[ROVERNET - UK] V8 Engine rebuild query - belated thanks

Kent Kinard kkinard at wcc.net
Wed Oct 4 16:20:31 BST 2006

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:43:27 +0800
  "Peter_Mitchell" <bpf7akh02 at sneakemail.com> wrote:
  I don't
> think that the TRS prices are too bad and a new 3.9 
>short motor would be an
> excellent headstart to a reliable unit. 

I don't think so.  Your 3.5 bored to take thin sleeves 
with a 3.7" bore will give you 3.9 litres and will have 
more meat in the cylinder walls than a new 3.9.  To my way 
of thinking the new 3.9 is the worst of all possible 
combinations with the 4.0 being a close second.  I wish I 
had a manufacturer and part number for the thin sleeves.

It's possible that TRS makes their own 3.9 from late 
crossbolt style 3.5 replacement blocks.  Some engine 
builders in the UK do this.  Ask them exactly what their 
3.9 consists of and how much they do themselves.

Maybe I'm being overly cautious.  There are not that many 
folks on this list who run a 3.9 in anything.  The price 
of fuel makes the daily use of a 3.9 less attractive than 
a 3.5 and when you throw in the risk of a sleeve coming 
loose or cracking and the extra money it will cost 
initially and the extra strain on driveline components and 
the fact that no one will know the difference when you 
raise the bonnet...

How fast do you really want to go?  For just a little more 
money you could do a 4.6 with a little less risk of sleeve 
problems and a much better bottom end.

I'm getting old and conservative...bad sign.

Kent K.

More information about the rovernet mailing list