Discussion
I test drove all 3 models last year before buying one at Christmas. After trying all of them I came to a personal conclusion that either a 4.2 or 4.5 was fine for me. There wasn't much between them. Performance difference is not noticable. The 4.0 was perhaps the most different to drive but not enough to make me want to buy one - it's rumoured reputation for unreliabaility at the time also put me off (not sure what the situation is like now).
My slight preference was for the 4.5 but only on the basis of (a) looks a bit better on it's standard wheels, and (b) residual values and apparent desirability compared to the 4.2.
I was lucky enough to find a 4.5 in the colour I wanted for 4.2 money so that's what I got in the end. I got a 1998 model with 24k on the clock, full leather, FTVRSH, CD stack, Air Con, otherwise standard for £22.5K which at the time was the price for a similar condition 4.2. Saw a few 4.2's at lower prices but these were either high mileage or ropey looking or had a dubious service history.
I've used my 4.5 as my daily car since buying it and have got on with it very well so far. I think I'd have been equally happy with a 4.2.
My slight preference was for the 4.5 but only on the basis of (a) looks a bit better on it's standard wheels, and (b) residual values and apparent desirability compared to the 4.2.
I was lucky enough to find a 4.5 in the colour I wanted for 4.2 money so that's what I got in the end. I got a 1998 model with 24k on the clock, full leather, FTVRSH, CD stack, Air Con, otherwise standard for £22.5K which at the time was the price for a similar condition 4.2. Saw a few 4.2's at lower prices but these were either high mileage or ropey looking or had a dubious service history.
I've used my 4.5 as my daily car since buying it and have got on with it very well so far. I think I'd have been equally happy with a 4.2.
"All later 4.2 engined cars are actually 4.5 litres (economy of scale) the only real difference being in the induction set up. Hence the very small difference in performance."
I'd never heard that one before Clive, but can well believe it -- it's well known the cerbie 4.5 doesn't do what it says on the tin. The 4.2 is pretty close at around 20-30bhp down, but the 4.2 inlets are costing power .. could it be then that the 4.2 is a 4.5 with restrictive inlets and a softer mapping? the joospeed 4.2s make good power (almost 4.5 power in fact, interesting) and marc payne's hi compression 4.2 with modified inlets and filters gave 335lbs torque and 350 bhp which is as good as a 4.5 any day (actually better than some we've dynoed) .. even if the above quote isn't true it's dead right to say buying a 4.2 and modifying it in a sensible way is by far the best way to go ... early cars are so cheap they're an alternative to a westie for track day blasting. yippeeeeeeeee.
I'd never heard that one before Clive, but can well believe it -- it's well known the cerbie 4.5 doesn't do what it says on the tin. The 4.2 is pretty close at around 20-30bhp down, but the 4.2 inlets are costing power .. could it be then that the 4.2 is a 4.5 with restrictive inlets and a softer mapping? the joospeed 4.2s make good power (almost 4.5 power in fact, interesting) and marc payne's hi compression 4.2 with modified inlets and filters gave 335lbs torque and 350 bhp which is as good as a 4.5 any day (actually better than some we've dynoed) .. even if the above quote isn't true it's dead right to say buying a 4.2 and modifying it in a sensible way is by far the best way to go ... early cars are so cheap they're an alternative to a westie for track day blasting. yippeeeeeeeee.
quote:
the joospeed 4.2s make good power (almost 4.5 power in fact, interesting) and marc payne's hi compression 4.2 with modified inlets and filters gave 335lbs torque and 350 bhp which is as good as a 4.5 any day (actually better than some we've dynoed) .. even if the above quote isn't true it's dead right to say buying a 4.2 and modifying it in a sensible way is by far the best way to go ... early cars are so cheap they're an alternative to a westie for track day blasting. yippeeeeeeeee.
Err Joolz, what do you do to a 4.2 and what does it cost??
If you're considering buying a 4.2 and uprating the engine as an alternative to a 4.5, then:
1) check the affect on insurance,
2) check the affects on warranty, if you have one, and
3) consider the affect on prospective buyers if you ever try selling the car - personally, whenever I've been buying I've avoided all cars with non standard engines. I'd only consider if it was a factory modification. Nothing against those who do the modifications - just my own preference, but it may be shared by others. If so, you may find it more difficult to sell when the time comes.
1) check the affect on insurance,
2) check the affects on warranty, if you have one, and
3) consider the affect on prospective buyers if you ever try selling the car - personally, whenever I've been buying I've avoided all cars with non standard engines. I'd only consider if it was a factory modification. Nothing against those who do the modifications - just my own preference, but it may be shared by others. If so, you may find it more difficult to sell when the time comes.
quote:No - not in a mood at all! I was only wondering if you had any actual evidence to back it up - none of the RR cars have been dynoed yet as far as I can tell. Mine isn't quite run in yet, but certainly feels faster than before - might be entirely subjective though. That extra kick above 5k might be 25bhp or more or less - I have no idea... but anyway, still not value for money compared to Joolz's 4.2 mods!
Well, Danny are you in a bad mood today???
You should know that it is faster than the others...why else did you go for a RR conversion...
Gassing Station | Cerbera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff