early vs later V8 110

norseman · May 7, 2022

Just out of curiosity has anyone had a back-to-back driving experience of a pre & post '86 V8 110 ?
I'm wondering if the official extra 20 brake hp was noticeable & what, if any, this later spec. had on the torque curve.
Many thanks guys.

tottot · May 8, 2022

Not a heck of a lot of difference I recon. Early 110's I think had the same engine spec as the Stage one Series 3 V8 said to be detuned from the standard Range Rover unit because the Stage one still had drum brakes. Power/torque did not change that much until the introduction of 3.9 models. Lots of Rover V8 info on Wikipedia.
All rover V8's are nice to drive and listen to.

norseman · May 8, 2022

tottot said:
Not a heck of a lot of difference I recon. Early 110's I think had the same engine spec as the Stage one Series 3 V8 said to be detuned from the standard Range Rover unit because the Stage one still had drum brakes. Power/torque did not change that much until the introduction of 3.9 models. Lots of Rover V8 info on Wikipedia.
All rover V8's are nice to drive and listen to.

I think you could be right, although the early 110 was rated at 114bhp against the Stage One's 91. I recall reading somewhere that a 110 owner had removed the inlet manifold & found discs with holes drilled in them under the carbs, somewhat reminiscent of the restrictor plates fitted to the Stage One engine. Maybe those holes resulted in a lesser restriction due to the 110 having disc brakes?
As to the 'nice drive' of the V8's ... I agree as I've owned four RRC's over the past 21 years

So why would I be interested in a 110? Because having also owned 5 series LR's (the last a 6cyl. station wagon) in my life they leave an itch that never quite goes away

tottot · May 8, 2022

I recall owners of early 110 and 90 owners removing those discs.

norseman · May 8, 2022

tottot said:
I recall owners of early 110 and 90 owners removing those discs.

I'm not surprised, standard modification for Stage One owners I believe.
Interestingly the V8 powered versions of the 110, despite their thirst, are now worth so much more than diesels of the same era due to their rarity.

Mik87 · Dec 23, 2023

Bit of a thread revival (18 months), but I'm also interested in an answer to the OP's question.

I have a slidy-window One Ten V8 with twin Stromberg CD175 carbs and the LT95 4-speed. It runs well at 70k miles and I've had the engine checked. Apparently there is nothing wrong with it. As with other similar threads, I find it a bit sluggish, and when hills get above a certain gradient it requires changing down a little too frequently for my liking, although on the flat it is not too bad. It also seems to hold its speed up hills better above 60mph, and bogs down more easily as soon as it drops below that speed.

From the handbook it appears the engine's output is 114bhp. But the contemporary (pre-1986) Range Rover Classic twin carb put out 135bhp. 1986-on V8 Ninety/One Ten got the RRC 135 bhp because the RRC got a 3.5 EFI engine with more power. It sounds like Land Rover wanted the premier vehicle in the range to be the most powerful and down-tuned the One Ten's V8 accordingly. I'm not looking to hot rod it, but I think the 135bhp of an earlier RRC would make it more drivable.

My question is; does anyone know *for certain* what the changes were?

* Some RRC seemed to have Stromberg carbs so I'm not convinced swapping to SUs would make that much difference, unless someone who has been there done that can advise to the contrary?

* Is the camshaft different? I've had a look for early RRC and One Ten camshaft part numbers and it is not clear.

* RRC and twin carb Ninety/One Ten were both low compression (8.13:1) versions of the Rover V8, so I don't think it is that?

* I don't think it is anything to do with restrictor discs (unless someone definitely knows differently) as these were in the Series 3 109 V8 and I suspect removing these simply gets you back to the 114bhp of an early One Ten V8.

Therefore, does anyone have any solid info on the differences between a 135bhp RRC engine and the 114bhp One Ten version? References or part numbers would be welcome. They must have down-tuned it somehow, and I can't imagine the changes were too involved if done for marketing reasons.

300bhp/ton · Dec 24, 2023

Mik87 said:
Bit of a thread revival (18 months), but I'm also interested in an answer to the OP's question.

I have a slidy-window One Ten V8 with twin Stromberg CD175 carbs and the LT95 4-speed. It runs well at 70k miles and I've had the engine checked. Apparently there is nothing wrong with it. As with other similar threads, I find it a bit sluggish, and when hills get above a certain gradient it requires changing down a little too frequently for my liking, although on the flat it is not too bad. It also seems to hold its speed up hills better above 60mph, and bogs down more easily as soon as it drops below that speed.

From the handbook it appears the engine's output is 114bhp. But the contemporary (pre-1986) Range Rover Classic twin carb put out 135bhp. 1986-on V8 Ninety/One Ten got the RRC 135 bhp because the RRC got a 3.5 EFI engine with more power. It sounds like Land Rover wanted the premier vehicle in the range to be the most powerful and down-tuned the One Ten's V8 accordingly. I'm not looking to hot rod it, but I think the 135bhp of an earlier RRC would make it more drivable.

My question is; does anyone know *for certain* what the changes were?

* Some RRC seemed to have Stromberg carbs so I'm not convinced swapping to SUs would make that much difference, unless someone who has been there done that can advise to the contrary?

* Is the camshaft different? I've had a look for early RRC and One Ten camshaft part numbers and it is not clear.

* RRC and twin carb Ninety/One Ten were both low compression (8.13:1) versions of the Rover V8, so I don't think it is that?

* I don't think it is anything to do with restrictor discs (unless someone definitely knows differently) as these were in the Series 3 109 V8 and I suspect removing these simply gets you back to the 114bhp of an early One Ten V8.

Therefore, does anyone have any solid info on the differences between a 135bhp RRC engine and the 114bhp One Ten version? References or part numbers would be welcome. They must have down-tuned it somehow, and I can't imagine the changes were too involved if done for marketing reasons.

Why do you need solid info? If you want to mod your V8. Then it will respond exactly the same way as any other internal combustion engine. No need to faff about trying to match another compromised factory setup.

As for performance. All of the V8 Land Rovers of this era are massively over geared. Which somewhat hampers their performance. I think the 110 would use the same super tall 1.1192 transfer box as the 90 of the same time period.

Arguably the easiest power upgrade would be to find a 3.9/4.0/4.6 and swap it in. Even if you keep it on carbs. Just the stick the original engine in a corner, that way it is all reversible should there ever be a need. The bigger displacements give more power, but more importantly more torque, especially at lower rev ranges.

Mik87 · Dec 24, 2023

Why? Because I was hoping there was a relatively straightforward, assured route to finding the 21 missing ponies compared to the same era RRC. As the detuning seemed to be done for marketing reasons I didn't think it would be too involved. It is a clean unmolested vehicle in good order, and the original engine has been checked over and found to be healthy. If the original engine was knackered I'd consider a swap, but as it isn't I'm not wanting to make big changes.

There are quite a few threads in various forums asking this same question, but no definitive answer.

Knappster · Dec 24, 2023

I recall something in a Landy magazine (James Taylor in LRO?) mentioning that the Stage 1 V8‘s had restricted carbs so I’m wondering if this is the same for early 110’s. I had a V8 90 CSW some years ago and it went like stink (for a landy!) It’s the one Landy I regret selling…

early vs later V8 110

norseman

Well-Known Member

tottot

Well-Known Member

norseman

Well-Known Member

tottot

Well-Known Member

norseman

Well-Known Member

Mik87

Active Member

300bhp/ton

Well-Known Member

Mik87

Active Member

Knappster

Well-Known Member

Similar threads