So which engine for an 88 Range Rover?

[ChrisAnton]

So in anticipation of an eventual need for an engine replacement :cry: to the 3.5l v8 in my 1988 Range Rover Classic I'm wondering what would be the possible engines - 3.9, 4.0, 4.6, etc that would be a good option for a replacement :P . What would fit and wouldn't require a whole bunch of electrical or ECU magic. Is getting a used engine rebuilt a viable option? I'd be appreciative of any thoughts from forum members with much more knowledge on this topic.

cheers
Chris

[Rob]

Hello Chris

There are many options but the simplest would be likely to rebuild the 3.5 or replace it with the identical motor as essentially you would be plug and play. If you are interested in more power or different fuel options then that opens many doors. The 3.9, 4.0, 4.2 and 4.6 are all possibilities as they are based on the same motor so the physical install won't be too difficult but the electronics will require changes as the motors used different EFI systems than in your 88. I've had a 4.0 in a disco 2 (Bosch system) and currently a 4.6 (gems) in my p-38 and both served me well (and kept the oil companies happy to boot).

Diesel is another viable option. A few years back Dave B did a 3.5V8 to 200TDI diesel swap in his 88 RRC and it was pretty good from what I recall. He switched to a standard transmission and the truck performed well. Keep in mind that Dave is pretty good as a fabricator and problem solver (don't blush Dave :oops: ) and Pat here on the island has also done some awesome RRC 300TDI diesel conversion work as well but again it is a matter of skill, time and tools....

Cheers, Rob

[swamijake]

4.6 with turbos on propane. WOO!

[punkinracer]

the 200/300 Diesel conversion is almost too easy. Finding a motor is probably the hardest part.
Pat

[e.prevost94]

My vote would be for a 300tdi, but if you insist on keeping a gas motor, I was very happy with the 4.2 that was swapped into my last RRC. I put in a crower 50229 cam, and was very happy with it. About the same power as a 4.6, without being so lazy, and was a bolt on swap. However they are a bit on the hard side to find, and they don't have the cross bolted mains that they have in the '96+ engines. If you don't want to go through those hurdles, a 4.6 could be an option. Don't know about the computer programming though. Maybe somebody could clairify?

[timxxv]

What's wrong with the 3.5? Is it knackered or do you just need something more powerful?

The 4.0s are easy to find, but you'll need the transmission as well because the pickup for the crank sensor is on the bellhousing (IIRC). And if you do that you might as well grab a 4.6 .

[swamijake]

And then turbo it on propane. Sweet.

[ChrisAnton]

Thanks for all the replies. The 3.5 isn't gone but power is certainly not one of the features. I was hoping to find out if any of the options wouldn't require a change to the wiring harness or ecu. Then the next step would be to find the replacement and get it rebuilt and then keep it handy. I suppose that's a bit of proactive overkill but would be a big step toward an irrational long term commitment.

cheers
Chris

[timxxv]

You can fit a 3.9, which uses almost the same Lucas system (14cux) as your 3.5 (14cu I think). I know the cux is quite adaptable but not sure about the earlier one, it may be possible to get away with only changing the ECU but the connectors are probably different. Much easier to just plug'n'play and get the whole thing from a 3.9 including the wiring harness and ECU which are still pretty basic.

If you go 4.0 your injection is fuel AND spark and while it's technically better, it's more complicated. You can also convert a 4.0 to distributor for ease of maintenance if you really want...