| Author | Message | ||
     whunter Grand Master Username: whunter Post Number: 130 Registered: 10-2003 |
This subject is controversial, if you are offended by it, sorry, but this is a sad truth in the less than perfect world, where dollar cost is what rules the budget of survival. Here is a shop which I have been to. This is the least intrusive and cleanest conversion I have ever seen, and it is done in a way that can be undone in two days, leaving a totally original car. If you’re Cloud, Shadow, Corniche, Spirit or Spur has a bad engine, this engine hydraulic system conversion option may save it from the breakers. My personal/professional opinion: If it saves one car from the breaker, it must be considered. Here is the URL for their website. http://www.hotrodparts.com/ Have a great day. | ||
| John Dare Frequent User Username: jgdare Post Number: 20 Registered: 12-2004 |
Quite so. It always was about keeping one more car away from the breakers, where the cost of genuine "R-R" parts such as cylinder blocks (IF AVAILABLE at ANY price!)was GROSSLY disproportionate to the market value of the car. It has been that fact alone which has already consigned many such cars to the breakers and then to oblivion via the crusher. | ||
| John Dare Frequent User Username: jgdare Post Number: 22 Registered: 12-2004 |
Having viewed the aforementioned website in detail, I note that a few engines are available for the conversion process. Despite Crewes undeniable association with GM since the early 50s,some people have been unable to accept the concept of a "GM" engine transplant (Chevrolet or Cadillac now on offer) but NOW I see that if you want REAL power you can have a V10 "Viper" engine. I fear the purists might get a bit "snakey" about THAT! | ||
| Robert Wort Frequent User Username: robert_wort Post Number: 13 Registered: 12-2004 |
I'm sure that what I am about to write may just rattle a few chains, but write it I will and I will apologise to those in advance if it upsets anyone. When does a Rolls-Royce cease to be a Rolls-Royce? Answer; When it is no longer powered by a Rolls-Royce engine. The Rolls-Royce legend has always been about its engine, be it the 20hp, 40/50 hp right up to its legendary V8. Now of course, I am in complete agreement with all of you that it is better to keep our beloved marques on the road than send them to the graveyard. So if anyone is contemplating an engine replacement. PLEASE! PLEASE!! Make it a temporary one until you can save up the necessary funds to restore and replace its original powerplant. Crewe built its last Rolls-Royce with the Silver Spirit and its derivatives. It ceased to be a Rolls-Royce when they put one of those dreadful BMW power units in. Worse was to come when that dreadful company took over and created a 'Badge engineered pretender they now call the Phantom ( Insult to injury on what was a magnificent series of top of the line Rolls-Royce motorcars)' They may own the name, but they will never be a Rolls-Royce. Which brings me back to my original plea. What we have in our possessions are a moving heritage with a direct link to our beloved benefactor, Sir Frederick Henry Royce. He may have turned in his grave with some of the models that came out of R-R post 1933, but I'm absolutely positive that he would "Jump" out of his resting place with machine guns blazing if he could see what is happening now. Treasure what you have in your custody now and as much as is practical, keep it the way that it was designed to be} | ||
| Patrick Lockyer. Grand Master Username: pat_lockyer Post Number: 202 Registered: 9-2004 |
Robert W,i agree with you the RR engine is the life of the car and it should be kept a such. Most engines with the modern techniques can be rebuilt whatever the condition, the price is the downfall at present. | ||
| Mark Peacock Prolific User Username: takemehomejames Post Number: 39 Registered: 4-2004 |
Pat, In regards to the website you mentioned, I find it hard to believe that they leave the "Hood" on (our bonnet for the aussie's),whilst performing the transplant. Ive changed a few RR engines by now ,and the first thing i remove is definately the "hood" They quote "We do the conversion with out removing the hood or changing the inside of the vehicle." Im all for change, but, if your going to change brands of engines, at least come up to speed with the rest of the world with technology such as ovehead cams etc. instead of a 60 year+ cast iron design. My choise would probably be on the lines of BMW V8's or V12's. But yet again, cost would be the major factor. | ||
| Patrick Lockyer. Grand Master Username: pat_lockyer Post Number: 205 Registered: 9-2004 |
Hi Mark P. The reply was meant to agree to having a RRV8 engine powered Shadow not another make of engine installed. I wonder also if the more modern multi valve engines if installed will last so long as the low reving unstressed RR V8 correctly maintained. However in reply to the bonnet having to be removed to remove the engine,i have found in the past it can be quicker to lower the sub frame with the whole engine transmision sat within to do major work on both. | ||
| John Dare Prolific User Username: jgdare Post Number: 36 Registered: 12-2004 |
Thank you Robert W, and my apologies for this somewhat belated response to yours of 30/12, having only now returned from fund raising activities which are currently the focus of my attention. Nevertheless, since much has been written and said regarding engine conversions, I will lightly revisit the issue without resurrecting its complete and sometimes bitter history. One contributor has correctly stated that most engines can be rebuilt but (with R-R) "price is the downfall at present". That is PRECISELY the issue, for the last factory price I had on a new cylinder block was (subject to availability!) approx. A$24K which represents the approx. market value of an average S/Shadow. "Aston-Martin" (straight 6) blocks are available ex UK for under 5000 pounds and in view of the relative rarity of that particular engine, one would envisage that "R-R" V8 blocks could be made for a little less, even having regard to the two "extra" cylinders etc. In any event, one might imagine a cost which was under a "common" GM cast iron engine conversion and signifiganty under say, one deploying a modern BMW V8/V12 etc. It should not be forgotten that so called R-R engine "conversions" ALSO typically involve a major redesign/rework of the rather problematic S/Shadow/Spirit hyd.(susp./brakes) system, however that is another issue for another time. A time perhaps by which many issues of far greater importance have been attended to. | ||
| Robert Wort Frequent User Username: robert_wort Post Number: 19 Registered: 12-2004 |
Cost of course, is a major factor when it comes to transplanting another engine. But I do reiterate that I sincerely hope that this is temporary and I'm sure a GM engine would be infinitely preferable to a BMW one. Do I hear you say " What's the matter Robert! Got something against Beemers?" Your'e Darn Tootin'. I cannot stand the marque! Never have. I couldn't think of a more unsuitable company to take on the custodianship of R-R apart from the Trabant. They may have a lot of gizmos, but they are a very mediocre form of transportation and somewhat made with a throw-away technology. If you doubt this, then count the myriad of Beemers on the road and see how many are more than twenty years of age. Not many are there? In fact there are a lot more Holdens and Falcons of that age group on the road. And don't forget that there are 78% of Rolls-Royce products still on the road too. Will the Phantom still be around in twenty years? I wonder. | ||
| John Dare Prolific User Username: jgdare Post Number: 38 Registered: 12-2004 |
Thank you Robert. I went "retro" in 1995, when after co driving a friends "new" R-R (70s Shadow) back to his interstate home, I then bought (next day!) a nice one owner Aust. delivered Shadow and within 6 months had sold my "as new" 1994 (5-series) BMW. It was a nice car in many ways; creamiest 6 cyl. engine with pin sharp handling/ABS etc., but basically no more than a well executed expression of a modern mass produced car. I note your point about not seeing too many "old" (post war) BMs on the road (same for Jaguar?) but suspect that rather than necessarily being "bad" cars, they are simply too common (generally) to justify expensive restorations to keep them on the road, being mindful that overall, neither were ever built to "Benz" standards as evident within say, the 50s to the 70s period. Rarer BMs (3.0L coupes etc) and some "Jaguar" variants might of course represent the exception and this is part of the reason why I have never been enthusiastic about engine conversions on R-R/B "S" series cars (even the V8s) or the rarer Shadow variants in the form of say, Corniches etc. Such cars are, in my opinion, sufficiently rare as to justify relatively (compared to "normal" Shadow/Spirit) expensive preservation or restoration costs. In relation to the choice of a GM engine (versus any other) in a transplant process, I have always believed that had R-R not gone the way that it did, then they may have logically (?) chosen a Cosworth (or similar specialist) developed GM engine, given all of the realities and practicalities involved in modern car production. This would have included the critical importance of their long established U.S market etc., and of course, the undeniable association which began 50 years earlier, still being evidenced in Shadow production years later with GM derived transmission/steering/air. cond. componentry etc. Will the Phantom be around and in regular use, 20 years from now? Not impossible, but in my humble opinion, unlikely, all things being considered in an ever changing world. | ||
| Robert Wort Frequent User Username: robert_wort Post Number: 20 Registered: 12-2004 |
