Posted From: 18.104.22.168
|Posted on Monday, 09 February, 2004 - 05:49: |
The Feb. issue of the excellent U.K magazine "Classic Cars" reviews the fabled "Chrysler" Hemi. engine designed in 1948; in production 1951, and soon developing 1 Bhp per cu.in. Comparison is made in passing, with the latter (1959) introduced, RR V8 (first designed in 1953, 2 years after full "volume" production of the Hemi.) in terms of BASIC layout (cyl.block etc) reminding informed readers that even RRs original prototype V8 featured a cyl.head design similar to the "Chrysler" unit. We may also recall H.Grylls comment at the time that "his" (the new RR V8) was "almost as good" when alluding to the Hemi.which by then had truly made its mark. Further, I am reliably advised that the GM test reports relating to comparative F.T (full throttle) tests of the RR V8 and U.S V8 engines of the time, MAY have been located. Watch this space for more news, good OR bad.
Post Number: 115
|Posted on Monday, 09 February, 2004 - 06:38: |
Correct me if I am wrong, John, but I recall that Chrysler Hemis had their combustion chambers in the cylinder heads. The combustion chambern are in the piston crowns of Crewe-assembled V8s. Quite a difference I feel, let alone that fabulous (to me anyhow) alloy block. The only real similarity between the two was the V8 arrangement, camshaft location and V angle, but most OHV V8s are of that arrangement anyhow.
R-R never went for outright horsepower, but looked hard for driveability, where I feel they were never surpassed by the Americans or Germans alike. Even the Turbos are not outrageously powerful, but unbeatable as an allrounder to drive, especially the 1989 models (mine is a mere 1987 model with neither intercooler nor cross-bolted crankcase unfortunately).
By the way, I always considered that the Australian 265 (cubic inch) Chrysler Hemi, as promoted by Stirling Moss on TV from a beach when released, (6-cylinder) was a candidate for a transplant if the motor in my R-Type disintegrated. Now there are enough spare blocks around not to consider that as a sensible option.
Posted From: 22.214.171.124
|Posted on Monday, 09 February, 2004 - 11:16: |
Thank you Richard, in response to observations re some similarity between two of the worlds best volume production engines. You are of course correct regarding the "Hemi" engine having its combustion chambers in the cyl.head and when I was referring to the original RR V8 as being of "like" design (in the head area also) I was referring to early PROTOTYPE engines tested by RR before they finally decided on "wedge" type heads, which "Chrysler" eventually switched to anyway, after 1958. I dont see anything strange about RR trialing "Hemi" style heads in their prototype/s (it is recorded that, like the block, their early experimental heads were of Aluminium) as they no doubt searched for "optimum" combustion etc. So too even "Chrysler" in that regard, since they engaged the famous Harry Weslake to further develop the exhaust ports on the "Hemi" as the horsepower race went into overdrive in the 50s. I have had the rather unique opportunity of seeing a bare "Hemi" block aside a RR block and it is difficult to ignore the similarities in design. Also saw a bare V12 "Allison"(GM)Alum.aircraft block but that is another story. I must admit to having never contemplated the practical suitability of the old 6 cyl. "Chrysler" engine for a "R" type, but do indeed see the potential (in an "emergency"!) although as you rightly observe there are sufficient original (used) blocks available, their survivability due, I believe, to the cast iron construction. Aside from that, these cars are of course rare and as they become even moreso, it is difficult to imagine circumstances which would reasonably justify any alternate engine change.
Posted From: 126.96.36.199
|Posted on Wednesday, 11 February, 2004 - 03:13: |
The R type does need an engine of similar capacity 4 litres I guess becasue of the weight of the car. However there are a few straight six engines around that will do the job very well.
In the UK due to petrol prices a well sorted diesel would work well may be even better than petrol. I particular like the Leyland DAF 6 cyl with turbo which is about 280 CI and pulls like a train -- very smooth. Pump phasing is the key to smooth diesels. Weight can be a problem but the RR is no light weight neither.
The RR V8 is restricted in it design and revs.
There is a formula to work out BHP from torque.
This formula shows that as revs ncrease the power goes up. If the RR V8 was to be made to rev more say to 5500 rpm and the maximum torque figure was moved up the rev range by say a 1000 rpm then it would make much more power. 300 BHP maybe.
However The RR V8 produces 80% of maximum torque over a wide rev range and maximum torque over a smaller range at about 2500 to 3500 . ----- I guess.
The figues I have vary. The best I have is 250BHP at 4500 rpm ( 118 mph top gear ) and 300 ft/lbs at 2800 rpm.
The formula is BHP = torque x rpm all divided by 5252 ( the constant )
300 ft/lbs at 4500 rpm is 257 bhp.
But other info gives 80% torque at 4500 rpm which comes out at 205 bhp.
And again I have 225 BHP and 290 ft/lbs from a Source in Germany.
The constant 5252 means what ever the ft/lbs is at 5252 RPM then the BHP will be the same. Hence the cross over point on BHP/torque graphs at 5252 rpm.
This is why Motor bikes make big power. The maximum torque happens at over 5252 rpm. Some make max at 8000 rpm and rev on to 12000 rpm.
Not good for a Shadow though. RR got the engine tuning about right. bearing in mind that the same engine has to run in parts of the world where petrol is more like deisel than petrol.
My engine is quite gutsy in the mid range and I have accelerated hard from under 20 mph and surprised a others with the very firm accelaration of 2.3 tonnes of car.
Shadows are still a fast car at 0-60 10 secs and 118 mph bearing also in mind that this will not damage the car.
The Turbo R is very fast because the power is so accessible. I was driven a 100 miles in one and the car was champing at the bit to go faster, The driver allowed the car to naturally pick up speed and 100 mph just happened it he had not relaxed the gas pedal a bit the car would have gone to 120 mph easy. I was listening to the radio.
Other cars even S class Mercs make you aware that something is happening with The Turbo R you use the speedo as a reality check.
Specific Fuel consumption of the RR is quite good.
RR could have made a 5 litre V8 do the same job but it would still use the same amount of fuel.
It requires X amount of fuel to produce 200 bhp regardless of engine size --- with in limits.
The 6250 uses the same amount as the 6750.
Also I have noticed this with smaller cars like a Cortina 1600 and a Cortina 2000 if you drive both at the same speed they use the same amount of fuel. Under some conditions the 2000 uses less.
The 1300 Cortina was no better neither just working harder instead.
Post Number: 121
|Posted on Wednesday, 11 February, 2004 - 04:30: |
I would never transplant a motor into my R-Type anymore as they have become so graceful over the years.
When I was a student with not a penny and relying on the R-Type daily, you may understand that a contingency plan was always in mind for economic reasons, and the 265 Hemi was cheap and well suited. It is enormously powerful, torquey and reliable.
The Chrysler 265 Hemi is an upright Australian-made 6 cylinder cast iron motor of the 1960s and 1970s. The US 6-cylinder (non-hemi) Chrysler was a slant 6. The Hemi was the main powerplant of the Australian Valiant of the time, in the small 245 cui in or 265 form, but the 318 or 360 V8s were common too. The 265 Hemi even appeared in a frighteningly fast tripple Weber dual sidedraft form in the Australian Valiant Charger around 1970, and really put the wind up the 5.7 litre hotted-up Ford Falcon. In my University holidays I worked at a garage as a mechanic. I once took a Charger to the detailers. When I got back, the webers had been swapped for the standard downdraft. I drove back to the detailer and said "fix it and no more will be said". They did it, and that was the end of it. Be aware, the Ford Falcon GTHO phase II or III hit the Guiness Book of Records for its speed and acceleration, and Holden Monaros of the time in production racing. The power race had reached a frenzy in Australia by then. Cortinas even mostly had 4.2 litre motors, and a typical family car had a minimum of 3.3 litres and often 5.7. Holden homologated a V8 Torana of 5 (308) or 5.7 (350 cu in) litres (I forget which), a car the size of an Astra or VW Golf today, only to scrap it. The government warned that if GM produced this car for sale it would never buy GM cars for government use. The supercar race halted spectacularly. 4-cylinder cars were laught at, but made a sudden comeback.
A bit off the subject I know, but a little background.
Posted From: 188.8.131.52
|Posted on Wednesday, 11 February, 2004 - 07:58: |
You guys in OZ have always had a reputation for fast family cars.
In the Uk we just do not have the roads to run real quick cars. Plus the Police have alway been a bit hot on speeding even more so now.
I am from the --if you want a fast car start with a big engine ----school of thought.
Our GOV clamp down on speeding started in the early 1960s when a Cobra was clocked at over 160mph on the motorway. Some say 200 mph but Cobras don't go that fast.
I fitted a tuned Rover V8 into a Cortina and it went very well --fast enough to confuse the suspension and brakes and stay with a Cosworth.
many years ago I got envolved in a Chrysler Hemi which was about 500 bhp the owner quiet sensibely decided not to put any more power in the engine because like the Cortina the car was on its limit.
That car was silly fast and broke front seats.
Even after repairs we had to brace the floor pan.
You name it the engine tried to break it.
He sold the car and last I heard he is running a 1400 cc bike on nitrous ---- a true lunatic.
True story ---- 2 coppers in the scottish highlands were checking thier radar equipment when they picked up an object going at 500 mph plus.
They had picked up a Harrier Jump Jet. Which sensed the radar and locked on to the source.
The Pilot cancelled the signal before the air to ground missiles fired.
Explain that one to the Chief Constable ---- Police cars are expensive
Post Number: 122
|Posted on Wednesday, 11 February, 2004 - 09:18: |
I wish the Harrier had discharged and wrecked that Tijuahana Taxi. I copped a £1800 fine and licence loss last year in my Turbo R when the criminal Swiss Cops changed a speed limit overnight by 10 km/h on my main route and set up a radar. I took a trip to Australia to forget about it. Australia is even tougher than the UK I can assure you. Red light cameras are diabolical too here in Zürich, and dangerous. Either you get a rear-end shunt or a ticket for £400 when the lights change at an alarming speed from green through to red. I would rather concentrate on the road than the next 2 km speed and the amber traffic lights. My wife gets the hefty red light fines, even though I am the diligent colourblind one who also pays for hers.
Even nowadays, the smallest family-size Holden is a 3.8 V6 in OZ. Brute force over ignorance. I like it. I'm off to Munich tomorrow in my Turbo R. Thank goodness for no limits on the Autobahn. And 6750 cc plus Turbo ? Unbeaten. Fuel economy ? Who cares.
Post Number: 22
|Posted on Wednesday, 11 February, 2004 - 18:09: |
Bob relates a story that is (unusually for the web) apparently true. I first heard it in 1997 and a quick google found the following reputable link:
I've since heard the same story, modified as having happened in Australia (RAAF F-111) and in the USA (USAF FA-15/18).
Posted From: 184.108.40.206
|Posted on Wednesday, 11 February, 2004 - 22:22: |
As it happens I am an ex -police mechanic
But I get annoyed about speed cameras because they have no discretion your nicked regardless.
example I would expect to driver when overtaking to get on with the job as quickly as prudently possible because driving on the wrong side of the road is more dangerous than going a bit over the speed limit. however I do expect the driver to return to the speed limit afterwards.
We also have speeds limits that are inapproipate and change often on the same road in a distance of say 10 miles.
I feel sorry for people who are strangers and get nicked for doing 50 in a 40 zone because they did not know or last time it was a 60 limit .
Also you can bet your driving licence that there will be a speed camera installed at the same time --- in the middle of the night.
I was once driving down a familar road brain dead to the world woke up saw the speed camera hit the brake to realise that I was below the limit anyway.
My neighbours have a speed bump outside thier house and all day they hear cars slow down rumble over the bump and accelarate away. He has lived there for 30 years and there has never been an accident.
I have a lot of old muckers from the Old Bill who think the same.
I also know of one copper who does the speed cameras and he is convinced that we are all wrong.
Best speed camera photo I saw was of a squirrel going very fast.
We have had a camera blown up with dynamite. Alarming development.
Post Number: 30
|Posted on Friday, 13 February, 2004 - 21:32: |
Re earlier post,
Crewe assembled V8 engines don't have their combustion chambers in the piston,Clouds 2&3 have bath tube type chambers in the cylinder head and later engines have wedge type chambers. The bowl in the piston (when used) is to adjust comp ratio eg 7.3:1 8:1 and flat top 9:1.
Posted From: 220.127.116.11
|Posted on Monday, 16 February, 2004 - 17:36: |
In the early 5os, R-R looked at U.S built V8s (particularly the "Chrysler" Hemi. upon which their first prototypes were based ) prior to their standard production of the V8, circa 1960. Fifty years later we witnessed what was effectively a "re-engineered" S/Shadow, courtesy of R.A.Chapman Automotive. Perhaps R-R were at the time, mindful of the first part of the following, with Mr.Chapman now being inspired by the quotation in full. "Take the best that exists and make it better. When it does not exist, design it". (Sir Henry Royce)
Posted From: 18.104.22.168
|Posted on Wednesday, 18 February, 2004 - 01:54: |
I have found that the difference between chamber in the piston and chamber in the head is none. Both designs work just as well.
The chamber in the piston design is easier to make and control the size of the chamber and hence better matching of compression ratios of the cylinders.
Mr Chapmen is correct about the various pistons and this way of changing the compression ratio of an engine is standard practice.
The cost of designing an engine into production is enormous. NASA would think twice at the price.
This has lead to most makers using each others engines.
If RR had survived as an independant they would have needed a new engine and that new engine would have to be as good as the best for the next 10 or 20 years . That is differcult.
There are very good modern engines and it is differcult buy a bad new car ( engine wise that is ). The gap between luxury and normal cars has narrowed much. I drive lots of new cars and they are all nice.
RR would have sourced the engine from elsewhere and Royced it.
And the USA would have been the ideal place.
All push rod V8s must end up similar. I see no other way of designing a V8.
RR would have checked out every V8 in the world as they designed theirs.
First RR V8 was the Legalimit of approx 1910.
Kawaski and Suzuki are now jointly making motor bike engines to save money.
I was looking at a Sunbeam Tiger engine the other day and it was very smooth and mechanically quiet I could not fault it. Car was really an Alpine that had been restored to a Tiger.
Rootes group couldn't afford to develop a V8 for the Alpine so they brought engines from Ford.
The continual development of V8 engines busted Diamler. When Jaguar brought them out they dumped one of the engines ---- 4.6 V8 because it was badly designed for mass production. The little brother 2.5 V8 faded out for the same reason.
On the introduction of the Soveriegn in 1969 the V8 had gone.
I think that the development of the RR V8 cost RR a lot of money which was one of the factors that led the UK Gov to pull the plug one them 10 years later.
When RR Motors started in 1970 they development costs of the Shadow and the V8 were written off to give RR Motors a fighting chance.
Incidently the bloke that designed the Diamler V8s also designed the Truimph Speed Twin M/C.
Post Number: 14
|Posted on Wednesday, 18 February, 2004 - 03:11: |
I would be very interested to know more about the history of the UK government's support of RR - how did that come about? what caused them to ultimately cut RR off?
On a completely different note, let's imagine a world where RR is an independent company - do you think that there would be a way to mass produce the car still to the highest levels of quality, lower the price a bit (presumably through running a leaner, more efficient operation) and yet maintain the RR reputation for exclusivity? This has been done in some contexts - for example in the De Beers diamond cartel (except of course for the lowered price!) Maybe it could be done with RR autos too...
Posted From: 22.214.171.124
|Posted on Thursday, 19 February, 2004 - 20:43: |
For well over 50 years, "Morgan" and "Porsche" have retained their autonomy and not being part of a larger corporate entity have been able to focus on what they did best i.e produce 2 door sports cars which people wanted to buy. If you preferred a "Morgan" you even had to WAIT! Perhaps if R-R Motors had avoided becoming part of a larger conglomerate and focused upon building the worlds finest bespoke 4 door sedans then they may have survived likewise? I would very much like some input on this view
Post Number: 32
|Posted on Thursday, 19 February, 2004 - 21:43: |
Yes what a great designer Edward Turner was,the Daimler V8 had excellent cylinder head design,hemi chamber with wide angle valves. So strong and ridged were the con rods that Repco used them in their F1 engine.I think it was over shadowed at the time by the very powerful Jaguar twin cam engine(cylinder heads courtesy of Harry Weslake of course).The Daimler engine and to a larger degree the US big block engines suffered the same problem,this chamber design made the overall width of the engine to great.This is also the reason there are no 90 degree push rod V8 engines that use the B I P (bowl in piston) design,the Heron design as it is commonly known(after Tom Heron) requires the valves to be arranged in line with the cylinder centre line,and that would make a very wide engine.Other disadvantages are that the flat head has a poor surface area ratio(contributing to high emissions) and compromised port design.
The Heron design has been used successfully on in-line engines(Ford)and some narrow angle V engines(Coventry Climax)thinly disguised as the Jaguar V12.Advantages are ,simplicity of production and no masking of the valve curtain.
The advantage of the Wedge type chamber used by R-R and most other 90 degree push rod V8 engine manufacturers is that the valve angle used produces a much narrower engine and more efficient porting.
But gentlemen please let me quote from the Bible
(more commonly recognised by Auto Engineers by its full title THE HIGH SPEED INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE,chapter 4 verse 1.
"Of all the features of design which control both output and efficiency of the internal combustion engine,by far the most important is the form of the combustion chamber"
Sir Harry Ricardo 1923
Posted From: 126.96.36.199
|Posted on Friday, 20 February, 2004 - 05:25: |
Some years ago I was shown a book on motorcycle engine design by a Honda engineer of the sixties. It began by stating and I cannot remember the exact wording, that the gas flow problems in high speed piston engines had largely been resolved, it was felt that the low speeds still needed sorting, ie. below about 10,000rpm!
Their 50cc Twin, five cylinder 125cc and six cylinder 250 cc engines all developed max power at about 19,000rpm 40 years ago.
Not relevant but amusing!
Posted From: 188.8.131.52
|Posted on Friday, 20 February, 2004 - 05:49: |
Up until 1970 RR was one company. The main part made areo engines and because of national defence the UK GOV gave them lots of dosh.
Some of this money found its way to the cars.
The UK Gov started giving RR money in 1914.
The concept of RR being the best car is because the UK GOV gave them lots of money.
There where better such as Napier who also made areo engines but when they got in trouble the UK gov gave no help.
The first year RR made a profit from selling cars. was in 1970.
RR was split in two.
RR aero bit and RR Motors.
I am surprised that the cars lasted as long as they did without going bust.
RRs are built down to a price the same as any other car --- just a high price.
To be honest I do not think any RR was worth the money new. Which is reflected in the used value.
Basically the less surface area that presents its self to the combustion process the less heat loss.
However you have to fit valves and a spark plug in.
There are compromises every where which is why you can have so many different designs which are good.
I have noticed that more and more engines are becoming more similar.
I guess they are all heading aidded by the computer to the same design conclusion. This has been going on for years.
However every now and then an oddity turns up --- Subaru engines for instance.
The V8 has all but been designed out---
Posted From: 184.108.40.206
|Posted on Friday, 20 February, 2004 - 06:05: |
Forgot the Uk Gov pulled the plug on RR because on the mounting debts. I suspect that these debts had built up by the development of jet engines and the development of the Shadow.
The jet engines used much more money than the car.
Interestly RR Motors was offered to Jaguar who said why when we have Jaguar.
Then Jaguar launched the XJ6 and then designed a V12 engine just to add to RR woes.
Unfortunately for Jag they oversold the car at a too cheaper price and ----- if only----
I remember first driving a Double Six and I was amazed.
Then all the little build quality issues arose -- as said -- if only.
Posted From: 220.127.116.11
|Posted on Friday, 20 February, 2004 - 06:49: |
sorry forgot this as well.
The first purchaser of a new RR is what pays RRs profit not the second a few years down the line.
So RR are over engineering the car which costs money. Where as Jaguar cars were falling apart after 6 years, which from Jaguar's point of view is ideal because they don't need to spend more money because who cares about the next owner of the car and does they need to last forever al la RR. Unfortunately for Jag they cut the build quality a bit too fine.
It is very possible to make something cheaper and better. Expensive does not mean good.
Example instead of making a piece of trim from wood covered leather make from plastic covered leather-- plastic is a quality material in its own right.
Once the mould is made, plastic whatevers can be made all day with unskilled labour where as wood needs skilled expensive labour.
The part that cost the most in a RR is the labour to build the car not the materials. I should think that the cost of the steel for a body shell is under £100.--- in bulk.
Rover told me that they make one body shell ever 6 mins. RR probaly takes 6 weeks.
How the New BMW /RR gets on will be interesting because BMW is not selling the car like a Shadow because they have others cars -- 7 series--- BMW are selling the car with chaufers in mind.
Where as VW are selling the Bentley like RR did --- a Sporty luxury car. I expect a Aston Martin type of car at under £100,000 will be the next move. What is BMW next move. They can't sell RR as sporty cars because they already sell those.
I think BMW have a problem and the RR brand will bust BMW. Why BMW had to complete with Merc Maybach is a mystery.
VW Phaeton is also a mystery maybe its a platform for a new Bentley
Posted From: 18.104.22.168
|Posted on Friday, 20 February, 2004 - 06:59: |
Honda currently make a Home market 400cc 4 that revs to 15,000. CBR400R
And it has power at low speeds so they did what they said they would.
However no one in the UK bothers with these because we have the CBR600R and the CBR900R Babyblade and Fireblade. No replacement for cubes.
And they don't half go
Posted From: 22.214.171.124
|Posted on Sunday, 22 February, 2004 - 02:35: |
I'm a K1200RS man myself, it is as fast as a Fireblade when its pulling a caravan! Seriously though, the engine is like a Turbo R + Nitrous Oxide X 10, it pulls from tickover to 9,000rpm and then the ECU turns it off.
