Defender V8 options

I get pretty much steady 11/13MPG with a 3.5 carb in a 110 station wagon (on LPG). I can get a fraction over 20MPG driving on petrol like a granny, unladen.

If it's an option, I wouldn't go for a 3.5 carb, from all account you'll get better economy and power with a 3.9 injection.

Regards

William MacLeod

We have towed the caravan with our Range Rover 3.5 carb and Disco 3.5i and without a doubt, the fuel injection makes all the difference. Our Disco hasn't been running to well recently so when I went to Kent last week and went in the RR, I would rather have been in the Discovery. One of the things we are considering is replacing the engine in the Disco with a view to keeping it for another 7 years or so, rather than getting rid of it and replacing it with a newer model. If we did then we'd have a 3.9i.

On or around Mon, 03 Nov 2003 10:03:29 +0000, William MacLeod enlightened us thusly:

I'd second those views. However: the 3.5 was fitted as a standard engine type for the vehicle, not sure that the 3.9 was; this may affect insurance.

further: if you intend going the LPG route, get as high a compression engine as you reasonably can - old P5B and P6 versions came in 10.5:1, but generally, you're better off with a newer 9.35:1 injection engine, the old ones have various questionable design points which are resolved on later (post '76, AKA "SD1") models.

on a personal note: my recommendation is to also fit the 4-speed ZF auto from a range rover/disco (depending on which transfer box you fancy). The auto in the 110 is great. Needs a certain amount of fiddling to get in, but less than you'd expect. If you play your cards right, you can pick up a rusty Rangie or Disco as a donor vehicle for engine and box, and have almost all the parts you need. Note that the BW (chain-driven) transfer box is 2" shorter between flanges than the LT230, so you need modifications to propshafts, rear on mine (110), though some have reported front - on mine, using standard gearbox mountings, the front prop was the right length and the rear was 2" short.

but the combination of V8 and auto box is well worth the effort, and great fun on the road :-)

We have a 1986 90 which was 2.5 petrol and is now 3.5 V8. I wanted carbs as its used off road so didn't want anything too complicated that could go wrong. The engine is mildly tuned and when put on a rolling road it was up near 200 BHP. The 3.9i Discovery we have is approx 185BHP. I have also put a 4 speed ZF auto in (same as my Discovery). Its fab off road and pretty quick on road too! Richard

Consensus seems that the best options is a 3.5 V8 carb or injection as its on LPG and will not make a difference. Also stick to the 3.5 and not the 3.9 as the insurance may be tricky to get.

My mate managed to get a V8 into a series bay without moving the radiator, and manageg about 25mpg on a run. My 90 has a series front and so I want to fit the V8 into there without changing things about.

A 4speed auto and a disco xfer box also seem to be the best chioce far better then the manuals.

If anyone has any other opinions let me know. I am also interested in MPG figures too.

Mark.

I doubt the 3.9 will make any difference at all to insurance... it's worth bearing in mind that the 3.9 has a MUCH better injection system than the 3.5. SWMBO pays 250 quid a year fully comp for hers.

You'll make life a LOT easier if you put a 90 front end on, An EFi takes up a lot of room, particularly with an LPG kit fitted. Having fitted a 3.

9EFi/auto/LPG into a 300TDi 90 I found I was rapidly running out of room and finding a home for the vapouriser was a pain !

I'd agree with that... I have 4 LR products on my drive, 3 of them are 3.

9 auto's the 4th is a 110 (3.5 manual), shortly to have a 3.9 auto put in it :-) The 90 and my competition RR have the Borg Warner xfer box out of a RR - a bit high geared but quiet and reliable.

On LPG SWMBO gets around 13MPG (that's in her 3.9,auto 90), a bit more on petrol commuting to and from work. Anyone who claims 25mpg with a V8 carb is in denial :-). Realistic figures on a long run, around 18MPG. I once got 20MPG on a motorway run following a knackered 200TDi that forced me to stick to 60MPH for 120 miles. Any none motorway driving and it'll soon drop towards 10MPG again. How far it drops depends how you drive it.

cheers

Dave W.

That's not the consensus I work from the threads I see... 3.9 is the favoured option in 3 out of 4 replies posted to the group.

Also I would personally not go for carbs. Sure you might be able to fix them with a large stick, but sometimes you just want something to work and not need fixed with large sticks. There are silly amounts of linkages, which wear, they need maintenance regularly, they mean you'll need two mixers, a Y piece etc. when fitting your LPG and it also means your LPG setup will not be a simple switch between the two fuels. It will be an exactly timed switch, and involve bump starting when switching back to petrol.... give me EFI any day (especially if you expect more than yourself to have to drive it). None of those problems (it's got it's own ;)

True, though LR have made a made 3.9/4L V8s so that should have some bearing on your insurance. It's not like you're putting a 6.5 V8 diesel in, besides if you're changing your gearing as well, you're going to have problems with any insurer who doesn't like bog standard vehicles.

? I've never seen a 90 with a series front. How, Why? Is it an Arrow/Designachassis special?

No doubt.

If you're interested in higher MPG figures, then it would make sense to go for the 3.9 and make use of it's extra efficiency to save a little juice. It will cost more, but that's because everyone wants one to replace their

3.5 carb which they like, but it costs them a small fortune in juice.

If you come across a nice complete 3.9, I'll change my mind about them, agree a 3.5 carb is better, and I'll gladly swap you it for a good carb

3.5 :)

Regards

William MacLeod

On or around Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:00:45 +0000, William MacLeod enlightened us thusly:

my theory was that the 3.5 was fitted as standard to the 90/110, but the 3.9 wasn't, AFAIK, unless perhaps you can count the 50th anniversary 90?

Insurers are notorious for not likely bigger engines in things than the manufacturer put there. If it's in the list, it's standard, if not, it's modified...

and speaking of which. To get the V8 in mine, using a standard RR auto box, mountings, bellhousing and engine plates, meant moving the engine mountings on the chassis forward about 4". This results in the engine sitting near enough where you'd expect, though the sump is very close to the front axle. It is however a P5B car sump, it might be that RR ones are a different shape for this reason, I've not compared 'em. if I think about it, I'll look into it.

fuel economy on gas will be better in a high compression engine than in a low compression one, which makes an injection engine (3.5 or 3.9) a good choice. The olf-style injection system is less complicated than the later one (hotwire? I forget... one is, one isn't...)

picking up a rusty 4-speed auto RR would be an excellent source of many of the bits you need. If it has a BW transfer box, you'll need to modify one or another propshaft (rear, on my installation in the 110), if you pick up a disco instead with an LT230, your existing props should fit.

BW transfer box doesn't have a locking diff, has a viscous one instead.

Yes, I was including special editions and those for overseas markets.

I see what you're saying, and I can see where they're coming from as well. But a sensible underwriter should be able to hear you when you tell them that you've just built the vehicle to a special edition/export spec - you're still building it to factory spec, the factory build them themselves and send them out under warranty like that, so it's not as if it's some extreme drivetrain combination which is likely to give unpredictable or extreme performance (higher risks).

Regards

William MacLeod

On or around Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:38:31 +0000, William MacLeod enlightened us thusly:

true. some companies probably better than others, at that. Mind, I doubt they did a 3.9 V8 with disc/drum brakes, like mine has :-)

Sorry, I included several direct email to me in my analysis. The swinging factor was usually the Insurance seeing a 3.5 as a standard spec.

Thing is that carbs or injection, doesnt matter when fitting a conventional LPG system. Uless one fits a sequential injection system on the back of the ECU. But they are of little benefit since at normal road speeds the injectors are pretty much open all the time just like a conventional one. But I do like the idea of a self diagnosing system. I am not scared of electrical gismigry it improved engine performance and reduces maintenance no end.

It a 90 chassis, running gear, backbody. Chopped 109 roof, series screen, series outer wings 90 galvo inner wings, series rad and front pannel and bonnet. The bulkhead is a 90 diesel! And it all fits togeather in a nice package.

:-)

Landrover cant make gearboxes, or even nick good ones from other manufacturers, except the ZF.

I only mention MPG not because I am a unrealistic about V8s and thinking they are economical, but in a sense of efficiency. If it uses lots of fuel, something is inefficient and 1, 2 MPG either way will show that up. There is no need to watse some thing if its not neccessary IMO.

Not if I get there first ;-)

Mark Hale

In message , Austin Shackles writes

The 50th is the 4.0 litre, not the 3.9 - at least mine is.

I thought it was the same as a Dicscovery V8 ie. 3.9 but marketed as a 4.0 ? Richard

On or around Sat, 8 Nov 2003 15:02:25 +0000, hugh enlightened us thusly:

I thought that was a difference of opinion about nomenclature, rather than actual capacity, or is it actually different?

bit like the PSA 1769cc engine, which Citroen call 1.7, while Rover (I think it was) called it 1.8.

It was worse than that. Rover produced both a n/a and a turbo 418 diesel, using the 1769cc turbodiesel but the 1905 n/a lump. Both were nominally 1.8s!

In message , Richard writes

It's the 4.0 litre from the RR AIUI. 3947cc to be precise.

3.9 and 4.0 are exactly the same capacity, however there's more to it! Bore and stroke are the same, but the 4.0 has larger diameter main and big-end journals, cross-bolted main bearing caps, totally different front timing cover and oil pump, distributorless ignition and a different engine management system. Rover re-badged it 4.0 to segregate all the above changes from the previuous engine. Badger.

On or around Sun, 09 Nov 2003 13:31:14 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@dev.nul (QrizB) enlightened us thusly:

silly sods.

On or around Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:38:33 +0000, hugh enlightened us thusly:

yeah, same size, and same size as the disco. OK, so you can get away with it in the 90. dunno if it was fitted (by the factory) to 110 chassis.

If you go to the insurers and say it's 3947cc then it should be in the list. It might be in there as specifically a 50th anniversary model, mind. But it's useful evidence in yer armoury if they start being iffy about it, that the factory thought it was OK to fit it.

given a bit more money, I'd be tempted to a 3.9 in mine. Having said that, it was happy to cruise at 75 on the motorway the other day.