Classic Carburetter upgrade on a 1985 Range Rover Vogue Auto

My 1985 Range Rover Vogue needs to have a carburetter upgrade and was considering a Weber 500 at RPI, but would like some advice as I understand that my engine is an 8.13:1 and would the Weber make much of a difference to performance and fuel consumption.

I think you can get a manifold and a holley carb that will fit but personally i would stick to SUs

The Strombergs were overhauled last year and I am not happy with the result and feel that a Weber single unti would work much better.

Classic Owner said:

My 1985 Range Rover Vogue needs to have a carburetter upgrade and was considering a Weber 500 at RPI, but would like some advice as I understand that my engine is an 8.13:1 and would the Weber make much of a difference to performance and fuel consumption.

Click to expand...

you cam always get more performance but fuel consumption goes up as well,a set of high compression pistions and new jets gives better performance without increased fuel consumption as does efi

Thanks.

You must have an earlier '85 as EFI was used from October that year. I had one from that very month but the effects of it's galactic mileage & 15 previous owners were beginning to show
As said I think the low compression spec. will restrict your quest for more performance. If overhauling the original spec. Strombergs hasn't made much difference I doubt pouring more cash into fancy carbs. will give you much in the way of bangs-for-your-bucks.

norseman said:

You must have an earlier '85 as EFI was used from October that year. I had one from that very month but the effects of it's galactic mileage & 15 previous owners were beginning to show
As said I think the low compression spec. will restrict your quest for more performance. If overhauling the original spec. Strombergs hasn't made much difference I doubt pouring more cash into fancy carbs. will give you much in the way of bangs-for-your-bucks.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. Its a January 1985 model and with less than 70,000 miles covered, so not much driving over the years and last year it was only the kits that were fitted to the carbs and since then I am not happy with it and have been told that a single unit would be much smoother. I am not looking for massive performance as it will only be used at times to tow an Ifor Williams CT177 transporter.

This was for a 110 with a factory 3.5 V8.
I was getting problems with the original stromberg carbs, basically just tired and also the bi-metallic idle control were playing up. Had a deal on an old pair of good su's (can't remember the number sorry) fitted them and then took the 110 to a chap in Wales somewhere (was featured in LRO at the time), he chained it down onto a rolling road and fiddled about with jets and needles until it was producing what I asked for.
I went for more torque rather than top end HP, much more responsive through the gears and better acceleration without having to plant my foot on the loud pedal.
Ended up with the same performance but rather more relaxed if you see what I mean with a slight boost in economy.
It was all a long time ago now so I can't really remember any of the details, I can remember driving up the on-ramp to the M-way on the way home, thinking WOW this is much better.

Thanks for that. I am more interested in having good torque and smooth acceleration as I will be using it to tow the transporter rather than fast speeds.

Classic Owner said:

Thanks for that. I am more interested in having good torque and smooth acceleration as I will be using it to tow the transporter rather than fast speeds.

Click to expand...

I agree that torque is more important than HP & grunt is something that didn't change much with the intro. of EFI. In fact peak torque was produced at lower RPM with the carb. spec engines.

norseman said:

I agree that torque is more important than HP & grunt is something that didn't change much with the intro. of EFI. In fact peak torque was produced at lower RPM with the carb. spec engines.

Click to expand...

That would be more down to the cam fitted than the carbs. Nothing wrong with CDs serviced and set up correctly.

I guess that's the case Wammers, I notice that the valve timing (ie duration) of the EFI is different to the carb spec. & wonder why. Also the 3.5efi in the Disco produces it's peak torque at lower RPM than the Range Rover spec. presumably due to a different cam profile?

norseman said:

I guess that's the case Wammers, I notice that the valve timing (ie duration) of the EFI is different to the carb spec. & wonder why. Also the 3.5efi in the Disco produces it's peak torque at lower RPM than the Range Rover spec. presumably due to a different cam profile?

Click to expand...

Yep different profiles and overlaps produce different characteristics.

Once picked up a cam in my mates garage and looked down it while rotating before pronouncing it was a piper 270. Wow says he, how did you know that?

Never told him it was stamped on the end

wammers said:

Yep different profiles and overlaps produce different characteristics.

Click to expand...

Thanks Wammers, there was a time when I considered changing to the Disco set-up, as with a transmission shift to OD/lock-up at 40mph grunt is more important than poke, but eight years on I don't think I'll interfere with it now.