'Full' Engine Rebuild - the cheat's way!

redrover

redrover

Well-Known Member
Hi all,

Towards the end of the Summer, I am treating the Rover to something of an engine rebuild.
Initially, I had planned just to do the crank bearings, starter motor, and change the carbs to HIF6s, but decided that I might as well kill every bird in the forest with one big stone, and do the lot!

The engine is a perfectly ordinary '72 2000 TC with 46k on the clock. Compression is okay, the plugs don't foul, but the bearings are giving out. All of the ancillaries (bar oil pump and starter motor) have already been overhauled by me over the last 18 months, so this is just an 'engine innards rebuild'. I'm aiming to make the engine good for at least another 50k/10 yrs, as I will probably be using it for commuting in the future.

As I won't be taking the engine out of the car, I will be restricted in exactly what I can achieve, so I have a list of jobs that I want to run past you all for comment. :wink:

Comments/recommendations/warnings on all of the below are welcome :D

Things I'm planning to do:
1. Regrind the valves and reset clearances.
2. Port head and inlet manifold (just fancy it - I know there's only minimal gain)
3. Flush/clear all oilways & waterways - how easy/effective without removing sideplates?
4. Replace main and big end bearings.
5. Inspect chains and tensioners.
6. Inspect/overhaul oil pump.
7. New gaskets throughout.
8. Overhaul starter motor.
9. Overhaul heater box.

Things I'm unsure whether/how to do - comments very welcome!:
10. Pistons out, hone bores, new piston rings - Is this necessary (plugs don't oil-foul)? And even possible without removing the crank?
11. Replace the chain tensioners. Timing chains have been rattling away for a few months - is this a no-brainer?
12. Replace chains. Necessary given mileage??
13. Anything else...?

I'm still in the planning stage at the moment, and haven't put socket to ratchet yet, so feel free to chip in any ideas/recommendations.

Apologies that this is a bit of a dry and boring (and long!!) post :( I'll upload plenty of pictures once the rebuild gets going so you can all see my progress. I have never started a thread on the Rover's progress so this may end up being it!

Thanks and best wishes to all,
Michael
 

Attachments

  • phpbohQp4AM.jpg
    phpbohQp4AM.jpg
    72.9 KB · Views: 1,580
redrover said:
1. Regrind the valves and reset clearances.
2. Port head and inlet manifold (just fancy it - I know there's only minimal gain)
3. Flush/clear all oilways & waterways - how easy/effective without removing sideplates?
4. Replace main and big end bearings.
5. Inspect chains and tensioners.
6. Inspect/overhaul oil pump.
7. New gaskets throughout.
8. Overhaul starter motor.
9. Overhaul heater box.

Things I'm unsure whether/how to do - comments very welcome!:
10. Pistons out, hone bores, new piston rings - Is this necessary (plugs don't oil-foul)? And even possible without removing the crank?
11. Replace the chain tensioners. Timing chains have been rattling away for a few months - is this a no-brainer?
12. Replace chains. Necessary given mileage??
13. Anything else...?
Click to expand...

2. I wouldn't bother. It's not a given that you'll make a gain, if you don't know what you're doing you could just as easily make a loss.
3. Take the sideplates off otherwise you won't really achieve anything. When you do it you'll see why it was such a good idea.
5. Worth inspecting obviously, just don't be too keen to reduce the lot to a pile of bits on the bench.....
6. I've never had (or even heard as far as I can remember) an oil pump giving problems.
10. You can do pistons and/or rings in situ. (ie with the crank in place.)
11. Look at the tensioners and make sure they're OK, but replacing the ends and mains if they're worn will quieten down the chains anyway if they're noisy.
12 Only if they need it. They are a job you need to be sure you're competent enough to complete before you even start.
13 See what you find along the way.
 
To add very slightly to Harvey's excellent advice - item 11, replacing the bearing shells will give noticeably more oil pressure, particularely at idle. More oil pressure = more pressure to the chain tensioners = quieter chains.

One question from the dim for Harvey, in the expectation of learning something - why so reluctant to change the chains as the head and sump will already be off?

Chris
 
chrisyork said:
One question from the dim for Harvey, in the expectation of learning something - why so reluctant to change the chains as the head and sump will already be off?
Click to expand...


Hardly a dim question, it's just that they're not half as easy to do, and do properly as you might think, and doing them with the head off just sets you up with the problem of lining the top end up, whereas if the head and carrier are fitted you can peg both up and then fit the chains to suit. If the head is off (and I've not done them that way) as far as I can think offhand you'll have to dismantle the vernier as you're unlikely to have it in the right place when the head and carrier go back on. As I say, I've never done it that way though.
 
