Pinning Liners in a 4.6

[Kevin B]

Hi All,

In my quest to research a new engine for my D1 3.5l I have been given the opportunity to acquire a 4.6l short motor, I have a mate who is an engine builder and is willing to do all the work I need for free in his spare time as long as I supply parts of course and throw him beers.

I had started off wanting to freshen up a 3.5l engine and replace mine with it, which I was happy doing, however after this last weekend away camping and sitting around a fire with him for 4 days talking about it, he has semi convinced me to do a 4.6l conversion on the bottom end, tool up the 3.5l heads a bit to make them breathe better, pop in a new cam and bolt all my 3.5l gear onto it taking into account the crank needs a bit of modification but that’s not a problem, here is my dilemma though, I have read lots and lots about Slipped liners in later motors and I really don’t want to fork out the coin to top hat the block or even just buy the liners and have mate put them in so I was wondering about “Pinning the liners” there are tons of threads here about pinning 3.9’s and 4.6’s that have already got slipped liners but was wondering if I was to pin the liners on a block that was good would that be ok? I know it is nowhere near as effective as top hatting but I cant see why it would not be effective as a kind of preventive measure.

[p38arover]

Pinning doesn't fix the leakage between the liner and the block.

Read this: http://robisonservice.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/flanged-or-top-hat-liners-in-land-rover.html

Look at these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4odA3l2BAg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-NrrCpHhP8&src_vid=C2EyvgxdyRY&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_234714

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx6_NZG18wY

[Kevin B]

Thanks Ron do they only leak as a result of liner slippage? or is there another more sinister cause..

[101RRS]

The block material can still break where the liners are pinned.

Lets see if I understand what you are wanting to do??

Use a 3.5 Block to fit a 4.6 crank or modify a 3.5 crank? You do appreciate that the mains journals are larger on the 4.6 and there is not enough room inside block for the 4.6 crank and it has to be ground in various places as well as the bearing casting line bored to take the crank etc.

However your post seems to indicate you are going to modifiy the 3.5 crank to give it a 4.6 stroke - there was a reason LR went to larger mains and made other mods such as cross bolted mains and thicker walled gudgeons.

What about cross bolted mains - a bit of machine work to get that done and the 3.5 block does not even have the reinforced pads in their lower block for the cross bolts.

Certainly can be done but starts to get expensive.

What are you doing about the liners - are you boring out the 3.5 liners to take the 4.0/4.6 pistons (can this even be done) - if relinering with 4.6 liners then go top hat.

What about conrods - 4.6 conrods are a different length and the gudgeon pins used in the 4.6 have a thicker wall material.

There are lots of things to consider, but of course anything is possible - but easier to get a dead 4.6 and rebuild - or a 4.0 if you can get a crank and conrods.

Garry

[Kevin B]

The block material can still break where the liners are pinned.

Lets see if I understand what you are wanting to do??

Use a 3.5 Block to fit a 4.6 crank or modify a 3.5 crank? You do appreciate that the mains journals are larger on the 4.6 and there is not enough room inside block for the 4.6 crank and it has to be ground in various places as well as the bearing casting line bored to take the crank etc.

However your post seems to indicate you are going to modifiy the 3.5 crank to give it a 4.6 stroke - there was a reason LR went to larger mains and made other mods such as cross bolted mains and thicker walled gudgeons.

What about cross bolted mains - a bit of machine work to get that done and the 3.5 block does not even have the reinforced pads in their lower block for the cross bolts.

Certainly can be done but starts to get expensive.

What are you doing about the liners - are you boring out the 3.5 liners to take the 4.0/4.6 pistons (can this even be done) - if relinering with 4.6 liners then go top hat.

What about conrods - 4.6 conrods are a different length and the gudgeon pins used in the 4.6 have a thicker wall material.

There are lots of things to consider, but of course anything is possible - but easier to get a dead 4.6 and rebuild - or a 4.0 if you can get a crank and conrods.

Garry

Garry,

No, I "was" going to rebuild a 3.5l motor, but now i have been offered a Complete 4.6l Short motor, everything minus heads, my mate said we should use this and freshen it up, hone rings, Bearings, ECT, then put my pair of heads off the 3.5l on it after doing some work on them, hence my question about pinning the 4.6l block instead of Top hatting it.

[bee utey]

....., hence my question about pinning the 4.6l block instead of Top hatting it.
Don't waste your time on a half job. My experience to date is that top hat liners is what these blocks need to be even half reliable. Unless you have documents proving the block is only 100,000km old and never ever did any towing, just put it aside until you can afford to do the job properly.

I have a job lined up this week to do similar things to a 1997 P38 HSE with a meticulously maintained 180,000km, it has a slipped liner and it'll be getting the lot done, once and for all.

[Kevin B]

Thanks bee utey,

i was afraid of that answer, but you don't know till you ask, i have no problem in getting liners fitted just buying them, ill do some research and see what there worth.

[101RRS]

Ok - sorry - misunderstood.:( Thanks goodness - was worried about what I thought you were intending.:)

There are some old threads on here about pinning somewhere. As I mentioned the block casting where the pins would go is only about 1/4" thick or less and if the liner does try to move the piece of block casting could break way.

When you do the cam you will need to consider whether you are going with a dizzy or not. If a dizzy, you will need a dizzy cam and use your 3.5 timing gear cover (there are some mods required) - I think in this configuration a dual timing chain can be used. If you decide not dissy and use something like Megajolt to run the ignition then you use the 4.6 and timing gear cover but then you can only use a single timing gear chain.

You will also need to consider what injection you are going to use - I am not sure about the old flapper on the 3.5i but I think the 4CIUX off the 3.9 will work OK with some tweaks.

Again there are posts about this somewhere.

Cheers

Garry

[Kevin B]

im kind of thinking the cost/effort involved with a 4.6 conversion outweighs the cost of the vehicle, may just stick with my original plan to rebuilt one of the 3.5's i have here in the shed and just swap it over using all my current bolt ons, its gotta be a marked improvement over the tired engine that is in there now.

[p38arover]

When I had mine top-hatted, the liners were $700 fitted.

[Kevin B]

It costs more than that now just to get the liners from Turners.

[Eevo]

liners about about $100 each for just the parts

[Kevin B]

So its back to the 3.5l, thanks all..

[Scouse]

Get your mate to contact Balmain Engineering. They appear to be the one who fits most top hat liners in Sydney.
Your mate can get them done at trade.

[Kevin B]

Scouse, he has the machinery to do it but just need to buy the liners ill call them and see if they sell them.

[p38arover]

..........

I've read that before but not understood why. The 3.9/4.0 have the same bore as a 4.6. Why is the problem 4.6 related?

Changing from 3.5 to 4.6 is the cheapest performance upgrade one can do and, for most people, undetectable.

[101RRS]

I've read that before but not understood why. The 3.9/4.0 have the same bore as a 4.6. Why is the problem 4.6 related?

Not sure of the specifics but it goes something like this.

The 4.0 and the 4.6 blocks are the same and when they were made they were given one of three grades (I think they used a colour dot system) - based on various tests (not sure exactly - but such as block hardness etc).

I guess, because of the higher capacity and performance of the 4.6 the highest grade blocks went into the 4.6 (I assume the High Comps). The middle grade could go into either the 4.6 or the 4.0 (I assume Hi Comp in the 4.0) and the lowest grade goes into the 4.0.

Now we seem to hear that there are more slipped liners in the 4.6 rather than the 4.0 but but that may not actually be the case - who knows. Looking at how the blocks are graded and used, you would think that more failures should be happening in the 4.0s but then in Australia the 4.6 has been around for a bit longer.

