Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is redundant with the article about the V8 engine...
What is that supposed to mean?? Does this mean it can simply be merged?? If so, why not put it on Duplicate articles?? Georgia guy 00:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, compare...
No way! The Rover V8 was the greatest peice of engineering in British history! It HAS to have its own article! Dominar_Rygel_XVI ( talk) 10:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I seem to recall reading that the engines used for the late-eighties Paris-Dakar Range Rover were based around the stronger components initially made for the diesel. There was a contemporary article in CAR magazine featuring ex-F1 driver Patrick Tambay charging around a quarry in a bright-yellow example. I'll have to visit The Archives... Mr Larrington ( talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Shifted the following question out of the article page... Stepho ( talk) 08:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Interruption: I am confused. As I understood it in my youth the engine derived for Leyland and for Range Rover was NOT Buick but was OLDSMOBILE...which had less coolant water problems than Buick (an it has some, I can assure you) as it has an extra head stud each side....a pretty serious difference . Otherwise the motors were much the same. Tony Clancy 121.50.203.129 16:05, 30 April 2010
Buick and Oldsmobile versions of the 215cid aluminum V8 were built from the exact same castings. Drilling and tapping of cylinder head bolt holes was a secondary operation. Any competent automotive machine shop can can easily add the eight threaded holes to convert a Buick 215 engine block to Oldsmobile specification. Considering the extensive machine work Repco did to prepare other aspects of the Repco-Brabham racing engines, drilling/tapping eight holes is trivial. Since there's probably no way to prove Repco didn't build from Buick blocks and since the difference truly is unimportant, this article shouldn't differentiate. Furthermore, explanations of differences between Oldsmobile and Buick production engines don't belong in the Racing section of an article about Rover engines. 71.33.139.75 ( talk) 03:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Curtis Jacobson
Article says "The Rover V8 remained with Land Rover until being sold to Ford by BMW", i.e. the engine was acquired by Ford. But since Land Rover was also acquired by Ford, it appears that the two were still under the same ownership. So what exactly is the author trying to tell us?
Also says "However, Land Rover wanted production of the engine to continue, and they arranged for production to restart …". If production was to restart, the reader needs to know why it ceased. Spel-Punc-Gram ( talk) 05:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I really am quite sceptical of the statement that the predecessor to the RV8 was the BMC C-series. I can lay my hands quite easily on supporting information, but there are several key reasons why this is inaccurate. Primarily, the Rover Company had no ties with BMC at the time of the engine's acquisition or productionisation (1964 and 66 resp.), not becoming involved with the Leyland Corp until '67, and British Leyland (whereupon Leyland was joined to BMC) in '68. Furthermore, the only connexion between the RV8 and C-series is in the MG sports cars, but MGC was not directly replaced by MG BGT V8. MGC was aimed at the ex-Austin-Healey 3000 buyer to maintain a prescence in the 3-litre sports car bracket. MG BGT V8 was marketed as an upmarket GT coupe to challenge contemporary European V8 coupes, and retained the suspension setup and frontal treatment of the original MGB.
In terms of the candidate for the title of predecessor, there are two options. The first is the Rover P7 straight-six. Whilst this engine was never productionised, it had been extensively developed for production and the RV8 directly brought about the immediate winding up of the project. The P7 engine had been in development from around 1960-64, though never satisfactorily refined. It was in essence a 'stretched' version of the SOHC 1978cc 4-cylinder engine developed for the Rover 2000 (P6), giving a swept volume of 2967cc. Part of the scope of Project P6 from very early on (1957/58) was to replace the ageing IOE 4- and 6-cylinder engine family of the early Wilks era Rovers with a much more modern engine family of modular design that could be built on a single set of tooling with maximum parts crossover. Thus, the 1978cc 4-cylinder engine of the Rover 2000 has all of its ancillary components gathered in an auxiliary drive housing driven by an intermediate chain wheel at the front of the engine, making the engine 'extendable' with nothing more involved than the addition of two cylinders to the block- and head-casting moulds, and the use of longer crank and cam shafts. It would appear that the initiation of this dual engine family brought an end to the experimental V6 engine designs that were trialled for P5 before its launch, and probably suggests that the underwhelming F-head 3-litre that P5 was launched with was always viewed only as stop-gap. The P6 was launched as Rover 2000, with plans to launch P7 (a long-nose 2000 with the 3-litre engine) as Rover 3000 circa 1965 (so-called to distinguish it from the P5 'Rover 3-litre', and simultaneously providing the origin of the P6 name '2000').
In view of the fact that P7 was never launched, the V8 therefore directly replaced the P5 6-cylinder engine as the Rover offering for the 3-litre bracket. And there are strong grounds to argue direct succession: if the P7 engine was always intended to be fitted to P5, then the same business case created the P5B, merely substituting the RV8 engine design for the P7.
Dissatisfaction with the power-to-weight ratio of the P7 engine (possibly due to the length of time required to refine the aborted EFi system then in development), and the ready availability of the Buick V8 were the grounds for this substitution, and the modular engine family design was not proceeded with (although a modular scheme was designed around the V8 to give a 4-cyl slant-four derivative in the early 1970s). Thus the highly advanced (for the time) 2000 engine remained unique to P6.
Therefore, the RV8 is unequivocally linked primarily to the independent Rover Company's desire to remain competitive in the 3-litre luxury saloon class in the mid-1960s, and secondarily to answer the performance shortcomings of its P5 saloon. In my view, the 2995cc P5 straight-six engine is therefore the best candidate for the label 'predecessor', although I accept that the breadth of the engine's application over the years generates a long list of older engines that were 'replaced' by the RV8 in various model line ups. Please do challenge me if you feel differently. I will seek out the sources necessary to support this position. Mja58 ( talk) 16:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Updated Predecessor as per discussion. Mja58 ( talk) 11:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Looking further into amendments to the infobox, can I suggest the following for dicussion:
I would say the proposed change is an improvement over the current way. However, a Designer is a person and not a company, so
is more appropriate. For example,
on " Ferrari 125 engine" is correct, but GM and Rover are not designers. We don't call someone, who designs the changes on minor aspects of an engine, a designer. He/she is a development engineer.
If we are going to retain the infobox on engines, then basic characteristics like
should be on it, don't you think? If it is difficult to do so, then I am against keeping the infobox. Yiba ( talk) 05:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiba ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
< possibly even displacements near of 6.3 L (383.4 cu in), though the latter has not been tested in practice as of yet.>
Never mind practice; how is this achieved even in theory without the pistons welding themselves together or the crankshaft and camshaft attempting to be in the same place at the same time?
(in other words: citation needed )
86.142.118.81 ( talk) 14:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Baldy Bill has just changed the displacement from 3532cc to 3528cc. His sources are usually reliable. However, there are also equally reliable sources out there that give 3532cc. Using the given metric figures for bore (88.9 mm) and stroke (71.0 mm), we get (88.9/2)*(88.9/2)*3.14159*71.0*8/1000=3525.667 cc. But using the imperial figures converted to metric (25.4 mm = 1") we get 3.50"=88.9mm and 2.8"=71.12mm. Which gives (88.9/2)*(88.9/2)*3.14159*71.12*8/1000=3531.626 cc. Rounding the 2.8" to 71.1mm gives (88.9/2)*(88.9/2)*3.14159*71.0*8/1000=3530.633 cc. I'm not sure where the 3528 cc figure comes from but assuming 88.9 mm bore and 3528 cc we require a stroke of 71.04 mm, which seems wrong. So, which figures do we use? Stepho talk 00:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is not a collection of the most popular beliefs. The act of editing Wikipedia articles is a result of research by the editor with the originality resting with that person. --a form of original research. So WP:OR does not prohibit original research per se. In order to promote accuracy, WP:OR enforces verifiability to fight against our own inaccurate beliefs, and that policy is not there to discourage the effort to sniff the truth out of a pile of junk ad copies and news articles written with various degree of popularism --this quest for the truth, I believe and admire, is what Stepho is doing.
I consider the truth should prevail over inaccurate popular belief in Wikipedia articles (with or without editor consensus) no matter how many "reliable sources" can be quoted against (granted, the fact these sources exist should be included in the article). If the discussion is on the change of article title from "Rover 215 engine" to "Rover 216 engine", it's a totally different story. Please realize WP:CALC states doing our own math does NOT make it an original research as defined by Wikipedia. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 09:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is redundant with the article about the V8 engine...
