2000 Disco II Major Rebuild/Overhaul by RSPTex

5 minute(s) of a 50 minute read

On the extra parts I need to get rid of side, I have:

1x used camshaft, used
1x new camshaft, still in box
16x lifters, new in box
1x torque converter, used
1x crankshaft, used
8x connecting rods, used
16 lifters, used
16 push rods, used
16 rockers, used
2 rocker arms, used
1x Oil Pump gearset, used
2x stainless steel rear brake lines, new

The list will grow and shrink. Let me know in a PM if you want any parts, and make me an offer or ask for a price, either works.

7-20-2014

I'd like some definitive answers, too. Here's the link to the site I read about our components not needing to be balanced because they were individually balanced.

Affordable Aluminum Buick / Rover Stroker Motor, by Kurt Schley

BEWARE! While reading it, you will be strongly tempted to rebuild your engine as a stroker! My wife won't let me, so it's off the table...for now.

Oh, and on the cam bearings, my machinist, who has worked on these engines for a long time says he has no issue using 215 or 300 bearings on the rover engine! Hooray for cheap bearings! Unfortunately, I already paid $70 for mine... but they're being installed now, and I am taking the block to be pressure tested on Monday.

7-21-2014

Thanks for this. The need for some definite and test input would be helpful here. I would like to see something definite from someone who has built a few of these 4.0's into 4.6's.  

The Stroker write up says he uses all of the different parts interchangeably and has done so on dozens of engines because the land rover 4.0 and 4.6 assemblies were independently balanced. Is that true? No clue. I hope so, but is there anything official from Land Rover about their rotating assemblies?

The write up mentions other variations on the Buick 215 require balancing, but not the rover 4.0 or 4.6. I would really like to know his source for that info.

Has anyone put a 4.6 crank and rods into a 4.0 and had any issues?

I think I'm going to do some research on our engine and contact the land rover engineers who designed our 4.0 and 4.6 engines. I'm still in college and my budget won't allow for rebuilding the engine for my stupid mistakes the first time. I want to do a few cheap easy upgrades while I have it apart, but only if I can know it's not going to hurt in the end.

7-23-2014

When it comes to cost on assembly (my field of study and work, Manufacturing Engineering), its cheapest to have all parts interchangeable. Just like balancing a tire with a machine that can specifically do that, it would be cheaper tohave all parts individually balanced than to have to try to match parts in rotating assemblies.

Apple was only recntly able to do this procedure with high power imaging to match cases and inserts based on imperfections and size. It takes automation computing that definitely didnt exist when our Rovers were built.

And when working with CNC machining and weight distribution in a rotating assembly, remember that the lathes they were made on all have balancing sensors to compensate and prevent damage to the bearings. It would only take a mildly intelligent CNC maching engineer to take that and program specific points that could be used to balance a part. The program would take those points, and choose which of them to use based on which point it would have to remove the least material from, and how deep to drill to balance the part.

Something I noticed on my 4.0 crankshaft was that it had those machined holes drilled in various places on the counterweights to various depths. Thats a tell tale sign that the part was balanced. If any of you have a crank or two lying around, check and post picks of where the holes are in your counterweights and how deep. I'll post picks tomorrow.

In manufacturing, you can trust people to produce a part to spec, but in assembly, you can only trust people to take a part from the shelf and place it in the correct spot and use a pre-programmed air torque gun to make sure it meets measurement spec. The training fequired to teach them how to balance an entire assembly based on choosing parts from the shelf with different weights and offsets would be nuts. No training needed if the parts are all interchangeable, though, and you can compartimentalize the labor requirements. It also means lower cost of wages in labor. Otherwise all of the people on the assembly line would need to have an engineering degree or at least a college level course in statics and dynamics. I hated and loved those two classes. They tried to eat my soul. But... They also made it possible for me to design my wheel spacers, lift pucks, replacement bolts, etc.