Kelvin Dodd wrote:
> You are confused between the Triumph Stag engine, which is an
> alloy head Dual overhead cam 3.0L V8 and the Rover aluminium
> block 3.5-4.6L V8. The Stag motor was a problem child, that is
> not a suitable candidate for conversion projects. The Rover engine
> is the one that is popular for MGB conversions.
Well it may have been a problem child, but quite interestingly time has
healed the Stag V8's ailments. It seems one of the major problems that the
Stag V8 faced was unknowledgable service staff, who were unfamiliar with it
considering the lack of complexity the other BL engines had. Retorquing the
aluminium heads at 20k miles, mandatory yearly flushings of the coolant, and
proper shimming of the cam followers. Those three seem to be the biggest
issues that faced the Stag V8, and it they were mostly problems do to
neglect. I will note that BL spec'd a lower grade aluminium than was used
in the design stage for the heads, which did lead to some problems.
I enjoy the Stag motor, it is quite torquey and flexible. You also have to
recall that the Stag is _NOT_ a sports car, but rather a grand tourer. It
suits this role perfectly, and it actually has quite a bit of luggage
space... not to mention electric windows and power steering (which is quite
good also, very good considering the period in which it was designed!).
> The confusion gets worse, as the Rover V8 makes a dandy
> conversion engine in the Stag bay. Or is that Stag at bay?
I once had a discussion with a fellow in the car park, who argued endlessly
that the Stag originally had a Rover V8 and that there was no such thing as
a Triumph 'Stag' 3.0L V8. Ah well...
> The Stag transmission is similar to a Triumph TR6, so again not
> much use to an MG owner.
Right Kelvin, similar is the operative word. There is no swapping a Stag
gearbox into a TR6, the bell housings and main shafts are completely
different... sorry, no such luck.
/// email@example.com mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool