Will a Ford Triton 4.6L fit and work in a Discovery 2? If so how hard of a swap would this be and what all would I need to be modified?

 

A great engine if it fits. I'm reasonably certain it is too wide to fit between the frame rails and still mate to the driveline. I don't "know" this, but suspect it. Ford lowered and widened the heads on the modular engines. An old pushrod 5.0 would likey fit ideal and has a bazilion power adders available, if desired.

If a modular does actually fit, an early model, pre-COP models (pre 1997ish)used a cross coil setup, just like the rover engine, and may help with such a swap. Routing the exhaust would be interesting, to say the least, with the heads practically laying on the rails.

 

The modular V8 is pretty wide, 29 inches. Not sure what the Rover engine is, but I suspect it's in the 24-25" range at max.

I've always wondered why Ford never stuffed that engine in these when they were the parent company. Way better engine in every single way.

 

I'm pretty set on doing a BMW engine when I get ready for a swap. Many of the older ones used some variant of the zf 4hp22/24 tranny so I figure that with the bmw bellhousing it should adaptable to our configuration fairly easily. I know they had an m52 based defender in South Africa for a couple years so some parts could possibly be sourced from that, and they have plug and play megasquirt ecu's that would make it a somewhat easier proposition to integrate

 

I'm a stickler for keeping a vehicle stock, so I would install a used or rebuilt 4.6L rover V8. I think the rover V8 is a POS, but that's what I would use.

 

the SOHC Ford would be the last engine i would consider as a swap. right behind the v6 chevy that someone suggested in the other thread. This is coming from a die hard Ford guy. they are under powered in stock form and will cause more fitment headaches than a small block pushrod v8.

IMO you have two options for power/reliability vs. money spent:
1: build the rover motor. They can be bullet proof and they can be powerful, its been done many many times. They are also tiny and do not weigh very much.

2: LS swap. Its the only other similar sized engine that will produce superior power to the stock motor but also be ultra reliable. Also a GM product which is more in keeping with the Rover theme, given the stock motor's Buick history.




If money was no object, a modified 4 cylinder turbo diesel would be my choice, but for 10k or less a built Rover motor (5.0 with 10.5:1 comp, heads and intake worked over, custom ground cam, good exhaust, and custom tune) or a 5.7 LS with a cam, exhaust and tune are the best options around.

 

Ha, I came into this thread to poop on the 4.6L too. Our work F-150 truck has this motor and I only ordered 6 spark plus to swap out as I was certain it was a 6cyl. I thought my tech was effing with me when he said I was two plugs short!

 

Well it depends on which 4.6L. Your entry level work truck has a cheap, reliable base engine.

There are 2v, 3v, or 4v Ford 4.6L engines. A Mustang Cobra was making 305 HP with a 4v, twenty years ago. Today you can buy a crate modular from Ford with 435HP or perhaps a Roush crate Modular with 600HP. Its called a modular for a reason. Easy to swap out parts for increased performance and uniformity.

Without pushrods, the engine could be wider and lower, reducing hood height and lowering center of gravity. The rover frame rails are about 28 inches, or slightly less, so very problematic to consider using the modular.

 

In stock form, the first gen 4.6 SOHC makes more power than the rover 4.6. I have a first gen in my T-bird. Swapped the heads, cams intake plenum and put shorty headers on it and I was running 300 WHP. That's more power than needed for these Rovers with a driveline that will most likely shatter with that kind of power.

The LS is definitely a better swap. Cheaper and will fit. The modular engine is monstrous in size, and will be more expensive to get power gains.

 

There's no way shoe-horning a 4v into a rover would be a better consideration that an LS for power vs. Money invested.

And they were called modular because the tooling used for production is modular, not the engines themselves. I was once under this false assumption as well.