MikeFl4 said:

Hello everyone,

I have owned a diesel P38 and enjoyed my time with it, never experienced any engine issues that people would talk about such as the overheating or heads cracking etc despite the car having 230K miles. So I can gladly say that I would be able to buy another diesel P38 and trust the M51 to keep going.

The problem : I have always kind of hungered for a V8, and lo and behold l have recently been offered a 4.6 Autobiography - 1997 Gems. Car has "low" miles for the year (116k) and cosmetically its in very good condition. I'm not too worried about the normal stuff, the EAS works so even if its leaking, its only a matter of seals and bags. Things like brakes, transmission, most electronics all working fine. I'm also not really too fussed about heater cores, blend motors etc - its all part of the ownership!

I have only seen the car in pictures but can travel to see it in person if I get a chance over the next few weeks, so then I will be able to give it a full inspection.

Now, presented with a V8 in front of me, after researching all over again about the engines and problems they can potentially (or according to some people - DEFINITELY) suffer from, I'm beginning to run back into the safety net of my already fixed and working diesel with my tail between my legs.

Are the Rover V8s really that bad? Every single forum I read talks about top hat liners, head gaskets, overheating... it seems to be a common occurrence that people who have low mileage (60k ish) engines, perform a full rebuild, or that people are on their third short block during the course of their ownership? Even maintained examples suffering from porous blocks or head gasket failures.
There is also the differences between Gems and Thor but im not really too bothered, I just want something I can jump into at the weekend and take for a few hours drive without a catastrophic engine failure.

I know a lot of it is down to maintenance, this 1997 4.6 appears to not have been neglected but it has sat for about 10 years (which kind of makes me worried, why would someone just leave a car as nice as this to sit!) - This 1997 runs, drives, doesn't overheat and maintains steady temperature.

My biggest issue here is that if I was going to go for it, id have to be parting with my diesel, and the last thing I would want is to have only just sold the diesel and have my lovely 4.6 blow up its engine!

Please tell me if the forum posts over the years are exaggerations of badly maintained examples, or is this just the reality (and risk) of owning a V8?

Click to expand...

Mark Piercy said:

I suppose based on common issues, people's experiences and the info you've found it's clear the risks.
I like the V8 sound and the power of the engine but if you run it every day the risks are greatened. I use my diesel all the time and it's maintained within an Inch of its life. Like any vehicle if it's well looked after and treated correctly it shouldn't be a hassle. Bearing in mind the vehicles age, it'll need upkeep big and small as your diesel experience will tell you.
I personally wouldn't take on a V8 as a daily driver but as a weekend or part time car. A good V8 if that's your thing is a mercs unit from around the 90's to the early 2000's.

Click to expand...

Datatek said:

GM/Buick dumped the alloy V8 for good reasons and were pleased to find a sucker to buy the rights.

Click to expand...

Datatek said:

GM/Buick dumped the alloy V8 for good reasons and were pleased to find a sucker to buy the rights. As a 3.5 it was OK, once Land Rover bored it out it was fragile and also there were quality problems with the castings.
I wouldn't have one as a gift unless it was to scrap it for parts.

Click to expand...

norseman said:

I suppose it depends on which incarnation of RV8 you are referring to. The original 3.5L was/is pretty much bullet-proof, but as the car put on weight LR had to increase the power output to compensate & in doing so made their biggest mistake; increasing the bore size to 94mm. This lessened the block thickness around the pressed-in cylinder liners & gave rise the to the engine's biggest weakness ... the dreaded slipped liner. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, lengthening the stroke (as they did with the 4.2L) would probably have been a better choice.
nb. It has been said that the 4.6L is the most likely to be afflicted due to its' fuel mapping, but then there are many owners who have never experienced the problem, which is just as well as once a liner starts moving the only cost-effective solution is a replacement block.
I've never run a V8 as a 'daily' so can't really comment, but I do know that the police used V8 powered P38's for traffic duties in period & by the time the cars completed their service most had received a number of engine replacements

Click to expand...

DanClarke said:

I guess like all engines if you abuse them by pushing them hard and skimping on maintenance they will all eventually fail in some way.
I have a 2000 MY registered 4.6 Vogue P38. I am retired, so it doesn't get a true "daily-driver" status (I probably do 1 or 2 thousand miles per year).
It is a relaxed drive and it doesn't struggle in any way, but I don't floor it often as I drive carefully so it is likely to see me out.
I agree with @Datatek that the original 3.5 litre engines were pretty bullet-proof and boring them out only weakened them.
However, the Rover V8 was immensely popular as a relatively lightweight power unit and was shoved into many other vehicles both in the BMC group and elsewhere (MGB GT, Triumph TR8, Marcos's, TVR's, Ginneta's, Morgan's etc.) so it really isn't that bad.
I would say that if you don't hammer it and keep the maintenance up, it would be fine.

p.s. Can I have your 2.5 Diesel. (Just kidding).

Click to expand...

MikeFl4 said:

@DanClarke - Yes, that's what you would hope with regular maintenance - it would only be the odd full throttle pull for overtaking or just to hear the sound - after all, what's the point of having a V8 if you don't even use it? - Also, sure you can have my diesel - All I want in return is a V8 that will do more than 100 miles without blowing its head gasket!

Click to expand...

Datatek said:

GM/Buick dumped the alloy V8 for good reasons and were pleased to find a sucker to buy the rights. As a 3.5 it was OK, once Land Rover bored it out it was fragile and also there were quality problems with the castings.
I wouldn't have one as a gift unless it was to scrap it for parts.

Click to expand...

nigelbb said:

I read that General Motors dropped the aluminium V8 & returned to using cast iron engines on cost grounds as the alloy block cost at least an extra $200 to manufacture.

Click to expand...

300bhp/ton said:

Not sure why the hate for the V8, but you do spout utter nonsense about them. Have you actually ever owned one?

Click to expand...

Datatek said:

I read that the development of thin wall iron casting was behind the alloy block being dropped. More reliable over the mileages the yanks do as structurally better.

Click to expand...

DanClarke said:

I read that they had issues with the aluminium castings being imperfect and going porous this coupled with the use of incorrect antifreeze meant that the failure rate was untenable and warranty claims were too high.

Click to expand...

pwood999 said:

All engines have their quirks & issues, but regular maintenance can & does give reliability. The "slipped liner" issue seems to be talked about more than it happens. Both my V8's (167k & 130k) don't have any signs if this.

If the car has sat for 10 years, I would also be more concerned with why. Rubber seals all over the car may need replacing & any fuel in the tank will need draining.

Click to expand...

MikeFl4 said:

I would hope that regular maintenance would give reliability, I suppose its similar to the problems the more modern TDV6 land rover engines are having with snapped crankshafts, everybody talks about it yet there seems to be quite a small failure rate in reality. Still doesn't excuse from the fact that it shouldn't be happening in the first place!

Good to hear someone who actually has something positive to say about the poor old V8! Honestly Id love the idea of having just that bit extra power (the diesel is fine - but on steep hills it does feel a bit inadequate)

As far as this 1997 is concerned, the fact that it "sat" is kind of a loose term - from what I was told, it was bought by a guy who was going to take the engine from it in order to swap into a classic - but he felt the vehicle was too good to remove the engine and it ended up sitting around. The part that kind of worries me is whether it sat because the previous owner legitimately felt it was too good to remove the engine from - or was the engine no good to bother using it!

Although the vehicle history report states it has only had three owners, the last time it passed an NCT (MOT) was back in 2015 - previous NCT before that was 2010 so huge gaps - and last time it was taxed for road use was 2012! Now, from what I've been told it wasn't a case of just - park up in a field and forget about it - it seems to have had all its fluids gone through and was at very least not completely neglected during this sitting period. Its running and driving for the past few months now so I think we're past the initial state of resurrection (such as like you said with new fuel etc)

Click to expand...

Datatek said:

I don't hate it, I just think it's a pile of crap, you just have to read all the posts about the failures on various forums.
As I said, the 3.5 was OK. And no I have never and will never own one because they are crap.

Click to expand...

Datatek said:

GM/Buick dumped the alloy V8 for good reasons and were pleased to find a sucker to buy the rights. As a 3.5 it was OK, once Land Rover bored it out it was fragile and also there were quality problems with the castings.
I wouldn't have one as a gift unless it was to scrap it for parts.

Click to expand...