3.9 v 4.2

Nonimouse

Cynical old bastard
It's the top ends that suffer from a life of over revving but 5K isn't over revving; especially with good oil and 3k changes

The 4.2 is a lovely engine. Really nice; even though it uses the Devil's fuel
 

SeaRubi

Explorer
my 4.2 LWB had 230k on the clock and purred like a kitten. that truck is still going strong as far as I know.

the 4.2's bottom end isn't any different than the 3.9. The power bump comes from the revised cam specs in the 4.2 - some folks use the 4.2 cam in a 3.9 to wake it up when putting one back together.

One big advantage to going with the 4.2 is that they can be had for dirt cheap if you find one up for sale. 4.6 cores (especially gem blocks) are costly.

my .02

cheers
-ike
 

sven

Adventurer
The power bump comes from the revised cam specs in the 4.2

Yeah and the longer stroke helps a little too.

Somewhere I read that the 4.2 crank was originally intended for a Rover diesel V8 project that never happened.
 

Viggen

Just here...
So, will I have to source an ECU for the 4.2 also or could I do as RPI says and either chip my 3.9 or adjust the pots in the MAF, etc...?

The 4.2 is appealing since it will give me that extra power Im looking for without having to change much in the way of sensors, etc...
 

Nonimouse

Cynical old bastard
Yeah and the longer stroke helps a little too.

Somewhere I read that the 4.2 crank was originally intended for a Rover diesel V8 project that never happened.

The 'Iceburg' - the dieselified version of the Rover V8

There were shed loads of blank cranks cast, some were used up for the 4.2, others sold off for scrap! The last batch sold went to Steve Lund the genius V8 builder who was driven mad by aluminium poisoning, drugs and drink. I helped move them into his workshop back in about '03
 

Forum statistics

Threads
186,017
Messages
2,880,912
Members
225,705
Latest member
Smudge12
Top