1963 Humber Sceptre V8

[nze12]

Jan 23, 2021 23:50:31 GMT blackpopracing said:

Jan 23, 2021 23:12:26 GMT nze12 said:

[quote author="blackpopracing" 289 or 302 Ford engine instead. Ok they are heavier, but they are 60 degree V engines as against the std 90 degree

You sure about that? Ford did have a 60 degree one in the 90s. The 302s I've seen down here are 90 degree.

I was led to believe so as they are more compact than all the other V8 engines, maybe I've been misinformed? Advice still stands to the op though as the 289 would fit a lot easier.[/quote]

Yes agree - as already mentioned the 289 has a well established history with UK cars.

[crockpot]

The SHO engine was 60 degree.

[retrolegends]

Bookmarked with anticipation

[metalshapes]

The Windsor family of engines ( 221, 260, 289, 302, 351W) is a 90deg V8.

It is very narrow because they had to make it fit between the Falcon and Fairlane spring/shock towers.

It is longer than a small block Chevy, but there is a aftermarket short waterpump for them now.

I used to work for a Hot Rod Shop where a customer had a Buick ( Rover ) engined Spitfire project, and he changed direction mid way through to go SBC because sizewise it was almost the same ( the SBC did slot into the space that was made for the Buick)
Not sure if the car ever got finished (  it had some really scetchy frame mods and stock rear suspension upgraded with some Datsun parts, so hopefully it didnt...)

[rustymetal]

Seem to recall that the sceptre had an impressive dashboard instrument display.

[velvetrevolution]

Blimey that is a lot to think about. Practical thoughts so far are new front clip, rack & pinion (power) steering, independent rear double wishbone on a subframe, (Jag, BMW, bespoke? I dunno) - thought about Panhard / Watts but I want to keep the seats in the back. I hear you about Ford engines & Sunbeam Tiger, never crossed my mind because I always thought the Tiger had a small block Chevy & I already have 2 Rover lumps which I would prefer to use but I am not chopping up my old friend. It is getting done sympathetically or not at all. The steering wheel is a work of art and the main instruments are in a die cast wrinkle finish slash cut pods & the small instruments are in a group of 4 on top in the centre in a plastic clad pressing which probably looked cool 60 years ago. Quite avante garde for a posh car in those days not to have any shiny wood anywhere. I am feeling a bit inadequate now.

Never put a V8 in the FRONT before.
This is all helping, thanks, but don't expect any results anytime soon.

[nickwheeler]

Jan 23, 2021 22:15:51 GMT kevins said:

I'm suprised it's such a tight fit they manage to squeeze them into a MGB etc, if you need a short nose water pump you can get a buick one from rock auto for around £50 though you will need a car front cover if yours has come out of a 4x4.

Rovers are a very tight fit in an MGB; just look at what is required to get the exhausts down under the car. The chassis rails sweep up, and in, in a similar manner to the Superminx.

MGBs do benefit from a low, front mounted steering rack, unlike the Rootes cars which use a box. And they have the centre tie rod over the top of the bell housing, which makes the pitman and idler arms use a lot of space. The Tiger ditches that in favour of rack mounted near the radiator with the track rods pointing backwards, but that  leads to very poor geometry. Access to the rear spark plugs is very poor too, even though the SB Ford is usefully smaller than a Rover V8

Is a V8 really essential? Rovers aren't particularly powerful unless you spend a lot of money. A modern NA 2.0l four cylinder makes more power than most stock Rovers and are cheaper and easy to fit.

[kevins]

If you go the rover route look at the parts used in an mgb, they use block hugging manifolds and a shorter water pump and crank pulley, you might even be able to get a mgb crossmember, suspension and steering in (the whole assembly is held in with 4 bolts through the chassis legs), a bit antiquated but loads of affordable upgrade parts available and in period for the humber.

[westbay]

MGB Front Track 49 inches ...

Sceptre Front Track 52 inches ...

bum

[moglite]

Jan 25, 2021 10:26:10 GMT westbay said:

MGB Front Track 49 inches ...

Sceptre Front Track 52 inches ...

bum

That is nothing the right choice of wheels and tyres won't sort.
I'd have thought the width of the chassis rails of both vehicles would have been a more defining measurement (and yes I know they are both monocoque)

An MGB subframe and a beefy engine were on the plans for my similar vintage Morris Oxford.
Alas that puts it into Q-plate territory - which is a charm killer right there.

How bad is the steering box ? Would a powered column get you to where you need to be ?

Take a look at this for a similar vintage/shape vehicle done right

Mk 2 Red Zephryr via Mark Bognor

Hope it helps 

[fogey]

When I first decided to fit the RV8 to my Sceptre it soon became apparent that it would not fit without modifications to the shell for a number of reasons.
The engine itself barely fits between the front chassis rails as they curve inwards quite considerably. Manifolds would be difficult, I reckon you'd have to have them running forward TVR fashion. The Sceptre's steering box, drag and drop links are all in the way. To sit the engine in front of the existing bulkhead means that there is not enough room to hang the ancilliaries off the front of the engine and for the radiator. If you are using the LT77 gearbox, or the later R380 I suspect, the transmission tunnel isn't big enough for the bellhousing, let alone the starter motor. Also the fron crossmember does not run straight across the car but is curved, handy for the V* sump but not so for the oil filter, though you could of course fit a remote filter.

All of this means that you have to cut the shell which immediately places you in BIVA territory. This was why I decided to go the whole hog and build the car to BIVA spec with a complete new chassis and floor as in the pics I posted earlier. Taking that decision, gives me a pretty free hand to change as many other things as I want as retaining 'points' no longer matters. However it does present other challenges, such as glass for example, but none of this has so far proved unsolvable.

Good luck with your build.

[legend]

a 60 degree modern v6 would be cheap and more powerful than an Rv8, have you looked at the rebuild costs recently, a 70k mile v6 for £1000 might be a good move

[nickwheeler]

Jan 25, 2021 13:19:26 GMT legend said:

a 60 degree modern v6 would be cheap and more powerful than an Rv8, have you looked at the rebuild costs recently, a 70k mile v6 for £1000 might be a good move

That's why we fitted this




to a friend's MGB. It's a 3.0l V6 and manual gearbox out of Omega, running stock management and a Vectra sump. W made exhaust manifolds as none of the stock ones fit due to the chassis rails sweeping in and over the front subframe as I mentioned previously. With the back of the engine in the stock location, the front pulley is several inches further back, and the gear lever comes out though the stock hole. Rated at 208hp, it makes more power than claimed for all but the very biggest Rovers. Engine weight is only a few Kg more than the stock B-series, so that's true of the Rootes 4 cylinder too.

I bought the engine etc several years ago for another project, and sold it to Ian for £300

[legend]

3.2L VR6 tourag engine

Super narrow, loads of support online for wiring etc, it'd need a gearbox adaptor, but RX8 boxes are about £150, so it'd be worth a go.

[kevins]

Really you need to decide what you want the car to be and determine a spec from there, if it's just about increasing performance then the easiest option is to stick to the current format and fit a modern turbo 4 cyl engine, plenty out there that make 300hp easily enough, should be able to fit that with minimal modifications to the shell, on the other hand if you want the V8 soundtrack rather than outright performance then go for it, if you can get the basic rv8 engine and box to fit front end drives exhausts sumps etc can all be made to fit one way or another. If you want both then the U.S v8 is probably the way to go finding the parts can be a struggle over here and it will probably end up costing more but the end result would be fantastic.

The other thing to think about is whether you are prepared to go down the BIVA route, this allows you pretty much a free hand on suspension steering engine gear box and cutting the body shell but does cost and means many other things like glass, radii on switches steering wheel instruments etc have to meet modern standards. If you decide BIVA is not for you, you can only do minor mods to the body (nothing which affects the structure) and must keep to the original suspension layout. (there's a points system and the .gov website which explains it all)

[daklone]

Jan 25, 2021 13:19:26 GMT legend said:

a 60 degree modern v6 would be cheap and more powerful than an Rv8, have you looked at the rebuild costs recently, a 70k mile v6 for £1000 might be a good move

I'd consider the Jaguar 3.0 AJ-V6, 240bhp out of the box. Plenty of old unstressed auto-box S-Types out there with good engines...

[legend]

yep an AJ 30 looks good, but it really long for a v6 unless you use a different inlet

[dazee]

Error

[dazee]

Ford 302 W 18.75" L 27.5" H 20.7" Rover 3.5 W 30" L 33.2" H 28"

[moglite]

Jan 26, 2021 10:17:54 GMT dazee said:

Ford 302 W 18.75" L 27.5" H 20.7" Rover 3.5 W 30" L 33.2" H 28"

Common sense says a 5L V8 can't be 18.75" wide - despite what Wikipedia says