I'm planning to do very similar. Put the L series from my old Rover 25 into my 110. Quite far off doing that at the moment though.

Figured it wouldn't be too hard since like others have said the Perkins Prima was a common enough swap back in the day. At one point recently I did see someone on Ebay selling L series ECUs with the security bits removed so it didn't need to be match to the alarm control unit. Seems to have gone now though.
 
Wtf. Have you actually been in a 90?

Yes, it was the second worst vehicle I've ever driven on a road, the Jeep Wrangler being the worst.
The 90 is good off road though, although the 300 diesel engine in the one I used to drive was pretty weedy, and really needed the low range.

The LR 3.9 V8 has just 180 BHP from the factory. How did they manage to get so little power out of such a huge engine.
The MG ZT190 KV6 managed 187 BHP from just 2.5 L, and is about 30% lighter than the 3.9 V8, so presumably on the road a KV6 powered 90 would outperform a 3.9 V8 version, not that it's really a problem, because the thing would likely fall of the road at the first corner. ;) Off road, the extra torque of the V8 would help massively, although I do know of at least 1 trials special which is using a KV6 and Jatco auto box, which does pretty well, and sounds simply amazing when on song.

The electric defender is pretty rapid, but I suspect the beefed up suspension is a bit compromised for off road use. I'd be tempted though, if they could sort out the squeaks, rattles, horrible steering, and made the heater actually work, oh, and I'd won the lottery. :D
 
Yes, it was the second worst vehicle I've ever driven on a road, the Jeep Wrangler being the worst.
The 90 is good off road though, although the 300 diesel engine in the one I used to drive was pretty weedy, and really needed the low range.

The LR 3.9 V8 has just 180 BHP from the factory. How did they manage to get so little power out of such a huge engine.
The MG ZT190 KV6 managed 187 BHP from just 2.5 L, and is about 30% lighter than the 3.9 V8, so presumably on the road a KV6 powered 90 would outperform a 3.9 V8 version, not that it's really a problem, because the thing would likely fall of the road at the first corner. ;) Off road, the extra torque of the V8 would help massively, although I do know of at least 1 trials special which is using a KV6 and Jatco auto box, which does pretty well, and sounds simply amazing when on song.

The electric defender is pretty rapid, but I suspect the beefed up suspension is a bit compromised for off road use. I'd be tempted though, if they could sort out the squeaks, rattles, horrible steering, and made the heater actually work, oh, and I'd won the lottery. :D

Defenders Jeeps and Vw vans are all crap, yet people pay big money to own one!
 
Yes, it was the second worst vehicle I've ever driven on a road, the Jeep Wrangler being the worst.
Even if this wasn't a Land Rover website, that sort of comment makes you seem like a real dick. But seeing as this is a Land Rover website, you'd have to question wtf you are doing here. :rolleyes:

The 90 is good off road though, although the 300 diesel engine in the one I used to drive was pretty weedy, and really needed the low range.
weedy. don't let door hit you on thew way out.... seriously wtf :(

The LR 3.9 V8 has just 180 BHP from the factory. How did they manage to get so little power out of such a huge engine.
Above comment clearly demonstrates complete lack of mechanical or engineering understanding. And has to be one of the most idiotic things posted on here. There are very valid reasons for different specific outputs.

The MG ZT190 KV6 managed 187 BHP from just 2.5 L, and is about 30% lighter than the 3.9 V8, so presumably on the road a KV6 powered 90 would outperform a 3.9 V8 version, not that it's really a problem, because the thing would likely fall of the road at the first corner. ;) Off road, the extra torque of the V8 would help massively, although I do know of at least 1 trials special which is using a KV6 and Jatco auto box, which does pretty well, and sounds simply amazing when on song.
640px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg
 
Even if this wasn't a Land Rover website, that sort of comment makes you seem like a real dick. But seeing as this is a Land Rover website, you'd have to question wtf you are doing here. :rolleyes:


weedy. don't let door hit you on thew way out.... seriously wtf :(


Above comment clearly demonstrates complete lack of mechanical or engineering understanding. And has to be one of the most idiotic things posted on here. There are very valid reasons for different specific outputs.
Hang on, a lot worse is said about Freelanders on this website.

Everyone has their opinions.
 
Even if this wasn't a Land Rover website, that sort of comment makes you seem like a real dick. But seeing as this is a Land Rover website, you'd have to question wtf you are doing here

As this is the Freelander section, which is where I predominantly post, I can't see the issue with my opinion, as you're in the wrong forum.

As for seeming like a dick.
I'm not the one bent out of shape because I think Defenders are the worst vehicle to drive on a road. Fact is it's just an option, although it is likely shared by many on this forum, but I'm not getting all defensive over your opinion about them.

If you don't like what you read in the Freelander forum, you don't need to enter it. ;)
 
weedy. don't let door hit you on thew way out.... seriously wtf
Like I said, you're in the wrong forum, so if you don't like what is discussed, stay out.:confused:

Above comment clearly demonstrates complete lack of mechanical or engineering understanding. And has to be one of the most idiotic things posted on here. There are very valid reasons for different specific outputs.
The comment was more tongue in cheek, than a definite fact.
I'm well aware of the reasons for an engine's specific characteristics, and how they are altered for different applications.
For the 90, the V8 will have valve timing altered to give more torque at low RPM, at the expense of top end power. However in any LR application, the R V8 can't be described as a high performance engine, because it wasn't.

Yes in a TVR the R V8 did make some good power, but even TVR binned it eventually, as it wasn't capable of the sort of output power a modern multi valve engine can produce, that's not being anti R V8, it's just a fact that a 2 valve per cylinder engine doesn't make as much power as a similar sized multi-valve engine. ;)
 
Even if this wasn't a Land Rover website, that sort of comment makes you seem like a real dick. But seeing as this is a Land Rover website, you'd have to question wtf you are doing here. :rolleyes:


weedy. don't let door hit you on thew way out.... seriously wtf :(


Above comment clearly demonstrates complete lack of mechanical or engineering understanding. And has to be one of the most idiotic things posted on here. There are very valid reasons for different specific outputs.
You talk about being "Land Rover"...

The CVLRC website does not have 1 picture with a Freelander in it. It has 1 with a Vitara (or sumat) in the background.

The CVLRC facebook post about the tyro event does include some images with Freelanders in, but only on wide panned out shots where they could not be avoided, no specific pics of Freelanders even though 1 obviously won a category - lots of shiny new LRs though. Going back through 5 years of pics on the CVLRC facebook page, I didn't notice 1 pic of a Freelander. This isn't unusual, its par for the course for "Land Rover" clubs. Freelanders are even banned from some 'Land Rover' clubs.

The best pic of the event, was actually a video, of the Springers in the pond :D
 
You talk about being "Land Rover"...

The CVLRC website does not have 1 picture with a Freelander in it. It has 1 with a Vitara (or sumat) in the background.

The CVLRC facebook post about the tyro event does include some images with Freelanders in, but only on wide panned out shots where they could not be avoided, no specific pics of Freelanders even though 1 obviously won a category - lots of shiny new LRs though. Going back through 5 years of pics on the CVLRC facebook page, I didn't notice 1 pic of a Freelander. This isn't unusual, its par for the course for "Land Rover" clubs. Freelanders are even banned from some 'Land Rover' clubs.

The best pic of the event, was actually a video, of the Springers in the pond :D
Not really sure what your point is? Feel free to pop along to events and take pictures of FL's if you like. They certainly aren't banned, what an absurd thing to say ??
 
Not really sure what your point is? Feel free to pop along to events and take pictures of FL's if you like. They certainly aren't banned, what an absurd thing to say ??
You know exactly what I mean, Freelanders are seen as 2nd class vehicles to Land Rover clubs.

You keep saying that people say absurd things, but it is the reality.

I tried to join the Canterbury Land Rover Club here - they wouldn't let me because I didn't have a high/low transfer box. Literally said no. They were happy to take Jap vehicles, which is why they made the rule as a way of deciding which vehicles could join the club - it excluded Freelanders.
 
I'm well aware of the reasons for an engine's specific characteristics, and how they are altered for different applications.
For the 90, the V8 will have valve timing altered to give more torque at low RPM, at the expense of top end power. However in any LR application, the R V8 can't be described as a high performance engine, because it wasn't.
The V8 was the 'high' powered option in the Stage 1, Ninety, One Ten, 127 and all 3 Defender models, as well as the Disco 1, Disco 2, Range Rover (classic) and Range Rover p38 models. Clearly you do not know your LR model history very well ;) Any other engine option for all of these was less powerful, either as a smaller petrol engine or a diesel.

It really isn't about tuning for this discussion. The RV8 hails from the 1950s. It is never going to make the most specific horse power!!! But that is missing the point of 'displacement'. You rather sound like one of the ****s over on Pistonheads obsessed with power per litre.

Displacement generally gives you more torque. And torque at speed means more power over the rev range.

Engine%20displacement%20comparison.png


A graph I put together a while ago.

The Jeep 4.0 is very akin to the 3.9/4.0 RV8 in power. And obviously the 4.6 RV8 makes quite a bit more power than the 2.5 KV6.

