Thread: 3.9 to 5.0 litre

Originally Posted by 400HPONGAS

TerryO , you know so little about engines its embarrasing ! My point about the Foulcan engine is that the latest Jag engine and Gearbox in the latest Rangies are a direct steal of the Ford engine used here in OZ in the Foulcan. As for a old 289 , you must be joking !!! The 289 dissapeared in 1968 never to rear its ugly head again , around the same time the first 308's were coming out (the manufactures at that time claimed 240fwhp for the 308 and 190fwhp for the 289 !!)

I didn't realise you could get a falcon with a supercharged or atmo 4.4 V8 or a 3.6TDV8.I'm behind the times. Pat

Originally Posted by Chad

....

I want one

Originally Posted by RoverP6B

The VB Commodore made from 1978 till 1980 came with 4.2 or 5.0 litre engines, meeting the requirements of the day in terms emissions etc.

A whopping 87kW and 114kW respectively.

VB Commodore Specifications

Cast iron technology is old technology, however strong it may be. I don't dismiss it as an option because of that, rather on the terms of mass and how such an increase will effect the dynamics of the LR into which it is fitted.

You could always just buy a later Range Rover with the Jaguar V8 engine. I recall they were in the order of 500HP, totally modern and not at all agricultural.

Ron.

Yep and the KW or HP figures were generally taken at the rear wheels in those day where as now they are taken from the flywheel and there is a fair difference between the 2. There were also a bigger range of diff ratios available and easy to get to alter power and acceleration rates, not available easily for most cars these days.

Originally Posted by steve_35

So what do you have to do to fit a GMH 5 litre in Land rover

A lot would depend on what you had a vailable and how much work you could do yourself. Personally I would go the 5 litre injected VT engine as parts are still easy to get. Generally I would stick with the rover V8 unless there was terminal damage and I wanted to do something different.
Basically you would need new engine mounts, exhaust, maybe radiator and depending on HP requirements gearbox mods or change. The older Rover auto used to handle a stock 5 litre no problem, not sure about the 5 spd or 4 spd.

Originally Posted by 400HPONGAS

TerryO , you know so little about engines its embarrasing ! My point about the Foulcan engine is that the latest Jag engine and Gearbox in the latest Rangies are a direct steal of the Ford engine used here in OZ in the Foulcan. As for a old 289 , you must be joking !!! The 289 dissapeared in 1968 never to rear its ugly head again , around the same time the first 308's were coming out (the manufactures at that time claimed 240fwhp for the 308 and 190fwhp for the 289 !!)

No need to be embarrassed, finally it would seem you get it Poogas400, yes I was joking.


For your information I've never owned a 289 or any other Ford Windsor V8 for that matter, but I knew some Holden worshipper would bite hard.

I just through the 289 jibe in to see how many would take the bait and start another futile arguement about which engine is better.

I thought anyone who knew anything about old American V8's would have picked up where I was going when I said a 221 (the least powerful V8 since a flathead) was a better overal engine then a 308!

As for new Land Rovers adopting the engines of their then parent company ...well I can't wait until we see the next generation of Rovers powered by Tata Nano engines.

Lets see what you think of the old Rover/ Buick engine then?

Have a nice day

cheers,
Terry

Originally Posted by TerryO

CraigE you say ...Stupid Ford Freaks!

Thats not being very nice. You might have to consider moderating yourself if you keep that kind of behaviour up.

Why quantify my comments about boat anchors your the one telling the story that Holden V8's deserve to be fitted in boats rather then Fords.

I'll go one step further I bet a standard 260 V8 Ford Compost would suck the pin stripes off of a standard 253 Kingswood. And beyond a doubt the Ford still sounds much better!

Great little engine the Windsor was, even the 221 was a better engine overall.

Have a nice day.

cheers,
Terry

LOL. That was polite, just ask Landy Andy on my real opinion of Ford owners. If you have not gathered I am a Holden man, but can appreciate other cars even Fords. The engines were appropriate for their applications and pretty much comparing them is not fair. Yes the 289 was not a bad motor for its time but was obsolete by about 1970. My cousin had a beautiful fastback Mustang with a 289. Same as most cast engines are obsolete these days but do have their uses and are fairly indestructible. Same can not be said for worked alloy or aluminium engines and heads. Most l;ate model engines are disposable units. The old cast engines were designed for ease of maintenance and the ability to be rebuilt over and over, hence low tolerances, which affected performance.

didnt the rover v8 start life as a GM??

if so they must both suck

cheers phil

Originally Posted by RoverP6B

Hello Rovercare,

So an LS1 engine,..what is the standard power and torque for these engines as you would install them into a LR or RR?

How many km have you driven such a vehicle with the engine installed and what was the fuel consumption that it returned both for city and country driving?

What is the cost of the engine and installation? What warranty is provided?

Thanks in advance,
Ron.

If you had serious intentions of fitting one to a rover, I'd put the effort in to quote all the appropriate figures