| WATCHPOINT: As a consequence of the information above, Plus 8s are very different. These variants drastically change the performance of the cars and how to deal with them. Sadly, even dealers are not very savvy with variants sent to another continent! Serious advice errors occur daily on forums where owners in one country give to advice to owners on another! I can help. |
What are the differences between a 3.5, a 3.9 or 4.0 or 4.6 litre engine?
Both have a bore of 94.0 mm and a stroke of 71.1 mm.
There seems to be no difference in capacity at all!
The differences are:
When the 4.0 and 4.6 were introduced, a completely new block of the motor was made. The changes included:12) The 3.9, 4.0 and the 4.6 has the smaller main journals than the 3.5.
13) The 4.0/4.6 crank has a longer nose.
14) The 3.9 has the concentric oil pump but coupled with standard distributor. The 4.0/4.6s has a distributorless system and thus no hole for a distributor. However, the Morgan 4.6s sold until 2000 has a 3.9 top end, with a distributor, the earlier fuelling system and a 3.9 fuel map.
15) The 4.0/4.6s use longer rods, lighter and shorter pistons.
16) The 3.9 had the 14CUX 'hotwire' fuel injection. The 4.0 has the Lucas 'GEMS' engine management system (latest see Bosch 5.2.1 Motronic)
17) Because of the way the fueling and ignition is set up, the standard LR 4.0 has knock sensors and the 3.9 does not. However, the MMC system removes the knock sensors, forcing the ignition to "fly blind".
18) the 4.0 puts out 186.4 bhp and the 3.9 puts out 190.3 bhp. Because of its inadequate fuelling, the Morgan 4.6s (overseas 4.6 have an unknown output).
If you know of other differences please send them in to keep the page current.
BUICK 215/ROVER 3.5 AND THE LAND
ROVER 3.9, 4.2, 4.0 & 4.6 ENGINE DIFFERENCES
| 1. | The 4.0/4.6 crankshafts are also longer to drive the new oil pump |
| 2. | A new connecting rod design was used for the 4.0/4.6. They are made from forged steel and now have balance pads on both the small and big ends; the screw-in bolts retaining the caps are of a more robust design and are manufactured to extremely fine tolerances. The 4.0-litre engine uses a rod 1 55.2 mm in length, and the 4.6-litre is 149.7 mm with a55.5 mm big end bearing diameter, the older version having a 50.8 mm big end bearing. The increase in length was done to reduce the angularity of the rods in the engine, thus reducing vibration. The small end size has been increased from 22.2 mm to 24mm. |
| 3. | The pistons are also new and are a common design between the 4.0 and 4.6-litre engines. The capacity of the bowl in the piston crown varies slightly between the two engines (4.0-litre, 13.23 ccl4. 6-litrr, 22.29 cc) to determine the compression ratio. To maintain equality of material thickness on the piston crown they are different castings. Having said that, the compression ratios are the same for both engines --9.35:1 although lower 8.2:1 compression pistons are available. The original 3.5/3.9-litre engines have pistons 80.9 mm long overall, with a compression height (or crown height) of 49.5 mm, while the longer stroke 4.2-litre engine uses a piston 72.85 mm long with a compression height of 45 mm. |
| 4. | The 4.0/4.6-litre engines have a shorter piston of 66.6 mm, with a compression height of only 35.9 mm. |
| 5. | The 4.04.6 gudgeon (or wrist) pin diameters have been increased and they also have a gudgeon pin offset. The 4.2-litre engine was the first production Rover V8 to use this feature, but on the 4.0/4 6 litre engines it has been increased from the 0.55 mm of the 4.2-litre to 0.60 mm. The reason for this offset is to produce a slight side loading on the piston at TDC, thus eliminating piston slap all part of the infinite attention to design detail by the Rover engineers in their quest for refinement. |
| 6. | The 4.0/4.6 cylinder blocks have been made significantly stronger by the addition of stiffening ribs (taken from the Sd1 Vitesse) in key areas (along the block sides near the main bearing webs, for instance) and, more importantly, both 4.0 and 4.6 litre blocks now have cross-bolted main bearing caps. Of course Rover have produced cross-bolted blocks before, but they were special items and expensive, one of the reasons being that the main caps had to be individually ground to match the block. The new blocks have this feature productionised, although they are now a press fit in the block. The cap material has also been upgraded from grey to SG iron. |
