BHP query

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
R

Roger Hembury

Guest

Hi All,

I have recently had the engine in my Range Rover upgraded from a 4.0 to a
4.6 as the 4.0 completely died.

On advising the insurance company of this they started to ask about BHP
increases and basically I haven't got a clue.

What I need to know is :

What is the BHP of a petrol 4.0 V8 engine (car is R reg)

What is the BHP of a petrol 4.6 V8 engine (this is a new Land Rover engine
and the mechanic off the top of his head thinks its 225 BHP)

The mechanic has given me figures of 140 kilowatts for the 4.0 and 165.5
kilowatts for the 4.6 but I have no idea how this relates to BHP.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Roger


 
Roger Hi,

4.0 V8 is 186 bhp @ 4750
4.6 V8 is 221 bhp @ 4750.

Above figures are for the 1995 model year vehicles and taken from the LR
Expedition book, second edition, official LR publication.

late model RaRo V8 engines with the BOSCH injection had slightly more power.

Take care
Pantelis

"Roger Hembury" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have recently had the engine in my Range Rover upgraded from a 4.0 to a
> 4.6 as the 4.0 completely died.
>
> On advising the insurance company of this they started to ask about BHP
> increases and basically I haven't got a clue.
>
> What I need to know is :
>
> What is the BHP of a petrol 4.0 V8 engine (car is R reg)
>
> What is the BHP of a petrol 4.6 V8 engine (this is a new Land Rover engine
> and the mechanic off the top of his head thinks its 225 BHP)
>
> The mechanic has given me figures of 140 kilowatts for the 4.0 and 165.5
> kilowatts for the 4.6 but I have no idea how this relates to BHP.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Roger
>
>


 
In article <[email protected]>,
Roger Hembury <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Hi All,
>
>I have recently had the engine in my Range Rover upgraded from a 4.0 to a
>4.6 as the 4.0 completely died.
>
>On advising the insurance company of this they started to ask about BHP
>increases and basically I haven't got a clue.

/chomp/

>The mechanic has given me figures of 140 kilowatts for the 4.0 and 165.5
>kilowatts for the 4.6 but I have no idea how this relates to BHP.
>
>Any help would be appreciated.

http://www.onlineconversion.com/power.htm

is your friend here:

Converting from kW to (international) rated horsepower, 140 kW
comes out as 187.75 hp, 165.5 kW as 221.94 hp.

Checking in my book of cross-conversions suggests that these figures
are accurate.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)
 

"Andrew Robert Breen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Roger Hembury <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>I have recently had the engine in my Range Rover upgraded from a 4.0 to a
>>4.6 as the 4.0 completely died.
>>
>>On advising the insurance company of this they started to ask about BHP
>>increases and basically I haven't got a clue.
>
> /chomp/
>
>>The mechanic has given me figures of 140 kilowatts for the 4.0 and 165.5
>>kilowatts for the 4.6 but I have no idea how this relates to BHP.
>>
>>Any help would be appreciated.
>
> http://www.onlineconversion.com/power.htm
>
> is your friend here:
>
> Converting from kW to (international) rated horsepower, 140 kW
> comes out as 187.75 hp, 165.5 kW as 221.94 hp.
>
> Checking in my book of cross-conversions suggests that these figures
> are accurate.
>
> --
> Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales,
> Aberystwyth
> "Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
> and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

Alternatively, Google's calculator can do this:
e.g. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=140+kW+in+hp

Tom


 
In news:[email protected],
Andrew Robert Breen <[email protected]> blithered:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Roger Hembury <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I have recently had the engine in my Range Rover upgraded from a 4.0
>> to a
>> 4.6 as the 4.0 completely died.
>>
>> On advising the insurance company of this they started to ask about
>> BHP increases and basically I haven't got a clue.
>
> /chomp/
>
>> The mechanic has given me figures of 140 kilowatts for the 4.0 and
>> 165.5 kilowatts for the 4.6 but I have no idea how this relates to
>> BHP.
>>
>> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> http://www.onlineconversion.com/power.htm
>
> is your friend here:
>
> Converting from kW to (international) rated horsepower, 140 kW
> comes out as 187.75 hp, 165.5 kW as 221.94 hp.
>
> Checking in my book of cross-conversions suggests that these figures
> are accurate.

IIRC there's 740 W to an horse. So add 1/3 to your kWs and you'll not be far
wrong.

--
"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!


 
GbH wrote:

> In news:[email protected],
> Andrew Robert Breen <[email protected]> blithered:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Roger Hembury <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I have recently had the engine in my Range Rover upgraded from a 4.0
>>> to a
>>> 4.6 as the 4.0 completely died.
>>>
>>> On advising the insurance company of this they started to ask about
>>> BHP increases and basically I haven't got a clue.
>>
>> /chomp/
>>
>>> The mechanic has given me figures of 140 kilowatts for the 4.0 and
>>> 165.5 kilowatts for the 4.6 but I have no idea how this relates to
>>> BHP.
>>>
>>> Any help would be appreciated.
>>
>> http://www.onlineconversion.com/power.htm
>>
>> is your friend here:
>>
>> Converting from kW to (international) rated horsepower, 140 kW
>> comes out as 187.75 hp, 165.5 kW as 221.94 hp.
>>
>> Checking in my book of cross-conversions suggests that these figures
>> are accurate.
>
> IIRC there's 740 W to an horse. So add 1/3 to your kWs and you'll not be
> far wrong.
>

746 actually
JD
 
During stardate Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:28:51 +1000, JD
<[email protected]> uttered the imortal words:


>> IIRC there's 740 W to an horse. So add 1/3 to your kWs and you'll not be
>> far wrong.
>>
>
>746 actually
>JD


H'mmm ... is that the same at sea level? Which raises another
interesting question of calculating BHP of boat propellers, as they
are below sea level so does that introduce a negative into the math?

How high is a horse? And how low before it becomes a pony, which
raises the issue of how many W's to the hand? Sorl very bizzar this
measurement malarky.

whhooops.. this cans nearly empty!

hic!#?!'

Lee D
--
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)

www.lrproject.com
'76 101 Camper
'64 88" IIa V8 Auto
'97 Disco ES Auto LPG'd
'01 Laguna
 
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:56:32 +0100, Lee_D
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> IIRC there's 740 W to an horse. So add 1/3 to your kWs and you'll not be
>>> far wrong.
>>
>>746 actually
>>JD
>
>H'mmm ... is that the same at sea level? Which raises another
>interesting question of calculating BHP of boat propellers, as they
>are below sea level so does that introduce a negative into the math?

Perhaps boats should be measured in seahorses. Which i imagine have a
lot less watts to em :)

 
>
> Perhaps boats should be measured in seahorses. Which i imagine have a
> lot less watts to em :)
>

thats a splendid idea. i rekcon there would be about 1250 seahorses to a
kilowatt (depends what breed of seahorse. some are tiny some are reasonably
big, but none are particularly powerful!!). so if i were to have a 3.5
horsepower dinghy, it would be 2.6 kiolwatts, or 3.2 kilo-seahorse.

Sam.


 


Samuel wrote:
> so if i were to have a 3.5
> horsepower dinghy, it would be 2.6 kiolwatts, or 3.2 kilo-seahorse.
>
My local fisherman sells Sea-Horse to the Kilo....
Found out it takes a lot of money for one S-HP and it has a terrible
taste.
Kind regards,
Erik-Jan.
P.S. a friemd of mine just bought a Milner converted LR 109 with a
Perkins 3.9 L. Diesel.
What actually is a "Milner Conversion"? Just the engine ?



--
The Meeting Place for Photography http://www.fotograaf.com
Fotofestival Naarden Festival-OFF http://www.festival-off.nl
Rondvaart in Naarden-Vesting http://www.vestingvaart.nl
Erik-Jan Geniets. Phone: +31-(0)6.55.78.60.31
 
On or around Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:42:47 +0200, Erik-Jan Geniets
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>
>Samuel wrote:
>> so if i were to have a 3.5
>> horsepower dinghy, it would be 2.6 kiolwatts, or 3.2 kilo-seahorse.
>>
>My local fisherman sells Sea-Horse to the Kilo....
>Found out it takes a lot of money for one S-HP and it has a terrible
>taste.
>Kind regards,
>Erik-Jan.
>P.S. a friemd of mine just bought a Milner converted LR 109 with a
>Perkins 3.9 L. Diesel.
>What actually is a "Milner Conversion"? Just the engine ?

