[Rovernet] 3.5 to 3.9?

Mon Mar 7 19:58:48 EST 2016

I saw that advert for the Vitesse plenum in the SD1 magazine.  Too bad that they are so rare.  Maybe we could "print" one!!
I think you said that the RR plenum is more free flowing than the standard SD1, no?  thanks again Dermot!

AvMedSafe
Geoffrey W. McCarthy MD MBA DipAvMed
677 NW Melinda Ave Portland OR USA 97210
503-241-8468(h) 503-799-3809 (mobile)

-----Original Message-----
From: Rovernet [mailto:rovernet-bounces at rovernet.org] On Behalf Of Dermot Harvey via Rovernet
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 2:36 PM
To: Rovernet <rovernet at rovernet.org>
Cc: Dermot Harvey <roverman2 at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Rovernet] 3.5 to 3.9?

Yes, you’re right about the breathing. Sure, a twin plenum would be nice - where did you see it?
If you want to run without cats you could use the English exhaust system, or at least the downpipes which give you some extraction. I used a plenum from an early fuel injected Range Rover - I got it used in England I think at the SD1 club spares day.
I still have a lot of new SD1 parts plus 2 parts cars.

Dermot Harvey
 Spectral Kinetics

> On Mar 7, 2016, at 3:41 PM, GeffMcCarthy via Rovernet <rovernet at rovernet.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Dermot.  I also have read that the SD1 breathing is restricted 
> severely.  A Vitesse twin plenum was advertised a few months back, and 
> sold for £800!  I plan to investigate throttle body injection on an 
> Edelbrock manifold, or similar.
> 
> 
> 
> AvMedSafe
> 
> Geoffrey W. McCarthy MD MBA DipAvMed
> 
> 677 NW Melinda Ave Portland OR USA 97210
> 
> 503-241-8468(h) 503-799-3809 (mobile)
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rovernet [mailto:rovernet-bounces at rovernet.org] On Behalf Of 
> Dermot Harvey via Rovernet
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 10:59 AM
> To: Rovernet <rovernet at rovernet.org>
> Cc: Dermot Harvey <roverman2 at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [Rovernet] 3.5 to 3.9?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Geoffrey,
> 
> 
> 
> I think you would be better off with one of the larger iterations of 
> the Rover V8. such as the 3.9 or 4.2 Liter.  I have both engines used 
> in stock if you are interested.
> 
> Alternately, you could have your present motor upgraded in power by 
> using higher compression pistons, a more radical camshaft and 
> improvements to your Fuel Injection mapping. This is what I did with 
> my SD1 when I rebuilt the motor some years ago. The car is now no 
> slouch and is an excellent Grand Touring car for fast longer journeys. 
> Still prefer my 1971 2000TC for running around the County.
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> 
> Dermot Harvey
> 
> Spectral Kinetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 6:46 PM, Brian Thornhill via Rovernet <
> <mailto:rovernet at rovernet.org> rovernet at rovernet.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
> 
>> Being a Land Rover tech for 17 years and working with these motors 
>> for
> many years I am not a fan of boring them as you tend to break the seal 
> loose between the sleeve and the block I have sourced a few good 3.9 
> and 4.6 blocks for guys with TR8's they work well if you ant to stay 
> with that block contact The Wedge Shop they can help you.
> 
>> 
> 
>> Please excuse errors and format this email sent from iPhone
> 
>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:21 PM, GeffMcCarthy via Rovernet <
> <mailto:rovernet at rovernet.org> rovernet at rovernet.org> wrote:
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> I am still looking for more thrust for my 1970 3500S and 1980SD1.  
>>> Is
> 
>>> it feasible, and reasonably priced, to bore the 3.5 to the 3.9? I
> 
>>> understand the crankshaft remains the same.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> AvMedSafe
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> Geoffrey W. McCarthy MD MBA DipAvMed
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 677 NW Melinda Ave Portland OR USA 97210
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 503-241-8468(h) 503-799-3809 (mobile)
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> 
>>> scrubbed...
> 
>>> URL: 
> 
>>> <http://rovernet.org/pipermail/rovernet_rovernet.org/attachments/201
>>> 6
> 
>>> 0229/8be6d02b/attachment.html>
> 
>>> _______________________________________________
> 
>>> Rovernet mailing list
> 
>>> <mailto:Rovernet at rovernet.org> Rovernet at rovernet.org
> 
>>> <http://rovernet.org/mailman/listinfo/rovernet_rovernet.org>
> http://rovernet.org/mailman/listinfo/rovernet_rovernet.org
> 
>> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
> 
>> Rovernet mailing list
> 
>> <mailto:Rovernet at rovernet.org> Rovernet at rovernet.org
> 
>> <http://rovernet.org/mailman/listinfo/rovernet_rovernet.org>
> http://rovernet.org/mailman/listinfo/rovernet_rovernet.org
> 
> 
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> 
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> 
> URL: <
> <http://rovernet.org/pipermail/rovernet_rovernet.org/attachments/20160
> 307/c4
> d1618c/attachment.html>
> http://rovernet.org/pipermail/rovernet_rovernet.org/attachments/201603
> 07/c4d
> 1618c/attachment.html>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Rovernet mailing list
> 
> <mailto:Rovernet at rovernet.org> Rovernet at rovernet.org
> 
> <http://rovernet.org/mailman/listinfo/rovernet_rovernet.org>
> http://rovernet.org/mailman/listinfo/rovernet_rovernet.org
> 
> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was 
> scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://rovernet.org/pipermail/rovernet_rovernet.org/attachments/20160
> 307/d7d6983f/attachment.html> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rovernet mailing list
> Rovernet at rovernet.org
> http://rovernet.org/mailman/listinfo/rovernet_rovernet.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rovernet.org/pipermail/rovernet_rovernet.org/attachments/20160307/4fd0fbd8/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Rovernet mailing list
Rovernet at rovernet.org
http://rovernet.org/mailman/listinfo/rovernet_rovernet.org