Garry

[pibby]

i get confused when this topic comes up. i've got a 4.6 in a disco and if my eyes don't deceive me i would say there is a step at the bottom of the cylinder wall which the bottom of the liner sits on. i know the motor was bought new to put into the vehicle.

so in this instance i can't see how a liner can slip. maybe the original factory motors didn't have this lip?

maybe it needs to be distinguished which type of motor is being talked about other than the cc?

[p38arover]

I understood the problem to be that the liners were not pushed fully home when being installed and prior to the block deck being machined. The liner is then too short and, when the block is hot, can move down. I have previously posted a pic of a slipped liner.

[Kevin B]

In reality what are the actual chances of getting a slipped liner, when you think about it there must be thousands if not tens of thousands of these engines out there that go there whole life without liner slippage regardless of the abuse they get, we read about them on forums like this because those who frequent forums join to diagnose problems, thats what there for, thats why I joined, sure there would be a percentage of folks on here thst have no issues at all and are just here for the community feel, in reality we onky read about the bad stuff is what im saying.

[101RRS]

i get confused when this topic comes up. i've got a 4.6 in a disco and if my eyes don't deceive me i would say there is a step at the bottom of the cylinder wall which the bottom of the liner sits on. i know the motor was bought new to put into the vehicle.

so in this instance i can't see how a liner can slip. maybe the original factory motors didn't have this lip?

maybe it needs to be distinguished which type of motor is being talked about other than the cc?

I would say your 4.6 block is not standard.

I just checked my bare 4.6 block that has standard liners (two slipped) and there is no lip at the bottom.

I also checked the 4.6 engine I am building out of a 4.0 block. It had top hat liners. The first obvious difference is that the top hat liners have thicker walls and as such to fit them - as well as the top hat machining the block has been machined to fit the larger outside diameter liner so there is a lip at the bottom at the sides of the block - however this goes down a good cm lower than the bottom of the liner - I guess if this machining did not go so far down it could be used to stop the lining slipping - but if you go to this trouble the Top Hatting is the way to go.

Has your engine actually been top hatted and what you can see is the machining for the thicker liner and your machinist has not taken the block machining as far down as was done on my block.

Certainly a standard block does not have the lip at the bottom of the liners - just held by the press fit.

Garry

[bee utey]

So long as the cylinder liner isn't clamped down by the cylinder head and gasket, the liner only stays put due to friction. Once the stock liner loosens for whatever reason it can move enough to make a distinctive rattling noise. The reasons for the liner coming loose are multiple but the fact is ALL the bigger bore blocks have less cast aluminium around the liners than is desirable. The 3.5 block was very good in its stock form but ALL the 3.9/4.0/4.6 blocks are at higher risk. Some of these blocks (especially late in production) are even weaker due to the sand casting cores moving during the casting process, making them riskier to use than the best blocks. I believe this is why the 4.0 got the less well cast ones in preference to the 4.6 getting the better ones.

One of the reasons why people remember the good ones is because of course they are the ones that are still going. In the past if a 4.6 cracked a block and loosened a liner the engine was frequently driven to destruction by an ignorant owner and either replaced or the vehicle was scrapped. You couldn't tell from the mess left behind as to what died first. Nowadays the vehicles being very second hand the costs have to be weighed more carefully.

[101RRS]

........

Not on the stripped down block I have.

[Kevin B]

I will try to get as much info on why this 4.6l was taken out of service if it was due to vehicle write off it may be worth it, if it was engine failure then ill probably steer clear and go back to my original Plan of using the 3.5l

[101RRS]

I will try to get as much info on why this 4.6l was taken out of service if it was due to vehicle write off it may be worth it, if it was engine failure then ill probably steer clear and go back to my original Plan of using the 3.5l

But with the exception of the liner cost - about $800 the cost of rebuilding a 4.6 vs 3.5 will be the same - it will certainly cost a lot more than the $800 difference to get the 3.5 to perform any where like the 4.6.

