Practically Classics Forum

Been working on the body prep, ready for another coat of primer tomorrow when the weathef looks drier, hope to get some top coat on over the weekend as well.

On the fleet front we have decided a puma really won't work, the rate my son is growing ( 13 years old and 5'8" already) he won't fit in next summer, so the latest thought is sell the land rover and get a range rover classic, probably will lead to another weldathon but I actualy quite enjoy body repairs so this plan could work. Any thoughts on the rangie classics?

Kevin

You're right about the Rangies. There's one near to me which hasn't moved for at least 4 years. I dread to think what it is like underneath...

Have a look at my thread for how bad a RRC can be. I REALLY need to update it with A and B pillar repairs mostly new sill and 33% new floor. That's just the passenger side, I haven't started the drivers one yet.

I wouldn't swap it for anything else though.

Terry,,

Well I know what not to buy now!

Plan is to buy something roadworthy and treat it as a rolling restoration, sills boot floor etc don't worry me too much but I would rather avoid the amount of corrosion you had in the scuttle.

I am thinking of a late 80s 3.5, if the fuel injhection becomes to troublesome I can fit SUs, I quite like the earlier non metalic colours as well so eventually may end up painting it one of these, I also plan to fit single point lpg with a blos mixer.

Do you mind if i ask why you want the 3.5 EFi? It probably has the worst reputation for reliability from the long list of unreliable range rover options.
The 3.9 EFi (1990-1994) is a surprisingly nice drive and the 1995 model year (1994/5 production year) is a "modern car".
Older carb versions are a bit pedestrian but are quite easy to tune (put a 3.9 cam in for starters) and they have a charming simplicity lost in the later cars.

You can see from my thread where the common rust spots are as it has all of them. I was going to write a list of things to check but it was so long it's easier to say look everywhere and don't trust anything.

Some people hate the air suspension system (1992-5 on the 4.2 1994-5 on the 3.9) but i think it's wonderful. easy to maintain and gives it a magic carpet smooth ride and if you understand it then looking after it isn't difficult.
Earlier dashboards have charm but there is no way of getting the heater to blow warm at your face (if that bothers you). If you want A/C that works then you need a late car or to upgrade the system to accept the current spec of gas.

Engine wise on the late EFi (or more specifically electronic ignition) system there is only one real weakness which is the ignition amp on the dizzy. its in a daft place and it breaks down when it gets hot. i have moved mine to the inner wing and not had to replace one since.

If you have the time (i only manage 4/6 hours per week) then there is nothing difficult to do but some jobs that you think should take 10 minutes will turn in to a 10 hour swear fest.

I figured on a 3.5 because it was also offered on carbs if I end up ditching the injection with the vane air meter. I also wanted to avoid the catalysts on the later car ( around 93 onwards). I have SUs and a 3.9 cam in the tr7v8 and that drives very well, the tr also has the 3.9 dizzy with distributor mounted amp which has never been a problem, but I suspect the underbonnet temps will be much lower.

Ultimately rugged simplicity is what I am looking for and am not to bothered about performance, but with more comfort than the series 2 to keep the family happy, unless by some miricle it is working the air con will also go.


From your pictures one thing is very clear there was a problem with the seam sealer , it almost looks like it has lifted the e coat, I will pay close attention to this.


Kevin

It's not really any more work to convert the 3.9 to carbs than the 3.5 should you want to.
All you would need to do with either is fit a new fuel pump, swap the manifold add a carb, pull the cable from the ECU and wire in an alternative immobiliser (I had to have a modern one fitted as insurance was refused without one) It should be relatively easy. I suppose the only difference would be the needles you would fit in the SUs if you went that route but if you are doing all that work a holly is probably more sensible as so many kit cars use one you will find jet combinations that work easier to come by.
I don't have anything against carbs but if you want a carbed RR they aren't rare and buying one that is already fitted with them is infinitely easier and cheaper than modifying a later car back to that spec. The lucas hotwire EFi (1990 onwards) is good for its age. It really is no trouble at all. There is even a free diagnostic application called rovergauge if you want to fiddle with it and i have the kit to program up new fuel maps if you want to fiddle (check here: http://www.stevesprint.com/remap-14cux ). I have a TVR fuel map with a lowered base idle to 650. 50rpm higher than LR set it and 150 lower than TVR. It sounds smoother that way.
Mine was supplied with cats and in the bin they went. I have a nice stainless tubular system which sounds lovely without you coming across as a teenager. I know taking the cats off is technically an MOT failure but nobody has ever mentioned it so ssssshhhh!

Thanks,

The su idea was just a fall back if the Efi became too troublesome in time, wheather cat deletion is a problem will become evident if the MOT system calls for a cat emissions test, yours is probably just a little to old to qualify (94 was the year the requirement was introduced).

Really though I plan to buy on body / mechanical condition and not be too prescriptive on the year as you say there are plenty to choose from , the things I do want are either a 5 speed manual or 4 speed auto which I understand puts it after 86, I also don't want the VM diesel, so really anything between 86 and early 94 when cats become mandatory will be fine, LPG already fitted would be great but I can easily fit it if the right vehcile comes along without it.

As you say there are plenty out there just a matter of finding the right one.

Chaps, regarding the tester's manual and the date from which cats became mandatory, it says this:

The Testers Manual 7.3 Exhaust Emissions - Spark Ignition - General, wrote:The catalyst test is part of the MOT test for most spark ignition petrol engined passenger cars with four or more wheels first used on and after 1 August 1992.

Bear in mind that emission tests are applied by the age of the engine if it's older than the vehicle itself, so fit a 1973 engine to a 1995 vehicle and all it has to do is pass on visual smoke, though obviously that's an extreme way to get around what ought to be an easy requirement to meet.
VOSA are clamping right down on emissions-related testing these days and the test venues are losing licences where they overlook such things so be careful out there.

I get through the emissions test with no problems. It does just about get through on petrol but it limbos under the requirement easily running on LPG.

I have a single point system and 120l tank sitting in my garage you can have if you fancy making a trip up to get it. The wiring is a bit of a mess but nothing that couldn't be sorted. I have upgraded to multipoint.

Lucas EFi is really easy to work on. injectors are plentiful and cheap and it only needs a MAF sensor, TPS, water and fuel temp and Lambdas on the cat cars. Almost all the problems I have encountered have been caused by mechanical issues (air leaks and a bent butterfly). Recently I have found one faulty injector which had fallen apart. it was working but i have no idea how.

RoverGauge is invaluable so if you do go EFi (14cux) then it's worth investing a few pounds and making the cable.