supercharger on a classic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superquag

Almost ANY other engine is an improvement... from 3L MAZDA diesels, to 307 Ford v8 (needs shoe-horning and light R foot....)

My 3.9 gets embarrassed on a flat road if you hitch a solid 4x'6' box trailer onto her...- before loading it... :eek::eek::eek:

ford 'Yellow' injectors may improve it a tiny bit... but the problem with the 3.9 is that it's a LOW compression design, and I'm told the inlet manifold leaves a lot to be desired... The engine is a lemon, and always will be a thirsty & gutless failure, IMHO.
Some folk like the sound of an 'unbalanced' 8 cylinder contraption...

The 4.6 is looking the most economical way.

(I'm taking the easy/sensible way out, The Lady Sarah is up for sale.... maybe replaced with a Chinese 4WD... performance & costs couldn't be worse!)

---

Wow ... mine is nowhere near that bad. Possibly it's been freshened up at some point with some high compression bits ... who would ever know. I'm certainly not dissapointed with the performance.

She rumbles along nicely drinking vast quantities of lpg as quick as it can gulp it down. It really boogies from 2800+ rpm. So it certainly isn't a torque cam fitted.

Maybe it's had a 4.6 crank thrown into it ... how would you know without pulling it down though.

seeya,
Shane L.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

Wow ... mine is nowhere near that bad. Possibly it's been freshened up at some point with some high compression bits ... who would ever know. I'm certainly not dissapointed with the performance.

She rumbles along nicely drinking vast quantities of lpg as quick as it can gulp it down. It really boogies from 2800+ rpm. So it certainly isn't a torque cam fitted.

Maybe it's had a 4.6 crank thrown into it ... how would you know without pulling it down though.

seeya,
Shane L.

---

Hey but you're used to driving French cars.


My 3.5 feels like it couldn't pull the skin off the custard but it gets the job done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Hey but you're used to driving French cars.


My 3.5 feels like it couldn't pull the skin off the custard but it gets the job done.

---

My french car is a 1980's Citroen CX2500 GTi Turbo that does 0-100km/h in about 7.6 seconds .................. the 602cc 2cylinder 2cv is more fun to drive though :wasntme:

If your ever in my area, your welcome to take the old POS Rangie for a spin.... It's a briliant heap of junk. I certainly wouldn't call it slow. I'm not sure what peoples expectations are from a 30+ year old 4wd. Try another other 4wd from that era.

seeya,
Shane L.

The old '89 / 3.5l that corrupted me, had originally been 'refreshed' and cam'd for towing. Don't know if it went to high compression, but it was gutsy with 2 tonnes behind it.
Take the trailer(and sweeper) off..and you could lose your licence by the end of the street.... That was on LPG, faster on petrol.

Downside was, it was dying at 80km/h and by 100 it was out of puff. But as most suburban roads have lower speed limits, we never worried about it.:angel:

Plus it was quick off the mark and made shrt work of traffic lights / intersections. :p

I think (don't quote me...) the later inlet manifold can be made to fit.... but it's easier to drop the whole 4.6 into it. Possibly cheaper....:eek:

Hi All

The 92 Rangie I picked up is pretty spritely from 0 to 80 Klms and the auto will kick down if you want to get a move along.
Yes there's quite a few cars ( 4 cylinder) that will give you a run for your money at the lights but non can beat the burble of the V8 .....

After 80 she struggles to pull to 100 Klms with any real speed ....I've been told the auto (ZF) was swapped out for another with a better top end gearing for touring ...I can't vouch for that .
Once the rubber band is wound at 100 Klms she does get a second wind .....I've not pushed her as the steering is a little vague ....and I need to look at that before seeing what her top speed is.

I'm really happy with the way she performs ......They were never designed for speed .....Pushing a 2 ton vehicle as aerodynamic as a brick on the freeway was never going to be economical on fuel.

but off-road they are sensational and the V8 ticks over and is quite economically .....Though you need to fill up on the way to your local playground :D

But ......I wouldn't swap it for quids

Cheers

Baggy

That would be perfect.

Crikey, I've just done a 7000km trip and come back to read this crap. James, please, for the love of God, get your Asian replacement car and stop whining about Range Rovers. The V8 was never a lemon and was perfectly fine when it was first used because that was the level of engine technology back then. Rover only bought it because one of the directors happened to see a Buick V8 on a workshop floor and realised that it was close to the size of a British 4-cylinder and so would be ideal in a similar-sized engine bay. They weren't sold the thing, they asked for it and it was just what they needed.

During our trip I had two small problems with my engine which were probably my fault anyway and otherwise it sang its little heart out and climbed hills and cruised at 110kmh, and used a surprisingly reasonable amount of fuel. This is an engine with only 11,000km on it when we left so would be comparable to a new one from the 70s and it drove just as it has been described in car reviews from that era.

To answer the OP's question, Rovercare on here had fitted a supercharger in his murky past and I seem to remember didn't like it much. As the saying goes, "There's no replacement for displacement."

A high compression 4.6 will absolutely in every way eat a blown 3.9 for breakfast.

Jc

My 3.9 95 Disco auto is a lovely thing to drive. The engine is so smooth and still gets up and goes at 320,000k odd and on LPG. Having said that it does notice big weights behind it and you can tell she is slowly losing her edge but with care and provided you are not towing a lot it should just keep on going. Now my low k 4.6 Thor High Comp with 5 speed manual is a different beast. It is very powerful and has instant throttle response. Towing 2 tonn with it is a pleasure. Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ozscott

My 3.9 95 Disco auto is a lovely thing to drive. The engine is so smooth and still gets up and goes at 320,000k odd and on LPG. Having said that it does notice big weights behind it and you can tell she is slowly losing her edge but with care and provided you are not towing a lot it should just keep on going. Now my low k 4.6 Thor High Comp with 5 speed manual is a different beast. It is very powerful and has instant throttle response. Towing 2 tonn with it is a pleasure. Cheers

---

And that I reckon sums up crux of question. What is car going to be used for? I am anticipating something similar from my 3.5 - and around 14-15L/100km. But, for sure it wont tow as well as a 3.0SDV6 RRS with remapped ecu and 650nm torque. But I bet the 3.5 will last longer :) These engines as stated were originally designed in early 60's so expecting them to do same as modern engines just isn't realistic. No variable cam timing, etc etc. But what are the chances of forum thread 40 years from now, discussing current model RR's?