| 7. | The interior profile of the 4.0/4.6 block has been altered to make room for the redesigned crankshaft with its bigger bearings and bigger counterweights. The cylinder liners are 5 mm shorter and the oil pick-up from the sump no longer fits into the block casting, from where the oil made its way to the pump via a drilled gallery; the pick-up on the new engine. |
| 8. | There are two new crankshafts, one of 71 mm stroke for the 4.0-litre and one of 82 mm for the 4.6-litre version. |
| 9. | The main bearing size has gone up from 58.4 mm to 63.5 mm and the counterweights are larger, although of the same number as before. These new crankshafts will not fit into older engines because there is insufficient room for the bigger counterweight to rotate inside the block. The stroke of the 4.0-litre crank is identical to the old 3.9-litre, as is the cylinder bore of 94 mm, so the capacity of these two engines is the same. |
| Engine | Bore x Stroke | Capacity |
| Buick 215/Rover 3.5 | 88.9mm x 71mm (3.5" x 2.8") | 3500cc |
| Rover 3.9/Rover Crossbolted 4.0 | 94mm x 71mm (3.7" x 2.8") | 3950cc |
| Rover 4.2 | 94mm x 77mm (3.7" x 3.0") | 4278cc |
| Leyland Australia P76 4.4 | 88.9mm x 88.9mm (3.5" x 3.5") | 4416cc |
| Rover Crossbolted 4.6 | 94mm x 82mm (3.7" x 3.2") | 4554cc |
| Displacement | Bore | Stroke | Main Brg | Rod Big End Brg | Wrist Pin | Rod C/L to C/L |
| 215CI BOP | 3.50 | 2.8000 | 2.3000 | 2.0 | .8750 | 5.660 |
| 300CI Buick | 3.75 | 3.3600 | 2.5000 | 2.0 | .9390 | 5.960 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A NAS 4.0 Anomoly (1998-2002 models)
Experience seems to show that, when in doubt, the US Plus 8s (4.0 1998-2002) NAS SAGEM fueling system ECU (computer) will revert to a default setting. Like most default setting, the car will be protected for a presumably a short period by running very rich. There will be a smell from the cats of rotten eggs and the car will react poorly with a bad idle and sluggish performance.
Many things can produce this state...a prolonged non-use of the car..a lack of power to the ECU or overfilling the petrol tank.
In such a case with these symptoms, the ECU must be reprogrammed to run properly again. TRhis is a simple matter if you know the setting and you have access to a LR dealer or specialsit with wither TESTBOOK (the LR diagnostic and prgramming serrvice unit) or Rovercom, an aftermarket item that does the same thing.
Unlike other LR units, the Morgan is reprogrammable and
you will have to tell the experienced mechanic with the diagnostic unit
mentioned to use the disk for "1997 Range Rover GEMS 4.0L UK Manual Type
1 ID 9660". Once re-programmed to that specification, the car should run
perfectly again.
The Story of the Morgan 4.6s February 2, 2018
I was just contacted
by an UK mogger I like very much. Puzzled, he has asked a
question that I haven't dealt with in years. The Morgan
cogniescenti has largely withdrawn from view in the last decade and
much has been forgotten. People should know as much as is
possible about their beloved cars.
His question arose from confusion on Morgan blocks numbers and the
Morgan 4.6s.This is very understandable as for a period (1997-2000)
Morgan simultaneously produced Plus 8s with two different generations
of original LR V8 blocks/heads and fueling systems (the then already
obsolete 3.9s with Hotwire fueling for the UK and the more advanced 4.0
blocks with GEMS This ended in 2000 when Morgan went to GEMS for all
Plus 8s fueling for overseas distribution).
There were many reasons for this given by the company, few of them credible. For example, at the time the UK market was told that the later GEMS system or later the Land Rover Bosch Motronic system "would not fit under the Morgan bonnet!", which didn't make sense considering the hundreds of GEMS Plus 8s supplied overseas. The simple truth, I suspect, was that GEMS and MOTRONIC were more expensive for Morgan than the older Hitachi Hotwire systems and British law allowed the local sale of 3.9s until 2000. That being said, engine fiddlers like me and top tuners prefer the Hotwire for a number of reasons. It certainly allows for easier upgrades and owner intervention than the later GEMS! (Though no Morgan EFI system is as easy to take care of, adapt and part source than the L-Jetronics (flappers).
But another problem appeared for Morgan.
By 1996, news had come of the production of the anticipated 4.6 version of the venerable Buick/ Rover/LR blocks. Every fan of Land Rover and the other marques using the block were excited. The 4.2, never used in a Factory Plus 8, had largely been a disappointment and the 4.0 and 4.6 went much further, with cross-bolting and other features. And this was before the infamous plague of Land Rover V8 block cracking and slipped liners had begun in earnest. (With the low Morgan weight, this was not a problem for us.)
So Morgan had a goodly number of 4.6s on order in anticipation, at a premium price.
Even Peter Morgan put his order in for one to be his personal car,
AB16! It was also to have the newer "wide body" with the new Superform
wings (much wider than anything contemplated in prior Plus 8 history).
Problem is, everyone wanted the 4.6 in their truck when it appeared and Land
Rover couldn't deliver to Morgan. I believe (unconfirmed) that the problem was GEMS fueling system, not the blocks.
But Morgan came up with a solution to save those sales. They went to John Eales. John should need no introduction to Plus 8ers. He deals in race preparation and supply of LR engines. Morgan asked Eales to supply new 4.6 blocks, modified and fit with 3.9 Hotwire top ends and fueling systems. (With a bit of modification parts, all blocks from 1976 can be retro-fit with earlier or later systems.) So now they had bigger 4.6 blocks fit with earlier fueling systems made for 3.9s!
Here is the Morgan announcement that was sent to me. It is confusing and inaccurate, indicating the state of the company management technological understanding at the time. I ask the reader to overlook these errors.
| Morgan Motor Company: June 1997 Dealer Notice: "As it has not been possible to obtain the current Range Rover 4.6 litre engine, due to supply problems with Rover and because of the modifications required for installation, we have arranged for a special engine to be prepared. This uses the current 3.9 litre engine, but built using the standard 4.6 litre block. This involves stripping a new engine, removing the block, specially modifying a 4.6 litre block to accept the front cover, and rebuilding the engine. This produces a special unit using largely standard Rover parts. The distributor set-up is largely the same as 3.9, as is the camshaft and ECU. The block is cross bolted for strength. The crank, pistons and block are standard Range Rover 4.6". |
Of course, logic dictates that one cannot get much more horsepower by providing the same amount of fuel to a larger bore engine, EVERYTHING ELSE being equal. In fact, the combination MUST run lean and hot as you are feeding a larger combustion chamber with the same amount of fuel! And the later 3.9 Hotwires already run too lean as stock! In fact, if you examine the figures given by Morgan, they show a mere 1.8% increase in bhp over the 3.9L block of the day albeit the 4.6 had a 2500 GBP price premium which sadly produce bragging rights only in its Morgan version. More than twenty years ago, John Eales told me he tried hard to get Morgan to allow him to create or provide them with a more appropriate chip/eprom (aka fuel map) which would release the extra power eveyone assumed would result from the bigger block and keep the motor problem free. Land Rover, with merely their stock 4.6 fueling and a truck 4x4 cam produces 30 more bhp (almost 20%!) with the same engine. However, a more appropriate chip was refused by Morgan, either for reasons of economy or perhaps worries about a need to re-test the engine for emissions. In any event, it was never done. Sadly, this also came at time when the fueling was already as lean as the fuel map of the 3.9 could be made to provide. This was why LR was transitioning to the GEMS and then MOTRONICS at the time. Additionally, owners would soon compound the lean fuel mixture with K&N air filters and performance exhaust systems. The lean mixture is unhealthy for the engine.
The MMC 4.6s (aside from some overseas 4.6 GEMS units) overheat. Many owners, internet savvy and former eMog adherents have addressed the issue. Owners adopt the new they-all-do-that attitude of the current Morgan community. :(
I have a number of Buick, Rover and Land Rover V8s in spares. I enjoy them all, as they all give the Plus 8 a different personality. But after more tha 225,000 miles, two continents and more than 25 years, I unabashedly admit to loving the 4.6 variants more than all others in Plus 8 history. They can be made infinitely owner friendly, with the best Morgan touring engine ever as they are super flexible. Roadside mechanics are familar with them on all continents. The mistakes Morgan made with their UK 4.6s are tragic. However, they are easy to sort. Sadly, the current community is no longer as mechanically adept as it was and who can recognize inadequate fueling without an exhaust analysis and a basis for comparison? Owners are unaware of the issues and all good drivers unconciously adapt their driving to what they got. The increased capacity indicates that the 4.6 MUST be more powerful so everyone assumes it. Yet it is merely another problem Morgan waiting for the right owner to ask the right questions and act upon the right answers. It would be a shock for these owners to see what that engine can really do..assuming it is undamaged after a decade of incorrect fueling.
