engine reliability issues (pre purchase)
Discussion
so before I take the plunge, I need to gather advice....having driven very unreliable motors all my life (not exacly an age 
) I was wondering whether the 4.0 or 4.3 rover V8's in the griffith were more or less reliable than the 5.0 - less stressed, presumably?
edit: also, IIRC the 5.0 is a stroked 4.3 so does that mean the 4.3 revs more freely?
>>> Edited by minimax on Monday 26th April 10:30
) I was wondering whether the 4.0 or 4.3 rover V8's in the griffith were more or less reliable than the 5.0 - less stressed, presumably? edit: also, IIRC the 5.0 is a stroked 4.3 so does that mean the 4.3 revs more freely?
>>> Edited by minimax on Monday 26th April 10:30
There are some many other factors that affect longevity that the engine type is not that importent.
The 500 will be catted whereas the 4.x won't be which can eaplain noise and revving characteristics.
Steve
www.tvrbooks.co.uk
The 500 will be catted whereas the 4.x won't be which can eaplain noise and revving characteristics.
Steve
www.tvrbooks.co.uk
shpub said:
There are some many other factors that affect longevity that the engine type is not that importent.
The 500 will be catted whereas the 4.x won't be which can eaplain noise and revving characteristics.
Steve
www.tvrbooks.co.uk
going to order that just as soon as I get home!
1) I am no expert
2) But no-one else has mentioned the follwing yet
3) Which is all from (hazy) memory and mostly gleaned from PH or similar while I was debating pre-cat versus 5.0:
All engines can suffer cam wear from about 40k onwards. Otherwise the 5.0 seems to be susceptible to 'cam walk' whereas the non-serp engines seem less so. The 5.0s seem less tolerant of overheating, and can have an issue with an idler pulley or something coming adrift. The 5.0s can also have a problem with the flywheel pulley bolt coming lose; a major problem if the pulley wobbles about and chews up the locating slot.
Of course there are a lot more 5.0s around than 4.x's, so the above may just be down to statistical skew.
2) But no-one else has mentioned the follwing yet
3) Which is all from (hazy) memory and mostly gleaned from PH or similar while I was debating pre-cat versus 5.0:
All engines can suffer cam wear from about 40k onwards. Otherwise the 5.0 seems to be susceptible to 'cam walk' whereas the non-serp engines seem less so. The 5.0s seem less tolerant of overheating, and can have an issue with an idler pulley or something coming adrift. The 5.0s can also have a problem with the flywheel pulley bolt coming lose; a major problem if the pulley wobbles about and chews up the locating slot.
Of course there are a lot more 5.0s around than 4.x's, so the above may just be down to statistical skew.
DustyC said:
If anything surely the 5.0 would be the less stressed one.
From having had both I'd say this is false logic. The 500 feels much more tuned and highly strung, more marginal on cooling etc, while the 4.0 just chugs along.
However, every car is different and has been treated differently. There are sure to be good and bad example of each engine. In short, I don't think it's a a criterion for deciding.
Having only had one 500 (and for 3 weeks!) I speak from Little Experience (a nice village just outside Basingstoke!).
I was thinking the extra capacity may take the stress out of things.
But like I already said, I know nothing!
BUT...
Having read what others say the 500 achieves a lot of its grunt high up. If this is different to the 400 then you could assume that people have generally run the 500s at higher revs, therefore they may not last so long.
But I doubt that it really makes any difference at all.
I was thinking the extra capacity may take the stress out of things.
But like I already said, I know nothing!
BUT...
Having read what others say the 500 achieves a lot of its grunt high up. If this is different to the 400 then you could assume that people have generally run the 500s at higher revs, therefore they may not last so long.
But I doubt that it really makes any difference at all.
They're all 50 year old hotted-up Buick engines at the end of the day, originally designed for big old Yank cruisers, and reliability is excellent, apart from the cam wear mentioned above (only really noticeable when the lobes are almost circular), and slightly worrying idle oil pressure when the engines 'getting on a bit' - but these engines generally go on forever, provided the oils changed regularly and the cooling systems ok. Range Rovers can do galactic mileage if serviced often enough.
What prompted the question anyway - did you go to the Tuscan page first
What prompted the question anyway - did you go to the Tuscan page first
jigs said:
BTW I read somewhere that the Buick/Rover V8 was initially designed to be a 5 litre.
The Rover V8 is based on an American 215 cubic inch (3.5 litre) engine which first went into production in 1961. The variant adopted by Rover was known as the Fireball V8 in Buick and Pontiac cars, and Oldsmobile used a slightly different version called the Rockette.
Gassing Station | Griffith | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff