Defender Source Forum banner

The Official 4.6 Conversion Thread

Tags
conversion
14K views 36 replies 15 participants last post by  The Dro 
#1 ·
OK, since test driving a NAS D110 4.6 I believe that the 4.6 is the most user friendly D110 engine for the daily driver ect. So I thought I would start a 4.6 NAS conversion thread to help others on their journey too. Don't get me wrong I love the diesel engines, and think they sound like they belong in a Defender. But my own concerns for daily driving and DOT BS down the road make me lean towards the 4.6.
As for off-road, the perceived disadvantage of the 4.6 over the diesel are water, and low end torque. So with the 4.6 one may want to stay out of the deep end, and buy and under-drive for the transfer case.

4.6 engine options: (Links provided below)
Short Block/Long Block from Atlantic British and use the 3.9 parts I already have
Complete Engine from RPI
Complete Engine from JE Engineering

Transmission/Transfer Box:
Can an R380 handle HP up to 300 and torque to 350?
RPI says it can
The 4.6 D110 I drove still had the original LT77S, and I was advised to start from stop in 2nd.
What about the transfer box? Can it handle the extra power too?

Computer/ ECU:
What is best, a 4.2 ECU, 3.9, 3.9 chipped, or 4.6?
RPI will provide the ECU.
The 4.6 D110 I drove was also running on a non-altered 3.9 ECU, and had plenty of power.


From what I can tell RPI offers a complete plug and play 4.6 (anything and everything needed), and transmission (R380), clutch/fly wheel, ect. They like JE Engeneering offer a Stage 1, 2, & 3 power upgrades.

Jim and Chris, please feel free to merge other 4.6 threads to this one.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Glad you started this.

I have been thinking about this for my project for a long time. So here is my question for the experts.

I have a 4.0 GEMS. So logic tells me that if I were to tear down my motor and have it bored out to 4.6 then I would just need to buy some 4.6 pistons and rings I would be good to go? Granted I never said it was good logic but school me a bit here.

Is the cam, crank etc.. all the same from 4.0 to 4.6?



Thanks
 
#4 · (Edited)
Tyler,

The bore is the same on the 3.9, 4.0, 4.2 and 4.6. The 3.9 and 4.2 share the smaller main bearing journals than the 4.0 and 4.6 whose main bearing are also cross bolted. The 4.0 and 4.6 blocks are the same. The difference is the crank/rod/piston/camshaft which are different.
 
#6 ·
Computer/ ECU:
What is best, a 4.2 ECU, 3.9, 3.9 chipped, or 4.6?
RPI will provide the ECU.
The 4.6 D110 I drove was also running on a non-altered 3.9 ECU, and had plenty of power.

Megasquirt 3. No question. If you want plain old plug and play then the 14cux box is plenty fine. For the price of a custom chip you can have a Megasquirt 3.
 
#7 ·
I almost think it would be better/cheaper in the long run to buy a new long block from RPI. But for sure the 3.9 guys may want to consider the plug and play new RPI 4.6 (maybe even their stage 3) with the non-distributor cap set up.

I am leaning towards:
RPI's: 4.6 Turnkey "Serpentine" Engine
New R380
New AC from Rovers North RNAC40
 
#8 ·
I have other ways to spend $10K+, which is what you will pay just to get the turnkey engine here with no installation. I don't know what you mean by better/cheaper--a 2.8l Powerstroke conversion would be better for that dough. There basically isn't a build up that I can think of doing that would run 10K before installation. But if you have that kind of money, then go for it.

As for using the 4.0 pistons, I looked into that and did some volume measurements--I will have to check my notes, but the compression started to border on 11:1 which was higher than I wanted to run--I wanted to stick to fuel that one could borrow on the trail and didn't want to carry around octane boost everywhere.
 
#10 ·
Jon - I think you should consider the option of building up a 4.0/4.6 block. If done right, it will be just as good as your other options, and considerably cheaper. As an example, I bought a used 4.6 crank, rods, and pistons (22K miles), with new rings and bears from UK (via RPI) for around $800 to convert my 4.0 to 4.6.

For Phil's question, see attached. 4.6 on the left
I may be really showing my ignorance here, but I feel that a complete new plug and play 4.6 will be much more reliable, therefore cheaper in the long run. RPI may be pricey, but everything is balanced and put together by a guy that builds Rover 4.6s all day everyday. I am not saying that it can be done stateside on the cheap and be reliable, but RPI seems to know their stuff. If an RPI 4.6 cost $5k more and is as good as some say, then a Frankenstein 4.6 will cost more than RPI from the constant patching up.
As for the 2.8, yea that is tempting. I just wonder about down the road stuff like parts and DOT BS. I admit that I have never built an engine, thus the reason why I started this thread. I would rather learn here than in the shop. I have yet to drive a 2.8, but that 4.6 I drove had plenty of power.
 
#9 ·
Jon - I think you should consider the option of building up a 4.0/4.6 block. If done right, it will be just as good as your other options, and considerably cheaper. As an example, I bought a used 4.6 crank, rods, and pistons (22K miles), with new rings and bears from UK (via RPI) for around $800 to convert my 4.0 to 4.6.

For Phil's question, see attached. 4.6 on the left
 

Attachments

#11 ·
That 4.6 motor that RPI builds in the UK was borne from the Buick motor that engine shops here in the states have been rebuilding for 30+ years. If you haven't already, poke around on aluminumv8.com. All I'm suggesting is you consider/research finding a suitable rover block, having it built up to your spec, and then weighing the pros/cons.
 
#12 ·
that 4.6 I drove had plenty of power.
Well, not compared to a Ford or Chevy Small Block. Those engines can be tuned to deliver well over 300 HP without too much effort for half of a Rover engine price.
 
#13 ·
I built a 4.6 for my '85 110 and it didn't cost me an arm and a leg, you don't need to go across the pond for everything. As suggested check out aluminumv8.com. Those guys helped me build a high torque motor thats putting out way better than the stock 220 hp and I'm using a 4bbl carb. The new LT77s has held up for 20k whithout issues.
 
#14 ·
Having been around a few of these, my suggestion would be to change as little as possible and still get the 4.6 you want.

In that regard, I would suggest a 4.6 short block, skimmed and rebuilt stock heads, a crower cam, a 4.2 RRC LWB ecu and whatever else new you want in/on the motor. There is no good reason to convert to serp. You need a very expensive front cover from a 94/95 DI or 95 RRC, new ancillaries, new fan shroud etc. and are making something that never existed in a Defender. Leaving everything but the block and chip and cam the same makes everything more understandable for repairs.
 
#31 ·
Having been around a few of these, my suggestion would be to change as little as possible and still get the 4.6 you want.

In that regard, I would suggest a 4.6 short block, skimmed and rebuilt stock heads, a crower cam, a 4.2 RRC LWB ecu and whatever else new you want in/on the motor. Leaving everything but the block and chip and cam the same makes everything more understandable for repairs.
I am getting ready to do the 4.6 swap with a new 4.6 block, rebuilt R380 and LT230Q 1.4.
My question is how much performance do you gain from upgrading the cam? Is it worth it?
Did you guys install new injectors, valuves and springs too?
 
#20 ·
I did a little more reading and apparently it's the oil pump that isn't always transferable. Anyone throw any more light on this one ?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm thinking of taking the short block out of my son's 93 disco to put in my NAS 110.
 
#23 ·
The oil pump bolts to the front cover. Use the front cover and everything else from your 93, just make sure you use the front cover gasket for the front cover not the later model engine as the pickup tube oil passage hole you need is blocked in the later model gasket. I did not skim my heads. If you decide to use later heads than your current heads, check and make sure all the necessary tapped holes are in the head for the alternator etc. brackets. I used the new style head and valley pan gaskets. I made a crankshaft spacer out of the old timing gear as the 4.6 crankshaft is longer at the front and you need the spacer to hold the pully on. There is a dowel in the rear of the crankshaft for the late model torque converter that you need to remove or cut off in order to bolt up the flywheel. You will need a new camshaft with distributer drive gear and lifters. I made up a plug to fill the hole for the knock sensor. Everything else bolts up as it should. As evilfij said, use the 4.2 ecu.
 
#24 ·
Well said and covered, Michael. I am also running my original 3.9 cover with distributor drive on my '94 with the 4.6 block. I am running a 14CUX with the 4.2 cold prom chip (which I hear are hard to find now? Not sure--I can't see why it would be). I like my older v-belt set up--easier to add accessories and diagnose bearing/engine noise. Just thought I would through that out there. Made making and mounting a york air compressor bracket a piece of cake for onboard air. The serpentine belt set up with the crank driven oil pump is very good too, I know, just saying the older style works just fine too.

For the skimmed heads, are you folks talking about due to the thickness of the old style gaskets being thinner than the composite so you skim it to take up that difference? I know others skim their heads for compression then take it out of the cylinder to gain some power--I know of a few that have used the taller 4.0 pistons with a 4.6 rod/crank and took some material out of the piston. all sorts of mods to these buick beauties...
 
#28 ·
I thought "skimming" the heads was a must.


I would be interested to see the 4.0 pistons in the 4.6. The compression doesnt seem that high for pump fuel, the difference between the capacity of the 4.0 vs. 4.6 piston was quite a bit.
 
#29 ·
In my upgrade, we did skim the heads by 0.037" to compensate for the composite gaskets. This keeps the compression up. Yes, i expect to use premium as it doesnt get a lot of total mileage.

Also we did pretty much everything that Mr McCraig did above. Reused all the 93 timing cover, oil pump, brackets and v belts. For the crank spacer, we used one that RPI sells.

For the chip, I got a Mark Adams labled for NAS DS-110. But it does call out an 800 rpm idle speed, whereas the published spec is 720 or so. I'm hoping this doesn't give me a CA smog test issue.

Since I haven't finished the project yet, i can't comment on its worth yet in torque and power. But will chime in after we get a few miles on it.

Which brings up the question: is there a way of getting a full time four wheel drive truck on a dynamometer to see what the final horsepower is?

Cheers,
Dennis
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top