These cars are easy enough to recognize. UK 4.6s, and their block numbers do not indicate a made-for-Morgan origin. John (Eales) would have their source and numbers but it would be unkind to place him in a conflict that is not of his making. He is a good guy.
MATCHING SENDORS TO GAUGES ELECTRONICALLY
by Lorne Goldman and Tim Waller
1. Matching Sendors to Gauges Electronically 1 (Spyda)
2. Matching Sendors to Gauges Electronically 2 (Speedway)
3.
Matching Sendors to Gauges Electronically 3 (Tanks MeterMatch)
| WATCHPOINT: An astute Morgan mate of mine pointed out that these devices are made for cars that have instruments that function with ohm signal senders rather than the older gauges on very early cars that function with a varying voltage signal. Confirm what type of gauge you have if you have a pre-1970's Morgan |
CRACKING BLOCKS AND SLIPPED LINERS
figurations of the Rover V8.
The 3.9 and 4.2 were basically 3.5's bored out (stoked also for the 4.2)
When the 4.0 and 4.6 were introduced, a completely new block of the motor was made. The changes included:
1) Extra ribbing on the motor to strengthen it.
2) Machined steps into the bore that would prevent the liners from ever moving.
3) Larger diameter crank.
4) Larger main bearings.
5) 4 bolts holding each main bearing in place rather than the previous 2.
6) The camshaft was held in place by a retaining plate.
7) oil pumps were driven directly off the crank. Had 25% more volume capacity and can maintain 50 psi.
8) The heads only had 10 bolts instead of 14.
9) The heads were thinner to allow composite gaskets to be used rather than the old metal ones.
10) TTY head bolts were used.
The 3.9 suffered a bad reputation for cracked blocks and slipped
liners. Yes, the aluminium between the sleeves and the coolant areas
were thin due to the extra bore size. But this was only part of the
issue.
Due to emission requirements, Land Rover increased the operating
temperature of the motor through higher temp thermostats. This
increased the stress on these coolant areas. Ultimately causing issues
with blocks and liners. This thermostat issue was fixed during the
period of the Disco 2 with the early models having the high temp
version, then they introduced an interim thermostat that was a bit
cooler, and then finally the lower temp one that put the engine temps
back to pre-emmission motors.
Also the quality control over the blocks was not great and this led to motors with very thin walls being put into cars.
Finally, there was not a lot physically stopping liners from moving if
the heat expansion of the block reduced the tolerance fit of the
sleeves.
Due to the casting method used to make the blocks, the exact thickness of the walls around the sleeve is difficult maintain.
After 4 years in production, in 1993 Land Rover recognised the issue
with wall thickness and started Ultrasonic testing all blocks to check
the wall thickness. After the initial test results were compiled, the
block mould was changed to reduce the amount of variance in wall
thicknesses.
Blocks that had a wall thickness less 2.2mm were thrown out.
Prior to this testing it was found that motors were being put into cars
that had wall thicknesses as low as 1.2mm. Again leading to the poor
reputation of the 3.9 V8's.
The 4.6 motors were first used Range Rover P38. Unfortunately there was
a design problem with the top radiator hose that caused the hose to
break and dump all the coolant. The radiator was also too small, the
thermostat temp was too high, and the design of the top radiator hose
left an air pocket. This of course meant overheating the motor. Do this
enough times and you will have issues with head gaskets and the block
cracking behind the liners. These design issues, unrelated to the
actual motor, gave the early 4.6 motor a bad rep.
In 1997 they actually started to grade the blocks. Blocks with a
minimum wall thickness of 2.8mm were used for the 4.6 motors, the ones
2.2mm to 2.7mm were used for the 4.0 motors.
On original motors you can tell the grading of the block by a dob of
paint in the valley of the block. Unfortunately this paint will
disappear if the motor has been rebuilt and therefore you will not know
the grade of the block in these circumstances.
The message from all this is that the motor is not the same one
designed by Buick in the 50's, it has been changed many times over the
years to try and fix any known issues with the motor.