In either case though it is expensive and if you want to take a risk buy a used engine as it will be a lot cheaper.

Garry

[Kevin B]

Lets hope this is not a Stoopid question, correct me if i am wrong but it is my understanding that all Blocks from 3.5 to 4.6 were made from same cast then just bored to size taking int account the last post about the best being used for 4.6 and the ones that ere not got made into 3.9 or 4.0, so here it the stupid question, can you not get a 3.5 block and bore it out fit top hat liners and make it a 4.6 ? or am i missing something..

[Kevin B]

But with the exception of the liner cost - about $800 the cost of rebuilding a 4.6 vs 3.5 will be the same - it will certainly cost a lot more than the $800 difference to get the 3.5 to perform any where like the 4.6.

In either case though it is expensive and if you want to take a risk buy a used engine as it will be a lot cheaper.

Garry
i didnt really intend to try make a 3.5 perform like a 4.6 my original intention was just a motor freshen up then got to talking to my mate and he suggested a 4.6, before that i hadn't even thought about it. you are correct though the cost would be the same and if i could get liners for say 800 he can fit them so the cost of labor there would be a saving as well and i would have a better motor, of course then i would have to look at the EFI system as well course i was just going to use the original flapper on the rebuilt 3.5 unless it can still be used on a bigger engine, Decisions Decisions....

[Kevin B]

.......

don't intend to go that way at all, was just curios and you answered my question, thanks.

[p38arover]

........

My '86 Rangie was bored and stroked to 4.6 litres in about 1988 by John E Davis Motorworks. It had Chev valves and a Haltech EFI ECU.

[chazza]

If you end up using the 3500, be aware that boring it will cause the liners to slip; so you will need to have it fitted with top-hat liners anyway!

I found out the hard way when I had my P6 3500 re-bored,

Cheers Charlie

[Kevin B]

I was only planning on 20 thou to match theses pistons I have

[chazza]

I was only planning on 20 thou to match theses pistons I have

That is what I had done :( Boring relieves the tension on the liners so they will slip after a few km, once the block gets hot.

[Kevin B]

Well I might just take the chance but ill pin the liners in the 3.5 first, top hatting is just not an option for me

[Hoges]

..........

The RAVE description of the pre and post MY99 production models of the 4.6 concurs with the above.

Quote from RAVE:

"The cylinder block is fitted with cast iron cylinder liners which are shrink-fitted and locate on stops in the block."

I haven't pulled mine apart yet to check:)

[chazza]

I do remember on my P6's 3500 that there was a stop at the bottom of the block - the re-conditioner called me in to look at it, because I had asked him if he knew about the slipping liner problem.

Together we agreed that we couldn't see how the liners could move, when they were clamped at the top by the gasket and to my lasting regret we got it wrong.

Now I know that the top-hat relies on the head to clamp it in place rather than the gasket. The liners not being pushed all the way down, makes sense as well,

Cheers Charlie

[Kevin B]

here is a PDF i found on here some time ago about the process of pinning liners, i didn't write this but found it interesting.

[Tins]

Put an LS1 in it. Just a thought.

Land Rover V8 Engine Conversion Kits using the LS Series V8 Engine | Marks 4WD Adaptors (http://www.marks4wd.com/bell-housing-adaptors/land-rover/ls-series-v8-engines.html)

Holden Commodore VT VX VU VY WH WK V8 5 7LTR GEN3 LS1 Engine Motor | eBay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/HOLDEN-COMMODORE-VT-VX-VU-VY-WH-WK-V8-5-7Ltr-Gen3-LS1-ENGINE-MOTOR-/121224444296?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item1c398a3988)

[Kevin B]

correct, besides i'm not after a race car or stump puller, just something with enough torque to pull the skin off a rice pudding :)

[Eevo]

...........

actually same cost as replacing the 4.0 with a 4.6.

[Kevin B]

I have 2 complete 3.5's here I got for nothing so ill probably just stick with the best one of those unless I can find a 3.9 to do instead

[Tins]

Like I said, it was a thought. However, on the Winter Wombat 2013 there was a P38 with one in it, and it was awesome. The whole thing, car included ( the P38), cost around 12K. So I wouldn't dismiss it that quickly. And, rebuilding a 4.6 isn't cheap.

[Tins]

I have 2 complete 3.5's here I got for nothing so ill probably just stick with the best one of those unless I can find a 3.9 to do instead

Do you want a 3.9? My son has one. If he wants to part with it is something only he knows. I wanted it to put in my FIAT, but that's probably not going to happen.

PM him: C.tins is his username.

[Eevo]

summary: same price, but ls1 double the power

[Kevin B]

That was my concern with a 4.6 If I went that way then I would possibly have to do the trans and diffs ect, what then started out as a simple engine refresh becomes vrry costly.

[Eevo]

from TRS:

Hi
We can help with the following
4l stepped liner short $4100 4.6l stepped liner short $5500 the usual labor cost is around $2000 to remove & refit
Regards Phil


$5500 + $2000 = $7500


4.6 168kw 380Nm
ls1 225kw 460Nm

+30% power
+20% torque
thats the max figure.
the power band fatter just above idle, yet linear as the rpm rise.


the ls1 plan im putting together comes to $9500

fuel systems, cooling system, air-conditioning are easy to do
cruise control, dont have it in the first place

in sa engineering would be easy as its a rigid chassis, similar weight engine, and brakes are vented. wouldnt need an eng cert.

you mentioned a new 4.6 for 4-4.5k, but thats not top hatted, so add 1k+ for that.

[Tins]

from TRS:


the ls1 plan im putting together comes to $9500



Fitted? Would that figure also apply to a P38? The ZF should take the torque, shouldn't it? I'm asking 'cos I know where there's a cheap P38. Although the budget won't stretch that far just at the moment, I was very impressed by the car I mentioned.

[Eevo]

Fitted? Would that figure also apply to a P38? The ZF should take the torque, shouldn't it? I'm asking 'cos I know where there's a cheap P38. Although the budget won't stretch that far just at the moment, I was very impressed by the car I mentioned.

yes fitted.
drive in, drive out.

i have a R380, so i cant comment on the P38 or the ZF.

[Eevo]

]
yeah, hence why i was looking at other options (ls1)
i emailed them cause i wanted a baseline/comparison.

from what i've read, the crate engine still can suffer from slipped liners and/or cracked block. im pretty sure my 4.0 is faulty. i could fix it, but i dont like spending money and having the same as what i had before. if i spend money, i want something better. 4.6 is better but not cost effective to bulletproof. but ls1 is just so much better in almost every respect. power and torque both near idle and up high, better economy.


stock LS1 one.

[Kevin B]

i see we have moved on considerably from the original question about Pinning the liners in a 4.6... :D

[Eevo]

ive been thinking about creating a thread. maybe this weekend i'll get my thoughts together.
there is a ls1 d2 on youtube, so its been done before

my mechanic says cause i have a manual d2, its a little bit easier to do compared to an auto.

im still tryng to get it all sorted in my head but most of the electronics are in the bcu


need to work out of the hill decent control talks to the ecu, and getting something to replicate the signals it needs.

[p38arover]

Here's a pic I took of a dropped liner in a 3.9.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/09/40.jpg

[Kevin B]

I have heard of it happening in a 3.9 although not as often but not to say it isn't as common.

I am just about to pickup a complete D1 96 drive train, 3.9 engine, box, transfer and all boltons including the EFI all still joined, the bloke Im getting it off is doing an LS1 conversion with Nissan Front and rear axles so I got the Full 24 spline Front and rear axles off him as well, so im going to put it all in my 93 D1, after its all been Rebuilt.