You make a valid point John about the fact that RR/B have a dedicated following that ensures the marque stays very much alive and plays, no doubt, a major part in keeping the 78% quota. I think it is a tragedy that a company that powered the FW190s during WW11 should now be the owners of our beloved R-Rs. There also seems to be no real link of continuity between the new company and the old and please correct me if I am mistaken. I suppose I should keep an open mind and see how things progress with the modern counterpart but I sincerely hope they don't build their new convertible with the same hideous deformation of our Patrician Grille. It's a shame they couldn't employ some of the Old Boys who used to hand-form them (The grilles) and individually sign them again. I think if BMW are serious about 'Anglicizing' the Phantom, they should have a British designed and built powerplant worthy (and unbreakable) of the name Rolls-Royce. I think also, if they wish to maintain the accolade of 'Best Car In The World', then perhaps they should increase the warranty to 10 years unlimited Mls or Kms.This will leave the market in no doubt about the product. Of course, I haven't mentioned the VW take-over of the Bentley marque. This is equally tragic, but I am primarily a Rolls-Royce afficionado and have been ever since the age of five. I understand that the new Continental model (Ugh! That grille!), is being plagued with electrical problems. Is this correct? | ||
| John Dare Prolific User Username: jgdare Post Number: 39 Registered: 12-2004 |
Thank you Robert. When I look at the exterior styling of the Phantom, I simply ask.. "Who said the Germans dont have a sense of humour?", further noting that perhaps their gracious inclusion of a black umbrella within the rear door, was a "black" commentary upon the vagaries of English weather? Or put another (light hearted) way;Is the whole epic of "R-R" and Bentley, the ultimate expression of revenge?. Your reference to the Fw190 would suggest that the few remaining Hurricane/Spitfire pilots might think so, especially if they own or have owned, one of Crewes finest. Collectively, we are most DEFINITELY not amused!. Yes.. the Continental "grille" struggles to be so-called, but as I remarked in a recent post, most frontal areas of todays "dreaded" motor car must be "pedestrian friendly" even though few of us ever drive on the footpath. I do know of a case with an almost new Continental plagued with electrical "gremlins", reminding me of a well known European sports car (since discontinued) which was so similarly affected (from new) that it was eventually returned to the factory, whereupon after exhaustive tests, it was simply scrapped in frustration. We should enjoy our simpler (relatively) "older" cars before manufacturers and assorted Governments (urged on by "Greenies" etc.) legislate them out of existence with onerous periodic "safety" tests and punitive registration costs etc. The warning signs are indeed ominous. | ||
| Robert Wort Frequent User Username: robert_wort Post Number: 21 Registered: 12-2004 |
One of my nephews is fairly proficient with his computer and 'played' around with a photo of the Phantom. He managed to superimpose some Silver Cloud bumper bars on it and also superimpose Silver Shadow twin headlamps and wow! it looked like a Rolls-Royce should look. 'tis a pity he erased the pic as I would have loved to have posted it. Perhaps I'll ask him to do it again. I understand that the actual headlamps on the Phantom are where the foglamps are usually placed and that the twin lamps at the top are actually parking lamps. | ||
| Mark Fling Unregistered guest Posted From: 12.155.143.111 |
I don't understand the rationale. Given the liner technology and replaceable valve guides, what on the block isn't incrementally repairable? Are blocks or heads cracking? Heck, on my BMW 850i, once the block reaches wear limits, game over. Linerless Alusil blocks can't be overbored. BMW does offer a set of oversized pistons good for one shot. Plus, the unreplaceable valve guides get only one overbore ream requiring 24 new oversized valves and that's it - new heads. While the Rolls-Royce might be expensive, at least it can be incrementally rebuilt. Not bad for a 50-year old design in aluminum. Compare that with today's throw-away Alusil blocks. | ||
| John Dare Prolific User Username: jgdare Post Number: 40 Registered: 12-2004 |
Thank you Mark. As has often been noted, making an engine from aluminium is both good and bad. Lightweight but less forgiving of frequent heat cycling variations (and extremes) and more sensitive to coolant type and frequency of changes etc. as opposed to cast iron. There is no doubt about the quality of the material originally used in the R-R V8 (sand cast as it was) however coolants of the 50s were not of todays spec. and in any event, many owners were at the time, generally unaware of the operational and service regime required by an alum. engine. This is accepted as being one of the reasons why, over 40 years ago, GM abandoned their innovative Pontiac/Buick engine as eventually adopted and developed (to recent times) by Rover with the compact V8 seen in "Rover/Range Rover" etc. When R-R V8s were new and mosty under dealer service, coolants, basic as they may be been (by todays standards) would have at least been changed with some regularity. However, as the cars passed to subsequent owners this appears to have been neglected as evidenced by the number of blocks now corroded (primarily for that reason) and/or cracked due to corrosion and dramatically changing heat cycles over an extended period including UNKNOWN instances of GENERAL overheating. In many cases the deterioration and damage is so extensive and confined to awkward/inaccessible areas, that reclamation is not technically possible let alone viable from a financial perspective. I take your point about "linerless" blocks which have a finite lifespan. This confirms yet again that the day of the "long life" motor car has been truly displaced by the disposable one, noting that, since BMW alone, produce 500,000 units p.a, the "old" ones have to go somewhere. Having said that, I doubt that when R-R introduced their V8 in the late 50s, they would have anticipated that 45 years later many of us would be trying to preserve them just as some of us have so ably demonstrated with Silver Ghosts for which reproduction blocks are fortunately available. It is my hope that R-R V8 replacement blocks will also be available in the near future and at a reasonable cost. | ||
