change of 4.4 l on my LR3 to 5 L or 3L

[Houm_WA]

The OP asked specifically about going to the LR4 engine, not just something "meatier" or else this whole comparative discussion would not have transpired. I'll agree straight away that the 4.4L is a bit undersized for the LR3. My only real point was that the 4.4 seems to be a more robust engine than the 5.0, and for the marginal increase in power, I'd keep the 4.4L.

Worth noting: I don't really daily-drive my LR3 so perhaps my tolerance for its slowness is higher.

 

[gypsy]

I wonder how the 4.4 would do with a little boost from a small turbo? Has anyone done one?

The LS Swap kit doesn't seem to have much info available online and the website roverswap.com isnt even loading anymore .

The kit is still advertised for $2500 though on another site. I just wonder how it works with everything else.

 

[Taemian]

I have an 06 LR3 and a 12 LR4 .

LR3 is significantly slower no question. The LR4 is much more usable from a daily standpoint, like someone else said...merging, getting off the line, etc.

I love the utilitarian aspects of the LR3, I love the daily driveability of the LR4. Both aren't going anywhere anytime soon...however if the engines were to fail I would be swapping for an LS based motor. Swap kits exist and you can retain your factory driveline from the engine back.

I haven't seen one keeping the LR trans, only a GM trans, 4L80 or something?

 

[gypsy]

I haven't seen one keeping the LR trans, only a GM trans, 4L80 or something?

You're right it's a full swap engine and transmission.

 

[Bogwhoppit]

I would simply source another 4.4 and be done with any additional hassle. It is what it is. Btw I don't think I could muster my LR4 to do a 6.4 sec 0-60mph lol. I recon that result was a bit optimistic. Most testers were getting 6.9 secs.

 

[jwest]

The original poster was inquiring if it was possible to replace the 4.4 with something more meatier. The fact of the matter is that 4.4 was outmatched by the Lr3s heft (especially when adding all the off road kit to it or when towing). Land Rover realized this almost immediately after debuting the LR3 and started to make plans for a more powerful engine. I only wish that they went to a full 6L+ to get a nice 400 ft/lbs.



To think Land Rover put the 4.0L Ford V6 from the Explorer in the LR3. Yikes! I guess that made the 4.4 look like a stump puller. It's adequate but I like to aim higher than that lol.

Yeah, but I had a SC RR, so even the lr4 while nice, didn't really excite me enough to move from the lr3. I had a very good deal ready on a CPO 2013 then decided it just didn't matter enough.

 

[rally3]

I wonder how the 4.4 would do with a little boost from a small turbo? Has anyone done one?

.

Or just swap in a 4.2 Supercharged from a 06-09 RR Sport ?, same trans and engine mounting points, same generation engine management system, They did change the final drive ratios to make it feel quicker, similar HP to the 5.0.

 

[gypsy]

Or just swap in a 4.2 Supercharged from a 06-09 RR Sport ?, same trans and engine mounting points, same generation engine management system, They did change the final drive ratios to make it feel quicker, similar HP to the 5.0.

Aren't those notoriously unreliable?

 

[rally3]

Aren't those notoriously unreliable?

Same reliability as the 4.4, I worked at a LR dealer from 2001 to 2016 and never saw a 4.4 or 4.2 SC die of natural causes (all were either overheated or never had the oil changed....)
The Sport and FF RR had more problems than the LR3 may have given it a bad rap ?

 

[Fields Carlisle]

Yes. My wife's Q50 does it in 5-flat or less....and that's not fast either.

Does your wife have the 400HP AWD Q50 3.0TT? I couldn't get past the drive by wire steering when I drove one. A huge departure from the hefty hydraulic steering in the first gen G35. And btw, 5 seconds is fast to 60MPH. Not too long ago a Ferrari, Lamborghini, Corvette couldn't break 5 seconds. In my opinion any car that can hit 60 in less than 6 seconds is pretty quick, 5 seconds is fast, 4 is extremely fast and 3 is almost too fast. 75% of the cars on the road are slower than the LR4 from 0-60. All those bargain basement Corollas and Camrys with their breathless naturally aspirated 4-bangers can't keep up, neither can most pickups unless they're Raptors or 6.2L Chevys and GMCs. I just wish LR had kept the 5.0L V8 when they did the refresh in '14 and mated it to the 8HP. I have owned both the V8 and SCV6. 5.0L V8 produced so much more torque and lower in the revs it was a phenomenal engine. It sounded good and was smooth. The 3.0L V6 on the other hand is perhaps my least favorite part of my LR4. While it picks up ok at the top end, it feels like a naturally aspirated V6 and shakes, rattles and rolls at idle. LR set the idle speed too low in order to save 0.0001mpg and the stop/start system is by far the worst I've ever experienced. It also sounds pretty dull and gets no better mileage than the old 5.0L. In fact I seem to get worse fuel economy by 1-2 MPG. Glad to see JLR finally releasing their new inline-6. If they put it in the Discovery in the next couple of years I'll be ready to move on from my LR4 into a Disco. That engine is going to be phenomenal.