Best Classic

Guys

I am about to buy another classic Rangey to lift and pimp for off-roading. It will be my fourth rangey, after an '88 3.5 and a '92 3.9 EFI. Never mind the P38.

Any view on the best classic to go for? I'm thinking the 3.9 or 4.2 for extra power, but I'm told the 3.9 is bomb-proof, the 4.2 less so.

The last 3.9 I had was great, but prone to the temp gauge topping out when off-roading necessitating spells with the bonnet up!

Also, do you reckon its best to skimp and get a crappier 1000-2000 unit given I'm going to lift it, or shell out more for a really clean chassis for the longer run?

Any thoughts appreciated!

Personally I prefer the 3.5. Condition depends how good you are at welding, I paid £150 for mine, then £250 for one to break but doing a full rebuild. Have heard that the 3.9 and 4.2 are both prone to liners slipping especially when ran on LPG.

3.9 is certainly not bomb proof, 3.5 maybe.

mine..

3.3 6 pot diesel turbo + lpg

scorpion +2 corrected arms front and rear

uprated brakes

no rot

full length sunroof

lincoln green 1987 mot and tax

4.2 will be lse which is longer and there fore not the best option offroad. My 3.9 had loads of torque for climbing. Not great for water though.

Agree with Goonarmy 4.2 LSE (was my favourite) but had fantastic 3.5s and several 3.9s If pushed I would go for a late 3.9 with a very good chassis and go from there. Still have a 3.9 engine lying in the back shed waiting a re-build one day ??? think there is a 3.5 in another shed but would have to dig for that one! Every 3.9 I rebuilt went like rockets 100 plus on trips, no problem just make sure you have good hoses and radiators.

mine will drive up to the roof in water..you may drown,but car wont..

Did a bit of research and apparently yes the 3.5 is the only "bombproof" as it is the original 88.9mm bore. The 3.9 and every after it has the larger 94mm bore which causes the liner problem. Most frequent on the 4.6 as the stock fuel mapping delivered a weaker mix at low revs leading to higher cylinder temperatures. Even though, it is much rarer than thought and most will see 150k+ without problem. On the forum of course, you hear from everyone who's had the problem...

There is a cracking 4.2 LSE going which I am looking at. Even the LSE is only 108" wheelbase which is shorter than the Landy 110s. Bigger problem is turning circle on the longer vehicle.

mine is 3.9 council spec and is more than pleasurable

BigJock2005 said:

Did a bit of research and apparently yes the 3.5 is the only "bombproof" as it is the original 88.9mm bore. The 3.9 and every after it has the larger 94mm bore which causes the liner problem. Most frequent on the 4.6 as the stock fuel mapping delivered a weaker mix at low revs leading to higher cylinder temperatures. Even though, it is much rarer than thought and most will see 150k+ without problem. On the forum of course, you hear from everyone who's had the problem...

Click to expand...

I entirely agree with the main part of your post BJ but not with the 150k+ I'm afraid. In the earlier days of the P38 I knew both a fitter at an Essex main stealer & an engineer who rebuilt RV8's for them. In those days it was not unknown for engines, esp. 4.6's, to slip liners at mileages as low as 20k Also I would not LPG any 94mm bore unit, though no doubt there are those that have been trouble free.

If a 3.9/4.0/4.2/4.6 is past 100k then it will be well worn,even with good servicing.it didnt help that P38's were given a smaller oil capacity either.Cam bearings/lobes and big end and main shells will all be fit for scrap.
The bit about weak fuel maps is cr-p too,put around by companies who were selling chips to owners who couldnt know any different.It was just a poorly built engine stretched beyond its natural limit.Had they been built carefully alot more would have lasted well.The stepped or top hat liner would have made all the difference,at least the engines would have been worth doing an in frame refresh on at 100-120k.I have just scrapped yet another 4.0 DII with a cracked block/slipped liner.The cost to repair the engine is more than the value of an otherwise very smart and useful 4wd.Not good.

eightinavee said:

If a 3.9/4.0/4.2/4.6 is past 100k then it will be well worn,even with good servicing.it didnt help that P38's were given a smaller oil capacity either.Cam bearings/lobes and big end and main shells will all be fit for scrap.

Click to expand...

By the same token the last 3.5efi I owned was sold at 165k & ran well with good compressions (av. 160) & hardly used any oil - mind you it was seviced every year despite covering less than 3k during that time.

norseman said:

By the same token the last 3.5efi I owned was sold at 165k & ran well with good compressions (av. 160) & hardly used any oil - mind you it was seviced every year despite covering less than 3k during that time.

Click to expand...

The 3.5 was and still is a far better engine,just a shame that only early Disco 1's got to use it with 14Cux efi - the first decent system that was reliable and actually fed the engine properly....

well...they are all crap..ancient ohv design..12mpg!!.so many better v8 engines out there..

yes you can make them go,but the cost!!

