| Author |
Message |
    
Kevin
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 68.242.93.173
| | Posted on Tuesday, 20 January, 2004 - 01:11 pm: |    |
My friends want me to do a GM conversion...no way. However, I have a lot of coolant in the oil. Vapor comes out of the coolant resevoir immediately upon start up. Assume blown head gasket? |
RODNEY PEACH
New User
Username: rodney
Post Number: 4
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, 21 January, 2004 - 04:17 am: | |
Hi all I can say about messing around with a Rolls Royce is a shame ,if you want to fit a GM motor or anything else reason being for repairs costs etc for God sake don't buy a Rolls Royce buy a Ford or a chevi.
|
William H. Trovinger II
Prolific User
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 60
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, 21 January, 2004 - 05:49 am: | |
Kevin;
I wouldn't think of doing it! Not only the abortion of the Shadow but also what is involved. Suggest you read the posts under "DOT 3 Castrol RR363 Brake Fluid" this is in the tech section for Shadows.
Regards,
Bill
|
Robert Chapman
Frequent User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 15
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, 21 January, 2004 - 10:05 pm: | |
Hi Kevin,
I would agree with you ,dont even think about a GM conversion,if your RR engine is repairable then repair it.
To answer your question,yes it could be a head gasket problem,you need to get it properly diagnosed because it could also be a cracked head,corroded timing case,cracked or corroded block but lets hope not(I saw an invoice today dated 1989 for a Shadow engine rebuild $30,761 performed by Sydney main dealer of that time and that did not include a replacement block).
If you find yourself in this situation(and I sincerely hope you dont)then you may have to consider the GM option IF it were available to you,but then please make YOUR decision from a INFORMED FACTUAL position and set aside the emotional hype of the "lemon suckers" as Bill Coburn so eloquently describes them . |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.197
| | Posted on Thursday, 22 January, 2004 - 05:06 pm: | |
$30,761 for a Shadow engine re-build and another $22000 (Approx) had the owner needed a new block. Pheww!-a potential "worse case" scenario of $53K - probably TWICE the value of the car!. A bill like that would make me look like I had sucked more lemons than those who decry the notion of a GM transplant, no matter what the circumstances ! |
Richard Treacy
Prolific User
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 92
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, 22 January, 2004 - 05:36 pm: | |
However, there are plenty of good secondhand motors in the UK for A$8,000 or less, and a fully rebuilt one with 3 year guarantee is offered for A$14,000 max. Of course, tax and shipping increase the costs. |
Bob uk
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 195.93.33.11
| | Posted on Friday, 23 January, 2004 - 04:35 am: | |
I say that if you can't afford the RR engine then fit the GM 350 V8.
It is possible to have GM rocker covers with RR on them.
I hate to say this but the GM V8 is a better engine---- ask NASCAR drivers.
The 350 will easy make 250 BHP and last forever.
However if I were going to fit another make of engine I would check out the 6.3 litre GM turbo diesel V8 and the new bred of fuel injected engines including the 4.0 litre V8 Jag complete with 5 speed auto box and lock up convertor.
And maybe check out the V6 engines that are available. Striaght sixes may be too long
A way round the brake problems is to mount the brake pumps on case with a cam in side and belt drive them.
And fit a sensor that warns if the shaft stops turning. as in broken belt.
may be two belts one for each pump.
I dislike vacuum power assisted systems in this application because I am not convinced that you can just fit any old system to any old car by matching the cars weight with another.
However I read else where that soneone has after considerable work got a vac system working right.
I have driven other cars that have had braking systems messed with.
They are never quite right.
I drove one car that at 50 mph if a fly sat on the brake pedal the front wheels locked.
I was about to pass a truck and he indicated right so I touched the brake to slow down a bit and the front wheels locked.
Another which had a solid pedal but no brakes to speak of.
Silly idea but I have a 20 litre V8 diesel engine at work lying around.
|
RODNEY PEACH
New User
Username: rodney
Post Number: 5
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, 23 January, 2004 - 07:06 am: | |
Hi All ,
refering to GM Transplant,if you did such a terrible thing to a Rolls Royce where would you leave the value of your car when your lift up the bonnet and tell somebody one day that I have a GM or what ever under the bonnet? apart from driving a Rolls that is'nt one! it is a thing that I personally think is not the thing to do with these cars that we are trying to keep on the road as original and looked after as possible.If you did have the bad luck to require an engine in U.K are available for 6.500pounds I know it is alot of money but also the joy you get out of owning a Rolls Royce will go on for years !Regards Rodney |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.181
| | Posted on Friday, 23 January, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
Re GM transplant 1/ A used R-R engine to replace your existing (non-re-buildable- cracked corroded block etc) is no gaurantee that you arent inviting the same problem that you already have. As for "re-built" engines that term has a variety of meanings to different people in different countries and I would not feel comfortable until I had an independent engineers report attesting to the quality/condition of the cylinder block PRIOR to re-build. Such an inspection can only be performed properly with all cyl.liners removed, which one would be expect to do anyway as liner seal replacement would be expected on a "re-built" engine, especially given their propensity to leak, even in some "newer" (eg late 80s!) engines. By its very nature, aluminium is not as stable as cast iron so you get movement which seals (in wet liner applications) fight to control in the widely fluctuating heat cycle. 2/ A $14,000 "re-built" engine would cost toward $20K landed in Australia and there is no way a $14K engine can be fully rebuilt (on a verifiably sound block!) using GENUINE R-R parts to any substantial degree. This amplifies the very point of revered "originality", for there must be a point at which a R-R engine doesnt become (in the eyes of the "experts"!) a REAL R-R engine by virtue of the installation of "major" non-genuine parts. 3/ Warranties may imply the best intentions, but if something does go wrong then their can be accusations of improper use/not "run-in" properly/not serviced by the "right"(?) people etc and most people would be aware of the costs(and risks) of bringing a legal action in any foreign jurisdiction in the event of a dispute. 4/ A brand new "GM" 350 "Vortec" engine with 4 bolt main brg. caps/roller lifters and with torque curve and HP output (adequate!) matched to S/Shadow weight/perf. specs. costs around A$4500, BUT you get MORE (as the steak knife man did say!) 5/ The GM engine conversion ALSO means that the somewhat Harrowing Hydraulics are simplified by the abolition of those Pesky Pumps (brake) the often Vacillating Valves and Sometimes Suspect Spheres and of course NO more ENDLESS debates about "special" 363 brake fluids!. Such a deal! To sum up, someone looked at the BIG picture and with regard to the increasing age of R-Rs (especially the V8 engined cars) and the escalating (inevitablty) cost of spares,if available at reasonable cost (see V8 Cylinder block at $22K!)and decided to "re-engineer" the car as would say "Honda"/"GM" (or even R-R!) IF the brief was to re-design it mechanically, for TODAY in terms of simplicity (relatively) fuel consumption,reliability and longevity and ease of maintenence incl. availability of spares. I have personally seen a highly professional conversion which meets all of those objectives and at a reasonable cost. Critics need to SEE it (and drive it) before they pass judgement from ahigh. As they say - Dont knock it until youve tried it! |
Robert Chapman
Frequent User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 16
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 24 January, 2004 - 02:19 am: | |
Hi Bob UK,
I would like to answer you points if I may,
A)My feelings are if and when your RR engine requires overhaul and the block is sound then rebuild it because a GM conversion(including hydraulics) performed in the manor and to the standard required will never be cheap short term solution.
B)There was a conversion shop in the US that had rocker covers cast whith RR on them and was successfully
sued by RR.
C)You said it not me.Certainly know one with any experience of engines could possibly not agree that the 350 GM is by know means a lesser engine.
This is without question the most successful production V8 in the world.
D)Yes the GM engine will produce 250BHP forever but more importantly this particular engine produces very good low speed torque(as per original RR engine.
E)There were a number of very good engines to choose from but the objectives of this project were to design a conversion package(engine,brakes and self leveling)that would replicate as close as possible the original but at the same time overcome the inherent problems of these ageing systems.Using components that were readily available.When I was considering engines I heard of people putting 454 big block engines in Shadows and even V10 Viper engins but none of this made any engineering sense and was completely unnecessary.We only needed 250 BHP and 350 FT/LBS of torque, this engine gave us this in a small physical size(ease of maintenance) and a weight reduction as a bonus.Of course being a GM product it complemented the many other GM components on the car and bolted straight to a GM turbo 400 case without the use of an adaptor.
The objective was to re use all original fixtures and fitting in there original positions and make the under bonnet appearance the same, as close as possible.This included hand making and gas flowing an adaptor to connect the SU carbys and many hours on the dyno jeting.
Anyone seeing this installation will instantly realise this is no ill- conceived backjard conversion but in fact a very serious engineering R&D prodject by someone involved with these cars for over 35 years to find solutions and keep these cars on the road and out of the wreckers yard.
F)When it came to the brake my philosophy was "SIMPLICITY IS THE ULTIMATE SOPHISTICATION".
It is true people have used one pump ,two pumps ,belts,hydro-boosters ect but this is all to complicated and messy,it also means accumulators and litres of brake fluid the very things that cause so much trouble.I looked
at all these system and evaluated them for effectiveness,reliability and ease of maintenance.Without doubt the system that met all these criteria was the simplest,the vacuum booster system and this is very likely why so many manufactures still prefer it.
As you quite rightly say you cant take any old booster system and mach it by weight comparison of vehicle alone.In fact although I refer to it as a simple system now ,it took over 200 hours to perfect to a point were it would exceed AUSTRALIAN DESIGN RULES.I had always known that the brakes would have to be as good if not better than original to be acceptable to Shadow owners and the testing engineers.This system retains as it must to meat ADR two completely separate systems but has the advantage of still having adequate brakes when the assistance system has been exhausted,a benefit not afforded later shadow 1 and 2.There is no need for the use of RR363 and uses very much less fluid and therefore attracts less water.The original pedal is retained and original pedal box cover.There are no booster or master cylinders mounted in the engine bay as per some US conversion I have seen.I always realised it would be difficult to convince those with preconceived idears that this could be done to factory fitted standards or above.I belive this is the only Shadow in the world converted in this manor(engine and hydraulics) to these standars and although all the hard work is done now this still remains an experimental project. |
Richard Treacy
Prolific User
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 94
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 24 January, 2004 - 03:36 am: | |
Whilst not at all a purist, to me the motor is the heart of a Rolls-Royce. Improve it, or even modify it by all means, but don't chuck it out I say.
By the way, the Chev 350 is a completely different cast-iron animal. There were some extremely successful race boats in the late 1960s using 6750 R-R car motors modified to produce 600 HP, which was incidentally the design and test rating of the first V8s.
As an experimental project to prove its realisability it is commendable to transplant a new motor.
In any case, why change the brakes when you can bolt on a Citroen pump and drive it with a V-belt ?
I would rather sell a Silver Shadow for spares and buy a good one than transplant a different motor. The only exception the B80 series motor in a PIII, as approved by the factory.
I can assure you that £6,500 is tops for a fully reconditioned motor in the UK, using all genuine parts and is fuss-free. That includes new valves and guides, magnafluxed block, reprofiled camshaft, new lifters, new timing gears etc etc, and a new Spirit active crankshaft rear main seal. The used parts, if still serviceable, are sold as secondhand parts. There are a few outlets which offer this.
Believe me, sorting out a special brake system and transplanted motor will cost very much more, and EFI or turbo ECUs cost the earth and need special looming. Then you must pay for an engineer's report and maybe attain permission to register it. Quite a risk. Before all those costs you must buy a motor. In some countries, the manufacture year of the motor determines the technical requirements of the chassis ie crash testing and the like.
Anyhow, how many clapped out V8 R-Rs have you seen other than early V8s with leaking weep holes and a few repairable oil leaks ? Not many I'm sure.
Be careful. You may end up with a nice unsellable special but at enormous expense. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.188
| | Posted on Saturday, 24 January, 2004 - 04:25 am: | |
I have had the honor of inspecting the conversion performed by Robert Chapman, a true,and real, qualified motor engineer, who set out to achieve what a car manufacturer (inc. R-R!) would, if the brief was to re-engineer S/Shadow/Spirit cars TODAY, and for the future. If these cars WERE commercially re-engineered today, it is clear such a project would NOT be performed the "old" (1965) way, which is why we now see BMW engines in R-Rs, and VW (V12)engines in Bentleys (Cont.GT). Likewise for the "Citroen" type hyd. and braking system, as one only need look at the hydraulically boosted brakes which Jaguar introduced on the XJ40(1987) only to abandon that troublesome system,and revert,in favour of the simple (but tried and proven) vacuum booster arrangement which continues to stop most modern cars on the road today, hence their deployment in the GM conversion project. There is even a retrofit modification commercially available, to change XJ40 brakes to vacuum boost, and I just HAVE to ask if such a "modification" would elicit howls of scorn and moral condemnation from Jaguar "purists", toward anyone who DARED to make any changes to equipment originally installed in the Holy Grail i.e "The FACTORY". What has been performed with the GM conversion referred to, shows (at the very least!) what CAN be performed and really isnt too different to manufacturers who build experimental/"concept" cars, as I recall how Porsche trialled the 928 V8 engine in an Audi before they put it into the first production 928 cars, and Robert C. didnt have an army of designers/engineers nor a battery of computers to HELP him! But despite his stellar efforts, you would think from the general/global response, that one had tried to install a roller blade rink inside Westminster Abbey, re-roof the Sistine chapel in clear span fibreglass or fit a mechanical waving arm to the Statue of Liberty!. No.. I wouldnt put a GM, or any other engine, in an "R" type Continental/coachbuilt "S" car or a "Corniche", but I would, in certain circumstances, do so in a Shadow or early Spirit, being the most common of the R-R range. In NO way do I seek to denigrate or belittle these particular cars (I have one myself) but simply suggest, that in some of lifes circumstances and challenges one needs to look at the wider picture and not allow misguided emotion to prevail over reality, practicality,and of course, good old commonsense. I believe that the FUNDAMENTAL object should be to keep as many "Flying Ladies" (and Winged "B"s) on the road as may be possible, since a maintained "visibility" will lessen the risk of the marques simply being forgotten in the passage of time. |
Robert Chapman
Frequent User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 17
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 24 January, 2004 - 10:06 pm: | |
Hi Dick,
You are very observant,yes the 350 GM is cast iron,thats what makes it so strong,durable,reliable and reconditionable. And weighs 120 pound less than the all alloy RR engine.
Yes its true some RR V8 engines were used in boats,the most successful of these was developed by the legendry engine tuner Harry Weslake(although to call Weslake an engine tuner is like saying Yehudi Menuin was a fiddle player).Weslake worked his magic on the heads,re-designed the inlet manifold,changed cam specs and fitted 4 twin choke weber carbys and eventually it developed 300BHP not 600,(and he is the man that achieved 2BHP per cubic inch from a 350 GM small block -700BHP).
Cosworth stated"the engine stubbornly refused to produce power over 4000 RPM".This engine will never produce 600 BHP all the time its sump plug points to the ground.
Strange even today with Cosworth development, twin turbo's and modern full house engine management it still only makes 450 BHP,this is why it has to be force fed.
Yes YOU could fit a Citroen pump and have your brake reliant on a fan belt but I would rather not thank you, and I suspect neither would most owner drivers or passengers.
These cars met ADR with 2 independent high pressure systems,one pump cant provided this and would not satisfy authorities, besides that you seem to have missed the big picture, this would defeat the whole object of the excercise.The objective is to overcome the problems of this ageing system which I battle with on a day to day basis,rusted out spheres,noisey leaking pumps,broken push rods, rusted accumulator valves, sticking L/P/Warning switches,worn cam concentrics and on and on.Difficulties finding replacement parts and consoling distraught new owners.
It is the ever growing cost of maintaining these engines and hydraulic systems that drives the resale value down.
And how many worn engines do I see, well lets say this, many are well over due for overhaul but because of the cost many just soldier on rattling, smoking and leaking oil until they are sold on.
Uninformed opinions about the engineering aspects of this serious attempt to find practical solution to these problems only fuels the pre-conceived perceptions of customised hot rods.
Rebuilt engines useing "ALL GENUINE PARTS" for 6500 pounds,"TELL HIM HES DREAMING". I suggest you price a set of GENUINE lifters,valves and guides and that will be most of the money gone,then price GENUINE piston,liners,bearings, oil pump parts,liner seals,timing gears,gaskets,seals ect.
Then there is the matter of shipping the old engine back (yes this is on a EXCHANGE basis) this could cost 2K Aus, and what if your returned block is cracked and not re-usable,there will be a costly penalty and all this on top of the original cost of getting it here. Now this is a very expensive engine. No I am sorry this just does not make sense either.
|
Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 195.93.33.11
| | Posted on Saturday, 24 January, 2004 - 10:59 pm: | |
The RR V8 is not the best V8 in the world and I think RR should have sourced the engine as they did with loads of other parts the obvious choice would have been the GM range.
The reason RR used light alloy was that they were worried about weight and did not have the superior technology of thin wall casting.
I should think that the maximum power that a RR could make would be about 500 BHP and the set up would end looking like a GM V8.
There have been a few successful Brit cars based on USA V8s bits the most obvious being the Cobra.
Also early Royce engines were well know for crank trouble which was eventually sorted out by W. O. Bentley in the 1930s.
Mr Chapman is right. I wish he wasn't.
However I see absolutely no problem in using V belts to drive a brake pump. V belts are reliable.
SOME Trucks use them to drive air brake compressors and have done ever since I can remember. I do know of belts that have broken but it should not cause and accident unless the driver ignored the gauge the bell and the flag |
Richard Treacy
Prolific User
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 95
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, 25 January, 2004 - 01:38 am: | |
Dear Robert,
I am by no means criticising your transplant: quite the reverse, and the pictures look great.
It's just that for me it is going too far.
I have implemented a long list of improvements to our three Crewe cars, some I will never divulge, so am opently in favour of improvements. Unlike an engine transplant, all are fully reversible using nuts and bolts.
Back in the early '80s we put a GM350 Corvette engine with a THM400 in a worthöess Jaguar Series I using a homologated kit. It was not hard to do. The motor was more torquey than the old V12, but not up to a Shadow engine. We needed to rev it quite hard to get the performance, and I would be concerned at how it would suit a Silver Shadow. A GM 412 may be the answer for an SS, but I do feel that, if these cars become valuable one day, the ones with swapped motors will miss out. As I say, I would sell a tired SS for spares and buy a good one if the motor blew. If a Shadow has a tired motor, probably the rest is clapped out too.
On spares origin, I visited a reputable London motor rebuilder on this point and to inspect the completeness of the overhaul. He showed me overhaul kits, all in Crewe boxes, and I believe him. He offers a 3 year unlimited mileage for his motors at £6,800, or less to overhaul your own if it has serviceable elements, and there are cheaper.
Personally, I would ship my Turbo R to him for overhaul if it fails. That way I keep the original engine number and avoid registration hassles. They get quite uptight if the block has been changed to an identical one with a different serial number.
Just my opinion, but I do not wish to appear in any way dogmatic.
PS where I live, an engine transplant is totally forbidden for cars less than 50 years old.