So just because it was an issue with the 3.9 or 4.2 does not mean that it is an issue with the 4.0 and 4.6.
Just because it was an issue for the 4.6 powered Range Rover P38's, it
does not mean that it will be an issue for your Discovery or later
Range Rovers.
If you have a vehicle that was originally fitted with the hotter thermostat, change the thermostat to an 82C version.
Save
Share
CT090
Registered
Joined Mar 5, 2016
1,576 Posts
#2 · Mar 10, 2018
That's alot of writing to not say anything useful.
Here's the abridged version--
Rover rode the Buick V-8 horse into the dust, trying year after year to
squeeze just one more year out of it while the latest in a series of
owners gave up and tried to off the company to someone else.
These problems were greatly amplified by the fact that owners tried maintaining them like Toyotas.
The aftermarket and enthusiast owners figured out how to keep them alive with various fixes, like liners, head studs, etc.
Today, an Indian company builds really nice Ford Explorers.
:devil
Save
Share
p76rangie
p76rangie
Registered
Joined Jan 16, 2006
5,761 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · Mar 10, 2018 (Edited)
CT090 said:
That's alot of writing to not say anything useful.
The above post and all the following posts by this person are just
those of a vile little troll who insists on destroying any thread that
I post in.
So read on if you wish, but nothing will be gained from here on.
Save
Share
CT090
Registered
Joined Mar 5, 2016
1,576 Posts
#4 · Mar 10, 2018
At least I included some relevant facts. If you want to take your KIA
skills out for a spin, try typing something useful to people that own
them. Half of what you posted sounds made up to me. Even if true,
little of it matters to anyone. Does anyone care that Rover changed the
way cam location was registered?
This was my favorite---
After 4 years in production, in 1993 Land Rover recognised the issue
with wall thickness and started Ultrasonic testing all blocks to check
the wall thickness.
It took them four years of warranty claims and replacing customer engines to buy the guy at the foundry a $300 tester?
And then this gem---
Again leading to the poor reputation of the 3.9 V8's.
What about the poor reputation of the 4.6? Head bolt failures, blown
head gaskets, exploding oil pumps, weak cooling system components...
enough to keep a forum like this filled with a non-stop flow of new
members.
Yet, a cool, unique and interesting vehicle that offers enough to
retain its appeal among enthusiasts. I think that's the Rover
expectation. people have known this for years. The Americans and
Japanese built cars and trucks. The Koreans built cheap transportation
(The Yugoslavs tried). The English and Italians built interesting. Ifd
it actually starts and gets you there, that's a bonus.
On the new products, any one that has driven a current Rover product
will tell you the same thing- nice truck, but if you pulled the name
badges off of any of the nicer competitors, you'd be hard-pressed to
tell a difference. I don't blame Rover for that. They're not in the
business of making interesting trucks. They're in the business of
making money. They gave up trying to compete with Jeep for the Wrangler
market niche, which was the company's core DNA. So their
meat-and-potatoes market is getting buyers to step up a notch from the
Explorer or over from the Acura MDX. I have yet to figure out the
little RR's yet. The little convertible seems to have come straight
from the mind of the guy that came up with the New Mini.
Save
Share
ArmyRover
ArmyRover
Premium Member
Joined Sep 10, 2007
7,890 Posts
#5 · Mar 10, 2018
In my experience, the 3.9 was a fantastic motor and probably the most reliable of the bunch. 4.0/4.6 total crap shoot.
1972 MGB
2006 Bonatti Grey LR3 Proud Rhino Bumper, Baja Rack and TF underbody skid plates almost 33's lol
2007 Chawton White LR3 Proud Rhino lift rods
1983 Trident Green 110, TerraFirma suspension, and bumpers
1991 Range Rover Classic Hunter Eastnor Green
Save
Share
CT090
Registered
Joined Mar 5, 2016
1,576 Posts
#6 · Mar 10, 2018
p76rangie said:
I think we all get it by now. YOU DO NOT LIKE LAND ROVERS!!!
Yeah. I guess I'm not too bright. I am just like that
I hate golf but I joined a country club.
I hate animals but own three dogs and a cat.
I always wanted to be an artist so I went to engineering school.
I like friendly discussion about shared interests so I came to this forum.
Oops!