's a good way of breaking the transmission. Half-shafts, mostly.

typical comments from the days when this was common: "Got this 4.3l perkins
in the land rover, and it's great - I can go up <insert name of local hill>
in 4th towing the trailer"

followed after a bit by "me half-shaft's broke - bloody land rover keeps
breaking"

not surprising, if you transmit about twice the torque through it that it
was designed for...
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
In Touch: Get in touch with yourself by touching yourself.
If somebody is watching, stop touching yourself.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:42:47 +0200, Erik-Jan Geniets
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>
>>
>>Samuel wrote:
>>> so if i were to have a 3.5
>>> horsepower dinghy, it would be 2.6 kiolwatts, or 3.2 kilo-seahorse.
>>>
>>My local fisherman sells Sea-Horse to the Kilo....
>>Found out it takes a lot of money for one S-HP and it has a terrible
>>taste.
>>Kind regards,
>>Erik-Jan.
>>P.S. a friemd of mine just bought a Milner converted LR 109 with a
>>Perkins 3.9 L. Diesel.
>>What actually is a "Milner Conversion"? Just the engine ?
>
> 's a good way of breaking the transmission. Half-shafts, mostly.
>
> typical comments from the days when this was common: "Got this 4.3l
> perkins
> in the land rover, and it's great - I can go up <insert name of local
> hill>
> in 4th towing the trailer"
>
> followed after a bit by "me half-shaft's broke - bloody land rover keeps
> breaking"
>
> not surprising, if you transmit about twice the torque through it that it
> was designed for...

I must add at this point (in defence of perkins) that they make some
excellent boat anchors and landfill materials ;-)
Badger.


 
In news:[email protected],
JD <[email protected]> blithered:
> GbH wrote:
>
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Andrew Robert Breen <[email protected]> blithered:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Roger Hembury <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I have recently had the engine in my Range Rover upgraded from a
>>>> 4.0 to a
>>>> 4.6 as the 4.0 completely died.
>>>>
>>>> On advising the insurance company of this they started to ask about
>>>> BHP increases and basically I haven't got a clue.
>>>
>>> /chomp/
>>>
>>>> The mechanic has given me figures of 140 kilowatts for the 4.0 and
>>>> 165.5 kilowatts for the 4.6 but I have no idea how this relates to
>>>> BHP.
>>>>
>>>> Any help would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> http://www.onlineconversion.com/power.htm
>>>
>>> is your friend here:
>>>
>>> Converting from kW to (international) rated horsepower, 140 kW
>>> comes out as 187.75 hp, 165.5 kW as 221.94 hp.
>>>
>>> Checking in my book of cross-conversions suggests that these figures
>>> are accurate.
>>
>> IIRC there's 740 W to an horse. So add 1/3 to your kWs and you'll
>> not be far wrong.
>>
>
> 746 actually
> JD

Ah, so my approximation is better than I thought.

--
"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!


 
On or around Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:33:29 +0000 (UTC), "Badger"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>I must add at this point (in defence of perkins) that they make some
>excellent boat anchors and landfill materials ;-)
>Badger.

Actually, they make good truck or tractor engines. 's just that for example
the 4203 or 4236 are not good land rover engines.

I once heard of a rangie with a 6354 in it. Ludicrous.

>
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"If you cannot mould yourself as you would wish, how can you expect
other people to be entirely to your liking?"
Thomas À Kempis (1380 - 1471) Imitation of Christ, I.xvi.
 
On or around Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:00:33 -0000, "GbH"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>In news:[email protected],
>JD <[email protected]> blithered:
>> GbH wrote:
>>
>>> In news:[email protected],
>>> Andrew Robert Breen <[email protected]> blithered:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> Roger Hembury <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have recently had the engine in my Range Rover upgraded from a
>>>>> 4.0 to a
>>>>> 4.6 as the 4.0 completely died.
>>>>>
>>>>> On advising the insurance company of this they started to ask about
>>>>> BHP increases and basically I haven't got a clue.
>>>>
>>>> /chomp/
>>>>
>>>>> The mechanic has given me figures of 140 kilowatts for the 4.0 and
>>>>> 165.5 kilowatts for the 4.6 but I have no idea how this relates to
>>>>> BHP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any help would be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.onlineconversion.com/power.htm
>>>>
>>>> is your friend here:
>>>>
>>>> Converting from kW to (international) rated horsepower, 140 kW
>>>> comes out as 187.75 hp, 165.5 kW as 221.94 hp.
>>>>
>>>> Checking in my book of cross-conversions suggests that these figures
>>>> are accurate.
>>>
>>> IIRC there's 740 W to an horse. So add 1/3 to your kWs and you'll
>>> not be far wrong.
>>>
>>
>> 746 actually
>> JD
>
>Ah, so my approximation is better than I thought.

