: roverman
Date: November 05, 2012 04:13PM

John, If you have one piece header flanges, compare them to prospective sbf headers. You will see what I mean. I find good used sbf headers at the swap for $20.-up. Bought "Hooker" for $40 Use 1 5/8" primaries, minimum dia.. Even though this is considerable work, it should prove much quicker, than from scratch. Onward, roverman.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.