Note to self: Scion's aren't safe from V8 conversions

Elmo187

Elmo187

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
1,055
Location
Brandon, FL, USA
Car(s)
Cobalt SS/SC-SN95 5.0 Stang-Toyota Corolla AE86
Courtesy of AutoBlog
Forget about body kits, custom fiberglass enclosures for your woofer and LCDs in the headrests. This is the only way to make the Scion xB entertaining in our humble opinion. Oh yeah, Scion wants you to think its cars are more fun than a box of rocks, but like Flava Flav said, don't believe the hype. We'll even forgive the fact that there's a big, dumb carburetor sitting atop the Chevy-based small block. This first-generation xB is owned by a guy named Rick, who apparently knows his way around plasma cutters, nibblers and welders. It's not quite finished yet, as evidenced by the photos showing a stripped interior and lots of zip ties, but Rick's Scion is already quite the sleeper.

Peering inside the engine bay, it's the tidy dimensions of the small block FTW. A transmission hump/center tunnel had to be added, and the chassis was converted to rear-wheel drive, too. Keep in mind, this is the smaller, original xB. The overinflated second-generation would have even more space in the engine room for this sort of chicanery. There's obviously some time and money spent to give this ho-hum little box a big infusion of epic cool, and we bet that's all worth it when you can take in the looks of discongruity as you blow the doors off the unsuspecting.
Click to expand...
scionxb_1.jpg

scionxb_4.jpg


not much info. just that its powered by the same 2UZ-FE 4.7L V8 from the Gen 1 Tundra....
SEMA044.jpg

SEMA045.jpg

SEMA049.jpg

SEMA050.jpg
 
The only Scion I'd touch with a 10 foot pole. :p
 
IceBone said:
This belongs in another thread.
Click to expand...

no it doesn't. there's no "V8 Conversion" threads as i've tried searching. i've found many other V8 conversions having to do with the Civette and the Porsche. but they weren't in the same thread.

so i fail to see what you're talking about.
 
You know, this thread gets me thinking: what if there was a smaller version of the Chevy small block? Like, the really small block, or something. Still using pushrods, so it keeps the lightness, compactness and low center of gravity of its larger cousin, but with a displacement in the 3-4 liter range instead of 5-7 liters, and power ranging from 200-350 hp instead of 300-600 hp.

I'm thinking about this mostly because of how those large tires in the first xB diminish its sleeper-ness a bit. A less powerful engine would mean he could use smaller tires that look closer to stock. It'd also mean lighter and smaller components everywhere in the drivetrain, making it easier to shoehorn into things and making for a lighter, better handling car in the end.
 
chaos386 said:
You know, this thread gets me thinking: what if there was a smaller version of the Chevy small block? Like, the really small block, or something. Still using pushrods, so it keeps the lightness, compactness and low center of gravity of its larger cousin, but with a displacement in the 3-4 liter range instead of 5-7 liters, and power ranging from 200-350 hp instead of 300-600 hp.
Click to expand...
Welcome to 1961 my friend... ;) The Rover V8 is just the engine you describe there, it's very compact and light, with a displacement varying from 3100cc in cars like the 80s Marcos Mantula and the Ginetta up to 5000 cc in more powerfull sportscars like the TVR Chimaera and Griffith. In fact the Rover V8 is so small it fits straight into the transreverse of the original Mini Clubman... More to the point the all-aluminium V8 is actually a fair bit lighter than the original cast iron four cylinder lump...

rover8.jpg
 
marcos_eirik said:
Welcome to 1961 my friend... ;) The Rover V8 is just the engine you describe there, it's very compact and light, with a displacement varying from 3100cc in cars like the 80s Marcos Mantula and the Ginetta up to 5000 cc in more powerfull sportscars like the TVR Chimaera and Griffith. In fact the Rover V8 is so small it fits straight into the transreverse of the original Mini Clubman... More to the point the all-aluminium V8 is actually a fair bit lighter than the original cast iron four cylinder lump...
Click to expand...

