How heavy is the V8 engine?
Discussion
230kg
http://www.v8register.net/subpages/v8enginedimensi...
http://www.v8register.net/subpages/v8enginedimensi...
Edited by T_Pot on Wednesday 31st March 23:00
On another thread:
Marquis Rex said:
I'm tired of the hype surrounding the RV8 engine. Man, I've heard figures as low as 130 Kgs being banded about for its weight. It's a widely used readily available engine- and there's a lot of tuning knowledge out there for it (some of the tuning is questionable).
But lets put things into perspective here:
These are the true weights of a late Disco 4 litre engine, compliant with all the modern emissions and refinement criteria.
Accessory Drive Belt - (1) 0.341kg
Air Cleaner Body 0.977kg
Air Cleaner Element 0.299kg
Air Cleaner Top 0.467kg
Air Flow Meter 0.226kg
Air Hose/Duct - (1) 0.325kg
Alternator 7.196kg
Engine Complete 177.000kg
Engine Management - E.C.U. 0.390kg
Starter Motor 4.060kg
Viscous Coupling 2.942kg
Engine Oil 5.676kg
The above comes to 200 kgs. Now an earlier vehicle will probably NOT have the reduction gear starter motor fitted and so you can expect that to weigh about 8 kgs, the accessory drive won't be poly belt driven but individually driven So that will weigh quite a bit more. The above also does NOT include the flywheel, which on the Rover is very very heavy compared to it's contemporaries. So we're already looking at way over 220 Kgs. The extra capacity over the 3.5 litre will lose some in the crank area, but because the RV8 doesn't have a fully counterweighted crankshaft- not as much as you might imagine. The block has been reinforced since the early days, but I can't see that adding much more then about 5-6 kgs. So these silly figures of around 140Kgs are Science Fiction.
Other points of note are the fact that the valve timing does its own thing about about 4000 rpm due to the flex in the pushrods and rocker shaft location-this has a HUGE effect on top end power, an area where the undervalved Rover V8 struggles already- enlargening the capacity further will just boost low speed torque with little effect on peak power due to the restrictive nature of the cylinder heads- you’ll end up having to go to specially made Wildcat heads to get the top end back unless you’re particularly fond of the feel of a “diesel-esque” torque curve. Now don't get me wrong, the RV8 is a great "working class hero" of an engine- readily available. I TOTALLY understand the emotional reasons behind choosing this legendary stalwart powerplant, or retaining it for a sense of originality- fair play. But when biased folk start to pitch this motor, on function, against the Chevy C5 motor or a twin cam Jag, BMW, or Porsche V8s spending thousands upon thousands and seriously believing all the hype, they're on shaky ground.
But lets put things into perspective here:
These are the true weights of a late Disco 4 litre engine, compliant with all the modern emissions and refinement criteria.
Accessory Drive Belt - (1) 0.341kg
Air Cleaner Body 0.977kg
Air Cleaner Element 0.299kg
Air Cleaner Top 0.467kg
Air Flow Meter 0.226kg
Air Hose/Duct - (1) 0.325kg
Alternator 7.196kg
Engine Complete 177.000kg
Engine Management - E.C.U. 0.390kg
Starter Motor 4.060kg
Viscous Coupling 2.942kg
Engine Oil 5.676kg
The above comes to 200 kgs. Now an earlier vehicle will probably NOT have the reduction gear starter motor fitted and so you can expect that to weigh about 8 kgs, the accessory drive won't be poly belt driven but individually driven So that will weigh quite a bit more. The above also does NOT include the flywheel, which on the Rover is very very heavy compared to it's contemporaries. So we're already looking at way over 220 Kgs. The extra capacity over the 3.5 litre will lose some in the crank area, but because the RV8 doesn't have a fully counterweighted crankshaft- not as much as you might imagine. The block has been reinforced since the early days, but I can't see that adding much more then about 5-6 kgs. So these silly figures of around 140Kgs are Science Fiction.