Save
Share
CT090
Registered
Joined Mar 5, 2016
1,576 Posts
#7 · Mar 10, 2018
If disagreeing with you is a personal attack, then guilty as charged. I
was unaware that you were granted some user status as an unassailable
authority on whatever you want to prattle on about. If that's the case,
then I should probably be punished for my petulant temerity.
Save
Share
p76rangie
p76rangie
Registered
Joined Jan 16, 2006
5,761 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · Mar 11, 2018 (Edited by Moderator)
Seeing that this thread has been shot to hell already I might as well use it to vent about over engineered vehicles.
People argue that Land Rovers have their faults, but what exactly is a fault.
I now believe that a fault is anything that makes life difficult for you as the owner.
A month back I purchased a used Volvo XC90 for my wife to replace her
Discovery. I wanted to replace it with a smaller vehicle as I already
had a full size wagon and the Rangie Ute. Fuel here costs around $4.50
a gallon, so I was trying to get something economical. But she would
not have a bar of it. She insisted on a 4WD size vehicle.
So I got a the Volvo with full service history and a bit over 100,000 miles on the clock.
When purchasing a secondhand vehicle we have to get a roadworthy done
by a qualified tester. The only thing wrong with it was the bushes in
the lower front control arms. Not too bad I thought. The issue was that
the bushes have to be pressed in an exact distance at an exact
rotation. So the usual method is to replace the complete control arms
with new ones. Even at mechanics part rates, it was over $1,000 for
genuine parts.
Soon after it started throwing codes. Not your standard ODBII codes,
Volvo specific codes. So had to purchase a code reader that could
understand Volvo codes.
This is when I find out that nothing on this vehicle is controlled in
the normal manner. Everything is controlled by computer modules. 43 of
them in total. Thats right 43 computers scattered about the vehicle
So in a normal car you activate a switch and it supplies power to the
headlights or something else. Not on this car. Switches only send
signals to computers and the computers switch things on and off. These
computers then monitor all voltages, etc on all the devices and if you
play with the wiring you will end up with error codes every time you
start the car.
So one of the first error codes I was getting was simply that the globe
around the ignition barrel had failed. Any owner without the correct
Volvo code reader would have to take it to a dealer just to find out
that a globe had blown. Then try finding the type of globe that fits in
there. Not covered in any manuals, no one on any forums, etc, seemed to
know. I ended up by chance seeing a photo of one on the internet and
worked backwards from there. Of course no auto store stocked them and
they had to be ordered in.
This brings me to the next issue. I have a caravan and need to connect
up electric brakes and the normal trailer lighting. Simple usually. Not
on this car. As all the light voltages are monitored, you can't simply
tap into your tail light wiring. No you have to install a computer
module to control the trailer lights. When it detects a trailer it
switches off the rear parking sensors, activates the anti-sway control
and changes when the transmission changes gears, plus probably a 1,000
other things.
So the next thing to sort out was getting power for the electric brakes
and for power to the van. You only want these to operate when the
ignition is on. Now try finding an ignition activated live wire in the
whole car that isn't monitor by an ECU. This one beat me. A full day
spent attempting to read very complicated wiring diagrams and then not
being able to find the correctly coloured wire where the diagram said
it should be. This is the first time I can remember where something on
a vehicle has beaten me.
Now we get to some of the things that people traditionally call faults.
First off more error codes that my Volvo code reader did not seem to
know about. Found out from a Volvo forum that the code relates to the
engine oil being over full. But it does not relate to the markings on
the dipstick. No, you have to know that you will get the code if you
fill the oil more than 1/3 of the way between the low and full marks on
the dipstick. So you have to know to never fill the oil to the full
mark on the dipstick.
There was a sticker on the car from a Auto transmission specialist
indicating that the transmission oil should have been changed 10,000
miles ago. Rang the dealer to see if it was done. No says the dealer,
the transmission is serviced for life and never needs a oil change.
Tracked down the auto transmission place and found out that the
transmission had failed at 90,000 miles due to lack of servicing and
was rebuilt. He suggested changing the fluid every 20,000 miles as the
six speed autos work very hard by continually changing gears. So it
looked like I dodged a bullet on the transmission as it had failed on
the previous owner rather than myself. Take heed of this on your land
rover transmissions that they claim are serviced for life and never
need a oil change.
Then great design. They put the filler for the transmission in a
position that you have to pull half the engine bay apart to get to. But
the trick is you have to have the engine running to check the levels
while filling it. So you have to Jerry rig all the components you
pulled off to get the motor to run.
Then another design fault. They have a set of valves that change the
way that the air enters the cylinders. These valves are controlled by a
stepper motor. However, this stepper motor connects to a plastic ball
on the valves to open and close them. Of course plastic won't last long
on a part that is continually moving. To replace the ball you have to
replace the complete unit and remove all the intake, etc, etc. It is a
$2,000 job at most mechanics. But I found a good old Range Rover part
that fixed it permanently for free.
Saw a video on Youtube of the air intake, at the throttle body, nearly
blocked from crap from the EGR valve. Thought it must have been an old
stuffed motor. Check all the maintenance requirements for the vehicle.
Nothing to indicate that this part should be cleaned or even checked.
But while I had half the engine bay apart to change the transmission
oil, I thought I might as well pull it apart a bit more and check the
intake. Mine was exactly like that on youtube. Check out what it looks
like around 4 1/2 minutes into this video.
What a #<€¥ . of a job it was to clean all that *^~€
out of the throttle body and other components. What a stupid design.
I have only had the thing a month and I am sure that there are going to
be a lot more issues come up. So be thankful that you own a Land Rover
and the worst that most will face are the 3 amigos on the D2.
Save
Share
CT090
Registered
Joined Mar 5, 2016
1,576 Posts
#9 · Mar 11, 2018
p76rangie said:
C
Can you please highlight where you have disagreed with any specific point I posted.
Well I suppose I was speaking globally, however there's a fair amount in your most recent post that I'd take issue with.
And, maybe disagree isn't the best word. Disagree infers an opinion or
interpretation. Often, our thoughts on approach to certain issues vary.
But I think what gets under your skin more is when I correct you when
you are passing out bad information to posters looking for help.
In this particular thread, I guess the overall tone just rubbed me the
wrong way. It's nothing more than a bunch of pontification about
pointless attributes of an engine. The average Rover owner needs to
know this about as much as they'd need to know when Maytag switched
over to sintered carbide in their dryer igniters. Clothes dry? Good.
Not dry? Replace.
But beyond that, I'm gonna' have to call BS on some of it. All that
blather about how Rover changed it's casting tooling and QC processes,
down to details like color coding... Unless you worked there in that
department, you really wouldn't have access to that level of minutiae.
So you're either making it up, or you're doing some deep Googling. Alot
of the rest of it has been posted on the various Rover specialist
sites, like Robison. But either way, it's pointless. I don't need to
know how intelligent, experienced, articulate and omnipotent you are.
Tell me what to fix.
Further to that, you continue to try and convince everyone that there
are no inherent issues or common failures with the latter versions of
the Rover V-8. You would have everyone believe that the only failures
are related to poor upkeep and the failures of ancillary components.
The regular flow of traffic to this site and others, along with the
experiences of the regulars that frequent here soundly disprove that.
And before you poop yourself (sorry, warned about new language rules) and dive towards your keyboard, keep in mind---YOU ASKED.
Save
Share
redtruck12
redtruck12
Administrator
Joined Jan 27, 2013
2,422 Posts
#10 · Mar 11, 2018
I allways do mY research before buying:)
A couple saying come to mind;
" Buyer beware "
Or maybe
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"
Happy Happy Happy
2002 D2 se7 6 seater . complete engine rebuild with flanged liners , 2
inch lift, terrafirma shocks, LT 275/65r18 Cooper stt tires, d1
modified front bumper, safety devices rack, 30" l.e.d. Light bar
2004 D2 se5 (sold)
2001 D2 se5 (parts truck)
2000 D2 se7 (retired)
1997 D1 (sold)
1957 Series 1 88" future projet
2006 Suburu legacy outback (gets me around when the disco is not) :laugh
Save
Share
CT090
Registered
Joined Mar 5, 2016
1,576 Posts
#11 · Mar 11, 2018
Again, since you asked...
Speaking, as I said before, globally, your most recent advice to the
member having coolant leakage problems, where you suggested he replace
his water pump as it was likely there was water leaking from the back
and into the crankcase... That sorta tells me you'rte really not too
familiar with the product. A water pump is pretty basic and you are
making repair recommendations and dispensing information that doesn't
come close to matching how the water pump is mounted to the engine.
In this thread, and I'll try to be more succinct... it feels like a
"look at how much I know and what an insider I am" thread.
Unfortunately, most of what you posted is poached from other web
sources. And, as I asserted before, what you were posting about very
"inside baseball" details about minutiae regarding things happening on
a production line or casting plant- either you would have had to been
working at Rover or had a close relationship with someone that did and,
for some reason, felt the need to share pedestrian details about his
day-to-day. In short it sounds like bullshi(r)t. Even if it wasn't
(unlikely) none of it was any more informative or useful to people with
real-world issues. But, on behalf of the rest of the members here,
thanks for sharing your intellectual masturbation with the rest of us.
In closing, your last comment is a true gut-buster. Land Rover was not
striving for perfection via continued improvement in their product
lineup. They had a product hopelessly out-of-date and uncompetitive in
the marketplace. They had no money for upgrades. They were being
groomed to be offed to the next owner. and before you assail me as a
Rover-hater, remember- I own several. I'm here.
Save
Share
p76rangie
p76rangie
Registered
Joined Jan 16, 2006
5,761 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · Mar 11, 2018
Just to give an alternative view to CT90 as to how Land Rover innovated
and led the world, you can watch this National Geographic video on Land
Rover.
Save
Share
CT090
Registered
Joined Mar 5, 2016
1,576 Posts
#13 · Mar 12, 2018
You do realize that the original Land Rovers were built on war surplus JEEP frames and axles, right?
Save
Share
CT090
Registered
Joined Mar 5, 2016
1,576 Posts
#14 · Mar 12, 2018
p76rangie said:
Is this a known fault that you are listing?????????
Please supply any post by me where I suggested to anyone that they replace their water pump.
Your comments show that you know very little about
vehicles in general and basically nothing you haven't read on a forum
on Land Rovers.
Here it is, in your own words...
p76rangie said:
That head gasket did not cause the overheat, nor did it result from the overheat.
The only real place could be the timing cover. As
well as gasket, should check for hole at the rear of the water pump
into the timing cover.
First off, someone cooks their engine and blows a head gasket. now, you
have them combing the underbrush, looking for some mysterious fault
because in your learned, expert opinion the overheat wasn't the cause
of the failure.
The OP is describing that his coolant bottle is losing level, but his
crankcase is filling with coolant after a head gasket job. You instruct
the OP to disassemble the entire front of his engine to look for where
water is leaking from the back of the water pump into the timing cover
and into his crankcase. Your offering to him is that it couldn't
possibly be the intake manifold.
I've posted these pictures for you now three times. Where is the hole
in the back of the water pump that coolant is leaking into his
crankcase?
Attachments
Auto part Automotive engine part Engine Automotive starter motor Carburetor
images.jpg
9 KB Views: 249
Auto part Automotive engine part Automotive air manifold
STC4378-USED.jpg
27 KB Views: 279
Save
Share
CT090
Registered
Joined Mar 5, 2016
1,576 Posts
#15 · Mar 12, 2018
p76rangie said:
I take it that you have found sources supporting everything I have stated.
YES!!! That was my point!
You copied and pasted a whole bunch of information you found on the
various Rover websites and reposted it as your own for one simple
reason- to show how smart you are. Not only is what you posted nothing
more than a recitation of unimportant data, YOU STOLE IT!
Plagiarism is nothing more than intellectual theft. It's fraud. And
it's not anywhere near the first time. I seem to recall you stealing
the entire technical description for some waterless coolant from the
website of the Australian company you buy it from.
When you use the work of others, when you repeat the knowledge of
others, it is generally considered good form to include an attribution.
That's those little footnotes at the bottoms of pages to tell the
reader where the source of the writer's source material. Otherwise,
it's consumed by the reader as the original thinking and/or research of
that writer.
As to the other content you posted, as I wrote before, the "Inside Rover" stuff appears to be just something you made up.
here's nothing wrong with you playing Keyboard Commando and coming to a
site like this to pretend you're a Rover Superhero. That is, until you,
based on your professions of Rover Omnipotence, send some poor guy off
to buy parts and do work, sometimes expensive and elaborate, that he
clearly does Tnot need to do.
Save
Share
CT090
Registered
Joined Mar 5, 2016
1,576 Posts
#16 · Mar 12, 2018
pump p76rangie said:
You previously stated that I told someone to replace
their water pump. Then as proof of this you supply a post from me that
does not mention replacing a water .
.
BACK