LARRY, You can put the 300 crank in & then you have the ballance problem!!!!
Why not
do like I have done & off grind the rover 4.6 to the 3.4 stroke & use the ford
pistons & the early rover rods. 10-1 comp with 300 heads & you have to make up a
ring to go on the ft. of the crank to fill in were the oil pump use to be.
No hill for a climmer!!!!! Glenn
Larry Hoy wrote:
> Dave, thanks for the interest. I have tried to put together bits and pieces I
> could find about the BOPR or is that BORP : - ) engines, check out
> http://pages.prodigy.net/larryhoy/V8EngineSpecs.htm and let me know if what is
> there is correct, if anyone can fill in the blanks I'd appreciate it.
>
> My first challenge with the engine I have found is it is missing a rod and
> piston. Go figure. I spoke with Glenn Towery, and plan to speak with Ted
> Schumacher about this. But rather than go back stock ... since I have the 300
> crank ... well you know, I can't pass up a good challenge. This will be an on
> going project, something that doesn't have to happen now.
>
> I know the 4.6L engine is a rather new configuration and not a lot of people
> have done much with it but it seems to me that someone, somewhere has thrown
>in
> the 300 crank. It seems like a natural.
>
> My crude calculations tell me that if you bore the 4.6L .020 over, and stroke
>it
> with the 300 crank, you have a 326CI or 5.3L, have I made a mistake?
>
> Larry Hoy
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-mgb-v8@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-mgb-v8@autox.team.net]On
> >Behalf Of David Kernberger
> >Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 7:30 PM
> >To: Larry Hoy
> >Cc: mgb-v8@autox.team.net
> >Subject: Re: Stroking a 4.6 Rover?
> >
> >
> >10/4/00
> >
> >Larry,
> >
> > The stroke on the 300 Buick crank is 3.400". I would love to know
> >the stroke on the 4.6 Rover because I am trying to compile specifications
> >on all the Rover engines for my own information. The main bearing size is
> >also something I want to know. Awhile back listers were saying the 4.6 had
> >"larger" mains but nobody stated the actual diameter. The Buick 300 is
> >2.500". I suspect rods have remained 2.000" on all of these engines. Is
> >that the case anybody? Meanwhild the Buick 300 crank has a different rear
> >flange arrangement; and what about these new style crank driven oil pumps
> >and distributorless front covers? There may be several considerations to
> >work out here.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Dave Kernberger
|