bigj
Rover Rookie
Posts: 24
|
Post by bigj on Apr 15, 2018 16:40:03 GMT
Hi New to the forum and looking for some advice please. I’ve recently purchased a 3.0 engine out of a Rover P5 which I am informed was from a 1965 model. Attached is a photo of the engine for reference and I was wondering if someone could indicate where I will find the engine number stamped on the block please? The engine came without a carb although the inlet manifold is present. I believe the carb should be a SU H8 but am hoping the engine number might help me confirm this. My intention is to have the engine completely stripped and rebuilt by someone who specialises in them so any recommendations would be appreciated. The engine will be fitted to my 1975 Series 3 Landrover and at present I am still sourcing some of the parts I will need for the conversion such as Landrover flywheel and flywheel housing to match up to the Landrover bell housing and clutch. Other plans are to convert the head to unleaded and replace the dynamo with an alternator so finding the correct brackets for this is on the task list. Are there any other improvements that I could make to the engine during a rebuild? I’m already going to convert to contactless ignition in the dizzy but what about increasing compression by skimming the head or changing the cam etc. I wouldn’t want to detract from the smoothness or reliability of the engine by going too wild with anything though. There’s obviously many similarities between this engine and the Landrover 2.6 version so I’m hoping I that between the two I will be able to source all the required parts. P.S. What is the wooden rod on the rocker box for? Jack handle? Appreciate any advice or suggestions. Joe
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Apr 15, 2018 16:52:14 GMT
P.S. What is the wooden rod on the rocker box for? Jack handle? It's supposed to be a tube for the plug leads IIRC.
|
|
bigj
Rover Rookie
Posts: 24
|
Post by bigj on Apr 17, 2018 15:36:48 GMT
P.S. What is the wooden rod on the rocker box for? Jack handle? It's supposed to be a tube for the plug leads IIRC. Cheers. Yes it would appear so judging by a picture I came across after I posted. Will need to try and source one. If anyone can point me in the direction of the engine number it would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Ken Nelson on Apr 17, 2018 22:41:57 GMT
I can't recall where the engine number is located offhand, but the carburetor for this engine is a SU HD8. It also uses an "Economizer" or idle mixture weakening device for setting the idle speed, so it is slightly different than the HD8 carburetors used in Austin Healey 3000's and Jaguars of the period. The tube on the rocker cover is for the spark plug wires to be routed through to the plugs. It is made of a fiber material, but can be duplicated with any similar sized tube. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by dmaxwell on Apr 17, 2018 23:01:55 GMT
If I remember right, the engine number in on the side of the block near the oil filter but I could be wrong, haven't looked at the block in a few years!
David California
|
|
bigj
Rover Rookie
Posts: 24
|
Post by bigj on Apr 18, 2018 19:49:13 GMT
Thanks for the replies.
Looks like I also need to find a HD8 carb. Unless there are better alternatives available? I noticed I have the drilled lower port in the mounting flange of the inlet manifold, presumably any alternative carb will need to be compatible with this?
|
|
|
Post by Ken Nelson on Apr 19, 2018 15:49:36 GMT
Yes, I believe you will need a version of the HD8 that has a matching hole in the flange mounting. Be aware that there are some variations with the HD8 carburetor that Rover used on the 3-litre vs for other makes of Jags and Austin Healey, etc. Look up the threads on "Carburetor Tuning" in May 2010 for more discussion on this. I'd be very curious to know if you uncover any further secrets about this single carb setup, especially with regard to idle speed setting.
|
|
bigj
Rover Rookie
Posts: 24
|
Post by bigj on Apr 19, 2018 19:43:21 GMT
Yes, I believe you will need a version of the HD8 that has a matching hole in the flange mounting. Be aware that there are some variations with the HD8 carburetor that Rover used on the 3-litre vs for other makes of Jags and Austin Healey, etc. Look up the threads on "Carburetor Tuning" in May 2010 for more discussion on this. I'd be very curious to know if you uncover any further secrets about this single carb setup, especially with regard to idle speed setting. Thanks for pointing me in that direction, if I do find out anything I’ll be sure to let you know. Having read the thread on carburettor tuning I believe that the 3litre engines needed the economiser fitting to allow the carb to be tuned correctly at idle whilst maintaining the required fuel at higher engine loads. I’m assuming that just fitting a non-economiser carb with a different needle/jet profile has already been investigated and discounted? Maybe the Stromberg CD175 as fitted to the Landrover 2.6 engines? Failing that, and although I’d really like to keep the original Landrover oil bath filter on my vehicle, is fitting the twin SU setup off the Austin Healy or Jag engines an option for the 3.0? Or any other carb option?