Thankyou Harvey.

Actually, that prompts another suggestion of things to do. Given the comment from Harvey above, I'd still want to check the cam timing. I continue to have a theory that accuracy of cam timing is about the only thing that could explain why early cars are perceived as so much quicker than later cars (which '72 is in my book).

Chris
 
chrisyork said:
Thankyou Harvey.

Actually, that prompts another suggestion of things to do. Given the comment from Harvey above, I'd still want to check the cam timing. I continue to have a theory that accuracy of cam timing is about the only thing that could explain why early cars are perceived as so much quicker than later cars (which '72 is in my book).

Chris
Click to expand...

Emission control. (Nevertheless always worth checking the cam timing, although if you're replacing chains you'll be seeting up from scratch anyway.)
 
About the only emissions control at the period I'm thinking of was substitution of open crnkcase breathing by a recycling system (ie plugging it into the inlet manifold!). Surely that wouldn't have such a dramatic effect?

Chris
 
Well you said yourself that early cars are perceived to be so much quicker than later ones, I don't think there's that much of a difference anyway, but venting the early ones to atmosphere means that once it's changed to a closed cycle system the engine isn't running on a pure air/fuel mix, it's got a load of crankcase fumes thrown into the mix as well. Taken to extremes that's why the 70's yanks had massive V8's that only used to knock out tiny amounts of horsepower until all that smog control equipment that was strangling them was chucked in the bin. (Or should I say "garbage"?)
 
I've just done the timing chains on my SC and I can say it's not a job for the faint hearted, It's a couple of days of your life you wont be getting back. That said it's really worth doing as the results are noticeable. Also as a note I've heard that chains on the 4 cyl cars are due about every 50,000 miles so you're about due a set possibly, as are the mains.
 
harveyp6 said:
Well you said yourself that early cars are perceived to be so much quicker than later ones, I don't think there's that much of a difference anyway, but venting the early ones to atmosphere means that once it's changed to a closed cycle system the engine isn't running on a pure air/fuel mix, it's got a load of crankcase fumes thrown into the mix as well. Taken to extremes that's why the 70's yanks had massive V8's that only used to knock out tiny amounts of horsepower until all that smog control equipment that was strangling them was chucked in the bin. (Or should I say "garbage"?)
Click to expand...


I know Rover 2000 owners over on the West coast of Canada, where they have to get smog checks done every 2 years. They have de-tuning their 2000 motors to a fine art, so they can just drive to the test station, on a leaned out motor, pass the test, then drive home again prior to retuning back to best operation. In New York cars older than 25 years do not have to be smog checked, so we can throw out the smog equipment, but not so on the West coast.
 
Thanks for everyone's interest on this topic.

chrisyork said:
Given the comment from Harvey above, I'd still want to check the cam timing. I continue to have a theory that accuracy of cam timing is about the only thing that could explain why early cars are perceived as so much quicker than later cars (which '72 is in my book).
Click to expand...

Out of interest, I had also been wandering about this, and feel that you may both be right. By 1972, the 2000 was nearing 10 years in production, so the time and attention to detail that had made the early cars so great must surely have started to slip. Furthermore, the introduction of recycled emission had a drastic effect on the static ignition timing - retarded massively from about 6 BTDC to 4 ATDC for TC's. Originally my engine was set to the latter (and ran like a bag of bolts), but is now set to about 8 BTDC. With such a huge shift in ignition timing, it would be reasonable (I suppose) to assume that valve timing had also been altered slightly to compensate. I would be very interested to investigate this further and make any adjustments necessary (I am naturally after the perfect balance between maximum reasonable efficiency and potency.)

Both the crank case and cylinder head breathers on my car deposit a horrible phlegmy mayonnaise in the venturi's after a long run. Not pleasant I can tell you! If this isn't resolved after a rebuild, I may consider converting to an atmospheric system by rerouting the breather pipes to the bottom rear of the engine, and exiting through an air filter that will 'draw out' the gases when the car is moving forwards and suck them away beneath the car. No plans as yet - will keep you posted in due course. Comments welcome. :)

As regards the timing chains - Jon, I fear you may be right! If I am planning to do another 50k with the engines, and it has already covered 46k, I should really bite the bullet and change them. Again, I will gather as much info as I can about this before undertaking it. Any recommendations in relation to my planned working conditions (ie, block in engine bay, everything else removed) are very welcome!

Really appreciate all the advice with this :wink:
Michael
 
Hi all,

Thought I'd pick up this topic after being inactive for a little while. The plans are still in place as above, but I have had to delay work until mid-Oct as the Rover is due to feature in a short film (details/pics to follow :wink:) and shooting starts in a few weeks!

This has given me a bit more time to source parts (which is proving harder than expected!) and thoroughly study the workshop manual to plan everything through properly. 'Well planned is half done', as they say in Finland..!

My latest ponderings are about crankcase emissions (mainly due to the earlier discussion here). I'd like to vent straight to atmosphere to prevent phlegmy carburettor bronchitis, and achieve a more consistent mixture, etc. What was the setup on early TC's? The workshop manual just shows an open-ended hose flopped by the side of the block. Did this connect anywhere? I am concerned that the lack of vacuum on the crankcase pipes will upset the equilibrium of manifold vacuum vs crankcase pressure, and cause higher than acceptable case pressure, possibly leading to blow-by at higher revs (completely negating the point of removing the recycled system). Is this a reasonable concern with this engine?
As long as I fit a flame trap (or possibly charcoal canister), are there any other disadvantages to venting to atmosphere (provided it is routed safely away from cabin ventilation)?

Thanks,
Michael
 
Is open crankcase ventilation environmentally friendly ?
I remember well Ford Anglia / Cortinas going along with clouds of blue smoke coming out from under the front wings
 
I don't think there are any downsides frm the point of view of the engine structure, in fact the crnkcase is likely to be happier with an open vent. It probably needs some sort of an oil trap. Didn't this type of engine take the vent hose from a wire wool filled mushroom cap on the top of the rocker cover?

What will need attention is the carburation. Aside from blocking up the hole left in the inlet manifold, you are certain to have to change the needles and adjust the timing. You could cheat and simply borrow the settings etc from an early engine, which will be detailed in the data section of the workshop manual. Or it would require a rolling road set up.

An upside is that you ought to get noticeably better performance, particularely a willingness to rev.

I wouldn't bother with a charcoal canister, unless you have a spectacularely overdeveloped sense of social responsibility. One P6 isn't going to flip the planet to armageddon!

Chris
 
I vented my engine to the big wide world and yes I know my car is an 8 but the problem I encounted was not an engine issue but burnt gas gaining entry into the cabin space, just a slight odor. The vent pipe is vented to the rear of the engine and down to about 6 inches off the asphalt but stil it gets in, as far as I can tell all the bulk head seals are good. So make sure that the gases have no entry points to the car.

Graeme
 
Thanks Graeme,

As it happends, I had a good poke around the engine bay this weekend to look for a suitable route for the hoses. As there is so much more space around the 2000 block, there is a lot more scope. I must admit, I had been concerned about gas entry into the heater box, as the top rocker breather cover hose blows clouds of the stuff into the cabin if the air box has been removed for carb adjusting. You can actually see the yellowey clouds puffing through the passenger side face vent!

Michael
 
Rightey-ho!

I'm fairly satisfied that I know where I'm going as regards the engine rebuild - both in terms of the scope of the work, and the set-up I'm aiming to achieve with it. I'll probably post with some more Q's & views on this in a few weeks. But for now, it essentially amounts to the following:

-New Main & Big end bearings.
-New Piston rings
-Hone bores
-Lap valves
-Sort out valve clearances
-New timing chains & tensioners
-Carefully set valve timing (will be revisiting this topic in detail)
-Side plates off & degunk waterways.
-Clear out & petrol-wash oilways as best I can (particualrly internal filter)
-New gaskets throughout.
-Twin HIF6 carb conversion
-re-route crankcase emission pipes to vent to atmos
-Potentially heat wrap exhaust (though not yet convinced of the benefits/concerned about manifold longevity - will revisit this topic as well)

Next thing on the 'To-think-about' list is the Clutch & Gearbox.
There's a fair amount of clutch judder on drive take-up and the bite point is really rather high. The gearbox is also reluctant to go into 1st when cold, and 3rd just 'catches'/grinds on the way in when changing up at speed. I'm hoping a lot of this can be cured with an oil change (the linkage has been done - new bush, finger, etc), but will probably get it out from underneath to do the clutch.

Question is, I may have sourced a 2.2 'box in 'unknown condition'. I've heard the synchros were strengthened to cope with the 'extra' torque of the later blocks. Is this a worthwhile upgrade for increased longevity, or is this really a wasted effort? I don't want to be changing everything will-nilly if I can help it, but I would swap the boxes if it offered a reasonable advantage.

Michael
 
The 2.2 box is the final iteration of P6 boxes. It has the best remote set up, and the best spec of gearbox internals. These are identical to the immediately preceding production spec (but not necessarily to your current one) as far as syncro goes, but have shot peened gears in addition (as per the 3500S box). So provided everything is in good nick, it is a worthwhile upgrade.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top