I had both a 3.5 Disco and a '91, Vogue, 3.9.
The 3.9 had a porous block and was fitted with a new short engine from RPI. I replaced the oil pump gears and both rocker shaft/push rod assemblies at the rebuild. The engine was superb, no overheating, oil or water loss. The engine ran as sweet as a nut when I sold it some 90K miles later.
Prior to that, I had a V8, 3.5 Disco which did not suffer from cooling problems. Upon inspection about 2 months after I purchased it, I found the oil pump gears were worn (Common problem) and also the camshaft lobes. Fitted a new camshaft kit, timing chain and sprockets, oil pump gears, rocker assemblies. Did a top end overhaul at the same time. The engine was completely trouble free afterwards and most reliable. Apart from the power difference between the 3.9 and the 3.5 I would definately rate the 3.5 as the most reliable engine, with liner/block problems basically unheard of.
The weak point on both cars was the ignition components, especially the rotor arm & distributor cap tracking down to ground. An easy and cheap fix, but only genuine parts should be fitted (Lucas-not Intermotor or other spurious).
Both cars were run as they were intended to..on PETROL.
I bought these and my later P38, 4.6 HSE with my eyes wide open and fully aware of the fuel consumption and running costs. I never had any intention or motivation to adapt them to run on the cheap. My feelings are, if you can't afford to run a motor with a big lump fitted on Mini money, then stay away from it. Trying to run a big car on the cheap will only bite you in the arse at the end of the day !!!

zen said:

well...they are all crap..ancient ohv design..12mpg!!.so many better v8 engines out there..

yes you can make them go,but the cost!!

Click to expand...

That really isnt fair,an OHV engine is ideal in the situation of a working 4wd,such as the classic RR,both in terms of the way it makes its power and how easy it is to repair in the field.The 3.5 on carbs was a good unit,I looked after enough of them that stood abuse for many years and served very well.(And did many miles in my own 2 door RRC from the age of 19 to 28 when buying a cottage meant it had to go)
What disappoints me is the 94mm bore variants that either wear very quickly,or develop the porus block or slipped liner issue - for so many its the end of an otherwise useful vehicle.
Whilst I also like Chev mouse/rat motors,any of the US engines are too big/thirsty for sensible use here.Many of the European v8's are just as cr-p as the later Rover engines,the BMW unit used in the L322 for example.

eightinavee said:

The 3.5 was and still is a far better engine,just a shame that only early Disco 1's got to use it with 14Cux efi - the first decent system that was reliable and actually fed the engine properly....

Click to expand...

didnt rrc use 3.5 hot wire i know both 3.9 and 3.5 shared the same ecu at one time

jamesmartin said:

didnt rrc use 3.5 hot wire i know both 3.9 and 3.5 shared the same ecu at one time

Click to expand...

No,the RRC only had the 4CU Flapper when it was 3.5,they got CUX when they went to 3.9/4.2.It was the earlier Discos that had 3.5 with 14CUX - damn good truck they were,would even tolerate horrible cooker ring LPG - apart from stuffing the AFM when they backfired....
Dont know if it was different in other market territorys - Japan may have been different ?

eightinavee said:

No,the RRC only had the 4CU Flapper when it was 3.5,they got CUX when they went to 3.9/4.2.It was the earlier Discos that had 3.5 with 14CUX - damn good truck they were,would even tolerate horrible cooker ring LPG - apart from stuffing the AFM when they backfired....
Dont know if it was different in other market territorys - Japan may have been different ?

Click to expand...

was a good engine we used to build a good few 3.5 hotwires,the firm i worked at supplied and fitted 3.9s(3.5 blocks reworked to 3.9) to ni police for their armoured lrs to replace the carb engines ,with the obvious problems ,when i went over to seee about the issues i asked why 3.9 ,they said they wanted efi hotwire so had to be 3.9 ,if we had done 3.5 hotwire there wouldnt have been any issues or rework costs,the manager at the time was a cock and wouldnt ask us for advice ,cost a lot of money

jamesmartin said:

was a good engine we used to build a good few 3.5 hotwires,the firm i worked at supplied and fitted 3.9s(3.5 blocks reworked to 3.9) to ni police for their armoured lrs to replace the carb engines ,with the obvious problems ,when i went over to seee about the issues i asked why 3.9 ,they said they wanted efi hotwire so had to be 3.9 ,if we had done 3.5 hotwire there wouldnt have been any issues or rework costs,the manager at the time was a cock and wouldnt ask us for advice ,cost a lot of money

Click to expand...

I hate the politics of jobs like that - things could be so much better if people listened or did their jobs properly.I used to be involved in a company doing warranty work for Kubota Diesels,(Excellent engines,VERY well made/developed) despite obvious problems with certain machines which the engines suffered in the company would do nothing about it.They just kept on replacing failing parts rather than solve a simple problem of how the engine was fitted.All because the engines were sourced elsewhere....