Classic What engine to go for?

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

Rallymantony

Active Member
Posts
164
Location
Camberley
So I bought a classic the other day, been wanting another one for a while. The car is going to be used for multiple European trips, I was originally going to drop a 6.2 GMC in, cue the haters, I've had a few classics with these lumps in and I like them, never had any issues and despite what people say they pulled well and gave great fuel economy, I already have a GMC lump in a 38 (bought it as an unfinished project for the engine) but is it right for this situation I'm wondering... They do put a huge strain on the drivetrain and I want to use a LR box and not a yank, spares for it could be difficult to get hold of on mainland Europe, even something simple like a starter motor could prove an issue. Then there's the language barrier, hands up who knows how to ask for a glow plug for 1980's 6.2 GMC diesel V8 in Italian..... WITHOUT using google!
So now I'm thinking is there another choice?? Not keen on the 200 or 300tdi's, nothing wrong with the engines but I've driven a few RRC's with them fitted and they don't really do it for me. Of course there's the Izuzus (no idea how to spell that) etc, but I got to be thinking, has anyone fitted a TDV8 or even a 3.0TD straight 6 in to a classic? And if so, what are the issues of doing so? Or of course, I could just leave it as a 3.5efi, I like the Rovers but having made trips down to southern Italy multiple time a year towing, I can vouch that it WILL get expensive, especially now.........
Thoughts?
 
Rallymantony said:
So I bought a classic the other day, been wanting another one for a while. The car is going to be used for multiple European trips, I was originally going to drop a 6.2 GMC in, cue the haters, I've had a few classics with these lumps in and I like them, never had any issues and despite what people say they pulled well and gave great fuel economy, I already have a GMC lump in a 38 (bought it as an unfinished project for the engine) but is it right for this situation I'm wondering... They do put a huge strain on the drivetrain and I want to use a LR box and not a yank, spares for it could be difficult to get hold of on mainland Europe, even something simple like a starter motor could prove an issue. Then there's the language barrier, hands up who knows how to ask for a glow plug for 1980's 6.2 GMC diesel V8 in Italian..... WITHOUT using google!
So now I'm thinking is there another choice?? Not keen on the 200 or 300tdi's, nothing wrong with the engines but I've driven a few RRC's with them fitted and they don't really do it for me. Of course there's the Izuzus (no idea how to spell that) etc, but I got to be thinking, has anyone fitted a TDV8 or even a 3.0TD straight 6 in to a classic? And if so, what are the issues of doing so? Or of course, I could just leave it as a 3.5efi, I like the Rovers but having made trips down to southern Italy multiple time a year towing, I can vouch that it WILL get expensive, especially now.........
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
The way diesel is being condemned and with the tax hikes here in France making it more expensive then petrol, I'd stick with petrol even with the V8. The car would be worth more if original.
 
Datatek said:
The way diesel is being condemned and with the tax hikes here in France making it more expensive then petrol, I'd stick with petrol even with the V8. The car would be worth more if original.
Click to expand...
I take your point Data and it has crossed my mind to just leave alone, diesel is cheaper in Italy at the moment which is where it will spend most of it's time when in Europe, and it seems to be the preferred choice but I have this nagging in my head (not the wife this time..... Ah thank you) that fuel saving wise it might not be worth the work and hassle...... Thanks for your input Data
 
Availability of LPG on the continent?
Mine - 1986 3.5EFi - has been on LPG for over 20 years.
When I converted I was using the car as a daily drive so it was worth it. I now do less than 2k a year the bulk of which is the holiday run to Cornwall towing a boat so for me would now make no financial sense.
That said, during the recent price hikes I was paying around £1.99 for petrol & 69.9p for LPG.
I consistently get 13/14 mpg on LPG (empty or fully loaded & towing) which gives 3 gallons (ish) of LPG for the price of 1 gallon of petrol. Which means on LPG I was getting the equivalent of around 40mpg.
I think the mpg on the Classics with the LR factory fit diesels is given as mid to high 20s mpg - LPG over the years I've had mine has GENERALLY been around half the price of diesel so 2 gallons of LPG in mine gives much the same figure.
Problem might be availability local to you in this country, but the autogas app is pretty good. AutogasApp: Find cheap LPG stations near you!
 