The KV6 is a very good engine (we've had 2!!! One in an 825 Sterling and an MG ZS180). The 177hp variant is shown in the graph above. And while it makes comparable PEAK power to a 3.9 RV8 or 4.0 Jeep engine. It makes substantially less power across most of the rev range due to making less torque. This is the advantage of displacement (or forced induction, which is a topic in its own right). Changing the gearing can help offset a lack of torque, but you can only achieve so much and revving an engine hard to extract the power will not do much for fuel economy. As the KV6 Freelander 1 demonstrates quite well, being that it does very similar mpg to any of the Rover V8's, despite the lower displacement and much lower curb weight of the FL1.

So, despite the RV8 being 50 years older than the KV6, it is a far more useful engine for many applications. Which is why Rover/LR/whomever, never fitted it to the heavier larger vehicles.

If all you care about is specific output, then the 1.8 K-Series produced a maximum of 190bhp from Rover, more than the KV6 and is smaller and lighter again..... rather making a mockery of your KV6 statement.

And you only need to look at Honda to find the likes of 120bhp/litre specific output from a production 2.0 n/a engine. But frankly, they would be completely awful in a 90. The KV6 would probably have been pretty good with the right gearing and is not so dissimilar from the performance and output of the BMW 2.8i M52 engine.

Yes in a TVR the R V8 did make some good power, but even TVR binned it eventually, as it wasn't capable of the sort of output power a modern multi valve engine can produce, that's not being anti R V8, it's just a fact that a 2 valve per cylinder engine doesn't make as much power as a similar sized multi-valve engine. ;)
That is a very naive view, oh and completely wrong. TVR had stop using the RV8, because supply of them was stopping. Whether they should have sourced something else or developed their own engines is not really this discussion.

As for OHV 2v engines. Do you live under a rock in a dark damp cave?

For sure multivalve engines have far more curtain area and a wider total powerband. So can generally make high specific outputs.

You can find new designed OHV engines from Ford, Chevrolet & Chrysler in many different vehicles and trucks.

You can buy a Camaro with a 6.2 litre OHV 2v engine with 650hp!
The new Z06 corvette will have 670bhp.

But head over to Dodge and their 2v OHV V8 rocks with 707bhp in a pickup or SUV and 807bhp in the cars!!!!

OHV engines have many great advantages over DOHC ones. Smaller, shorter, lighter, cheaper to build, less complex.
 
Last edited:
You know exactly what I mean, Freelanders are seen as 2nd class vehicles to Land Rover clubs.

You keep saying that people say absurd things, but it is the reality.

I tried to join the Canterbury Land Rover Club here - they wouldn't let me because I didn't have a high/low transfer box. Literally said no. They were happy to take Jap vehicles, which is why they made the rule as a way of deciding which vehicles could join the club - it excluded Freelanders.
I don't know anything about that club, sorry.

Guess it might depend what the club does. The Freelander is a good vehicle. But is not suited too many off road situations due to lacking suitable low gearing. In stock trim they also ride pretty low.
 
The V8 was the 'high' powered option in the Stage 1, Ninety, One Ten, 127 and all 3 Defender models, as well as the Disco 1, Disco 2, Range Rover (classic) and Range Rover p38 models. Clearly you do not know your LR model history very well

I'll admit, I'm not an encyclopedia of LR models, especially older stuff. However I know that the RV8 could only dream of making the sort of power that the AJV8 makes, the latter having quad cams and 32 valve.

I'm more into the Freelanders or D3s, both of which I've actually owned.
The Freelander is my favourite LR, mostly because it's a good all round vehicle, which isn't too large, too thirsty and too expensive to own.
The D3 was an awesome vehicle, at home on the motorway, or off road but it's expensive to run and maintain, and there's always the worry that the TDV6 crank is going to break at any time.
It really isn't about tuning for this discussion. The RV8 hails from the 1950s. It is never going to make the most specific horse power!!! But that is missing the point of 'displacement'. You rather sound like one of the ****s over on Pistonheads obsessed with power per litre.
I'm well aware that for torque at lower RPM, there's no substitute for capacity, and in the past I'd be quite happy with a large displacement engine, and even built higher power, larger capacity for small sports cars.
However these days it's not necessary to have huge capacity to make torque, when a smaller engine with a turbo will do the same job, but use less fuel.

You can find new designed OHV engines from Ford, Chevrolet & Chrysler in many different vehicles and trucks.

You can buy a Camaro with a 6.2 litre OHV 2v engine with 650hp!
The new Z06 corvette will have 670bhp.

But head over to Dodge and their 2v OHV V8 rocks with 707bhp in a pickup or SUV and 807bhp in the cars!!!

I'm not an authority on yank stuff, but the sort of engine powers your talking about from large displacement 2 valve engines, they must be blown which isn't an apple's for apple's comparison.

However all this is way off topic to what the OP was originally asking, even the vehicle in discussion got changed. :confused:
 
If all you care about is specific output, then the 1.8 K-Series produced a maximum of 190bhp from Rover, more than the KV6 and is smaller and lighter again..... rather making a mockery of your KV6 statemen
There's a big difference between tuning an engine to a specific output, and a factory engine output, where the argument between one and the other isn't even an argument, it's plain stupid to compare the 2.

I know the Rover K series and KV6 very well, having owned, rebuilt and tuned many over the years.
Yes the K series can make about 190 BHP as a NA unit, however it's an absolute screamer to make those sorts of outputs.
You can't then compare that screaming 1.8 K to a stock 177 BHP ZS KV6, it's like comparing Coca-Cola to coffee, simply because they both contain caffeine. :confused:

Both the KV6 and K4 are capable of making around 100 BHP per litre, but they are both screamers at those power levels, and low end torque is much less than the factory output.
I can't see the point of the argument, which is pointless IMO.
 
What I'm about to say is admittedly not relevant to the OP's L-Series project question, which I think has been settled? It is however relevant to the engine architecturedebate this thread has developed into, a 2 valve LS3 "crate engine"makes 525bhp from it's 6.2 litres:
https://www.partsworldperformance.com/ls3-376-525-v8-crate-engine-19301360
I believe that comes with a hot cam but stock manifold, with an aftermarket manifold and larger throttle body, such as the LSXRT you can expect gains of ~50bhp, putting you at 575bhp from an NA 6.2 push-rod enging. Even low end pick up truck LS engines have ruddy great big valves that RV8 tuners would only dream of being able to fit to rover v8's. If you went with CNC heads on an LS engine, the mythical 100bhp per litre is there to be had. Back in my street racing days, when I was very much a JDM boosted smaller displacement fanboy, a lassie said to me "America's been making 400+ bhp engines since before parts of Japan were glowing in the dark" - and it's true, 50+ mm valves on american engines aren't uncommon standard specifications even in things like pick up trucks, so between brute forcing valve sizes and displacements they make the horse power and have a huge area under their torque curve.

More modern variants of the beloved american push rod "freedom engine" v8 that come with features such as selective cylnder deactivation and direct injection and largely overdriven top gears have elevated eficiencies that see a 1785kg 2017 camaro scoring 27 miles per US gallon, or about 31mpg in our british measurements. Tot bad for a nigh on two tonne 455bhp fire breathing muscle car. Indeed, the 2017 camaro actually does 2mpg (US gallons) better than the nissan 370z of the same era, at 27 (US) mpg highway vs 25 for the 370z, and the Zed is only 1,466 kg - ~320kg lighter than the camaro and has a more "modern" multi cam multi valve japanese engine. And despite being heavier, and more frugal on a lng run, the Camaro is faster at 0-60 in 3.5s vs the Zed Car's 5.2, on the quarter mile this gap widens to a full two seconds when the Camaro crosses the line in 11.4s preceeding the Zed by 2.3s when it crosses the quarter mile line 13.7s after leaving the start line.

So; despite Zed being the lighter vehicle and more modern engine design, the pushrod powered car wins out in performance. Despite the Zed being the lighter vehicle and the smaller displacement, the camaro wins out in economy. So yeah, it'd be foolish to disregard the pushrod V8 as being an obsolete irelevance.
 
So yeah, it'd be foolish to disregard the pushrod V8 as being an obsolete irelevance.

Knowing little about the engines in modern muscle cars, I assumed they were now multi-valve units, or blown or both. Pretty much like the AJV8 than JLR are currently using. :oops:

However the original question somehow got turned into a KV6 was no heavier than an L series, to suddenly a 3.9 V8 powered 90 was some road burning monster, when in factory tune the 3.9 L R V8 makes little more BHP than the KV6, dispite giving away 1400 CCs, which is basically a whole other small car engine.:eek:

The the tread is now so far off topic, that it's coming across as a willy waving competition about how much some poster has read about engines.:(

I'm out of this one now, simply because my knowledge of big V8s is somewhat limited.:oops:

I also don't care for willy waving, it's not beneficial to the forum, and comes across as some personal issues (not the first by this particular member) at me, so I've taken steps not to see his ramblings from now on.
 
Last edited:
We know you all want 1 really.

The level of want rising each time you visit a petrol station or have to put your overalls on ;)

My mum had an 04 freelander for 4 years, I hate to say it, but it was a damned good car, think gearbox went in the end, being my mum she would have spent the grand sum of zero on it in them four years!
 

Similar threads