Sigh I've been dreaming of the Perfect Stroker. What could it be? Let's see now Block: Buick 300 bored .050 out Maincaps: Billet Steel V6 caps Pistons: Hypereutectic from the Buick Supercharged 3800 V6 Crank: Cut down Buick 340\350 to 2.5" on the mains. Rods: Stock 73-80 capscrew 350 bushed to take 3800 V6 pins Heads: TA Performance Aluminum 350 (Hey! It's MY dream!!!) Intake: Welded Steel single plane with injector ports Ignition: Ignition Man's set up Cam: TA Performance modified for 300\340 cam bearing size. Fueling: Megasquirt Oiling: Range Rover front cover with gerotor oil pump driven off of the crank. Ahh I just woke up. Geeze Anybody got any other ideas? Greg
Put that 350 crank into a late Rover block and you got me. I think it might hit the cam though. Are you thinking you'd get a low-deck 350 then?
Check out this aluminum buick monster motor from britishv8.org. http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/MonsterMotor.htm They use 258 Jeep pistons. On the front timing cover/oil pump design...you can either use a Rover one with or w/o provisions for a distributor. Could also use a 3800 v6 one I believe.
Now that I think on it. 3.85"! GEEZ. There is no way that would fit in the 8.9" deckheight of the Rover block. I guess I just woke up. I'm thinking the biggest thing you could put in one of those would be the 3.5" P76 crank. I suppose if you sleeved the late Rover block, took it out to 3.78" for the Ford turbo4 pistons, use the 215 rods, P76 crank, you've got a 340 lb. 315... $$$$ LOL!
Well now hold on a sec. I haven't woke up yet. Check my math here: Rover V8 deck = 8.9" (or thereabouts) Buick 350 stroke = 3.85" Buick 300 rod = 5.96" ctr to ctr Let's see now: 3.85\2 = 1.925" 1.925" + 5.96" = 7.885" - 8.9" = 1.015" left for the piston. The Buick Supercharged 3800 V6 piston is pretty darn close: http://kb-silvolite.com/spistons.php?action=details&S_id=521 But, it's time to wake up again... Greg
Ok ok... Hmmmm. The deckheight stock is 8.960" Let's say 0.010" to clean it up: 8.950" SO we are closer to 1.065" Destroke the rod journals by .020 (if you can even do that) get OS bearings. Now we're at 1.085"... OK so we don't clean up the block. 3.8" bore x 3.83" stroke = 348 ci. WOW! fun. Now if it will not hit the cam... WHERE'S your sense of adventure Sean! LOL! Just think of all the gas I'm going to save if I'm not displacing an extra 2 ci every rev!
Hey Sean, if you gonna dream... dream BIG! Also keep this in mind. The 75-76 V6 rods are also 5.96 ctr to ctr (so I've been told) but have the later Buick capscrew design. Anyway, if the rods don't hit the cam in the Monster 300 motor, I don't think they will in the Rover motor either. Of course, I don't know if you can sleeve the later Rover motors out to 3.8". Gotta have some good heads too.... Greg (Yawnnnnnn..)
LOL, keep up the ideas. Its interesting but I just wanna make 700 hp with a SBB, nothing fancy just a twin turbo girdled street Buick 350..... Oh wait its not a dream, its my christmas present to myself! Good job Sean LOL.
There used to be a Rover V8 developements site that sold 96.5mm (3.8") sleeves but I couldn't find it. There are liners out there though...
Put that 350 crank into a late Rover block and you got me. I think it might hit the cam though. huwhuh? they all use the same timing cover so the cam-to-crank spacing in all of these engines is the same. the cam isn't going to be your problem with a 340/350 crank. at least, no more of a problem than the 350 has (ie-for Gods sake, don't through a rod). extreme rod/piston deflection and you'll probably have to notch the piston skirts, yeah.
Oh... Good point, Bob. Duh. OK. I actually think it'd be ok for the piston skirts. I'm running 5.7" with a 300 crank at 3.4". The pistons I chose had to be ground a little. It was like .030. This would be an extra 0.225 longer and the rod is 0.26 longer. My bet is it would just make it. Here's the rub for me. The rod ratio is total crap: 1.55 Unheard of in a Buick. That paired with a shallow piston is going to put a lot of side load on the piston skirts. Then again Chevy routinely ran, still runs, really low rod ratios: 1.53 for the 454; 1.56 for the LT5; 1.48 for the SB 400. OMG! so... It almost makes me want to build one.
WRONG! Ok so you'd have to destroke the crank by .030 unless we can find an alternat connecting rod. Like one that's 5.9" but then the rod ratio goes even worse.
I've been looking at this somewhat closely. I don't know now... Take a good close look at this pic: http://www.v8buick.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3242&d=1043803085 It's my cut down 350 crank in a P76 block. The crankcase is similar to the Rover. That's a stock 350 rod with a dummy piston. At full swing, the piston just starts to come out of the hole. With the long rod, that's not a big deal. But, with the shorter rod, it just might. Does the later Rover have exended cylinders for the longer stroke? If not, it might not work. Greg
Does the later Rover have exended cylinders for the longer stroke? If not, it might not work. here's where you get a great excuse to sleeve the block and gain bore size. it's all about turning negatives into positives, friends. :Brow:
LOL! yeah, Bob!. Greg, You already have a 350 crank turned down to 2.5"? I'm with you on the shorter rod. I don't like it at all. There would be problems with the crank hitting the pistons then too. I checked with my machine shop. They confirm they have OS bearings at .030 for the rod journals so destroking to 3.82" is fine. That puts us right to the deckheight of the ROver. I suppose, in practice, we could chamfer the pistons to not interfere with the head if it over hangs the deck by a few thou. SC pistons must have some extra head thickness for higher cylinder pressures, right? I'm having my sleeves pressed to a couple thou over for better gasket sealing so doing something like that could make up some of the distance. I've posted on a couple other message boards about this combo. There has to be someone else who's tried this. I'll keep looking for the 3.8" sleeves. I'm thinking they have to be flanged because of the likely cracking in the block. The Rover blocks crack a lot behind the cylinders anyway. Otherwise I was thinking we could press in 231 sleeves... I'm pretty hot for this idea. I bet this engine would rock the low end numbers. Not so good on the top end. I'm thinking we'd have to limit the revs to 5k.
Check this out: http://cgi.befr.ebay.be/Rover-V8-P7...ryZ27382QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Thanks to David for post from last month! This would reinforce the bottom end and add some extra pan depth...
