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

Discussion in 'LR3' started by discodanny, Feb 2, 2019.

  1. discodanny

    discodanny New Member

    Posts:
    4
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    My 2005 v8 is getting old and I'm thinking of replacing the 4.4 L engine to LR4 v8 engine.
    is it possible? does anyone did it in the past?
    Danny
     
  2. Houm_WA

    Houm_WA Full Access Member

    Posts:
    3,587
    Likes Received:
    142
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    ...a better question is "why?" By all accounts the 4.4 is a better engine.
     
    jwest, Taemian and scott schmerge like this.
  3. ktm525

    ktm525 Full Access Member

    Posts:
    763
    Likes Received:
    265
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Location:
    alberta
    Power.

    Better to sell your LR3 and buy a LR4 if that is what you truly desire.
     
    Taemian likes this.
  4. Houm_WA

    Houm_WA Full Access Member

    Posts:
    3,587
    Likes Received:
    142
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Power? That 75HP is meaningless on the trails....and on the roads, well, the LR3/4 is just not fast regardless. I'll take the -75HP to avoid the crappy timing chain guides and crossover pipe, any day.
     
    Taemian likes this.
  5. ktm525

    ktm525 Full Access Member

    Posts:
    763
    Likes Received:
    265
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Location:
    alberta

    LR3 is slow, LR4 is not. A vehicle that does 0-60 in 6.4 is not a slug. There was a reason why :Land Rover replaced the 4.4 with 5.0. I own one of each and the 5.0L helps with everyday life like high speed merging or overtaking in the mountains at altitude or when towing. The 4.4 is quieter and smoother.


    Both are good rigs but like they say, size (displacement) matters.

    Here is my 06 and my 10

    IMG_2127.JPG DSCN5295.JPG Capture10.PNG
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2019
  6. Houm_WA

    Houm_WA Full Access Member

    Posts:
    3,587
    Likes Received:
    142
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    They're both slow...
     
  7. ktm525

    ktm525 Full Access Member

    Posts:
    763
    Likes Received:
    265
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Location:
    alberta
    A 6.4 sec 0-60 is slow?
     
    Fields Carlisle likes this.
  8. Houm_WA

    Houm_WA Full Access Member

    Posts:
    3,587
    Likes Received:
    142
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Yes. My wife's Q50 does it in 5-flat or less....and that's not fast either.
     
  9. ktm525

    ktm525 Full Access Member

    Posts:
    763
    Likes Received:
    265
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Location:
    alberta
    Q50 is a car, the Land Rover is a 3 ton body on frame SUV. I prefer the LR3 looks and the cupholders up front but for anything mechanical performance wise LR4>LR3. Car and Driver summed it up nicely. Anyhow the cost to up engine a LR3 is probably a fools game. Better to sell it, buy a 2010-13 LR4, fix the timing guides if required as a DIY project and bask in the superior performance.


    https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a16578064/2010-land-rover-lr4-instrumented-test/
     
    Fields Carlisle likes this.
  10. Houm_WA

    Houm_WA Full Access Member

    Posts:
    3,587
    Likes Received:
    142
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    If you'd said that the LR4 is faster than the LR3 I would have simply agreed. You said one is slow and the other is not, which to me is just silly because neither are fast.

    I will take the slower of the slow vehicles and the engine that doesn't lose its timing chain and get destroyed.

    If we are gonna compare them, then, the LR3 looks more rugged outside. The inside is a wash. I love the doors on the LR4 but the dash material is sorta rubbery. I don't like all the plastic in the LR3 but that's why I have the wood trim add-on.
     
    jwest and Taemian like this.

Share This Page