Re: LRO: 95 rangie and on...

From: Perrone Ford (ford_p@nettally.com)
Date: Mon Jul 02 2001 - 10:57:46 EDT

  • Next message: lroml@minbar.fourfold.org: "Re: LRO: Re: New Guy or All about Joe"

    Let me dispel some myths.

    First, tech info is available on the RRO list.  We don't ONLY talk about radios and ABS.  Hell, I don't even HAVE a radio in my 91.   Anyway, let me answer your questions:

    1.  You can convert the new body to coils although I am not sure I would.  At least not right away.  The newer systems seems to be more reliable at least in the short term.  They aren't old enough yet to see the dry-rotting we are seeing on the 1993 models.

    2.  You seem to be misinformed about the engines.  The 3.5/3.9/4.2 engines all use the same block and heads.  This was the engine as it was bought from GM with minor massaging over the years.  By the time the engine had been stroked to 4.2, several weaknesses had started showing up.  Like the propensity to blow head gaskets due to poor sealing, and the disturbing tendency to spin bearings due to flexing of the crank and block in the bottom end.  So rover redesigned the engine from the bottom up.  They used a cross-bolt design like a diesel to minimize block flex.  Used larger oil journals, and better water circulation.  This engine was offered as the 4.0/4.6 and was FIRST available in 1995.  Its a good engine and makes decent power for its size and technology (given the power band).  It would be difficult for it to make better torque without adding forced induction, and it could make a lot more horsepower, but the power band would have to get moved up in RPM.  The 4.6 would be my choice as it is every bit as reliable, and has a good bit more power.  In truth, I'd get a classic, strip the engine compartment, add a stroked , distributorless, Chevy 350, and call it a day.  You could go this route, run RINGS around a 4.6, have roof-rack, winch, lockers, reasonable comfort, a good sound system, and still come up cheaper.

    Good luck!

    -Perrone



    Ray Harder wrote:

    i think there were some earlier postings that 
    the 4.6 engine was perhaps at the engineering
    extreme and was problematic.  any thoughts
    on this.  but i also think the 4.6 came out
    later and if i am in the under $20k market, i
    would have the 4.0 as my choice...  ray
    the 95 range rovers are selling under 20k now.
    i had a 87 classic and liked it.  i have
    2 series (so i am posting to the leaf list cause
    i want mechanical-type advise).  anyway, could
    i be happy with the new body-style rangie...

    like (for example) does the spring replacement for
    the air-bag suspension work on this model, too.

    other things like that...

    Sincerely,

    Ray Harder 


    
          

    Sincerely,

    Ray Harder 
    
          
    
          
    


    

    



    

    


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 
: Mon Jul 02 2001 - 11:26:25 EDT