Jeep with 470hp hemi

[Bigbjorn]

I don't take much notice of new cars as I am not contmplating a purchase anytime soon. however I am currently in the Usa. Went to the Indy 500 and now doing tourist things.

I noticed newspaper ads for Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 6.4 litre 470hp hemi available. Now this is what the poms should stick in the front of Land Rovers. I could never understand why they have always been averse to putting in some horsepower. After all, they lost the market to Toyota because of their sticking with small low power engines.

[Vern]

So what your saying Brian, is the mighty 3.5 is gutless;). Hemi, mmmmmmmmm:)

[sheerluck]

You mean something like the new RRS with a supercharged, 508bhp 5.0 V8 Brian?

Too small? :D

[Shakey]

I've just back from visiting family in the UK and fuel is about 40% more expensive there than in Aus. I had a 4.2 Super Charged Range Rover in the UK and it cost me a fortune in fuel - was worth it though :)!

[superquag]

So what your saying Brian, is the mighty 3.5 is gutless;). Hemi, mmmmmmmmm:)

I'd agree. It may have been "outstanding" (?) in the original 2-door, way back then, but .....

My '95 Classic 3.9 V8 (low mileage) was, and still is a gutless wonder. Towing a 6x4 trailer with a double bed on board and the acceleration is, well, embarrasing.

The '95 GU Patrol's six cylinder is superior in acceleration, low-down torque , and with similar thirst. - With a 2.5 tonne or so plant/trailer behind it...


Just my own experience...:angel:

[p38arover]

I noticed newspaper ads for Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 6.4 litre 470hp hemi available. Now this is what the poms should stick in the front of Land Rovers. I could never understand why they have always been averse to putting in some horsepower.

See 2014 Range Rover Sport sets Pikes Peak record - Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/07/2014-range-rover-sport-sets-pikes-peak-record/)

[sheerluck]

See 2014 Range Rover Sport sets Pikes Peak record - Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/07/2014-range-rover-sport-sets-pikes-peak-record/)

I really like the reddish colour of the RRS in that piece. I think it's supposed to be Firenze Red, but doesn't quite look as good on the LRA website as it does in Autoblog's pictures.

[flagg]

See 2014 Range Rover Sport sets Pikes Peak record - Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/07/2014-range-rover-sport-sets-pikes-peak-record/)

That press release needed a lot more Youtube! :D

[Davo]

Because the Yanks still think that energy is free.

[LandyAndy]

Do Jeep use stronger circle clips on the axles with the stronger motor Brian :wasntme::wasntme::wasntme::wasntme::wasntme::wasn tme:
Andrew

[mudmouse]

It's because it's fun! They're not intended to be daily drivers. Land Rovers persistence with a 2.5L + turbo in a shipping container on wheels was hamstrung from the start, and left behind with the associated negative connotations.

The USA is a wonderful place with a fantastic general 'can do' attitude.

Who'd of thought to stick a 289 then 427 in a little British car, or now a big horse Hemi into a Jeep. Love it!

Matt.

[frantic]

The big difference is in the price. With the jeep sr8t you get 95% of a supercharged RRS for less than half the price. $76,000 v $161,000.
Now with the G-wagen you get a well sealed much faster defender for 2-4 times the price . How many more defenders would sell if they followed the jeep formula?

[Blknight.aus]

simple end user economics...

in order to make 470 HP first you must burn that much fuel

[Bigbjorn]

simple end user economics...

in order to make 470 HP first you must burn that much fuel

Which is currently less than $1 per litre in the USA.

If you buy a $160,000 dollar Range Rover and then complain about the fuel costs you won't get any sympathy from me. Is it "Oh, poor bugger me", or "all hat and no cattle"?

[Bigbjorn]

You mean something like the new RRS with a supercharged, 508bhp 5.0 V8 Brian?

Too small? :D

When I started the thread I was thinking only of real Land
Rovers, not Discovery or Range Rover, neither of which hold much interest for me.

I can't fathom the thinking of a design or marketing group that put a 3.5 litre engine in a two ton car and turned a good idea into a slug. RR's were never quick. GM had that engine family out at 300 cubic inches and good performing alum. heads were in their inventory also. So why did Rover **** about with a toy engine? As for real Land Rovers, Rover should have had a four litre 200 hp engine in the IIA (or the III at the latest) and saved their market share.

[BMKal]

When I started the thread I was thinking only of real Land
Rovers, not Discovery or Range Rover, neither of which hold much interest for me.I can't fathom the thinking of a design or marketing group that put a 3.5 litre engine in a two ton car and turned a good idea into a slug. RR's were never quick. GM had that engine family out at 300 cubic inches and good performing alum. heads were in their inventory also. So why did Rover **** about with a toy engine? As for real Land Rovers, Rover should have had a four litre 200 hp engine in the IIA (or the III at the latest) and saved their market share.

So you're comparing a Jeep "Grand Cherokee" SRT8 with a Defender ????? :o

Maybe you should take a drive in both and discover what the Grand Cherokee's competition really would be in the Land Rover range. I can assure you it isn't the Series / Defender.

[sheerluck]

......As for real Land Rovers, Rover should have had a four litre 200 hp engine in the IIA (or the III at the latest) and saved their market share.