What is that supposed to mean?? Does this mean it can simply be merged?? If so, why not put it on Duplicate articles?? Georgia guy 00:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, compare...
No way! The Rover V8 was the greatest peice of engineering in British history! It HAS to have its own article! Dominar_Rygel_XVI ( talk) 10:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I seem to recall reading that the engines used for the late-eighties Paris-Dakar Range Rover were based around the stronger components initially made for the diesel. There was a contemporary article in CAR magazine featuring ex-F1 driver Patrick Tambay charging around a quarry in a bright-yellow example. I'll have to visit The Archives... Mr Larrington ( talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Shifted the following question out of the article page... Stepho ( talk) 08:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Interruption: I am confused. As I understood it in my youth the engine derived for Leyland and for Range Rover was NOT Buick but was OLDSMOBILE...which had less coolant water problems than Buick (an it has some, I can assure you) as it has an extra head stud each side....a pretty serious difference . Otherwise the motors were much the same. Tony Clancy 121.50.203.129 16:05, 30 April 2010
Buick and Oldsmobile versions of the 215cid aluminum V8 were built from the exact same castings. Drilling and tapping of cylinder head bolt holes was a secondary operation. Any competent automotive machine shop can can easily add the eight threaded holes to convert a Buick 215 engine block to Oldsmobile specification. Considering the extensive machine work Repco did to prepare other aspects of the Repco-Brabham racing engines, drilling/tapping eight holes is trivial. Since there's probably no way to prove Repco didn't build from Buick blocks and since the difference truly is unimportant, this article shouldn't differentiate. Furthermore, explanations of differences between Oldsmobile and Buick production engines don't belong in the Racing section of an article about Rover engines. 71.33.139.75 ( talk) 03:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Curtis Jacobson
Article says "The Rover V8 remained with Land Rover until being sold to Ford by BMW", i.e. the engine was acquired by Ford. But since Land Rover was also acquired by Ford, it appears that the two were still under the same ownership. So what exactly is the author trying to tell us?
Also says "However, Land Rover wanted production of the engine to continue, and they arranged for production to restart …". If production was to restart, the reader needs to know why it ceased. Spel-Punc-Gram ( talk) 05:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I really am quite sceptical of the statement that the predecessor to the RV8 was the BMC C-series. I can lay my hands quite easily on supporting information, but there are several key reasons why this is inaccurate. Primarily, the Rover Company had no ties with BMC at the time of the engine's acquisition or productionisation (1964 and 66 resp.), not becoming involved with the Leyland Corp until '67, and British Leyland (whereupon Leyland was joined to BMC) in '68. Furthermore, the only connexion between the RV8 and C-series is in the MG sports cars, but MGC was not directly replaced by MG BGT V8. MGC was aimed at the ex-Austin-Healey 3000 buyer to maintain a prescence in the 3-litre sports car bracket. MG BGT V8 was marketed as an upmarket GT coupe to challenge contemporary European V8 coupes, and retained the suspension setup and frontal treatment of the original MGB.
In terms of the candidate for the title of predecessor, there are two options. The first is the Rover P7 straight-six. Whilst this engine was never productionised, it had been extensively developed for production and the RV8 directly brought about the immediate winding up of the project. The P7 engine had been in development from around 1960-64, though never satisfactorily refined. It was in essence a 'stretched' version of the SOHC 1978cc 4-cylinder engine developed for the Rover 2000 (P6), giving a swept volume of 2967cc. Part of the scope of Project P6 from very early on (1957/58) was to replace the ageing IOE 4- and 6-cylinder engine family of the early Wilks era Rovers with a much more modern engine family of modular design that could be built on a single set of tooling with maximum parts crossover. Thus, the 1978cc 4-cylinder engine of the Rover 2000 has all of its ancillary components gathered in an auxiliary drive housing driven by an intermediate chain wheel at the front of the engine, making the engine 'extendable' with nothing more involved than the addition of two cylinders to the block- and head-casting moulds, and the use of longer crank and cam shafts. It would appear that the initiation of this dual engine family brought an end to the experimental V6 engine designs that were trialled for P5 before its launch, and probably suggests that the underwhelming F-head 3-litre that P5 was launched with was always viewed only as stop-gap. The P6 was launched as Rover 2000, with plans to launch P7 (a long-nose 2000 with the 3-litre engine) as Rover 3000 circa 1965 (so-called to distinguish it from the P5 'Rover 3-litre', and simultaneously providing the origin of the P6 name '2000').
In view of the fact that P7 was never launched, the V8 therefore directly replaced the P5 6-cylinder engine as the Rover offering for the 3-litre bracket. And there are strong grounds to argue direct succession: if the P7 engine was always intended to be fitted to P5, then the same business case created the P5B, merely substituting the RV8 engine design for the P7.
Dissatisfaction with the power-to-weight ratio of the P7 engine (possibly due to the length of time required to refine the aborted EFi system then in development), and the ready availability of the Buick V8 were the grounds for this substitution, and the modular engine family design was not proceeded with (although a modular scheme was designed around the V8 to give a 4-cyl slant-four derivative in the early 1970s). Thus the highly advanced (for the time) 2000 engine remained unique to P6.
Therefore, the RV8 is unequivocally linked primarily to the independent Rover Company's desire to remain competitive in the 3-litre luxury saloon class in the mid-1960s, and secondarily to answer the performance shortcomings of its P5 saloon. In my view, the 2995cc P5 straight-six engine is therefore the best candidate for the label 'predecessor', although I accept that the breadth of the engine's application over the years generates a long list of older engines that were 'replaced' by the RV8 in various model line ups. Please do challenge me if you feel differently. I will seek out the sources necessary to support this position. Mja58 ( talk) 16:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Updated Predecessor as per discussion. Mja58 ( talk) 11:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Looking further into amendments to the infobox, can I suggest the following for dicussion:
I would say the proposed change is an improvement over the current way. However, a Designer is a person and not a company, so
is more appropriate. For example,
on " Ferrari 125 engine" is correct, but GM and Rover are not designers. We don't call someone, who designs the changes on minor aspects of an engine, a designer. He/she is a development engineer.
If we are going to retain the infobox on engines, then basic characteristics like
should be on it, don't you think? If it is difficult to do so, then I am against keeping the infobox. Yiba ( talk) 05:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiba ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
< possibly even displacements near of 6.3 L (383.4 cu in), though the latter has not been tested in practice as of yet.>
Never mind practice; how is this achieved even in theory without the pistons welding themselves together or the crankshaft and camshaft attempting to be in the same place at the same time?
(in other words: citation needed )
86.142.118.81 ( talk) 14:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Baldy Bill has just changed the displacement from 3532cc to 3528cc. His sources are usually reliable. However, there are also equally reliable sources out there that give 3532cc. Using the given metric figures for bore (88.9 mm) and stroke (71.0 mm), we get (88.9/2)*(88.9/2)*3.14159*71.0*8/1000=3525.667 cc. But using the imperial figures converted to metric (25.4 mm = 1") we get 3.50"=88.9mm and 2.8"=71.12mm. Which gives (88.9/2)*(88.9/2)*3.14159*71.12*8/1000=3531.626 cc. Rounding the 2.8" to 71.1mm gives (88.9/2)*(88.9/2)*3.14159*71.0*8/1000=3530.633 cc. I'm not sure where the 3528 cc figure comes from but assuming 88.9 mm bore and 3528 cc we require a stroke of 71.04 mm, which seems wrong. So, which figures do we use? Stepho talk 00:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is not a collection of the most popular beliefs. The act of editing Wikipedia articles is a result of research by the editor with the originality resting with that person. --a form of original research. So WP:OR does not prohibit original research per se. In order to promote accuracy, WP:OR enforces verifiability to fight against our own inaccurate beliefs, and that policy is not there to discourage the effort to sniff the truth out of a pile of junk ad copies and news articles written with various degree of popularism --this quest for the truth, I believe and admire, is what Stepho is doing.
I consider the truth should prevail over inaccurate popular belief in Wikipedia articles (with or without editor consensus) no matter how many "reliable sources" can be quoted against (granted, the fact these sources exist should be included in the article). If the discussion is on the change of article title from "Rover 215 engine" to "Rover 216 engine", it's a totally different story. Please realize WP:CALC states doing our own math does NOT make it an original research as defined by Wikipedia. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 09:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)