Jump to content
If you value this forum's future please support us


Getting Comfortable
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Hernerover

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. 2001 Discovery2 V8

    Following on from the above, it appears that the later heads have two additional holes for fuel injection system !
  2. Range Rover Classic 3.9litre Low Comp

    Well good for him !
  3. 2001 Discovery2 V8

    Yes, you are quite correct, HRC2479 is the casting number and not the part number. RV8 heads always used to be referred generically by the casting number, I was just hoping to verify that the casting numbered HRC2479 was the correct one for this vehicle. Apologies for the confusion.
  4. 2001 Discovery2 V8

    I'm afraid my knowledge of post 94 RV8's isn't that great. I do know that post 94 heads are "ten bolt" and initially had the casting number of HRC2479. Also, when LR became the lead users of K series and RV8s the reference numbers were all changed. I suppose the real question is, is there any difference between HRC2479 and LDF001020 (other than the ref number) ?
  5. 2001 Discovery2 V8

    Okay, thank you for that. Does that mean that a 2001 Disco2 V8 has an engine other than a RV8 ? Cheers. Adrian.
  6. 2001 Discovery2 V8

    A mate of mine who has a 2001 Discovery2 V8 has asked me to confirm whether the correct cylinder head fitment is HRC2479 or HRC2211 ?? I rather think it should be HRC2479. Can anybody on here help me out please? Thanks, Adrian.
  7. Range Rover Classic 3.9litre Low Comp

    It is important to remember that post 94 engines were heavily revised in all areas, block, crank, rods, pistons and heads mainly !!! The main difference between a 10 bolt head, HRC2479 and a 14 bolt head, ERC0216 (SD1) or HRC2210 (Land Rover) is that the cubic capacity of the heads was reduced from 36cc to 28cc. It is this fact that is key to my original posting on this website. In the Land Rover Technical archive there is a thread titled: "3.5, 3.9 & 4.2 heads" which is quite exspansive . From that thread, the explanation is quite clear, that fitting post 94 heads to a pre94 engine results in a c/r increase from 9.35 to 10.55 on a 9.35 c/r engine. My question has been, what is the resulting c/r increase to a 8.13 c/r engine? I don't have the relevant technical data to do the calculation myself. As far as obtaining 9.35:1 c/r engine goes, it is just too expensive and doing an engine change on a P6B is not a job for the faint hearted! The era of good condition RV8s available for peanuts is long gone and such engines when they do become available sell for in excess of £750 - £1,000. I am quite capable and confident of undertaking a cylinder head change though!
  8. Range Rover Classic 3.9litre Low Comp

    Yes there is a reason why they switched to composite gaskets !! It would appear that the person that I wanted to contact, B*** B** C***** is no longer active here. If he was, he would know exactly what I was talking about.
  9. Range Rover Classic 3.9litre Low Comp

    Have just realised that I have made an error in my previous post. Where I say that "the c/r being increased by 1.6:1" I should have said "the c/r being increased by 1.2:1" . Apologies for the error.
  10. Range Rover Classic 3.9litre Low Comp

    Yes, I think I am familiar with the thread you are referring to !! The main contributor said at the end of his last major posting on that thread, that retro fitting post 94 heads onto a pre 94 9.35:1 c/r engine, would result in the c/r being increased by 1.6:1 . My question is, what would be the effect of doing the same to a pre 94 8.15:1 c/r engine ? In case you were wondering, I came upon thread you are referring to, as a result of a Google search into the topic. I had hoped by joining this website I might be able to either contact him directly or re-awaken his expertise in the matter ! Am a somewhat surprised that this issue has not come up before because the cheapest source of supply for RV8 engines is Range Rover Classic! Regards, Adrian.
  11. Range Rover Classic 3.9litre Low Comp

    Engines Nos commencing 37D00001 and 38D00001 are low compression @ 8.13:1. 10 bolt heads have smaller combustion chambers due to fact that they skimmed at the factory to accommodate the increased thickness of the composite gasket. My thinking was to fit a pair of the 10 bolt heads rather than having the existing ones skimmed. I am just trying to find out how much this would increase the compression ratio. Adrian.
  12. Hi guys, I'm a newbie to your site. I own a Rover P6B(manual) that has been fitted with a Range Rover Classic 3.9litre engine. The engine runs fine, but being a Low Comp of 8.13 it is a bit short on power. If I fit a pair of 10 bolt heads, with tin head gaskets what would this do to the compression ratio? Have been told elsewhere that it would increase the C/R to about 9:1 but I don't know if that is true. Can anybody on here verify this for me please? Many Thanks.