Rebuild time, quietly optimistic?

So I've gotta rebuild the 3.5 and I've been reading so much about cams that I've started dreaming of them, literally the missus sighed when I said camshaft earlier today....

So I've seen loads of rebuild kits etc etc but i sent an email to a well known company and asked about cams etc for advice mainly also I said I had a budget of about 450 new cam and bearings crank shells and con shells, rings and lifters etc etc etc

Bit gutted with the reply I got saying I have not much chance for 450 and don't do the rings to save money? Bores are fine but while it's stripped I don't wanna tempt fate by not doing it proper....

Has anyone any experience of the 3.9 cam over the 3.5? Mines got worn and the lifters are domed so I'm sure il notice the difference.

I know it's been covered before I've read so much my heads spinning. Also some encouragement is probably more what I'm looking for as I'm pretty deflated now lol

Cheers guys n girls

A couple of wisdoms come to mind here - Newton's third law & 'you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear'
Your low compression RV8 was tuned to do work not perform. Knowledgeable folks on here will hopefully chime in but I'd guess that (a) any real difference won't be achievable on your budget & (b) probably be detrimental to your vehicle's drivability , ie do all the wrong things to your torque & power curve.

How would replacing worn bearings, cam and lifters and all the gaskets and rings undo the driveability? Currently the cam is worn badly with worn lifters, one of which is no longer working as it should? The crank is fine and no damage or scoring, the bores are fine with no damage or scoring, the main things are the cam and lifters but preventative maintenance with the idea being I don't wanna strip it down again in 12 months do do a job that I could do now? The heads have previously been port matched and where skimmed around 2 years ago as head went, since then it's never over heater so heads are fine. Valves will be lapped in again etc.
What I don't understand is this, i stopped using the vehicle because it was tappity because of the lifter, I could have just replaced the lifters but noticing the cam was worn have decided to replace that too, I checked main bearings and con shells which are also worn, not damaged just worn, it's done a lot of miles. How does replacing worn parts with new hinder the engine?

Sorry to seem flippant, maybe I'm missing the point? Replacing the parts on a budget basically means staying standard as it is now, which I have no issues with I just don't understand why nobody seems to think it's doable?

3.9 cam gives a bit more power and torque but it won't turn it into a racing car

Thanks if anything I was looking at best option, I'd read no end of people putting 3.9 cams in over the 3.5 and so much conflicting info. I'm not looking for massive gains, the tubular manifolds and port matched heads have helped no end but it is a landy so not wanting or expecting high bhp and torque gains, just useable and not going to throw it's self apart...

Sorry again to the first reply, I didn't mean to come across as a complete d*ck I'm at a crossroads atm, the car has ran well for the 6 years I've had it, I've obviously like other landy owners invested a lot of time and money, the chassis is solid and never been welded I originally bought the vehicle because of the work I did etc. Although that's changed now my health has thrown spanners into the works I'm relying on the vehicle for hospital appointments and getting my son around. It also has a lot of sentimental value to myself etc etc. I'm at the point where I have a 300tdi engine and box from another vehicle dad had and the option is keep original with the V engine or transplant the diesel. Unfortunately it's possibly going to be the diesel going into the 110 instead of rebuilding the v8 at this point. If rebuilding on a budget isn't worth it I could spend the cash on the bits I need to put the tdi in..

A cam will generally want to move the torque curve to the right on a power graph. i.e. more mid and higher end power, but maybe less low end.

So it really depends what you are wanting to achieve.

And lets not forget, to make an engine perform it's a mix of components. Strangling an engine with a restrictive exhaust and intake setup will do no favours, no matter the cam.


TBH - you'd be much better off power wise, buying a 3.9/4.0 or 4.6 than spanking money on a 3.5

I had a cammed 3.5 in my TR7 V8. I forget what the cam was, not overly big, it was a RealSteal hurricane or typhoon or something. Small enough that I didn't need fly cut pistons or anything else.

Had stage 1 unleaded heads, BIG long tube exhaust manifolds and a 3" exhaust running through a 500cfm carb.

Dyno reckoned circa 230hp and 219ft lb flywheel. It was smooth, but certainly came 'on cam' at 3500rpm and wanted to scream. Went well enough for 0-100mph in circa 15 sec and I clocked the TR7 at 144mph.

The oil pump failed and wrecked the motor.

I replaced it with a 3.9 serpentine engine from a very late Disco 1. Stock 3.9 cam and internals. But same exhaust and carb setup. I was expecting not to like it. No idea what power it makes, but it's a lot more beefy down low than the 3.5 ever was. And the 3.9 serp is very free revving. It doesn't rev as high, but it'll hit the red line very quickly. And seat of the pants it feels faster and is a nicer engine to drive than the cammed 3.5


Your issue is, if you have a stock LR 3.5, then it's a low compression engine. I started with a higher compression SD1 engine.

Throwing money at a low CR 3.5 will result in poor performance and a lot of wasted money.


Basically, a stock 4.6, even with the stock EFI will **** all over a cammed 3.5

Thanks for the reply,
The engine it's self when it was running right was fine for my needs, I think mainly if I could get it running as it was before I stripped in I'd be happy. The cam was an after thought as I was lookin through the net for info on where to buy certain parts j noticed no end of info on cams which confused me as to whether to stay standard or whether the 3.9 standard was a better cam in anyway. As much as it really upsets me and I quite down about it I think I may put a diesel in, put the v in the shed rebuild at somepoint this year and then drop back in if I come to sell the 110.

This up to you. I can't see the Tdi conversion really being any cheaper or less hassle however. Lots of little things to sort and do. Will all add up to time and money.

No I get what you mean, the only difference being I have all the ancillaries ready to go I just need a diesel tank and fuel lines. mine has only got 3 three lpg tanks no petrol at all. So two torpedoes above rear wheel boxes and a donut where petrol tank should be. Which unfortunately are full of lpg so may sell them off for the cost of the fuel that was put in the day I stopped driving it. I dunno gonna have some serious thinking about it all and make some decisions after pricing everything up and making a list of anything I need for both jobs. Labour wise I'm lucky enough to be able to do it my self including the fabbing of new mounts and welding to chassis and making new cross member for box if needs be etc. I think I'm all landied out atm after over ten years of keeping everyone else's landys on the road and slowly allowing mine to deteriorate lol.

Cheers everyone for the input il post once i decide for definite and go from there with it. Thanks again

Hope you figure it out.

And don't get me wrong, I like Tdi's (I own two). But a good V8 goes better, is smoother, more refined and just a nicer engine. There is an mpg difference. But it's not usually as massive as most people think. A Tdi will tend to get 24-28mpg in a Defender, depending on exact use.

A V8 should be getting 15-18mpg.

If you are doing 10,000 miles a year, that difference will add up. But if you are only doing 3000-4000 miles a year it's actually not a vast amount of money vs the other running costs. And as you have LPG already, the diesel may actually cost you very similar pence per mile.

Honestly if it was, I'd just keep an eye on ebay and the like for a 3.9/4.0/4.6 and shove it in. Chances are it'll be fine and run a treat. I assume your 3.5 is carb, so you could even slap them on whatever engine. It wouldn't be ideal, but it'd make it easy to install.


As for the Tdi conversion. We've done 2.5TD to 200Tdi in my brothers Ninety and I've recently fitted a 200Tdi into my 2.25p Series 3.

The conversions weren't bad. But engine mounts, hoses, clips, exhaust and lots of other bits all add up. Electric fan, induction plumbing, maybe something with the heater, rad, intercooler, oil cooler, etc.

Also if your V8 is a factory V8 with the LT85 transmission, you'll probably need to swap that out too.

My apologies, I misunderstood your OP. Because I've seen so many 'how do I up the performance of my LR' posts my brain immediately assumed yours was in that category, as opposed to a re-build - sorry, that's the problem with being a grumpy old git

3.5 stock, bolt on weber 500, branch manifolds, kent cam, msd, 14 mpg.
-The reason to get out of bed on a sunday morning and drive 30 miles anywhere

Mekkit said:

3.5 stock, bolt on weber 500, branch manifolds, kent cam, msd, 14 mpg.
-The reason to get out of bed on a sunday morning and drive 30 miles anywhere

Click to expand...

Slow and thirsty as feck, only good job with rv8 is scrapping the crap

lol
Each to thier own.
Diesel is for dump trucks, canal boats, cement mixers, stationary engines and can also be found in the odd slow Landrover.
Your turn

fanatic said:

Slow and thirsty as feck, only good job with rv8 is scrapping the crap

Click to expand...

What utter bollox.

300bhp/ton said:

What utter bollox.

Click to expand...

slow Arse,thirsty piles of noise making ****, I did an apprenticeship in a independent LR garage, only one worth a toss was JE supercharged classic.

If you want to spank one off over a 1950 designed GM fireball engine which GM knew had problems and was derated from 200hp to a ****ty 137- 150hp in LR form so be it.

There is far far better options than a RV8

I hesitated before entering this discussion Fanatic as I'm not an engineer & confess to having my RRC cared for my an Indie. No doubt there are many fire-breathing alternatives to the RV8 but many of us mere mortals are quite content with GM/Rover's offering (esp. the near bullet-proof 3.5) that does what it say's on the tin. If your appraisal is accurate I wonder why the engine was in production for 30 years & used in so many guises - but then this is an open forum & it's a case of each to his own

fanatic said:

slow Arse,thirsty piles of noise making ****, I did an apprenticeship in a independent LR garage, only one worth a toss was JE supercharged classic.

If you want to spank one off over a 1950 designed GM fireball engine which GM knew had problems and was derated from 200hp to a ****ty 137- 150hp in LR form so be it.

There is far far better options than a RV8

Click to expand...

I'd say that's still utter bollox. And you don't seem to be quoting actual facts either.

The original Buick unit was rated at 155hp SAE GROSS. And the only problems they had were manufacturing ones, with the cast blocks warping.

And wow whoopee you worked at a garage. A place that has **** all to do with engine design and manufacture.

---Lets face it, people only generally take vehicles in for repair when there is something wrong with them. So working in a garage you predominantly see the worst side of things. But most certainly not the whole picture.

And if GM knew it has so many problems, why did they use it themselves and even make a V6 variant of it and keep it in production until about 1990 or so?

Even in low powered 137hp low CR state, they still make more power than a tuned Tdi.

Of course modern technology means more modern, complex and expensive engines can do more. But a Rover V8 is still light and compact for a V8 and an easy way to get 200-250hp. Which in a traditional ladder frame Land Rover is more than enough to be quite spritely.

Oh, and I'd simply love to know what these "far far better options than a RV8" are?

What other V8's can you drop straight into a Land Rover and bolt up to the gearbox without any real mods or alterations and without expensive adaptor kits? I know of none.

300bhp/ton said:

I'd say that's still utter bollox. And you don't seem to be quoting actual facts either.

The original Buick unit was rated at 155hp SAE GROSS. And the only problems they had were manufacturing ones, with the cast blocks warping.

And wow whoopee you worked at a garage. A place that has **** all to do with engine design and manufacture.

---Lets face it, people only generally take vehicles in for repair when there is something wrong with them. So working in a garage you predominantly see the worst side of things. But most certainly not the whole picture.

And if GM knew it has so many problems, why did they use it themselves and even make a V6 variant of it and keep it in production until about 1990 or so?

Even in low powered 137hp low CR state, they still make more power than a tuned Tdi.

Of course modern technology means more modern, complex and expensive engines can do more. But a Rover V8 is still light and compact for a V8 and an easy way to get 200-250hp. Which in a traditional ladder frame Land Rover is more than enough to be quite spritely.

Oh, and I'd simply love to know what these "far far better options than a RV8" are?

What other V8's can you drop straight into a Land Rover and bolt up to the gearbox without any real mods or alterations and without expensive adaptor kits? I know of none.

Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_V8_engine#215
200hp pile of ****, TVR they were ****.

At this point in time my point is made and there is no point arguing with a moron- history tells me your a total ****witt and not worth my time.

Mekkit said:

Your turn

Click to expand...