Which V8?

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

New Dexter

Member
Posts
11
Location
Lincoln
I had a 3.5 V8 in my LR until I dismantled the vehicle. It was the basic 134HP version, LT85 and electronic ignition. It used to struggle to tow a trailer and "row it along on the gear-lever" was often the case. Now I intend to re-build it but with a bigger V8. It's not that I wish to hurtle away from the traffic lights I just want to be able to tow a 3500 kg trailer, when necessary and to make driving it a pleasure rather than an effort.
I had looked at Chevrolet LS engines because they were all aluminium and they have been fitted into Land Rovers. Then I considered the later Ford V8s as fitted to Mustangs but has anyone had any experience of fitting either and which would be better?
 
I had a 3.5 V8 in my LR until I dismantled the vehicle. It was the basic 134HP version, LT85 and electronic ignition. It used to struggle to tow a trailer and "row it along on the gear-lever" was often the case. Now I intend to re-build it but with a bigger V8. It's not that I wish to hurtle away from the traffic lights I just want to be able to tow a 3500 kg trailer, when necessary and to make driving it a pleasure rather than an effort.
I had looked at Chevrolet LS engines because they were all aluminium and they have been fitted into Land Rovers. Then I considered the later Ford V8s as fitted to Mustangs but has anyone had any experience of fitting either and which would be better?
You should have no problem at alltowing with a 3.5 v8, after all, this is what they were designed for and are best at. They are brilliant at it. Currently I have a remapped td5, but I also have a rangie, and hands down towing was better, easier and much more relaxed with the v8! Driveability is incredible, on paper they don't look amazing, but the fact your torque comes in at 500 rpm is unbeatable.
I'd say that yours cannot have been running correctly.
I'd always stick with the 3.5, they have non of the problems associated with the larger bore lumps, and if serviced regularly, and oil changed every 2.5k will go on forever. Early ones suffer from terrible cam wear, so this may of been a problem with yours. A new cam and tappets, a good carb service and ignition overhaul and you'd be laughing. Just my opinion, and it's what I'm doing. :)
 
Last edited:
Also it's down to your expertise and how deep your pockets are. Also what you want and expect from the vehicle. Obviously any big block chev or ls will blast the old rover unit out the water, but I like the pedigree of it, all my childhood experiences of V8 Landies were with the 3.5, and it does everything I could ever want from it and more, with my funds. I like things stupid simple so I can do everything myself, and the early units upgraded with a new cam and lecy dizzy are my ultimate! Each to their own though of course
 
I agree with the advice you've received. It's true that the early RV8's wore cam gear rapidly, which is why LR changed the spec.
You could try a slightly hotter cam, nothing wild though, perhaps that designed for the SDI cars from the same period ?
 
Thank you gentlemen for your responses.My LR was a 110 and from day one, after driving it away, its performance was hardly inspiring. It had less than 50,000 on the clock. It had been fitted with lift and tow equipment and the engineer who had specified the vehicle at the first user said "It wasn't a great success". I could only agree but by then I had removed the crane from the back, sold off the front crash bar but I suspect that 134 BHP trying to push 2460 kg along might have been the problem.
 
I had a 3.5 V8 in my LR until I dismantled the vehicle. It was the basic 134HP version, LT85 and electronic ignition. It used to struggle to tow a trailer and "row it along on the gear-lever" was often the case. Now I intend to re-build it but with a bigger V8. It's not that I wish to hurtle away from the traffic lights I just want to be able to tow a 3500 kg trailer, when necessary and to make driving it a pleasure rather than an effort.
I had looked at Chevrolet LS engines because they were all aluminium and they have been fitted into Land Rovers. Then I considered the later Ford V8s as fitted to Mustangs but has anyone had any experience of fitting either and which would be better?
The stock RV8 is somewhat strangled with a low CR setup. Plus at this age, chances are it is a bit worn. RV8's have a tendency to wear the lifters and/or cam. So it might be making a lot less power than it did originally.

The factory 90 also had taller gearing than other 90's. I would assume the 110 might be similar. They have a different transfer box to a diesel powered same era vehicle. This blunts the performance IMO.

As for going for other engines. The questions are:

- how much money do you have to spend
- how much can you do yourself

The reason for this is, pretty much any of the swaps are expensive.

The Chevy LS1 engines are awesome (have owned 2, still have 1, but not in a Landy). They are bigger and heavier than a Rover V8, but not by much. However finding them in the UK is difficult, expect to pay somewhere between £3000-6000 for an engine.

Fitting them in the engine bay is the easy bit. The difficult bit is getting them to connect to the drivetrain. There is a company in Australia called Marks adapters that make a kit to mate a Chevy LS to an R380 gearbox. I have no idea if this would work with an LT-85, but it might. The R380 is sadly not up to the task of the Chevy LS1 by many magnitudes. So it would be a matter of 'when', rather 'if' it would break. The LT-85 is stouter, but I don't know of anyone running one with a Chevy LS motor.

The next option is, you could use an automatic transmission. The GM 4L80e is a good box and in the UK was used on some Jags and maybe other vehicles. Although I don't know if the Jag ones are the same or if you'd need a specific one for a 4wd. Else you will be needing to import one from the USA. Where it is common and found in many vehicles. The reason for doing this is, Marks Adapters also sell an adapter to connect this gearbox to the LT230.

The next option would be to replace the transfer box as well with an aftermarket one. Lots of choice in the USA, but unlikely to find them used in the UK. However many of these will be 2wd high with no centre diff. Do you may create additional things to solve.

Either way you will need:

- an engine that mates to a gearbox
- and a gearbox that mates to the transfer box

This is before you start worrying about actual installation and fitment.


If you want to go down the Ford route. Then the gearbox from a Puma Defender (2.4 or 2.2) is the same gearbox as used in the Mustang. However it also mates to that era LT230. This means a Ford V8 (or V6) will be possible to retro fit. The Ford V8 is however HUGE and heavy. And again pretty rare in the UK, although as the Mustang is sold here now, you might find one. You should be able to use the 4.6 modular V8 from past Ford cars right thru to the 5.0 Coyote variant. I'm not use but the 3v 5.4 might also work, but you'd need to research this.

There is a company in the UK offering the 3.7 V6 from the 2012 Mustang to be fitted to the Puma Defender. However they want a somewhat ridiculous £15k as a starting price.

Other V8 options could include the Jaguar V8 if you want to keep it in the family. However you'd likely need to transplant the entire drivetrain (gearbox/transfer box). I am told these will mate the ZF 6 speed manual from a Disco 3. But you'd still need to either use the D3's transfer box or somehow retro fit and LT230. Sadly I've not seen anyone fit these to any of the older Rover/Leyland manual boxes.

Lexus V8's are pretty cheap to buy. There is someone with their own custom adapter running one of these in a 109 or 110. But lots of R&D required. Or you could transplant an entire Toyota driveline with the engine.

BMW V8's where used in the L322 Range Rover. These use a GM 5 speed auto box, I don't know if this is similar to the 4L80e mentioned earlier and if it could be adapted to an LT230 easily. BMW 6 cylinder diesel engines where also used in the P38 Range Rover, with the R380 manual box and ZF auto's. I do not know if there 6 cylinder and V8's share a common bellhousing pattern or not. But might be worth exploring.

Dodge (Jeep) Hemi V8's have also been fitted to Defenders. But again with an entire driveline.


HOWEVER......


Arguably the easiest way to go is a latter Rover V8. A 3.9, 4.0 or 4.6 would be perfectly suitable. And as long as you don't strangle them on twin carbs. They all will massively out perform a low CR 3.5 engine. And as the saying goes, there's no replacement for displacement. The 4.6 will have the most low down torque and be the best for towing.

If you want more power, all of the RV8 engines can be modified to produce more power. There are even stroker kits for more displacement or you could look at turbo or supercharging.

For anything other than an RV8, I'd say you'd need to budget anywhere from £5000-20,000 depending on what you go for and how much you can do yourself. A Rover V8 is by far the cheapest option.
 
A very comprehensive & interesting post by 300/hp whose knowledge exceeds my own by several light years.
However, in my humble opinion sticking with a variation of the RV8 is a no-brainer in terms of financial outlay, time, replacement parts & quite possibly insurance quotes.
But then I always go for the KISS solutions in life, whilst that makes me a boring old fart it does at least keep me relatively sane :rolleyes:
 
The 3.5 on carbs is quite gutless even with a cam.

I'd opt for a top hatted 4.6 with a torquemax Cam, plenty of low end grunt...

A good example is a stock 4.6 will push out 380-407nm at 2600rpm compared to the 260nm'ish of the 3.5 at 3100rpm ;)

And a little known fact an new connecting rod design was used for the 4.6. they were made from forged steel and have balance pads on both the small and big ends; the bolts retaining the caps were also of a more robust design and are machined to extremely fine tolerances. The bigger engine also has a rod which is 149.7 mm with a 55.5 mm big end bearing diameter, the older version having a 50.8 mm big end bearing. The increase in length was done to reduce the angularity of the rods in the engine, thus reducing vibration, so it is a smoother more robust unit down the bottom end.. Also The 4.0/4.6 cylinder blocks were made significantly stronger by the addition of stiffening ribs in key areas along the block sides near the main bearing webs and more importantly, both 4.0 and 4.6 litre blocks have cross-bolted main bearing caps. Of course in Rovers wisdom they had produced cross-bolted blocks before, but they were special items and expensive, one of the reasons being that the main caps had to be individually ground to match the block. The new blocks have this feature productionised, they are now a press fit in the block. The cap material was also upgraded from grey to SG iron.

giphy.gif


;)
 
The 3.5 on carbs is quite gutless even with a cam.

I'd opt for a top hatted 4.6 with a torquemax Cam, plenty of low end grunt...

A good example is a stock 4.6 will push out 380-407nm at 2600rpm compared to the 260nm'ish of the 3.5 at 3100rpm ;)

And a little known fact an new connecting rod design was used for the 4.6. they were made from forged steel and have balance pads on both the small and big ends; the bolts retaining the caps were also of a more robust design and are machined to extremely fine tolerances. The bigger engine also has a rod which is 149.7 mm with a 55.5 mm big end bearing diameter, the older version having a 50.8 mm big end bearing. The increase in length was done to reduce the angularity of the rods in the engine, thus reducing vibration, so it is a smoother more robust unit down the bottom end.. Also The 4.0/4.6 cylinder blocks were made significantly stronger by the addition of stiffening ribs in key areas along the block sides near the main bearing webs and more importantly, both 4.0 and 4.6 litre blocks have cross-bolted main bearing caps. Of course in Rovers wisdom they had produced cross-bolted blocks before, but they were special items and expensive, one of the reasons being that the main caps had to be individually ground to match the block. The new blocks have this feature productionised, they are now a press fit in the block. The cap material was also upgraded from grey to SG iron.

giphy.gif


;)
Thor would be proud of you Henry. But at least you know what all of that means! (I don’t, for sure).:D
 
Ashcroft will fit hp24 internals inside that would fix that issue ;)

I often wonder about my own hp22, the Classic has only racked up 59k (I bought it at 40k) from new but is now 33 years old & probably never had a fluid change.
The ATF is still red, not bright red admittedly & the 'box operates faultlessly so I think the old adage 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' may be the best policy.
The car only does 2k annually anyway, even less since lock-down with all the classic car shows cancelled/postponed.
 
The 3.5 on carbs is quite gutless even with a cam.

I'd opt for a top hatted 4.6 with a torquemax Cam, plenty of low end grunt...

A good example is a stock 4.6 will push out 380-407nm at 2600rpm compared to the 260nm'ish of the 3.5 at 3100rpm ;)

And a little known fact an new connecting rod design was used for the 4.6. they were made from forged steel and have balance pads on both the small and big ends; the bolts retaining the caps were also of a more robust design and are machined to extremely fine tolerances. The bigger engine also has a rod which is 149.7 mm with a 55.5 mm big end bearing diameter, the older version having a 50.8 mm big end bearing. The increase in length was done to reduce the angularity of the rods in the engine, thus reducing vibration, so it is a smoother more robust unit down the bottom end.. Also The 4.0/4.6 cylinder blocks were made significantly stronger by the addition of stiffening ribs in key areas along the block sides near the main bearing webs and more importantly, both 4.0 and 4.6 litre blocks have cross-bolted main bearing caps. Of course in Rovers wisdom they had produced cross-bolted blocks before, but they were special items and expensive, one of the reasons being that the main caps had to be individually ground to match the block. The new blocks have this feature productionised, they are now a press fit in the block. The cap material was also upgraded from grey to SG iron.

giphy.gif


;)

I feel we could chat for ages over a beer in real life!! :) Very interesting reading!
 
I often wonder about my own hp22, the Classic has only racked up 59k (I bought it at 40k) from new but is now 33 years old & probably never had a fluid change.
The ATF is still red, not bright red admittedly & the 'box operates faultlessly so I think the old adage 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' may be the best policy.
The car only does 2k annually anyway, even less since lock-down with all the classic car shows cancelled/postponed.

If the fluid is clean then changing it wouldn't do any harm, however if it works faultless then I agree ;)

Ain't broke don't fix it ;)

The HP22 is a good box so long as it isn't left unserviced, the Motorway Patrol used Range Rovers and they used to slam them into Reverse at speed to bring the car to an almost instant stop ;)
They can take abuse so long as they're maintained ;) :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top