Freelander sport 05 18"alloys

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
N

Nathparn

New Member
Posts
3
Location
Derbyshire
Hi all this is proberly a well repeated question but ! I have 2005 freelander sport on 18" alloys .i want to put on some 16" freelander wheels and some event ml tyres will they go straight on without me having to adjusting anything thanks in advance .or will steels fit aswell ive not got them yet
 
Yes. See this. https://www.landyzone.co.uk/land-rover/wheel-identification-library.309915/

Be aware that a pre 2006 sport has lowered suspension. This can limit tyre size, unless you raise the suspension to suit the wheels.
17" rims are my preferred size. The 16s are stodgy on the road by comparison to 18s. 17s give good compromise of road manors while having the ability to get good AT tyres. Event tyres in my opinion aren't good on the road.
 
Last edited:
Nodge68 said:
Yes. See this. https://www.landyzone.co.uk/land-rover/wheel-identification-library.309915/

Be aware that a pre 2006 sport has lowered suspension. This can limit tyre size, unless you raise the suspension to suit the wheels.
17" rims are my preferred size. The 16s are stodgy on the road by comparison to 18s. 17s give good road manors while having the ability to get good AT tyres. Event tyres in my opinion aren't good on the road.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that .do you know the maximum size of tire on a 16 rim by any chance or can advise a better make tyre for both on an off that will fit without me make ajustments
 
Nathparn said:
Thats brilliant thanks for that im going to check the 18s out now .i didnt realise anything ATwas available for mine .
Click to expand...
More 18, 19 and 20" AT tyres are becoming available all the time. 18" isn't large by today's standards. If there is a market. Manufacturers will make them. Yokohama Geolander AT-S are good all round tyres. They are my preferred choice due to good AT ability and wet weather grip.
 
+1 for the Geolander AT-S. Fitted last week, and performed faultlessly on Salisbury Plain yesterday :D

I have 16" wheels - standard 215/65R16 size. Main limiting factor is certainly ground clearance. I would certainly buy bigger rubber next time, and - depending on experience - consider a 20-40mm lift
 
rob_bell said:
+1 for the Geolander AT-S. Fitted last week, and performed faultlessly on Salisbury Plain yesterday :D

I have 16" wheels - standard 215/65R16 size. Main limiting factor is certainly ground clearance. I would certainly buy bigger rubber next time, and - depending on experience - consider a 20-40mm lift
Click to expand...
A lift is probably a no-down side improvement - but bigger rubber will put more stress on that 1.8 K Series without low-range.
 
The final drive ratio of the K series is very low. Actual torque available at the hubs in 1st is little different to the higher geared L series.
 
That's certainly so Nodge. It's possible to start from second gear. I guess a slightly taller tyre wouldn't harm too much, particularly if you'd undertaken some torque enhancing modifications!

To me, this Freelander feels from the seat of the pants to have a different torque and power curve to the same engine from an MGF. I shall have to look, but there is only one curve published in the Powertrain catalogue for the 118bhp engine.
 
rob_bell said:
That's certainly so Nodge. It's possible to start from second gear. I guess a slightly taller tyre wouldn't harm too much, particularly if you'd undertaken some torque enhancing modifications!

To me, this Freelander feels from the seat of the pants to have a different torque and power curve to the same engine from an MGF. I shall have to look, but there is only one curve published in the Powertrain catalogue for the 118bhp engine.
Click to expand...

The Freelander ECU is, I believe, running on a different map to the MGR standard map.
The cam timings and lift are all the same. However the Freelander's 118Ftlb of torque is available at 2500 Rpm. Other MGR engines push the max torque Rpm range, to over 4,000 Rpm. The actual numbers are the same. It's only the point in the rev range where peak torque arrives that is different. I've checked the cam timings between the engine's and all applications appear to be the same. So it can only be a mapping change that alters the output characteristics.
The Freelander k also runs out of puff higher up the rev range, where the MGR k is still pulling hard. This initially convinced me there was a cam timing difference. But subsequent investigation discounted that as a cause for the different characteristics.
 
Last edited:
Nodge68 said:
The Freelander ECU is, I believe, running on a different map to the MGR standard map.
The cam timings and lift are all the same. However the Freelander's 118Ftlb of torque is available at 2500 Rpm. Other MGR engines push the max torque Rpm range, to over 4,000 Rpm. The actual numbers are the same. It's only the point in the rev range where peak torque arrives that is different. I've checked the cam timings between the engine's and all applications appear to be the same. So it can only be a mapping change that alters the output characteristics.
The Freelander k also runs out of puff higher up the rev range, where the MGR k is still pulling hard. This initially convinced me there was a cam timing difference. But subsequent investigation discounted that as a cause for the different characteristics.
Click to expand...
That's precisely my feel of the performance too. This iteration of the K simply doesn't breath well beyond 3k rpm, where on my MGs (and Rovers previously) keep going to around 5,500 rpm before the power starts to fall off.

The lower peak torque suits the car well. It may well be enhanced with a decent 3-2-1 manifold too... :)
 
rob_bell said:
That's precisely my feel of the performance too. This iteration of the K simply doesn't breath well beyond 3k rpm, where on my MGs (and Rovers previously) keep going to around 5,500 rpm before the power starts to fall off.

The lower peak torque suits the car well. It may well be enhanced with a decent 3-2-1 manifold too... :)
Click to expand...

The FL K definitely has very different power delivery characteristics. It's almost as though the engine has been designed to provide lots of low to mid Rpm torque, but little up top. The power is all gone by 4K Rpm. However low rev torque is fine, especially in the lower gears.
 
Nodge68 said:
The FL K definitely has very different power delivery characteristics. It's almost as though the engine has been designed to provide lots of low to mid Rpm torque, but little up top. The power is all gone by 4K Rpm. However low rev torque is fine, especially in the lower gears.
Click to expand...

It would seem that way. Max torque is listed as 121 lb ft at 2750 RPM. That would put it in the mid throttle cruising class rather than the sports car class. The EU3 it is designed to meet probably is the reason for that. :)
 
Is it worth starting a thread with the definitive guide to the maximal tyre sizes that can be fitted to the standard rims (15"-18") without modification (spacers or lift kits)?

It seems to be a common question, and I know I didn't really feel that I found a clear answer when searching for this information previously (I plumbed for standard, insurance-friendly size, but in retrospect, a few more mm clearance might have saved my undertray last weekend! LOL)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Freelander Wheels
Replies
6
Views
1K
Stance
Stance
E
New wheels
Replies
2
Views
866
steve24v
steve24v
P
Freelander 2 (LR2) Evoque 18" on my 2009 FL2
Replies
3
Views
511
Diesel Do
Diesel Do
F
£300 Freelander project! ... my first ever Land Rover
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
pwood999
pwood999
300bhp/ton
Freelander vs Range Rover off road flex test....
Replies
16
Views
2K
GrumpyGel
GrumpyGel
Back
Top