Practical Performance Car

[Darkspeed]

My reply letter got printed in this months issue


Couple of pictures I have nicked from Tom the Rolling Road guy's photo file

[topcatcustom]

Does anyone have access to a copy of the article where the RV8 got apparently slated? Would like to have a read if someone could copy the page or something..?

[Darkspeed]

I would not say it was slated as such - more like a negative bias by the ill informed

It's quite clear that someone within the publication has a poor opinion of the RV8 for whatever reason and they do take every opportunity presented to them to give it a bit of a dig. Their loss really as it really has a loyal and dedicated following and they are missing a trick by dismissing it so off handedly and pretty sure that supporting it would make a better business option for them. Lets face it what is more Practical and Performance than dropping an RV8 into just about anything.

Their 6.25 litre turbo charged Rolls Royce project produced 160BHP on the rollers that day - no mention of that in the mag recently. How completely Impractical and Nonperforming is that.

I have bought the mag on and off for the last few years and to be honest it seems to be losing its way a bit.


Andrew

[Cobratone]

My reply letter got printed in this months issue

Andy, what did you put in your letter, save me buying the mag

[kiwicar]

I think very little of PPC generally these days, started with good intent but is edited by a compleat muppet. I ask you, project car, drop a 20 year old saab engine into a 35 year old escort MkII, 10 years ago you may have got a decent escort shell for sensible money, but now? and why a saab engine? there are far cheeper Zetecs that were at least made this century if you decide just to drop in an engine.
A whole article to performance tuning the Hilman imp? what was anyone thinking who came up with that it is just irelevent to anyone. The capri was a deliver to restorers job and the RollsRoyce again is not anything anyone would realistacally consider tuning. The whole magazine has just lost its way.
Mike

[HairbearTE]

In fairness Mike the saab engine into escort was a good idea on the face of it. They showed everyone how to get a cheap ford shell in germany (prob can't now) and use the saab engine to get a cheap 350bhp, all well and good. What's shocking is that the original principal of building a quick escort on a budget has now been completely forgotten. Everytime they want something for the car they phone up one of the companies that spends a good deal of advertising money with them each month and gets a mint part machined/welded out of ally! By the time it's done they will be left with a car no-one else can build for less than £30k! Nothing wrong with high dollar cars and i'm not a hater of people who can afford to go that route but this magazine was not supposed to be about that. Anyway, it's still a decent read compared to a lot of the junk on the shelves, it's just been allowed to drift off course a bit.

[Darkspeed]

Hi Tone

letter went something like

Defending the Rover V8

Even with its poor cylinder head design and without expensive modifications the Rover V8 does in fact hold its own quite well in the realm of the pushrod V8 - especially with respect to your own Ford 302 small block which with its modifications is comparable with the engine in my car, although the engine in mine does not benefit from a big valve head and produces what power it does through the restrictive standard Rover valve sizes.

Your engine at 5.0L and also benefiting from a bit of a tune up at the rolling road produced - 289BHP and 300ftlbs of torque through the assistance of big valve alloy heads, cam and throttle bodies. That's 57.8BHP/litre and 60ftlbs/litre. The figures from my 3.9 are 59.5BHP/litre and 65ftlbs/litre respectively and I am sure if the car had benefited from a bit of a tune up to optimise it these figures could have been improved a little and the the figures for my 3.9 are not exceptional and can be achieved quite economically. The standard Vitesse 3.5 figure is 54 BHP/litre, that's less than 7% down on your modified SBF figure. An RV8 of any standard capacity could make the specific outputs equivalent to your modified SBF quite easily. The RV8 was never destined to be a big capacity motor, there are other Buick designs out there for that task but as a small capacity V8 engine its as good as many litre for litre.

However what really makes the RV8 such an attractive proposition and so popular is not the engine as a lone entity but the easy availability of the LT77 5 speed manual gearbox and latterly the R380 which is where US engine installations get expensive and agricultural - the description of the gearchange in the article on your car made me smile as it is exactly the same as in my mates genuine Basil Green Perana, difficult at best, and what prevents good US iron installations being really popular and economical propositions. The US iron engines may produce good power once modified, but who wants a great engine mated to crappy gearchange or a slush box in a sports car.

The Rover V8 will never be able to compare to modern V8's or V8's that were developed with an eye to motorsport during an era where the manufacturers raced to out do each other for higher HP figures, its development stopped when Rover bought the design apart from what was absolutely necessary to keep it legal. It's a 50's design small capacity V8 and comparisons with it can just as easy highlight deficiencies in larger capacity engines as they can in making it appear underpowered.

Would I consider anything else? Not really, it sounds great weighs very little and back in the 60's it was given a makeover and won a F1 world championship


And printed as such

His response went along the lines of his car has such low power because of restrictive manifolds and 9.0:1 compression - and should see 350BHP with that sorted - and his gearbox is crap because he built it. So more defending the SBF than trying to slate the Rover so perhaps I made a point.