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.92
| | Posted on Sunday, 25 January, 2004 - 04:37 am: | |
Before Robert Chapmans masterful "factory" like, GM conversion, I had the unique opportunity in the USA, to DRIVE (for hundreds of miles) a S/Shadow and a Spirit, both of which had been converted using GM 350 engines in certain guises/levels of specification (HP output and TORQUE curve) to maintain normal (or better than) original R-R performance specifications. The converter, was at the time, ably assisted ("after hours") by a development engineer attached to one of Detroits major (nameless) manufacturers, who, with the aid of computers, calculated the ideally desired "build" spec. of a 350 engine for the intended objective and specific application. The versatility, for "state-of-tune", of this famous engine (over 60 million produced!) is one of its best features. After driving these cars hundred of miles through different states,up hill and down dale, in various ambient conditions, it was clearly apparent to me that the overall performance was BETTER than original. Ergo.. Doubting Thomas types need to personally SEE Roberts conversion (AND DRIVE it!!) before passing judgements, as HIS engine spec. selection and quality of installation is much FURTHER improved and enhanced when compared to the US conversion. The acute and entrenched preoccupation with "originality" borders on paranoia and I reject absolutely that one can buy a rebuilt R-R V8 engine using ALL (each and EVERY!) genuine R-R parts for 6500 pnds (note that is also on an EXCHANGE basis anyway!) when 4 years ago the retail price JUST for 16 Hyd. valve lifters and 8 exhaust valves (GENUINE R-R!) came to 3400 pnds and thats before we consider Cyl. liners (if reqd)liner seals, pistons/rings, bearings/inl. valves/timing gears (maybe)gaskets,machine work (heads etc) and labour to put in all back together. It simply doesnt add up particularly when one has personally seen (3)invoices from local Aust. authorized R-R dealers where full re-build (they HAVE to use ALL gen. R-R parts!) has been in the range of $31-33K. This invites the old question as to which/how many, non original parts are "allowed" in a R-R engine before it is "deemed" (by experts at large!) to be no longer a "real" R-R engine. Reference has been made to EFI or Turbo ECU units but Ive obviously missed the point, since those components are NOT part of Robert Cs current conversion, nor WILL they form part of a local conversion here for S/Shadow or early Spirit. Incidentally,for those who reluctantly concede that IF a GM engine IS to be used, then in order to achieve "comparable" R-R dispacement(i.e 388/412 cu.inch)with more torque, that a "400" series GM engine might be "better", I can advise that there ARE problems in taking that option (reasons I wont divulge,as I would rather those who know better, discover for themselves!) thats WHY the 350 has been used here AND in hundreds of successful US conversions hitherto performed. As I have pointed out previously, the conversion performed by Robert C ALSO eliminates the complex hyd. system which, due to age (and inherent design from the 50s/60s) is now an increasingly high service area in these cars. He has basically ELIMINATED it and at the same time achieved superior braking together with retention of rear self levelling. You would have to have masochistic tendencies to retain all (or part) of the old "Citroen" based/licensed system and THEN "modify" it with some kind of weird system that requires belts/pulleys/cams/levers/"sensors"(?) and PUMPS, the latter being part of the original problem and then one STILL has to endure the wearisome "363" debate which is like listening to "Blue Hills". I commend Robert Cs "re-engineering" package, the obvious benefits of which are available to all but the prejudiced, whom I again invite to DRIVE (or at the very least SEE!) before agonizing, or worse, pontificating, about what is right or "wrong". |
bob uk
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 195.93.33.11
| | Posted on Sunday, 25 January, 2004 - 05:37 am: | |
The RR V8 is not so bad an engine providing it does not need rebuilding
It will happily tow a Shadow around for many trouble free miles.
The expansion and contraction of the alloy causes the the gaskets and seals to fail ---- creep.
All engines will eventual do this including the Venerable GM 350.
You can only have so many start up cycles before you get gasket and seal failure.
The RR V8 does not do well against the GM V8.
That is a very big avantage that iron has over alloy.
I suspect that the crankcase of a RR V8 is no where near as rigid as a iron one.
The Yanks have always made good V8 where as us Brits seem to get it wrong.
We have made 4 V8s .
Discount the Rover because it is ex Buick.
Daimler 250 a smooth gutless over complicated V8
Daimler 4.6 worse but at least it had some fire.
Truimph Stag 3.0 litre This engine got the worst engine I have come across -- gutless over heating gasket blowing garage door stop.
RR V8 which is basically a sound engine but with with a question mark over durablity. I never heard of one reach 300,000 miles but I have heard of loads of abused GM lumps do well over that.
Think about brakes. I think an air assisted hydraulic system would work well such as the Clayton type fitted to Bedford TK 3 tonner.
a further refinement would that because there is a compressor and an air tank a spring brake that is held off by air could be used for the parking brake so that instead of an umbrella under the dash you have a button on the dash to work the valve.
Shadows with GM engines will always be worth less than one with a RR engine.
However I should think that a properly done GM job would be worth more than aone with an engine that does not go.
I know that eventually the value of Shadows will go up but I suspect so will the price of repairing the RR Engine.
I wouldn't buy a Shadow unless the RR engine was in good order. But I would consider the 350 route with LPG if my engine blew. However used RR V8s turn up for £1500 in the UK. But then the numbers will not match.
I have driven a XJ6 with a 350 fitted an the car was much better for it, bearing in mind that the XJ6 had RR worried in 1969 --- RR secretly brought one and tried in out and were very impressed.
If Jag had junked the XK engine and slotted in the 350 RR would have been in do do.
I agree with Robert that true design excellence is when the design is as simple as it can be.
KISS keep it simple stupid
I know of a factory that makes replica engines for W. O. Bentley cars. These engines due to modern materials and CNC machinery are superior to the originals. They cost £100,000 each.
If we get in a remaunfacturing situation with RR V8s that is the sort of money it could cost. So £6,500 for a good recon is good value.
|
Richard Treacy
Prolific User
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 96
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, 25 January, 2004 - 07:29 am: | |
Please, why are you guys so agressively negative about Silver Shadows and their noble features ??
A gentle note: "a question mark over durablity. I never heard of one reach 300,000 miles".
I can cite dozens. And I only know dozens plus a few.
Durability ?? Surely this has never been a problem of the R-R V8.
OK, our T-Series has only covered 220,000 miles without rebuild, but that's a start. At least it is leak free and goes like new, as does my 240,000 km Turbo R without even a cylinder head overhaul and zero oil consumption. And I drive it hard in Germany.
You could buy a Lexus and disguise it as a Shadow if you really want something "better", but why do you guys really want a Rolls-Royce in the first place for heaven's sakes ? If I wanted vacuum brakes and a GM350, maybe I would just buy an old Holden. The GM350 is a tremendous, archaic cast iron blocked motor unless in alloy Z28 form, where it is brilliant. The Northstar 32v V8 caused GM some critical financial hardship and loss of reputation.
Just about every component of a Silver Shadow could be replaced by a better or more modern component, but where do we stop ? Years ago, there were explosive arguments about radial tyres on pre-1972 cars.
It's the package which counts, and the self-levelling, wet lined huge alloy motor and innovative braking system, even if all surpassed decades ago, which make a Shadow unique.
It's a bit rich to intimate advocacy of genuine parts and an engine transplant in the same breath. Originality, I agree is a bit purist (I don't subscribe in many areas). But a re-engining exercise is surely the last resort. But remember if you buy an old banger of any make, you get what you paid for. That is the biggest drawback for novice second-hand Rolls-Royce buyers. Usually the old bangers were sold by the previous fifth first-time secondhand owner of that 30-year-old bargain Rolls-Royce in decrepid condition. And, what is fundamentally wrong with the hydraulic system ? Nothing. Futhermore, the complication is normally seriously overstated.
One of my father's friends had a superb R-Type in the 1960'a on which he fully modified the braking system including a vacuum servo as a promotion for his company. They worked superbly, but he could never sell the car years later for a decent price. It was sold for parts in the 1970's by his company.
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.172
| | Posted on Sunday, 25 January, 2004 - 11:12 am: | |
The alleged "negativity" is not so much toward RR-V8s but moreover in defensive response to the moral indignation and scorn which has been (and I suspect will continue to be) heaped upon anyone who DARES to alter anything created in the holy grail of the "The FACTORY". In defence of the fabled R-R engine which "eclpsed" (450 hours to "only" 100 hours - full throttle "run" )all of Detroits best, BUT where, no-one but NO-one, can "find" the test/s, I now hear about "lots" of 300,000 mile engines still going along without any problems and of course the splendid hydraulic systems - well, they are (presumably) just fine too!. I would have thought if this system from the 50s/60s was SO good, that other mnfrs. would have scrambled to replicate it even if under licence. At least Jaguar woke up with their hydro boost brake system introduced in 87 and disbanded soon after with a retro-fit "fix"now available as a cure. I am obviously living in the wrong country (we dont "know" too much down here) so Ive called some people in the USA today to ask about any 300,000 miles (not Kms) engines and they all either declined knowledge of any, or laughed, so perhaps we can have chassis nos. for these high mileage cars (lots of) at which time I will invite the owners to provide testimonies (including their "secrets"!) to various R-R clubs so that we mortals may benefit from their expertise/luck-whatever. I have seen many engine transplants, and every man and his dog have "put shevvie enjunns inta Jags" BUT I sense there is a sign of hope that the GM/RR concept "might" be ok IF maybe, one used the "alloy" GM Z28 unit, notwithstanding that ITS (normal) HP and torque curve wont be computer calculated and matched for the S/Shadow, as were the first GM conversions from which the local one here was inspired. And of course we will need complex engine management systems for any such engines, being items NOT required on the particular conversion now discussed and we still get to retain the less stable and less forgiving aluminium alloy!. I agree that almost any part can be replaced on a S/Shadow to make it better, so I get back (AGAIN) to the question as to how MANY non-original engine parts (and WHICH ones!) are "allowed" to be replaced BEFORE the "untouchable" R-R engine is deemed NOT to be a "real" and genuine R-R engine anymore. Strange is it not, that some people push the "originality" issue at an emotive level (beyond all logic and commonsense) but then "tell" us, almost triumphantly, how you can fit "Chrysler" (or whatever) valve lifters in lieu of the genuine, but very expensive R-R items! ALL of this aside, I BEG strident critics and assorted scions and doomsayers to DRIVE or at least SEE (PLEASE!) Robert Cs monumental effort BEFORE reaching ANY conclusions. PLEASE? |
Jon Rothwell
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 202.72.131.230
| | Posted on Sunday, 25 January, 2004 - 01:37 pm: | |
WOW, this debate is really getting polarised so I could't resist putting in my 10 cents worth.
The Rolls royce V8 is in my opinion probably one the best V8s I have driven and worked on. It is smooth and quiet, and you can feel that the internals are well balanced. I also like the high pressure brakes, yes they are a bit of a pain to look after compared to "standard" brakes but they are an integral part of what makes this car special.
However, I know that one day my engine will need major work, perhaps not for another ten or so years but eventually all engines need to be rebuilt. At that time I will need to decide between rebuilding the engine to RR standard (if I can still get all the parts), rebuilding the engine with aftermarket parts (if the engine is not too far gone), or an engine transplant.
I like the body too and am spending a lot of time and money getting it the way I want, so if a GM transplant is what is needed at the end of the day then that's what I'll do in order to keep the car on the road. As to changing the brake pumps I don't see any problem with driving different pumps with a toothed belt, but if it turns out not to be practical then I'll go for a standard brake system.
There's nothing wrong with a GM conversion if it keeps the car on the road and out of the wrecking yard, and there are actually many benefits to using a common later model engine in an older car. The same goes for a brake conversion.
Overall it is a choice that each individual owner will have to make someday and all that matters is that the car is safe, roadworthy, practical to use and maintain, and that the owner concerned is happy with the choice they made.
All credit should go to Robert Chapman for taking the time to work out a conversion that looks and works like it was a factory fitting. I hope many people will use it, and that therefore many cars that would otherwise be sold on in poor condition or be scrapped will be on the road for many years to come. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.244
| | Posted on Sunday, 25 January, 2004 - 01:48 pm: | |
Since my last post a little while ago, Ive been overcome with grief and smitten by guilt, SO I am going to take 2 days out to attack my fully restored 53 "R" type and rip out that "Optima" battery (re-storing the FACTORY carrier/retention apparatus) and look for an "original" battery, then I will remove my concealed side chassis rail switch (just inside the "B" pillar location) and the solid state aux. fuel pump (remove and discard) rip out the various grease nipple points (Back to FULL "Bijur"!) and best I remove the "spin on" oil filter (which had used the original head and piping for appearance) filtering down to smaller microns. Then to that "Chapman" style, FACTORY appearance AIR CONDITIONING (Ever been in a 50s/60s English car on a hot day or in traffic?)- well.. THAT will just have to go too, lest I ever want to sell my car (I dont and I wont) BUT, then if all of these cars are ever SO good and revered, WHY would anyone ever want to sell anyway, unless of course they "had" to, which is of course, another story for another time and place. SO...OFF to "work" I GO, but I will leave the cross-ply tires since they are hardly worn!. I guess I better not say anything (at all) about someone in the USA who is currently working on a front disc brake conversion for "S" series car. Nay.. I will not say anything. Not a single solitary word! |
William H. Trovinger II
Prolific User
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 62
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, 25 January, 2004 - 03:19 pm: | |
OK Gentlemen;
Not to take sides here, I really do not have a side, as I could not see doing a conversation to a car I own. To me they are children and changing the engine would be like putting it through a heart transplant. I guess I would rather rebuild the existing heart. On the other hand faced with a situation of breathing life back into the car or seeing it killed I might choose the prior. I only hope I am never forced to make this choice. But I do have a few points to make.
1) On the question of the life of the RR V-8. I personally know of two that went near if not over 1 MILLION miles. Yes one million. They where a 1963 Cloud and a 1969 Shadow. Both where purchased through the RR Dealership in San Francisco by the Nun Bush Shoe Company of Milwaukee, WI. They where driven by the companies West Cost Sales Manager a Mr. Bennett. I can not tell you what engine work was ever done to either but will try and find out. I know of these cars from two separate sources the CFO of Nun Bush’s parent company was a friend of our family and the nephew of Mr. Bennett happens to be a friend of mine.
2) GM 350 YUCK! For every one of the six plus million of these “boat anchors” still on the road there are many more that have been melted down and made into usable anchors. Do not compare the 350 of today with the RR V8 of the sixties and seventies. Compare them to the 350’s of the same era and see how few of those cars if still running have their original engines and without at least one or two major overhauls. I have had Chevy 350’s in several boats over the years and never had one last more than a few thousand hours with out major work. For performance in that size the Ford 351 Cleveland was far better and for durability (though much larger) the Olds 455 beat the Chevy 350. If the Chevy 350 was so wonderful why did GM decide not to use it (excluding the failed Diesel) in their flagship line (Cadillac) during the downsize crazy of the late seventies and early eighties?
I guess if I where to ever (not saying I would or wouldn’t) convert a Shadow away from it’s engine I would then look at the car as just a nice platform to get me from point A to point B. So, I would then research putting a Diesel in that could at least get me better fuel mileage. And this would not be the failed diesel conversation that GM tried with the 350 either.
3) For those who claim that this will get them away from all the pains of the hydraulic system. I have a couple of questions. I do not know about Australia but in the US who would provide the manufactures liability insurance on this braking system? They better have deep pockets! Also, what fun would it be to work on a car that did not have problems and questions (like 363)? Without these types of worries the only things to make us pull a few hairs out and have a few more turn gray over will be our (human) children and/or our wives with the charge cards.
In the end I think to each his own. Once you purchase the car you can do with it what you want, as long as the government agrees that is.
Kindest regards,
Bill
SRE23726 Still with it’s original heart still beating strong.
|
Robert Chapman
Frequent User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 18
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 26 January, 2004 - 12:55 am: | |
Hi Bob UK,
Now you bring back memories for me when you start talking Bedford TK,s Clayton-Dewandre and air over hydraulic systems.When I lived in England I finished my apprenticeship and had a fascination for Diesel engines so I went to work for Uni-gate transport,they had a fleet 7 ton TKs.It was about the time government testing came in for HGVs.After i got used to them they didn't seem very big any more so i went to MARLEY transport because they had the real thing ATKINSON, FODEN, ERF, fitted with 150 and 180 gardners 6LW,some CUMMINGS, ERF,FODEN 2 stroke GM 2 stroke and some ROLLS-ROYCE.GARDNER was the best by a very long chalk.
Bob, I think you have forgotten one brit V8 petrol engine,i would say the most succesful of all and certainly the most famous of all?.
CLUE- first made 1967 and USA still can't better it.
Did I see on one of your posts you are CA.ENG |
BOB UK
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 195.93.33.11
| | Posted on Monday, 26 January, 2004 - 04:32 am: | |
Bob Chapmen
You are from the same school as me.
HGV testing started in 1968 and Unigate had input into the scheme as did others.
Wabco do excellent modern air over oil systems I particalarly like the one with the ABS and ESC state of the art.
I am a CAE because I work for the Uk government advising on mechanical stuff.
Gardner and Akroyd Stuart are the people that took the diesel engine from a slow running stationary engine to a usable road vehicle engine. Garner have made some of the best engines ever made they Kick RR diesels into touch
I worked briefly on the Commer TS4 two stroke diesel and we getting some high out put figures from it but it was too dirty and we ran out of money
My no 1 criterior for a good engine is thrashabilty and relaible any engine that can forfill these requirements is on to a winner.
When the RR V8 was first shown the press asked how good it was . Henry Grylls the chief designer said that it was almost as good as the Chysler V8.
The RR V8 is by no means a bad engine and will carry on with blown head gaskets knocking brgs etc.
I guess that the engine form 1967 is the Buick Rover V8 which is not bad engine but not a Brit Design.
My car is standard with an excellent engine clean weep holes 1000 mile per litre of oil 13mpg.
I just hope it stays that way but I know if I carry on driving the car I will need to rebuild the engine this might be 20 years away but it is still there.
Hopefully I will be able to reuses the major parts but if I need a block then I could be trouble and the thought that I could find one of 60 million GM 350 made and keep the car going forever is a comforting thought.
Over all the Shadow is the best car in the world and is more than the sum of its parts.
If I were to start a RR V8 an never turn it off it would last for 1 million miles.
But physics tell me that due to expansion the head gaskets will fail it the engine is stop started all the time. as in normal use . Iron engines will always have that advantage.
RR are not the only people who know about engines.
RR has never really invented anything apart from that they good with light alloys and have some patents in that field.
The braking system for the Cloud came from the Suisa and the Shadow the DS.
The development work for disks brakes was done by Dunlop and Jaguar.
The front suspension was designed by Maurice Oley of Cadillac.
All RR has ever done is wait until the technology is working then improve it for their cars. Often RR found they couldn't improve the technology and fitted the parts as they were --- the gear box for example.b However they RRed that by sticking a servo motor.
Upgrading Cars is well in keeping with RR tradition. RR would often fit different braking systems to older cars to bring them up to modern specs.
AS Dave Gore said RR used the best available at the time. If RR were to revisit the Shadow they would upgraded it.
However back to the GM 350
Ideally A Shadow should have the Correct engine with matching numbers.
But I do not want to deny anybody the pleasure of having a RR just because they can't afford a whole one. The greatest pleasure I get is from driving the car with the bonnet shut.
If it comes down to a GM Shadow or no Shadow then I go for the GM Shadow.
I am aware that maybe some of the other yank V8s are better but maybe not in this application.
I have a great deal of respect for both the Chrysler and Ford offerings. A friend tuned a Jensen 7.2 FF and that was seriously fast al la NASCAR. Not sure but I guess over 600 BHP.
And a Cobra 427 which was a missle with 2 seats in it.
If RR had sourced the engine from the USA as AC and Jensen would we question it now. I never heard any Jensen fan gripe that his engine is not British far from it.
I have driven Interceptors and they are like a sports limo. Not to be underestimated.
There are loads of poeple who quote Merc S Class as the best. And I have to wonder
Rolls Royce do not make
Valves, pistons, liners, conrods, shell brgs gaskets, seals, piston rings cams and camfollowers Just about all the parts used in a rebuild are made by AE who are the OE suppliers.
Also Ford at Dagenham UK done a lot of machining work for RR in the 60s and 70s.
Qualcast done most of the casting along side their lawn mower range.
ALL RR really did was screw the car together.
They made a good job of it though.
Incidently you can't operate a spring hand brake from a dash button because the regs say it must be progressive. so a nice chrome plated quadrant on the centre consul instead with an RR logo on it.
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.63
| | Posted on Monday, 26 January, 2004 - 09:17 pm: | |
It is most encouraging to learn of the two U.S, R-R V8s which have covered over one million miles and I look forward to details of any rebuild work performed during that time. Irrespective of any such work, I think it fair to say that these two examples are the exception, since two vehicles out of say 30,000 plus (approx.) S/Shadows produced, could not reasonably be regarded as representative. Conversely, the 6 cyl. "MB" 280s/se engines which evolved from the 250s (as introduced about the same time as the S/Shadow -1966) have widely and routinely run for 1 million miles, a lawyer neighbour of mine having a 1970 280s which has done so, with one rebuild, one separate head reco.,then a separate head REPLACEMENT (cyl. head of Aluminium) alloy!) and to be fair, I suspect by listening to it, that it is due,if not overdue for what might be its last rebuild, but who can say?. Talking to him and factory trained/exp."MB" mechanics, suggests that such high mileages (with say, 1.5 "rebuilds") are not uncommon with these cast iron block, straight 6s and are by no means the exception. NO - I wont be swapping my S/shadow for a Benz, but merely state facts from the field and reference to any registered "MB" club will no doubt allow the production of hard recorded data (of actual case histories) in evidence. I should also reaffirm and make clear, that the engine used in the recent "project/pilot", GM conversion, is a brand NEW engine, commonly known as a "Vortec" /"Generation 11" unit, and for all practical purposes, represents the final development of the 350 engine prior to the introduction of the "new/newer" Generation 111 version. Among other things, these particular engines power light trucks/commercial vehicles, hence a suitably "mapped" (HP/Torque etc) engine of this type was selected and found eminently suitable for a 2.2 ton weight S/Shadow. One of my clients used to import many of these engines for marine use (see pre. "Forum" comment/s) and we know that such an application represents a hostile environment even for a dedicated marine engine, let alone one that has been "marinised". Although I do not personally know the "failure" rate for 350 engines in boat installations, I am similarly unaware of any hard recorded data which evidences the performance/durability, of a R-R V8 in a similar application. This point harks back to the early/mid 50s "full throttle" test runs, whereby the R-R V8 allegedly ran F.T for 450 hours as opposed to U.S engines (presumably "Chrysler"/"Cad" etc.) which were claimed to have only managed 100 hours at F.T. Strenuous efforts are being made to locate and obtain conclusive documentary evidence in evidence thereof and I am attempting to assist in that regard. I note the jocular comment that since the local GM conversion also resulted in the abolition of the "Citroen" based hydraulic system (and in consequence the "end" of 363 fluid) that we owners will have one less thing to talk or worry about. I have long suspected that as "R-R/B" owners (myself included!) regard our cars as special, that WE too, regard ourselves as different or special in some way or another (whether justifiably so or not) and therfore like to tell other owners of "normal" cars, of the towering complexities of our cars,compared to "theirs", and how much OUR cars cost to buy, repair and maintain, including of course the cost of parts etc.etc. As Robert Chapmans GM conversion "package" is by nature,essentially one of simplification (by "elimination") I am reminded of an episode from the superlative BBC TV series, "Yes, Prime Minister", where the Right Hon. Jim Hacker PM, is proposing to streamline a long established govt.department policy, whereupon an ashen faced Sir Humphrey, bleats - "But if you make it SIMPLE - they (the populace) will UNDERSTAND it!" |
Robert Chapman
Frequent User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 19
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 26 January, 2004 - 09:48 pm: | |
Hi Bob UK,
Sounds like we are on the same tram when it comes to engines and engineering thinking.
I have held CAE since IMI came to Australia, have been thinking about LAE but its hard to get the time to look further into it.
The one I treasure most is my C&G(motor vehicle eng)i got in 1967.
Yes Gardner made some magic engines,Marley got some new Atkinsons with 220 Cummins but they kept breaking cranks,they were soon changed back to 6LW's.They also had new Fodens with RR engines, they were also changed.They had 5LW 6LW and 8LW's.When HGV testing came in they took many of the old Atkinsons off the road for rebuilding and brought Ford F1000's these had either Perkins or Cummins V8's but they just didn't last towing around 38 ton of tiles.
I have read good reports about this WABCO company especially as you say their electronic stability control systems,trucks are so high tech these days but of course much safer.
No I wasn't thinking of the Buick/Oldsmobile V8,
great little engine that it was(Rover got their moneys worth out of that).318 LBS 155 BHP in the early days.So good in fact that the very clever people at Repco under the guidance of the brilliant Phil Irving(of vincent fame) made it into a world champion F1 engine.
No thats not it, this engine is most definitely British,although it had another manufactures name on it.It was used and still is in many cases by many other car manufactures.Its peek BMEP at the begining of its life was 193 psi.To compare RRV8 is 109 psi and 350 GM used in converstion is 141 psi.Its original weight was 358 LBS.
Which area of UK are you in,do you belong to RREC |
Richard Treacy
Prolific User
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 97
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 27 January, 2004 - 12:44 am: | |
One aspect not mentioned fully in engine longeivity is duty cyles.
A R-R V8 likes to be driven, and suffers if used infrequently and especiall for short gentle trips posing around the shopping centre or doing weddings. 100,000 miles of this will rot the motor for sure. Too many R-R V8 are used in this manner.
The really high milers of 300,000 plus, and I know a few, are the ones driven a reasonably long distance daily. They usually do not suffer the same problems of those out there with only 100,000 miles.
Many 30+ year old R-Rs have done less than 100,000 miles, and that tells you something about their duty cycles: roughly only 3,000 miles per annum, or an average just 60 miles per week !
Pottering around the city for a few miles at a time is bad for any motor, but especially for a R-R V8 as they are so heavily over-engineered. Maybe a Chev suffers less, but remember most Chevs were used as family cars and regularly, so it is impossible to say because the average duty cycles are so different. The duty cycle of a Hong-Kong R-R is so terrible, especially idling for hours to keep the aircon functioning, that purchasers of these cars should be very careful, and there are lots of HK R-R/B cars in Australia. They get clapped out in a very short mileage.
I think comparing the lives of the two types is therefore academic.
For example, in the 1970s a red motor Holden 186 was expected to last 80,000 miles used privately, then it was off to Repco for a reconditioned long motor. The same cars as taxis achieved 300,000 to one million miles in punishing city driving. Not even the exhaust systems needed replacing mostly as they were always hot. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.222
| | Posted on Tuesday, 27 January, 2004 - 07:41 am: | |
The 50 year+ association between RR/GM, reminded me of "class of 55", when two almost new cars were bought into the school grounds by their proud owners who were parents of two equally proud pupils, who, by and large, were envied by all who gawked in utter amazement. One car was a 55 "Chevrolet" Bel-Air sedan ( I believe Canadian built and in RHD form),in a stunning Turquoise and white color, the owner at that time being attached to American Red Cross,in Australia . The other was a Silver Dawn,Tudor grey,with dark red interior, being owned by one of the directors of the harvester mnfg.co (and inventor!) H.V.McKay, who we know were regular buyers of these cars. At that time, as we have often read, wool prices were very high and the astute Hugh Victor McKay (who drove R-Rs ) saw that the company also supplied them to their roving sales representatives, so that when they visited rural areas and sold farm machinery to cashed up pastoralists, the sale of a R-R/B often followed. The "story" goes, that as a consequence, H.V.McKay, got very good deals from the local agents as I recall also, that the Chief Engineer, Hedley Taylor, had a shell grey "R" type which for all I know, might be the very car which I am now so fortunate to own!. But back to the two cars parked aside each other on that memorable "show and tell" day in 1955. The "Chevrolet" looked like a "rocketship" (its 265 V8 probably moved it so!) and with a white and charcoal interior, the latter with a kind of sparkling "Lurex" flecked thread in it, we were moved to say "WOW"!!..... HOWEVER, there stood the Dawn - noble,regal,patrician, almost in silent contempt for its US cousined friend. And we all looked agape in AWE as something told us 11 y.olds that this car was different and after all, it was presented as the "The Best Car in the World". It probably WAS at that time - price - circa 5000 pounds (A$10,000) which would have then bought a very nice house, east or south of the river. The bonnet locks, we were told by our stern headmaster,ensured that the engine was "sealed for life" and I valued my life too much to enquire as to who had they keys!. I dont know what ever happened to either of those cars (so "different" as they were) however both could still be going (my old 1954 "Chevrolet" 6 probably is, as I knew where it was up to a couple of years ago!) their stable and enduring, cast iron cyl. blocks allowing two (or more?) re-builds - either partially or fully.. ergo engine "lifespan" of such engines and their like, was,and remains,virtually indefinate. I agree of course that almost any engine will post extraordinary mileages if run hot in a "taxi" type environment, but will still put my money on long term longevity (and therefore ability to RE-build) of a tough,stable and durable cast iron block (MB 6 cyl/ R-R B60 etc) over an aluminium blocked engine, in normal, private/general use. Whilst cast iron will, and does rust, it tends to survive the ravages of TIME (see some Silver Ghosts with original blocks) whereas despite advances with coolants, aluminium corrodes and this can be seen in R-R V8s where corrosion has built up in a relatively short time and caused cast iron cyl. liners to be "pinched" inwards up to .004"- frightening, when you realize that the "reactive" pressure can only go outward (to the block) hence cracks,some of which migrate to the main bearing web/s meaning you probably have a NON-rebuildable block. Corrosion in alum. R-R engines was experienced in the Phantom 111 which used an alloy known as "Hiduminium" (developed by R-R for aero use) see Ian Adcocks book "Rolls-Royce V8s" (Osprey Classic Marques) at page 16, therefore such engines struggled for long term survival when compared to say a straight 8 "Packard" or "Buick" engine of the day, both of cast iron as per the immortal R-R B60 units which seem to last indefinately, albeit with a re-build of one kind or another. |
Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 195.93.33.11
| | Posted on Wednesday, 28 January, 2004 - 05:29 am: | |
Robert Chapman and others
I too was going to go for LAE but I am getting now I feel too old.
I have C&G tech and craft plus an OND. which is enough for mechanicing on cars.
With RR the engine the wet liners over time sink a bit and relaxes some of the clamping force on the headgasket which then fails this happens over time gently then the heads warp a bit and add to the problems I have seen many wet liner engines do this by the time I get to repair them they are like kettles.
With wrapped heads when they are machined flat this can give problems with lining up the inlet manifold on V engines.
then because the cylinder was not striaght neither are the mounting for the rocket pedistals so that when the lot is clamped down you have a mislagined rocket shaft. This is just some of the probelms that happen when rebuilding Shadow engines. It will still work ok though.
RR Aero Engines and RR cars are not the same company and even before the split in 1970 were separate. cars from Crewe ---aero stuff from Derby
About the only cross over was materials technology and money to RR Cars which stopped in 1970.
Royce made his money from electric cranes and electrical stuff. cars was a hobby. Then he made a whole load more from aero engines in WW1
The first car to make a profit for RR was the Shadow. The days of Cloud engineering had to go in RR was to stay in business. I think that RR was in trouble long before 1970 and the UK gov bailed then out until the day of reckoning in 1970.
Replacement for the RR V8 by 1980 was overdue but they had to carry on with the engine until 1999 I give them full marks for getting a 1959 unit to be accepted as late as 1999 40 years ? That is a tribute to the soundness of the design in the first place.
I mentioned in a previous posting the Jag V8. This engine would be a nightmare to rebuild because the bores are elecroplated on to the alloy block. This will be another engine that will fail on duty cycle. And will be nothing on a Shadow for become hidiously expensive. Also I have heard of electroplated bores flaking and ripping the rings up. so in this respect the Shadow is better because all you need is a liner and piston set and good as new.
In this respect wet liners win hands down plus they allow better control of cylinder wall thickness and cooling because of that.
however modern casting technics have caught up.
The best car in world --No just the best luxury car
That accolade belongs elsewhere and dare not venture an opinion because I am bound to be wrong.
How about the Cosworth V8 is that the one I missed out. and how about the side valve 3.5 Ford Pilot or was a Yank one as well.
And the RR Legalimit V8 of 1910 I think.
There are other V8s that are not UK or USA
Ferrai spring to mind.
Every Ferrai I have worked on has had Engine trouble and 100,000 with trouble is rare. As a race car fine but as a road no because why tune a 3 litre engine to that extent when you could easily put in a 6 litre engine which is softer tune and still have a very fast car ---- Ford GT 40
In comparison the Shadow engine is far better lump. It does not go off bang and wreck you bank balance with out signs of distress for many miles, and then you have something left to rebuild
If you do 60 miles a week in one go then the engine should be OK but if you do 60 miles a week 2 there 3 htere and maybe 10 miles at the week end then the engine will wear out quicker engines used like this seldom make 200,000 miles before work is needed. 200k is still OK with that sort of use.
Once the engine is warm then driving a 100 miles wears the engine no more than 10. My engine loves to driven at 60- 80 and faster no fuss not anthing day in day out.
I never like the RR B60 as fitted to the 4 litre R we had 2 of those of the fleet at Metal Box for the directors and the lack lustre performance led to them being replace by Humbers which were much better at half the price after a year ( 15 mpg was the best we got from a B60. plus broken rockers.)
I have seen as John Dare has cast iron block that are old and corroded but still usable. A friend recently rebored a Meadows iron block from the 1930s he charged £20 plus tax to rebore it oversize as good as new to match the pistons the customer had supplied.
With the Shadow manufacture of liners and pistons is still on going but not the blocks there are only say 100,000 made for all cars world wide and I suspose 200,000 heads.
Ford made many more 1600 cc Xflow engines than that and yet already that engine is getting rare in the UK . It is surprising how quick stuff can dry up. |
Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 195.93.33.11
| | Posted on Wednesday, 28 January, 2004 - 05:50 am: | |
Robert missed your last bit and I live in Dorset I am not a member of the club because they are 250 miles away. However When time and money permit I will join.
I have had my car 14 years.
Another car forgot to mention was the Rover P5B which was the P5 ( 3 litre six) and introduced in 1959 six years before the Shadow and the cars do resemble each other.................. and I wonder. the P5B is a nice car esp in coupe form.
vacuum brakes and rear drums very good hand brake much better than the Shadow
115 mph 0-60 10 seconds so it performs the same as well petrol comsumption is not that much better than a Shadow so it goes to show that Shadow is good on fuel all things considered. |
Richard Treacy
Prolific User
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 98
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, 28 January, 2004 - 06:46 am: | |
Interesting. Rover. My grandfather's last car was a new Rover 3 Litre Coupé around 1964 or so. It stayed in the family for 30 years. In 1954, my father tried to convince him to buy a new R-Type like my grandfather's best friend's. Shame, the garage drive was on a slope and my stubborn grandfather refused to increase its height, otherwise the R-Type would be mine now as a one-family owned car instead of the three-owner R-Type I own now (albeit since 1969 in the family). My grandfather's registration (number plate) number was (NSW Australia) 13, (now with my cousin dammit), and his brother had driving licence 8 (the first 7 were given to government ministers). My grandfather later moved, had a few Rover 3 Litres, then moved back and bought the Coupé to clear the garage roof. Gutless wonders, but very nice cars. Brakes ? Not near a Shadow, of which the brakes still amaze me like all R-R brakes. R-R have never been wanting in the brake department.
On hardened bores, R-R had a disaster with the first flash-chromed Mk VIs, hence the mildly better but still unsatisfactory Brichrome 2 1/4 "cuff" liners of the same height later on.
They are not alone.
If a post-1980 V8 Mercedes or more recent BMW reaches a high mileage, its nitrided aluminimum bores can suddenly destroy pistons and BANG. I always admired the wet-lined Fiats and Citroens, and the R-R V8 as well of course. No bore machining on full overhaul, and it is possible to overhaul all but the crankshaft journals in-situ. I saw a few done in-situ at York Motors in Sydney, one after a cylinder head gasket allowed to bores to fill with coolant, the owner tried to start it, and a few rods bend. OK, the parts are a little more expensive, but you save on reboring, risks of poor setup, labour costs and so on. Never an oversize piston in sight.
On liner seals, if you remove the heads the seals are in great jeopardy as they are disturbed. In my opinion, this is the most common cause of liner seal failure as the heads are the vehicle to keep pressure on the seals as the liners stand proud of the block before the heads are tightened. If your R-R V8 heads need removing, best whip out the liners too, inspect them at least and replace the seals. By the way, the heads are very intollerant of machining more than once, not just because of the inlet manifold which can be corrected.
And, hey, the BMW-engined Arnage Green Lable was a total flop. That's why the 6750 came back and the Green Lable suddenly disappeared. Even the newest twin-turbo Arnages are very close to the old design, despite the VW hype. In all, there have been only 4 real revisions of the block, and none were really major. The main improvement was in crankcase cross-bolting back in 1988/9. Our 6750 wet linered V8s are basically still in series production. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.233
| | Posted on Wednesday, 28 January, 2004 - 08:58 am: | |
It was most interesting to read of the English "Meadows" CAST IRON cyl. block from the 30s, which basically only needed a rebore to be put back into service, potentially for ANOTHER 50-60 or so, years. This is not uncommon,having seen it time over with pre-war iron blocked "Packard" & "Buick" 8s etc. Compare that to a R-R P111(V12) block (see my prev. comments) AND refer website www.boddice.co.uk/ and follow the expert re-build of one of these pre-war P111 engines. No prizes for guessing that the owners worst fears were confirmed upon disassembly i.e the aluminium alloy block was NOT reclaimable,(see Ian Adcocks book on R-R V8s with a ref.to V12) necessitating the purchase of another block, which he indicates (not suprsingly) was VERY expensive!. Lucky was he, to find one at ALL - price notwithstanding, although the obvious rarity of the car justifies the cost, something that regrettably cannnot be said of S/Shadow;early Spirit vehicles due to their commonality (numbers produced) and the price of a block relative to the market value of the car. I believe this was the central point (hydraulics aside) that led to the GM conversion issue now under discussion. YES...I do admire and respect the retention of the current 6.75L V8 (Arnage) developed as the core aluminium block was in recent times, particularly in respect of general strengthening and important cross bolted main bearing caps etc., which the factory apparently considered necessary, if not overdue. However, apart from DESIGN (original or modified) one must consider tech.advances/current mfg. practices etc., in terms of composition of alum.alloys used, casting techniques, finer machining tolerences and of course quality control. All of these factors ensure that for practical purposes incl. potential longevity, the all important block (the BASE "core") of the current 6.75L V8 is as different from the original S2 unit (and early Shadow/Spirit) etc., as THOSE blocks were, when say, compared to the troublesome (in service and LIFEspan) aluminium blocked, R-R P111s which preceded them. I dont imagine you will, for instance, find SAND (from the sea shores) in the block of an Arnage V8 as I have found (and removed!) in MANY Shadow blocks, which I suppose is one of the reasons we should be grateful for full flow oil filters!. Advances in coolants may also (hopefully) give aluminium blocks, of any make/manufacture, a longer life than previously but they STILL wont endure or be as forgiving as good old cast iron. I will be in trouble if I name and reveal major problems (you DONT want to "know"!) routinely observed with Aluminium blocks (from other mnfrs.) that are only a few years old, being blocks which dont have a HOPE of surviving the longer term, as did the aforementioned "Meadows" or similar(R-R B60) iron blocks that will generally last long enough in service to accept two or more re-builds, thereby providing an almost indefinite service lifespan. |
David Gore
Moderator
Username: david_gore
Post Number: 177
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, 28 January, 2004 - 09:50 am: | |
I have deliberately refrained from contributing to this discussion to allow others to develop the content and discuss the merit or otherwise of the views expressed. Robert Chapman is aware of my feelings as we were in contact before this post first appeared.
All I can say is congratulations to everyone who has contributed their views for refraining from abuse and/or prejudiced comments and adopting a balanced approach to a subject that will become of increasing importance to us as Crewe support for the Shadows and non-Bentley produced cars will inevitably decline for economic and marketing reasons. Unless an economic way is found to produce after-market alloy blocks or to reclaim existing blocks at reasonable prices, owners of "road warrior" vehicles will have to face the prospect of engine transplants at some stage. Owners of "garage queens" which are not driven regularly will keep their engines a little longer provided they religiously adhere to the coolant replacement schedules - pity about the hydraulics and other mechanicals though as these need regular use to prolong their serviceability.
