Agreed so i think they would have had more input into the design, ie. They wouldn't let ford design it for LR then find they couldn't physically fit it in a transverse layout car.

Anyway back to the original post, this is a cut and paste from Wikipedia on the X5 (E53) engines.

3.0 L 225 hp I6
4.4 L 282 hp (2000–2003) 315 hp (2004–2006) V8
4.6 L 347 hp V8
4.8 L 355 hp V8
3.0 L 193/218 hp I6 Diesel

So it looks like at launch the RR and X5 had the same power outputs, but in 2004 BMW remapped the X5 to 315bhp. They also offered it with larger capacity engines, which i assume are larger versions of the M62 lump. It's possible BMW offered the improved MAP to LR but they declined it on the basis they were going to replace the engine with their own by that stage anyway. I would also have thought that had BMW retained Land-Rover after 2000 then the RR would have gained the larger capacity BMW power units as part of its development cycle.

Getting an engine to be mountable transversely and got a certain gearbox wasn't really much input considering that's the same unit they use in jags and in much greater numbers.

Yes ford have used that V6 in 2.7 and 3.0 form iirc but in more numbers than psa id bet. FFRR MY06 facelift With TDV8 Alloys Zeros/ATR's
Mantec Sump Guard, Rigid Load liner, MY10 BT upgrade.

Fuel line position, manifold shape, exhaust routing, wiring locations, engine mounting positions and the castings on the block to take them, which side does the starter motor go, even the overall profile of the engine..... There's quite a lot goes into mounting an engine in a different orientation. They would have had to have input in to all of that, pretty much the entire engine. It would have had to have been developed to suit both companies needs, unlike the V8 which was only going to be used by Ford/PAG and mounted longitudinally.

Its not mounted differently in the psa usage though...
it uses so much of the same parts that even the intank pump is the same...

the biggest change is the air system as jag and psa wanted a broader and higher torque band so used a twin/compound turbo charging method where as lr wanted something more sturdy unit that suited the needs they thought their customers wanted which is a shame as the twin turbo setup probably would have done great in the d3/ssrr bay with all that extra airflow around it. FFRR MY06 facelift With TDV8 Alloys Zeros/ATR's
Mantec Sump Guard, Rigid Load liner, MY10 BT upgrade.

did you check the engine codes to see if they match?

It says both of them run the M62 TUB44 (VANOS equipeed version) engine.

Interesting point about the later-life remap though, I guess that solves my question!

Now, I wonder if, in a few years, I could swap my 4.4 block for a bored and stroked 380bhp 5 litre block?

The BMW rr engine does not have the dodgy butterfly valves in the inlet tract that the BMW diesels do. I also understand there are extra baffles etc to help oil pickup at off road angles an rr can get to. The blocks could be the same though ? 2011 Range Rover Vogue SE 4.4 TDV8

Previous cars :
2003 Range Rover Vogue TD6
1999 Discovery Td5 ES
1995 BMW M5 3.8 6 speed
1992 Range Rover 3.9 Efi Vogue
1992 BMW M5 3.8
1988 BMW 735i SE
1989 Ford Sierra XR4x4 2.9i
1981 Ford Fiesta Supersport

Quote:

The BMW rr engine does not have the dodgy butterfly valves in the inlet tract that the BMW diesels do.