Rolls-Royce and Bentley Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
551 Posts
Hi Nick, I haven't done it and I don't know anyone who has but I can see a possible issue with the Cloud transmission mating up to the Shadow engine. The Cloud has the old GM Hydramatic 4 speed trans whereas almost all the Shadows would have the GM TH400 Turbo Hydramatic 3 speed. Only the earliest Shadows up to VIN 4483 and only RHD cars were equipped with the 4 speed Hydramatic when new. If you could find one of those engines it may drop right in but you would have to do some part number research to see if the adapter and torque converter would mate up. The Shadow valley cover will have the brake pumps in it which you won't need for the Cloud. If you obtain a complete Shadow drivetrain with the TH400 and install it, you would then not have the Cloud mechanical servo for the brakes. In my opinion I think you would be better off rebuilding the engine in your Cloud rather than considering a swap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
thanks Jim, I was hoping the bolt pattern on the transmissions would be the same for the V8 since they are both GM, I guess that is not the case?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
I wonder if a Chev 350 would bolt up to the Cloud II's transmission ?

The 350 may not be a RR engine, but it certainly is infinitely simpler and easier to work on.
Parts abound and inexpensive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
Want to keep it RR
Yeah, I kind of thought so, but just think how wonderfully simple the Chev engine is compared to the overengineered RR engine.
Unnecessary crank sludge traps, bolts instead of studs on the heads.
No aluminum block or wet liners.


I'm just going to say this, RR took a nice simple reliable GM engine and buggered it up by making it to complicated for no good reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
468 Posts
.... bolts instead of studs on the heads...
.
From an engineering perspective, bolts are so much inferior to studs on a cylinder head. When torquing a bolt, you damage it because it turns inside the hole, leading to rotational stress, on top of the pulling force. Studs are different, they don't turn, and hence suffer only longitudinal stress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
From an engineering perspective, bolts are so much inferior to studs on a cylinder head. When torquing a bolt, you damage it because it turns inside the hole, leading to rotational stress, on top of the pulling force. Studs are different, they don't turn, and hence suffer only longitudinal stress.
I was referencing my statement from a practical point of view _ give me bolts over studs any day of the week.
As an example with some 46 studs in RR's 6 cylinder engine, even with the torsional stress of a bolt, it would have so much better just from a serviceability stand point.
Even back in the late 40's, metallurgy was developed enough where bolts would have worked very well, especially in the "6" engine because the head was so shallow.

Or an over engineered distributor with duel points on an engine that red-lines at 4200 rpm ?

Engineers botch things too, the early 6 cylinder engine had 5/16th studs in them _ they weren't thick enough.

They were replaced with 3/8th studs later on. (not sure when ?)


And when it comes to engineering, I also look at things from a practical perspective.

I've worked on engines since I was a kid, and I've come across some real head shakers over the years; why was this engineered this way, what were they thinking ?

Or maybe engineers knew better and the bean counters try to save a few penny's by using cheap plastic parts, but this is a RR we're talking about; spare no expense right ?

Or maybe not _ when engineers design a crank with sludge traps on them to make sure it gets good and plugged with stuff.

Or an overly complex dampener that gets plugged up with sludge because there was no way for new oil to enter the device.

Even when it comes to Rolls Royce, why were metal and asbestos head gaskets used in their Turbo R engines, surely they must have known that those types of gaskets would not stand the combustion pressures of an engine with a turbo ???

I don't have much faith in engineers...

Have a look here at approximately 4:41 here, note the bolts holding the head down, they're Torx head too, or from as best as I can tell. They're not even using studs on the rods either.
Also note the use of MLS head gaskets too.

I guess it took them a while to get it right...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
I have seen a late model Silver Spur motor swapped into a Cloud ii or iii. Complete with the Bosch CIS fuel injection. It was beautiful! I want to do same in my 69 shadow. I can't remember who did it though. I saw photos and possibly video online. That CIS will run fine without the oxygen sensor, it just defaults to standard mode, and still does much better than the carburettors at putting a stoichiometric a/f ratio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
In the shadow, at least with the 3 speed, the transmission bolts to an adapter, which bolts to the engine. I would guess that if your car uses an adapter, you could put your adapter and transmissoin on a shadow or spur engine. We know it has been done, by others (putting spur motor in cloud) but not exactly how. Custom adapters are not expensive if you need one.

I think you will need to use your flywheel from the cloud motor too.

You might be able to use the adapter from an early RHD shadow to put your transmission on. But the early shadow 4 speed transmissions were a little bit tilted over to make them fit in the lower car.

Just a bit of trivia, in 1964, Cadillac got a new 429 engine, and a the new 3 speed TH400 transmission, (same unit as used in later shadows and spirits and spurs).

But, in 64 the Cadillac limousines retained the old 4 speed transmission, which is the same type of transmission in a cloud. (is the bolt pattern of a standard GM 4 speed the same as a bolt pattern on a RR version of that trans? I don't know).

But my point is, both the new 3 speed and old 4 speed bolted up to that new motor that cadillac had in 64. It makes me think maybe the bolt patterns are the same.

As for using a Chevy motor in a RR, I don't understand it at all. the Chevy 350 has a terrible vibration at 1800 to 2300rpm. I could see losing the RR motor but why use a Chevy 350? At least put a smooth engine in, like a Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile, or Ford small block. Personally I think ideal would be a 225 horsepower Mercedes Benz straight 6, cast iron. As used in the w140 S classe sedan. These are buttery smooth and much better engineered and built than a chevy. to me, putting a chevy in a RR is as preposterous as RR being bough out by VW. The only thing more preposterous than that is BMW getting to use the RR name even though it was decreed not to be allowed to be used by any non UK company. More preposterous still, is that Vickers, the company that lost RR and B Motors, is now owned by ..... Rolls Royce!!!! The company that sold RR motors to Vickers in the first place! Kafka couldn't have written it better....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
This isn't about valve cover gaskets, so just skip it unless you are interested. I made a mistake in above post. correction below.









Vickers isn't currently owned by Rolls Royce, but Vickers was bought by Rolls Royce in 1999. One year after Vickers sold Rolls Royce Motors to VW.

Why couldn't Rolls Royce have bought Vickers one year earlier??? makes me pretty crazy and insanely mad. Why didn't Rolls Royce want to make cars? The car company made a profit when they botched their aeroplane business by not charging enough and doing too much work without being promised to get paid for it.

If anyone is interested,

Vickers, the company that sold RR Motors in 1998, was later bought by ..... Rolls Royce in 1999 (the big real RR, who makes aeroplane engines)!!!! It is this big real RR company, which Mr. Rolls and Mr. Royce formed, that broke off their car division, named it RR Motors, and sold it to Vickers in 1971! Kafka couldn't have written it better.... They never should have sold off the car division and formed the tiny company called Rolls Royce Motors.

I am glad to have one of the last cars made by the old company which was the same company that made aeroplane engines. And not owned by Vickers, VW or anyone else. If your car says made by Rolls Royce Limited, it is made by the old big company. If it says made by Rolls Royce Motors, it's the tiny company they formed to get rid of their car business, which was bought by Vickers, then VW. In light of this, to me, that word "Motors" on the nameplate, just cheapens everything. not that the cars necessarily suffered for it, but the Company wouldn't have had to be lost in 1998 if the car division hadn't been broken off in 1971 and made into a tiny company, which eventually couldn't afford to modernize production and had to sell out. Had they stayed under RR Ltd, the big company, and never been sold off as a tiny car company, they would have had the corporate umbrella that every other car company in the world has, so they would have been able to modernize in the 90s and 2000s. And RR cars would still be made by RR Ltd. and made in England. Perhaps even with engines made in England. That thing where VW wasn't allowed to use the RR name, was just criminal. true, it was decreed in 71 when the little car company was created, that if the company were ever sold, the name RR wouldn't be allowed to be used by any foreign owned company. that is understandable. So VW can't use the name. (they didn't care about bentley because there was no Bentley aeroplane engines brand to protect). But, if VW can't use the RR trademark, why can BMW do it? Because some German lawyers made a deal on a golf course? Why didn't VW sue to get what they already paid $500M for? Weird and Wild Stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
468 Posts
RR was forced to sell the car business as a result of them not getting the RB211 engine right. The RB211 is the engine that powered the 747, 757, 767 and-I-forgeit-what-else in those times. The car business was, at that time, the only branch that made money. RR, the ones that made the aero engines, was then nationalised. RR aero engines and the car business allowed ''each other'' the use of the same logo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
hi all interesting to read about your thoughts on vickers/rolls/bmw but have you read this book "Kidnap of the Flying Lady" it will be quite enlightening. as I started working for Rolls Royce in 1971 and had a lot to do with them up until VW it puts a lot of things right.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top