deano75 · Jun 11, 2015

Hi guys,, I have just bought a Range Rover Classic 3.5 EFI Auto 1987 E reg. and would appreciate some advice.
The car is minted inside and out, I was blown away when I saw her,, thing is I bought her blind and didnt get test drive ,I know I shouldnt have but I did, when it came off the delivery wagon I was shocked at how little oomph it has and I am now wondering if something is seriously wrong.
She starts on the button and sound superb,, goes through the gears smooth, no smoke or clunks but 0-60 takes 25 seconds, I didnt buy it for speed but surely this cant be right.
Up hills is embarrassing, and it just seems like its all roar and no power..
Can anyone advise please.

Also does anyone know if I can upgrade the interior to P38? My interior is great but I fancy some more luxury ie heated seats ect.

Also mine has hard dash , I was wondering if I can fit a soft dash.

Any help would be great guys to help me on my RRC journey

Deano

lorri789 · Jun 11, 2015

Is the kickdown working as it should?

Check all leads, timing. Has the MAf been fiddled with by someone? Fuel pump can be ropey on hills when they're at the end of their life.

Saint.V8 · Jun 11, 2015

Want a P38 interior, buy a P38

Want a soft dash, buy a soft dash model

As above, check the cable adjustment and also check the gearbox fluid and filter!

deano75 · Jun 12, 2015

lorri789 said:
Is the kickdown working as it should?

Check all leads, timing. Has the MAf been fiddled with by someone? Fuel pump can be ropey on hills when they're at the end of their life.

Thanks Lorri,, yes kick down seems fine but when it kicks down it doesnt speed up.

Someone has suggested it might be Torque converter which sounds scary..

Previous owner claims timing has just been done and full tune up..

Does 0-60mph in 25 secs sound right?

Thanks again Deano

goonarmy · Jun 13, 2015

The 3.5 is down on kick on the 3.9 but that isn't quite right what your having.have you towed anything with it? That should really highlight torque converter issues. As said above don't mess with the interior, should have got a different spec. Do you have the corduroy seats? You'll find they are.pretty comfortable. If you must change the seats get a leather set out of another RRC. They are nice but the baby poo brown ones don't look too good

Datatek · Jun 13, 2015

deano75 said:
Thanks Lorri,, yes kick down seems fine but when it kicks down it doesnt speed up.

Someone has suggested it might be Torque converter which sounds scary..

Previous owner claims timing has just been done and full tune up..

Does 0-60mph in 25 secs sound right?

Thanks again Deano

0-60 in 25 seconds

That's slower than a VM diesel I would guess

tomcat59alan · Jun 13, 2015

Datatek said:
0-60 in 25 seconds That's slower than a VM 1.9 or 2.3 diesel I would guess

edited for accuracy

I had a 2.5 VM and it wasn't that slow and it pulled like a train.

norseman · Jun 13, 2015

I have an '87 auto myself. Officially 0 to 60 should be about 12secs but because I won't cane the transmission I can't conform that, but mine certainly doesn't take anything like 25. Because of the compromised level of tuning applied to these beasts I agree that use of the kick-down does seem to produce more revs than actual acceleration & will never light up the tarmac, but the old girl gets there just the same. Timing is important as well, so I'd advance it until you get pinking on fairly heavy acceleration then back it off a bit at a time rather than rely on a timing light. The correct setting for that model year is TDC plus/minus 1degree. Standard unleaded is fine, but I won't use supermarket fuel. The other alternatives include binding brakes etc. The good news is that you don't have one of those bloody viscous couplings that are prone to seizing up, though you could check (daft I know but....) the diff-lock is dis-engaging.

ukadamwest · Jun 13, 2015

norseman said:
The correct setting for that model year is TDC plus/minus 1degree.

RAVE quotes 6 deg +/-1 deg BTDC, checked at less than 800RPM with Vacuum hose disconnected

Irishrover · Jun 13, 2015

The 3.5 V8 is pretty bulletproof with no slipped liner/porous block problems.
However, the ignition system needs to be in tip top condition. The V8, 3.5 I had also had poor performance when I first had it and I discovered shortly afterwards that the camshaft was badly worn with hardly any profile left on the lobes. Fitted a new standard camshaft, tappets, push rods and rocker shaft assemblies...the difference was immediate both with performance and fuel consumption.

pete12345 · Jun 13, 2015

+1 on camshaft

ukadamwest · Jun 14, 2015

Took the classic to the storage unit today as off on hols next week.. the classic (1990) pulls 0-60 in about 12ish and thats not stamping my foot into the carpet. I did rebuild the heads just for ****s and giggles really. it' didnt need it but wanted to see how the insides were faring and wanted to replace the tin head gaskets.

I've thought the classic was feeling a little sluggish, but then that's been comparing to a P38 4.6 Thor...

if you do end up doing the camshaft, you might as well do the head gaskets and valley gasket as well.. if you take your time, have everything pre ordered, you can do it in a weekend. i went a bit further and cleaned, polished and refinished for a cleaner look.

norseman · Jun 15, 2015

ukadamwest said:
RAVE quotes 6 deg +/-1 deg BTDC, checked at less than 800RPM with Vacuum hose disconnected

I accept that I'm old-fashioned but I'm quoting from the genuine LR workshop manual I acquired with the car, containing WMS publication #LSM180WS1 dated 1987 that also states min 94 octane fuel. Despite only covering barely 52k from new my own car will not tolerate more than the stated settings without pinking on hard acceleration. I also think that LR's min fuel octane ratings are based on sales propaganda rather than technical specs. as there is a variation in the figures for '86/'87/'88 model years, despite the fact that the engine specs remain essentially the same.

acc · Jun 15, 2015

pete12345 said:
+1 on camshaft

+2 on camshaft, I had an ex-police spec 1988, great on the flat although slow than it should have been, but come to a hill it was a V8 suffering from asthma. Change the camshaft and hydraulic tappets, and bingo it ran top notch.

85% of the lobes were almost flat, the tappet seat were concave

Alan

300bhp/ton · Jun 15, 2015

Datatek said:
0-60 in 25 seconds That's slower than a VM diesel I would guess

It sure is, but the 2.5 VM's where a lot faster than a Tdi and about on par with a 3.5 manual in a straight line.

300bhp/ton · Jun 15, 2015

deano75 said:
Hi guys,, I have just bought a Range Rover Classic 3.5 EFI Auto 1987 E reg. and would appreciate some advice.
The car is minted inside and out, I was blown away when I saw her,, thing is I bought her blind and didnt get test drive ,I know I shouldnt have but I did, when it came off the delivery wagon I was shocked at how little oomph it has and I am now wondering if something is seriously wrong.
She starts on the button and sound superb,, goes through the gears smooth, no smoke or clunks but 0-60 takes 25 seconds, I didnt buy it for speed but surely this cant be right.
Up hills is embarrassing, and it just seems like its all roar and no power..
Can anyone advise please.

The 3.5 EFI is 165bhp irrc. Plenty in an RR. Ok it won't be hot hatch fast, but should be more than enough for normal use on all UK roads. And should easily get up to 70mph+ with little effort.

Does the engine rev to the red line? Does it feel like the transmission slipping?

deano75 said:
Also does anyone know if I can upgrade the interior to P38? My interior is great but I fancy some more luxury ie heated seats ect.

Eh WTF???

I'm sure it's possible to swap in some of a p38a interior, but that would be a major modification. Wiring loom, ECU, all the controls, HVAC and such.

Range Rover classics could be had with electric heated seats, so fitting those should be no bother.

deano75 said:
Also mine has hard dash , I was wondering if I can fit a soft dash.

Again why??

Not to mention the so called soft dash isn't actually soft, is more bulky, makes the interior feel more cramped, darker and gloomy and uses inferior feeling switch gear. I fail to see why anyone would want to make the interior worse.

deano75 · Jun 15, 2015

goonarmy said:
The 3.5 is down on kick on the 3.9 but that isn't quite right what your having.have you towed anything with it? That should really highlight torque converter issues. As said above don't mess with the interior, should have got a different spec. Do you have the corduroy seats? You'll find they are.pretty comfortable. If you must change the seats get a leather set out of another RRC. They are nice but the baby poo brown ones don't look too good

THanks , I have grey leather but it is well worn,, I have a guy who is selling an immaculate set of Dark brown leather interior for £600 delivered..
I am going to get to the bottom of power problem 1st,, Gearbox specialist told me nought wrong with gearbox, but it was over the phone diagnostic, I just explained what was happening and he reckoned it engine problem????

deano75 · Jun 15, 2015

THanks for all the advice guys,, it is in garage just now and hopefully it will be something simple... all this talk of camshaft renewal ect ,, what kind of money would this cost from a garage???
Thanks Deano

ukadamwest · Jun 15, 2015

deano75 said:
THanks , I have grey leather but it is well worn,, I have a guy who is selling an immaculate set of Dark brown leather interior for £600 delivered..

had the orginal leather re dyed and refinished in two of my 928's for 2/3rd's of that.

norseman · Jun 16, 2015

A bit late in the discussion to ask perhaps Deano, but what mileage has your RR done?

Member

Well-Known Member

Dyed-in-the-wool 100% RR Junkie

Member

Beer tester

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads