By EricRat on Sunday, November 04, 2001 - 07:30 pm: Edit

I have a motor with a drinking problem.

There is 4.2l for sale on LRX, I am hesitant about a motor someone else built but...

What do you think it would take to put a 4.2 in a Disco?

Just a thought,

EricRat

By C. Ross on Sunday, November 04, 2001 - 09:13 pm: Edit

It depends on what year Disco you have. If it's an 94 or 95 from what I've been told it would be pretty easy. Otherwise, it would be a bit more trouble.

BTW,

I'm looking at buying a 97 SD that needs a new motor. I wanted to put in an 4.6 but finding a used one of those at a reasonable price is proving to be very difficult. According to my mechanic he has replaced more 4.6 than any other motors. It seems that they have a bad problem of overheating.

Ross

By Eric on Sunday, November 04, 2001 - 09:52 pm: Edit

Doh, that would have a been a good detail to include...

I have a 96 Disco. I assume the 4.2 is similar to the 3.9, previous to the updates the Disco and RR recieved in '96?

Eric

By volts911 on Sunday, November 04, 2001 - 10:00 pm: Edit

check out EAST COAST ROVERS, they do all kinds of swaps.

By jay caragay (Jcaragay) on Sunday, November 04, 2001 - 10:31 pm: Edit

I've heard some rumors that a firm in Canada is doing 300TDI conversions. I've heard that the price is $8800 - but not sure if that is US or Canadian price.

By ZPukajlo on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 12:06 am: Edit

From what I understand you can put a 300 Tdi into your Disco. However, the catch is that it won't be street legal. Has to be used for offroading or farm work. The 8800 price tag sounds about right. Could also be 10 grand. That's a high price to pay to lose a daily driver!

Zane

By p m on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 11:04 am: Edit

Ross,

consider the 4.3 liter Chevy V6.

normally, buick engines have better low-end torque than the same displacement chevy; in this case, if you compare spec sheets, the little chevy mill wins by far. plus, a brand new engine can be had for half the price of the rover long block.

the conversion can be carried out 100% street legal.

by the way, how come a 97 needs a new motor?

peter

By Bill Bettridge (Billb) on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 11:21 am: Edit

300 TDi conversion is perfectly street legal - at least in MD - as a matter of fact, it makes your life easier because it makes the vehicle emissions exempt!

I think the $8800 was for a defender conversion kit (trans/engine/ all the other parts rqd) - a little more effort required to put it in a Disco.

By Ron on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 11:25 am: Edit

Wiseowl has that price.

EVERYTHING needed to convert a 2.5 diesel 90/110 to a 300Tdi new LR genuine stuff. I am pretty sure Chris can get disco conversion stuff too but you will have to ask.

Ron

By p m on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 11:32 am: Edit

eighty-eight hundred? was it yen?

unless you plan on taking your rover on the world tour, this conversion will never pay for itself, and is likely to bring along some "collateral damage."

i can see how people with deep pockets get themselves "unique" rides - but it usually involves putting a more powerful engine in, not the other way around.

peter

By Ron on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 11:35 am: Edit

Depends.

8800 includes the new R380 as well.

If you are like me and have no engine then its ok. Or if your engine is toast why not. Ever price a new 4.0 from LR?

Ron

By p m on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 11:50 am: Edit

that's the thing, Ron, why bother pricing a new 4.0 from LR?

the prices all rover outfits have on their engines and parts are just obscene. Come on, it hasn't gotten much far from a '61 Buick 215!

i like my rover v8s, but i don't want to support LR (over)pricing policies.

peter

By Frank on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 12:28 pm: Edit

I can't figure out why everyone likes the Rover V8 so much. Why not have some muscle? Enlighten me, please.

By John on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 12:48 pm: Edit

So whats a new 4.0 sell for these days with heads, valve covers, water pump, oil filter...
Just curious.

By Steve (Steve2) on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 01:12 pm: Edit

rover v8 motors are very cheap in the uk, as no one wants them - i'd contact a firm over there to ship one over - i think you'd be surprised.

steve

By p m on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 06:59 pm: Edit

Frank,

a rover V8 is an old Buick 215. Buick/Olds/Caddy engines are known for their nice and smooth idle, and good off-idle torque. Many jeep people I know put these engines in, to replace whatever was under the hood (including torquey AMC V8s).

Interesting that Jeep used two Buick engines in the past - the odd-fire V6 and 350V8.

The Chevy 4.3V6 has similar displacement to Rover 4.0, and better torque/hp numbers, and is nearly as common as dirt. As opposed to a small-block V8, it will not cause breakage down the driveline, and it weighs about the same.

Besides this, there are two more very good engines - Ford's 4.0V6 and Jeep 4.0 I6. All these three are close to each other in hp, jeep's six having better low-end torque than others.

I don't speak from experience here; i considered replacing the AMC 360 in my jeep with the Chevy. Once it bits the dust, it's out.

peter

By p m on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 07:01 pm: Edit

John,

nearly all rover outfits want 4k for a long block.
which is still long way from a complete engine.

peter

By Ron on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 07:01 pm: Edit

4.0 jeep and 4.0V6 ford

eeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkk

NOooooooooooooooo

I will keep my buick crap thank you.

Ron

By MA on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 08:14 pm: Edit

How about that new 4200 Vortec engine used in the GMC Envoy and Chevy Trailblazer. That seems like a good engine. We had a Tahoe with a Vortec 5700 engine and found it to be really reliable and powerful. This new inline six produces 270hp and 275hp of torque @3600rpm. Any opinions?

By MA on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 08:16 pm: Edit

sorry...275 lb-ft of torque, not 275hp of torque

By p m on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 08:27 pm: Edit

c'mon Ron, there ain't nothing wrong with these two mills. i wasn't suggesting putting either of them in. but why the hell 40-years old buick crap costs four times more than a new mill of the same displacement?

M.A. - sure, the Envoy's a 4x4 of the year, according to Road and Track

peter

By Craig on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 08:47 pm: Edit

Overpriced?
try $1015.63 for a brand new 4.0 shortblock
Craig

(yes, you read that correctly)

By p m on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 08:51 pm: Edit

should i buy two, just in case?

where did you get that quote?

peter

By Craig on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 08:55 pm: Edit

peter-
I work for the dealer in Denver
Craig
LRDE parts

also- I know the question focused around a longblock, but unless the topend and ancillaries got real hot, I'd throw in a shortie and transfer the rest of the equipment from the original engine. not to mention the 12/12 warranty on it.
my .02

By p m on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 09:38 pm: Edit

that's some good quote. but it is still about twice as expensive as ch*vy shortblock.

don't get me wrong, i intend on keeping my rovers stock as long as my wallet will allow me. But if one craps out on me, and i will be facing some big bucks to fix it, i might reconsider.

peter

By Norm Orschnorschki (Norm) on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 11:21 pm: Edit

Before I replaced my 3.9 with a 4.6 I did A LOT of research, especial RE: adapting a US motor to a Disco.

Bottom line is that if you put in a non-Rover motor, you'll end up replacing nearly every other part directly or indirectly connected with the engine and will spend A LOT of time trying to "make fit" and running back and forth to the parts store. You'll need an adapter kit, which, if memory serves, cost about $1000. If you put in an iron block V8, you'll have to put in a US transmission to handle it and beef up the suspension as well. Basically, it's a headache that will cost you double in time and aggravation what little (if any) you save in money. You'll end up with a platypus that will be a bitch to service.

Although a brand new 4.6 short block costs about $3600, you can reuse your heads and valve gear, transmission, front cover, distributor, fuel injection and ancillary parts. The beauty is that it all bolts right together with no "make do" and is a vast improvement over the 3.9. The only other part you'll need is a chip for the ECU which costs @$650 -- which makes it run efficiently and will prevent the motor from overheating from running too lean with your 3.9 fuel injection.

The 4.6 motor is big improvments over the old 3.5 L Buick -- much more powerful with cross bolted mains for strength and better cooling capacity.

Just depends on whether you want an ongoing "project" or a "driver."

---Norm

By C. Ross on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 11:30 pm: Edit

Fellas,

A 4.3 hmmm, I wonder how hard it would be to mate that up?

The previous owner went around 30K miles without changing or checking the oil at all...apparently. The engine was run completely out of oil and seized. The oil pickup screen in the pan was clogged up to the point where a BB wouldn't fit through there. Some people are idiots.

I've found a few used engines with varying warranties anywhere from $1500K to 3850 depending on the area/warranty etc...

I may not buy it as it looks like I won't have access to much more disposable income in the near future. Good old recession has homebuilding/construction down to a standstill here in Oklahoma.
anyone intersted the truck is a 1997 Disco SD with 66K on the clock. No roofs, cloth, auto...
www.oklahomaforeign.com My quote was for mid $8K...

Ross

By ZPukajlo on Monday, November 05, 2001 - 11:47 pm: Edit

Back to the original question. Does the 4.2 offer a significant increase in power over the 3.9/4.0? Or would he be better off getting a 4.6?

Zane

By Craig on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 12:43 am: Edit

4.6L hands down-
Craig

By Ron on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 08:55 am: Edit

Craig,

I have heard of the short block price reductions and thought they were rumors. What does a 4.6 short block run now a days.

Ron

By John on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 05:44 am: Edit

Craig, ever seen the 4.0 conversion to 5.0? Using a lot of ford part numbers to do it?

By Frank on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 12:27 pm: Edit

So, somebody come up with a solution. There has to be a definitive answer -- if your original rover engine craps out, what is the most cost effective/kick ass/most reliable alternative?

Is it another rover v8? I'd like to hear more about why a chevy conversion is such a pain in the rump, because it seems like it could be done relatively cheaply (all else equal).

By p m on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 01:29 pm: Edit

Norm,

i never meant iron-block U.S. V8 in a rover. This is a project, not a daily driver.
however, much lighter 4.3V6 is a very good option. The adapters can be found on either side of the pond, and yes, you have to drag over all little bits and pieces in process, and/or get very crafty with brackets and wiring. But, nevertheless, cost-wise you will come ahead of any rover swap. The 4.6 swap is the costliest by far.

The short block price that Craig mentioned all of a sudden changes rover prospectives, and it is the first time i thought of a new rover shortblock as a viable option.

peter

By p m on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 01:31 pm: Edit

and about the 4.2 - there was a feature on range rover engines in some of the rover mags about 1/2 a year ago. the 4.2 is an "orphan" among other engines - neither much different from a 3.9 or 4.0 in terms of power and torque, nor close enough to share many parts.

i'd say 4.2 in a disco is a project.

peter

By EricRat on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 02:26 pm: Edit

That is what I needed to know, the dreaded previous owner ran mine nearly out of oil.

I am looking for options as a daily driver.

Eric

By Ron on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 02:50 pm: Edit

i'd say 4.2 in a disco is a project.

Its a bolt in to a 94-95.

Ron

By p m on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 03:11 pm: Edit

Ross has a 97, Eric - a 96.

yes, it will likely bolt on the bellhousing and motor mounts.

peter

By Ron on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 03:24 pm: Edit

The 4.2 is basically the same as a 3.9. You can run all the 3.9 stuff on a 4.2. Now with a 94-95 disco you will want a 95 4.2 engine to keep the serpenitine set up.

As for those guys with 96+ well you are SOL.

I would suggest just swapping in a new (or used) 4.0 (or 4.6) short block with all your old stuff assuming it is ok. You might have to have the heads done and a new cam etc but in the end it would be the most cost effective.

However a 300Tdi conversion would be doable as well.

By ZPukajlo on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 03:27 pm: Edit

From the pictures that I've seen of swapped in 4.6's they all have distributors. Could you make the swap distributorless like 4.0's? Or is this a performance issue for the engine?

Zane

By Craig on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 03:47 pm: Edit

sorry boys-
been offline a while
Ron- 4.6L short runs about 3K
John- no, I have not seen a 4.0 poked out with ford parts, but I know RPI can hog a 4.6 to around 5.2L
As far as the other displacement option, It's all basically the same engine guys, aside from bore and stroke differences model to model. One is not more difficult than any other. the only criteria to consider is what was in the rig originaly, and how much of that is still usable. For those with dizzy rigs, the hot setup(with factory parts) is the 4.6l block and a 4.2L cam. Any of the heads(3.5L aside) breath about the same, and work just fine in any of the above applications.
Craig

By Ron on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Could you make the swap distributorless like 4.0's? Or is this a performance issue for the engine?

This is a VERY good question.

I saw a GEMS 4.6 97 disco ONCE but I don't know what they did to make it work and it was a while ago.

By p m on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 04:03 pm: Edit

is it a quote from your post, Norm?

>I've got a '95 Discovery with RPi 4.6 L motor and >an R380 "J" suffix manual transmission that's >about to die. I'm looking for a transmission
> that will stand up to the 4.6.

how does it line up with your project vs. driver classification?

peter

By ZPukajlo on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Must have been a lot of trial and error being done. Maybe its not cost effective? Anyone else know the answer? Also, why is the 4.2 cam a hot item with the 4.6 block?

Zane

By p m on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 04:17 pm: Edit

well, trial and error seems to be attributes of a "project," not a "driver"

whatever you do, if it is not an exact replacement, you're in for trial and error.

peter

By Ron on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Because the 4.2 cam with the 4.6 block allows you to maintain the dizzy of the 3.9.

You follow?

4.2, 3.9, 3.5 are all dizzy engines

4.0 and 4.6 are distributorless engines

So to fit a dizzy to a 4.0/4.6 you have to run a 3.9/4.2 timing cover and cam

Ron

By ZPukajlo on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Makes sense!

Zane

By Craig on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 04:24 pm: Edit

97 discos were GEMS already. the block does not care what sort of ancillaries you bolt to it. As far as converting to GEMS? (ie.. 94/95 discos) Would you want to work on one on the trail?
Craig

By Ron on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Craig,

What I think he is after is whether a 4.6 block will be ok with the GEMS system in a 4.0 disco or whether it would not work or be a waste as the computer could not use the extra displacement.

catch my drift?

Ron

By Craig on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Gotcha-
the 4.6 will work just fine in that application. The 4.0L eprom will recognize the need for more fuel, and adjust accordingly.
Craig

By Ron on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Good to know.

Will file that away in my quotes file.

Ron

By p m on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 04:35 pm: Edit

Craig, fwiw -
one fellow i know runs a 4.6 in his disco. he needed to bump up the fuel pressure in the rail in order to keep the engine from leaning out and pinging.

peter

By ZPukajlo on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 04:41 pm: Edit

That is good to know! When my engine falls apart I will look into that possibility. Of course that won't happen any time soon. Only have 46000 miles on the odo. Thanks for the info!

Zane

By Craig on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 07:00 pm: Edit

Peter-
did his disco not have a knock sensor from the factory?
Craig

By p m on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 08:09 pm: Edit

i guess ECU had its limits on how far it could advance/retard ignition. So he experienced pinging at high loads. I don't remember what's the name of the part - it is essentially a drainback valve from the fuel rail to the tank, which also sets up the pressure in the rails. He needed one with a higher setting.

peter

By Norm Orschnorschki (Norm) on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 - 10:51 pm: Edit

is it a quote from your post, Norm?

>I've got a '95 Discovery with RPi 4.6 L motor and >an R380 "J" suffix manual transmission that's >about to die. I'm looking for a transmission
> that will stand up to the 4.6.

how does it line up with your project vs. driver classification?

peter

The "J" suffix transmission would have worked fine, except for the fact that my wife drove the truck like a Lambroghini in town for three years --- popping the clutch and speed shifting every gear like a bat out of hell. The second and third synchros are getting mighty tired. There's nothing worse than somebody who's convinced they can drive a stick who can't. The new tranny is coming out of the "diamond fund." If only she'd listened to me and paused between shifts, she'd have that tiara from Tiffany's...

Anyway, the "L" suffix is supposed to have "shot peened" gears (whatever that means) and be a lot stronger than the "J" so why not? Once I get the "L" tranny in, I'll have the toughest Disco in two states.

---Norm

By Ron on Wednesday, November 07, 2001 - 09:50 am: Edit

Norm,

Install an LT 85.

That will slow her down and won't break like the POS R380.

Ron

By p m on Wednesday, November 07, 2001 - 11:36 am: Edit

Ron,

IMHO, nothing slows down a leadfoot wife. Not even a Series-II.

peter

By Ron on Wednesday, November 07, 2001 - 11:40 am: Edit

But a series II diesel

That would keep her under control



Ron

By p m on Wednesday, November 07, 2001 - 01:01 pm: Edit

nope.

i see her suggesting me buying a crate V8 and all hardware downstream the day after her first
ride.

peter

By Norm Orschnorschki (Norm) on Wednesday, November 07, 2001 - 10:32 pm: Edit

One thing is for damn sure -- she doesn't drive the Rover anymore, EVER!!! ESPECIALLY after I get the new tranny installed.

She knows better than to even ask -- she knows that if she aggravates me any further, I'll take the Saab away and force her to trundle the kids around in a purple '93 Dodge minivan -- a fate worse than death.

---Norm

By p m on Thursday, November 08, 2001 - 04:37 pm: Edit

ouch... norm, i didn't know you're into physical punishment

peter

By tmsltd on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 11:08 am: Edit

Doesn't the 4.2 use 4 vee belts to drive all of the auxillary components? The Disco uses one serpentine belt to drive everything and the Disco engine uses an oil pump in the timing cover as opposed to the 4.2 which uses an oil pump mounted on the cover. Sounds like a very time consuming project!

By Ron on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 11:23 am: Edit

Isn't the 95 4.2 serpentine belt


Ron

By doug95lwb on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 06:05 pm: Edit

Yes the 95 4.2 is Serpentine Belt, same p/n as D1 too.

By Craig on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 07:25 pm: Edit

The engine block does not care what's on the front end. You can re-use whatever came off the original engine. not time consuming at all.
Craig