Rover 2600 engine

[sprint95m]

When they ran well they did indeed run well offering good economy (35mpg on four star).
They definitely needed regular servicing including flushing out the radiator if not every year, certainly every second year.
Many ran up huge mileages reliably but were defeated by structural rust.



Now, here is an understatement........

I think there were issues with oil supply to the camshaft too.

Camshafts used to seize in the head (with catastrophic results) because of oil starvation when the oil feed became closed.
I have heard this being blamed on a lack of servicing but don't know how correct that is.
My late father considered buying an SD1 2600 but didn't like the low seating or the exterior colour. That particular car had a brand new engine despite a total mileage of less than 20,000 .

[Alex Spooner]

Well its nice to have sparked some debate! But fear not, if I decide to upgrade the engine, it will be a good 2.5 litre Triumph engine going in there. I find the Rover engine design intriguing however, and it was a sort of look as to what was to come, and as always it would have seriously benefitted from further development. I read somewhere that the 2.6s were actually detuned because in their 'raw' state they were producing more power than the V8. I wouldn't have minded running around in a Triumph 2600 mkIII however!

[wrighty]

im in a debate myself right now alec

im thinking (and you will all hate me for it) of dropping a nissan engine in mine as a project

either a sr20 (2ltr turbo) 220bhp standard but capable of 350+ easlily

or

rb25 (2.5 straight six turbo) these are 260bhp standard but if you through a grand it goes up to 450+

be a big project but a load of fun, and one of a kind

[Alec]

Hello Dan,

what can I say?

Talking of power of that magnitude means a radical suspension, transmission and brake upgrade so all you are left with is a façade of a 2000?

Alec

[wrighty]

This is true but it would still look like one , gorgous car with awsome running gear

Be alot of cutting and welding , but you would never find another car like it

[Charles H]

What about this then? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1972-TRIUMPH-2500 ... 3a5415b756

[mikeyb]

OOOOh I want

Might have to take the bumpers of mine, they do look nice without them.

[Rob B]

This is true but it would still look like one , gorgous car with awsome running gear

Be alot of cutting and welding , but you would never find another car like it

Good luck insuring it...........

Dont discount the potential of the original engine, their are a lot of gains that can be made with a lot less work

[Al Williams]

The Triumph designed 2.3 and 2.6, 6 cylinder engines were designed by Mike Loasby as far back as 1970, as a developed version of the 2.5 block with overhead cam... Initially!

It was initially planned to fit in the MK II 2000 shell and SD1 and with a bore of 86mm could have gone as far as 2.9...

The final re-design happened in 1973 and the block became 20mm longer than the original 2.5 straight six that we know and love, thus fitting one of these Triumph engines into a MK II shell would be no problem!

Spen King did detune the engine's in both 2.3 and 2.6 forms (123Bhp @ 5.5k and 136bhp @ 5K respectively) with 150 Bhp easily achievable by altering carburation.

A 3 litre 24 and also a diesel version were planned, as the bottom end is exceptionally strong.

A sad fact is that Triumph were not the best in alloy head production with varying levels of success in the quality control departments, which lead to early head gasket failures and indeed oil feed problems. Sounds familiar...

If you can cure these malidies, port, polish, flow, fit bigger valves, a set of HS 8 carbs and a decent exhaust manifold, 200 Bhp would be easy to see from the 2.6 Triumph designed engine as used in the SD1!

Good luck and catch me if you can!