RangeRovers.net Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I figured I would post of some pictures of the differences between the Callaway and regular 4.6. Some may find it useful or interesting.

The Upper Intake plenem looks similar, other than the top Callaway casting. The throttle body/ throttle opening is larger:
The left one is regular HSE, the right one is Callaway

HSE-

Callaway-



There is also a green sticker with the number on the back-


As stated on the main page, the air intake tube is made of carbon fiber, and attatches to the plenum and MAF sensor with rubber couplings.



The lower intake manifold has shorter velocity stacks (I think thats what they are called). It has a green Callaway sticker on the back, and also a casting towards the front.
HSE-


Callaway-



Green sticker with number-

Casting towards the front above a coolant passage-


The heads will have a casting, each with a different number, on the underside:


As stated on the main page, the torque converter has a higher stall, but physically it is a different size:
HSE-

Callaway-


To make up for the difference, the Callaway must use a thicker spacer and a longer bolt:


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
You've probably researched this to death already, but for others, and according to the Taylor book:

Just 230 were built, and listed at $75K
0-60 at 8.6 seconds according to Motor Trend
"higher reving" 4.6 thanks to 9.6:1 compression, reshaped porting, tapered valve guides, unique valve seat geometry.
High flow air box, carbon fiber air duct, 10% larger throttle body.
240 bhp at 5000 and 285 ft. lbs of torque at 3500.
Special exhaust.
Unique drive chain and sprocket in the transfer case that lowered gearing by 6%.
Standard gear box, but a reprogrammed controller.
Special torque convertor, pump assembly, and bell housing.
Heavy duty front axle with four pins in lieu of two.

Overall a lot of special engineering and it showed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,072 Posts
Not that the Callaway models aren't very cool and unique but I always thought the power gains were really small for all the work done. The standard '99 Bosch 4.6 was rate 222hp at 3,000 rpm and 300 ft-lbs at 2600 rpm. These figure seem better than the Callaway at least for the RR application.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Great pics, thanks.

I wonder what the benefit is of the shorter velocity stacks? Or is there some kind of space issue with the Callaway plenum?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Chris X said:
Great pics, thanks.

I wonder what the benefit is of the shorter velocity stacks? Or is there some kind of space issue with the Callaway plenum?

I'm not sure about the shorter stacks, maybe so the air goes in quicker? There is no clearance issues with the upper plenum anyway.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Chris X said:
Great pics, thanks.

I wonder what the benefit is of the shorter velocity stacks? Or is there some kind of space issue with the Callaway plenum?
We usually shorten the stacks when we rebuild an engine, it's not to hard, only have to be carefull when removing the stacks from the intake.
The theory is with shorter stacks the engine will respond faster to the throttle because there is less delay in the airflow. The purpose of the stacks is to decrease turbulence in the inlet, to improve torque.

I have only experienced the result on rebuild engines, so can't say if the stacks alone make a difference (usually done together with a Torquemax cam etc).

Greetz,

Filip
 

·
Registered
1995-2002 Range Rover P38A
Joined
·
16 Posts
You stated "The heads will have a casting, each with a different number, on the underside:"
Does that number have anything to do with the number in the series?
The picture shows 1098.. Does that mean it is number 98?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Heath
 

·
Registered
1995-2002 Range Rover P38A
Joined
·
408 Posts
You missed out another truly major difference.......though they look like the regular ones fitted to most Range Rovers......the rear mudflaps are actually different! Narrower!


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
 

·
FOUNDING MEMBER
Joined
·
446 Posts
Had a Callaway and drove it back to back with a 2002 4.6. HUGE difference. Power ratings didn't tell the whole story - the delivery and responsiveness was so much better in the Callaway. Just my $0.02.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
As stated on the main page, the air intake tube is made of carbon fiber, and attatches to the plenum and MAF sensor with rubber couplings.
I've wanted to know what those boxes were for a while. I've been told that if you remove them it can increase your performance by a hair? Just curious.
 

·
Registered
1995-2002 Range Rover P38A
Joined
·
1 Posts
This is a larger subject, but in the category of 'now it can be told...' the background to why a Callaway feels so much more powerful than the standard issue RR:
In 1998 Land Rover North America suspected that the 'as delivered' power on the '98 models was below advertised. They hired us to do an audit of a sample of production. Sure enough, the power was down by some 40+ bhp. At the same time we were tasked with providing a performance solution. We saw that the vehicles had drifted away from the original build spec in a lot of areas that prevented good breathing. Many suppliers had become lazy. And a few procedures had changed in the non-performance direction. We built some supercharged examples for comparison. We came up with a very cost effective set of improvements that not only recovered the original power, but went a bit beyond. In side by side testing the normally aspirated Callaway spec handily beat the supercharged test version. The driveline overall reduction ratio was now shorter, and many detail improvements came from the men at Rover Sollihull who really knew where the performance sectrets were kept. At the end of the day, all the secrets were re-incorporated into the 220 1999 Callaway units. We built a lot of the parts in Connecticut. Shipped them to Solihul. Trained the men on the production line as to the new procedures, and voila! The highest performance Range Rovers then yet produced.
I drive one today, and its still strong at 130,000 miles

Very good experience. So good that the Callaway improvements were henceforth built into the subsequent Range Rovers. The Callaway version actually produced a real 228-235 bhp. A 60 or so bhp difference.
-Reeves Callaway, 2017
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top