iceberg diesel

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
This is probably a completely dippy idea but has anyone any views on
recreating the iceberg diesel out of a rover v8. Even if its to say to
forget it I would appreciate any comments.

Smokeyone

 
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:23:15 +0100, MVP <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net>
wrote:

>On 28 Mar 2005 00:56:43 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>This is probably a completely dippy idea but has anyone any views on
>>recreating the iceberg diesel out of a rover v8. Even if its to say to
>>forget it I would appreciate any comments.
>>
>>Smokeyone

>
>Would the block take such an increase in internal pressure?
>may be interesting as an academic excercise I suppose.


The iceberg block had steel wishbones cast into it I think. Also IIRC
it was an indirect injection engine, the trend has been to direct
injection with smaller capacities and turbos to get the power.

AJH


 
Smokeyone Hi,

I do not think it is worth the trouble.
If you want V8 diesel power the GMC engine is readily available and quite
cheap.

Take care
Pantelis

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is probably a completely dippy idea but has anyone any views on
> recreating the iceberg diesel out of a rover v8. Even if its to say to
> forget it I would appreciate any comments.
>
> Smokeyone
>



 
Thank you all for the replies. Does'nt the GM v8 weight a lot. Also I
did wonder about the rover v8 taking around 18 to 1 compression - I was
actually thinking along the lines of the 4.6 block - non turbo. I did
not realise the rover engineers had steel cast into the block for their
project.

Smokeyone

 
Smokeyone Hi again,

The GMC V8 weight 350 kilos which is almost the same as the Tdi and about 50
kilos more than a V8.
And it is FAR mor powerful and torquey as an engine.

Take care
Pantelis

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thank you all for the replies. Does'nt the GM v8 weight a lot. Also I
> did wonder about the rover v8 taking around 18 to 1 compression - I was
> actually thinking along the lines of the 4.6 block - non turbo. I did
> not realise the rover engineers had steel cast into the block for their
> project.
>
> Smokeyone
>



 

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thank you all for the replies. Does'nt the GM v8 weight a lot. Also I
> did wonder about the rover v8 taking around 18 to 1 compression - I was
> actually thinking along the lines of the 4.6 block - non turbo. I did
> not realise the rover engineers had steel cast into the block for their
> project.
>
> Smokeyone


Yes, the GM block is too heavy really for a landy, it totally screws up the
front/rear weight bias and tends to tear front spring mounts from the
chassis rails!!
The 3.5 rover block (assuming it is a late "stiff-block") is theoretically
the stronger of the production std blocks, due to having more metal around
the liners. This is bourne out by the fact that 3.5 blocks do not suffer
from liner shift or cracking, unlike std 3.9 and above.
In theory, you could fit special diesel pistons with an extra oil ring at
the bottom of the skirt, "o"ring the head gaskets to cope with the extra
compression and run it as a Direct Injection at roughly 18:1cr, fitting
modern 2-stage injectors via the plug holes. The smoother initial burn
characteristics of the 2 stage injectors would relieve a lot of the stress
and strain that I believe plagued the iceberg engines during development.
Hell, you could go the whole hog and have a common-rail DI system - 8 TD6
injectors and its engine-driven HP diesel pump, running via 2 modified TD4
or BMW 2.0td ecu's, each ecu running 4 cylinders, and a couple of 200TDI
turbos hanging off the sides! Now that could be an interesting project......
Over to you, Austin!
Badger.


 
I started drooling already.
Badger you really do know how to make people dive into deep water !!!!!

What is the weight of a V8 3.5 or 3.9 with its ancillaries? My carriers
charge me for around 300 to 350 kilos for such an engine on a pallette but I
do take your opinion much more seriously than that of my carriers since I am
sure that the add a few cement bags on their scale......