I look forward to this discussion continuing. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.225
| | Posted on Wednesday, 28 January, 2004 - 11:06 am: | |
Dear David, No one but NO-one, could have said it better. You have "cut to the chase", brilliantly and I agree totally and absolutely with your summation - 100 percent. I must say though,that I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate. Thank goodness for free speech and long life to R-Rs & Bs, including of course, their owners!. Thank You. |
Bob Uk
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 195.93.33.11
| | Posted on Wednesday, 28 January, 2004 - 08:34 pm: | |
Ford has put up for sale all the tooling for the Rover V8 engine. 4.6 litre vesion included.
One small piece of the tooling cost £3.8 million in 1998.
Ford have not fixed a price but anything less than £10 million will surprise me.
If that lot is scrapped then in 20 years there will be a Rover V8 shortage.
Thats how much it costs to remanufacture engines.
It was envitable that RR was going to go under they needed a new engine and the cost was going to break them.
BL built an OHC engine basd on the A series they spent huge amounts on money developping the engine to abandon the project and the engines went into the skip.
this is not uncommmon and I guess RR would have thrown a few in the bin as well.
Modern engines are designed using finite anlaysis.
They cut them to the bone any machining and removing metal to square bits up will probably result in the bit being structurally weak.
I remember very well a Ford Mundane engine that warped the head. Ford told me do not skim the head because the cam bearings will be misaligned and the cam will snap. makes sense to me
One new head expensive.
Wet liners at overhaul time do save time.
The RR V8 is not differcult to put together.
On Renaults engine I used to fit the thickest seals of the liners to get more pinch. The liner and piston sets were not to expensive.
We never had problems with Renault wet liners.
As someone mentioned somewhere the quality of recon engines does vary.
In a recon engine I would expect a reground crank new bearings rebore new pistons and rest with in manufacturers tolerances.
Some engines will need much more and this will be reflected in the price.
The best recon engines are the ones that have worn out not blown up before being rebuilt.
Then the major parts of the engine have been throughly tested by its prevoius owner for many miles.
I once stripped an engine that had done 50 miles-- brand new car-- to find that part of the water jacket was blocked by a lump of cast iron --- bad casting. Scrap.
AEC in London used to used leave iron blocks outside for 12 months to weather and stress relieve themselves. Nowadays the blocks are being machined the day after. On very high precision castings for machine tools I used to machine the faces leaving extra material on and leave for 24 hours to allow the casting to settle then finish machining. We used to keep the workshop at 20 Celius because the metal would expand give wrong readings.
Engines are not machined to that precision.
The quality of the engineering in a Shadow compared to its contempories is good. But compared to the rest of the engineering world it is just so so.
But on the other hand if NASA built a car it world cost billions of Dollars and probably need a jump start and a crew of six technicians every morning.
The HM Queen has a Rover P5 and a green Range Rover 1972 I think The Rover is in storage in Warickshire. Last time I saw the car was in 1997 in the stores of BMW/Rover at Gaydon Museum. There was some thought to displaying the car but it is not the best example I have seen and not doubt people will steal bit of the car as trophies.
That car (P5)because it is personnally owned by the Queen will never be sold and probably never used again.
The P5 was known as the poor mans RR which I always thought as unfair.
Because if my Shadow were to go badly wrong I would certainly consider a good P5B Coupe in midnight Blue with a dove grey roof. I have seen one that was retrimmed with full leather doors included and --------- very nice.
|
Robert Chapman
Frequent User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 20
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, 28 January, 2004 - 09:41 pm: | |
Cylider liner protrusion is to do with head gasket fire ring clamping pressure not compression of liners seals,the protrusion is pre set by machinig on assembly,the liners will not move when the head is removed as they are interference fit.
In fact it is definitely not a good idear to try and remove liners from a cold block in situ that has seen any length of service.This is a sure way of damaging the block because of the hard build up of corrosion that forms above the lower coolant liner seal.The block should be hot soaked for several hours before removal is attempted.The liners must be fitted back into a heated block (150degC) and this is not possible in situ.
The usual cause of liner seal problems are corrosion of the outside of the liner around the seal area or corossion of the block around the seal groves in the block or oil leakage because of seal shrinkage.
The process used by MB and BMW on their alloy cylinders was NICASIL(nickel-silicon)plateing or SCANIMET(nickel-silicon -carbide).NITRIDING is a process for harderning steel through several hours of neating in ammonia gas. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.180
| | Posted on Wednesday, 28 January, 2004 - 09:41 pm: | |
In the ongoing discussion re."R-R" V8s, I cannot recall any criticism as such, of those engines SIMPLY because they "happened" to have removable wet liners, but moreover, because of the now ageing and generally deteriorating (corroded/cracked) old, "sand cast" alum. blocks (having NOT been made from todays more modern alloys!) INTO which, such "hard"(relatively) cast-IRON liners were fitted AND,AND, the cost of a NEW replacement ($22K) block, OR cost (IF available) of a KNOWN, corrosion/crack free, USED example!. THAT, has been the core issue (primarily of concern to owners of "older" cars) which gave rise to the alternate (GM) powerplant question in the first place and I am relieved to note that at least one recent correspondent has recognized this point. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.89
| | Posted on Thursday, 29 January, 2004 - 05:41 pm: | |
With little else to do, I thought I would review the R-R/GM conversion question and subsequent postings, since someone first enquired via the forum during 2001, rearding GM350 engines for S/Shadows. It appears that the technical issues have generally been addressed from a engineering aspect,however the MORALITY of the "objective" seems to have been driven in part, by both bias and emotion. Even when the current, local project was first mooted (outside this forum) one R-R "expert" exhorted, almost triumphantly, that, quote - "They wont be able to stop it!". UNquote. Assorted "Jonahs" and critics weighed in with their opinions in an orgy of loathing and castigation from ahigh. No suprise then, that R.A.Chapmans "pilot" conversion (FIRST attempt!) resulted in a revised, "re-engineered" braking system which equalled or arguably exceeded, the original standard with reduced service costs as a bonus. Then I reflected upon the GM transmission/power steering/air cond.(compr.) as fitted "OEM" by R-R to the S/Shadow along with a "Keinzle" clock ,sometimes "Boge" shock absorbers (both German!) not forgetting the "Citroen" licenced hydraulics, with a firewall mounted plaque to remind me. That then led to thoughts (and mutterings) about BMW engines in R-Rs and VW engines in Bentleys (Cont.GT) and I asked myself why there was such strenuous opposition to the idea/concept of a S/Shadow owner PROFESSIONALLY fitting (in certain circumstances) a selected GM engine to his very OWN car, especially when we often see accolades/kudos etc., in assorted R-R magazines whenever someone puts a 27L "Merlin/Meteor" engine into a Rolls-Royce - typically a radical surgery, Bentley "Special" of sorts. Apart from the futility, if not absurdity,or downright stupidity, of an aeroplane engine in a car, the concept itself, is about as innovative as putting GM 350 units into Jaguars. It really is passe, BUT whenever a new Merlin "special" emerges, the praise cascades supreme upon the "clever", or even "gifted",designer (so-called) cum owner/builder, so unless Ive missed something, we seem to live in a somewhat peculiar world. These curious observations aside, one can note that production cars (and their engines) incl. R-R/B have indeed come a long way in 50 years (latest "space-age" materials/quality controls, modern mfg.techniques etc,) however, the focus today appears to be on fuel economy, whilst still retaining performance, "creature" comforts, passenger safety and even cars that are pedestrian "friendly" as it is not considered "right" to leave an R-R or B imprint on someone who darts from the kerb 2 metres ahead of 2 advancing tons of Crewes finest. In view of these "priorities", the question of longevity does not appear foremost in manufacturers minds, since there is no long term future in building "long-life" cars such as those from previous generations (look at the demise of "Packard" and other quality mfrs.) back perhaps, even to S/Ghosts, where the prime objective WAS to build the "best" car in the world. The upside, I suppose, is that modern cars (most-not all) are pleasant to drive, safer (overall) and comfortable, with fuel consumption better than yesterdays designers could have ever imagined. To compare any of todays cars (or their ENGINES) in terms of efficiency (or even OVERALL) with those from the 50s, is in certain respects, akin to comparing my modern, diminutive, mobile telephone (SMS and all that) with the "walkie-talkie", wrist band "watch" cum telephone as featured by that american comic strip, detective character from the 50s. The basic concept remains, but the execution is different and I suppose that translates to progress, intended to be good (or better) but not necessarily so. TODAYS question then. Will a current Bentley "last" as long as say, those built from 1946 to 1959, or put another way - is it LIKELY that current model Bentleys will still be on the road - restored or otherwise, 50 years from now? Although it wont really matter to me, somehow I would like to think that they will be.
(Message edited by admin on February 05, 2004) |
William H. Trovinger II
Prolific User
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 63
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, 30 January, 2004 - 05:27 am: | |
John;
As I said in my earlier post I have not taken a side on this issue and hope that my Shadow will never force me to. However, you and others who believe in this conversation process have not address the one major issue I question. Who is taking up the manufacture’s product liability insurance? I know you claim that the new designed brake system is re-engineered to be “equalled or arguably exceeded” that of the original RR system on Mr. R.A.Chapmans’ conversion and you may have a few experts to back that. But, any ambulance-chasing lawyer worth is S Class will find an army of “experts” to prove you wrong, unless you have an insurance carrier backing the conversion. Once you do the conversion the liability remains yours as long as that car is on the road.
Regards,
Bill
|
bob uk
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 195.93.33.11
| | Posted on Friday, 30 January, 2004 - 09:36 pm: | |
Bills comment about ambalance chasing lyers - sorry lawyers I missed the A and the W out ----
Is very revelant.
I incident may have nothing to do with the conversion work but proving it may be expensive.
In the UK when you get insured ----- you can go to prison for up 12 months----- The insurance company will ask about mods all must be declared I advise even to declare a different radio when we we get to stuff like brakes it start to get differcult.
In the case of Rolls -Royce the insurers are bound to ask for a report from a RR approved specialist. Differcult. If anybody were to ask me to write a report bearing in mind the legals of it all I would decline.
It is a mine field. Brakes are so fundemental to vehicle safety-- Offical UK GOV quote.
My quote is the most dangerous nut is that loose nut at the steering wheel.
Most accidents are driver error.
Every accident I have had --- worst was a bent bumper---- my fault of not was me not on the ball and the other party the same. Most minor accidents are like that I guess.
The V8 I forgot ASTON MARTIN . Thank your lucky stars that the Shadow does not have an engine like that because rebuild cost are ------------who knows.
I have since this decussion started discovered that modern CNC machinery can make small production runs of RR V8 blocks at -- I can't say cheap but may be possible.
The reason that the W.O. Bentley reproduction engines are so expensive is that the engine is complicated and the engines are made one at a time complete with magnetto and blower etc. All brand new.
Incidently the word replica means that the ORIGINAL manufacturer has reproduce the item and if another maker copies it, it is a reproduction. |
Jon Rothwell
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 202.72.131.230
| | Posted on Friday, 30 January, 2004 - 10:46 pm: | |
I can only comment on Western Australia, but insurance and liability would not be a problem I think.
1. Any mechanical business that does such a modification would carry its' own insurance. In our case we are required to carry $10,000,000 in insurance as we work for major mining and petroleum companies as a contractor.
2. Any modification to the vehicle would have to meet both the WA and Australian standards, as approved by engineers and government departments at both levels.
3. Assuming that all engineering and compliance standards are met the vehicle would be approved for use in both the state of origin, and subject to inspection, other states in Australia.
4. The third party personal injury damage is carried (in Western Australia) by the government and is paid for in the vehicle registration. Provided the vehicle in question is legal and has passed all required engineers inspections (some of which will be the local police engineers), then the vehicle is just as legal as any manufactured car.
5.I have several structurally and mechanically modified cars, all of which have passed the required inspections. My insurance company and the government are happy to cover these and myself as they have been fully complied and all modifications have been fully engineer approved and fully disclosed to all interested parties.
Laws vary from country to country or state to state, so it is in the interests of any owner seeking a modification to check on it's legality.
Mr Chapman has without question done his homework, and I would be quite sure that his conversion would not expose either himself or any owner to liability. It is just a matter of doing the job to the required standards and laws, which after all is just basic common sense.
As a matter of interest the amount of vehicle accidents in WA which are caused by mechanical problems (mostly due to a lack of maintenance) is a little over 2%, drunk drivers account for almost 50% of accidents. I'd feel much safer in a modified car! |
Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 195.93.33.11
| | Posted on Saturday, 31 January, 2004 - 07:29 am: | |
in the Uk the third party insurance is not covered by the government.
You pay for that when buy insurance.
3rd party is the minimum then you can pay extra for 3rd party fire & theft and the next is fully comprehensive which means they pay no matter whose fault. ususally you pay the first so much of any claim £100 is the norm. Electing to more excess lowers the premium.
There is no law in the UK to stop anybody form modifing a car. and the is no law for them to have it checked out after.
The only check is the MOT test. Which is the minimum standard.
They could have car MOTed then fit different brakes and drive the car for 1 year with out any checks.
This means that insurance companies take MOTs with a pinch of salt and never assume that a current MOT means that the car has been modified safely. Then send someone like me to check it out after the accident and if anything is untoward then owner is in deep do do. add a fatal acc then it is big time at the Old Bailey.
However our UK laws mean that the insurance co. has to pay out regardless this makes them very cautious.
I have tested cars knowing full well that the vehicle as presented is unsafe to use on the road and had to pass the vehicle because it meets the minimum standard.
One that I remember was a camper that was under braked and had acute understeer and very little damping.
On the test you are not allowed to drive the vehicle you can only give it a visual and a brake test that is the law. However the owner had asked me to pick the vehicle up from his home so I drove to the test. It was dangerous.
On the test I could find nothing wrong so it was bad design.
The system in Oz is much better because it traps more rubbish.
Your accidents figures are about the same. We have a hard core of drunks that just don't learn they eventually end up in jail. I abhor drunk driving it costs more lives terrorists.
We had a guy fall asleep at the wheel and end up down an embankment into the path of a train which derailed into the path of another trian both going 60 mph plus and people got killed and maimed. The engines at £500,000 each were totalled plus the track and carriages . He paid £250 for his insurance his insurers are paying out £10 million plus and rising. He got 5 years
clink.
we had a public inquiry. |
Richard Treacy
Prolific User
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 99
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 31 January, 2004 - 08:59 am: | |
Hi Bob,
At leat in the Australian Capital Territory, it is like in the UK.
Third Party personal injury insurance is compulsory but private. It has NEVER been covered by the governmet in any state of Australia.
Third party property insurance, "idiot insurance", (damage to someone else's car) is optional. This is absolutely ridiculous, as in case someone not so insured prangs you and can't pay, you are up the creek.
Excesses (the 100 quid you mention) are the same as in the UK for comprehensive cover.
Comprehensive insurance in Oz is more tricky than in the UK though. For years, alloy wheels excluded cars from comprehensive cover. Even after they became standard on most cars, aftermarket alloys commanded a hefty insurance premium as they suggested reckless driving.
BUT
if a cop stops you and notices your changed motor or brakes, you need an endorsed engineer's certificate on the spot or you are in trouble. I have implememted two re-engined (transplanted) cars, and know this the hard way. The cops have been very hard at times, although in both cases the horsepower and capacity were significantly increased along with the brakes and suspension upgrades. It is humiliating to need to carry the papers at all times.
Also, the insurance companies are obliged to provide the basic cover. However, I have never made a claim. If an accident happened, I would not like to test their willingness to pay. |
Ralph Brooks
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 12.219.241.167
| | Posted on Saturday, 31 January, 2004 - 02:45 pm: | |
In California, the erstwhile hotrod capitol of the world, switching the engine in a RR/B is no problem. IT IS FORBIDEN except for a replacement engine as offered by the factory. I had 74 FIAT X1-9 and replaced the puny 1.3L 4 speed with a 1980 1.5L FI 5 speed power plant, but could not get the registration renewed until it was inspected by a "referee". Maybe I could put a Spur or Spirit in my 80 SWII, but GMC - Never! |
Dwayne Kennemore
Experienced User
Username: dkennemo
Post Number: 9
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 31 January, 2004 - 03:16 pm: | |
What a spirited debate! First I will explain my view and then I have a question. So if you don't feel like reading Yet Another Opinion but might have some interest in answering my query, skip the whole philosophical bit to the last paragraph.
My view: Although I would prefer to keep my RR V8 in my Silver Shadow, if it blew up tomorrow I would be inclined towards the conversion if a suitable replacement motor were cost prohibitive. While I believe the motor is a nontrivial part of the Rolls-Royce experience, at the same time the coachwork and rich interior are as well, and to me it would seem odd to criticize a fellow motorist who appreciated those aspects of the vehicle but just for practicality reasons had to use a different power plant.
Some might say that the substitution would spell ruination for the resale value, but this does not mean much to me, nor do I suspect it means much to anyone else. Here's why: I do not view my auto as an investment; I really don't expect to get the sort of return out of it that I would obtain from a quality real estate investment. If I wanted to invest in a car to generate a return, I would have purchased something no newer than a Cloud. Rather, my Shadow is something I have gladly paid a premium for because I enjoy driving it. I can't imagine that having a GM powerplant would detract from the thrill I feel when I first get into the car and look out over the hood at the Spirit of Ecstacy atop the grille. How could I fault anyone who shares that? Isn't that most fundamental?
The Rolls Royce experience, in my opinion, is about capturing a sense of motoring history and it's about class and appreciating the finer things in life, not really engineering (even though, yes, engineering is part of that history and I would not make the same remark in the aircraft context). It is about taking a practical invention - the car - and rendering it in a way that is not necessary, but is most satisfying aesthetically. Who really, earnestly needs Connolly hides in his car? Who needs inch-thick foot carpets and picnic tables? Who needs that beautiful dash? Who needs the smooth ride to get on with his daily business? No one. But he who appreciates those additional things, those things that are not practical additions to the car - appreciates the Rolls Royce for what it is. This is why I believe loyalty to the RR engine is not required and why the GM switch is okay.
But speaking of the engineering bit, I'd really like to see how a conversion is done the right way. Any ideas where I can get this information? |
Jon Rothwell
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 202.72.131.230
| | Posted on Saturday, 31 January, 2004 - 03:51 pm: | |
It is interesting to see the differing rules in other parts of the country and the world.
Richard, in Western Australia you pay the third party personal insurance cover premium with your registration. This last time I looked was handled by the SGIC (State government Insurance Commission). I do not know if the state government uses an underwriter but as a matter of interest all WA government cars used to have government number plates fitted but were not actually road registered or insured as the SGIC carried all liability for the state government. This led to a whole crop of cars which were "first registered" a year or two after they were actually used, much to the delight of second hand car dealers who used to buy late model cars for a song at the government auctions.
To the best of my knowledge the SGIC still handles all the WA third party property insurance for vehicles.
In WA once the modified car is registered it is not required to carry any permit as the information is held at the police dept and can be radioed to any officer at the roadside. All WA police traffic officers have the power to carry out vehicle inspections and can issue a defect notice or ban the vehicle from the road on the spot.
WA does not have yearly vehicle inspections for private cars (unless left hand drive, or used for hire etc), so it would be possible to modify any car and get away with it for a while. In reality it is not worth the risk as it is easy enough to take the extra time to do it right and have full legal cover for your car.
In WA it would be easy enough to put a Chevy engine in a Shadow, modify the brakes, and have it all passed for road use. The owner or modifier would need to ensure that all legal requirements were met so as to be covered by insurance, but that is about it.
If the vehicle is not police approved then the third party personal injury insurance in the registration is void, as would be your normal insurance. Even if the vehicle was not involved in an accident you would probably end up in court facing a raft of charges just for driving it.
As I said it is interesting to see the variations in rules.
For example, one of my limos has had engineering permits from Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australia, it has also been complianced to the relevant Australian standards for the year it was built.
An engine or body modification that is legal in one state in Australia may not be legal in another, and it would be interesting to review the legal implications of a Chevy/Shadow conversion on an Australia wide and worldwide basis.
|
Jon Rothwell
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 202.72.131.230
| | Posted on Saturday, 31 January, 2004 - 03:59 pm: | |
Oops, I should have said that the SGIC still carries third party injury insurance for WA registered vehicles, not third party property which is additional to your registration. |
William H. Trovinger II
Prolific User
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 64
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 31 January, 2004 - 03:59 pm: | |
Jon;
It sounds like you are most fortunate in NW Australia. I wonder how you have been able to keep the vultures (sorry lawyers) at bay. Are you allowed to string them up to a cooliboh tree or maybe tie a rock around their neck and throw them in a billabong?
