B
Badger
Guest
"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Sat, 2 Jul 2005 08:03:21 +0000 (UTC), beamendsltd
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>In message <[email protected]>
>> Tim Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> >With regard to the TD5, it's in house but rumour has it that Ford
>>> >diesels will be used in the Defender as TD5 won't meet emmission regs.
>>> >i assume it will be one of the Transit Engines.
>>> >
>>> >Sean
>>> >73FL74 101GS
>>> >1984 110 2.5D
>>> >Medway Military Vehicle Group
>>> >www.mmvg.net
>>>
>>> Nothing else would make any sense. They aren't likely to buy in an
>>> engine from elsewhere and it would be a brave man who suggested
>>> developing a brand new unit bespoke for the Defender!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It would also be a brave man who didn't realise that a lot of
>>Defender owners (the ones that use them as Our Lord Wilkes intended)
>>are not impressed with the Td5's lack of low speed torque.
>>The 200/300Tdi's are sorely missed.
>
> Since I can't believe that they can't tune the thing for low-speed torque
> if
> they want to, is this driven by the emissions legislation?
>
> I note that the military carried on having 300 TDis after the introduction
> of the TD5, but I think that was due to the battlefield
> reliability/serviceability thing. Also, a mechanical pump TDi might be
> the
> only thing that'd survive (apart fomr a basic carb petrol engine) an EMP.
Main reason was the military's insistance on a single-battlefoeld-fuel
policy, i.e. it had to run on F34 Avtur, and the TD5 couldn't run on it, it
knackered the pumps. Hence the continued use of the TDi.
Badger.