Take care
Pantelis

"Badger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Thank you all for the replies. Does'nt the GM v8 weight a lot. Also I
> > did wonder about the rover v8 taking around 18 to 1 compression - I was
> > actually thinking along the lines of the 4.6 block - non turbo. I did
> > not realise the rover engineers had steel cast into the block for their
> > project.
> >
> > Smokeyone

>
> Yes, the GM block is too heavy really for a landy, it totally screws up

the
> front/rear weight bias and tends to tear front spring mounts from the
> chassis rails!!
> The 3.5 rover block (assuming it is a late "stiff-block") is theoretically
> the stronger of the production std blocks, due to having more metal around
> the liners. This is bourne out by the fact that 3.5 blocks do not suffer
> from liner shift or cracking, unlike std 3.9 and above.
> In theory, you could fit special diesel pistons with an extra oil ring at
> the bottom of the skirt, "o"ring the head gaskets to cope with the extra
> compression and run it as a Direct Injection at roughly 18:1cr, fitting
> modern 2-stage injectors via the plug holes. The smoother initial burn
> characteristics of the 2 stage injectors would relieve a lot of the stress
> and strain that I believe plagued the iceberg engines during development.
> Hell, you could go the whole hog and have a common-rail DI system - 8 TD6
> injectors and its engine-driven HP diesel pump, running via 2 modified TD4
> or BMW 2.0td ecu's, each ecu running 4 cylinders, and a couple of 200TDI
> turbos hanging off the sides! Now that could be an interesting

project......
> Over to you, Austin!
> Badger.
>
>



 
Pantelis Giamarellos wrote:
> Smokeyone Hi again,
>
> The GMC V8 weight 350 kilos which is almost the same as the Tdi and about 50
> kilos more than a V8.
> And it is FAR mor powerful and torquey as an engine.


AIUI the Rover V8 is about 100kg lighter than the GM PETROL V8 which
itself is significantly lighter than their diesel offering. IME the GM
V8 diesels seem to weigh up at about 380kg dry and ready for install.


--
EMB
 
On 28 Mar 2005 06:00:38 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>Thank you all for the replies. Does'nt the GM v8 weight a lot.


It's not the weight that's likely to be the problem, more the power
characteristics.

The older 6.2 :-
120 kW @ 3800 rpm
400 Nm @ 1800 rpm
300Kg


6.5 :-
127 kW @ 3500 rpm interpolated from graph
414 Nm @ 2000 rpm ditto

td5 defender spec :-
90 kW @ 4200 rpm
300 Nm @ 1950 rpm

So even with all that extra power and torque how are you going to get
that to the wheels and maintain a decent cruising speed?

Up the diff ratios and the gearbox takes all the strain, similar with
the transfer ratios. Bear in mind one of the reasons for moving to
constant 4wd was to share the load on the half shafts.

Put a planet and annular gear between the engine and the box like the
mv types do when changing a B80 for a diesel and how do you
accommodate the extra length?

AJH



>Also I
>did wonder about the rover v8 taking around 18 to 1 compression - I was
>actually thinking along the lines of the 4.6 block - non turbo. I did
>not realise the rover engineers had steel cast into the block for their
>project.
>
>Smokeyone


 

"Pantelis Giamarellos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I started drooling already.
> Badger you really do know how to make people dive into deep water !!!!!


Sorry! Teeheehee.
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have a petrol derived v8 in my landy any day,
but also owning a bmw 330dSE sport (Same basic core engine as TD6, 185bhp
and 288 lbf.ft) has awakened me to just how powerful and clean modern
diesels really are.

>
> What is the weight of a V8 3.5 or 3.9 with its ancillaries? My carriers
> charge me for around 300 to 350 kilos for such an engine on a pallette but
> I
> do take your opinion much more seriously than that of my carriers since I
> am
> sure that the add a few cement bags on their scale......
>
> Take care
> Pantelis


I *think* it's about 220kg, but that's a figure I've heard from others,
never actually weighed one myself.
Badger.


 
Could someone explain about the AJH comment of putting a planet and
annual gear between engine and gearbox like the mv types do.

Thanks
Smokeyone

 
On or around 28 Mar 2005 21:41:03 -0800, [email protected]
enlightened us thusly:

>Could someone explain about the AJH comment of putting a planet and
>annual gear between engine and gearbox like the mv types do.


I think he's talking about an epicyclic gear set. This could be used to
gear up (or down) the output of the engine and or gearbox, main point would
be that if you fit a lower-speed engine, you could regain your road speed.


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic
face by frightening people in the street.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:31:25 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On or around 28 Mar 2005 21:41:03 -0800, [email protected]
>enlightened us thusly:
>
>>Could someone explain about the AJH comment of putting a planet and
>>annual gear between engine and gearbox like the mv types do.