Now, more serious. Here in the Heartland of the US (Wisconsin) we have to pay for all insurance out of our pocket. Yes, there is a law that requires all drivers to have insurance. However, due to the Civil Libertarians the courts have ruled that it is unfair to the poor to require proof of insurance when renewing an operator’s license (auto and motorcycle only) or motor vehicle registration (autos, bike and light duty trucks). Therefore, the only time insurance is checked is when you have either been stopped by a police officer for a moving violation or have been in an accident. Thereby, we are forced to also carry uninsured motorist insurance (I call it deadbeat insurance). I have been in two accidents in my 32 years of driving and both times the other guy hint me and both times they didn’t have insurance. In the one case (18 years ago) a passenger in the uninsured car tried to sue me even though the motor vehicle court had found the driver of the car 100% at fault. My insurance carrier (under the uninsured policy) ended up giving the guy and is lawyer 20 grand just to get rid of the case. They calculated that taking it to trial would cost them at least twice that in legal fees and much more if the lawyers used where not their salaried ones.
Even though the law only requires insurance coverage up to a U$ 100,000 limit. Anyone carry less then 1 Million US is crazy, I carry 5 on personal cars and 10 on my company vehicles. The reason being that the insurance company can settle up to there limits and the other side can still come after you for more, if they know or even think you have it. Compressive (fire and theft) and Collision are actual cost less deductible
On modifications, we do not have any safety checks on vehicles (this would also be unfair to the poor according to some politicians) only emission checks. Also vehicles that meet the requirements for “collector’s plates” or where produced prior to 1967 are exempt from the biannual emissions test. So the only times that modifications are check would be; one when requested by the insurance carrier, this I had to go through the other year when I completed a 3 year restoration of my Mustang, to prove no modifications had been done. Two if there has been an accident the local police will note any modifications and then a State Motor Vehicle Inspector will come out and verify that the car was altered. But, he will not rule if the modifications where OK or not (hey he doesn’t want to get sued either) if there was a death then he will give his opinion to the District Attorney other wise he will just write it in his report. Either way he will leave it up to the courts to decide.
I can tell you of a case where a gentleman I know equipped one of his new trucks with a snowplow off of an identical truck that was only a year older. An employee of his hit a car in the rear but the plow was not on the truck at the time. But, I “junkyard” attorney found out about it and discovered that the model year truck in question had never been crash tested by that snowplow manufactures. The prior year) due to major changes) had been and the model year after was (due to additional airbag). The lawyer used this fact to claim negligence on the part of the truck’s owner and increase the suit by 10 fold. Needless to say the gentleman’s insurance carrier drop his coverage and claimed they where not liable due to the alteration and also sued him for their costs in the matter. Estimates to defend the case in court where between 200 thousand and over 1 million depending on how far he had to take the case. He ended settling the matter out of court by paying low 5 figures to his insurance carrier and mid to high six figure to the claimant. Oh, the claimant’s injury was a broken leg.
I hope you get a better idea of the problems some of us must consider when doing anything to our vehicles and maybe also my distaste for the legal profession.
Regards,
Bill
|
Jon Rothwell
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 202.72.131.230
| | Posted on Saturday, 31 January, 2004 - 04:31 pm: | |
Bill,
I know what you mean and the vultures have been circling in Australia for some time. There are now moves underway at government level to limit spurious claims and the lawyers who pursue them, but time alone will tell just how useful these moves will be.
In Western Australia 30 years ago you needed a police permit to modify your exhaust, today things are a little easier provided you stay within the regulations and vehicle build and safety standards, tomorrow, who knows?
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.208
| | Posted on Saturday, 31 January, 2004 - 04:36 pm: | |
The BEST and arguably, the most BALANCED letter to date- apart from any my own of course.(Only joking now!). I really dont know what to say, except that I agree entirely with the views expressed by D. Kennemore and trust that others may appreciate the realistic and practical approach which he has taken on this well canvassed subject. In reponse to concerns raised by earlier posters, I can confirm that in my home state (and I suspect other Australian states) vehicle registration and "all-risks" comprehensive insurance CAN routinely be obtained (the latter, possibly at a higher cost) on vehicles which have been modified (in any way) SUBJECT to a recognised/authorised (State Govt.)motor engineers report, which approves and "signs off" the modificaton/s. Of course, one would not past first base if the modification was absurd, such as if you presented a S/Shadow with, say a 27L "Merlin/Meteor" engine, expecting approval for road use, irrespective of how "well" the conversion had been performed. Commonsense prevails in these circumstances and rightly so too, as you would be frightened witless if you were "buzzed" on the Interstate by a 27L V12!. In respect of the "principle" of engine swaps (as opposed to any moral/legal questions) one does not have to look too far to see who STARTED it. Thats right - our friendly and progressive American cousins who almost made it a national sport (in So. Calif) during the booming early/mid 50s, and why NOT? - after all, the "land of the free" where, within reason, one can do what one likes, especially when deciding an "issue" as simple as choice of engine for your OWN car!. As for concerns that state police here, might give owners of converted Rolls-Royce vehicles a hard time, well, given that MANY Shadow/Spirit owners have intently geeked into the engine bay of the recently converted "pilot" car, having been asked to "spot the differnce" (they DIDNT!) I cant realistically see our local/ highway patrol officers fairing much better. Besides, unlike the USA, where I must admit to having smoked along a bit, without any sign of drama, police here are somewhat preoccupied with ticketing wayward drivers who creep over the "horse and cart" speed limits by a meagre 2 to 3 MPH. Police "harassment" (vehicle inspection) of converted Rolls-Royce vehicles, or even "normal" ones?. I dont think so.
(Message edited by admin on February 05, 2004)
(Message edited by admin on February 05, 2004) |
Jon Rothwell
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 202.72.131.230
| | Posted on Saturday, 31 January, 2004 - 05:03 pm: | |
Recently a Merlin engine was fitted to an older Chevy in the eastern states of Australia, it was correctly engineered, certifed as road legal and registered.
As to the police ticketing you for going 2-3 (MPH?) over the limit. The Australian compliance (build) standards dictate that your vehicle speedo must be accurate to only 10% above 60 KPH, and there is no standard for needle flicker.
The police in Western Australia tried a couple of years age to prosecute anyone going 1 KPH over the posted limit, and the RAC (WA) offered to represent anyone the police prosecuted for such a minor offence. The police backed down very quickly. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.208
| | Posted on Saturday, 31 January, 2004 - 05:40 pm: | |
Sorry Jon - You are correct. I had overlooked the INCREDIBLE, 55 "Chevrolet"/R-R "Merlin" engined car, which I now recall was designed and built by the well known and highly respected, Rod Hadfield(?), who pioneered in Australia, the design and manufacture of dozens of assorted engine/bell housing "adaptors", to provide an extraordinary range of Engine to Transmision combinations. What I have seen of his work is both innovative and outstanding. The point has now been made (thank you) that even with a modification as "extreme" as the R-R powered "Chevrolet", registration and I suspect insurance (in that particular case) will not be denied, IF the work has been performed PROFESSIONALY and "signed off" by authorised/approved persons in the area/state concerned. |
Robert Chapman
Frequent User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 21
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 31 January, 2004 - 09:58 pm: | |
In answer to Bill T's question about the legal aspect, I think Jon Rothwell has just about covered it but I would just add that there are very few additional pieces of eqipment in the conversion and these are all proprietary parts and therefore the product liability lies with the manufacturers.The fitting of the parts must meet excepted engineering standards and be inspected by a signatory engineer from the appropriate government authority.The vehicle is insured by one of Australia's largest motor vehicle insurers and in fact they have created a new category for GM Powered R-R.
Could I reiterate that the majority of the very effective original braking system remains unchanged,e.g. brake calipers,hoses,discs,pads,reservoir,rat trap box,brake pedal,handbrake and warning lights.It is only the method of producing the pressure that has changed,the pedal has a far more normal feel to it(something R-R tried to "produce" with a small master cylinder then a rubber cone.
The self leveling system has been completely isolated from the braking system (a leak from the self leveling system no longer effects the brakes) and converted to operate on non hygroscopic mineral oil as per Spirit.
I believe this system has a major advantage over the original in that the vehicle will still have brakes even when the assistance system has been exhausted,a benefit not afforded to later SS 1 & 2 cars which under similar circumstances would have NO BRAKES what so ever. The brakes also have to meet the same deceleration requirements as the original system when the vehicle met Australian design rule compliance.
One question I was expecting and have not seen was(what about exhaust emission compliance).One of the reasons besides (appearance and originality) all of the emission devices were refitted to the engine was, that any engine fitted to this vehicle must meet the same emission standards as the original.The GM engine fitted is a brand new late model and runs ULP.
The exhaust system is fitted with a catolytic convertor and works in conjunction with the original fuel weakening device (in a similar manner to an oxygen sensor) to give very much lower exhaust emissions than the original engine.
As I stated in my original post this is a experimental project designed to determine if as a last resort(GM or TIP)the conversion could be performed to an acceptable standard, and it may be that I don't repeat it.I have always advised owners to rebuild their original engines(why wouldn't I have spent a great deal of money having parts made for them, pistons, valves ,water pumps, gaskets ect)if at all possible.Anyway what a great debate,so much infomation so many veiw points. |
Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 195.93.33.11
| | Posted on Sunday, 01 February, 2004 - 12:23 am: | |
In the Uk weere have an organisation called the Motor Insurers Bureua. MIB
All the Ins co. pay into the pot for uninsured drivers Personel injury only.
The cost is passed on to us. Not sure how much £50 has been suggested in the papers.
Also we used to have a type of insurance know as Road Traffic Act. This was personel injury only.
They stopped this.
If we can pop up to Mars for a look see.
Then no matter what has gone wrong with any engine it can be repaired.
I have seen holes cut in blocks repairs done the hole repaired and you have to xray the thing after to find it. Which they do to check.
These sort of recovery technics are often stronger than new.
The UK Gov used to take the view that people are sensible and are not going to build something outrageous like a 27 litre road car.
however people do.
So in 1998 the Single Vehicle Approval system came out.
Before the Gov will issue reg. It must be checked over and they check things like weight distribution and it maybe road tested. They are very strict.
Kit Cars makers are often in do do with them.
However once a car has its reg it is a free for all.
And then you have the folk that don,t have tax insurance mot lights good tyres and no duty of care to anybody including themselves.
I failed a car because the owner had made a brake hose with hose clips. He told the boss that I was victimising him. The boss got THE RED pen out.
|
Richard Treacy
Prolific User
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 100
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, 01 February, 2004 - 01:21 am: | |
In the ACT, there used to be a yearly roadworthiness test which was rather strict. In NSW, it was done by registered garages, and was notoriously lenient like the MOT in the UK. The ACT went from the sublime to the ridiculous and dropped the test altogether. They now do spot checks, especially in public car parks. It is not uncommon to return from shopping and see your car jacked up for a suspension test.
On transplants, for years the ACT forbade them as a rule, whereas NSW was easy going. When I changed my Holden motor from 2250cc to 3300cc, I first had an interview with the registry engineer, and agreed what changes to do: later suspension, brakes and back axle. He gave me a letter of approval, and the car sailed through the test. I even managed to get comprehensive insurance, but it was touch and go. Had I made a serious claim, I am unsure whether the insurance company would have coughed up, but at least they were fully informed and furnished with the engineer's certificate from the start.
When I did the Jag Chev 350 swap it was easier. By then they had a rule that the motor was allowed to be increased in capacity by 10% without formal permission, or decreased as desired by any amount. The original motor was 5.3 litres, so the 5.7 Chev was OK. A 350 in a Shadow 350 would clearly qualify under those rules. However, we can see that Australia is not a single nation in many ways, just a conglomeration of countries when it comes to laws and stamp duties.
In all states, if you are uninsured or have not paid road tax, they will catch you and treat you like a drink-driver.
I think it is great that Robert's conversion has been so successful. I am sure that a new mass produced motor is in most ways better than our hand built 30-year-olds, even if the swap is a bit far out even for me.
However, I am not a Rolex guy, but if I were I would not swap the movement for one from a Swatch even though they are more accurate and last longer. I may change the watch band though, or fit a non-genuine watch glass, but not the movement. Second source mudguards for a Shadow are one thing, but as Robert says a motor swap is the last resort.
It is, though, very encouraging to see that once the motors are really defunct, there is a really good solution on tap.
One subject which has not really cropped up is overall condition of R-R/B cars in Australia. In my opinion, making glaring generalisations mind you, is that the average standard is the highest in the world. In the US, they are obsessed with finding non-genuine parts even even when the genuine ones are not expensive and often better. In the UK, there is more penny-pinching. And then there is rust, where Australia and California have an advantage. OK, the very best cars are probably in the UK and the USA, but I mean the average. Also, traditionally, R-R/B cars were more valuable in Australia, and hence the owners always felt it more worthwhile to keep them in top condition. This is why I for one wish to maintain at least some level of originality, with changes fully reversible wherever possible, especially on our tremendously well preserved Australian-delivered cars. Note that Australian-delivered R-R/Bs, especially Mk VIs, are steadily being exported to the UK at heavy premium prices nowadays, a far cry for the 1960s when the flow was overwhelmingly the opposite.
There is an oversupply of good used R-R V8 blocks out there if you look by the way. |
Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 195.93.33.11
| | Posted on Sunday, 01 February, 2004 - 04:26 am: | |
The reason that the MOT test is lenient is because it is the minimun stardard and I think of it as a check to see if the car has been serviced to a minimum standard.
Because the minimum standard is applied across the broad range of cars I have to test a moped the same as a 200mph supercar.
I can't strip cars down I check welded repairs after panels have been filled and painted.
I have to rely on the honesty of the presenter.
However I know a thing or two and have a nose for a dishonest repair.
I check cars that are presented by honest people who leave carpets out for so I can see how good the job.
To be frank most testers fail where they shouldn't but the job needed doing anyway.
The GOV says that the owner has every right to expect to able to use a component to it's maximum life.
King pins the law say no more than 10mm on a 20inch wheel at the rim.
It you took the bushes out it would be less.
that amount of play would make the vehicle wander every where but it passes because the wheel is not going to fall off.
The service parts for RR are not expensive.
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.186
| | Posted on Sunday, 01 February, 2004 - 05:34 am: | |
The issue of the R-R/GM conversion PACKAGE (which includes a modern UP-dated revision of the overall hydraulic system - brakes/self level. etc) has now been addressed from three aspects i.e 1/ Tech. feasibility (Can it be done and done so PROPERLY) 2/ Morality- ("Should" it be done,if it CAN be done) and 3/ Irrespective of 1 & 2, would such a procedure generally be considered legal in most jurisdictions. A review, if I may. 1/ Yes - indeed, it can be done, witness hundreds of U.S conversions to date and the extraordinary conversion (you HAVE to SEE it!!) recently completed by a expert motor engineer in the eminently qualified, Robert Chapman. He achieved a result that is "factory" like in execution, appearance and operation ,almost as if the factory re-engineered the S/Shadow/Spirit for remanufacture today, incl.(for example) the use of vacuum brake boosters, which stop almost every car on todays roads. 2/ "Should" it be done. A matter of opinion of course, and although I would not convert a "R" type Continental or any coachbuilt "S" series car, nor a "Corniche", I would consider a conversion on a normal Shadow/Spirit and in that regard, the summation of D.Kennemore ( see post of 31/1) is indeed worthy of a studied review. 3/ Is such a conversion "legal"?. Well - generally speaking, YES - depending of course,upon where you are domiciled and the consensus SEEMS to be that unless you happen to live in some obscure hamlet,province or duchy, most modified cars are both registerable and insurable (albeit that the latter may be at some extra cost) PROVIDED that you have an approved independent engineers report from a recognized person or authority. In conclusion, I note upon review of the forum, that reproduction R-R V8 cyl. blocks might be undertaken at some future time ("Aston-Martin" straight 6s are, at a reasonable 5000 pnds stg., I believe) and this is very encouraging, however price (relative to car values) will no doubt be the prime consideration. I agree that almost any engine can be repaired, however the overiding question is, as always, at what cost. Cant agree though, re some suggestion as to a bountiful oversupply of good used, corrosion/crack free, V8 cyl.blocks, given the number of Shadow engines which I (and some R-R specialists) have to dismantle to "find" a good one and the recent sale here, of an almost "new" (it really was!) condition, SS11 block for A$7500, tends to confirm the REALITY of the marketplace. The buyer was justifiably happy with his purchase, given that it was the only one readily available locally AND having regard to the A$22K price of a brand new block ex factory/R-R dealer/s. After all THAT and this, I think I will have a "Bex" (there,s enough for everyone!) and of course, a good lie down! |
William H. Trovinger II
Prolific User
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 65
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, 01 February, 2004 - 06:58 am: | |
Robert and John;
You miss the point I am trying to make all together! It is not whether the modification is legal, good or even better than the original.
In areas of the world where attorneys rule (like US) none of the above factors matter. The only thing is who has the deepest pockets. I.E. Who can out spend the other on legal fees, that is the winner!
Without proper manufactures liability insurance behind a modification there will be NO deep pockets. In the US there are two types of shops that do this kind of work, on "hotrods" mainly. Type one is the proper shop and they have the insurance though companies like CNA or Zurich. However, “fly-by-night” shops do most modifications. These shops do not have a pot to (you know what) in and thereby, do not care if someone sues them. They just close that shop and open up next week down the street under a new name.
In the second type of modification then the owner of the vehicle is the one stuck "holding the bag".
From what I have learned from my trips to your country and reading your papers (mainly SMH) I do not think that your legal system is that much better than ours. I think you do have a somewhat better hold on your vultures. However, as I said in earlier post once the conversion is done the shop doing it and the owner paying for it are liable for the life of that car. So if your legal system falls more to the level here in the States, look out! This is what, anyone think about modifications must take into consideration.
Robert, even though you are in Australia and you do a conversion if that car somehow makes it to the States 1, 2 or even 10 years I can see a sharp talon lawyer here adding you as a third party to his suit. Doesn’t matter that you did not ever intend that car to come to the US or that it passed Aussie Standards. Granted there is an import inspection here but, do you think that would stop a lawyer who thinks he smells money? If you sell this car or do another for someone if I where you I would have an attorney draft an agreement of “liability limitations” and/or a “hold harmless” agreement that covers a release of any and all future liability on your part. This wouldn’t be 100% protection but could be helpful.
Best regards,
Bill
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.227
| | Posted on Sunday, 01 February, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
Well now - lets get all legal!. We have recently had some major floods which in some cases, vacant parked cars were sumberged or even carried a few yards yonder. This resulted in someone asking, in a daily newspaper, if a car manufacturer could be sued, if an occupant ever drowned (a la Chappaquiddick) as result of being unable to lower a closed, ELECTRICALLY operated window in the event that water pressure prevented the opening of any doors to allow egress. Such questions could keep lawyers busy for years, however in the case of the "conversion" in question, I will put my faith in the insurer (one of our largest! )given that they have even created a special category for this type of vehicle ,thereby indicating (presumably) their full awareness of any liability in the event of an accident PROVEN to be attributable (wholly or partly) to the conversion itself. Anyone can sue anyone, but as most of us know from local experience here, many people can (and have) easily avoided financial penalty via a raft of "mechanisms", such as the U.S Chapter eleven etc.,leading often, to corporate "wind-up"/liquidation etc. with no funds left to pay genuine creditors, let alone any adventurous "damages" claimants in search of a quick dollar. That aside, it is never easy (or cheap!) to bring an action in a foreign jurisdiction with any reasonable guarantee of success - patent violation/infringements being a good example in point. Then one has the various appeal processes to explore. Without any intended offence to lawmen beyond our sunny shores, if I ever heard that some "Matlock" type had taken aim at me, I would take steps to ensure that if he was hoping to get $10 mill.or so (any less and he WOULDNT have initiated the action in the first instance!) that he would eventually finish up whistling "Dixie", as they are wont to say in the U.S. However, some concern IS noted, regarding the possible need for the signing of some form of liability "release", this being worthy of further investigaton and I suspect some of our legal people here, might, or perhaps should, look at this point at some time in the near future. |
William H. Trovinger II
Prolific User
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 66
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, 01 February, 2004 - 03:39 pm: | |
Thank you John,
Your comment "Then one has the various appeal processes to explore." made my point! Who wants to pay 250 to 1000 per hour to another attorney just to prove the first one didn't do his job?
On the car in the flood, I know at least a half dozen lawyers that would love to argue that point in open court. Hey, juries will 9 out of 10 times side with the “underdog” in a civil suit.
On the issue of “foreign jurisdiction” your examples are nice but do not hold up. Under US law a judgement is good for 20 years and then can be renewed thereafter. Once the original period for appeal has expired there is no appeal within that jurisdiction ever! Yes, transferring a judgement can have problems. However, a personal injury judgement does have protections under international laws that are not afforded to your examples.
On the question of filing a chapter 11 or 12 or 13 or 7 or 9 under US code SORRY but a personal injury judgement is NOT dischargeable! That is Federal Law!
John, the problems that I have noted on this thread are just a fraction of the reason that people like myself support our President Bush. He along with a group of leaders (mostly Republicans) wants to limit the lawyers and courts system. The first step is to place a limit on punitive damages. However, the Trial Lawyers Association supports the liberals in this country, one for example was the millions they contributed to Bill Clinton and now give to Hillary and Kerry.
Best regards,
Bill
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.156
| | Posted on Sunday, 01 February, 2004 - 05:51 pm: | |
Dear Bill- your input is certainly appreciated, however I omitted to mention how people in this country also file for PERSONAL bankruptcy (as opposed to corporate liquidation ("winding up" orders - as issued by our Federal Court/s) in order to avoid financial exposure/liability etc. The time worn adage of "win the battle, but lose the war" applies, when, upon receiving a judgement, one finds it unenforceable, because the defendant has no money or has money/assets, which, for all practical purposes are inaccessible due to a myriad of protective mechanisms. I am not suggesting that anyone associated with the particular matter under discussion would seek to create such a circumstance and in any event, as previously advised, the current conversion and any that may follow, are/will be covered by one of our largest insurers (similar in size to some of the names which you mentioned earlier) who accepts the liability risk in the event of a claim arising from any incident alleged to be attributable to the conversion process. In due course, I suspect that this point may be further discussed and ultimately clarified by persons who are qualified in this particular area, having regard to our respective laws. |
David Gore
Moderator
Username: david_gore
Post Number: 183
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, 01 February, 2004 - 06:26 pm: | |
Now we have really opened an important can of worms and we really have to look seriously at the future consequences of our actions. Our legal systems continue to evolve over time in some good ways but also in some disastrous ways. The disastrous ones are usually the ones where the person with the most money and access to the best lawyers wins regardless of the merits/common sense attributes of the case. The Judges universal "cop-out" is that they do not make law: they apply the law!! This ignores the blatant fact that once they make a decision; this serves as a precedent for future decisions until such time as another wealthy litigant with smart legal practitioners is able to overturn/modify the precedent. Meanwhile, the ordinary person suffers the consequences with no proper redress as they cannot find the resources to properly defend themselves.
Give me the current NZ liability laws; you knowingly take the risk then you cannot sue another party for the consequences of taking that risk i.e. you are responsible for the consequences of your decisions and cannot transfer responsibility by contrived means to others who had no part in your decision to assume the risk. The only redress is for negligence on the part of the service provider. This is why you can still do all the fun things in life there like tandem hang-gliding, 4WD quad-bike bush bashing, really scary bungee jumping, white-water rafting etc without onerous limitations being placed on your ability to push the boundaries to your own personal limits.
Back to R-R/B relevant matters and the important objective of ensuring we can continue to own, drive and enjoy our treasured cars without being forced off the road by mis-guided, punitive or unintended consequences of legislative/legal/social action from other members of the societies in which we live. Perhaps the time is fast approaching where we all need to become pro-active in lobbying our politicians, arguing our case in the media and taking the time to discuss our concerns with our workmates, friends, neighbours and any one else who will listen to see if they have similar concerns to a greater or lesser degree. These may not necessarily relate to cars in particular but will relate to the individual's right to experience a fulfilling life by making their own decisions as to the degree of risk they will assume rather than being forced to conform to a "grey, dull and unexciting" life due to constaints imposed by others who think they alone are the arbiters of what is suitable for their society. If there is obvious public demand for change/relaxation of constraints; our politicians will act in response to that demand.
United we stand - divided we fall! |
Jon Rothwell
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 202.72.131.230
| | Posted on Sunday, 01 February, 2004 - 07:15 pm: | |
Again, I can only really comment on Western Australia but I don't think the legal situation would be a problem in the long term.
To my knowledge there has never been a successful civil case brought in WA due to the failure of a correctly inspected and modified car. If anyone has any information that contradicts this then please let me know.
The whole idea of getting the vehicle inspected and approved is to remain within the law and therefore limit ones liability. If for example I was to fit a non manufacturer/police/insurance company/Australian standards approved roo bar to my new car I would be in the poop up to my eyeballs should an injury/fatality or accident occur that could be traced in any way to the roo bar, (airbags tend to be a problem with any roo bar for example). The standards for older vehicles differ depending on the design rules that were in place at the time the vehicle was built.
All any of us can do is limit our liability by adhering strictly to the standards laid down by the relevant authorities. There will always be lawyers willing to challenge this, but the chances of a successful case are greatly diminished by being squeaky clean in the eyes of the law and your insurance company.
But here is a thought to keep you awake at night;
Last week I flushed the brake fluid on my Shadow, this week I sold it, 6 months later the brakes fail.
Following the same logic as has been proposed for engine transplants a good lawyer should be able to make a case for negligence as I was the last person to work on the brakes!
Caveat Emptor, I hope!
|
Les Mighalls
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.132.64.251
| | Posted on Sunday, 01 February, 2004 - 09:18 pm: | |
I was alerted to the correspondence on this thread when I returned from overseas a couple of days ago, and having just read through it my feelings range from bemused to amused.
Amused at the pontifications of those who would not consider an engine transplant, no matter what the circumastances, even though they are yet to face the decision that I faced and bemused by some of those who have superficially considered it and wish to share their thoughts.
A full article about what you have been discussing is being prepared for the Victorian Branch newsletter by myself and Robert Chapman and will be published shortly, complete with photographs.
However, briefly, the events have been as follows.
I provided the vehicle (a 1978 RR Silver Wraith 2)which Robert Chapman has been using as a test bed for replacing a completely clapped out RR V8 engine with a new (read that as ‘modern’) GM 5.7 V8 power plant designed to run on unleaded fuel and had a very modest role in the redesign process.
Why? Because I am some philistine who is prepared to sully the holy grail?
Far from it.
I bought the car, which has a vice-regal provenance (for what that is worth), for A$75,000 in 1986 from a non-dealer re-seller. In the ten years from 1989 to 1999, I spent in excess of A$70,000 in maintaining the vehicle, before handing it to Robert at the end of 1999 with a brief to institute a progressive plan to bring the car up to the best it could possibly be, spending a not inconsiderable amount in the process over a two year period until mid 2001.
Thus, I believe I have demonstrated a commitment in reality(i.e. hard cash), not pontification, to preserving an albeit very minor part of our motoring heritage.
In March 2001 the car began missing on one cylinder and running very roughly. Robert compression tested it and there was no compression in one cylinder and not much in another. I then asked him to do a complete rebuild (yes, still with the idea of keeping the RR V8).
After the motor was stripped down we found there were cracks between every cylinder right into the crankcase and porosity in the block you could poke your thumb in and waggle it around. In a motor which had only travelled some 330,000km. Not a lot one would think for the much vaunted Rolls Royce motor, in which I averaged about 20,000km a year.
I was then faced with the decision to spend well in excess of the car’s value to keep what is in reality a production line motor vehicle on the road or break it up for parts.
The latter being by far the most sensible decision from a financial point of view.
However, I am rather fond of my old toys and sat down with Robert to see what we could work out.
For a discussion of what followed, you will have to read a forthcoming Victorian newsletter.
I will close by saying that the car has been fully approved from an engineering point of view, meets or exceeds all ADR specifications and has been approved for insurance purposes by a major Australian insurer.
The car has been back on the road now since the end of October 2003 and I have driven it 5,000km to date. It is silky smooth, has very slightly more power than the original; handles, if anything, better and has a magnificent braking system with a solid positive pedal response to provide absolutely superb feedback when braking requiring no more than a normal pressure on the pedal.
The brake pedal does feel different to the original, because rather than the ‘all or nothing’ of the RR system one has the progressive system of just about every other make on the market providing feedback to the driver of what the brakes are doing.
A far better feel for someone who drives the car every day of the week rather than one or two Sundays a month.
|
Les Mighalls
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.132.64.251
| | Posted on Sunday, 01 February, 2004 - 10:27 pm: | |
Dear Mr. Trovinger,
I am equally bemused by the throwing up of the possiblity of U.S. legal action/influence on what is being carried out here.
I studied law at the University of London (U.K.) but do not practise here in Australia, not having completed the prescribed conversion course.
I can quite authoritatively tell you, though, that the U.S. legal system and its case law is almost totally irrelevant to both the U.K. and Australia. Both Australia and the U.K. looks to its own legal system and case law and then, only if the case before the courts is entirely new and different legally, other Commonwealth jurisdictions.
Only in the exceedingly rare circumstance of there being no legally similar case in neither their own country nor the entire Commonwealth is the U.S. case law considered... but note that such case law is not even considered persuasive, let alone binding.
I note from a Google search that there is at least one firm that has been carrying out these conversions in the U.S., but to what standard I don't know. I also note that there is at least one other firm currently manufacturing kits for a conversion.
I would presume that they have both taken appropriate legal advice as regards to their liability.
It may be rather more worth your while to check that they have done so and advise them and your fellow American RR owners/potential owners appropriately rather than get deeply involved in what is really a rather parochial debate here in Australia.
Should Robert decide to commence a manufacturing operation to export conversion kits to the U.S.A. then rest assured I shall be advising him to seek appropriate U.S. legal advice first.
With regard to motor vehicles modified here and later being exported to the U.S. I really doubt the likelihood of that happening. Apart from the fact that it would also need to be modified for left hand drive (a not inexpensive and horrendous task), haven't you and a lot of others been saying that a GM modified RR is no longer a real RR and thus effectively worthless? I believe your own comment was "YUCK".
A motor car will only be exported to the U.S. if it is financially worthwhile to do so.
It would be much more financially viable to buy a kit from Robert, obtain a licence from him as to his intellectual property in developing the conversion and then have it carried out locally in the U.S. on a car which has been factory built for left hand drive. I am quite sure that American mechanics/mechanical engineers would be able to carry out the conversion following his drawings and settings. I also believe your labour rates are lower than here too.
Respectfully yours,
Les Mighalls
|
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 101
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, 01 February, 2004 - 11:57 pm: | |
By the way, Les, Right Hand Drive cars are quite OK in the USA and Europe, and they are rather common in RR/B cars. Like about one third in Switzerland, my Turbo R is RHD. So, I may easily take it home if I return to Oz, but I prefer RHD in Europe anyhow. All post collection vehicles here are RHD so the postie can empty the postboxes without exiting. It is only Australia which is so strict on where the steering wheel happens to be. Sweden had mostly LHD cars when they drove on the left before changing to the right over one weekend. That was a feat in itself. |
Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 195.93.33.11
| | Posted on Monday, 02 February, 2004 - 01:30 am: | |
In Eurpoe we are guadully moving towards a total ban on moding vehicles. It will not be applied retrospectivley.
But it will means that fitting different engines and brakes will be verbotten it is already as said an insurance nightmare.
Engines being fitted because of money they will accepted with an engineers report but when it comes to brakes they generally decline.
In the UK there is no legal onus on any insurance co. to accept any proposal. We appear to have lots of insurance co. But most are subsideries of the Big 5 and they speak to each other often.
Drunk Drivers end up going to one co, that adds zeros to the premuim. £5000 not uncommon.
At first it will be minor things like tyre sizes and then eventually you won't even be allowed to add a spot lamp.
The UK SVA test includes a check to see if anthing could hurt a pedestrain things like spot lamps are checked.
On truck testing the tyres must be the size and rating that is on the expired certificate.
This information must be displayed on the vehicle so that the police can check and they do.
Eventually this will migrate to the MOT.
I have while repairing rust on cars welded areas that are crumple zones. And stood back admiring my extra strong repair thinking I hope the owner does not front end the car because that bit is built like the Forth Road Bridge. I just negated all the crash testing and type approval. And I have taken the steel of the car past its critical temp point and changed the properties of the steel.
What would the legal system make of that.
We have no restriction on LHD apart from insurance loading.
Our closeness to LHD europe means that most commom LHD stuff goes to europe where it sells for a better price. Any body selling a LHD RR would get a much better price in France. Most LHD stuff reg in the UK is cars that are not made RHD. |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 102
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 02 February, 2004 - 02:27 am: | |
Bob,
You mention tyres. In Switzerland where I live, and in Germany where I lived for two years, the first thing the registration authorities check is the speed and weight ratings of the tyres, along with size. If a car is capable of 240 km/h, V rated tyres are mandatory.
When I switched from 255.65x15 106V Avons to 255.55x17 102W Michelins (270 km/h) I first obtained an approval letter from the Swiss authorities. Normally, the only deviation is on winter tyres, where a sticker must be on the dashboard warning that the speed limit is, for example with H rated winter tyres, 210 km/h. Summer tyres must be up to the speed capability of the car despite the miserable 120 km/h limit in Switzerland.
If you crash in snow or ice on summer tyres you are normally uninsured, and anytime with worn tyres or tyres of an inferior rating.
In Australia, most states have a +/-1 rule: rims may be 1 inch smaller or larger in diameter and one inch narrower or wider. On my R-Type I went to the limit with wider 15" rims and 215.75x15 tyres.
I think that liability is only really resolved for DIY conversions, but clearly on-selling a car presents issues. Be aware, there is quite a trade in RR/Bs between the USA, Europe and Australia, so don't assume that a converted car will not end up abroad.
You are correct about LHD commanding a price premium in Europe (when the pound is weak anyhow). That is mainly a supply and demand issue in Europe as the UK is the biggest market for these cars. However, that was not my criterion. The choice of models and colours in RHD is far bigger, and I can ship it to Oz without modification. It also has no power-sucking catalytic converter: very anti-environment I admit. There is absolutely no penalty on insurance premiums for RHD here, and my RREC club insurance is side-splittingly cheap.
I would like to know the torque performance of the GM conversion.
Les, is it as torquey as the original motor ? I know that the Chev motor must be considerably more powerful, but the Jag I converted to a GM350 needed revs to achieve it. After all, even the GM motor has its ancient origins way back to long before the R-R V8 and is relatively torquey normally rather than downright revvy. From memory, it appeared as the 283, then was stroked to 307, the bored to the fabulous 327, then bored to 350 among other capacities in its long, long life. Also, is this motor a cast-iron pushrod version or some alloy Camaro OHC variant ?
What I love about our T-Series is the enormous torque. And as for my stump-pulling Turbo R, the torque is astonishing, and I would sorely miss reduced torque in either. When the first Turbos came out, some road testers suggested whimsically that they didn't need more than one forward gear, even with the taller rear axle than the standard cars. By the time my 1987 model was produced, the back axle was even taller again to allow at least some usefulness of the intermediate gears. The only drawback of the gearing is that intermediate offers negligible engine braking: that's a bit annoying as I live on a hill and am on the brakes all the way to the city centre 2 km away each day even using second gear.
Anyhow, do you still have that kickdown-free slickness of the original setup ?
Regards,
Richard. |
William H. Trovinger II
Prolific User
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 67
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 02 February, 2004 - 03:41 am: | |
Mr. Mighalls;
I am surprised by your comments. First off NO where in my threads did I suggest that US law would be used to set precedents in Australia let alone the UK. My comments where noting the difference in the legal system and the problems here and the only correlation was in the remote event that the car or another car later converted where shipped to the US.
Secondly, I did note that companies here do conversations on all sorts of cars. I also noted that they (if legitimate) carry product liability insurance. Now do NOT read this comment in a manner that I am suggesting that Mr. Chapman is anything but legitimate. From what has appeared on this site it seems that he has done a wonderful job on the conversation. My point is that in every action we take both personally and in business there are both visible and hidden liabilities and Mr. Chapman and anyone else considering to undertake these types of projects needs to consider and review these possible liabilities.
Next, I can see you do not know our import laws and maybe it is better that you do not comment on them.
Additionally, Sir do NOT misquote me, my use of “YUCK” was in reference to the GM 350 engine. Posts by some seem to indicate that this is a wonderful engine due to its volume of sales. I wish you the best of luck with this engine I would have (if possible) chosen a different engine.
Further, you must not have read my posts closely I did NOT say “no longer a real RR and thus effectively worthless”. I did say in one post that conversation would be an “abortion of the Shadow but also what is involved” this was to a gentleman considering doing the conversation himself for a friend not Mr. Chapman’s work. In my post of 25.01 that you took the “YUCK” from please re-read my opening paragraph.
Finally, in your seventh paragraph you state “rather than get deeply involved in what is really a rather parochial debate here in Australia”. I take that to mean you feel that this web site should not be open to postings by people other than those in Australia or maybe just closed to Yanks like myself? I am not a member of this club and even though you post as a “Unregistered guest” I will assume that you are and therefore will respect your wish.
In closing, I wish you the best of luck with your conversation and I really do hope neither you nor Mr. Chapman ever runs into liability problems.
Regards,
Bill
|
David Gore
Moderator
Username: david_gore
Post Number: 184
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 02 February, 2004 - 05:52 am: | |
Les,
Rather than publishing your article in the Victorian Branch newsletter where it will have limited readership; I suggest it would be more appropriate for publication in "Praeclarum" for all to read.
As you can see from the participation in this discussion, this topic has aroused great interest around the world. THIS IS NOT A PAROCHIAL DEBATE RESTRICTED TO AUSTRALIA OR THE RROC[AUSTRALIA] - IT IS ONE WHICH AFFECTS ALL OWNERS OF V8 R-R/B VEHICLES NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE IN THE WORLD.
I might also remind participants, this forum encourages freedom of expression and I have found the information from our international correspondents relating to their own countries very interesting and relevant. I think it is appropriate for the differences between countries to be commented on in a rational and objective manner however I will exercise my editing privileges if this discussion gets out of hand or questions the participation of any contributor just because they come from a different country or are not a member of the RROC[Australia]. I am firmly of the opinion W. Trovinger has made a valid point about US legal practice and decisions having a possible influence on the Australian legal system and that we should be aware of possible implications for us in the future - one only has to look at the recent medical indemnity insurance problem to see how US principles, practice and decisions have been a major influence in generating this crisis.
(Message edited by david_gore on February 02, 2004) |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 103
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 02 February, 2004 - 06:30 am: | |
David,
Imagine, a judge deciding on medical malpractice !! Can we possibly correct the insanity of stupid claims in our lifetime ? My brother, a surgeon, has recently survived another 9 figure, yes 9 figure, claim against him. He was exonerated by the judge and heavily complimented, but the legal costs and sheer waste of time were outrageous. What is the world coming to ? He, like many of his colleagues, is contemplating a career change because of the poisoned legal climate which has been festering out of control for decades in Western countries.
Surely an engine transplant should be carried out without mad threats of legal consequences.
I would far prefer to discuss preferences and compromises with Robert Chapman than to recede to legal issues. I have no dogma about a transplant, but would, as Robert also states, rather not do it unless it is a last resort (which I doubt today as there are so many motors available in the USA and Europe, if not Australia). Better a transplant than a chopped and channelled Silver Shadow don't you think ? |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.131
| | Posted on Monday, 02 February, 2004 - 07:46 am: | |
Glad was I see the the post from the OWNER of the professionally converted Shadow, which I will remind critics/pontificators et al, AGAIN (and for the LAST time!) is a P A C K A G E, which APART from the engine change, eliminates the service/trouble prone (due to age) hydraulic system, whilst maintaining braking specs. (and pedal "feel'!) equal or superior to original. If the "Citroen" based system was SO good,(then or now) why didnt/havent other mnfrs, scrambled to replicate it, albeit under licence?. And, NO,NO,NO and a thousand times NO - in these conversions, you DONT want a "Gee Whiz Bang" GM ALLOY V8 - Z1/Z28/LT1s - whatever they are, because you STILL retain the less stable,less forgiving and less durable (long term!) alum. alloy AND the hp/torque specs. wont (necessarily) be matched to the 2.2 t S/Shadow, AS WAS the unit (cast-iron) selected by R.Chapman after MUCH care and deliberation. The man is a professional engineer- ergo, he didnt wander down to the local junkyard and pull an old 350 out of a Holden/Chev. or some failed XJ6 conversion!. And NO again- forget GM 400 series and/or 454 engines, which APART from the fuel consumption, result in a major problem if/when fitted to a S/Shadow, but I will let assorted engine swap "experts" find out for themselves, the hard way, if they choose those options. Why do you suppose that NEW (cast-iron) 350s (of a certain HP/torque spec.) have been used in 90 percent of U.S conversions performed to date, hundreds as there have been?. Finally, look at the money the well intentioned owner spent PRIOR to dealing with R.A.Chapman, and ask yourself what was achieved. This whole debate, spirited and robust as it has been, seems in retrospect, to have begun poorly, when during 2001 an innocent poster gently enquired about GM conversions, only to be basically derided with the dismissive/"authorative" answer, N E V E R - i.e under NO circumstances would you, or should you, fit another engine to a R-R - especially a GM !. The edict/sermon from "The mount" as it were, when in the end, it is the owners choice, and I again invite viewers to D. Kennemores post of Jan. 30th., which, when addressing the "morality" aspect, sums it ALL up so perfectly. You really dont have to read anything else (apart from the OWNERS/CHAPMANS recent summations) and that includes all (or most) of what I have said!.
(Message edited by david_gore on February 02, 2004) |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 104
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 02 February, 2004 - 08:03 am: | |
Fine. But should we start an RRIP club ? (R-R improvements Programme).
I don't think our cars are destined for the grave yet.
Perspective please.
Many get wound up about lambswool rugs. We are grappling over the ditching of the heart of a Rolls-Royce here, the motor, not susbstituting minor parts. This is no small change, but probably a good thing in balance though not for this black duck. The body has traditionally, until the Mk VI and especially the Shadow, been an afterthought left to the coachbuilders, and Shadows have no chassis as such. Get my drift ? |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.188
| | Posted on Monday, 02 February, 2004 - 10:56 am: | |
YES... good idea, similar to the RRCS (R-R Common Sense) programme, of which, being a foundation member, I have, with the able assistance of R.A.Chapman, performed many improvements to my S/Shadow AND even (moreso!) to my rarer "R" type, on the simple premise that what was "true" in engineering dogma, 35/50 years ago, isnt necessarily "true" (in a practical sense!) TODAY. Membership is free. |
Robert Chapman
Frequent User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 22
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 02 February, 2004 - 12:38 pm: | |
Hi Bill T.
I note in your last post you say that personally you would'nt have chosen the 350 G.M engine.
I ask (with no sarcasm intended) which engine you would have chosen and why. |
William H. Trovinger II
Prolific User
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 68
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 02 February, 2004 - 02:48 pm: | |
Thank you David and others in the RROC AU who have made this site open to all and are continuing this.
Hello Robert;
To answer your question I believe I had a caveat in that statement to the effect of “if possible”. Sorry I can not give you an engine I would use but converting my Shadow is not something I have spent the time nor money to research, as luckily the need has not arisen. When and if that day comes then I will research it. Among the criteria I shall use will be performance, dependability and fuel efficiency. I would prefer that the end result of that effort shall lead me to something other than the 350 but I can not answer that question at this time.
As I said in earlier posts I am no fan of the Chevy Short Block. Reading this tread I get the impression that some people feel it is some sort of wonder engine due to the numbers that GM has sold over the years. Having spent time working with GM and some of it’s suppliers let just say I have a different belief. I will agree that my belief is also based in part on the negative experiences I have had with GM’s 350 in marine applications.
I have had two boats with twin GM 350s in them one a 35 footer who seized her port engine in 1984 with about 2,000 hours on it and later a 39’ who blew her starboard engine with only 72 hours on it. I will tell you this, in 1987 when my 39’ cruiser blew her engine I tried to get GM to cover the engine as independent analysis proved that the engine had a casting defect. GM declined as they where only liable for 90 days from date of purchase. If you are unfamiliar with a 350 marine it is the identical engine use in automotive but with different exhaust manifolds and the port engine has a reverse turning shaft. After this second engine mishap I took the winter and working with my marina researched and ended up replacing both engines and transmissions. In that case we went with Cat diesels a much higher cost as GM dealers sold Delco 350 complete “target” engines for less than half of any other gas engine out there and a mere fraction of Cat diesels. But I cut the fuel consumption rate down by nearly half and increased the resale value by about two-thirds the up charge.
Now I do not think I would want to hear a Shadow running down the road with a diesel in it. Granted new diesels are much quieter than those of only 10 years ago but still. The other problem with a diesel would be fuel. Here in the States they are to change diesel within the next few years, reduce sulfur content. But, there seems to be a problem (or a fight is brewing) between different groups has to who shall be included in this mandated change. Details of this I can not pass on, as I have not been following, as this does not currently effect either my company or myself. However, one thing I would look at is LP gas. I know it has not been popular in my area as problems occur during the extreme cold weather but than again I do not drive my Shadow during winter months.
As I said many times in my posts I wish you the best of luck with your conversion/s and pray that I am never faced with this situation.
Best regards,
Bill
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.195.191
| | Posted on Monday, 02 February, 2004 - 09:28 pm: | |
Dear Bill, Please do not feel in ANYWAY, that your input to our forum in unwelcome, which you seem to suggest in your first post of 2/2. I hope I speak for all, if not the vast majority of members, when I say that all inputs are both welcome and appreciated. In any contentious and sensitive area such as the GM conversion issue, there is bound to be difference of opinion, but I ask you to remember that we all have a common interest (in our Rolls-Royce vehicles!) and no offence is intended. Having said that, you may be aware of my posts to your RROC (US) website, re the R-R/GM issue. You wouldnt want to read the private members "mail" which I received direct (personal) from a U.S club member, (re the "GM" conversions) being a member who is a regular, and somewhat, "opinionated" correspondent. Regretably, it seems that no club is devoid of such types, who have a strident, "know-it-all" opinion from ahigh, on just about everything!. I havent taken offence (although some people might have) as life is too short to be so bothered. Keep "posting" as you may, but dont take umbrage if any of us disagree, since one (or more) "dissenter" does not necessarily translate to all. Democracy rules - OK?. Regards, John.
(Message edited by admin on February 05, 2004) |
Les Mighalls
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.132.64.251
| | Posted on Monday, 02 February, 2004 - 10:24 pm: | |
My word, you have all been rather busy at your keyboards while I have been away ;-)
So many points to answer from so many people.
First, David G. .
(1) I shall discuss with both Robert Chapman and the editor of Praeclarum your suggestion of submitting our article to that publication. Is Martin Bennett still the editor? Secondly, my reference to it being a parochial debate was within the limitations of the legal debate.
(2) Bill (may I call you Bill?) Trovinger played the legal card and was being answered purely in that respect, as I had addressed the philosophical issues in my immediate post above the one addressed to him.
(3) I agree with you wholeheartedly that this is an issue that will, at some point, confront all owners of Shadow and Shadow 2 vehicles, and possibly later models too, no matter where in the world they reside. My own viewpoint is that if only the factory had seen fit to place a GM motor (and so many other parts were GM sourced) into the later model cars rather than a BMW motor then they would have sold like hot cakes in the U.S., in which case the Company need not have been sold off to our European cousins where even VW motors are being fitted, albeit in Bentleys. Rest assured that neither Robert nor I would EVER contemplate that, even if the Company in its current incarnation has. Some things are just too far beyond the pale!
Second, Bill T..
(1) My objection was not to you or anyone else getting involved with this debate. As far as I am concerned you are most welcome and have just as much right as I do.
(2) I made the presumption that you are not a qualified Attorney based upon your comments vis a vis lawyers. However that did not seem to hold you back from advancing a legal argument against what Robert and I have done. I do take issue with that. If it had been me I would have couched my statement along the lines of “Have you considered the possibility of any legal issues arising should one of your modified vehicles be imported into the United States?”, rather than make sweeping statements as to our potential legal liabilites.
(3) Please let me quote from your post >>>Next, I can see you do not know our import laws and maybe it is better that you do not comment on them<<< No, I am not familiar with U.S. import laws, and therefore I would not. I would respectfully suggest that unless you are an Attorney qualified in that area then neither are you able to do so with any authority.
(4) There are some legal differences in Tort liability between the U.S. and the U.K. (and here, for that matter). However, one thing is not different, no matter what the public perception. That is that a loss has to be suffered; that loss has to be due to the failure of one of our custom fabricated components and that failure must have been due to negligence on our part in the design and/or manufacture (should the manufacture have been carried out in-house). Negligence on our part being the cardinal issue. I have an entire textbook on Negligence, and do not feel the need to elaborate on the issue.
(5) Please do not interpret my remarks as in any way anti-American. I visit the U.S. reasonably frequently and have lectured to international conferences there on several occasions. Some of my best friends are American (truly). I doubt whether I shall visit in the future, though, as I have strong objections on civil liberty grounds to having my fingerprints taken unless I am being charged with a ‘serious arrestable offence’.
(6) Should I be wrong in my presumption that you are not an Attorney then I withdraw totally and without reservation any comments I have made with respect to your ability to comment on legal matters with authority. Should you in fact be an Attorney I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the relevant technical legal issues via private email.
Third, Richard T..
(1) I do not have any torque figures to quote. Perhaps that is something that Robert can look at. What I can say is that I was unable to give Robert any accurate figures on fuel consumption for at least three tank loads of fuel. I was getting so much fun and enjoyment out slowly easing on to the freeway and then putting my foot down. Not many cars, especially of that weight can actually push you into those seats under acceleration like this one does without a turbo. (Sorry Robert, I know it was a new motor but I couldn’t help myself! I did wait though until I had done 1,000km) There is more than enough torque at low revs.
(2) The kickdown is there, the transmission is still the same, but I have not needed to avail myself of it. There is more than adequate acceleration without it.
(3) You are much better off addressing technical questions to Robert…. I am fully aware of my limitations. I just drive the car…LOL.
(4) One last thing, though, before I forget. We will put the car on the dyno now that the motor is properly run in and get some reliable figures out of it. What I would love to do is put it on GM’s high speed track at Lang Lang.
|
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 105
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 03 February, 2004 - 01:32 am: | |
Les,
It all sounds now that this 350 conversion is a really great improvement, not simply a last ditch effort to save a crumbling wreck ! As I have said, it is not my cup of tea, but it is definitely a magnificent achievement.
I am most interested in the outcome of the dyno tests, particularly the torque available at 2,500 RPM. If it betters the R-R carburettor motor, you have hit the jackpot.
I also strongly believe that the liability issues are being highly overstated. If, like in your case, the Victorian authorities have approved the car for road use they must carry the can after all if a can exists at all.
Forget fuel consumption. I bought my monsters to use them while they are still legal and not taxed to oblivion. 98 leadfree costs A$2.00 a litre here, but is still a minor running cost and I drive over 15,000 km each year. I am too embarrassed to measure my fuel consumption in city use, but on the German Autobahn mostly in the 140-240+ km/h range I have regularly measured a respectable 14 l/100km or better in my EFI Turbo R as a guide. Our T-Series (9:1, 6750, and SU carbs of course) does worse at 110 km/h in Oz. My little 2.5 litre EFI BMW does 11 l/100km on the Autobahn, not much better than the Turbo R really, but I don't give a toss about fuel consumption I must shamefully admit.
I hope your car looks the part. If so, in reality you probably have the best Silver Shadow in the world !
RT. |
David Gore
Moderator
Username: david_gore
Post Number: 185
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 03 February, 2004 - 04:01 am: | |
Les,
Martin Bennett has retired as editor of "Praeclarum" and the new editor is David Neely from the NSW Branch.
I do not expect there would be any problems with publishing the article - just a barrage of letters to the editor replicating most of what has been said here with probably a higher "purist" content!!! |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.63
| | Posted on Tuesday, 03 February, 2004 - 08:17 am: | |
I must agree with L.Mighalls comments at the beginning of his post - when addressing D.Gore at para (3), implying that the R-R/GM350 question might not be so contentious if R-R had not been sold (as it was) and they had fitted, say, a hand-built, possibly "Cosworth" enhanced version of GMs "Generation 111" (or similar) engine, albeit of aluminium as commonly used today due to weight considerations etc. Had no contractual arrangements existed between R-R and BMW (aero engines) which in part, created the platform for that which (sadly) eventuated, is it reasonable to consider that R-R, MAY have "shortlisted" a GM derived engine, given their long associaion with GM and the OEM use of their parts over many years AND the fact that the US market remains (potentially) their largest market?. Not suprisingly, R-R have long relied on the U.S market (see exports as opposed to domestic sales in the early 50s) and appear have shown deference to it in a visible and practical sense, when they fitted all US destined, LHD S/Shadows with the GM-T400 transmision, a feature not introduced to "home" RHD markets until approx. 2+ years later. This is but one reason why I believe that R-R might (I ONLY said "might"!!) have considered a GM engine, however NONE of us will ever know for SURE!. Accordingly, HAD they done so, then I gently suggest that the current issue, would to some extent, be rather irrelevant would it not?. I know that we cannot "re-write" history, so please dont anyone scream at me.. I have a headache as it is and Ive run out of "Bex"! |
Dr. Leslie G. Mighalls
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.132.64.251
| | Posted on Tuesday, 03 February, 2004 - 08:20 am: | |
Richard,
I'm with you with respect to these cars. There is no point in owning one and keeping it in the garage.
Drive it every day of the week and care not one with about fuel consumption is my attitude. The world will run out of fuel soon enough without my contribution.
There is too much pleasure involved with driving these cars to let them linger in the dark.
I've just realised I have to be registered before I can upload a photograph of the car. I'll send one to Robert and he can upload it for me.
BTW, the registration was on the car before I bought it!!
Sorry for the slightly different user name, not even my patients call me by my formal title, but after applying for registration I can no longer post in my preferred user name.
Les |
William H. Trovinger II
Prolific User
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 69
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 03 February, 2004 - 08:37 am: | |
Les;
To answer you question, you are correct I am not a practicing attorney and never have been. I do have post graduate work at Marquette University Law School, also International Law work at University of Chicago. I never completed a Doctorate of Jurisprudence nor sat for the bar examination. The work was done to augment my MBA in International Finance.
During my tenure in banking I most likely spent more time behind the plaintiff’s table then most attorneys. Most of this was in our Federal Courts and Bankruptcy Courts, I was either representing the Bank or later the Resolution Trust Corp. Since that time I do a fair amount of consulting work for three different firms in Wisconsin, Illinois and Georgia.
This is where I have seen too many good intentioned small to medium sized companies be ruined by frivolous lawsuits. This is also where I have learned my distaste for what I call the ambulance chasers. I would think that in your travels here the level of the lawyers you met are more on the corporate side and not the group I refer to. But believe me or not we have them and each year more and more are turned out by the Law Schools. Admit it, there is only a need for so many “legitimate” lawyers. As the schools turn out new one each year at a rate far greater then those retiring work has to be created somewhere and the want for the “Big Bucks” draws too many to this “junkyard” level.
I do plan to run our conversation by one of the partners in the Atlanta firm I work with when I see him next month. He specializes in Manufacture Liability though the bulk of his work deals with steel industry and specifically structural steel design and manufacturing, I am certain that he can give some insight. Sad to say Larry collects vintage BMWs so maybe his views will be a little tainted. LOL
Best regards,
Bill
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.45
| | Posted on Tuesday, 03 February, 2004 - 09:44 am: | |
Bill, In the final para. of one of my previous posts (in response to yours) I did freely concede the possible need for some form of liability "release" to be obtained by sellers of a converted RR/GM car,(or for that matter ANY modified car) and therefore look forward to hearing the views of your friend who specializes in manufacture liability etc. Hopefully he will be able to clarify the issue to some extent and allay any concerns that we may have, however as noted, U.S case law will not necessarily have any relevence in Australia or indeed any other country. Irrespective, his comments will no doubt be of interest to all. Regards, John |
Robert Chapman
Frequent User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 27
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 03 February, 2004 - 11:55 am: | |
 |
Dr. Leslie G. Mighalls
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.132.64.251
| | Posted on Tuesday, 03 February, 2004 - 01:23 pm: | |
Robert,
Thank you for getting that shot up on the forum, now people can not only see what it looks like under the bonnet, but also the outside.
Beautiful, isn't she? Far too good to break up for parts. Yes, the registration is RR454, and has been since before I bought it in 1986. Destiny? :-)
Bill,
I agree with you re frivolous law suits commenced because most companies will settle rather than fight it out. I do believe your contingency fee based system is largely at fault for that (plus the oversupply of attorneys).
You are correct when you say that most of the people I mix with are at the professional level and corporate based lawyers, both in the States and here for that matter.
I still think that a law career can be a good one and although I will probably never practise law myself I did guide my daughter into a legal career where she is now specialising in Corporation, Banking and Taxation law. Trust me, it is far more lucrative than ambulance chasing! LOL
I look forward with interest to what your friend has to say about product liability in the U.S., especially with respect to what we have been discussing.
As for
>>>Sad to say Larry collects vintage BMWs so maybe his views will be a little tainted.<<<
Poor Larry. LOL. I think you have a duty of care to guide him back on to the path of righteousness, cast aside his false idols and embrace Rolls-Royce vehicles. ROFL and (in view of your firearm laws) RD&W. LOL.
Atlanta... A very close friend of mine who keeps inviting me to come over and play golf at the Augusta National is a retired professor and now in practice there. And one of my staff was born in Marietta, Ga. just outside Atlanta. For non-Americans, it is pronounced May-Retta. :-)
Regards,
Les
(Message edited by admin on February 05, 2004) |
William H. Trovinger II
Prolific User
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 70
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 03 February, 2004 - 01:26 pm: | |
Les;
I assume the picture posted by Robert is your car? A very nice looking Shadow. Based on your plate a 454 might have been nice. Just joking!
Regards,
Bill
|
William H. Trovinger II
Prolific User
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 71
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 03 February, 2004 - 03:36 pm: | |
Les;
Small world! The first case I worked for Larry's firm was a 3-week stint in Augusta. Thank the Lord I am male! We where tracing a limited partnership that diverted funds from a foundry. The trail lasted three weeks. Larry and I played National almost everyday and 36 holes on Sundays. I think that was the most golf I played in one month ever! Sorry to say he won every round, he is a scratch golfer where my handicap was about nine then, much worst now.
I must be honest for all its fame Atlanta has some private courses that are better, at least for my handicap. However, they do allow women can you imagine that! Best thing I ever learned was "Never Play Golf with the Wife". I do not mean to be a male "pig" but I guess I am.
Reforming him to RR/B I wish but, he is a devote Irish Catholic. I do not think he would support anything British. LOL
On your daughter, tax law is profitable but in this country another area I feel is a self generating profession. Granted it is above ambulance chasers, politicians and most lobbiests. I will admit I am a proponant of the "Flat Tax" system. True, Coporate Law (not to be confused with the lobbiests) is to me the one defender of the faith.
If I may ask what is your Doctorate in, the way you refer to your patients makes me think you are a medical doctor. From one of your earlier posts, you noted your law studies at University of London?
Regards,
Bill
|
David Gore
Moderator
Username: david_gore
Post Number: 187
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 03 February, 2004 - 04:29 pm: | |
Les,
Your photograph only serves to reinforce my long-held belief that the Shadow will become the "Silver Ghost" of the post-war era - what a timeless classic design that has not dated excessively and looks good in almost every colour I have ever seen.
