Mick Annick
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 2,887
- Location
- Burgundy, France (450 miles SE of Somerset)
- Thread starter stuvy
- Start date
stuvy
Member
- Messages
- 9,304
Or not. My car has a 3.9L Rover V8 (no timing belt though)...
View attachment 212719
19mpg typical, 25 if I drive it like a poof. Give it large and...
But I'd struggle to think of anything I'd rather own
one of my favourite cars and great plate too
stuvy
Member
- Messages
- 9,304
If it’s like a Morgan I used to work on it will be 30 ltr tank
Mick Annick
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 2,887
- Location
- Burgundy, France (450 miles SE of Somerset)
Stuvy
Sounds about right, but I’ve never worked out the mpg, seems a bit pointless with a car like this. Thus far I’ve not needed to worry about it, though now I’m a pensioner that may change
That said, I’ve owned it for 15 years and overall cost of ownership hasn’t been excessive, even paying for someone else to service (until now), unlike some of your customers
stuvy
Member
- Messages
- 9,304
Stuvy
Sounds about right, but I’ve never worked out the mpg, seems a bit pointless with a car like this. Thus far I’ve not needed to worry about it, though now I’m a pensioner that may change
That said, I’ve owned it for 15 years and overall cost of ownership hasn’t been excessive, even paying for someone else to service (until now), unlike some of your customers
one of our customers pays more for his racing tyres for a year than I earn...
I zero the trip every time and just gauge it off the tank, my cosworth did 4mpg so I stopped counting after that
Wedg1e
They call me Mr. Bodge-angles
- Messages
- 7,756
- Location
- Teesside, England
- and if you can find one, they're usually relatively cheap. I paid £6K for mine in Aug 2000 and £2K for a S3 Esprit in 2004. Last time I looked you needed £10K to buy an Esprit S3 but a 390SE can be had for £3-4K (I know of one that sold for £1800).The plate came with it, I wouldn't have bothered otherwise. That said, A390 TVR would work
TVR beat Landrover to a 3.9L by years; as 'standard' the 390SE runs 93.5mm bores giving 3905cc and 10.5:1 comp ratio where LR used 94mm bores for 3948cc and 9.4:1 c.r. - but TVR also had the heads worked, with short valve guides, dual springs, ports you can put your hand through and a high-lift cam.
Mine also runs duplex timing gear and was rebored to LR size when I found some broken piston rings, so it's a bit of a b45+ard in that respect - 3948cc and 9.4:1 with the tuning goodies, but doesn't need 98RON - it was dyno'd at 256bhp/ 280lb.ft. on Tesco 95RON
(twin 6 gallon tanks...50L?).Torque curve flatter than Lincolnshire and a 3.31:1 Jag LSD means it will pull off in 2nd and go straight to 5th. 1150Kg means it's not 'fast' but it is 'quick' - too quick for its brakes and handling really, but that was always the TVR way
Practical Classics' definition of the 350i from which the 390SE derived was 'hairy-chested'. The 390SE was 'hairy-4rsed'
The later 400SE used the by-then standard production 4L V8 and depending on who you ask, it did or didn't have top-end work - though it did benefit from the 'hot-wire' injection system which made it more driveable, more economical and remappable. And 400SE's look a bit more 'finished', and there are more of them... and they cost more....
Have another gratuitous pic... yes, there's seven feet of nose in front of you (like the Morgan, I think) but the engine is so far back the crank pulley is just ahead of the axle line...
Wheels are from the later 350SE, which confusingly was actually a boggo 3.9L RangeRover engine but in a standard 350i shell (to get rid of the last few - only 26 were built) - the 350SE didn't have the wheelarch flares, front airdam or rear under-wing. These wheels were leftover stock bought when the factory was being stripped in 2004/5. The rear boot spoiler is from an '80s Mercedes and was a factory option. Some people think the car looks better without it. I think it adds to the 1980's power-dressing style
stuvy
Member
- Messages
- 9,304
The plate came with it, I wouldn't have bothered otherwise. That said, A390 TVR would work
TVR beat Landrover to a 3.9L by years; as 'standard' the 390SE runs 93.5mm bores giving 3905cc and 10.5:1 comp ratio where LR used 94mm bores for 3948cc and 9.4:1 c.r. - but TVR also had the heads worked, with short valve guides, dual springs, ports you can put your hand through and a high-lift cam.
Mine also runs duplex timing gear and was rebored to LR size when I found some broken piston rings, so it's a bit of a b45+ard in that respect - 3948cc and 9.4:1 with the tuning goodies, but doesn't need 98RON - it was dyno'd at 256bhp/ 280lb.ft. on Tesco 95RON
Torque curve flatter than Lincolnshire and a 3.31:1 Jag LSD means it will pull off in 2nd and go straight to 5th. 1150Kg means it's not 'fast' but it is 'quick' - too quick for its brakes and handling really, but that was always the TVR way
Practical Classics' definition of the 350i from which the 390SE derived was 'hairy-chested'. The 390SE was 'hairy-4rsed'
The later 400SE used the by-then standard production 4L V8 and depending on who you ask, it did or didn't have top-end work - though it did benefit from the 'hot-wire' injection system which made it more driveable, more economical and remappable. And 400SE's look a bit more 'finished', and there are more of them... and they cost more....
Have another gratuitous pic... yes, there's seven feet of nose in front of you (like the Morgan, I think) but the engine is so far back the crank pulley is just ahead of the axle line...
View attachment 212934
Wheels are from the later 350SE, which confusingly was actually a boggo 3.9L RangeRover engine but in a standard 350i shell (to get rid of the last few - only 26 were built) - the 350SE didn't have the wheelarch flares, front airdam or rear under-wing. These wheels were leftover stock bought when the factory was being stripped in 2004/5. The rear boot spoiler is from an '80s Mercedes and was a factory option. Some people think the car looks better without it. I think it adds to the 1980's power-dressing style
I am tempted to tune it but we have a chap at work that ‘really’ in to his yank tin
a 5.7 sbc is cheaper and cheaper to then tune as opposed to the Rover v8
thanks for the school lesson it’s nice to learn extra bits about cars and bikes from this forum
8ob
Member
- Messages
- 14,371
- Location
- Nescient in the vale
TVR beat Landrover to a 3.9L by years; as 'standard' the 390SE runs 93.5mm bores giving 3905cc and 10.5:1 comp ratio where LR used 94mm bores for 3948cc and 9.4:1 c.r. - but TVR also had the heads worked, with short valve guides, dual springs, ports you can put your hand through and a high-lift cam.
I thought that the 3.9 was the brainchild of the failed Iceberg project where Rover commissioned Perkins to diesel the Rover V8 engine.The beefed up 3.9 blocks were grabbed by TVR when Rover dropped the idea of a decent V8 diesel.
Bob
sako243
Member
- Messages
- 4,135
- Location
- My mansion in Wales
I don't know if was true back then but certainly nowadays Land Rover consciously detune / run the engine in a low state of tune for production compared to what the engine is capable of. The reason being that you may not always be able to run on Western spec fuel. The fact that the number of people who have done a trip through Africa in a modern Land Rover can be counted on your hands is irrelevant, the vehicle should be able to.
The plate came with it, I wouldn't have bothered otherwise. That said, A390 TVR would work
TVR beat Landrover to a 3.9L by years; as 'standard' the 390SE runs 93.5mm bores giving 3905cc and 10.5:1 comp ratio where LR used 94mm bores for 3948cc and 9.4:1 c.r. - but TVR also had the heads worked, with short valve guides, dual springs, ports you can put your hand through and a high-lift cam.
