> 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