Thread: Range Rover engineers - what were they smoking?

Originally Posted by superquag

... and how much did it co$t to build an engine that is finally 'Fit for Purpose' ?

- Not that I'm the least bit envious of your figures...

The engine cost approx $11,500 to which you must add airfreight was about 1k. However, that did not include removing the old unit and fitting this one.

Because I decided that if I spent that much money I had to ensure that the rest of the car was in top form, I replaced the roof lining, serviced the auto tran, replaced the radiator and both oil coolers and fitted a new heater coil also. Then, there were the doorhandles, seat belt clips, every single hose including the oil hoses and also some suspension bushings. To say nothing of replacing the blend motors which had carked a long time ago. How much in total? Don't ask, but a lot less than buying a new or even a second hand car, and I know what I have got.

To me, it makes a lot of sense for someone wanting a top 4wd or family wagon to buy a used P38, spend up on a restoration and end up with a superb vehicle for a lot less than you'd spend on a fairly ordinary pedestrian 4wd.

Originally Posted by bee utey

Just a silly question, are these figures calculated from bowser figures and odo readings or trip computer display readout?

I'm quoting the trip computer figures and since I used the same computer for the 21L per hundred as for the 11.3L litre, I guess it is a valid comparison. Running a thirsty monster and enjoying it implies that I accept that it is going to have a big drink, and I do. What amazes me is that I wasn't expecting this economy, it is a bonus that I'm really enjoying.

I do notice that I'm making spectacularly fewer bowser stops. This can be measured because I now need to make personal comfort stops without having to fill up . . . . . .

Say $15K all up to get it running and fix the fiddly bits for a 7-10 yr life expectancy: damned good value considering that you would probably lose twice that amount in depreciation alone over the same period were you to buy a relatively late model L322...

So... $15 k for the engine and Fiddly Bits... add around $5k at least for your labour and time and running around... $20K so far. . .

Now how much would you need to spend on a "good" P38 with a clapped out engine ?

Originally Posted by Sydr

I'm quoting the trip computer figures and since I used the same computer for the 21L per hundred as for the 11.3L litre, I guess it is a valid comparison. Running a thirsty monster and enjoying it implies that I accept that it is going to have a big drink, and I do. What amazes me is that I wasn't expecting this economy, it is a bonus that I'm really enjoying.

I do notice that I'm making spectacularly fewer bowser stops. This can be measured because I now need to make personal comfort stops without having to fill up . . . . . .

Let us know when you've got a few tanks through and have firm litres and km figures.

Are you running the same size injectors and the same fuel pressure?

If either is larger larger the consumption figure will be wrong as AFAIK the computer reads the duration of the injector pulse to calculate the fuel consumption, based on the capacity of the stock injector and pressure.
Regards Philip A

But it's well known these days that a bigger engine loafing along will do better than a smaller one working harder. I think the poor old Poms just plain didn't understand this back in the olden days. Don't forget how often a Landie magazine will talk about the "big V8" when it's only a 3.5.

I think that's the same reason they stuck with the pathetic 2&1/4 in the Series Land-Rovers for so long instead of building a 6-cylinder out of it as the Spanish did.

Someone wrote in a thread I started about how they had a rally Rangie years ago that ran lower transfer gearing so that the motor was running higher revs at 100kmh, and sure enough they got, I think, about 20mpg. Once again, instead of the little 3.5 trying to push higher gearing it would seem that in this case it was running faster but not working so hard.

Originally Posted by Davo

But it's well known these days that a bigger engine loafing along will do better than a smaller one working harder. I think the poor old Poms just plain didn't understand this back in the olden days. Don't forget how often a Landie magazine will talk about the "big V8" when it's only a 3.5.

Unfortunately that's an urban legend. The higher load you can put on an engine, the more efficient it is. Because smaller engines run at at higher load they normally use less fuel doing the same job. The tipping point for a petrol engine comes when you hit enrichment. Highest efficiency is just before that.

So best economy comes from the smallest engine that will produce the needed power at full load and optimal revs. A 5.something litre is going to be a lot further from this point than a 3.9 litre when pushing a rangerover at 100km/h.
At 150km/h the 5.something litre may work out better.

Bigger engines also have more heat loss and more internal friction than smaller capacity engines. These two factors alone cause bigger engines to use more fuel than a similar but smaller engine. Throttling losses are also higher at part load on larger displacement engines.

Like the other posters, I don't trust factory fuel readouts unless they have been calibrated. Given the OP has changed basically everything in the fuel system, the chances of the displayed readings being correct are pretty much zilch.
I would like to see some actual litres and km data over several tanks. We can then compare that data to a healthy rover V8, I think we can all agree that at 21 litres/100km that engine wasn't right unless it was 100% urban running.