Disagree Brian. In the 60s and 70s when the IIa and Series III were in use, was the time of Land Rover's greatest sales volumes. About 30% of their sales were the home market, and given that historically, fuel prices have been more expensive than the rest of their markets, putting a huge V8 in would probably have been commercial suicide on the home front.

Their biggest market at that point was country folk, farmers and the military, few of whom would have welcomed an engine like you describe.

Let's face it, if everyone wanted big V8s, then the GM and Ford subsidiaries would be exporting huge numbers to the UK and the rest of the world.

[Dougal]

All of the rangies for sale recently are the v8's. The value of these are plummeting compared to the diesels of all years.

V8 petrols are seriously impractical in the real world.

[Dougal]

simple end user economics...

in order to make 470 HP first you must burn that much fuel

And that much fuel is approximately 150 litres per hour.

Assuming some things like 300g/kwh BSFC. Works out to about 12psi boost on a 4.2 litre V8 at 6000rpm and 90% VE.

[superquag]

When I started the thread I was thinking only of real Land
Rovers, not Discovery or Range Rover, neither of which hold much interest for me.

I can't fathom the thinking of a design or marketing group that put a 3.5 litre engine in a two ton car and turned a good idea into a slug. RR's were never quick. GM had that engine family out at 300 cubic inches and good performing alum. heads were in their inventory also. So why did Rover **** about with a toy engine? As for real Land Rovers, Rover should have had a four litre 200 hp engine in the IIA (or the III at the latest) and saved their market share.

IMHO, GM saw Rover coming a mile away...and totally stitched them up with an engine that was more profitable to sell off than develop further, to put it nicely...

Should have confined it to the Rover car(s) and bought/developed a decent diesel for the Classic/Disco/Defenders.

[bobslandies]

IMHO, GM saw Rover coming a mile away...and totally stitched them up with an engine that was more profitable to sell off than develop further, to put it nicely...

Should have confined it to the Rover car(s) and bought/developed a decent diesel for the Classic/Disco/Defenders.

The BOP engine was being scrapped because of too many problems in favour of lighter weight cast iron V8 and V6 motors anyway. As in 3.8 Commodore V6.

Bob

[V8Ian]

I don't think Land Rover had a drivetrain, or the money to develop one capable of handling more torque or power when the V8 was introduced. Wasn't the RRC constant four wheel drive to split the load on the weak diffs?

[V8Ian]

The BOP engine was being scrapped because of too many problems in favour of lighter weight cast iron V8 and V6 motors anyway. As in 3.8 Commodore V6.

Bob
The alloy engine was developed by GM as the steel manufacturers were charging exorbitant prices. Ford had their own steel mills. GM were having issues with the alloy engines so when the price of steel was dropped GM sold Rover the rights to the alloy unit. Rover further developed the engine before release. I'm sure if there was a market for a greater capacity Rover would have persued that avenue. Back in the '70s and indeed still to this day, 3500 cc is considered a large displacement in Europe, then Land Rover's primary market.

[Davo]

Yes, they never would have sold the giant American horsepower you guys are talking about. And can you imagine little Rover Ltd, always stretched for cash, developing an entire drivetrain to deal with it?

You can read reviews of how fast and powerful the 3.5 was at the time. Not everyone wants a supercharger on their lawnmower and the V8 was perfectly fine for its intended purpose - at the time. Expectations have changed just a bit since the late '60s.

[Blknight.aus]

you also need to keep in mind that the original rover v8 was never intended to be a performance donk power output was traded for survivability and long term "just keep running enough to get me home"

once you design a pigs ear its very hard to turn it into a silk purse BUT if what you need at the time is a pigs ear then your set. IMHO, they should have dropped the v8 in its form after the later EFI models and done a complete redesign OR got the damn thing to work properly in its iceberg configuration.

[Red90]

When I started the thread I was thinking only of real Land
Rovers, not Discovery or Range Rover, neither of which hold much interest for me.
But THAT Jeep is not a real Jeep. They can't go off road and can barely deal with a dirt road.

[UncleHo]

The alloy V8 was purchased from GM's Buick division to go into the then proposed Gun Tractor required by the British MOD,which became the 101,it was then made optional in the P6 Rover Sedan as the P6B then into the under development Range Rover,as the side/overhead 6 cylinder motor in 2.6 litre form was gutless.

One must remember that at the time in UK vehicles were taxed (regoed) on Horse Power,not on cylinders as in some Australian States.

[crash]

They sell kits in the USA to put the Hemi into the Wranglers.

[Davo]

you also need to keep in mind that the original rover v8 was never intended to be a performance donk power output was traded for survivability and long term "just keep running enough to get me home"

once you design a pigs ear its very hard to turn it into a silk purse BUT if what you need at the time is a pigs ear then your set. IMHO, they should have dropped the v8 in its form after the later EFI models and done a complete redesign OR got the damn thing to work properly in its iceberg configuration.

That's what makes me laugh, all this criticism just because it's a V8. Back then, V8s were used as truck engines and for all sorts of things. (Wasn't the Bren gun carrier a V8?). It wasn't put in the Range Rover to turn it into a speed monster, but because that's what was available.

[UncleHo]

The Range Rover also got the LT95 transmission from the 101 which gave it constant four wheel drive they added boosted disc brakes and it became the vehicle which set off the leisure vehicle market both in UK and across the world, and the must-have for both the Landed Gentry and of the Up-And-Coming Social Set :cool: