I feel stupid for asking this but I never knew the answer....

Why is it that all Land Rover engines are so underpowered? My grandpa has a DI and I have a DII which is infinitaly more powerful than the DI but still nothing compared to my Tundra. Why such a difference between the two V8s?

 

The all-aluminum v8 in the rovers dates back to the mid-60s, designed & built by GM for small buicks- Rover bought the engine & manu. process shortly after.
GM only used it for a couple of years (go figure)

If you think about it, that little low-tune motor is all you need for what it's designed for. What do you need beyond gearing to get through the jungle?
I believe we've gotten brainwashed by our need for excess & horse power unless you are into racing. (There's well built Rovers that do that also.)
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy doing a buck fifty three in a b-stock corvette down I-55 west of Chicago

 

Horse power is for going fast and tourqe is for getting going.
These trks are purpose built, the purpose of going anywhere anytime. Not getting there fast, just getting there.
If you put your trk into low it will pull a house off the foundation. You can plow a field with your trk. The orginial Series had a PTO and 60, yes 60, horse power. But still had tons of tourqe.
The new LR's are quicker but not as good off road, you cannot have it both ways. Your trk has a long throttle for finessing your way over rocks and through mud. Small throttle imputs net big results, you dont want to spin your tires. Ever take your Toyota off road and find yourself giving it more gas than you wanted? Not with a Rover.
You may not beable to go 100mph but you can climb a mountain.
Bottom line, 6000 lbs doesnt move very fast or stop very quick.

 

I see this explanation a lot, but age doesn't explain it being underpowered or the fact that it was a GM-designed engine.It's actually a really good engine with a lot of great engineering and a rich history.Rover took a different track on the power thing.No doubt if resources were applied, they could have done what GM did for their small block designed in1955 and lives on even today (90 million engines later)!

Here is a really good link to theBuick/Rover engine history:
http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/Ro...ar-Article.htm

A little GM history: Back in the day, the different GM divisions each had their own research and development teams. In the late 50's Buick was designated the "Engine design leader" at GM. The aluminum engine was a project undertaken by Buick to reduce weight in a motor as compared to engines of the 50's. At the same time,the legendary Edward N. Cole, abright young engineer took over as Chief engineer for Chevrolet(GM's largest division) and in very short time, designed and developed the small block 265 which debuted in 1955.This cast iron small block had unprecedented power to weight, was very rugged ...and was an instant hit.Cast iron thin-wall casting techniques were becoming "perfected" and this led to larger displacements and lower weights as the motor morphed into the 283, 327, 350 and 400 small block.

The Buick aluminum 215 V8(later the Rover V8) debuted in 61, some yrs after the Chevy small block came out. It had the highest weight to power ratio in it's day among domestic engines and was a favorite among racers and hobbiests. There were turbo versions and it was quite powerful. GM built more in 3 years than Rover did between the years of 1965 until it's retirement. It was retired by GM in 63 because at the time, aluminum casting was inefficient and there were significant porousity issuesthat GM was unable to test for until the engines were mostly built. The casting failures were high and scrap rate and costs were high as well. Plus, aluminum was more expensive than iron. Ultimately, the engines werenot significantly lighter than the Chevy "mouse" motor with it's thin-wall castings ...and given the success of the small block, GM decided to shelve the Buick motor.Plus, the trend was for larger displacement motors which the aluminum V8 wouldn't reach, like the cast-iron small block. The tooling for the motorwas sold to Rover in 65 andlived on for another 35 yrs. Reportedly, GM tried to buy it back,Rover wanted to licence it to them but GM declined. Buick released a cast iron300 V8 in 1964 which was very similar to the aluminum V8 which became the 340 and 350 and lived on for many years until the 80's.As kids my dad had a Buick LeSabre witha 350 in it that lasted forever. When the car was no longer driveable, my brother and I pulled the motor and put it in another vehicle. I wonder if such a motor would mate up to a Disco? Note; Ed Cole eventually became the head of Chevrolet and ultimately GM.

The fact is Chevrolet was able to refine thesmall-block to meet emission requirements andalso be one of the most powerful andefficient motors (including versions with aluminum heads). Rover also refined the motor as noted in the article above. There were go-fast applications. They decided not to take the same path for the Discoverys and Range Rovers.

Back to the main point, GM didn't quit production because it was a lousy motor. In fact, it was very popular in it's day but they chose to put their investment into another already hot product. Overall,I think we should have more appreciation for the littlealuminum motor that Rover continued to refine. I agree it's not as torquey or revvy as some vehicles, but look at the weight of ourDiscoverys! I'm not sure tire-burning power is what Rover was intending.

 

Displacement, you have a 4.6 if I have read your other post
right.

The Disco I and Disco II's have 182hp& 233ft lbs tq/ and
188hp & 250 ft lbs tq DII,,, until 2003 and 2004 have 4.6L.
The LR3 has 300 hp or there about and will move very well.

 

The LR3 has the Jaguar engine.

 

Think of your Rover as a tractor..not a car...lol..