RangeRovers.net Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
hi all, still the ongoing saga with my 4.0 to 4.6 conversion, i think i got the cam timing right, redone it today, and deffo right now, does anyone know if this is an interferance engine, or a safe engine, pulled off the r/h rocker cover earlier, everything seems ok, going to do a compression test in the morning, just wondering if anyone can shed any light weather they can bend the valves, or not
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
i can now answer this myself, it's a deffo yes, done a compression loss test, loosing 90% on cylinders 1, and 3, so i removed the r/h head, this is what i found
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
firestorm said:
i can now answer this myself, it's a deffo yes, done a compression loss test, loosing 90% on cylinders 1, and 3, so i removed the r/h head, this is what i found
Oooo, nasty.
For future reference though, those two cylinders are not 1&3. The one that is scraped top left is cylinder 5 and the one that is punctured is cylinder 7. Also, that is the LEFT cylinder bank not the right.

Have a look at:
http://rangerovers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=196356#p196356
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
hi, yeah i know, i just done the compression loss test on 1, and 3, and got 90% loss, i didn't go any further, didn't seem any need to test the rest, and yeah your right about the sides, keep looking from the bonnet area into the engine, instead of sat in the drivers seat, still not got the r/h head off yet, didn't seem much point after seeing the mess, may well do soon, just to see if there is any damage to the bores.

on the plus side, there is a guy selling cylinder heads, crank, pistons etc for a 4.6 on ebay

it's either that, or the guy i got the engine from does still have the other one
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
hi all, i got another pair of heads, rocker shafts, rocker covers, push rods, and a set of pistons (with con-rods) yesterday, had to do a 180 mile round trip to get them, but i have, and back now, just got to get time to fit it all, and hopefully, my rangie will be back on the road soon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
well, that didn't work, so i bought another engine, fitted loads of new parts to it, then put it in, fired it up today briefly, sounded ok

here's the pics
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
tonybig666 said:
give Joe a bell on 07785240021 may be able to help you as he brakes P38s good to deal with and is straight won't try and rip you off
Tony
Joe is down the road from me, I have dealt with him loads!! His company is called Emotts of colne, very reliable, and very reasonable prices :thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
Hi to all, Not sure if I’ve got the right end of the stick here but do I take it that you are putting 4.6 con rods into a 4.0 engine block ??? I’ve just been reading the book by Tom Sheppard with regards to the P38 Range Rover, he states that the 4.6 is the same as the 4.0 apart from the stroke, the 4.0 being 71mm (2.79in) and the 4.6 being 82mm (3.23in) the bore being the same at 94 mm(3.70in), now I don’t know about you but my mind tells me that either the block has to be taller or the bearing blocks need to be lower in order to accommodate this extra length of stroke so the blocks are not the same to my mind, but I’m ready to be educated on this matter best regards sillyboy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
sillyboy said:
Hi to all, Not sure if I’ve got the right end of the stick here but do I take it that you are putting 4.6 con rods into a 4.0 engine block ??? I’ve just been reading the book by Tom Sheppard with regards to the P38 Range Rover, he states that the 4.6 is the same as the 4.0 apart from the stroke, the 4.0 being 71mm (2.79in) and the 4.6 being 82mm (3.23in) the bore being the same at 94 mm(3.70in), now I don’t know about you but my mind tells me that either the block has to be taller or the bearing blocks need to be lower in order to accommodate this extra length of stroke so the blocks are not the same to my mind, but I’m ready to be educated on this matter best regards sillyboy

Yes - or the crank throws are longer (I don't actually know in this particular engine though, I'm sure someone more knowledgable that i will be along to comment)
Cheers
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
sillyboy said:
Hi to all, Not sure if I’ve got the right end of the stick here but do I take it that you are putting 4.6 con rods into a 4.0 engine block ??? I’ve just been reading the book by Tom Sheppard with regards to the P38 Range Rover, he states that the 4.6 is the same as the 4.0 apart from the stroke, the 4.0 being 71mm (2.79in) and the 4.6 being 82mm (3.23in) the bore being the same at 94 mm(3.70in), now I don’t know about you but my mind tells me that either the block has to be taller or the bearing blocks need to be lower in order to accommodate this extra length of stroke so the blocks are not the same to my mind, but I’m ready to be educated on this matter best regards sillyboy
Block and bearings are the same.
The rod length and / or position of gudgeon pin in piston is different (can't remember which).
You just need the overall length from crank centre > piston top to be the same. That measurement is made up of:
- crank throw (this obviously changes 4.0 vs 4.6);
- con rod length, centre to centre; and
- height from top of piston to gudgeon pin centre.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
hi, think i've probably confused a few people, i probably wasn't clear enough,

what i have done is bought another 4.6 complete engine, fitted some new parts, painted it, put exhaust wrap on it, and fitted it in the car (easy to say, took ages)
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top