Rover V8

[muskyman]

. Aside from nice even torque with the studs you are relocating the clamping force to the top of the head and no longer asking the coarse aluminum block threads to bear the load.

It is true that the studs will produce a more even torque from one stud to the next. The reason for this is easy to see, you have new threads producing the clamping force.

You are incorrect though about the rest. The threads in the block are still holding the clamping force they are just not being stressed from the friction of using them during the torquing process. the amount of force exerted on them will still be the same for the same clamping force once the torquing process is complete.

You are also not relocating the clamping force. the stud is in tension just as the TTY bolts were before with one end of the force at the washer and the other in the block.

The key improvement comes from two places, first being the quality of the fastener, second the fact you are no longer counting on used abraded threads that are contaminated in the block to produce equal torque from hole to hole.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Great info, Scott! Thanks.

I don't know about LRs but with the 4.0 in Jeeps D-C cranked the operating temperature to ~210 degrees as well. They did this for emissions purposes.

If you mess around with the operating temperature it would be interesting to see what that does to NOx and CO2 values at the next emissions test. We have to do it by law every two years.

Not just for emisions, but for fuel economy. A hotter engine will run more efficiently. I'm a little rusty on emissions vs. temp, but IIRC, NOx will go up at higher temps, and CO will tend to go down. The effect is really minor though, compared to other variables.

Realistically, any vehicle that is not burning oil, has a functioning cat, and is running a reasonably tight 14.7:1 will pass Ontario emissions. It really is a joke. What a waste of money. I mean, I passed with my trackday car. Here's a car that used to make 130hp with 18 lb/hr injectors, now making 250 on 42 lb/hr injectors, non-function O2's, and an aftermarket computer with a Random Tech high flow cat, and it's been beat to **** for 70,000km. And it passed. Just barely, and I had to retune a couple times on the dyno, but I got it to pass.

The window for emissions is so big, I wouldn't even think about running a 180 Tstat on an otherwise stock-ish engine. Seriously, has my D2 tested, and it was clean. As in... couldn't even measure the polutants they were so low.

Now, as for running a D2 with a 180 Tstat, and if the computer would be happy, I don't see the problem? I thought it wants to run around there anyway? I believe mine runs in the 180's at speed without the AC in 80F weather.

 

[rovertech]

Thom,

Much better description. Thanks for the clarification. I would disagree on one point and that's the amount of tension the block threads are under. When you insert the stud into the block it bottoms out in the hole and is hand tight only. Then when the nut is torqued you are distributing the tension evenly through the threads. Blocks built with studs don't seem to crack in the manner the blocks assembled with bolts do. This would seem me that the block threads are not tensioned in the same manner. This could also be the stretching action of the TTY bolts as they stretch. Although traditional bolts also seem to have similar effects on the block in regards to block cracking.

 

[DNTL740]

Hi Scott, I purchased a 2001 D2 from Land Rover Seattle in early 2005 with 48,xxx miles on the odo. The service folder on this truck was about 3 inches thick, good looking truck and it came with the extended warr till 85,xxx, so I bought it.

It had the bottom end replaced at 45,xxx, service records stated it kept lighting the SES light. After purchasing the truck I had them replace the thermostat because it was leaking, by the time they were done they had replaced every hose in the engine compartment, including the radiator. This was done at 48,xxx. I never had a clue that these trucks had the cylinder liner problem, not that it would have mattered.

I really would like to know what the possibility is to build a bulletproof engine?

Cristian

 

[Brian4d]

the blocks can look fine and still be junk...the only way to tell is by doing a pressure test and seeing if the block leaks where the upper sleave edge meats the deck of the block.

I also considered this, however the first set of gaskets went 80k without a drop. It's my understanding the gaskets installed at the factory are different than the new composite gaskets used today.

 

[muskyman]

I also considered this, however the first set of gaskets went 80k without a drop. It's my understanding the gaskets installed at the factory are different than the new composite gaskets used today.

the pre 94 trucks all ran tin gaskets, composit gaskets started with the move to 10 bolt heads 94 model year trucks.

And yes the new composite gaskets are different, they are better having vinle sealing areas around the water jackets.

truth be told if the second set of gaskets failed quickly you should be pressure testing the block before you replace them again.

 

[Brian4d]

I understand that some will explain the worst case scenario with this but given the prior history of the engine I doubt it's a block issue such as a slipped sleeve.

In my case the passenger head ONLY leaks when it's cooling. I found this hard to belive so I've been checking over the last two weeks and sure enough no leaks until the engine starts to cool.

I've heard that maybe thermacycles might help slow or even stop the leak, not sure if this holds water. In my case it may be plausible.

I'm thinking when the heads were pulled they were machined when they should not have been. The heads over 80K adjusted to the block and they were a good fit being it's never once overheated. They machined the heads and the mating surface was compromised at that point. This is what I'm leaning towards.

 

[muskyman]

Hard to say without having the truck to work on...but

Keep in mind the highest pressure seen in the cooling system will be after shut down as at this point the coolant is no longer circulating and the fluid in the block will then rise in temperature and increase the ultimate pressure in the cooling system.

Also where is the coolant dripping from because this can also indicate what is leaking. If its from the rear of the head(very common) that is water jacket related if it is from the center of a head then that is a sleave issue.

 

[Brian4d]

Hard to say without having the truck to work on...but

Keep in mind the highest pressure seen in the cooling system will be after shut down as at this point the coolant is no longer circulating and the fluid in the block will then rise in temperature and increase the ultimate pressure in the cooling system.

Also where is the coolant dripping from because this can also indicate what is leaking. If its from the rear of the head(very common) that is water jacket related if it is from the center of a head then that is a sleave issue.

Coolant is dripping from the front of the engine in the area around the #2 plug under forward most manifold. I'm of the opinion it's coming from the forward water jacket in the front most part of the head. The only other spot would be the intake manifold but if it's leaking from there it's a sneaky SOB. I would LOVE for this to be a manifold gasket but I just don't think it is.

Basically leaking off the block onto the front passenger side engine mount directly onto the front differential.

 

[muskyman]

Coolant is dripping from the front of the engine in the area around the #2 plug under forward most manifold. I'm of the opinion it's coming from the forward water jacket in the front most part of the head. The only other spot would be the intake manifold but if it's leaking from there it's a sneaky SOB. I would LOVE for this to be a manifold gasket but I just don't think it is.

Basically leaking off the block onto the front passenger side engine mount directly onto the front differential.

Sorry to say but that would be really unlikely...I would say that if you pull the heads and pressure test the block the second sleave from the front will leak at about 20lbs of pressure.

the front water jacket leaks down on the face of the block over the oil pressure sensor.

this aint looking good for you

 

[Chazz Layne]

2004 here approaching 80,000 miles. I've had it since early 2006. Coolant flush was done around 60k, no problems to report.



Now my trans cooler does leak ATF... it has been doing that for years.

 

[Brian4d]

Sorry to say but that would be really unlikely...I would say that if you pull the heads and pressure test the block the second sleave from the front will leak at about 20lbs of pressure.

the front water jacket leaks down on the face of the block over the oil pressure sensor.

this aint looking good for you

Captain Obvious! :wings: liner, head gasket, it's all bad right?

Anyway, I have no bubbles in the expansion tank and no taping or pinging of any kind and the engine has never overheated, promise. As for a head gasket leak making it from the front water jacket to the first #2 plug I think that's possible. What can I say, I'm an optimist! Thanks for your insight none-the-less.

 

[rovertech]

Not just for emisions, but for fuel economy. A hotter engine will run more efficiently. I'm a little rusty on emissions vs. temp, but IIRC, NOx will go up at higher temps, and CO will tend to go down. The effect is really minor though, compared to other variables.

Realistically, any vehicle that is not burning oil, has a functioning cat, and is running a reasonably tight 14.7:1 will pass Ontario emissions. It really is a joke. What a waste of money. I mean, I passed with my trackday car. Here's a car that used to make 130hp with 18 lb/hr injectors, now making 250 on 42 lb/hr injectors, non-function O2's, and an aftermarket computer with a Random Tech high flow cat, and it's been beat to **** for 70,000km. And it passed. Just barely, and I had to retune a couple times on the dyno, but I got it to pass.

The window for emissions is so big, I wouldn't even think about running a 180 Tstat on an otherwise stock-ish engine. Seriously, has my D2 tested, and it was clean. As in... couldn't even measure the polutants they were so low.

Now, as for running a D2 with a 180 Tstat, and if the computer would be happy, I don't see the problem? I thought it wants to run around there anyway? I believe mine runs in the 180's at speed without the AC in 80F weather.

Rob,

Engine power drops by as much as 10% between 180 - 210 F. Rover increased the temperature specifically to battle excessive NOx emissions. In fact the Rover V8 can cruise at 15.3- 15.5:1 but LR left the tune at 14.7:1. As the mixture leans out NOx goes up. This is why when you have a properly done aftermarket tune you can increase power on acceleration and also gain fuel economy at cruising speed. There is always a give and take. As for retuning the ECM for the cooler running temps I have no doubt that the Motronic softeare can compensate. It still seems like a good idea to readjust its baseline point of reference. If for no other reason than to avoid potential fault code trouble, ECT or warm-up fault.

 

[rovertech]

Hi Scott, I purchased a 2001 D2 from Land Rover Seattle in early 2005 with 48,xxx miles on the odo. The service folder on this truck was about 3 inches thick, good looking truck and it came with the extended warr till 85,xxx, so I bought it.

It had the bottom end replaced at 45,xxx, service records stated it kept lighting the SES light. After purchasing the truck I had them replace the thermostat because it was leaking, by the time they were done they had replaced every hose in the engine compartment, including the radiator. This was done at 48,xxx. I never had a clue that these trucks had the cylinder liner problem, not that it would have mattered.

I really would like to know what the possibility is to build a bulletproof engine?

Cristian

Christian,

If you start with a good block and do due diligence testing it I think you can build a dynamite engine. It isn't cheap to do it correctly. I will no longer install used engines or questionable rebuilds. There may be a few good used engines still floating around but it is Russian roulette to try one. I have seen rebuilds that are nothing more than a set of bearings, rings and a good cleaning which doesn't cut it. The factory build quality is sporadic and not blueprinting is just asking for trouble. Watch the temp gauge like a hawk and don't let it overheat. If it starts leaking coolant fix it.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Rob,

Engine power drops by as much as 10% between 180 - 210 F. Rover increased the temperature specifically to battle excessive NOx emissions. In fact the Rover V8 can cruise at 15.3- 15.5:1 but LR left the tune at 14.7:1. As the mixture leans out NOx goes up. This is why when you have a properly done aftermarket tune you can increase power on acceleration and also gain fuel economy at cruising speed. There is always a give and take. As for retuning the ECM for the cooler running temps I have no doubt that the Motronic softeare can compensate. It still seems like a good idea to readjust its baseline point of reference. If for no other reason than to avoid potential fault code trouble, ECT or warm-up fault.

Lots of engines "can cruise" with a lean mixture. I used to run my Zetec down to 18:1. But that is really bad for emissions. NOx goes through the roof even by 14.9:1. I know, I've tested it live with an engine on a dyno and an emissions sniffer. The catalyst is most efficient when the engine is dithering from 14.8-14.6. Giving it waves of NOx and CO heats it up and makes it more effective.

I checked, and I was correct, NOx goes up as does the combustion temperature. So raising the engine temperature is going in the wrong direction for NOx. It's done for fuel economy.

Your comment about aftermarket tunes, reads like you are suggesting aftermarket tunes lean out the mixture to 15:1 for improved fuel efficiency and power. If I'm reading you right, that's wrong.

First, engines with narrowband oxygen sensors can't run closed loop cruise with a lean burn anyway, because the regular O2's basically only read 14.7:1. Once you are at anything but 14.7:1, the sensor can only tell you which side of stoich you are, but not by how much. It's a step function change as you pass 14.7. You can't control a lean burning engine with narrowbands. So I highly doubt anybody is tuning this way. And for sure nobody is running "lean" at full throttle, because that is both bad for power and damaging to the engine. Maximum power output of a non forced induction spark ignition engine is about 13.5:1.

Now, it's possible that an aftermarket tune will improve power and fuel efficiency at cruise. This is usually done by increasing spark advance, and possibly changing the fuel mixture at full throttle from a "safe" 12.5:1 to a more aggressive 13.5:1. So it is "leaning out" the mixture a bit, but definitely not 15:1.

When I was running an 18:1 lean cruise on my car, I was controlling it with an aftermarket wideband O2, Motec PLM. I had to change it back to 14.7:1 to pass emissions, and never bothered leaning it out again.

The 10% power increase you mention going from 180-210F does not occur merely because of the temperature change. You would only see that increase if you also retuned the engine to take advantage of the reduced tendency to knock, by increasing spark advance, and targetting the right AFR at full throttle. Generally speaking, power claims from aftermarket tuners for non forced induction engines are greatly exaggerated.