By Ira on Sunday, November 18, 2001 - 09:09 pm: Edit

I have the following questions:

a. What's the difference between '98 Range Rover (190hp) and '98 Disco(182hp)???

b. What are the benefits / disadvantages between the Jeep 4.0 (v6) and Rover 4.0 (v8)

c. Which 4.0 is superior???

Any help would be appreciated…

By 94Rover on Sunday, November 18, 2001 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Ira, you're kidding right?

94Rover

By PerroneFord on Sunday, November 18, 2001 - 11:23 pm: Edit

Heheheh...

A. A bit of tuning I think. (I think the motor is the same but someone correct me if I am wrong).

B. The Jeep motor is the same displacement. The v8 is typically smoother. The Rover v8 is probbly lighter as it is all aluminum

C. Superior? That's in the eye of the beholder. Like asking if a Mustang or a Camaro is superior. Are you asking which is more reliable, more powerful, more easy to work on, what?

-P

By Steve (Steve2) on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 12:01 am: Edit

ira

i think the hp went up on the 99 range rover - not the 98 - most likely due to the installation of the bosch ems. the d2 4.0 boasts 188 due to the thor intake plenum.

the jeep 4.0 is actually an inline - not v6.

you need to specify the criteria for superior - in what aspect are you looking for. the land rover unit has been tuned for smoothness - the jeep unit for power. having owned both - i prefer the rover unit, mostly due to ease of service use.

also from a longevity standpoint - i think the rover wins.

By Ira on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 06:13 pm: Edit

Steve:

The data regarding the HP came from a '98 Land Rover book from the dealership comparing difference between the Disco & Range Rover.

I would be happy to scan the comparison...

Thanks for everybody’s help!!!

By Ira on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 07:18 pm: Edit

As it turns out the jeep 4.0 liter is indeed an inline six with 222 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm –– 181 hp @ 4600 rpm and dates to the same time period of the Buick / Rover V8.

My question is why the Jeep output similar to the Rovers when the Rovers is a V8???

By PerroneFord on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Why wouldn't it? v8, v10, v4, i4, i6, whatever. It makes no real difference. The primary thing is that they both have the same displacement, 4.0l.

There are some design considerations of when a V engine is better or worse than inline, but that has nothing to do with power output.

-P

By gp (Garrett) on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 07:40 pm: Edit

actually the j**p is 4.0 is 190 bhp i believe. at least the H.O. is that came out in the '90-'92 era. the earlier ones were 181 until they increased the manifolds and some other minor tweeking. at least that is what my local dealer told me.
all i can say is that i have had 2 cherokees, a TJ and a grand wagoneer. the 4.0 is a nice tight motor. but it does not hold a candle to the rover v-8. the rovers engine is so much smoother all along the power band. no comparison. and the low end torque of the v-8 is great as well in the very low gearing.
the only thing i miss about that j**p inline 6 is how quick the thing was. (but that's because it was only hauling around 3,400 lbs or something like that) but it was also so easy to break the back end loose on that thing. it was dangerous at times........just a slick road and you had to be so damn careful with the throttle. usually kept that thing in 4 high in the rain.
i don't miss any of those j**ps. just like an old girlfriend that was bad in bed........ya just forget about 'em!!

By Kyle on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 07:49 pm: Edit

The mustang is clearly the better car Perrone , man , what are you saying ????

Kyle

By Redsrover (Redsrover) on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 08:45 pm: Edit

'Stangs and Camaros are gross :P

Red

By anonymous on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:04 pm: Edit

stangs a camaros especailly the old ones are fat girl cars

By PerroneFord on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:08 pm: Edit

Obviously people who have not been in a Boss 429 or a early big block z/28. There is absolutely nothing like getting pinned into your seat through all 4 gears, chirping the tires at 90mph!

Whooo Maannn..

-P

By Robert Mann (Oldscout) on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:09 pm: Edit

Dam I guess it's time to sell the goat!


RAIII/TH400/12B,posi

By Robert Mann (Oldscout) on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:10 pm: Edit

OPPS

By Phillip Perkinson (R0ver4x4) on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:10 pm: Edit

yeah I have been in a suped up 5.0 they are qucik gets sideways in 2nd and barks 4 gears..I think about the Beach Boys song-little duece coupe

By Phillip Perkinson (R0ver4x4) on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:12 pm: Edit

I have been in a 5.0 get sideways in 2nd and get rubber in 4 more gears..shit I have ridden in a honda that could bark 3rd.without NOS.....Beach Boys Little Duece COupe

By Phillip Perkinson (R0ver4x4) on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:13 pm: Edit

I mean 2 gear..my mom and her sis had a GTO with a 3 duece on it when they were my age it would run about 14 in the 1/4

By Kyle on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:18 pm: Edit

Hmmm , yes , I was going to say that there is nothing in the world like watching that last yellow bulb on the tree go out and letting your right index finger slide off the button on the shifter. The engine that was being held back by the MSD two step moments before is turned loose and the world turns to a blurr. Only two things going through your mind.
1: Damn I hope my vision clears !!
2: Shit! I should probably pull back on that shifter!!!

Kyle

By Axel Haakonsen (Axel) on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Mustangs rule. I used to have an 84 SVO, turbocharged, intercooled, all stock. Man that thing kicked some serious ass...

By PerroneFord on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:36 pm: Edit

84???? SVO??? Axel, have you ever been in a pre-smog stang? One that was so cammed up you couldn't believe it didn't stall? Or one like my buddys 429 that you shifted into neutral at lights to keep from having the racing clutch creep you into the bumper of the guy in front of you?

I am sure your SVO was quick, but that is a whole different league. Go rent Bullitt. Or the ORIGINAL Gone in 60 seconds.

Kyle knows of what I speak! When you put it in first, stomped the gas, and let the tail walk for a BLOCK (with blue smoke coming in the rear speakers)!!

That's what we should all do for second cars. We should rescue some old muscle cars. Be GREAT therapy for the anemic LR motors!

-P

By Phillip Perkinson (R0ver4x4) on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:38 pm: Edit

sounds cool....I will have to get the movies

By Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:39 pm: Edit

I had a mid-70s Trans Am with the Pontiac 400 when I was in high-school... a bad combination, I'm lucky I lived....

My brother has a '73 RS Camaro with a stroked Chevy engine.... VERY scary car....


-L

By Kyle on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Actually Perrone. When you plant those back tires is when things start to get real interesting. You ever seen a 9" Ford pinion wring off ?? oops!!
Bill B and I were talking on the way back from PA on the CB and we were talking about racing and comparing it to Rovering.
There was a summer that every time the tach hand on the ole Mustang hit 7500 it cost me a thousand bucks.. Rovers are definately a cheaper game....hands down....


Kyle

By Kyle on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:49 pm: Edit

And that little Turbo 2.3 is nothing to scoff at. I have a big ass Turbo coupe in the driveway with it that will still run 14s...


Kyle

By PerroneFord on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:50 pm: Edit

7500!!??? What the hell were you doing?! Playing Richard Petty/Don Garlits!? Good LORD man, thats a BUNCH 'o spinnin!

Hopefully you're smarter than now. Right?

-P

By Kyle on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 09:55 pm: Edit

No , not spinning. You have to spin those old Cobra Jets for them to run. I have always shifted that car between 75-7800.


Kyle

By Axel Haakonsen (Axel) on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Perrone, I'm not comparing the SVO to the pre smog muscle cars. That's a different league. However, that little turbocharged bastard turned quite a few heads, too. Have you ever driven one?
At the time, the only US production car faster than it, was the Corvette. 18psi of turbo boost in a production car is quite a kick in the pants..
Axel

By PerroneFord on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 10:17 pm: Edit

None of the guys I ran with could AFFORD an SVO! They were still new when I was in that crowd. I do remember seeing Jackie Stewart promoting them. I bought his book "principles of high performance driving" back when I wanted to race, and the SVO was all in there. He used them at his racing school I think.

Whats the 0-60 and quarter mile on that thing?

-P

By Kyle on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 10:21 pm: Edit

It was quicker then the Bird. I had to recam the bird and play with the boost to get it in the 14s. The Horse way way lighter so I am sure it was capable of some 13 second quarters with the right tuning...

Kyle

By Axel Haakonsen (Axel) on Monday, November 19, 2001 - 10:37 pm: Edit

The 84 SVO was rated at 0-60 in 7.5 seconds, and 1/4 mile 15.5 @ 90 bone stock. With the right tuning, I don't think 13 would be a problem.

By p m on Tuesday, November 20, 2001 - 01:32 pm: Edit

>Why wouldn't it? v8, v10, v4, i4, i6, whatever. It makes no real difference. The primary thing is that they both have the same displacement, 4.0l.

Perrone,

too bad i missed on this one.
_of course_ it matters. given the same displacement, they may, in theory, develop the same power. But the low end torque will be greatly different.
The I6 (like the jeep 4.0) is an ideally balanced engine. It will run with no flywheel at all! Next better thing is a 90-degree V8 - it ain't balanced as well, and the reason for it to be is that it is much shorter than I6 of the same displacement. The 60-degree V6 is already a substantial step down in low end torque (thus jeep's claim of a new 3.7 V6 being as good as an old 4.0 I6 is a pure BS). a 90-degree V6 is almost as bad as the same displacement I4. The V4 - it just difficult to get it worse than that. Not only a V4 needs a heavy flywheel to run, many have a counter-rotating balancing shaft to smooth it out.

the odd I5 (audi, volvo, rover's diesels) is about the same as 90-deg. V6.

now, while low end torque increases progressively from V4 to ... to V8, the power efficiency declines, because the friction losses increase with number of cylinders (with the same displacement). which brings it to an obvious conclusion - that a jeep 4.0 I6 is a better engine than a rover 4.0 V8. but longer and heavier.

speaking of the the 4.0 I6 heritage - it may be the great-grandkid of a Continental 230, but there ain't much left of the original block.

peter

By Discosaurus (Discosaurus) on Tuesday, November 20, 2001 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Hell, my bone stock Audi does 14.7 quarters and ~6.5 sec 0-60 if you can get some wheel spin at launch and it's got a little 'ol 2.7L V6.

$500 for a chip and it'll drop 500 off both of those.

By p m on Tuesday, November 20, 2001 - 02:40 pm: Edit

keith, it is a featherweight.

btw, we've done the bronco peak last sunday. and the guys went on to sidewinder!

peter

By Ira on Tuesday, November 20, 2001 - 11:43 pm: Edit

The following data came from Land Rover Journal issue number two (Spring/Summer 1998)

(1998) RANGE ROVER SPECIFICATIONS

Type: 90-degree OHV V8
Displacement: 4.0 liters (3,950 cu. cm / 241 cu.in.)
Bore x stroke: 3.70 x 2.80 in. (94mm x 71mm)
Compression: 9.34:1
Horsepower: 190 hp @4,750 rpm
Torque: 236 lb-ft @ 3,000 rpm
Fuel: Sequential multi-port fuel injection
Mass airflow sensor
Ignition: Four-coil direct ignition system
Dual knock sensors
Fuel: Premium unleaded
Fuel tank: 24.6 U.S. gallons (93 liters)

(1998) DISCOVERY SPECIFICATIONS

Type: 90-degree OHV V8
Displacement: 4.0 liters (3,950 cu. cm / 241 cu.in.)
Bore x stroke: 3.70 x 2.80 in. (94mm x 71mm)
Compression: 9.35:1
Horsepower: 182 hp @ 4,750 rpm
Torque: 233 lb-ft @ 3,000 rpm
Fuel: Sequential multi-port fuel injection
Mass airflow sensor
Ignition: Four-coil direct ignition system
Dual knock sensors
Fuel: Premium unleaded
Fuel tank: 23.4 U.S. gallons (89 liters)

Any thoughts besides compression???

By PerroneFord on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 12:00 am: Edit

Only thing that makes any sense is exhaust. And do they REALLY have slightly different compression ratios? One hundredth of a point? This is why you can't trust these things. I'd bet good money they are exactly the same motor with exactly the same specs. The only difference between them is marketing!

I can see the salesguy now..

"Of COURSE the RR is more powerful, look at the price difference..."

-P

By Discosaurus (Discosaurus) on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 11:51 am: Edit

""btw, we've done the bronco peak last sunday. and the guys went on to sidewinder!""

Man, that was a fun time last year.
We really should see if we can get everybody together in UT this coming spring sometime.

By Ron on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 11:54 am: Edit

NBS RR have headers which are better than the disco manifolds.

Ron

By Jon Williams (Jonw) on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 12:58 pm: Edit

Ignition timing, fuel injector pulse width, and breathing - stuff like that. If compression were the issue, then the Discovery would have the 190 hp., which believe it or not, could account from .01 psi in compression at 4750 rpm. But since the Range Rover's V8 has the lower compression, I'm going with Ron in saying the headers make the difference. Slightly lower backpressure will increase your power output to a point (but will decrease your output with too little backpressure).

Either way, hopefully you aren't losing sleep over this. You may wish to know the secret of the Rangie's higher horsepower and apply it to your Disco's engine, but I guarantee you would not feel or notice a difference of 8 hp and 3 lb-ft of torque in your current Disco.