| Robert Wort Frequent User Username: robert_wort Post Number: 22 Registered: 12-2004 |
Mark and John ,one of the factors that used to sell R-Rs was that they could be passed down the family from Father to Son, Mother to Daughter etc. This was even a given when the V8 was introduced. I think Crewe got it generally right when they seasoned their blocks before using them. It seems inconceavable now that 100,000 miles was considered an enormous distance for a motorcar being that most modern vehicles can take it in their stride, hence the additional zero on the odometer. On another tangient, I wrote earlier about my nephew. Icouldn't get hold of him but I have tried it myself. Nowhere near as good as he did it but you will get the picture.  | ||
| John Dare Prolific User Username: jgdare Post Number: 41 Registered: 12-2004 |
Thank you Mark. I agree with your observations regarding projected lifespans of vehicles via mileages attainable, however as we know, many components deteriorate as much (if not more) due to age than actual useage. I believe that R-R V8 aluminium engine blocks are in that category (corrosion) as are for example, suspension springs (fatigue) where over 2 tonnes has been supported over "X" time irrespective of distance travelled. On the other hand, advances in metallurgy incl. casting techniques etc., ensure that the ability to produce long/longer life products (such as cyl. blocks) surely exists, however commercial considerations tend to ultimately conflict with any such "idealistic" objectives. When the new CEO of a company which produces one of the worlds finest 4wds was reminded at his inaugural press conference that many of "his" companies vehicles were still on the road after (only) 25 years, he responded with words thinly suggesting that "that was not necessarily a good thing". Motoring journalists and enthusiasts alike were somewhat miffed, notwithstanding the undeniable reality that such a corporate view oversees the production of most of todays modern consumer goods, the principle tending to vary only by degree. Re your masterful "facelift" upon the Phantom, I believe that the Shadow type headlamp fairings (of which I happen to have a good stock!)are a marked improvement as are the "Cloud" type bumpers, however, overall, it still looks as if it was designed by a retired tank commander. And for his own personal use too. | ||
| John Dare Prolific User Username: jgdare Post Number: 42 Registered: 12-2004 |
Sorry Robert, for the above post should have been primarily addresed (in response) to you. Too early in the morn and regrettably, still transfixed by events to our north/north west etc. Regards, John | ||
| Robert Wort Frequent User Username: robert_wort Post Number: 23 Registered: 12-2004 |
This is getting to be quite a long thread don't you think? It's obviously hit some buttons.Comments from both of you (John D. and Mark F.), reinforce the view, particularly with alumium blocks, just how important it is to regularly maintain your vehicles by way of regular oil changes and coolant renewal. Another factor of course ( and this is particularly important if the vehicle is not in everyday use), is to take it out for a long run at least once a month. Nothing harms a vehicle more than lack of use. Using the vehicle keeps the lubricants up in the right places and helps stop corrosive build-up of acids in the sump. It also retards the breakdown of coolants and keeps all rubbers supple and slows down the perish factor. Oh! And one other important point as well. The sheer joy of driving these lovely motorcars. After all! Isn't that why we own them? | ||
| John Dare Prolific User Username: jgdare Post Number: 43 Registered: 12-2004 |
Thank you Robert. I agree with your additional observations. Yes.. it has developed to a relatively long thread but then the issue of engine conversions has been subject to vigorous and at times, highly charged debate. All largely avoidable of course,IF new cyl.blocks were readily available and at a reasonable price notwithstanding suspension/braking issues, such areas also being modified during the "conversion" process. | ||
| whunter Grand Master Username: whunter Post Number: 132 Registered: 10-2003 |
: UNDERSTATMENT: The issue of engine conversions has been subject to vigorous and at times, highly charged debate. The topic has caused more thrashing than a harvester. | ||
| John Dare Prolific User Username: jgdare Post Number: 44 Registered: 12-2004 |
Thank you W.Hunter. Indeed it has and may we hope that all but the cynical have "reaped" some benefit from it. | ||
| Mark Peacock Prolific User Username: takemehomejames Post Number: 40 Registered: 4-2004 |
Pat, Im of the opinion that RR/B cars are only to powered by RR/B engines. Installing other branded engines only de-values the RR/B. My issue was , if you were to install another engine at least update with technology. With the reliability issue of the current Multivalve(MV) engines, Im confident they would last alot longer if seviced properly than the V8 used in the Shadows. I had a Nissan 2L twin cam Pulsar (your sentra) and that did 290,000 KMs and was still going as strong as when i first bought the car with 120k kms on it. The big issue with high mile'r RR/B V8's are the replacement of Cylinder seals/ rings/ pistons etc around the 100- 120,000 mile mark. They cost the earth for what they are. In regards to the bonnet issue, the only way to remove the engine on a shadow is by lowering of the subframe. And removal of the bonnet makes the job a hell of alot easier. Mark ? with the 850 engine. The reason the BMW block was wearing out, is due to poor casting and on extremes , poor lubrication due to high concentration polymers in the oil (see castrol oil thread).The problem was usually solved after the fact with a replacement block under warranty (with revised casting)and the use of Mobil 1. Mark. | ||
| John Dare Prolific User Username: jgdare Post Number: 48 Registered: 12-2004 |
I agree, for as I recently indicated, my old 91 Honda Accord had 172K(kms) recorded and when I parted with it (reluctantly!) after 13 years, it still ran virtually like new, having costed a mere $7.38pw in "hard" (ie non "consumable") parts/repairs during that time. Modern engines, most notably Japanese, are built with the latest materials and to very fine tolerences, which is why Honda even specify their own engine oil, although it is suspected to basically be of "Mobil 1" formulation. Most R-R Shadow/ Spirit "conversions" typically involve a "GM"(350 derived) engine, however to dismiss such an engine as "old technology", by implying that its basically just a 45 y.o 265 ci "Chev", is akin to suggesting that the V8 in the latest Crewe built Arnage is the "same" as the one used in a 1960 "S";S/Cloud.You cannot make 90 million units (of anything!) over 45 years, without SIGNIFICANTLY improving it in a variety of ways. That aside, the conversion process usually involves modern technology in respect of concurrent modifications to braking and suspension, this being ably demonstrated on the new U.S "conversion" website, details as recently posted within this thread. As for manufacturing cylinder blocks without cyl. liners (wet or dry) I tend to view that as a retrograde step in "technology" (inspired by accountants in lieu of engineers) and further evidence of the disposable, as opposed to rebuildable, cylinder block/engine. The same "accountants" probably conceived the idea of the current (and decidedly ugly) "space saver" spare wheel. | ||
| Robert Wort Frequent User Username: robert_wort Post Number: 27 Registered: 12-2004 |
Whomever invented the space saver spare wheel ought to make one more and die! I drove a friend of mine's car home a couple of years ago and was quite shocked at the difference in handling it gave to his car. Definitely, you wouldn't want to drive too far with it. Generally speaking cars seem to be more reliable these days but I wonder whether it is due to technology or road conditions. Modern cars are a little bit like modern humans. They lead a fairly closeted life. It is still within many of our living memories ( well! some of us anyway including me unfortunately), that most roads were unsealed and this caused hell to most suspension systems and dust impregnation to other sensitive bits. I often wonder how modern cars could stand up to this continual punishment. Not too well, I'm sure. It's a little bit like the modern day humans I suppose. I personally loved the 1950's but if you put a 1970's person under the same conditions I'm sure they would run screaming to their local Civil libertarian. But have people really changed in their tastes? Most modern cars have no design imagination and rarely do they have the 'Wow' factor anymore. It's a little bit like modern buildings. As soon as someone mentions that they have an 'architecturally designed home', I immediately think 'nissun hut'. There seems to be no imagination anymore. It's a little bit like Federation Square; they replaced one eyesore with another. So why do 4WD's rate so popular with the motoring public? A false sense of security as far as height and robustness for sure. But take a look at their body shape , particularly in silhouette form. Aha! you say! It looks like a Tin Lizzie, or a 1920's Dodge or something similar. Perhaps our tastes haven't progressed too much after all. ( most of this was written with my tongue firmly in my cheek but I think you may agree that there may be some basis to it). | ||
| Patrick Lockyer. Grand Master Username: pat_lockyer Post Number: 211 Registered: 9-2004 |
Hi Mark. Regarding the 100-120000 miles on a SS engine needing replacement pistons etc i find it hard to beleive unless the engine has been incorrectly maintained. The BMW 850 engine wearing out, most never go that far. They give up as you state but the sulphur attack on the Nikasil bores from the fuel was the cause. So far as i know the later type use Alusil to get over the prob. Time will tell. |