Andrew

[Cobratone]

Thanks for that Andrew, a well worded letter and I'm surprised he printed it. Have you had much use of the Ginetta recently?

[ChrisJC]

Well put Andrew.


Chris.

[Darkspeed]

Thanks for that Andrew, a well worded letter and I'm surprised he printed it. Have you had much use of the Ginetta recently?

I was out in it last night - Bloody hell its quick.


Cheers

Andrew

[topcatcustom]

Good one, maybe we should all write in to defend the RV8- then he would perhaps loose a little pompousness!!!

[kiwicar]

Good one, maybe we should all write in to defend the RV8- then he would perhaps loose a little pompousness!!!

I think there is little hope of that, ever seen him in "kit car crisis" on Discovery Home and leasure? he surrounds himself with a load of mates that all view a "project" as a way to blag more goods and services out of some unsuspecting supplier who thinks they will free advertising/ air time and sinceerly believe the world owes them a living.
Sorry sounds like I have a beaf with them, I don't really, I just wish the magazine was relevent. The projects they have are vritually all unfinnished, diy efi, what happend to that? V8 transit? deisel westfield? various escorts, And thats the other bit, the projects are all so dated, an Audi Quatero is now a collectors car, not a project vehicle, £35 for a second hand valve anyone?? £1500 for a used head casting?? three Mk II escort projects ??
the list goes on.
Sorry had my rant
Mike

[Darkspeed]

In defense of Will

Having spent some time with him and Kev at the Mallory V8 shootout I can say that I found them both people I would be quite happy to spend time having a beer and chatting with - they are genuine car enthusiasts.

I could not watch that kit car crisis drivel as the bloke was an absolute pillock and I just don't do any sort of "car crash" tv.
The Westfield diesel - how over the moon would you have been when the winner of a star prize decides that a diesel engine in a seven is a really good idea. I just cant subscribe to the idea of spending £10K to build a car worth £3K


Andrew

[ian.stewart]

Hi Tone

letter went something like

Defending the Rover V8

Even with its poor cylinder head design and without expensive modifications the Rover V8 does in fact hold its own quite well in the realm of the pushrod V8 - especially with respect to your own Ford 302 small block which with its modifications is comparable with the engine in my car, although the engine in mine does not benefit from a big valve head and produces what power it does through the restrictive standard Rover valve sizes.

Your engine at 5.0L and also benefiting from a bit of a tune up at the rolling road produced - 289BHP and 300ftlbs of torque through the assistance of big valve alloy heads, cam and throttle bodies. That's 57.8BHP/litre and 60ftlbs/litre. The figures from my 3.9 are 59.5BHP/litre and 65ftlbs/litre respectively and I am sure if the car had benefited from a bit of a tune up to optimise it these figures could have been improved a little and the the figures for my 3.9 are not exceptional and can be achieved quite economically. The standard Vitesse 3.5 figure is 54 BHP/litre, that's less than 7% down on your modified SBF figure. An RV8 of any standard capacity could make the specific outputs equivalent to your modified SBF quite easily. The RV8 was never destined to be a big capacity motor, there are other Buick designs out there for that task but as a small capacity V8 engine its as good as many litre for litre.

However what really makes the RV8 such an attractive proposition and so popular is not the engine as a lone entity but the easy availability of the LT77 5 speed manual gearbox and latterly the R380 which is where US engine installations get expensive and agricultural - the description of the gearchange in the article on your car made me smile as it is exactly the same as in my mates genuine Basil Green Perana, difficult at best, and what prevents good US iron installations being really popular and economical propositions. The US iron engines may produce good power once modified, but who wants a great engine mated to crappy gearchange or a slush box in a sports car.

The Rover V8 will never be able to compare to modern V8's or V8's that were developed with an eye to motorsport during an era where the manufacturers raced to out do each other for higher HP figures, its development stopped when Rover bought the design apart from what was absolutely necessary to keep it legal. It's a 50's design small capacity V8 and comparisons with it can just as easy highlight deficiencies in larger capacity engines as they can in making it appear underpowered.

Would I consider anything else? Not really, it sounds great weighs very little and back in the 60's it was given a makeover and won a F1 world championship


And printed as such

His response went along the lines of his car has such low power because of restrictive manifolds and 9.0:1 compression - and should see 350BHP with that sorted - and his gearbox is crap because he built it. So more defending the SBF than trying to slate the Rover so perhaps I made a point.

Andrew

Wait till I see Will Hollman again, my little RV8 makes more power than his SBF, but down a little on torque, but my car, im guessing was set up on the same rollers, Dave Walkers?? so they should not be that far different, I wonder if he is brave enough to go to the CF show this weekend, If he was brave enough to put it on the strip, Boy, would I like to pick on him, especially as he had my Mexico arches for his Capri,

[john 215]

Hi Andrew,
Excellent letter could'nt have put it better myself
Cheers John