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Apr 20, 2018 19:23:55 GMT
The LR IOE was the Rover 100 non Westlake 2.6L The Stromberg 175 would not allow a 3 Litre Westlake head to breathe properly
|
|
|
Post by ozriderp5 on Apr 21, 2018 1:28:52 GMT
Engine number is next to the exhaust manifold at the front.
|
|
|
Post by Ken Nelson on Apr 21, 2018 4:56:43 GMT
Yes bigj, I think that the Economizer (also labelled as a "weakening device") was set up so that there could be a large flow of fuel for the engine at high speed with an open butterfly, but not be flooded out when at idle. However, in addition to the idle bypass circuit to feed fuel with the butterfly fully closed at idle, my HD8 carb also has a 1/8" hole drilled through through the butterfly to probably add just a bit extra fuel with the idle circuit. When I rebuilt my car I first used a HD8 that had a solid butterfly (no 1/8" hole) and it wouldn't idle well until I drilled a hole in the butterfly. I suspect the single SU carb was hard pressed to send enough fuel into the big 3-litre engine with Westlake head. It would be nice to know if anyone has used a twin HD8 carb setup, but it would need a different intake manifold design then. Maybe Phil has a further answer on any of this?
|
|
bigj
Rover Rookie
Posts: 24
|
Post by bigj on Apr 21, 2018 5:59:48 GMT
Engine number is next to the exhaust manifold at the front. Thanks, that’s much appreciated
|
|
bigj
Rover Rookie
Posts: 24
|
Post by bigj on Apr 21, 2018 6:28:19 GMT
Yes bigj, I think that the Economizer (also labelled as a "weakening device") was set up so that there could be a large flow of fuel for the engine at high speed with an open butterfly, but not be flooded out when at idle. However, in addition to the idle bypass circuit to feed fuel with the butterfly fully closed at idle, my HD8 carb also has a 1/8" hole drilled through through the butterfly to probably add just a bit extra fuel with the idle circuit. When I rebuilt my car I first used a HD8 that had a solid butterfly (no 1/8" hole) and it wouldn't idle well until I drilled a hole in the butterfly. I suspect the single SU carb was hard pressed to send enough fuel into the big 3-litre engine with Westlake head. It would be nice to know if anyone has used a twin HD8 carb setup, but it would need a different intake manifold design then. Maybe Phil has a further answer on any of this? Interesting information about the hole in the butterfly. Does that mean if I was able to find a HD8 (say off a Jag or AH) without the hole in the butterfly and drill it as you did, that would work? Or can I just buy a butterfly with the hole already drilled? I’ll give Burlen a call and see what options are open to me. I’m sure I saw a twin SU setup on a Rover engine once but a quick Google isn’t throwing anything up now so probably even harder to get hold of if it does exist.
|
|
bigj
Rover Rookie
Posts: 24
|
Post by bigj on Apr 21, 2018 7:21:49 GMT
I’ve just found my engine number: 77505622B
For some reason I’m dreading asking this question but is there anything I should know about this?
My plan is to fit the engine into my Landrover. I’ve been reading some other threads and came across a post saying there is a difference in the crank on the auto engine (as mine is) and the manual one and that some modifications may be required to allow a flywheel and clutch to be fitted.
Does anyone have any more information on this? Having just hauled a 2.6 LR flywheel and it’s housing back from Denmark (all 20 odd kilos of it) I really hope it will all just bolt together on my block and allow the LR clutch to be fitted.
|
|
|
Post by Ken Nelson on Apr 21, 2018 15:04:35 GMT
First off, I think that the crankshafts are different between auto and manual trans, but am not sure. Phil will know. Next, Phil said in an 2012 earlier post that "There are 2 types of HD8's - (and HD6's) that have different idle inlets - strangely the same problem has just cropped up on the P4 forum - those cars used both types. Typical Rover although HD carbs were used on other upmarket cars of the era." (But I think they were perhaps all for 2 or 3 carb setups and didn't need the Economizer weakening device. I'm guessing that our single HD8 carb setup was a compromise perhaps and the Economizer and butterfly hole were simply an attempt by SU to get a good balance for amount of fuel needed at full throttle vs less fuel at idle??) In 2017 I wrote with this post: "I have a question about the butterfly valve on the HD8 carburetors for the 3-litre engine. I have 2 of these carburetors (one from my 1966 MkIIC coupe and a spare from a 1964 MkIIB saloon. Both have the Economizer device fitted, but one carb has a butterfly valve with no holes (except for the screws holding it in place), but the other butterfly has an extra 1/8" hole drilled through it. I note that the slow idle should be set with the butterfly fully closed. The carb with he hole in the butterfly would then be allowing air/fuel mixture through the hole-but the other carb would have no flow through the butterfly at all. Could this carburetor have been fitted with an incorrect butterfly valve during a prior rebuild? If this is correct, how could the "no hole" carb get fuel through at idle with butterfly fully shut?? So this is all somewhat confusing, BUT for now I did simply drill an 1/8" hole in the butterfly and got both carbs to function this way. Hopefully Phil or other experts out there will be able to help clarify this entire situation! Attachments:
|
|
bigj
Rover Rookie
Posts: 24
|
Post by bigj on Apr 21, 2018 15:51:30 GMT
That’s one of the posts I was reading. I’m going to call Burlen in Monday and see what their take is in this.
As for the crank, I know I’ll need a spigot bush to take the gearbox input shaft but as for anything else, I’m not sure.
|
|
|
Post by Ken Nelson on Apr 21, 2018 18:18:00 GMT
Let us all know what Burlen says please.
|
|
bigj
Rover Rookie
Posts: 24
|
Post by bigj on Apr 22, 2018 9:31:05 GMT
Will do. It seems the Rover 95 and 105 6 cylinder engines used the twin carb setup however the inlet manifold is cast into the head and so of no use to me. I can’t find any mention of a bolt on twin carb inlet manifold.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Apr 22, 2018 14:39:38 GMT
Jan 64 automatic engine - not the most developed P5 engine and used on Mk2's up to Mk2c's which had larger crank journals. Autos had different crankshafts and slightly lower power till the Mk3's came along.
They are not interchangeable with manual boxes as spigot bush different
|
|
bigj
Rover Rookie
Posts: 24
|
Post by bigj on Apr 22, 2018 17:16:02 GMT
Jan 64 automatic engine - not the most developed P5 engine and used on Mk2's up to Mk2c's which had larger crank journals. Autos had different crankshafts and slightly lower power till the Mk3's came along. They are not interchangeable with manual boxes as spigot bush different Cheers, is that the 129bhp engine as opposed to the 134bhp version? Is it just a case of getting the correct spigot bush for the crank to fit a manual box?
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Apr 22, 2018 18:17:03 GMT
I do not think the crankshaft is machined to take bush. I am uncertain whether the flywheel drillings are the same PCD either. It is the 129BHP
|
|
bigj
Rover Rookie
Posts: 24
|
Post by bigj on Apr 22, 2018 21:06:16 GMT
I do not think the crankshaft is machined to take bush. I am uncertain whether the flywheel drillings are the same PCD either. It is the 129BHP Oh. This is just getting better by the day. I picked up a flywheel from a 2.6 LR so will try and take the torque converter off the engine and see if there’s any likelihood of the flywheel fitting on the crank. How easy is it to remove the TC? I couldn’t see any obvious bolts when I had a quick glance at it.
|
|
bigj
Rover Rookie
Posts: 24
|
Post by bigj on Apr 23, 2018 8:41:00 GMT
Whipped the TC, flywheel and its housing off the engine this morning to reveal the back of the crank. Quite a straightforward task thanks to the information provided in the stickies and the fact that the bolts all undid easily enough. There appears to be a 1” deep recess in the end of the crank that I’m hoping someone will confirm is the same as the manual box engine and will take the input shaft of the gearbox? Comparing the LR flywheel wheel bolt pattern (6) against that of the Rover (8) it’s clear that they are not directly interchangeable. Would one option be to source the flywheel off the manual box Rover and have it drilled to take the LR clutch? Photos are back to front in sequence but you get the gist of it.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Apr 23, 2018 8:46:31 GMT
The recess is not the same as it had not been machined to take the spigot bush. You may be able to turn a standard bush down to push into it though
The clutch/pressure plate and flywheels of P4 and manual P5's are all interchangeable. Not sure whether all are the same on a LR but could well be
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Apr 23, 2018 8:58:42 GMT
Just looked - the manual 3 Litre flywheel has 8 holes. The 2.6L all have 6 and that engine was used in LR's. Many have fitted 3 Litres in LR's so it cannot be that difficult?
|
|