Discussion
Alright all,
Going to look at a 92 reg 4.3 grif that's for sale a couple of miles away from me, its done 110,000 miles. Is the 4.3 a good engine even on these higher mileages, looking at the pictures the manifolds and Y piece have been replaced, looks a tidy car but any info would be greatly appreciated
Cheers Mark
Going to look at a 92 reg 4.3 grif that's for sale a couple of miles away from me, its done 110,000 miles. Is the 4.3 a good engine even on these higher mileages, looking at the pictures the manifolds and Y piece have been replaced, looks a tidy car but any info would be greatly appreciated
Cheers Mark
Bought mine in 2006 with 106,xxx miles. Had it rebuilt because of an underlying cooling system problem and subsequent head gaskets failure. Exhaust manifold gaskets were blowing too, so it made sense to take the engine out and do it all in one go.
The lowdown:
Bores, rings and pistons had barely any wear on it. Bearings were still OK too.
Heads were fine.
Camshaft was pretty much shot.
Oil pressure marginal.
I have no doubts that with a camshaft change (including lifters, always do both at one time!) and oil pump rebuild, the engine would have gone on performing like it should for another ten years or so...
All in all I´d say that if there´s no evidence of a camshaft replacement, you should factor that in. Check oil pressure you should see 10-15 psi at warm idle and 30ish on a cruise when warm at least.
Oh, and do check everything on the cooling system. With mine, there were no leaks in plain sight when casually checking but both water pump and radiator were well past it. Do as I say, don´t do as I did.
The lowdown:
Bores, rings and pistons had barely any wear on it. Bearings were still OK too.
Heads were fine.
Camshaft was pretty much shot.
Oil pressure marginal.
I have no doubts that with a camshaft change (including lifters, always do both at one time!) and oil pump rebuild, the engine would have gone on performing like it should for another ten years or so...
All in all I´d say that if there´s no evidence of a camshaft replacement, you should factor that in. Check oil pressure you should see 10-15 psi at warm idle and 30ish on a cruise when warm at least.
Oh, and do check everything on the cooling system. With mine, there were no leaks in plain sight when casually checking but both water pump and radiator were well past it. Do as I say, don´t do as I did.
davep said:
Belle427 said:
Most say it's the pick of the bunch and a great engine...
FWIW some people attribute this quality to the engine being a 'square engine', with bore and stroke dimensions the same (88.9 mm I think).
The thing about 4.3s is twofold:
1) Where most 400 and 450 engines were little more than the corresponding LR engines with a camshaft more appropriate to a 1 ton sports car and of course TVR's own exhaust manifolds, the 430 actually differs fundamentally from the Land Rover 4.2 engines in that it combines the 'Iceberg' crankshaft of the latter with 3.9 pistons machined down 3 mm to get at the correct deck height, making for a much higher compression ratio. For this alone, the 4.3 sounds, responds and revs significantly more 'urgent' than the 'cooking' engines.
The 500 rotating assembly is even more bespoke, but fundamentally flawed because it uses LR 4.2 pistons with cut down skirts to clear the crankshaft at its longer stroke, the stroke/rod length ratio is unfavourable and the crankshaft was TVR's own casting, the quality of which was a lot more 'variable' than any of the standard LR cranks, especially the Iceberg which was developed for a diesel version and virtually unbreakable.
2). It being the top engine option at the time after the exotic Wedges had faded out, and TVR being not as busy as a few years later at their late-90s peak, the 430 engines had a lot of time spent on them and were very nicely built. In particular, the heads were elaborately ported and originally had O-rings and copper head gaskets to deal with the higher compression ratio.
In general, the Rover V8 seems to be happiest at four and a bit litres, giving a happy balance of bigger natural torque than the 3.5/3.9 versions without being strangled by the modest flow of the cylinder heads at the top end of the rev range like the bigger versions (which the builders then try to overcome with big cams, the biggest valves than can be fitted etc.) that also seem to be more fragile.
900T-R said:
davep said:
Belle427 said:
Most say it's the pick of the bunch and a great engine...
FWIW some people attribute this quality to the engine being a 'square engine', with bore and stroke dimensions the same (88.9 mm I think).The thing about 4.3s is twofold:
1) Where most 400 and 450 engines were little more than the corresponding LR engines with a camshaft more appropriate to a 1 ton sports car and of course TVR's own exhaust manifolds, the 430 actually differs fundamentally from the Land Rover 4.2 engines in that it combines the 'Iceberg' crankshaft of the latter with 3.9 pistons machined down 3 mm to get at the correct deck height, making for a much higher compression ratio. For this alone, the 4.3 sounds, responds and revs significantly more 'urgent' than the 'cooking' engines.
The 500 rotating assembly is even more bespoke, but fundamentally flawed because it uses LR 4.2 pistons with cut down skirts to clear the crankshaft at its longer stroke, the stroke/rod length ratio is unfavourable and the crankshaft was TVR's own casting, the quality of which was a lot more 'variable' than any of the standard LR cranks, especially the Iceberg which was developed for a diesel version and virtually unbreakable.
2). It being the top engine option at the time after the exotic Wedges had faded out, and TVR being not as busy as a few years later at their late-90s peak, the 430 engines had a lot of time spent on them and were very nicely built. In particular, the heads were elaborately ported and originally had O-rings and copper head gaskets to deal with the higher compression ratio.
In general, the Rover V8 seems to be happiest at four and a bit litres, giving a happy balance of bigger natural torque than the 3.5/3.9 versions without being strangled by the modest flow of the cylinder heads at the top end of the rev range like the bigger versions (which the builders then try to overcome with big cams, the biggest valves than can be fitted etc.) that also seem to be more fragile.
I was regularly thrashed by about 3 seconds in 90 in my 5 litre on sprint days by a guy in a 4.3, and yes, that could have a lot to do with his driving ability, and his car and driver combo was probably getting on for 100 kg lighter than mine, but all the same if i can blame it on the excellence of the 430 engine then I can feel a bit better about myself.
Gassing Station | Chimaera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff