Rover SD1 MPG

[Motown]

I am no stranger to SD1s having owned two 2600s a 3.5 V8 and a 3.9 V8 in the past but i have never really taken notice of fuel consumption. I think everyone knows they drink like George Best ive just always made sure to fill them before the orange light comes on or never pass a petrol station on long trips. 

I seem to recall getting about 300 miles on a full tank once so over the last week i decided to live dangerously and drive it until the fuel light came on. I am getting about 21 mpg on day to day short trips (single track rural roads) but around 26 mpg on the motorway during a brief visit to the mainland.

Which got me thinking what would it take to put electronical fuel injection on the PE166? I know the V8 Vitesse had EFi  but i am curious to what could be done with the straight six

 

 

 

 

[comfortablynumb]

From my experience with RV8's, anything in double figures was a result. 😁

I mainly had them in RRC's, where 14 seemed to be average, iirc a carbed 3.5 in my SD1 used to manage about 18, but it was auto, and on longer journeys usually towing.

Probably not helped by driving like id stolen it either 

[Noel Tidybeard]

changing the fannymold will prolly help cos they just used a duff design to bring the power to less than the V8

[riek]

https://www.classicfuelinjection.co.uk/

Doesn't appear to be a kit specifically for it but various options for replacing SUs with injection.

[Bren]

Any SD1 with a manual box will be much better than auto as they only have three speeds.

It would be a considerable undertaking putting injection on an engine that never had it in the first place.

 

[comfortablynumb]

What was the kit that carsos put on that herald they did years ago?

Can't remember if it was single or multipoint?

[rustdevil]

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb said:

What was the kit that carsos put on that herald they did years ago?

Can't remember if it was single or multipoint?

There is mega squirt you can use individual throttle body's you need an O2 sensor in the exhaust and then a crank angle sensor with a trigger wheel, it would be interesting to see the results.

[R Lutz]

The straight sixes and massively choked. 

[Bren]

33 minutes ago, R Lutz said:

The straight sixes and massively choked. 

They are indeed. Early testing showed well over 150 hp from the 2.6 - it was detuned so as not to undermine the 3.5.

The cam is quite mild and the ports are quite restrictive.

[R Lutz]

This conflicts me. I like the straight 6, but they popped head gaskets for fun. Part of me wants to believe they popped the head gasket from heat build up due to the woefully restrictive manifolds. The other part of me thinks it was just standard BL shite. 

Given BL claimed they couldn't manufacture the Rover V8 fast enough and given all SD1's rivals were straight 6s, why not just make the straight 6 as good as possible so the V8 was an almost unnecessary decadence, thus freeing up production for Range Rover where waiting lists were 2 years?

[Bren]

2 minutes ago, R Lutz said:

This conflicts me. I like the straight 6, but they popped head gaskets for fun. Part of me wants to believe they popped the head gasket from heat build up due to the woefully restrictive manifolds. The other part of me thinks it was just standard BL shite. 

Given BL claimed they couldn't manufacture the Rover V8 fast enough and given all SD1's rivals were straight 6s, why not just make the straight 6 as good as possible so the V8 was an almost unnecessary decadence, thus freeing up production for Range Rover where waiting lists were 2 years?

Camshaft problems were the biggest issue. Head gasket failure did occur - but it's not the problem you would think.

Bottom end problems could be an issue - the crank is supported in four main bearings - I had one that was knocking and smoking. My dad bought a 2.3 that after a couple of years starting fouling the same plug with oil - it was the end sadly.

[Royale80]

Friend had a couple of 2600's in the 90's. Both manual and quite quick-nearly as quick as my 3500 manual (engine never seemed as powerful as my 3500S)-but nowhere as quick as my previous P6 3500S.

We never bothered about fuel consumption - younger and foolish!!

Another friend had a couple of years old T reg 3500 auto-blew the engine at an indicated 130MPH-due to a leaking radiator which he didn't bother fixing.

Yet another friend had a 2300-went ok.

Cracking cars-would like another!!

 

 

[Westbay]

9 hours ago, R Lutz said:

This conflicts me. I like the straight 6, but they popped head gaskets for fun. Part of me wants to believe they popped the head gasket from heat build up due to the woefully restrictive manifolds. The other part of me thinks it was just standard BL shite. 

Given BL claimed they couldn't manufacture the Rover V8 fast enough and given all SD1's rivals were straight 6s, why not just make the straight 6 as good as possible so the V8 was an almost unnecessary decadence, thus freeing up production for Range Rover where waiting lists were 2 years?

Ah, the problem is you have applied logic / common sense to a problem which may / may not have fitted ... 

"...the overall marketing strategy ..." 😇

[R Lutz]

10 hours ago, Bren said:

Camshaft problems were the biggest issue. Head gasket failure did occur - but it's not the problem you would think.

Bottom end problems could be an issue - the crank is supported in four main bearings - I had one that was knocking and smoking. My dad bought a 2.3 that after a couple of years starting fouling the same plug with oil - it was the end sadly.

As a lump, they look massively over engineered, but yes, cam problems. I forgot about those. Shocking waste of time and money that engine. 

[danthecapriman]

Can you get uprated cams and bits for the 6 cylinder engines? 
You could have one made of course but £££

Maybe after a bit of porting & polishing and a better cam one could be made pretty good. 

