Larry,
This advice from the Guru at RPi!........and he knows his Rover engines
Essentially the 4.2 is a 3.9 with longer stroking crank, skimmed pistons
and same rods, ( piston crown is thinner)
Its not a bad engine its just that with the new 4.6 cross-bolted short
engine being so cheap, buying or upgrading 4.2's seems a poor value
exercise by comparison.
Hope this helps - If you want an engine send me an email.
At 10:39 PM 7/10/01 -0400, Larry Michelon wrote:
>Any comments on the below subject. Looking for first hand good or bad
>experience with the Rover 4.2. I know there are some specifics concerning
>these engines. Possibly liners?
>
>Larry Michelon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Azzariti [mailto:efxguy@earthlink.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 9:06 AM
>To: lmichelon@i-c.net
>Subject: Re: [rro] Re: RRO: RE: Pros and Cons: 1994 Range Rover County SWB
>
>
>
>Larry,
>
>Too many people have been bad mouthing the 4.2 lately, all because of one or
>two guys saying that the motor is crap. All I hear is " this guy I know
>said" which really means nothing.
>
>So I was wondering if any one has a firsthand account of this motors
>failings, and no one has stepped up.
>
>Most of these Rover V8 are pretty similar, and to say that one is awful and
>one is better only because one was stroked to give 2/10 of a liter more
>displacement seems silly. It is only a 13% increase, and barely that.
>
>
>I have never owned one, so it is all hearsay. If you search the internet,
>you may be able to find more reference to the 4.2. Then again, some will say
>the 3.9 is crap too. Mine has 185K and seems to be doing OK.
>
> If you go to the RPI sight, you will notice no mention of the 4.2. They
>used to have a section on why they do not consider supplying these engines,
>but I could not find it.http://www.v8engine.com/homepage.htmLarry
///
/// buick-rover-v8@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|