Re: [lro] Overbore 2.25?

From: apsilon (apsilon@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Fri Mar 28 2003 - 06:37:23 EST

  • Next message: Alan J. Richer: "Re: [lro] Overbore 2.25?"

    > There are many many reasons for choosing sqaure, over-square or
    > under-square, but to be honest I wouldn't worry about them when it comes
    to
    > tweaking a 2.25 because your only option for meaningful capacity increase
    is
    > stroking - there isn't enough 'meat' between cylinders to go overbore a
    > decent amount.

    If that's the case then that ACR 2.8, assuming an over bore of 1mm, has
    increased the stroke by ~18mm (~11/16"). Does that sound right? A 1mm
    overbore alone would take it up to 2.4 if my figures are correct. Anyone
    want to give (or point me to) a quick summary of the advatanges and
    disadvantages of square, over square and under square configurations?

    > At the cost of new pistons, new rings, the slight overbore, new rods, new
    > crank; plus the new inlet/exhaust manifolds, fuel/ignition tuning and head
    > port work to make the most of it; spending some time and love on a small
    > ex-RR 3.5 V8 suddenly seem more attractive...

    The V8 is an attractive option but the engine alone costs more here than
    having all that work done on the 2.25 and it still has to be fitted and
    approved.

    Matt.
    Sydney Australia
    '75 Series III 88
    _______________________________________________
    LRO mailing list
    LRO@land-rover.team.net
    http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Mar 28 2003 - 08:14:38 EST