Other points of note are the fact that the valve timing does its own thing about about 4000 rpm due to the flex in the pushrods and rocker shaft location-this has a HUGE effect on top end power, an area where the undervalved Rover V8 struggles already- enlargening the capacity further will just boost low speed torque with little effect on peak power due to the restrictive nature of the cylinder heads- you’ll end up having to go to specially made Wildcat heads to get the top end back unless you’re particularly fond of the feel of a “diesel-esque” torque curve. Now don't get me wrong, the RV8 is a great "working class hero" of an engine- readily available. I TOTALLY understand the emotional reasons behind choosing this legendary stalwart powerplant, or retaining it for a sense of originality- fair play. But when biased folk start to pitch this motor, on function, against the Chevy C5 motor or a twin cam Jag, BMW, or Porsche V8s spending thousands upon thousands and seriously believing all the hype, they're on shaky ground.
They must vary quite a lot TBH. Not just how they are dressed, but the different cranks are significantly different, as well as the journals - the fat crossbolted cranks & journals are a 4 handed lift on their own! Ported heads and manifolds certainly feel like feathers to handle in comparison to originals... Flywheels can be 12kg different on their own..
Stands and cranes rated for 250kg should cope OK though, I would have thought.
Stands and cranes rated for 250kg should cope OK though, I would have thought.
I've carried Range Rover EFi V8s and there is no way on earth I could lift 200kg.
As for 'diesel-esque torque curve' I've got a 4.2 JE Engineering V8 in my SD1. It doesn't have a torque curve really, 201 lb ft @1000 rpm rising to 266 lb ft @ 4000 rpm then down to 236 lb ft @ 5500 rpm. It's more like just having torque all the time. Much more useful than waiting for a diesel turbo to spin up, and much more fun.
The complete Carb 3.5 V8, with ancilliaries weighed about 10 kg more than a complete 2.0 Pinto, if that helps.
As for 'diesel-esque torque curve' I've got a 4.2 JE Engineering V8 in my SD1. It doesn't have a torque curve really, 201 lb ft @1000 rpm rising to 266 lb ft @ 4000 rpm then down to 236 lb ft @ 5500 rpm. It's more like just having torque all the time. Much more useful than waiting for a diesel turbo to spin up, and much more fun.
The complete Carb 3.5 V8, with ancilliaries weighed about 10 kg more than a complete 2.0 Pinto, if that helps.
Defcon5 said:
Gazzab said:
You can just about lift one on your own (OK I did it without gearbox attached - but 20 years ago!)....
You must mean drag, rather than lift!?Scouse Pete said:
I've carried Range Rover EFi V8s and there is no way on earth I could lift 200kg.
As for 'diesel-esque torque curve' I've got a 4.2 JE Engineering V8 in my SD1. It doesn't have a torque curve really, 201 lb ft @1000 rpm rising to 266 lb ft @ 4000 rpm then down to 236 lb ft @ 5500 rpm. It's more like just having torque all the time. Much more useful than waiting for a diesel turbo to spin up, and much more fun.
Yeah, but 4.2 litres is actually a nice capacity for an RV8 - trouble comes when you're hogging it out to 5 litres or more and expect a rise in power commensurate with that. As for 'diesel-esque torque curve' I've got a 4.2 JE Engineering V8 in my SD1. It doesn't have a torque curve really, 201 lb ft @1000 rpm rising to 266 lb ft @ 4000 rpm then down to 236 lb ft @ 5500 rpm. It's more like just having torque all the time. Much more useful than waiting for a diesel turbo to spin up, and much more fun.
Where the Marquis and I differ is that IMO the RV8 is still a viable choice for a small lightweight sports car - all the other V8s he mentions are heavier (though maybe not by as much as assumed by some) and LSx excepted carry a lot of weight and width at the top by way of their DOHC valvetrains. On their own, there's no denying all are vastly superior to the venerable Rover. Viewed as part of the RV8 TVR package I'd say none are ideal - the LSx comes closest but TBH I'd rather have 20 kgs less weight over the front axle than 50 bhp more as the chassis isn't exactly underemployed getting to grips with the grunt of a 500 engine to begin with. Moreover while any cross-plane crank V8 sounds nice, the TVR implementation of the RV8 simply makes the best noise of any internal combustion engine fitted to a road vehicle.
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff