I almost was ready to pull the trigger on this one but common sense took over, plus the fact I need a bigger garage. Its a 3.5 Rover V8 conversion and uncompleted project so maybe the guy is bailing for a reason. I know that engine well since I have a hotted up 225 hp one in my Triumph TR8. Its the earlier body style that came with the Renault engine. But a V8 in a 1500 lb toy car is an interesting thought.
Not just a V8, but a featherweight V8!
You dare mention such a creation and post NO PICS?????
Major fail.
Anyway... Paging Dr. Hess. 
MrJoshua wrote: Not just a V8, but a featherweight V8!
Not sure that is as light as you think...
How does it fit?
tuna55 wrote:MrJoshua wrote: Not just a V8, but a featherweight V8!Not sure that is as light as you think...
IIRC a properly built Rover V8 can come in at Miata 4cylinder weight. Am I ill informed?
MrJoshua wrote:tuna55 wrote:IIRC a properly built Rover V8 can come in at Miata 4cylinder weight. Am I ill informed?MrJoshua wrote: Not just a V8, but a featherweight V8!Not sure that is as light as you think...
The regular iron Rover versions of that engine were withing the 'normal' V8 weights, somewhere around 400 lbs. The real lightweight one is the Buick 215, which was cast in aluminum. The molds were sold to Rover, who upsized the engine and made the block iron, among other things that I don't know much about.
Lighter than a standard SBC, sure, but no 215 either.
tuna55 wrote:MrJoshua wrote:The regular iron Rover versions of that engine were withing the 'normal' V8 weights, somewhere around 400 lbs. The real lightweight one is the Buick 215, which was cast in aluminum. The molds were sold to Rover, who upsized the engine and made the block iron, among other things that I don't know much about. Lighter than a standard SBC, sure, but no 215 either.tuna55 wrote:IIRC a properly built Rover V8 can come in at Miata 4cylinder weight. Am I ill informed?MrJoshua wrote: Not just a V8, but a featherweight V8!Not sure that is as light as you think...
Rover V8s are aluminum.
In reply to MG Bryan:
I went off to search for evidence and came back to find a response, with pictures and everything. 
MG Bryan wrote:tuna55 wrote:Rover V8s are aluminum.MrJoshua wrote:The regular iron Rover versions of that engine were withing the 'normal' V8 weights, somewhere around 400 lbs. The real lightweight one is the Buick 215, which was cast in aluminum. The molds were sold to Rover, who upsized the engine and made the block iron, among other things that I don't know much about. Lighter than a standard SBC, sure, but no 215 either.tuna55 wrote:IIRC a properly built Rover V8 can come in at Miata 4cylinder weight. Am I ill informed?MrJoshua wrote: Not just a V8, but a featherweight V8!Not sure that is as light as you think...
You're right!!!
Still heavier than the 215 by a good bit, but I was indeed wrong about the material...
It is interesting that the interest in the Buick V8 died because of the age of the motors with so few people realizing the motors are sitting there for the taking in dead Land Rovers across the country.
In reply to tuna55:
What kind of weight are we talking about?
I have a 1.6L Miata engine sitting on the floor. I can gain access to suitable scale, I'll weigh it. I've seen varying weights for the the BOP/Rover engines. Discounting the extremes, it's fair to say they're in the neighborhood of 365lbs.
It stands to reason that the stronger, later engine weigh a bit more, but I don't have any spectacular information at hand.
With the known " strength of the Europa chassis, without a lot of structural improvements I'd be scared of a V8 Europa.
But that wouldn't stop me from wanting one.
A Buick 215, an Oldsmobile 215, a Rover 3.5, 3.9,4.2, 4.0, 4.6, are essentially all the same and weigh the same. Fully dressed is around 320 pounds. Fully dressed means fully dressed. Manifolds, carb, ancillaries, flywheel, covers, pan. The Buick iron block 300 V8 is very similar. The difference is only another 80 pounds or less for the aluminum head version. Shortblock can be lifted and carried easily by one person. I have a dozen or so stacked up in the second floor of my garage that I carried up there. Buick V6, 300, 340, 350 and the Rover versions are all very similar, and light compared to other V8s because of the thin wall castings. Timing covers are interchangeable.
TR8owner wrote: I almost was ready to pull the trigger on this one but common sense took over, plus the fact I need a bigger garage. Its a 3.5 Rover V8 conversion and uncompleted project so maybe the guy is bailing for a reason. I know that engine well since I have a hotted up 225 hp one in my Triumph TR8. Its the earlier body style that came with the Renault engine. But a V8 in a 1500 lb toy car is an interesting thought.
Seriously, I'm not sure what the real question of the post is.
It seems to be total insaity going on here.
The note implies that anyone here would moderatly attempt to talk you out of the project.
You are posting about a level of GRM heaven, here. Good God, man- take the project. Have a blast.
just a couple of years ago, someone started to show up a local autocrosses with a heavily modified Europa- wasn't all that well sorted, yet- but darned quick. Didn't crumudgen do a new tube sub frame for a Europa? Would seem to help stiffen that up.
My only concern is regarding the transmission. Do you know what is mated up to that V8? The Renault trans is certainly not up to the task, nor are the stock axles. The axle problem is easily remedied, but strong longitudinal middy transmissions are pricey.
tr8todd wrote: A Buick 215, an Oldsmobile 215, a Rover 3.5, 3.9,4.2, 4.0, 4.6, are essentially all the same and weigh the same. Fully dressed is around 320 pounds. Fully dressed means fully dressed. Manifolds, carb, ancillaries, flywheel, covers, pan. The Buick iron block 300 V8 is very similar. The difference is only another 80 pounds or less for the aluminum head version. Shortblock can be lifted and carried easily by one person. I have a dozen or so stacked up in the second floor of my garage that I carried up there. Buick V6, 300, 340, 350 and the Rover versions are all very similar, and light compared to other V8s because of the thin wall castings. Timing covers are interchangeable.
Well, I've never weighed wither, and I was just repeating wikipedia 'facts', so I could be wrong, but supposedly the 215 was made heavier by Rover when they began enlarging it. I would love for that to not be the case.
In reply to alfadriver:
I think Hess was/is the tube frame guy.
In reply to TR8owner:
This is a horribly difficult, ultra expensive, bad idea for a project that will take you to the edge of insanity and bankruptcy. I can save you from this fate if you privately send me the sellers phone number.
MrJoshua wrote: In reply to alfadriver: I think Hess was/is the tube frame guy.
I couldn't remember if it was Hess or Crumudgen- since the latter is also a Jensen owner, too. I just guessed.
carguy123 wrote: With the known " strength of the Europa chassis, without a lot of structural improvements I'd be scared of a V8 Europa. But that wouldn't stop me from wanting one.
I'm not sure I understand your point. (I am building a Europa)
What is "known strength"?
The Europa chassis was designed for handling. In every manner that it would be subjected to handling stresses, the Europa chassis is superbly designed. Sure, it's flimsy if you twist it in the shop, but in application subjected to real world stresses, it's a great design. Additional horsepower should not change the chassis dynamics for what it was designed for.
Most people don't understand the design because it isn't a big ladder frame, or a unibody.
However, it was NOT designed for crashes, rollovers, side impacts, or most modern safety concepts. I would not want to be in a wreck in a stock chassis Europa.
What is inherent about a V-8 that would make the chassis unsuitable?
Are you saying faster= more potential for crashes? OK, I might buy that argument. Are you saying the engine weight would change the chassis dynamics? I doubt it, if the engine is in the original position (mid engine) in an unaltered chassis (though I don't think it would fit).
The V-8 won't change the chassis's ability to do what it was designed for very well.
Cutting the original chassis to make a V-8 fit might.
Winston wrote: My only concern is regarding the transmission. Do you know what is mated up to that V8? The Renault trans is certainly not up to the task, nor are the stock axles. The axle problem is easily remedied, but strong longitudinal middy transmissions are pricey.
THAT is exactly correct.
If the car uses the original unaltered chassis, there are very few engine/ trans combinations that have any possibility of working.
I designed my whole car around the transmission. (I am using a stock chassis, and targeting 300 hp).
I need to take some more recent pics. I have the body on right now and I'm doing the firewall. The Rover V8 powered Europa that was built in the 70's (I think) used a Hewland transmission. It also had a pulley hanging off the back of the transmission shaft to run the alternator. Yeah, it only charged when you were moving. I suspect there was zero room to mount an accessory like an alternator up front. And, if I recall, the trailing link suspension was dropped and double A arms were used. I don't think there is room for the trailing link suspension with a V8 up front. Frame mods, of course, to get that to work.
A 4AGE 20 valve with accessories weighs right at 300 lbs.
Incidentally, my civil engineer friend says that torsional rigidity of the frame would be increased a lot if you welded in a transverse plate or two in the middle of the central tunnel. He said ideally, you can have a hole in the middle of about 1/3 the width to pass stuff through.
Dr. Hess wrote: Incidentally, my civil engineer friend says that torsional rigidity of the frame would be increased a lot if you welded in a transverse plate or two in the middle of the central tunnel. He said ideally, you can have a hole in the middle of about 1/3 the width to pass stuff through.
Sorry about the mix up...
But on that point- what if you used small diagonal tubes diagonally across the rectangular box? Just like the ones you already have, but from lower left to upper right (or something like that). Then you get all the pass through space you need.
And the tube size doesn't have to be very beefy.
You'll need to log in to post.