Ratae said:
Availability of LPG on the continent?
Mine - 1986 3.5EFi - has been on LPG for over 20 years.
When I converted I was using the car as a daily drive so it was worth it. I now do less than 2k a year the bulk of which is the holiday run to Cornwall towing a boat so for me would now make no financial sense.
That said, during the recent price hikes I was paying around £1.99 for petrol & 69.9p for LPG.
I consistently get 13/14 mpg on LPG (empty or fully loaded & towing) which gives 3 gallons (ish) of LPG for the price of 1 gallon of petrol. Which means on LPG I was getting the equivalent of around 40mpg.
I think the mpg on the Classics with the LR factory fit diesels is given as mid to high 20s mpg - LPG over the years I've had mine has GENERALLY been around half the price of diesel so 2 gallons of LPG in mine gives much the same figure.
Problem might be availability local to you in this country, but the autogas app is pretty good. AutogasApp: Find cheap LPG stations near you!
Click to expand...
Plenty of LPG (GPL) in France
 
I would leave the V8 in place as although the 3.5L is the least powerful of the RV8's it's also the most reliable, but then I'm a petrol head with a passion for keeping old vehicles original & a pathological hatred of conversions :(
You have obviously given considerable thought to the fuel cost aspect of the trip(s) so why not balance the cost of the V8's appetite for petrol against the installation of an alternative engine. Your comment about the acquisition of spares for non-standard engines in foreign landso_O is also a valid point.

My only experience of the GMC is that of a Chevy. Blazer (in Belgium) I was impressed by both its' performance & exhaust note, but I would have thought the sheer weight of the thing would be detrimental to the handling of a Classic, designed as it is for an alloy V8. You don't say whether you are going for a manual 'box or ZF slush, but in the case of the latter I would think the Jimmy's torque would be outside the 'box's parameters.
 
norseman said:
I would leave the V8 in place as although the 3.5L is the least powerful of the RV8's it's also the most reliable, but then I'm a petrol head with a passion for keeping old vehicles original & a pathological hatred of conversions :(
You have obviously given considerable thought to the fuel cost aspect of the trip(s) so why not balance the cost of the V8's appetite for petrol against the installation of an alternative engine. Your comment about the acquisition of spares for non-standard engines in foreign landso_O is also a valid point.

My only experience of the GMC is that of a Chevy. Blazer (in Belgium) I was impressed by both its' performance & exhaust note, but I would have thought the sheer weight of the thing would be detrimental to the handling of a Classic, designed as it is for an alloy V8. You don't say whether you are going for a manual 'box or ZF slush, but in the case of the latter I would think the Jimmy's torque would be outside the 'box's parameters.
Click to expand...
For sure the HP22 would not handle the GMC's torque and I doubt the HP24 would either.
 
Rallymantony said:
So I bought a classic the other day, been wanting another one for a while. The car is going to be used for multiple European trips, I was originally going to drop a 6.2 GMC in, cue the haters, I've had a few classics with these lumps in and I like them, never had any issues and despite what people say they pulled well and gave great fuel economy, I already have a GMC lump in a 38 (bought it as an unfinished project for the engine) but is it right for this situation I'm wondering... They do put a huge strain on the drivetrain and I want to use a LR box and not a yank, spares for it could be difficult to get hold of on mainland Europe, even something simple like a starter motor could prove an issue. Then there's the language barrier, hands up who knows how to ask for a glow plug for 1980's 6.2 GMC diesel V8 in Italian..... WITHOUT using google!
So now I'm thinking is there another choice?? Not keen on the 200 or 300tdi's, nothing wrong with the engines but I've driven a few RRC's with them fitted and they don't really do it for me. Of course there's the Izuzus (no idea how to spell that) etc, but I got to be thinking, has anyone fitted a TDV8 or even a 3.0TD straight 6 in to a classic? And if so, what are the issues of doing so? Or of course, I could just leave it as a 3.5efi, I like the Rovers but having made trips down to southern Italy multiple time a year towing, I can vouch that it WILL get expensive, especially now.........
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I can't see any major engine and transmission swap will save you money, not unless you are doing mega mileage for years to come. That is probably not the way to justify this. The GMC 6.2, as you have experience, then fine. But they are heavy old lumps that in reality make no more power than a tuned Td5, but require a lot more work. Certainly not against these engines and they do make a nice noise. But unless it was way cheaper than swapping in another engine, I struggle to see the point in this day and age.

TDV8 I think you will be pioneering any such swap. Major R&D. Even if you swap the entire drivetrain from a late model in.

Td5 should be doable and probably a nice setup. And I see no reason why the M57 3.0 diesel can't be fitted. Similar to doing it in a 90, but you'll still need to change a lot. I'd guess the older M51 from the p38 could be made to fit. But less power and maybe not as good as doing a Td5 swap.

Rover 4.6 V8 would be a pretty easy swap. MPG probably no better than the 3.5 or only marginally. But a fair chunk more torque and power. A swap like this is less likely to impact value too, where as nobody would really want an Isuzu powered Range Rover. I would think such a swap would devalue the vehicle to the point that it would be almost worthless. RRC prices are on the rise otherwise.
 
Last edited:
300bhp/ton said:
Rover 4.6 V8 would be a pretty easy swap. MPG probably no better than the 3.5 or only marginally. But a fair chunk more torque and power. A swap like this is less likely to impact value too, where as nobody would really want an Isuzu powered Range Rover. I would think such a swap would devalue the vehicle to the point that it would be almost worthless. RRC prices are on the rise otherwise.
Click to expand...

I recall the Overfinch doing 4.6L Classic conversions, so the car would retain its' value I guess.
 
the 6.2 Diesel is a gutless whore for its displacement 130hp and 240ft-lbs, heavy as **** too.

You'd be better off either with a 4.6 RV8 conversion far easier to deal with or the even easier route is to fit a torquemax cam to your 3.5 which will improve drivability and cost very little in the grand scheme of things.
 
Henry_b said:
the 6.2 Diesel is a gutless whore for its displacement 130hp and 240ft-lbs, heavy as **** too.

You'd be better off either with a 4.6 RV8 conversion far easier to deal with or the even easier route is to fit a torquemax cam to your 3.5 which will improve drivability and cost very little in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...
The 3.5 would surely be more reliable than the 4.6?
 
Datatek said:
The 3.5 would surely be more reliable than the 4.6?
Click to expand...
Haven't we done this too many times already ffs :rolleyes:

Must be tens of thousands of 3.9, 4.0 and 4.6's being used daily without issue globally.

3.5 is slow and gutless compared to a 4.6
 
Datatek said:
The 3.5 would surely be more reliable than the 4.6?
Click to expand...
liner slip is an issue that is most prevalent on the 4.0 and 4.6 mainly becuase of the larger bore and thinner material surrounding the water jackets, bad fuelling and/or cooling system faults can cause the dreaded issue.

The "best" Rover one would be the 4.6, but they're all basically the same engine so take you'd take your pick based on what the wallet dictates. The 4.0 and 4.6 were cross-bolted which is nice to have but not really essential for the application. :)
 
Thanks for all the input. I don't trust the 4.6, I've had two and both let me down, one was only 3 years old at the time with 60k.. I don't have any experience with the 4.0 so can't comment but I have had a couple of LSE's with the 4.2 and they seemed bomb proof.. However, there seems little point in changing the engines petrol for petrol to be honest, the 3.5 in this car seems to be a strong engine. As I said originally, the car will spend a lot of time in the mountains of Italy and it will be towing on occasions, so fuel consumption is one factor, overheating while towing is another.... As I said, I've had lots of classics and towed all over Europe but the cars were a lot younger back then.... And so was I :confused:
 
I'll let you in to a little secret..

The 3.9 4.0 and 4.6 are the exact same engine the latter just has a longer stroke ;)

The latter 4.6 and the 4.2 share the same project iceberg bottom end, the former having wider crank journals. ;)
 
OM606 ? Available fully mechanical and pretty much bullet proof - sound nice, but nothing like a V8.. IIRC they are all alloy too, so ..

plenty of info on the tube - they get fitted in lots of deafeners - lots of choice re transmissions too
 
Allegedly retrofitting a 3.9 cam to a 3.5efi will give you around 10% more power, but I don't know what the torque curve is like with that modification.
You could have the 3.5 stroked to 4.3 (kit by Real Steel?) which will considerably increase torque without compromising the original engine's durability, but this is a major rebuild job & will cost accordingly. Someone I knew years ago went down this road but blew the A pack on the HP22, so that may need beefing up to cope.
 
norseman said:
Allegedly retrofitting a 3.9 cam to a 3.5efi will give you around 10% more power, but I don't know what the torque curve is like with that modification.
You could have the 3.5 stroked to 4.3 (kit by Real Steel?) which will considerably increase torque without compromising the original engine's durability, but this is a major rebuild job & will cost accordingly. Someone I knew years ago went down this road but blew the A pack on the HP22, so that may need beefing up to cope.
Click to expand...
10% power hike is probably optimistic, hugely so. But the cams and followers do wear, so replacing a worn one with a new one will make a big difference.

All you need to do is look at the figures. An EFI 3.5 is 165hp and a 3.9 is 182hp.... if all you had to do was put the 3.9 cam in the 3.5 to gain 16.5hp (181.5bhp). Why did Rover go to the expense of adding an extra 0.4 litres of displacement. These figures would also suggest that 0.4 litre is only 0.5hp extra over the cam swap, which just doesn't make any sense at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TimoTS
Range Rover classic 3.9EFI no oil visible under oil fill cap.
Replies
19
Views
494
aj1954
aj1954
hef19898
Classic Questions regarding the future
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
norseman
norseman
R
Kwik Fit say no-no to MoTs on classic?
Replies
19
Views
524
kermit_rr
kermit_rr
R
What L322 to avoid?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
Mark Piercy
Mark Piercy
J
P38A p38 EAS - immediate drop of pressure
Replies
11
Views
716
Mark Piercy
Mark Piercy
Back
Top