750 (3/4) is good for ballpark conversions, as dividing by 3 and multiplying
by 4 (or tother way about) is not hard to do as mental arithmetic.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"If you cannot mould yourself as you would wish, how can you expect
other people to be entirely to your liking?"
Thomas À Kempis (1380 - 1471) Imitation of Christ, I.xvi.
 

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:33:29 +0000 (UTC), "Badger"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>I must add at this point (in defence of perkins) that they make some
>>excellent boat anchors and landfill materials ;-)
>>Badger.
>
> Actually, they make good truck or tractor engines. 's just that for
> example
> the 4203 or 4236 are not good land rover engines.
>
> I once heard of a rangie with a 6354 in it. Ludicrous.

I drove a rangie with a 4236turbo once, it was appalling. Way too nose
heavy, no top end whatsoever and rough and noisy. It would, however, pull
whatever you wanted it to, at speeds of up to 50mph, halfshafts permitting.
Also drove a landy 109 with a 4203, absolutely pathetic, no power no speed
and a lot of hassle! Landy 109 with a 4182turbo wasn't too bad a match
though, with rangie diffs and 235 tyres.
Badger.


 
In news:[email protected],
Austin Shackles <[email protected]> blithered:
> On or around Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:00:33 -0000, "GbH"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> In news:[email protected],
>> JD <[email protected]> blithered:
>>> GbH wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:[email protected],
>>>> Andrew Robert Breen <[email protected]> blithered:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> Roger Hembury <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have recently had the engine in my Range Rover upgraded from a
>>>>>> 4.0 to a
>>>>>> 4.6 as the 4.0 completely died.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On advising the insurance company of this they started to ask
>>>>>> about BHP increases and basically I haven't got a clue.
>>>>>
>>>>> /chomp/
>>>>>
>>>>>> The mechanic has given me figures of 140 kilowatts for the 4.0
>>>>>> and 165.5 kilowatts for the 4.6 but I have no idea how this
>>>>>> relates to BHP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any help would be appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.onlineconversion.com/power.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> is your friend here:
>>>>>
>>>>> Converting from kW to (international) rated horsepower, 140 kW
>>>>> comes out as 187.75 hp, 165.5 kW as 221.94 hp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Checking in my book of cross-conversions suggests that these
>>>>> figures are accurate.
>>>>
>>>> IIRC there's 740 W to an horse. So add 1/3 to your kWs and you'll
>>>> not be far wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 746 actually
>>> JD
>>
>> Ah, so my approximation is better than I thought.
>
> 750 (3/4) is good for ballpark conversions, as dividing by 3 and
> multiplying by 4 (or tother way about) is not hard to do as mental
> arithmetic.

Multiply by 7 and divide by 4 gets you the VAT!

--
"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!


 

>>
>> 750 (3/4) is good for ballpark conversions, as dividing by 3 and
>> multiplying by 4 (or tother way about) is not hard to do as mental
>> arithmetic.
>
>Multiply by 7 and divide by 4 gets you the VAT!

You need a new accountant...


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70
 
In news:[email protected],
Tim Hobbs <[email protected]> blithered:
>>> 750 (3/4) is good for ballpark conversions, as dividing by 3 and
>>> multiplying by 4 (or tother way about) is not hard to do as mental
>>> arithmetic.
>>
>> Multiply by 7 and divide by 4 gets you the VAT!
>
> You need a new accountant...

No really OK 10x but what's a decimal point twixt one and ones tax assessor?

--
"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!


 
In message <[email protected]>
"GbH" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In news:[email protected],
> Tim Hobbs <[email protected]> blithered:
> >>> 750 (3/4) is good for ballpark conversions, as dividing by 3 and
> >>> multiplying by 4 (or tother way about) is not hard to do as mental
> >>> arithmetic.
> >>
> >> Multiply by 7 and divide by 4 gets you the VAT!
> >
> > You need a new accountant...
>
> No really OK 10x but what's a decimal point twixt one and ones tax assessor?
>

Divide the gross figure by 1.175 will get you the VAT content.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Boycott the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Disco 2 Engine cuts out randomly.
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Stanleysteamer
Stanleysteamer
S
3.9 v8, odd engine number?
Replies
3
Views
1K
norseman
norseman
MrGorsky
P38A Nanocom code 1190 Oxygen Sensor Heater Circuit Low Resistance
Replies
8
Views
754
Pug957
P
D
v8 Thor shoe horn into my 1985 Defender
Replies
5
Views
1K
resto_d1
R
T
BCM Replacement for D3 4.4 V8 Petrol
Replies
15
Views
3K
TimeToChill
T
Back
Top