Value for money

289, FIA & Daytona topics
Post Reply
User avatar
agnoraan
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:37 pm

Value for money

Post by agnoraan »

Having a chat with someone the other day and the discussion got around to the engines used in 289 Cobras. Do you guys feel that it's more important to run a Ford engine despite the addtional costs to buy and build the engine/gearbox/drivetrain and ancilliaries, or do you feel that a Rover V8 powered car is just as acceptable? Does the cost of the Ford set up outweigh the cost at resale time, ie how much more valuable do you think the Ford is over Rover power? I feel that a Ford engine is the desireable option, but the guy I was talking to didn't agree and said that his Rover powered car gave him more than enough fun at a fraction of the cost, and that when it came to resale time he would probably not lose that much more money compared to a Ford engined car. Didn't Gerry put a costing together for his cars along these lines at some point?

What are your thoughts on it? I'd think a Ford engined car would sell easier and be more desireable, but is this outweighed by the cost?
Nige
User avatar
peterc
T289R Member
T289R Member
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:05 am
Location: Surrey

Re: Value for money

Post by peterc »

Nige,
At the time of my build (1999) I did a cost comparison of Ford versus Rover. Like for like on new parts or professional recon for the gearbox. The difference in price was less than £200.
Basically a 270 BHP Ford was cheaper than an equivalent powered Rover. More work needed on the Rover to achieve the same result. The gearbox however is more expensive for a Ford set up compared to the cheap as chips Rover LT77. Thus the price difference almost balanced out. Gerry effectively persuaded me the save the weight. Then he built a 302 show car.!

To change engines later is expensive as Dave - W will relate.

If you look at the Cobra values given by Gerry you will see that there is a definite plus point to go Ford.
OK you save 80kgs with the Rover but if I were to have the chance to start again I would definitely go the Ford route.
Peter C
User avatar
clive
T289R Member
T289R Member
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:18 am
Location: Perth

Re: Value for money

Post by clive »

I think most who have Rover engines fitted will claim that it is as good as Ford, but I wonder what they are really thinking. The Rover engine / MGB rear axle build does seem to be well balanced, but for me I had to go down the Ford / Jag axle route. Not only is it more like the original, but the Ford does sound better!

As Peter said, the cost differential when building wasn't that much, but the resale values seem to favour Ford engined cars. Economically Rovers are cheaper to run giving that they will give a greater number of miles to the gallon, but then we didn't build these cars for economy even though some of us can rattle up the mileage!
Cheers, Clive.

(If I'm not here I'm in my workshop or on the golf course!)
User avatar
StewbieC
T289R Committee
T289R Committee
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:50 pm
Location: out in the sticks, Shropshire

Re: Value for money

Post by StewbieC »

No-one to my knowledge has taken a Ford out to fit a Rover. A couple have gone the other way.
________________________________________________
Stu
Hawk 289, 66 Mustang Fastback with a 289 maximum smiles per mile..
User avatar
peterc
T289R Member
T289R Member
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:05 am
Location: Surrey

Re: Value for money

Post by peterc »

Not sure that the mpg is that much different for a given BHP.
I only get 17- 22 mpg depending on the extent of cruising. I think the only guys who get more are using a smaller capacity e.g. 3.9 litre and original Rover carbs.
Peter C
User avatar
nikbj68
T289R Member
T289R Member
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Anglesey, North Wales.
Contact:

Re: Value for money

Post by nikbj68 »

If I'd built my car, I'd have definitely gone Ford/Jag rear, but Rover/Jag is pretty nice!
Averaging 28-30mpg on a run(unless I have to be home before dark!) which means I can afford to use the car more than if it was Forded, and I certainly can't afford to upgrade to Detroit muscle.
AFAIK my engine is a basically stock 3.5 apart from 275 Cam & Holley 390, but it does need some tweaking.
It was suggested to me when searching for a Cobra that the engine choice could make £5k difference to market value, so maybe a worthwhile investment to paint 'resale Red' and go 302!
Hawk 289 FiA...AT LAST!!!
User avatar
Migge
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:51 pm

Re: Value for money

Post by Migge »

The more power you want the more expensive is the Rover route, if we talk above 250 HP. Of course you can save weight with the Rover, approx. 200 Lbs. If you have tha Jag diff in it will last forever with the Rover, but again very heavy. BTW the LT77 or R380 gearboxes are not that cheap anymore and not that easy to find as maybe 10 years ago. It's the same situation with the Rover engine. All cars that used this engine are long ago and the numbers were not in the region Ford engines are available. I'm happy with my Rover engine and LT77 gearbox and leight Sierra Cosworth diff, but if and and only IF I ever build another Cobra, I'll go the Ford - Tremec - Jag route.

The other "better" sound a Ford engine makes in some ears are depending on the firing order 1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8 for 260,289, 302 EXC HO,
352, 360, 390, 410, 427, 428,429, 430, 460, 462 counterclockwise
Firing Order: 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8 for 302 (5.0L) HO & 95-96 Truck, 351C, 351M, 351W, 400 counterclockwise

The Rover and Chevy have 1-8-4-3-5-6-7-2 clockwise
Special customized BRA289
User avatar
nikbj68
T289R Member
T289R Member
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Anglesey, North Wales.
Contact:

Re: Value for money

Post by nikbj68 »

...Should have added that a well built, nicely specced car will sell, Rover or Ford, as the demand seems higher than the supply, specifically the 289, FiA, Sebring styles.
Hawk 289 FiA...AT LAST!!!
Post Reply