 

[chadders]

2 hours ago, R Lutz said:

As a lump, they look massively over engineered, but yes, cam problems. I forgot about those. Shocking waste of time and money that engine. 

When it was released LJKS did an article in Car magazine which was pretty complimentary if I remember correctly. He reckoned 200hp should be easily achievable which would somewhat overshadow the V8 at the time and even the later Vitesse at 190hp.

[R Lutz]

Just now, chadders said:

When it was released LJKS did an article in Car magazine which was pretty complimentary if I remember correctly. He reckoned 200hp should be easily achievable which would somewhat overshadow the V8 at the time and even the later Vitesse at 190hp.

He loved that powertrain, and the 3-speed auto coupled to it.  

[ETCHY]

13 hours ago, R Lutz said:

This conflicts me. I like the straight 6, but they popped head gaskets for fun. Part of me wants to believe they popped the head gasket from heat build up due to the woefully restrictive manifolds. The other part of me thinks it was just standard BL shite. 

Given BL claimed they couldn't manufacture the Rover V8 fast enough and given all SD1's rivals were straight 6s, why not just make the straight 6 as good as possible so the V8 was an almost unnecessary decadence, thus freeing up production for Range Rover where waiting lists were 2 years?

Straight 6 was Triumph based/ design, 3.5 was Rovers engine ( yeah i know it's ex Buick but it's classed as Rovers)

Internal political brainless shite. BL were good at that. Sadly.

[Motown]

16 hours ago, Royale80 said:

Friend had a couple of 2600's in the 90's. Both manual and quite quick-nearly as quick as my 3500 manual (engine never seemed as powerful as my 3500S)-but nowhere as quick as my previous P6 3500S.

We never bothered about fuel consumption - younger and foolish!!

Another friend had a couple of years old T reg 3500 auto-blew the engine at an indicated 130MPH-due to a leaking radiator which he didn't bother fixing.

Yet another friend had a 2300-went ok.

Cracking cars-would like another!!

 

 

You cant have mine sorry 🤣

[Motown]

14 hours ago, danthecapriman said:

Can you get uprated cams and bits for the 6 cylinder engines? 
You could have one made of course but £££

Maybe after a bit of porting & polishing and a better cam one could be made pretty good. 

 

A hot cam was available some years ago... but not much of anything these days without having it made from scratch 

[Snipes]

Sounds like the straight 6 could have overshadowed Triumph's own v8.

[cort16]

There isn't really any performance upgrades for the 2600 as the solution back then was just to put a v8 in it. I don't remember mine being awful on fuel but I do remember it being slow with the autobox I once got out dragged by a Suzuki Wagon R.

I dare say it's possible with an aftermarket ecu but it'd be a lot of trial and error. 

[Bren]

I think kent used to do a cam for the 2.6 back in the 80's and I think one of the SD1 specialists had uprated cams a few years ago. I think it might have been GDS exhausts who made a tubular manifold for the 2.6 - but back then once your six started having issues you swapped it for a 3.5 - not as straightforward as one might think as thr rear axle - even instruments- and other things - need changing also.

Having experienced the smaller engines in the SD1 / senator / granada my opinion is although smooth they aren't fuel efficient enough to warrant the lack of oomph - they have similar economy to the biggest engine but lack the power - you may as well go for the biggest engine.

[comfortablynumb]

Iirc the straight 6 engine is one of those which is automatically in balance because of it's design, meaning no need for harmonic balancers etc.

I always remember my dad saying the straight 6 in his MK3 zephyr was the smoothest engine he'd ever owned.

[reb]

What MPG do we think the two SD1s used for the Liver Run got during the run? From the sounds of it they used up their brake pads just as quick as they used fuel.

[cobblers]

Unless you're doing loads of miles, you'd be very unlikely to see a return on the investment of converting it to fuel injection. 

On an engine that was never designed for it, you'll have a load of fabrication to do before you even start with any wiring. If your carbs and ignition system are working reasonably well, you could reasonably expect to see a maximum of 15-20% improvement in fuel economy along with improved driveability and generally better torque low down (through better ignition timing)

But - you would be lucky to have change from £3k, before you even start paying to get it mapped. There's a lot of faffing and development that goes into it, too. You don't just chuck it on a rolling road for an hour and then the map is perfect - it'll need many revisions and tweaks to make it start and run properly in all conditions. A decent modern ECU will use a wideband O2 sensor to "self tune" as you drive, but that's only a tiny part of the whole package.

You might see a Microsquirt kit for about £500, but on top of that you'll need a set of injectors, and entire fuel system (including swirl pot), ignition coils, relays, throttle position sensors, wideband o2 sensor and controller. Then the dozens of £20-50 jiffy bags of "misc bits" off ebay which I find are usually the real killer. 

 

 

[comfortablynumb]

1 hour ago, reb said:

What MPG do we think the two SD1s used for the Liver Run got during the run? From the sounds of it they used up their brake pads just as quick as they used fuel.

Haven't watched that for a while, but the first time I saw it, I was out of breath just watching it!

The Muppet blocking the entrance to the hospital is lucky he got away without pugilism! 🤦