 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / October 2005BHP query
Hi All, I have recently had the engine in my Range Rover upgraded from a 4.0 to a 4.6 as the 4.0 completely died. On advising the insurance company of this they started to ask about BHP increases and basically I haven't got a clue. What I need to know is : What is the BHP of a petrol 4.0 V8 engine (car is R reg) What is the BHP of a petrol 4.6 V8 engine (this is a new Land Rover engine and the mechanic off the top of his head thinks its 225 BHP) The mechanic has given me figures of 140 kilowatts for the 4.0 and 165.5 kilowatts for the 4.6 but I have no idea how this relates to BHP. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance Roger Roger Hi, 4.0 V8 is 186 bhp @ 4750 4.6 V8 is 221 bhp @ 4750. Above figures are for the 1995 model year vehicles and taken from the LR Expedition book, second edition, official LR publication. late model RaRo V8 engines with the BOSCH injection had slightly more power. Take care Pantelis > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Roger >Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >On advising the insurance company of this they started to ask about BHP >increases and basically I haven't got a clue. /chomp/ >The mechanic has given me figures of 140 kilowatts for the 4.0 and 165.5 >kilowatts for the 4.6 but I have no idea how this relates to BHP. > >Any help would be appreciated. http://www.onlineconversion.com/power.htm is your friend here: Converting from kW to (international) rated horsepower, 140 kW comes out as 187.75 hp, 165.5 kW as 221.94 hp. Checking in my book of cross-conversions suggests that these figures are accurate.  SignatureAndy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth "Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas) >>Hi All, >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Checking in my book of cross-conversions suggests that these figures > are accurate. Alternatively, Google's calculator can do this: e.g. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=140+kW+in+hp Tom >> Hi All, >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Checking in my book of cross-conversions suggests that these figures > are accurate. IIRC there's 740 W to an horse. So add 1/3 to your kWs and you'll not be far wrong. Signature"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it." If at first you don't succeed, maybe skydiving's not for you! >>> Hi All, >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > IIRC there's 740 W to an horse. So add 1/3 to your kWs and you'll not be > far wrong. 746 actually JD During stardate Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:28:51 +1000, JD <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> uttered the imortal words: >> IIRC there's 740 W to an horse. So add 1/3 to your kWs and you'll not be >> far wrong. > >746 actually >JD H'mmm ... is that the same at sea level? Which raises another interesting question of calculating BHP of boat propellers, as they are below sea level so does that introduce a negative into the math? How high is a horse? And how low before it becomes a pony, which raises the issue of how many W's to the hand? Sorl very bizzar this measurement malarky. whhooops.. this cans nearly empty! hic!#?!' Lee D -- "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." - Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959) www.lrproject.com '76 101 Camper '64 88" IIa V8 Auto '97 Disco ES Auto LPG'd '01 Laguna >>> IIRC there's 740 W to an horse. So add 1/3 to your kWs and you'll not be >>> far wrong. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >interesting question of calculating BHP of boat propellers, as they >are below sea level so does that introduce a negative into the math? Perhaps boats should be measured in seahorses. Which i imagine have a lot less watts to em :) > Perhaps boats should be measured in seahorses. Which i imagine have a > lot less watts to em :) thats a splendid idea. i rekcon there would be about 1250 seahorses to a kilowatt (depends what breed of seahorse. some are tiny some are reasonably big, but none are particularly powerful!!). so if i were to have a 3.5 horsepower dinghy, it would be 2.6 kiolwatts, or 3.2 kilo-seahorse. Sam. > so if i were to have a 3.5 > horsepower dinghy, it would be 2.6 kiolwatts, or 3.2 kilo-seahorse. My local fisherman sells Sea-Horse to the Kilo.... Found out it takes a lot of money for one S-HP and it has a terrible taste. Kind regards, Erik-Jan. P.S. a friemd of mine just bought a Milner converted LR 109 with a Perkins 3.9 L. Diesel. What actually is a "Milner Conversion"? Just the engine ? SignatureThe Meeting Place for Photography http://www.fotograaf.com Fotofestival Naarden Festival-OFF http://www.festival-off.nl Rondvaart in Naarden-Vesting http://www.vestingvaart.nl Erik-Jan Geniets. Phone: +31-(0)6.55.78.60.31 >> so if i were to have a 3.5 >> horsepower dinghy, it would be 2.6 kiolwatts, or 3.2 kilo-seahorse. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Perkins 3.9 L. Diesel. >What actually is a "Milner Conversion"? Just the engine ? 's a good way of breaking the transmission. Half-shafts, mostly. typical comments from the days when this was common: "Got this 4.3l perkins in the land rover, and it's great - I can go up <insert name of local hill> in 4th towing the trailer" followed after a bit by "me half-shaft's broke - bloody land rover keeps breaking" not surprising, if you transmit about twice the torque through it that it was designed for... SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that In Touch: Get in touch with yourself by touching yourself. If somebody is watching, stop touching yourself. from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton. >>> so if i were to have a 3.5 >>> horsepower dinghy, it would be 2.6 kiolwatts, or 3.2 kilo-seahorse. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > not surprising, if you transmit about twice the torque through it that it > was designed for... I must add at this point (in defence of perkins) that they make some excellent boat anchors and landfill materials ;-) Badger. >I must add at this point (in defence of perkins) that they make some >excellent boat anchors and landfill materials ;-) >Badger. Actually, they make good truck or tractor engines. 's just that for example the 4203 or 4236 are not good land rover engines. I once heard of a rangie with a 6354 in it. Ludicrous. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "If you cannot mould yourself as you would wish, how can you expect other people to be entirely to your liking?" Thomas À Kempis (1380 - 1471) Imitation of Christ, I.xvi. >>I must add at this point (in defence of perkins) that they make some >>excellent boat anchors and landfill materials ;-) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I once heard of a rangie with a 6354 in it. Ludicrous. I drove a rangie with a 4236turbo once, it was appalling. Way too nose heavy, no top end whatsoever and rough and noisy. It would, however, pull whatever you wanted it to, at speeds of up to 50mph, halfshafts permitting. Also drove a landy 109 with a 4203, absolutely pathetic, no power no speed and a lot of hassle! Landy 109 with a 4182turbo wasn't too bad a match though, with rangie diffs and 235 tyres. Badger. > >I must add at this point (in defence of perkins) that they make some > >excellent boat anchors and landfill materials ;-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I once heard of a rangie with a 6354 in it. Ludicrous. Would it be wise to start another thread on this ? Kind regards, Erik-Jan. >> >I must add at this point (in defence of perkins) that they make some >> >excellent boat anchors and landfill materials ;-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Would it be wise to start another thread on this ? why? SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Once, when the secrets of science were the jealously guarded property of a small priesthood, the common man had no hope of mastering their arcane complexities. Years of study in musty classrooms were prerequisite to obtaining even a dim, incoherent knowledge of science. Today, all that has changed: a dim, incoherent knowledge of science is available to anyone. - Tom Weller, Science Made Stupid, 1986 > >Would it be wise to start another thread on this ? > > why? User friendly-ness? Erik-Jan. > >Erik-Jan. > >P.S. a friemd of mine just bought a Milner converted LR 109 with a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > not surprising, if you transmit about twice the torque through it that it > was designed for... It gives less power than a V8 with the same driveline so why would it break down with the Perkins and not with a V8? And back to the original question, is a Milner conversion only the engine or more? btw, we are talking a british licensend car here....KEF XXX ???? A red County 4 door saloon shipped to the Netherlands. Familiar to anyone ???? White (tropic) roof, 109, 11 seats. Built around 1982. Kind regards, E.J. >>> Erik-Jan. >>> P.S. a friemd of mine just bought a Milner converted LR 109 with a [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Kind regards, > E.J. A V8 wouild have come with full time 4WD for a start, which will distribute the torque to four wheels all the time, and have the required 3rd diff. I'm not familiar with this conversion, but does that come with the uprated transmission that a V8 does? Karen Signature"I'd far rather be happy than right any day." - Slartibartfast > > It gives less power than a V8 with the same driveline so why would it > > break down with the Perkins and not with a V8? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > A V8 wouild have come with full time 4WD for a start, which will distribute > the torque to four wheels all the time, and have the required 3rd diff. Didn't know fill-time 4WD was only featured in the V8. > I'm not familiar with this conversion, but does that come with the uprated > transmission that a V8 does? Don't know. Looks like the transmission and engine are swapped. The transmission has a knob under the right seat for lo/hi range and Neutral. (Why Neutral ???) then there is another knob in the center of the car on top of the box. It can be pulled forewards. Do not know what its use is. Might be en air locker for the center diff ??? Do not know otherwise how to shift from 2wd to 4wd if it is possible at all. Kind regards, Erik-Jan. >>> It gives less power than a V8 with the same driveline so why would >>> it break down with the Perkins and not with a V8? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The transmission has a knob under the right seat for lo/hi range and > Neutral. (Why Neutral ???) PTO? > then there is another knob in the center of the car on top of the box. > It can be pulled forewards. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Kind regards, > Erik-Jan. Signature"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it." If at first you don't succeed, maybe skydiving's not for you! > PTO? No ! Neutral on transmission will do. Kind regards, E.J. >>PTO? > > No ! > Neutral on transmission will do. No it won't. SignatureEMB > >>PTO? > > > > No ! > > Neutral on transmission will do. > > No it won't. Sorry, you are both right. Kind regards, Erik-Jan. > > > It gives less power than a V8 with the same driveline so why would it > > > break down with the Perkins and not with a V8? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The transmission has a knob under the right seat for lo/hi range and > Neutral. (Why Neutral ???) That's right for a Stage 1 V8. This has a neutral to allow changing from high to low or vice-versa on the move (slowly!) by double de-clutching. > then there is another knob in the center of the car on top of the box. > It can be pulled forewards. Thats the vacuum centre diff lock "lever". > Do not know what its use is. Might be en air locker for the center diff > ??? > Do not know otherwise how to shift from 2wd to 4wd if it is possible at > all. It's in permanent 4WD - with a centre diff lock that should not be used on tarmac - i.e. the same as a Range Rover. The chances of the centre diff vacuum actuator actually working, unless it's been changed recently, is tending towards zero! > Kind regards, > Erik-Jan. Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!! Boycott the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay >>>> Hi All, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > 746 actually > JD Ah, so my approximation is better than I thought. Signature"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it." If at first you don't succeed, maybe skydiving's not for you! >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Ah, so my approximation is better than I thought. 750 (3/4) is good for ballpark conversions, as dividing by 3 and multiplying by 4 (or tother way about) is not hard to do as mental arithmetic. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "If you cannot mould yourself as you would wish, how can you expect other people to be entirely to your liking?" Thomas À Kempis (1380 - 1471) Imitation of Christ, I.xvi. >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > multiplying by 4 (or tother way about) is not hard to do as mental > arithmetic. Multiply by 7 and divide by 4 gets you the VAT! Signature"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it." If at first you don't succeed, maybe skydiving's not for you! >> 750 (3/4) is good for ballpark conversions, as dividing by 3 and >> multiplying by 4 (or tother way about) is not hard to do as mental >> arithmetic. > >Multiply by 7 and divide by 4 gets you the VAT! You need a new accountant... SignatureTim Hobbs '58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig" '03 Volvo V70 >>> 750 (3/4) is good for ballpark conversions, as dividing by 3 and >>> multiplying by 4 (or tother way about) is not hard to do as mental [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You need a new accountant... No really OK 10x but what's a decimal point twixt one and ones tax assessor? Signature"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it." If at first you don't succeed, maybe skydiving's not for you! > >>> 750 (3/4) is good for ballpark conversions, as dividing by 3 and > >>> multiplying by 4 (or tother way about) is not hard to do as mental [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No really OK 10x but what's a decimal point twixt one and ones tax assessor? Divide the gross figure by 1.175 will get you the VAT content. Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!! Boycott the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay >>>>> 750 (3/4) is good for ballpark conversions, as dividing by 3 and >>>>> multiplying by 4 (or tother way about) is not hard to do as mental [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Richard The plan was for to do it in yer head!!! My 7 times table and 4 & 2 times tables is a tad better than my 1.175 times table. I can manage to calculate the VAT due without recourse to a calculator or computer, although I will occasionally use a bit of pencil and paper when the numbers get long. Looking at your seuggestion there Richard and I beg to differ, with that you get the VAT free amount, not the VAT, If I'm doing that sum in my head I subtract 15% which I can usually figure without recourse to mechanical addidtance. That is not exact but you'll be hard pushed to find the error. Signature"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it." If at first you don't succeed, maybe skydiving's not for you! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.