Yes! :thumbsup: That's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind! It's a shame they don't use it anymore. Any idea how the aftermarket for it compares to the Chevy small block's?
 
chaos386 said:
Yes! :thumbsup: That's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind! It's a shame they don't use it anymore. Any idea how the aftermarket for it compares to the Chevy small block's?
Click to expand...

The Rover v8 is a Chevy v8. I don't think it shares components with any other common Chevy V8's, but I could be mistaken.

EDIT: Apparently it was a Buick engine that originated in 1961 and even had factory turbocharged versions....:) 215hp and 318lbs isnt too bad!
 
Last edited:
starfox07 said:
The Rover v8 is a Chevy v8. I don't think it shares components with any other common Chevy V8's, but I could be mistaken.

EDIT: Apparently it was a Buick engine that originated in 1961 and even had factory turbocharged versions....:) 215hp and 318lbs isnt too bad!
Click to expand...

Production of the Buick version of the engine ended after only two years, though (according to Wikipedia). The Chevy small block, on the other hand, has had over 50 years of development and hot-rodding. Kinda makes you wonder what a modern version of the Buick/Rover V8 would be like. :think:
 
chaos386 said:
You know, this thread gets me thinking: what if there was a smaller version of the Chevy small block? Like, the really small block, or something. Still using pushrods, so it keeps the lightness, compactness and low center of gravity of its larger cousin, but with a displacement in the 3-4 liter range instead of 5-7 liters, and power ranging from 200-350 hp instead of 300-600 hp.
Click to expand...

if i'm only to have a 200-300hp, i'd prefer responsive revs instead of V8 torques
 
They had that orange one on top in Hot Rod magazine. Proof that a small block chevy v8 makes everything better.
 
marcos_eirik said:
Welcome to 1961 my friend... ;) The Rover V8 is just the engine you describe there, it's very compact and light, with a displacement varying from 3100cc in cars like the 80s Marcos Mantula and the Ginetta up to 5000 cc in more powerfull sportscars like the TVR Chimaera and Griffith. In fact the Rover V8 is so small it fits straight into the transreverse of the original Mini Clubman... More to the point the all-aluminium V8 is actually a fair bit lighter than the original cast iron four cylinder lump...

rover8.jpg
Click to expand...


YES! I would love to have something like that in my scion.
 
chaos386 said:
Production of the Buick version of the engine ended after only two years, though (according to Wikipedia). The Chevy small block, on the other hand, has had over 50 years of development and hot-rodding. Kinda makes you wonder what a modern version of the Buick/Rover V8 would be like. :think:
Click to expand...

Well here's what info I do have on these engines. The original Buick version is far lighter, the oldsmobile has better head gasket sealing ( 5 head bolts per cylinder rather than 4). The GM versions are lighter on account of the more precise casting technique, when rover bought the design the tweaked it to make it less expensive to mass produce.

Pulling the aluminum heads from the 1964 Buick 300 along with it's crank can net a very nice 5.0 sub-350lb v8 engine. There are "off the shelf" valve train components for this engine, as well as piston and rod assemblies. How far it can be taken is beyond me though.

edit: From research the Rover engine is 50-75lbs heavier than the Buick/olds unit.
 
Last edited:
You can get decent power out of a Rover V8, however:

1) The Rover V8 is limited by:
a. Old design
b. Relatively weak 2 bolt mains in most variants
c. Valves and ports too small for anything larger than 5.0L capacity
d. Expensive parts/rebuilding if you want more capacity (Re-sleeving)
e. Poor factory engine management options. Can someone say Lucas:(
f. Limited trans choices without adaptors.

2) An LS1 Chev is better in every way. Only slightly heavier and very similar dimensions too.
a. Newer design including better roller valvetrains, better head and port design. Sturdier bottom end.
b. Bigger displacement without resorting to re-sleeving etc. Better power potential.
c. More readily available (Just about everywhere)
d. Cheaper parts/much more choice
e. Good factory engine management
f. Many good bolt-up trans choices

The only logical reason you would chose a Rover V8 over a LS1 nowadays is if you lived in the UK and couldn't get an LS1
 
LS1 it is then, now, should I go RWD for the kinds of powerslides I could only dream of being able to handle, or AWD for racing in the snow? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top