Mine also runs duplex timing gear and was rebored to LR size when I found some broken piston rings, so it's a bit of a b45+ard in that respect - 3948cc and 9.4:1 with the tuning goodies, but doesn't need 98RON - it was dyno'd at 256bhp/ 280lb.ft. on Tesco 95RON
Torque curve flatter than Lincolnshire and a 3.31:1 Jag LSD means it will pull off in 2nd and go straight to 5th. 1150Kg means it's not 'fast' but it is 'quick' - too quick for its brakes and handling really, but that was always the TVR way
Practical Classics' definition of the 350i from which the 390SE derived was 'hairy-chested'. The 390SE was 'hairy-4rsed'
The later 400SE used the by-then standard production 4L V8 and depending on who you ask, it did or didn't have top-end work - though it did benefit from the 'hot-wire' injection system which made it more driveable, more economical and remappable. And 400SE's look a bit more 'finished', and there are more of them... and they cost more....
Have another gratuitous pic... yes, there's seven feet of nose in front of you (like the Morgan, I think) but the engine is so far back the crank pulley is just ahead of the axle line...
View attachment 212934
Wheels are from the later 350SE, which confusingly was actually a boggo 3.9L RangeRover engine but in a standard 350i shell (to get rid of the last few - only 26 were built) - the 350SE didn't have the wheelarch flares, front airdam or rear under-wing. These wheels were leftover stock bought when the factory was being stripped in 2004/5. The rear boot spoiler is from an '80s Mercedes and was a factory option. Some people think the car looks better without it. I think it adds to the 1980's power-dressing style
I spoke with a couple of friends who worked in the power train area of JLR and the rumour was that 1000hp and 1000lbft of torque was within reach of a standard 4.4TDV8 with little more than a software tweak. The standard cooling system could just about cope, nothing else downstream would.
jsf55
Member
- Messages
- 1,794
- Location
- Sunny Swansea
Iceberg was a diesel project, down the page a bit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_V8_engine
They had a bigger bore and stronger crank to help it along
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_V8_engine
They had a bigger bore and stronger crank to help it along
Should have lpg'd it....I used to get about 15mpg out of mine...
View attachment 212645
When my mate serviced it he suspected the cat had been cut open, gutted and re-welded
On the various engine variants, the 3.5 became the 3.9, then the 4.2 with the longer stroke but still with a slightly floppy 3.5 main bearing crank. The stiffer block and crank came with the later crossbolted 4 and 4.6 engines. I recently built a 4.2 "fast road" engine with oversize 3.9 pistons since the 4.2 oversize have not been available for years. At the time I put my name down for a pair of recast heads from Real Steel, not sure if they ever made a batch...
To my mind the best engine to tune would be the later 4.0.
stuvy
Member
- Messages
- 9,304
from working on disco 2’s they drop liners
Wedg1e
They call me Mr. Bodge-angles
- Messages
- 7,756
- Location
- Teesside, England
I thought that the 3.9 was the brainchild of the failed Iceberg project where Rover commissioned Perkins to diesel the Rover V8 engine.The beefed up 3.9 blocks were grabbed by TVR when Rover dropped the idea of a decent V8 diesel.
Bob
TVR's 3.9L was devised by Andy Rouse who raced an SD1 in saloons. He used every trick in the book (for the time) and supposedly squeezed 275BHP out of it but it used as much oil as petrol and was undriveable on the road (this info came from the son of TVR's factory race driver John Kent). According to the underground grapevine TVR did or didn't pay Rouse for the job
and went looking for an engineering company who could 'productionise' the modified engine. Several firms were tried, which is why the early 390SEs have various amounts of modifications; some had flywheels you could bend by hand, some had Wills rings, some have solid cam followers and adjustable rockers etc. etc. - what is known is that TVR's claim of 275bhp was always based on the prototype engine and for the most part the road cars 'probably' didn't make anything like that. The 390SE used flat-topped pistons from Cosworth/Omega with valve head cutouts, that's what gave the 10.5:1 comp ratio. 94mm was about as far as you could bore the original 3.5L cylinder liners before they got too thin. Later blocks had beefier liners, cast-in bosses to take cross-bolts to brace the main bearing caps and the crank forgings were selected to be machined for longer strokes, which is how the 4.2L was first created (by/for TVR, not LR).The bulk of the 390SEs and the early 400SE engines were produced by NCK - North Coventry Kawasaki - which was subsequently bought by TVR and renamed TVR Power. I believe they're still in business.
Towards the end of production, the RV8 was cast at West Yorkshire Foundries in Leeds, alongside the old 6.75L Rolls-Royce V8 blocks.
Right, having typed all that I went and clicked the Wiki link and see that it essentially repeats what I've just said
- however under '4.2L' it fails to mention that TVR did it first with the 420SE, which was an even-more-modified 390 engine (using selected crank blanks as above). Total production for the 390SE and 420SE was 103 cars with 'about 10%' of them being quoted as having 4.2L engines - so maybe a dozen. I've only ever seen two 'in the flesh' as it were. More famously, the 4.2 went into the SEAC which was so powerful it got banned from Group C after only one season As an aside, since I mentioned the Rolls engine, the alloy sumps were cast by Sarginsons in Coventry; the design involved a long flat area that was prone to casting porosity so they had a guy whose job was to grind out and weld up the poor quality castings
Last edited:
Olderisbetter
Member
- Messages
- 3,920
- Location
- Wolverhampton
I do love the sound of a v6 or v8, I had a mk1 capri with a v6 in sporting burton heads and mods that sounded like a pure muscle car when booted
stuvy
Member
- Messages
- 9,304
TVR's 3.9L was devised by Andy Rouse who raced an SD1 in saloons. He used every trick in the book (for the time) and supposedly squeezed 275BHP out of it but it used as much oil as petrol and was undriveable on the road (this info came from the son of TVR's factory race driver John Kent). According to the underground grapevine TVR did or didn't pay Rouse for the job
The bulk of the 390SEs and the early 400SE engines were produced by NCK - North Coventry Kawasaki - which was subsequently bought by TVR and renamed TVR Power. I believe they're still in business.
Towards the end of production, the RV8 was cast at West Yorkshire Foundries in Leeds, alongside the old 6.75L Rolls-Royce V8 blocks.
Right, having typed all that I went and clicked the Wiki link and see that it essentially repeats what I've just said
As an aside, since I mentioned the Rolls engine, the sumps were cast by Sarginsons in Coventry; the design involved a long flat area that was prone to casting porosity so they had a guy whose job was to grind out and weld up the poor quality castings
ken dropped this car over for my boss to deliver to porta mao circuit a few months ago
such a great story and brilliant soundtrack from straight pipes
https://www.influx.co.uk/cars/rover-sd1/
Wedg1e
They call me Mr. Bodge-angles
- Messages
- 7,756
- Location
- Teesside, England
I rebuilt mine in 2001; at the time Rimmer Bros had a 'coming soon' announcement that they would be releasing a 6L RV8, but I don't know if they ever did. I'd suspect the issue would be the supply of blocks and cranks because of course the RV8 went out of production soon after - at one stage the big machining line was for sale on Ebay!
8ob
Member
- Messages
- 14,371
- Location
- Nescient in the vale
Scary how things have moved on, if someone told us back then that in years to come a bog standard 60mpg 2ltr diesel Golf would blow the doors off our souped up 20mpg Capris we would of ordered them a straight jacket.We now have vans quicker than some of these older sports cars
Bob
Matchless
I started with nothing, still have most of it left
- Messages
- 2,869
- Location
- Essex UK
until a couple of years ago I had an MG RV8 3.9, much nicer car than I thought it would be, just lacking electric windows and central locking, easy fix but I never bothered, bought it to hire out but retired instead and could not keep everything, shed is not big enough, when is it ever!