I've had quite a few Jap superbikes but I reckon BMW, although heavier, make a better all round package these days. I've done 450 miles in a morning accross France and felt like going back!
I had a 1961 Honda CR110 once; 50cc twin cam, 8 speed 13,500 rpm racer! Lovely sound!
Not much to do with R-R's I'm afraid but at least I've got a couple of MKVI's.
Posted From: 126.96.36.199
|Posted on Sunday, 22 February, 2004 - 04:02: |
I would say that Honda slightly beats BMW closely followed by the others. Motorbikes have come a long way. I favour 500 cc mid weight bikes I have a Honda VT500 and you will always get there. I have riden a Pan and I thought that was a good mile muncher. Which what a Shadow is good at as well. Where as my bike is at its best on the local stuff. It will hold 80mph all day though so touring is possible. Traffic conditions make anything over 80 irelevant in the UK.
The MK6s are still a very usable car in the UK as is any RR/B. I know of one Dawn that is used every day as a general purpose family runabout.
It has a few dents and and twisted bumpers but it has done 50 years on the road. Cars like this should not be restored they should be conserved and used as they are.
Posted From: 188.8.131.52
|Posted on Tuesday, 31 August, 2004 - 10:17: |
SCII engine lugs...need advice please.}I was referred to this site as my best option for advice and suggestions. I'd appreciate any input regarding this situation. Car is a 1960 SCII (SVB371). The engine runs seemingly fine...starts well, revs easily...quiet...runs reasonably well, except under a load. I have a rather long, uphill driveway, and once I start up the drive, the engine lugs and runs quite obnoxiously...most assurredly NOT on all 8 cylinbders. Part of the problem is a reluctance to downshift. It's under load in too high a gear. Once I manually shift it from 4 to 3, it lurches...and does seem to smooth out some, but certainly not with the smoothness or power I'm certain was designed into it. I was spoiled with the smooth, silky power of my SCI 6 cyl, and I've never been happy with this V8. Part of my displeasure however, no doubt comes from the rough way this engine has pretty much always run under load. One key clue here is that on any abrupt "kick down" of the pedal, it "coughs' or makes a qick, sharp backfire (sound like it's thru the carb) before it picks up. It seems it's either poor timing, an ignition problem, or incorrectly adjusted carb(s). I have the shop manual, but it tells little concerning tune up adjustments. Please know I am very well versed in doing mechanical work, so I have no hesitation digging into it. I did most of the work on my SCI, and maintain my own motorcycles, airplanes, and other cars as well, so I know which end of a wrench to hold.I just need the opinion and advice of those who know more than I do about these particular engines. The car is driven too little, and I'd drive it more if I felt better about the way it runs. Driving it, wondering if/when it may quit whne placed under a load }is not much fun. NEVER had that concern with my SCI. The time is here to resolve this and drive it some. Sitting in storage under a cover is a waste of of a beautiful automobile. Any advice or suggestions would be most appreciated.I've had the car since 91'and have driven it less than 500 miles. Time to make it purr as I KNOW it can. Thanks so much.
Leslie Alderman in Ohio, USA
Posted From: 184.108.40.206
|Posted on Tuesday, 31 August, 2004 - 11:04: |
The first step in any performance diagnostic should be a compression check, followed by a leakdown test if any cylinders are found to have more than 10% deviation from average. You will not be able to get any engine with compression problems to run smoothly. I suspect you have some burned exhaust valves, which will become obvious after the above tests.
Also, it is apparent there are problems with your gearbox, perhaps only adjustments. The service instructions should provide adequate guidance for adjusting the throttle linkage to the gearbox.
Post Number: 292
|Posted on Tuesday, 31 August, 2004 - 11:53: |
Hope you enjoy and benefit from our site - also please see my comments to your post on the Swammelstein Forum re ignition/mixture testing also topic entitled "Setting Up Carbs" in the Siver Shadow section of this forum for more details on the "colourtune" spark plug adaptors.
Posted From: 220.127.116.11
|Posted on Tuesday, 31 August, 2004 - 20:58: |
Following on from what Bill says, if the compression test shows all within 10%, but all low, say 100 - 110 psi, I would check out the valve timing, low compression would lead to low vacuum, I am u8nsure how your auto gearbox would in terms of kick down, vacuum or mechanical, but if it is vacuum, then this would explain the fact that it goes better when you manually change the gears.
I also came across an issue playing with a Holden 253 V8, the car ran fine whilst no load, but when it dropped into gear, it backfired and ran very rough. Turned out to be a very worn distributor. After your compression test, I would get the distributor looked at.