which engines?

[David Large]

I think the BRA issue is the spacing between the chassis rails - but I may be wrong.

David

[clive]

Hi David,

There are fourteen BRAs in the Club, twelve 289s and two 427s. All 289s are Rover/MG combinations apart from Migge, who has a Rover/Cosworth combination. Of the two 427s, one is Ford/Jag and the other is Rover/Jag.

Of the Hawk 289s, the figures are:-

Rover/MG = 32%
Rover/Jag = 14%
Ford/Jag = 29%
Ford/MG = 14%
Other = 11%

[David Large]

Thanks Clive.

David

[Old Boy Racer]

Forget all that limp wristed Ford 289/302/427 stuff - this is what you need

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAfoe5ncm9M

Robin

[catsx11]

.

[peterc]

When I built mine Gerry suggested saving 80kgs in weight and going the Rover route. I did with a 4.6 Rover tuned by his recommended engine builder to be a high torque version circa 275 bhp and 310ft/lbs.
I have been very pleased with it straight out the box so to speak and it does seem to handle reasonably well for an older style car. I do have Gerry's tubular front suspension.
Initial costs were very close between the Ford and Rover.
I did a like for like comparison before making the decision. You could either have a cheap Ford engine with an expensive Tremec gearbox or an expensive Rover engine with a cheap LT77 gearbox.

Regrets - yes, it should have been a Ford as most people want authenticity and I think you are correct that if you needed to sell then a Ford would have a premium over a Rover.
Will I swop, probably not due to the conversion costs. Think around 10K.
You will need more than just the engine.
Gearbox, propshaft, carbs etc, manifolds and first section of exhaust, replumb the radiator and possibly a bigger rad, front suspension springs, transmission tunnel and carpet adjusted to suit gearstick.
I guess it depends how good the basic car is. Perhaps save the money for the next project.
Would I go Ford with a new build - that's a definite YES
Peter C

[clive]

Ford V8s just sound so much better than Rover's.

[Migge]

But they are not all the same Clive

302 HO/351W order it is 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8

260, 289, 302 order it is 1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8

[Dave Woodward]

Nige,

As Paul pointed out, I started with a Rover 4.6 with LT77 transmission and MGB back axle which was later changed to MGC.

Having then acquired and rebuilt a '65 289 HiPo I proceeded to have this put into the car. This is a rather involved process from the Rover starting point and included:

Move engine mounts (Rover mounts are in the wrong place)
New engine (obviously)
New uprated front springs (its heavier)
New radiator (hose entry/exit point are opposed)
New clutch and bell housing
New transmission and prop shaft
Modifications to the transmission tunnel to accommodate the Toploader linkages
I also had the diff upgraded to a Quaife and the half shafts upgraded to accommodate the additional power

I commissioned the work which added substantially to the final cost. I'm sure you would do all this yourself.

In spite of it costing more than anticipated, I am delighted with the final result. The Ford is much more raw and produces a note that the Rover didn't really come close to. And I'm much happier with the engine bay appearance

The Rover engine was great, but I'm much happier with the Ford, especially now I've been able to 'right off' the expense

[Colin Newbold]

For what it's worth Nige, here's my two-pennyworth...

I believe there's a version of Parkinson's Law at play when it comes to boys and their toys...you can never have enough power (except David that is!).

A bit like the hamster on his or her wheel, you find temporal happiness when you first get the power but it usually doesn't last and you soon want more. Call it a universal law if you like, but stick to what you have and put the money into your new build.

Colin