range rover classic with rb20det

[onehunglo]

please help-- i own a 1974 range rover classic and am trying to cram a rb20det under the hood. does anybody know the rough dimensions of the bellhousing bolts so i can work up a conversion plate for my rover transmission?

also what size clutch does the rb20 use?

thanks quinton

[KA24DESOneThree]

Why?

Wouldn't a mildly-breathed on BMW M52 or S52 make more sense? Similar torque (more with the S52), similar horsepower (more with the S52) but without the heat of a turbo.

You could also swap out the stock 3.5L block with a later, stronger block, toss in a lightened Buick 300 crank and some '64 300 aluminum heads and have a stroker all-aluminum engine that puts down more horsepower and torque than all engines mentioned and can stay stupid simple with carburetion.

Also, your CVs (probably) won't be able to handle much more than stock power if you plan on wheeling the truck. If you don't plan on wheeling the truck, they'll probably die with hard street launches.

PS- I own a '95 RRC.

[onehunglo]

thanks for the reply, the reson i want to go for the rb20 is because of the aftermarket options, i have converted a 3.5 to a 4.6 before and it just wasnt enough power.

i then went and converted one of my rrc to a olds 350 and that had more than enough power but was heavy and hard to keep cool.
below is a video of that swap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnxdfX_6N1M


would a sr20 be better??


i really want a turbo charged engine.

[TheRealSy90]

I've never known rb20's to have much aftermarket support.

[Croustibat]

Originally Posted by onehunglo

thanks for the reply, the reson i want to go for the rb20 is because of the aftermarket options, i have converted a 3.5 to a 4.6 before and it just wasnt enough power.

i then went and converted one of my rrc to a olds 350 and that had more than enough power but was heavy and hard to keep cool.
below is a video of that swap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnxdfX_6N1M


would a sr20 be better??


i really want a turbo charged engine.

rb20 is a crappy engine, really. It is used by people who want to say they have a RB, but don't want to spend money on one.

Get a RB25, an RB26, do a frankenstein with an RB30 if you wish. Just... don't use an RB20.

[OBEEWON]

I'm into this. I would love to see it done. The only issue I see is the transmission not holding up. RB25 would be nice. Sorry though, I don't know the measurements you are looking for.

[onehunglo]

could the sr20 be an option as well? does it create enough low down torqe?

i think it would save alot of space in the engine bay.

[simmode1]

^^^Let us know your power & torque goals before we can effectively comment on the SR's viability as an option...

[onehunglo]

250-300 hp nothing crazy

200-250 ft lb

[Croustibat]

Originally Posted by onehunglo

250-300 hp nothing crazy

200-250 ft lb

Rpm range for the torque ?
An SR is already making around 200@4000rpm, stock. An RB does not reach 200.

If you want low down torque, use a bigger engine ( let's see ... RB25 for example)