Simple Questions

[Yorker]

Again so much green oval hating in here.

Can anybody tell me what particularly have they experienced or seen about the V8's that make them less durable than the Series engines or any other engine in particular?

The series engine is an underpowered lump by today's standards- not many people could contend with it. It is overbuilt for what it is and a good engine IMHO. I've seen several with 300,000 on them now and many others with less that simply outlived the chassis. No cylinder liners to drop, roller lifters, a good timing chain, huge oil capacity for the engine size- it had a lot going for it in its day. That tough little 4 cylinder probably weighs as much as a Chevrolet 350.

I wouldn't consider it a viable alternative though for most of today's people. It is s l o w in a heavily laden 109, and that can be annoying or a real liability as Terri Ann found back in 1998 on the way to/from the ANARC rally. Also the MPG sucks when compared to the HP. You MIGHT get 17-20 MPG(us) with a 2.25. Compare it to a contemporary truck 6 cylinder like in the Toyota FJ-40 or Ford 300 6 etc and the 2.25 really pales in comparison on road.

If LR had put the 3.5l in the series LR's earlier with a better rear axle completely across the line they would not have lost so much market share through the 1970-'s to Toyota. If the Stage 1 had come out just 10-15 years earlier and been offered in all wheelbases... Then we'd be seeing LR buying TATA and not the opposite...

 

[MuddyMudskipper]

Our local Land Rover dealer has started filling his lot with used cars (including Jeeps). Anyone else see their dealer moving towards other options? If this is a trend and not an one-off instance, this doesn't bode well for parts/service availability for the newer rigs.

No, but my friend has had his truck in service for some warranty work and the dealer gave him a 4Runner as a loaner.

 

[Yorker]

I think you'll find most popular 4x4 vehicles that are the Series Rover's contemporaries, like the Jeep CJ-5 or the Toyota FJ-40, a similar in the respect that they are bolted together in a manner that makes them easy to maintain and modify. The corrosion issues are there, but they are not much worse than on most Rovers. The Rover bulkhead and frame are certainly problem areas for Rovers, and can be complicated further by galvanic corrosion. Older, iconic vehicles like that usually inspire fanatical devotion by their owners, which is good.

However, my point was that, model-for-model, Toyota overbuilt when compared to Land Rover, and the cost of ownership to maintain the same level of performance over the years is less in my experience. While I respect a Toyota FJ-40s capabilities and reliability, I've never lusted over one like I have a Series Rover. The classic Land Rover image got me, hook, line, and sinker. The rest I'll deal with.

When I started looking for a 4x4 I looked at FJ40s, Flat Fender Jeeps, Nissan Patrols etc. The FJ40s all needed body work AND frames- after years of use they'd had it. The rear chassis really holds salt on them and that kills them here in the rust belt. The LR's I looked at had terminal frame rot too

but the work involved with the body/bulkhead wasn't insurmountable which became a big plus given the budget I had at the time.

The Willy's were generally in need of a new tub- their frames were often OK for some reason but they are almost too primitive- they have more in common with a Model T in many ways than anything more modern. The Flathead 4 is a cool engine but it is even less practical than the LR 2.25 in today's world.

The Nissan Patrol plan didn't work out because I only ever found one and it consisted of more iron oxide than iron.

I looked at Scouts and Early Broncos too but for a variety of reasons they didn't work out for me.

Finally I just decided to take the plunge and go with Series Land Rovers. I've never regretted that decision. They are a great vehicle and really lend themselves to sensible modifications. If you were to take a few bits from a FJ40 and swap them over to a series LR you'd cure their most glaring faults and still have a vehicle that was dead simple and conceptually the same as originally designed.

 

[James86004]

The 3.9 V8 in our 89 Range Rover had 290,000 miles on it when we sold it. The original owner lived 1 mile from the dealer in Scottsdale, and took it to them for everything. We bought it with 125,000 miles on it. It got its first major engine work at 220,000 miles, when it blew a head gasket. I took the opportunity to replace the cam, lifters, and timing chain. By 290,000 miles, a lot of little things were breaking regularly, like AC and power windows. Since we had a baby at the time, and Arizona is hot, we decided to sell the 89 and buy a 93 with only 80,000 miles. We saw that 89 several times over the next few months - the next owners were real happy with it.

 

[Alaska Mike]

Again so much green oval hating in here.

I don't think there is a great deal of green oval hating going on, just an evaluation of the relative merits of earlier vs later models. Since this website is based on expedition travel, the sustainability of a given platform is certainly a concern. I think many of the "green oval" Rovers are an incredible platform for modification, given the solid axle and body-on-frame construction. However, due to their relative newness, many won't be modified for emissions or other regulatory reasons. Just like most new upscale vehicles from Jeep, Toyota, and others, they are disposable and are worth more as scrap than as functioning vehicles once they reach a certain mileage and the repair costs start piling up. The same can be said of any vehicle, but some vehicles are easier to be pig-headed about, like the Tinker Toy Series and Defender models.

If I felt I had the resources to sustain a Disco or later Range Rover, you bet I would own one. I can certainly get a great Disco II for what I'm investing in my Series Rover, but I couldn't afford to maintain it for serious trail us like I can the Series rig. Reality and practicality does have a way of intruding.

 

[Alaska Mike]

When I started looking for a 4x4 I looked at FJ40s, Flat Fender Jeeps, Nissan Patrols etc. The FJ40s all needed body work AND frames- after years of use they'd had it. The rear chassis really holds salt on them and that kills them here in the rust belt. The LR's I looked at had terminal frame rot too, but the work involved with the body/bulkhead wasn't insurmountable which became a big plus given the budget I had at the time.

The Willy's were generally in need of a new tub- their frames were often OK for some reason but they are almost too primitive- they have more in common with a Model T in many ways than anything more modern. The Flathead 4 is a cool engine but it is even less practical than the LR 2.25 in today's world.

The Nissan Patrol plan didn't work out because I only ever found one and it consisted of more iron oxide than iron.

I looked at Scouts and Early Broncos too but for a variety of reasons they didn't work out for me.

Finally I just decided to take the plunge and go with Series Land Rovers. I've never regretted that decision. They are a great vehicle and really lend themselves to sensible modifications. If you were to take a few bits from a FJ40 and swap them over to a series LR you'd cure their most glaring faults and still have a vehicle that was dead simple and conceptually the same as originally designed.

To be honest, I admire your dedication to resurrecting rigs in the rust belt. I would have rather have flown to a Western state and bought a classic rig sight unseen than dealt with the myriad problems that salt roads cause.

As I've mentioned, all vehicles have unique issues. It's nice to see the "genuine only" mentality has faded a bit from the Rover world, and people are willing to accept that Land Rover aren't perfect from the factory. While I would question whether a Series tub slapped on a complete Chevy chassis and running gear is still a Rover, I don't think replacing components with more capable parts is any great sin. Certain, pristine examples should be maintained (just like there should be GPWs with the scripted F bolts), but how many neglected Rovers rotting out in the woods could be put back on the road with a change in attitude?

Stock, modified, new, or old, if it suits your needs and gets you there in an acceptable (to you) manner, have fun.

 

[Yorker]

To be honest, I admire your dedication to resurrecting rigs in the rust belt. I would have rather have flown to a Western state and bought a classic rig sight unseen than dealt with the myriad problems that salt roads cause.

Well at least you have something left to work with when you start with a LR!

With a FJ 40 I'd have had to get an aqualu body, rebuild the frame myself- and then refurbish/rebuild everything.

With the LR's I've bought the intention from the beginning was to strip them down, sweep up the old chassis in a dustpan- and start anew with a new chassis. Jim Young documents his builds pretty well and they illustrate how you can rebuild a vehicle and adapt it according to your needs.


That sort of a build can be economical to a degree, if you do it over time like Johnny Cash said- "one piece at a time"..

When you are done you have the advantage of knowing exactly what you have and how to fix it if need be.

 

[Alaska Mike]

I'm going through a similar rebuild, although as you know, the frame isn't the only thing that rusts on a Rover. All of those little steel brackets, door frames, and other parts add up when you are doing a major rebuild. It's not the galvanized frame that's nickle and diming me to death, it's all of the parts that bolt to the frame. I can only image how bad that would be on a rig with a rusted frame like that.

 

[shartzer]

Well I can tell you about my experience. I got a 1996 Disco I about a year ago with 61k miles. I knew the engine wasn't in the best shape (ticked and misfired) but otherwise the vehicle was in great shape and it was a 5sp.

Well at only 61k miles it had a stuck lifter (ticking noise) and dropped a cylinder liner (misfire) (see pictures in link of signature). I have no idea what the oil change intervals were and this engine very well could have overheated in its lifetime. Regardless I don't consider it a very durable engine design.

Considering the cost of a replacement engine, difficulty in getting parts (mail order everything) and cost of normal replacement parts; that engine is now thousands of aluminum cans. I put a 2004 GM 4.3l V6 in there and couldn't be happier.

That is my 2 cents. I think the chassis of the vehicle is great and the engine bay is big enough and simple enough for a lot of different engines to swap if you have the time and ambition. My swap was not easy but it was managable in my super small single car garage and driveway.

 

[Oilburner]

I put a 2004 GM 4.3l V6 in there and couldn't be happier.

That is my 2 cents. I think the chassis of the vehicle is great and the engine bay is big enough and simple enough for a lot of different engines to swap if you have the time and ambition. My swap was not easy but it was managable in my super small single car garage and driveway.

That is a very cool swap! I think the D1s are the best deal around for a 4wd if you swap out the engine. Thye have all the good stuff (great brakes, great suspension, big chassis, decent interior), all they need is a great engine.

 

[Alaska Mike]

:iagree:
I really hope this is a trend towards keeping more of these rigs on the road.



Did anyone else notice that we're 5 pages into a thread titled "simple questions"?

 

[Mercedesrover]

I put a 2004 GM 4.3l V6 in there and couldn't be happier.

Every time I see your swap I'm more impressed. I can't understand why this engine isn't used more in these trucks. Great job, Sam!!!

jim

 

[Yorker]

Every time I see your swap I'm more impressed. I can't understand why this engine isn't used more in these trucks. Great job, Sam!!!

jim

I always thought that would be a good swap into a coiler. The GM gas 4.3 V6 really seems to have a polarized following- people either really love them or absolutely hate them...

I kind of think a mild Ford EFI 5.0l would be neat in a coiler too.

 

[Will0051]

yeah, 5 pages....But yall have been alot of help, thanks guys. Now I need to start looking around.

 

[TeriAnn]

I kind of think a mild Ford EFI 5.0l would be neat in a coiler too.

Probably. I know that with an appropriate gearbox and uprated axles the 5.0l EFI works quite well in a 109. If i fits a Series it should fit most any of the coilers with space to spare. Its a little narrower than a GM small block but a couple inches longer.

But there is a matter of getting all the SMOG equipment properly set to meet State requirements. Normally not an issue with a leafer due to age.