Subject: LRO: Re: 95 Rangie and on...

From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 20:43:58 -0700

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 10:59:51 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: 95 rangie and on...

>Heard that the 4.2 was a bored out 4.0/3.9.  Don't know a thing about the
>4.6.  Sorry...  But for $20kUS you could buy a lot of Classic RR, I mean a
>really nice one.

>>> [email-masked] 07/02/01 10:18AM >>>

>>i think there were some earlier postings that
the 4.6 engine was perhaps at the engineering
extreme and was problematic.

In order of introduction, the Rover V-8 went 3.5, 3.9, 4.2, 4.0/4.6.  I'm
assuming the 3.5 was the initial displacement.  The problematic version is
the 4.2.  This was developed by TVR for their fiberglass sportscars, and
Land Rover bought the rights to produce that version for the Range Rover.
This engine was used in the 4.2 LWB model (long wheelbase) that was
introduced in 1993, and was in production until 1995 or thereabouts.  Land
Rover wanted more power for the longer Range Rover, mainly to counter
complaints from the US that the 3.9 version was "underpowered."  The 4.2
was seen as a quick fix, as the development work had already been done.
Unfortunately, extracting more power from the original block was too much
for it.  While there may have been no problems with the 4.2 in TVRs, there
are a lot of problems in Range Rovers.  Simply put, the block is not strong
enough for the high loads imposed by moving a heavy vehicle like the Range
Rover, particularly when towing and so on.  Under load, the block can
actually flex a bit, with the result that the 4.2 suffers from maladies
like blown head gaskets and oil leaks.

It didn't take long for Land Rover to realize the 4.2 was a dud, and it
provided the impetus to devlop a more reliable, powerful version.  While
not a total redesign, the 4.0 and 4.6 that were introduced with the "new
model" Range Rover contain many improvements over the older versions, not
the least of which is a much stronger block.  The 4.0 and the 4.6 share
most of these improvements, although the 4.6 has added strengh through
things like
cross-bolted crankshaft bearings (I may have misnamed that item).  But the
4.0 and 4.6 are excellent engines by all accounts, although the 3.9 has a
good reputation as well.  The one to avoid like the plague is that crappy
4.2.

And as long as we're on the subject, steer clear of the Range Rover 4.2 LWB
in general.  Not only is the engine a repair bill waiting to happen, but
the LWB has Land Rover's first generation air suspension.  This is the
system that Rover used to learn how NOT to design an air suspension.  The
second generation air suspension, introduced on the "new model" in 1995, is
much more reliable.  Of course, if you get a coil sprung model, you will
never be presented with an air suspension repair bill at all.

________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
   Seattle, WA