In accordance with the Moderator's Code of Ethics I must declare an interest in this matter as caretaker of a Shadow derivative DRH14434  . |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.195.134
| | Posted on Tuesday, 03 February, 2004 - 09:17 pm: | |
Ive obviously taken too many "Bex" (during the "debate") hence I missed the enquiry regarding the torque of the GM350 (as installed in the R-R S/Shadow) at 2500 rpm. I look forward to those results as much as those relating to the much vaunted 450/100 hour, R-R/GM "Full Throttle" tests from the 50s, along with Chassis nos. AND verifiable owners testimonies relating to the dozens (24+) of 300,000 mile,(not kms!) Silver Shadows currently in existence. Production of such information will deliver to me, facts and secrets hitherto unknown and will be of inestimable value to most,if not all, R-R/B owners around the world. |
Dr. Leslie G. Mighalls
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.132.64.251
| | Posted on Tuesday, 03 February, 2004 - 09:39 pm: | |
Bill,
My friend was a professor at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta until he took retirement and moved to Atlanta. He has been telling me for years that I must fly into Washington and take a slow drive down the Shenandoah Valley on the way to visiting him. I even got an invitation to the opening of his new practice but I did think it was a tad far to go for a cocktail party!! LOL.
>>>tracing a limited partnership that diverted funds from a foundry.<<<
I achieved a Distinction in Trust Law in my studies. Just loved it. All about who has the money and who wants it. Fiction couldn’t beat some of the cases I’ve read. My best results, though, were in Contract Law.
As for golf, you are much better than me, I never got below 16. I was playing with one of Melbourne’s top lawyers a couple of years ago and he turned around, faced me and growled, “This ******* game was invented to teach humility to people like you and me!!!”
>>>Never Play Golf with the Wife<<< Only did it once. After being taken to task for not getting the ball in the hole first time every time I swore never again.
>>>I do not mean to be a male "pig" but I guess I am<<< In the 18 years I have had the Rolls my wife has never driven it. My attitude is that every woman has her place, and it is NOT behind the wheel of her husband’s motor car.
I am a dental surgeon by profession; I did the law degree out of intellectual boredom on an external program from the University of London. Why London? It just appealed to me. I am also on the Board of several companies both here and overseas. I’ve also tutored in Business Computing and Systems Analysis at two major Universities and been part owner of a software development company as well as having done almost eight years military service. I must have a chronic attention deficit disorder. Get bored too easily.
I stopped working on motor car engines mid way through my clinical years (in the days before we all started wearing gloves) when one of the professors came up to me and told me that if I wished to be there next week, let alone graduate, then I had better not turn up the next Monday morning with ingrained motor oil around my finger nails!
Regards,
Les
|
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 106
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, 04 February, 2004 - 12:30 am: | |
Is the colour Silver Mink like ours ? |
Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 195.93.33.11
| | Posted on Wednesday, 04 February, 2004 - 12:34 am: | |
Because Of Product Liability laws the world is becoming a smaller place in the legal sense.
I have read a lot of vehicle regs over the years.
One day I came across the Canadian version of our UK Construction and Road Use regs.
Even the words used are more or less the same plus a mention of how the regs fit in with USA.
I should think that the OZ and NZ regs are about the same.
There are minor differences but nothing worth mentioning.
My reference to lawyers not being honest refers to the small minority that every country has who try it on.
I have dealt with lawyers on a personal basis who have had nothing but my best interests to mind and I noticed that they were not particularly rich.
I know of one who often does work for people who are vulnerable for nothing.
We had a big firm of ambalance chasers come unstuck. They were telling clients to make things up, fortunately the insurance companies got together and called the bluff. They ended up funding cases and losing because the ins co took the view that if they carried on settling bogus claims to save legal cost that this company was going to carry on. If a person fell over they would issue a claim for £1000s. They actually went cold calling for accidents. I had one ask me if I could think of any incidents I said no then he asked about my neigbours!
|
Dr. Leslie G. Mighalls
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.132.64.251
| | Posted on Wednesday, 04 February, 2004 - 08:46 am: | |
Richard,
The colour is officially listed as Shell Grey.
Upholstery as Tan.
Original registration date was 27/10/78 as
Crown 5.
Les |
William H. Trovinger II
Prolific User
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 74
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 07 February, 2004 - 02:50 pm: | |
Any that doubt the intentions of some in the American Legal Community need only go to eBay and look at this 2004 Phantom, then zoom in on the front license plate.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2458947007&category=6384
Regards,
Bill
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.44
| | Posted on Saturday, 07 February, 2004 - 07:52 pm: | |
Good one Bill, but how do you think the Australian Serious Community and the Australian Hysterical Society will react when they see MY new registration number plates ( affixed to my Silver Shadow ) bearing the three alpha characters of "that" A.A (Awful Acronym)?. I trust that at least, it will be "accepted" in the land-of-the-free, however, if any U.S member seeks to copy it( anywhere from Anchorage to Key Largo ) I will be looking for royalties!. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.113
| | Posted on Tuesday, 23 March, 2004 - 06:28 am: | |
At the recent International meet (Flemington racecourse, March 14th) many appreciative people had the opportunity to view some truly amazing examples of R-R/B including the new Phantom kindly presented by R-R etc. I personally thought that the 2 tone metallic green 1959 S1 drophead (ex NSW) was absolutely outstanding. For those who ventured north up the straight near the home turn, they would have seen the masterful GM conversion as performed in a factory like manner to a SS11. I heard it start and run (it is quieter than my own SS1- probably due to the cast iron construction - like my "R" type etc.) and it can actually STOP too, despite strident pronouncements by "experts" at the time of the conversion, to the effect that "they wont be able to stop it". But as usual, another "expert" appeared and declared (triumphantly) that "it didnt have its original fan shroud". Well goodness me - I wouldnt expect that ANY car with a replacement (non original) engine would be LIKELY to retain its original fan shroud notwithstanding that the engine shroud (as fitted) also had a factory like appearance to it in total harmony with the engine bay layout. No doubt the learned spectator has got the original battery (Dagenite?) and original tires (Avons?) and of course, the original brake pads (Ferodo?) in his car, if indeed he owns/has owned a R-R or B. Apart from that, it was a glorious sunny day with a landscape of interesting and memorable sights. Thank you to all who attended and made the day the success that it was. |
John Dare
Grand Master
Username: jgdare
Post Number: 123
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, 27 January, 2005 - 06:38 am: | |
This particular issue has generated over 100 posts herein and upon related threads, since correspondent Kevin, innocently (and POLITELY) enquired about the possibility of a "GM" engine conversion for a R-R or Bentley. Another of Britains most successful cars with considerable export earnings since 1948 (as with R-Rs Dawn/Mk6 etc) has been the Land Rover, the evolutive "Range Rover" variant sometimes being referred to as the "Rolls-Royce of 4WDs" with some people owning both examples since (like R-R/B) they are not particularly expensive to buy. Not suprisingly, there are various clubs to represent the R/Rover marque and upon one discussion forum, an owner has recently asked the same question (essentially) as that originally posed by Kevin, on this forum approximately one year ago. Responses have "Ranged" (pun intended) from Ford 302/351 to Chrysler 6.2 and dare I mention it, the venerable GM 350 in its developed form. For reasons of cost/practicality (and perhaps in deference to "propriety") the Chysler was suggested by some as being preferable, as it bolted up to the "727" Torqueflite auto. as used OEM by Rover prior to the ZF unit. Others inclined to the GM unit because of the Rover/GM association whereby the original Rover V8 had itself been so successfully developed from the GM (Buick/Pontiac) unit. "Deja vu" indeed, but as I read the assorted replies I could not help noting the conspicuous absence of outrage and hostility in the form of indignation and revulsion, "authoritively" (?) vehemently and tirelessly delivered by assorted self opinionated, sanctimonious "experts" who "know", well...just about EVERYTHING. I have now learned a little more about each marque of vehicle but perhaps even more about (some of) their respective owners. Illuminating, to say the least and little wonder that we didnt hear of Kevin thereafter. Perhaps be bought a Camry (or a Range Rover) |
John Dare
Grand Master
Username: jgdare
Post Number: 136
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, 30 January, 2005 - 10:45 am: | |
Further to the above, some U.K based Range-Rover owners have mooted the idea of the 5.0L "Porsche" 928 engine as an alternative powerplant (410bhp with good torque spread etc.) with most preferring the venerable GM 350, as long used by respected R/Rover specialists such as Overfinch. NOW... (wait for it!) SOMEONE in the U.K has seriously advanced the idea of a "BENTLEY" V8 TURBO engine for a R/Rover!. This has resulted in a post which essentially suggests that as the R/Rover "ZF" trans. would be unable to accept the increased torque of the Bentley engine, that one would need to install said engine WITH its attendant "GM" transmission. THIS, then caused someone to post a reply relating the following (not verbatim) which will probably be dismissed and derided, but here goes anyway; for variety, if nothing else. ["In the 80s there were repeat failures of Bentley "Turbo" transmissions, generally recorded in so-called "city" cars. It seemed that some owners ( you can imagine the "type" ) were engaging in stop light "derbys" with so-called "hot hatches", by applying the footbrake (left foot) then "winding up" the turbo for a "Gone in 60 secs" type launch off. This type of antic was duly inhibited, presumably during trans."warranty" (?) repair, by devising an ECU programme to monitor a brake light "ON" condition, at which time engine fuel delivery was modulated accordingly" ] The person who allegedly worked on the ECU "re-map"/mod. is now a lecturer at Loughborough University and I DO hope I dont have to track him down (which I will!) should one need any further relevant information or detail regarding this interesting recollection from the U.K. Meanwhile, off to my Sunday "Bruncheon", before there is time for any "inbound" to come across the horizon. |
Patrick Lockyer.
Grand Master
Username: pat_lockyer
Post Number: 275
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, 30 January, 2005 - 11:57 am: | |
What in the hell has this to do with a GM engine transplant Your of your rocker!!!! |
John Dare
Grand Master
Username: jgdare
Post Number: 137
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, 31 January, 2005 - 01:12 pm: | |
For every question, there is indeed an answer. The point (relevance of) being made was that IF a car is abused and/or MISused, then in all probability, one or more components will, at best, have a reduced service life and at worst, may fail, with fatal consequences for occupants and/or the public at large. If someone has suggested that Shadow Pitman arms might fracture as a result of the front wheels hitting kerbs during parking (But then WHY not on LHD cars?) then one might well ask if Shadow Final Drive cross members are (or have been) subject to undue stresses (not anticipated by the mnfrs. when the cars were sold new, and primarily to astute and CARING owners) by transmission/driveline "wind up" of the kind which allegedly resulted in a spate of "warranty" claims on Bentley Turbo ("GM") transmissions, details per my previous post, and MORE if you want it. Recall if you will, the memorable and rather amazing 6.3 Benz (circa 1970s) which in later life, "consumed" differentials (talk to M.B mechanics) NOT because they were inferior or inherently weak, but essentially as a result of their eventually falling (ungraciously) into the hands of those, who like to show how "fast" they are. Neither cars are (or were) "Z28" Camaros or "LT1" Corvettes, to be deployed in traffic light challenges etc., whereby when they wore out (or blew up) you simply bought the "latest" equivalent that you were probably hankering for anyway. Nowadays, Benz 6.3s, like S/Shadows, are seen as "collectible", IF you are fortunate enough to be able to find a good example thereof, ie one that has NOT been subjected to abuse by "look at me" types OR put to a functional USE for which they were NOT intended. Witness the instances where Shadows entered in so-called "endurance" trials usually shed their rear ends (somewhere en route) not SO much because of any OVERT inherent defect/weakness, but moreover because they are NOT "VW/Baja" dune buggies, "Jeeps" or "Hummers", NOR are they "semi-commercial" vehicles. If you have a monocoque construction vehicle (eg Shadow) and for whatever reason, enjoy hauling or toting around "bric-a-brac" (whatever) and/or feel obliged to draw a wheeled "house" (fixed or collapsible) SANS chimney, behind you, then perhaps one should invest in a "Reliant" van (a la Trotters) or a Bedford "Camper", both of which will perform their primary functions much more effectively. Your Shadow will, in turn, repay you with improved fuel consumption,ride and handling, not to mention your rear bumper bracket/irons and door gaps, which will eventually resume their normal proportions and dimensions. I mean to say; what else can be said about the care, attention and RESPECT, which "R-R/B"s rightfully command and deserve. Crumbs? |
Patrick Lockyer.
Grand Master
Username: pat_lockyer
Post Number: 276
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, 31 January, 2005 - 03:42 pm: | |
Read Robert C reply to a very worthwhile explanation on the LHD Arms.
If you shut up all this will tie up with my nut washer theory on Rhd arms.
Go back to your Range Rover Forum if they will still put up with you. |
John Dare
Grand Master
Username: jgdare
Post Number: 138
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, 31 January, 2005 - 04:40 pm: | |
I perhaps should have focused a little more on RELEVANCE, since that aspect seemed to be of concern to you. It could be that GM (or any other make/model) engine transplants would not be at issue if R-R V8s had not been ABUSED (eg overheated) or MISUSED/NEGLECTED (eg infrequent coolant changes etc) thereby rendering the cylinder block (the engines "heart") irrepairable and for all practical purposes, irreclaimable. As noted previously, the cost of a new replacement (if available) is typically disproportionate to the value of the car. One should not be TOO pedantic about perceived relevance of content (to a given "thread"/topic) since a cursory review of posts in recent times reflects an inordinate number which appear (to me) to read like ones autobiography, with details of astonishing and often complex repairs ( all performed within record time frames of course! ) misc."achievements" including renditions of personal exploits and escapades (sigh) whereby due modesty does not appear to prevail with any degree of prominence. Other posts often tend to meander like that great wall in China, and if one is lucky, a point might eventually become apparent. In your own case we have heard about "Airstream" Doughnut vans, "Maserati" quad cam valve trains (replete with pics. for us "uninformed" antipodeans situated "down under") "Cord" Beverlys (FWD shafts) and more recently, "Jaguar" 2.4s, which in any event, could scarely remove the skin from the proverbial rice pudding, "Solexes" or NO "Solexes" (moan). As for "theories" on Pitman arm washers, I think I will confine myself to old repeats of The "X" Files; whilst I am not surfing this and the various Range Rover forums of course. And given the number of unassuming, technically informed gentlemen whom Ive encountered within the latter, I may well take your advice. For a while anyway. |
Patrick Lockyer.
Grand Master
Username: pat_lockyer
Post Number: 277
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, 31 January, 2005 - 05:37 pm: | |
More rubbish for the file dump. |
whunter
Grand Master
Username: whunter
Post Number: 139
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 01 February, 2005 - 09:06 am: | |
Hello David Gore
I suggest that this thread be locked to new posts.
It appears that most technical data is ended.
The last report could be edited in by you.
IMO
Restarting this topic would have greater technical value. |
David Gore
Moderator
Username: david_gore
Post Number: 386
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 01 February, 2005 - 10:46 am: | |
I agree and have done so - I am leaving the last series of posts unedited so future readers of the archives can form their own opinions about our protagonists however I think my level of frustration exceeds all others!! |
Tim Gregory
| | Posted on Saturday, 11 August, 2001 - 11:40 pm: | |
I have just returned from a trip to the USA where I was generously lent a Shadow 11 for 3 days by an American friend.On the outside it looked and sounded like any other Shadow 11 but under the bonnet there was a very neatly and professionaly installed V8 GM engine connected directly to the original type 400 GM transmission.It also had in place all the other GM equipment as originally used by Rolls-Royce on the Shadow 11.(A/C Compressor, air injection valves etc).I must say it drove exactly the same as my own Shadow 11.
This conversion was performed because the original engine was beyond economical repair and was going to cost more than the value of the car.
My friend informed me that this conversion has been done many times in the USA and is very successful.Has anybody heard of this being done in Australia and if so is there any feed back. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, 25 October, 2001 - 07:35 pm: | |
Who was responsible for doing all the Chevrolet conversions on jags. It seems that it is not a common conversion for shadows and the RTA in NSW would give you a hard time. |
Richard Treacy
| | Posted on Friday, 26 October, 2001 - 06:54 pm: | |
Engine transplant on a Rolls-Royce - never.
On a R-R/B, one of the main features is the motor, so I would never consider a transplant. The first thing an interested onlooker really, but shyly, wants to see is its magnificent and spotless engine compartment. On lesser cars, a trnsplant may leave them in awe, but on a Rolls-Royce, only the real thing impresses. Quite apart from that, a truly original R-R/B is such a wonder to drive that I suggest no transplant can realistically pretend to be superior overall, quite apart from any purist attitudes.
However, a friend and I fitted a small block 5,7 litre Chev motor and GM Turbo 400 transmission into a worthless Series 2 XJ6 in Canberra around 1983. There are many commnercial organisations in Australia which do this swap, but also see http://www.johnscars.com/xj/xjv8.htm and http://www.jag-lovers.org/lumps/ for some interesting background. The old 4,2 XK Jag motor was shot, the cars were a dime a dozen and not so interesting, and the Borg Warner 35 transmission (à la Valiant, Ford and Volvo 164) was always a dog anyhow. The ACT is more liberal than some states in this regard, allowing +10% motor capacity practically without question: the Jag was homologated with the 5,3 litre V12, so the 5,7 was permitted pending proper workmanship, which we delivered. Performance was rude. The car since has a new owner and is still in regular use. On my first car, our ex-family 1958 Holden wagon, I legally replaced the 2,23 l motor with a 3 litre one (the authorities required later power brakes and new suspension for that one): what a scream that was going up the mountains.
However, it must be said that even a large block Chev motor (eg 454) fits readily into a Silver Shadow, and Citroen D-Series belt-driven hydraulic pumps can be easily fitted to the motor in lieu of the R-R pumps. The spheres fit nicely to the LH lower crankcase without re-piping. Citroens used HSMO since way back, but the pumps work fine on RR363 (not necessary with Citi pumps, just use Dot 3). Even the electric gear selector remains as the transmission used by GM was invariably a Turbo 400 anyhow, albeit with a different (Cadillac) bellhousing from the Chev. This could be a rough solution for a workhorse covering many, many miles (hire car) I suppose.
However, I would be ashamed ever even to have considered a Chev transplant for a R-R/B. It would be Auto-fraud ???
Any comments ?
RT. |
andy summers (144.138.59.204)
| | Posted on Wednesday, 15 May, 2002 - 06:57 pm: | |
Much to most RR owner's horror, I saw a rather unusual Shadow (and owner) at last year's Motorvation Car Show in Perth.
Picture a fairly tired old Shadow with the motor ripped out (apparently it was shot) and replaced with a 454 Chev motor. Lowered about six inches at the front and plain hubcap-less wheels on the back.
High pressure braking system replaced by what looked to be remote boosters out of a Rover or similar.
This car was nudged up to a concrete wall and then performed burnouts.
The owner is a bikie.
What more can I say? |
Martin Cutler (203.18.6.104)
| | Posted on Thursday, 16 May, 2002 - 09:59 am: | |
I don't think you need to say anything else, andy. Any other sweeping generalisations you'd like to offer?
Martin - a bikie, biker, and also a motorcyclist, and lover of fine auotomotive engineering. |
chrisg (144.137.118.218)
| | Posted on Thursday, 16 May, 2002 - 07:11 pm: | |
Oh, what the hell, Andy, let him have his fun. I would think it's fairly obvious to the average observer of his antics that it's not a really genuine Rolls-Royce.
It sounds like the car was otherwise destined for the wreckers anyway. Who knows, maybe he'll tidy up the body a bit and it'll make a nice restorer's job someday.
Anyone who shows the slightest interest in Rolls-Royce or Bentley motor cars should be encouraged, I say. All bikers appreciate fine machinery, so offer him a ride in a pre-war car and start his journey to the Good Side. |
Martin Cutler (203.18.6.104)
| | Posted on Friday, 17 May, 2002 - 08:56 am: | |
Use the Force, Andy! :-) |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page