V8 block porosity

I've decided to sell my Volvo and get a Rangie - initially i was thinking along the lines of a P38 4.6HSE, however with so many adverts (and forum posts) relating to overheating problems and porous blocks I'm having second thoughts - so I'm wondering about a late 4.2 LSE.

Are these blocks affected by porosity as much as the others? I assumed these were the cross-bolted, super-duper strong blocks that were bullet proof - but maybe not? How common are the porous blocks and does it only affect a few production years? Or is it mileage related?

I'm so concerned about it that I even fleetingly considered a P38 DSE - but then I read about them overheating too! :doh:

Surely the Rangie can't be so fatally flawed in every generation?!

Lots of different thoughts on V8 blocks. They all over bored and linered 3.5 blocks, and thats the main problem. The thinkness of ally between the liner and water way is very thin, some castings are worse than others. Some people say thay just crack,some say they only crack due to over heating and poor mainance or LPG being fitted. The 4.2 was only made for a couple of years, and doesnt have a 4 bolt mains like the later 4.0 and 4.6. The car in my avitar has a 4.2 lse engine, brought with about 77000 miles and thats fine. Although i did rebuild it before i put it in. But the liners etc have not been touched. My own 4.6 hse has 116000 miles on its original engine and although its had the head gaskets done about 3000 miles ago (not due to over heating but due to a blow across 2 cylinders) it doesnt use a drop of water or over heat, and its on LPG. ( Prop will now ive said that!!!) So you pay your money and takes your choice! Just buy the best one you can but keep in mind that it COULD cost you and engine. V8 is worth it though. Sounds great and better than a smelly diesel. oh thats gona upset someone! :behindsofa:

My advice would be to try and source a car that has had a replacement engine already, with receipt. You'd be surprised how many have! Once you've got a good 'un, keep the cooling system in a1 condition and don't let the engine labour at light throttle, especially with a trailer on the back.
My car had a new engine 24k ago and mark adams chips at the same time, it was no dearer than an equivalent car with the original lump, regardless of the fact the previous owner took a £5k hit for the work!

Get a chipped diesel, head failures are usually due to unnoticed overheating due to pump/radiator/viscous fan/stat failures. Likewise head gaskets. Much more economical than petrol and you can save even more if you make your own diesel.

diesels are gay unless they are also v8's which is what range rovers need!

I just said in another post but will say again a 91/92 RRC with a 3.9 will be a good bet as it has all the extras like heated locks and antiroll bars but no catalitic convertors to worry about and the 3.9 seems fairly tough compared to all but the 3.5 and has a good simple injection system.

But f you like to avoid paying road tax then a 71 or 72 RRC is best and the carbs are cheap and simple to work on also if you know what your doing with them a bit.

I think the orginal pre efi 3.5 engine is the toughest but I will see soon as I just bought one

Thanks for that guys - much appreciated. My main concern is that the Rangie will be my daily driver, not a weekend toy, so I need it to be pretty reliable - an engine swap is a no-no on this vehicle (I'm doing a full 1973 SWB restore at the moment so don't have any room to do it either!).

Good tip about buying one with a new engine - obvious really! (But something I hadn't considered...:doh: )

So you reckon a 3.9 is better than a 4.2/4.6... ok, so thats the LSE out then. Plus you suggest an early 90s version - are those the best years for rust resistance too? I see lots of very tidy H reg RRCs about I must admit, and lots of very shabby K L and Ms I was hoping for a softdash one you see.

I guess another approach is to say sod it and just buy as low a mileage one as I can find? I've been put off getting a V8 for years due to fuel costs but have decided 'you only live once so go for it!'. Shouldn't be much different to my Volvo anyway - 18mpg town and a pretty constant 25mpg overall.

Lots to think about, so thanks again - all good stuff!

I've had 4 v8s. No problems. This block thing is beginning a bit of an urban legend.

The 3.9's ARE just as prone as the later 4.2 and 4.6 engines. I know this from first hand experience.
The introduction of the 3.9 is when it all started, never had it on the 3.5, which is basically bulletproof in this regard

So, as clear as mud then! :rofl:

lol its all conjection and opinion lol.

I think they all rust the same, classics I mean but you just need to keep up the search for a good one.

There are way more block/liner horror stories on here form 4.0 and 4.6 as a cross section of ownership.

I believe stuart and other experts inclusing RPI reckon the cats and therefore the lambdas fitted to engines after 92 cuase the block liner issues as the force the engine to try and run lean and create hotspots which cause the fail.

Like I said my advice would be a good rust free 91/92 and they are quite right try and get one thats had a new engine and box at somone elses expense. check t doesnt have cats!

I spoke to Chris Crane of RPI back in the early 90's when my 3.9 started playing up and as a result finished up fitting a new short engine which solved the problem. My old boss had a new 3.9 Vogue and it wasn't 3 months old when it went in for a new engine. Main Dealer would not say what was wrong but it went in for losing water/ possible head gasket fault.
Prior to that, block problems with the 3.5 were unheard of.

Irishrover said:

I spoke to Chris Crane of RPI back in the early 90's when my 3.9 started playing up and as a result finished up fitting a new short engine which solved the problem. My old boss had a new 3.9 Vogue and it wasn't 3 months old when it went in for a new engine. Main Dealer would not say what was wrong but it went in for losing water/ possible head gasket fault.
Prior to that, block problems with the 3.5 were unheard of.

Click to expand...

Did they just over bore the block to fit bigger liners for the 3.9 and stroke it for the 4.6 don't really know, but if that's what they did what the fook did they expect.

thats what they did mate, then said nothing wrong with the blocks..

j the range said:

thats what they did mate, then said nothing wrong with the blocks..

Click to expand...

Worked on a lot of 3.5s long ago and cannot remember any problems with those, they were regarded as fire proof back then.

j the range said:

thats what they did mate, then said nothing wrong with the blocks..

Click to expand...

WRONG! lol

I was just reading my book, power tuning rover v8's, you know the one and it says thay actually had more metal around the 3.9 cylinder than on the 3.5 which seemed odd to me with all the problems, but I reckon they are lambda,lpg and build quality isses.

Have a look in that book and you will see.

I just bought a 3.5 btw

I have had several V8, 3.5's from the old Rover P6, Classic and Disco over the year starting around 1962. During that time I have got to know quite a few specialists in the field and all of them agree that the old "Lump" would carry on forever. Land Rover denied all knowledge of the block problems after the 3.9 came out and were replacing engines under warranty on affected cars without divulging the cause. If it was happening with the 3.5 the problem would have been common knowledge long before the 3.9 was introduced.
As with my 3.9 I thought a head gasket had gone, replaced them about 3 times and had the heads checked before I phoned RPI in desperation and was enlightened by Chris Crane as to the problem. Years later, same problem happened to my current 4.6. Being older and wiser when the intact head gasket was found, I replaced the engine with a new short unit, have had no problems since.
Not all engines fail, the majority if looked after will last the life of the car.

Thanks for all this feedback. I agree I've never heard of a 3.5 with any serious problem, but I've decided to hedge my bets on a low mileage 3.9/4.2 in good nick. Negotiating on one at the moment but not sure if the seller will let it go for my offer price - made to allow for engine work just in case

Fingers crossed etc!

The early 3.5's use to throw bearings out the side of the block. So the blocks may be bullet proof, but a bearing makes a hell of a hole in one.

ArticFox said:

I've been put off getting a V8 for years due to fuel costs but have decided 'you only live once so go for it!'. Shouldn't be much different to my Volvo anyway - 18mpg town and a pretty constant 25mpg overall.

Click to expand...

My old 3.9 auto (which I had about 15 years ago and had about 60K on the clock) averaged 15.5mpg overall. About 21mpg at best on long gentle cruises and 13 in town (which was most of my driving).

I recently bought a 1988 3.5EFI SE Vogue auto which is a bit of an old nail for tip runs and play days and this only does about 10mpg (though it has been running rich).

I still love the V8 sound track though!

Pete

p76rangie said:

The early 3.5's use to throw bearings out the side of the block. So the blocks may be bullet proof, but a bearing makes a hell of a hole in one.

Click to expand...

what was the cause of that happening? what year did they solve it?

I have a pre 76 landrover 3.5 v8 in my 72 rrc, I think its about 74 vintage as its a genuine landrover replacement engine and it must have the post 74 rear crankshaft seal as it isnt leaking lol but it does have the pre 76 style dizzy drive/oil pump.