Many of you will probably hate me for asking :rolleyes: but has anyone attempted or succeeded in putting the rover V8 into a 3rd gen RX-7?
A quick web search shows loads of 2nd Gen\'s, but can\'t find anyone who\'s done it to the FD.
Just found a link for some other V8 FD conversions:
http://members.tripod.com/~grannys/3rdgenrx7chevyv8.html
May I just be the first person to say:
Nooooooooooo :(
Feel better now.
Cheers
Lee
PS, Dont do it :p
Interesting stuff, but
you could spend the 5-6 thousand it costs to go single and get more power than that conversion...in fact its about half that to go single is it not?
Still it would make an interesting project for someone (think i will stick with the rotary though!) :)
its been said before, and i\'ll say it again, WHY WHY WHY.
you could spend 3 or 4 grand on your FD and get 400 plus BHP.
If you spend the same putting a V8 you will get 280 ish! ok loads more torque, but big engines are designed to have loads of torque to pull heavy cars. Torque is wasted in light cars. Thats why westfields/Dax, caterham\'s etc that have V8\'s in them are not very quick, and slower than a good 2.0l 16v.
Example. The ultima that i posted pictures of on the \'dont you love the yanks\' thread. He had a brand new chevy V8 5.7 l with 350 bhp and only managed mid 13\'s and it only weighed 900kg.
I spend 2k on mine and got 12.5.
If your gonna go BIG and fit blowers and nos etc to a chevy block and get 600 bhp then ok i can understand it. But any one who fits a rover lump needs shooting.
Also V8 is quite heavy and the handling will be worse and so will the brakes. By the time you mount power steering, rad etc etc, it really aint worth it. Rotary is cheapest rout for power in and FD. The only engine i would consider fitting would be a skyline or supra engine.
breath breath breath
finished now
NB, i would bet money on a race with any road legal RX7 with a different engine anyday! any volunteers?????
:D
What they said :)
But someone has done one - search //www.rx7club.com
I knew everyone would want to shoot me down :rollin
It\'s only an idea at the moment. I\'ve no problem with the rotary engine - it\'s the turbos that I don\'t like due to the lag and the transition. These might not be issues on the strip, but when you\'re really going for it on a wet twisty road they are. I\'d also be able to fix it myself, whereas the current twin turbo setup has to go to a specialist each time it plays up.
I\'ve gotta check this further, but initial indications are that the V8 installation would only slightly affect weight distribution. Yes, the engine is heavier but by the time you lose the turbos, intercooler and all the other stuff, it works out very similar.
Considering the V8 / light car comments, a TVR Griffith fitted with a 5 litre version of a Rover V8 weighs just over a ton and hits 60 in just over 4 seconds.
I guess there\'s other stuff to consider like devaluing the car.
As I said, it\'s only an idea at the moment. Maybe a single turbo would be a better way to go, or maybe a non-sequential setup with the current turbos.
Quote[
Also V8 is quite heavy and the handling will be worse and so will the brakes. By the time you mount power steering, rad etc etc, it really aint worth it. Rotary is cheapest rout for power in and FD. The only engine i would consider fitting would be a skyline or supra engine.
RV8 is actually not very heavy. Certainly lighter than the original engine with original sequentials on. There is a very nice FD with a 350HP 4.6 in.
As for westfields being slow with V8s in, may I respectfully point you to James Lambert\'s V8 narrow body. 9.7 at santa pod, making it the fastest se7en in the UK, possibly the world.
More a V6 man meself when it comes to performance pistons.
I think this is a sports sedan here (in oz) with a RB26 engine in it, but Jimbo, if you went to the lengths of putting a V8 in it - and you are saying you can work on it yourself, then it shouldn\'t take you long to sort out a single turbo set-up :)
There was a guy at Rotorstock with a rover V8 in his red FD, didn\'t catch his name though.
If you want a V8 that bad, theres little point in buying an FD in the first place unless its purely for image/aesthetic value, but then if thats the most important aspect of a car for you then there are cars with alot more "bling" than the rex.
The great dynamics, engine, looks and mystery of the mazda series of rotary powered cars are what makes us so bewitched by them in the first place, so changing the heart of the car defeats the entire concept of RX7 motoring.
I chose the RX-7 for its handling. If a V8 will detract from that I will stick with Rotary power. Although a V8 might work out at the same weight, a lot of that weight will be forward of the suspension turrets, going by some of the pictures I\'ve found.
I\'m warming to the idea of a single turbo...
mounting it as far back as a rotary would certainly be hard work, it\'d need a lot of cutting a fabricating to move the engine back that far to equal the weight balance of the standard setup.
surely if you\'re interested in the handling money would be best spent on a really well matched set of dampers,springs & ARB\'s all set up properly and then tweeking the stock twins to make more power but not gain too much lag.
Or what about building an N/A FD ... now that would be different :)
QuoteAlso V8 is quite heavy and the handling will be worse and so will the brakes. By the time you mount power steering, rad etc etc, it really aint worth it. Rotary is cheapest rout for power in and FD. The only engine i would consider fitting would be a skyline or supra engine.
Bill,
how much did he spend on his engine to that get time in a seven?
bet a single would be cheaper.
regards
tony
QuoteOriginally posted by antnicuk
Bill,
how much did he spend on his engine to that get time in a seven?
bet a single would be cheaper.
regards
tony
Not a huge amount actually. I can ask, but he bought it as a running car for around 10K IIRC. Its an awsome toy.
Just to give a few numbers. If you get an LS-1 shipped from australia, a little over 2 grand will get you 360 HP. For another thousand you will be well over 400, in a package that will do 150,000 miles with no more than oil changes.
If you want boost, I have a friend with a turbo holden. 600HP 600ft lbs.
As I have a 13B and rover V8 in the garage I did some measuring. the Rover engine is around 5" longer than the 13B, so not a huge amount. If you have not gone to the bother of fitting adjustable platforms and flat flooring the car, you are unlikely to spot the handling loss by the slight movement of the polar moment of the vehicle.
Personally I feel that there should be freedom to fit whatever engine into whatever toy you choose and that discussions should be carried out purely looking at the engineering aspects without getting hung up with heritage/soul guff.
If you want the looks of an FD but love the woofle of a good V8, then why not? After all, I encourage people to stick 13Bs in engine bays designed for Xflows.
All depends on how much of a purist you are then.
Wish i had enough dosh to could consider my car a toy:rolleyes:
would it have to be a Rover V8? Why put an engine in a car that\'s named after a dog?
Why not look at something a little newer in design, like about 30 years newer.
Toyota, Nissan and possibly (probably) Honda do 32V, all alloy 4 litre V8\'s that all probably come from the factory with the mandatory 280hp.
Now, hand me an NSX and one of these engines and we might be getting somewhere. Drop one of these powerplants into an FD is like taking 2 steps forward and one step back...
now I wouldn\'t object to one of these sat under the bonnet (hayabusa hybrid v8)
hmmm I wonder where I can get bellmouths like that ? (similar to gsxr throttle bodies I think, eh Bill ? )
Oh I can get those easily enough
Bill, sorry to go off subject but is it you who has the westfield with a 13b?
I have a collection of bits that will one day be terrorising hampshire and Berkshire again yes :-)
:) did you do any 1/4s while it was running? be interested to see what sort of times something like that would get.
Haven\'t heard of a westfield with a rotary before, is it a common choice (relatively speaking!) or are you the pioneer of it all :) ?
Not that common, but I am no pioneer of this. The first sylva stryker had a 10A in, and there was a 13B PP in a westfield that was so successful it was banned.
In fact I bought it this was, although it has needed some \'work\'.
NO 1/4 mile times I\'m afraid. I don\'t get drag racing really. More a twisties man meself.
Rover V8 only 30 years old? I am sure there original 3500cc coupe came out in the mid 60s.
would the Ferrari 12 cylinder engine from their four door saloons fit? now that is an awesome engine. But £1200 for a service is a bit steep.
and was probably fitted to a Buick some time before that.
Those Ferrari V12\'s are awesome bits of engineering, got to look round pro-drive last year and got to wonder round the engine build area for the GT cars. weren\'t allowed to take any piccies though :( the blocks are tiny and the stroke is equally small !
I was being conservative... :)
Heck, if money was no object and you just wanted/needed horsepower with little concern for torque I believe you might be able to find a Cosworth V8 (HB?) or a Judd kicking around somewhere.
And if you just need bulk horsepower AND gallons of torque and it\'s gotta be a V12 in the bargain, there really is only one word that needs to be mentioned doesn\'t it?
Merlin... :p
Me, I\'d settle for plain old 13/20b thanks. Already got a lightish car with way too much motor, don\'t need another one.
66 Falcon Coupe with a 351 Windsor. At least it doesn\'t need to turn corners, thank the lord. :rolleyes:
QuoteOriginally posted by MikeLMR
and was probably fitted to a Buick some time before that.
Those Ferrari V12\'s are awesome bits of engineering, got to look round pro-drive last year and got to wonder round the engine build area for the GT cars. weren\'t allowed to take any piccies though :( the blocks are tiny and the stroke is equally small !
1963 buick skylark IIRC. Originally called the buick 215 fireball. Not successful by GM standards as only 750,000 engines were built.