"Rich" <r3engineering@ntlworldspam.com> wrote in message
news:90u3h.5185$hK2.2714@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> <sean101ryan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162766701.663180.158940@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> > Building a high speed tractor and want to go deaf?
> >
> > There are much better engines around to fit. These may have been ok in
> > old series land rovers when there wasn't much else around.

A good reliable engine in its time, always outlasted the ancilliaries, even
the oil pump, but slow revving, not as fast as the old 2286cc L/R engine it
was replacing but pulled better, OK with Range Rover diffs fitted but not
powerful enough for the Range Rover. 6.247 was powerful and smooth in the
Range Rover but very expensive for parts if you needed them. Can't beat the
V8 if it's waterproofed well but the Perkins 4/236 was unstoppable for off
road and towing, but again, slow but would stand more abuse than the 4/203.
Also very good was the Mazda 3.5 Turbo and those look suspiciously like a
Perkins 4/236. I'll stick with my old 200 Tdi though, it still seems to
outperform those old engines (except V8 of course) and 265K miles.

Martin

> >
> > Sean
> > 73FL74 101GS
> > 2000 110 CSW
>
> Pardon dint quite hear that, can you speak up a bit, ;-) But doesn't the
> growl of a big diesel send shivers down your spine !!!
>
> Rich
>
>

Oily wrote:

> Also very good was the Mazda 3.5 Turbo and those look suspiciously like a
> Perkins 4/236.

That's 'zactly what they are.


--
EMB

"EMB" <embtwo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eiluvf$8dt$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Oily wrote:
>
> > Also very good was the Mazda 3.5 Turbo and those look suspiciously like
a
> > Perkins 4/236.
>
> That's 'zactly what they are.
>
>
No wonder they look familiar, I've just given one away. I've also got a
good spare crank and mains shells for a 4/203 for disposal, I don't want to
scrap it.

Martin

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 21:14:02 GMT, "Rich" <r3engineering@ntlworldspam.com> said:

> I don't know if I should raise this question but here goes, would
> this engine be any use in a Classic Range Rover with overdrive or
> would the top speed be ridiculously slow, or what about a 6247 ? is
> there a weight issue

My previous postings:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...9d0647f56875c3
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...c5bc87247a09b8

And the rest of the threads as well (click on the
"alt.fan.landrover > Perkins diesel conversions in a 2A LWB" link)

The manual went some time ago, though.

--
Alan J. Wylie http://www.wylie.me.uk/
"Perfection [in design] is achieved not when there is nothing left to add,
but rather when there is nothing left to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Rich wrote:
> "steve Taylor" <steve@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:454e67f0$0$18050$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Rich wrote:
>>
>>> So you all are not impressed with these then, dont they have loads of
>>> grunt and reliability going for them though?
>> They´re considered heavyweights even for a 101. And what do you think you
>> mean by grunt ? Power, or Torque, or Power/weight ratio.
>>
>> Steve
>
> Well in terms of grunt I would mean pulling ability so it would be torque !
> surely power is not that much of an importance as the torque,

Well, as I see it, Power = Torque x speed - unless you have enough of it
from the engine, an awful lot of torque from the gearbox won't make you
go any faster.

Not trying to be awkward, I'm just trying to understand !

Like Austin says, there are better engines. I nearly fitted a Perkins
Phaser to my Ambi, but in the end rebuilt a 200 TDI instead.

Steve

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 08:47:11 +0000, steve <steve@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> said:

> Well, as I see it, Power = Torque x speed - unless you have enough
> of it from the engine, an awful lot of torque from the gearbox won't
> make you go any faster.

Remember that torque varies with engine revs. The 4203 had *loads* of
torque at idle, but rapidly ran out of revs.

--
Alan J. Wylie http://www.wylie.me.uk/
"Perfection [in design] is achieved not when there is nothing left to add,
but rather when there is nothing left to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Rich wrote:

> Well in terms of grunt I would mean pulling ability so it would be torque !
> surely power is not that much of an importance as the torque, I am aware
> that they go hand in hand, but is not the torque the important one in terms
> of being able to tow, say 2 plus tons on most road conditions, I am not
> after performance just to cruise at about 60 ish with a trailer but when it
> comes to a hill would prefer to not to change down several gears as I use to
> have to do in it when it had the 3.5 V8 and then crawl up it doing 30MPH
> !!!!

I used to tow my 2.3T catering trailer (very un-aerodynamic - 12x12x8
box) with the 3.5v8 110. It would do 50mph everywhere, 60 on the
flat, and 45 up fairly steep (motorway) hills. That was enough for
me. Since I have an Isuzu Trooper (Bighorn) now, I'd love it's 3.1
diesel engine in a 110...Pulls at 60mph just about everywhere, and I'm
told the earlier 2.8 was as good, or better, and the 3.0 worse, unless
you've had all the recalls done, in which case it's better. I really
would be looking at fitting one of these engines, and 3.1/2.8 engines
have been fitted to landrovers, so it's easily doable.


--
Regards, Danny

http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/EU ordering for Malabar Gold blend)

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:40:34 +1300, EMB <embtwo@gmail.com>
> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> Rich wrote:
>>> I don't know if I should raise this question but here goes, would
>>> this engine be any use in a Classic Range Rover with overdrive or
>>> would the top speed be ridiculously slow, or what about a 6247 ? is
>>> there a weight issue
>>
>> The 6.247 is also made under licence by Mazda as the ZB. In Mazda
>> guise it's rated for 115BHP@3600RPM. IMO it would be ok with an
>> overdrive in terms of speed but significantly underpowered for the
>> application.
>
> and I did hear once of someone putting a 6354 into a rangie, which
> has got to rate among the more off-the-wall conversions.
>
> daft idea. The 4203 is very suitable for a massey-ferguson tractor.

Well afaik MF stopped using it in the 165 around 1967, replacing it with the
212 and 236 with a higher powered 248 version later, around 1972 I think.
Bear in mind that these used a stressed block, which means the engine formed
part of a heavy duty chassis, which also means they are extremely heavy.
They also max out at 2000 rpm.



> The 4236 would be a bit better, but it's still very low-revving.
> Also it has a raft of torque at lowish revs and is good for snapping
> half-shafts on series motors, although the rangie should be a bit
> stronger.
>
> There are plenty of more suitable engines around.

And few less suitable.

Huw

"Rich" <r3engineering@ntlworldspam.com> wrote in message
news:uus3h.963$Xh3.142@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>I don't know if I should raise this question but here goes, would this
>engine be any use in a Classic Range Rover with overdrive or would the top
>speed be ridiculously slow, or what about a 6247 ? is there a weight issue
>
> Rich

Thanks all for your inputs to this and the suggestions, will look in to
other options.

Rich

A 6247 would have unbelievable torque but you might end up snapping half shafts in 2wd. permamnent 4wd layouts are better as the torque is (generally) spread between the 4 wheels. The main problem is weight of the engine - a 6247 would be very heavy, you may need v heavy duty springs at the front, and the fact that these engines don't rev very high, so you're limited by the speed, unless you have a 5 speed box, or overdrive and long geared drive train. Also I've never heard of an adapter plate for a 6247 - same as a 4236/4203?? Any clues?