>
>I think he's talking about an epicyclic gear set. This could be used to
>gear up (or down) the output of the engine and or gearbox, main point would
>be that if you fit a lower-speed engine, you could regain your road speed.


It's not epicyclic as this involves 3 gears and a possible change in
direction of rotation. It's an annular gear driven straight off the
engine, inside this is a gear with less teeth which driven the
gearbox.

The output is thus slightly offset. In the case of something like a
stalwart running a b81 engine at 4000rpm on petrol at 3mpg it makes
sense to pop in the multifuel engine which peaks at 2700rpm and runs
on red diesel or discarded petrol diesel mixes from AA/RAC.

I've got one used to step up tractor pto speeds, it's stripped down so
the internals are obvious.

AJH
 
On or around Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:35:25 +0100, [email protected]
enlightened us thusly:

>On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:31:25 +0100, Austin Shackles
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On or around 28 Mar 2005 21:41:03 -0800, [email protected]
>>enlightened us thusly:
>>
>>>Could someone explain about the AJH comment of putting a planet and
>>>annual gear between engine and gearbox like the mv types do.

>>
>>I think he's talking about an epicyclic gear set. This could be used to
>>gear up (or down) the output of the engine and or gearbox, main point would
>>be that if you fit a lower-speed engine, you could regain your road speed.

>
>It's not epicyclic as this involves 3 gears and a possible change in
>direction of rotation. It's an annular gear driven straight off the
>engine, inside this is a gear with less teeth which driven the
>gearbox.


OK, I see.


The Sierra 4x4 uses an epicyclic gear as a 2/3:1/3 torque-biasing diff.
This, I reckoned, is clever. Once you know that an epicyclic gear will work
as a diff, it's obvious how; but I'd never have thought of it meself.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then
something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination -
we learned to talk." Pink Floyd (1994)
 
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:48:06 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The Sierra 4x4 uses an epicyclic gear as a 2/3:1/3 torque-biasing diff.


I didn't know that. Makes sense though, it means the diff gears are
constantly rotating in relation to each other but imagine that's no
big deal.

>This, I reckoned, is clever. Once you know that an epicyclic gear will work
>as a diff, it's obvious how; but I'd never have thought of it meself.


Nor me, I can often see how things work but lack the imagination to
think them up myself.

If you want to get your head around a real chinese puzzle have a look
at the geartrain in one of the hybrids, in essence it's like your for
torque biasing epicyclic but they get it to work as a cvt by applying
load, via an alternator, to one of the outputs. This load then splits
the output from the engine between itself and the wheels via the
torque multiplication effect. The (far lesser) power from the
alternator then either being stored to battery or applied to the
wheels itself in some way that is not apparent to me.

Bank holiday has messed me up, had the old argument with the MOT
station about class 4 MOT and dual purpose, weighbridge didn't open
til 9:30 and now first booking I can get is Friday :-(. I normally
test the 1 month in advance but have been working away.

Incidentally the LR110 with twin 35ltr volume (total 55ltr capacity)
lpg tanks and no spare came in at 1860kg even with some tools and
spare battery.

 
Badger thanks.

I will be driving a TDV6 Discovery during the weekend as a guest of the
second presentation of the new vehicle (being the founder of the LR club of
Greece does have its rewards....)

Having heard one operating on the road I can only say that it is amazingly
quiet.

more impression on Monday.

But you are right a nicely tuned and well serviced and maintained LR V8
engine is a joy to use and hear (not to feed with petrol though)

Take care
Pantelis


"Badger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Pantelis Giamarellos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >I started drooling already.
> > Badger you really do know how to make people dive into deep water !!!!!

>
> Sorry! Teeheehee.
> Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have a petrol derived v8 in my landy any

day,
> but also owning a bmw 330dSE sport (Same basic core engine as TD6, 185bhp
> and 288 lbf.ft) has awakened me to just how powerful and clean modern
> diesels really are.
>
> >
> > What is the weight of a V8 3.5 or 3.9 with its ancillaries? My carriers
> > charge me for around 300 to 350 kilos for such an engine on a pallette

but
> > I
> > do take your opinion much more seriously than that of my carriers since

I
> > am
> > sure that the add a few cement bags on their scale......
> >
> > Take care
> > Pantelis

>
> I *think* it's about 220kg, but that's a figure I've heard from others,
> never actually weighed one myself.
> Badger.
>
>



 
Back
Top