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

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

ktm525

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Posts
2,588
Reaction score
1,259
Location
alberta
LR4 is fast for a body on frame SUV with as much off road ability that it does. The passing times 30-60 MPH are 2-3 seconds faster which in everyday driving situations is huge. This is why LR replaced the 4.4L in the 2010 as most reviews pegged it as underpowered and sluggish. Now if you are not in a rush and don't tow much then the 4.4 is fine. If you want to drive in everyday traffic through the mountains etc then the 5.0L is much more liveable, especially when loaded. With the LR3 the transmission is constantly downshifting a cog or two to keep up the "speed of traffic" 75-80 MPH) while the LR4 mostly stays in top gear. The 5.0 in my 2010 gets about 1-2 MPG more than the 4.4 in my 2006 probably due to the fact of the foot being less buried in it all the time.

Heck even Consumer Reports thought the LR3 was slow lol

Capture8.PNG
 

Houm_WA

Full Access Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Posts
3,936
Reaction score
255
The LR3 is slow...no argument.
...so is the LR4. The caveats don't work for me. Meaning "fast for a ...." is a self-nullifying statement.
 

gypsy

Active Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Posts
33
Reaction score
10
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.
 

ktm525

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Posts
2,588
Reaction score
1,259
Location
alberta
Really? More info on this LS swap please sounds intriguing when the 4.4 in my 06 finally needs a refresh.
 

Taemian

Active Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Posts
31
Reaction score
10
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'm not sure I've seen a complete swap kit like this, either. Links?
I bolted in a Terminator Cobra motor into my Marauder, so I know a bit about swaps, but it used all factory parts, some only modified very gently. Does that apply with the LS swap?
 

Taemian

Active Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Posts
31
Reaction score
10
https://roverswap.com/ is a dead link.

And just swapping a motor so a car will run is no biggie. Getting ALL the features/wiring/electronics to mate is the tough part. Does the LS piggyback computers, I can't imagine a harness swap going smoothly regardless. Tuning on EFILive I imagine.
 

jwest

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Posts
2,041
Reaction score
409
Location
Seattle WA
"lr3 is slow"? Then how'd I get a ticket rolling 83 not paying attention while on a call ?

LR3 is "fast" when compared to a Disco II and it seemed sporty compared to my D1 so....

Swapping another lr engine into an lr3 is also dumb. All that work to end up with a boring result. Put a freaking Cummins in there or just buy a different vehicle.

This thread about lr3 vs lr4 'speed' though is dumb.
 

Houm_WA

Full Access Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Posts
3,936
Reaction score
255
I think that's my point, too, jwest....it's all nonsense. They are both slow...and one being "fast for a heavy SUV" is a pointless qualification like "it's pretty fast for how slow it is."

All dumb. They are both solid 4x4s. Done and done.
 

jwest

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Posts
2,041
Reaction score
409
Location
Seattle WA
A G63 is a "fast" body on frame suv, and some others are. The lr4 is about as much quicker as the D2 was over the D1 but not as much quicker than the lr3 as the lr3 is over the DII.

I drive a lot, and I like to go fast, and also pass but I've realized that if I need my BMW to make a pass, then maybe I'm trying to do something that is really not all that safe in the first place if an lr4 is somehow what I need to do it vs the lr3....

I actually wanted an lr4 pretty badly about 2 yrs ago then all of a sudden got over it. My lr3 rolls 100 mph no problem. My bmw feels smooth at 155. I'll probably take the lr3 to 200,000 miles instead though.
 

ktm525

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Posts
2,588
Reaction score
1,259
Location
alberta
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.
 

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
36,222
Posts
217,567
Members
30,473
Latest member
OnoA
Top