I had a D2 with almost 180k and never had a head gasket replacment just a couple a valve cover gaskets. I only drove my 3.9 a couple of times before I sold it. Soo I can't really same anything one way or the other about the 3.9. But my D1 4.0l has 197k and leaks like a rover but runs great and I am looking for another 100k from it. Guess all that really matters is that you truck isn't made on a Friday.
the reliability is pathetic at best in both cases. If you want a well-engineered reliable vehicle you should not be looking at Land Rover products.
juha_teuvonnen said:
Another county heard from! Thanks for bestowing that wisdom on us new meat. Glad you have figured that out. Any other insights for us?
I have seen 3.9's, bosch 4.0's and gems 4.0's all with over 250k on them. This isn't the rule but happens often enough to well cared for trucks. If you change your oil, flush your rad and don't drive like a moron these trucks can last. I like the way my rover is engineered.
Drillbit said:
The cars are considered reliable when they do not fail in large numbers. Out of 4 Land Rover engines 1 did not make it past 100K miles. How long they last depends on the luck of the draw, specifically on the thickness of the wall behind the sleeve. Some turn out well, others don't. I know of at least half a dozen engines that were well cared for, yet did not live past 100K. I drive my GM and Jeep engines under very harsh conditions, but they are yet to fail on me. I had a Jeep with 5.2 liter engine with 365K on the odometer and it ran fine. If you ever cared to take apart a Rover engine, you'd see that the quality of parts that go into building them are junk.
ptschram
Well-known member
As of today, in our driveway and garage ....the 3.9s are winning!!
1995 DI 3.9 = 134K daily driver
1992 RRC 3.9 = 175K driven almost-daily
1996 DI 102K 4.0 = in the garage with problems...
1995 DI 3.9 = 134K daily driver
1992 RRC 3.9 = 175K driven almost-daily
1996 DI 102K 4.0 = in the garage with problems...
I post on this site, because I have owned about half a dozen different land rovers over the years. Unlike most American and Japanese cars that are for the most part easy to diagnose and repair, the Land Rover products are always a challenge, mostly due to retarded design an pathetic quality of components. There are only 2 cars that are even more poorly designed than LR: Porsche and Jaguar. And yes, I have owned a few of these pieces of turd too.
As for specific beef with LR engines:
1. The cylinder heads don't flow air worth a shit (duh it's a 1955 design)
2. The camshafts are made from some POS material, service life is 1/3 to 1/2 of that in comparable American, Japanese or German vehicles
3. Valvetrain components are of poor quality and fail often (valves, lifters, valve guides)
4. Oil pump design is completely retarded, won't self prime. The old style oil pump gears are made from crap and wear out quickly (I've seen multiple go @ 100-150K) once the oil pressure is low enough, the engine is toast
5. Camshaft sprocket on GEMS motors, who came up with that idiotic POS? No wonder it does not last worth a shit.
6. Stock cam chain is shit. Bargain basement quality. Stretches way to quickly.
7. Pistons are made from some crappy alloy (gotta be 50s technology), the grooves for the rings are usually worn @ 100K.
8. Con rod - mixed on these, some stretch at 100K others last forever. Usual English quality control problems?
9. Blocks are hit-and miss. Some turn out good (walls thick enough) others not so much. Random quality -luck of the draw. All of them are flimsy.
10. Rocker arms are crap. Due to the retarded design even the rocker shafts break.
11. Who is the moron that decided to use bolts that go into aluminum blocks and heads? Studs are infinitely superior in every respect.
To be fair, GM gets the credit for the lousy design, Rover gets the credit for all the crappy components.
As for specific beef with LR engines:
1. The cylinder heads don't flow air worth a shit (duh it's a 1955 design)
2. The camshafts are made from some POS material, service life is 1/3 to 1/2 of that in comparable American, Japanese or German vehicles
3. Valvetrain components are of poor quality and fail often (valves, lifters, valve guides)
4. Oil pump design is completely retarded, won't self prime. The old style oil pump gears are made from crap and wear out quickly (I've seen multiple go @ 100-150K) once the oil pressure is low enough, the engine is toast
5. Camshaft sprocket on GEMS motors, who came up with that idiotic POS? No wonder it does not last worth a shit.
6. Stock cam chain is shit. Bargain basement quality. Stretches way to quickly.
7. Pistons are made from some crappy alloy (gotta be 50s technology), the grooves for the rings are usually worn @ 100K.
8. Con rod - mixed on these, some stretch at 100K others last forever. Usual English quality control problems?
9. Blocks are hit-and miss. Some turn out good (walls thick enough) others not so much. Random quality -luck of the draw. All of them are flimsy.
10. Rocker arms are crap. Due to the retarded design even the rocker shafts break.
11. Who is the moron that decided to use bolts that go into aluminum blocks and heads? Studs are infinitely superior in every respect.
To be fair, GM gets the credit for the lousy design, Rover gets the credit for all the crappy components.
Yeah, I guess the guys at BMW are morons too.juha_teuvonnen said:
juha_teuvonnen said:
which one are you talking about? the distributor driven or the crank driven? Both are proven designs.
Last edited:
Yes they are. A certain vintage of BMWs with aluminum V8 motors can be had for very cheap. The reason is very high rate of engine failure, typically requiring a new block.mbrummal said:Yeah, I guess the guys at BMW are morons too.
Both pumps won's self-prime which is downright retarded, but that's bad block design by GM. The "proven design" of the distributor driven oil pump was revised at least once and eventually superseded by the crank-driven design. I suppose there was a reason for this, namely low oil pressure on engines that have seen some use.mbrummal said:
juha_teuvonnen said:
Then why do they still use bolts instead of studs in their all aluminum engines? they have much higher stresses than most of the rover V8s will ever see.
juha_teuvonnen said:
GM used the distributor driven oil pump up through the gen VI big block. If it was a flawed design, why would they have kept it for over 40years? (PS, those engines are still in production today.) GM put enormous amounts of money into designing the oiling system on the big block and the oil pump wasn't a weak point on it.
The new V8s they make use the crank driven pumps. Would they put one in their most powerful production engine (LS9) if it was a crappy design and didn't make enough pressure?
And how often do you have problems with the oil pump losing its prime anyway?
I apologize if I upset you, it was not my intent. This was supposed to be a technical discussion.flyor said: