Isuzu diesel

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

Huw

Guest
Am now considering fitting a 2.8 direct injection Isuzu to my 110. I know
that these were probably the best engines Isuzu ever made but are they a
good conversion for an early 110?


 
On or around Tue, 3 Oct 2006 21:10:40 +0100, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>Am now considering fitting a 2.8 direct injection Isuzu to my 110. I know
>that these were probably the best engines Isuzu ever made but are they a
>good conversion for an early 110?
>

Santana used 'em or a later one for some time in the PS10. Still do for all
I know, although Iveco have moved on tot a new 3 litre.

Should be about the same power as the TDi and maybe a bit more torque. It'll
discover the weaknesses in yer gearbox, if any, but apart from that, I
rekcon it's more or less ideal.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
George Orwell (1903 - 1950) Animal Farm
 
On or around Tue, 3 Oct 2006 21:10:40 +0100, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>Am now considering fitting a 2.8 direct injection Isuzu to my 110. I know
>that these were probably the best engines Isuzu ever made but are they a
>good conversion for an early 110?
>

Bugger. Isuzu, not Iveco. silly cnut. (me, that is).

same applies though. good sound engine.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
George Orwell (1903 - 1950) Animal Farm
 
Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Tue, 3 Oct 2006 21:10:40 +0100, "Huw"
> <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> Am now considering fitting a 2.8 direct injection Isuzu to my 110. I
>> know that these were probably the best engines Isuzu ever made but
>> are they a good conversion for an early 110?
>>
>
> Bugger. Isuzu, not Iveco. silly cnut. (me, that is).
>

I have wondered for a while. Now you confirm it LOL.

Anyhow, purely from memory I think the Isuzu is only about 85hp which should
be fine. I won't hold my breath while waiting for the gearbox to go as if I
had done that when I first had a clunk I would have had 18 years without
breathing. About 10 seconds is enough.
There is something in the back of my mind that tells me that the Isuzu
doesn't rev very high. If it doesn't then the old 110 will hardly move.

Huw


 
Huw wrote:
> Am now considering fitting a 2.8 direct injection Isuzu to my 110. I know
> that these were probably the best engines Isuzu ever made but are they a
> good conversion for an early 110?

The NA one is 84BHP@3400RPM and the turbo one is 110@3600 according to
my book. They're not really my favourite engines from a reliability
point of view though.

For similar power and a higher usable rev range it might be worth a look
at the Toyota 2.8 (3L) or the later 3.0 (just swap the electronic
injector pump for the mechanical one off a 2.8) as they are
88BHP@4400RPM or thereabouts for the 2.8NA.

I'm currently playing with fitting a Toyota 3.0 turbo (1KZTE) into a
Disco which should go quite well as it's 130BHP@3600RPM and will happily
rev to almost 5000RPM.



--
EMB
 

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Am now considering fitting a 2.8 direct injection Isuzu to my 110. I know
> that these were probably the best engines Isuzu ever made but are they a
> good conversion for an early 110?
>
>
The Australian Army went for the 2.8 in their 4x4 Landies and the
3.9 in the 6x6s. Do a weblookup on Perentie Landrovers.

There are bell housings available to fit up the RR gearboxes to the
Isuzu engines.




 
Roger wrote:

>
> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Am now considering fitting a 2.8 direct injection Isuzu to my 110. I know
>> that these were probably the best engines Isuzu ever made but are they a
>> good conversion for an early 110?
>>
>>
> The Australian Army went for the 2.8 in their 4x4 Landies and the
> 3.9 in the 6x6s. Do a weblookup on Perentie Landrovers.
>
> There are bell housings available to fit up the RR gearboxes to the
> Isuzu engines.

No. Rover Australia fitted the 3.9 Isuzu not the 2.8 in all the Australian
Army Landrovers - NA (4BD1)in the 4x4 and Turbo (4BD1T) in the 6x6. The
4BD1 was also an option on civilian Landrovers in Australia from the stage
1 until the Defender replaced the 110, and the 4BD1T was the only engine
offered on the civilian 6x6 110. The 2.5 NA and Turbo and the 2.5 petrol
were never sold in Australia - choice was V8 or Isuzu.
The army 110s are progressively being remanufactured to new condition, with
major upgrades including rear discs, but retaining the same engines.
JD
(1986 110 County 3.9 diesel)
As well as being the heaviest engine ever fitted to a Landrover, they are
considered to be the best, although since they are a proper truck engine
they give a new meaning to rough and noisy.
 
Here in South Africa the SerIIIS was fitted with an ADE 3.9 4 cylinder
engine. I think the ADE (atlantis diesel engines) was a perkins made under
licence. A friend of mine bought his from a trucking co that used one as a
service vehicle and had done 800 000km without major engine work when he got
it.

This was a very agricultural engine which probably red lined at around 2k.
Well not sure about that, but I know the diff ratios are significantly
different form the SerIIIS R6 which I had (fitted with the 2.6 OHC petrol
rover motor - also a South African only edition.)

The up side was that they last forever and are still sought after in the
second hand market. The SerS units diesel and petrol were fitted with a
Sanatana box which I know is significantly stronger than the standard LR
series unit. I assume this was required for the diesel models.

I think the gearbox depends a lot on your driving style and as some people
seem to have their boxes last forever with big engines and other last only a
short while with lesser engines.

Regards
Stephen

"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Roger wrote:
>
>>
>> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Am now considering fitting a 2.8 direct injection Isuzu to my 110. I
>>> know
>>> that these were probably the best engines Isuzu ever made but are they a
>>> good conversion for an early 110?
>>>
>>>
>> The Australian Army went for the 2.8 in their 4x4 Landies and the
>> 3.9 in the 6x6s. Do a weblookup on Perentie Landrovers.
>>
>> There are bell housings available to fit up the RR gearboxes to the
>> Isuzu engines.
>
> No. Rover Australia fitted the 3.9 Isuzu not the 2.8 in all the Australian
> Army Landrovers - NA (4BD1)in the 4x4 and Turbo (4BD1T) in the 6x6. The
> 4BD1 was also an option on civilian Landrovers in Australia from the stage
> 1 until the Defender replaced the 110, and the 4BD1T was the only engine
> offered on the civilian 6x6 110. The 2.5 NA and Turbo and the 2.5 petrol
> were never sold in Australia - choice was V8 or Isuzu.
> The army 110s are progressively being remanufactured to new condition,
> with
> major upgrades including rear discs, but retaining the same engines.
> JD
> (1986 110 County 3.9 diesel)
> As well as being the heaviest engine ever fitted to a Landrover, they are
> considered to be the best, although since they are a proper truck engine
> they give a new meaning to rough and noisy.


 
Huw wrote:

> I have wondered for a while. Now you confirm it LOL.
>
> Anyhow, purely from memory I think the Isuzu is only about 85hp which should
> be fine. I won't hold my breath while waiting for the gearbox to go as if I
> had done that when I first had a clunk I would have had 18 years without
> breathing. About 10 seconds is enough.
> There is something in the back of my mind that tells me that the Isuzu
> doesn't rev very high. If it doesn't then the old 110 will hardly move.
>

I have the 3.1TDI Bighorn (1993)- revs to at least 4k, all the power
is at 2-2.5k - excellent for towing the 2T trailer around. I'd love
this engine in a 110, which would be my dream vehicle. No electronics
or gizmos. I think they are known to be reliable and should run round
the clock at least twice with basic maintenance.


--
Regards, Danny

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

 
Danny wrote:
> Huw wrote:
>
>> I have wondered for a while. Now you confirm it LOL.
>>
>> Anyhow, purely from memory I think the Isuzu is only about 85hp
>> which should be fine. I won't hold my breath while waiting for the
>> gearbox to go as if I had done that when I first had a clunk I
>> would have had 18 years without breathing. About 10 seconds is
>> enough. There is something in the back of my mind that tells me that the
>> Isuzu doesn't rev very high. If it doesn't then the old 110 will
>> hardly move.
>
> I have the 3.1TDI Bighorn (1993)- revs to at least 4k, all the power
> is at 2-2.5k - excellent for towing the 2T trailer around. I'd love
> this engine in a 110, which would be my dream vehicle. No
> electronics or gizmos. I think they are known to be reliable and
> should run round the clock at least twice with basic maintenance.

I had one, ace indeed - alas my head gasket went!!! A bit thirsty too.

--
Ta!

Nige

Subaru WRX (54)
Land Rover Turbo Diesel 110 (G)
KTM 520 SX (2001)
Kawasaki ZZR 1100 (1995)


 
Nige wrote:

> I had one, ace indeed - alas my head gasket went!!! A bit thirsty too.
>

I couldn't find another 110 to replace my '84 V8 County, which I sadly
miss. 18mpg towing 2 tons and 25+ not towing is better than the V8,
which is why I'd love an older 110 with the 3.1 Isuzu. I got a
Bighorn (1993) in superb condition with 43k miles and evidence of
regular servicing for less than I could have got a decent 110, and I
desperately needed a good tow vehicle after a bad experience with a
Jeep Cherokee 4L that was a good car but useless for towing heavy
loads. I like the simplicity of the diesel engine with no electrickery.


--
Regards, Danny

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

 
Danny wrote:
> Nige wrote:
>
>> I had one, ace indeed - alas my head gasket went!!! A bit thirsty
>> too.
>
> I couldn't find another 110 to replace my '84 V8 County, which I
> sadly miss. 18mpg towing 2 tons and 25+ not towing is better than
> the V8, which is why I'd love an older 110 with the 3.1 Isuzu. I
> got a Bighorn (1993) in superb condition with 43k miles and
> evidence of regular servicing for less than I could have got a
> decent 110, and I desperately needed a good tow vehicle after a bad
> experience with a Jeep Cherokee 4L that was a good car but useless
> for towing heavy loads. I like the simplicity of the diesel engine
> with no electrickery.

Hey i loved my Isuzu, it was pretty quick too!

--
Ta!

Nige

Subaru WRX (54)
Land Rover Turbo Diesel 110 (G)
KTM 520 SX (2001)
Kawasaki ZZR 1100 (1995)


 
Nige wrote:
> Danny wrote:

>> I have the 3.1TDI Bighorn (1993)- revs to at least 4k, all the power
>> is at 2-2.5k - excellent for towing the 2T trailer around. I'd love
>> this engine in a 110, which would be my dream vehicle. No
>> electronics or gizmos. I think they are known to be reliable and
>> should run round the clock at least twice with basic maintenance.
>
> I had one, ace indeed - alas my head gasket went!!! A bit thirsty too.

That's not unusual on the 3.1 - compared to the earlier 2.8 it's a dog
of an engine. Between blowing head gaskets and wearing out rings/bores
far too often it's not something I'd own (but was always good to see on
our client list cos they are a guaranteed source of income for a mechanic).


--
EMB
 
EMB wrote:
> Nige wrote:
>> Danny wrote:
>
>>> I have the 3.1TDI Bighorn (1993)- revs to at least 4k, all the
>>> power is at 2-2.5k - excellent for towing the 2T trailer around. I'd love this engine in a 110, which
>>> would be my dream vehicle. No electronics or gizmos. I think they are known to be reliable
>>> and should run round the clock at least twice with basic
>>> maintenance.
>>
>> I had one, ace indeed - alas my head gasket went!!! A bit thirsty
>> too.
>
> That's not unusual on the 3.1 - compared to the earlier 2.8 it's a
> dog of an engine. Between blowing head gaskets and wearing out
> rings/bores far too often it's not something I'd own (but was
> always good to see on our client list cos they are a guaranteed
> source of income for a mechanic).

Hang on, mine was a 91 & it might have been a 3.2 anyway!!!

--
Ta!

Nige

Subaru WRX (54)
Land Rover Turbo Diesel 110 (G)
KTM 520 SX (2001)
Kawasaki ZZR 1100 (1995)


 
Nige wrote:
> EMB wrote:
>> Nige wrote:
>>> Danny wrote:
>>>> I have the 3.1TDI Bighorn (1993)- revs to at least 4k, all the
>>>> power is at 2-2.5k - excellent for towing the 2T trailer around. I'd love this engine in a 110, which
>>>> would be my dream vehicle. No electronics or gizmos. I think they are known to be reliable
>>>> and should run round the clock at least twice with basic
>>>> maintenance.
>>> I had one, ace indeed - alas my head gasket went!!! A bit thirsty
>>> too.
>> That's not unusual on the 3.1 - compared to the earlier 2.8 it's a
>> dog of an engine. Between blowing head gaskets and wearing out
>> rings/bores far too often it's not something I'd own (but was
>> always good to see on our client list cos they are a guaranteed
>> source of income for a mechanic).
>
> Hang on, mine was a 91 & it might have been a 3.2 anyway!!!

Don't get me wrong - when they're running ok they go bloody well, it's
just that they don't seem to do so for overly long. And yours could
possibly have been the 2.8 at that age.


--
EMB
 
EMB wrote:
> Nige wrote:
>> EMB wrote:
>>> Nige wrote:
>>>> Danny wrote:
>>>>> I have the 3.1TDI Bighorn (1993)- revs to at least 4k, all the
>>>>> power is at 2-2.5k - excellent for towing the 2T trailer around.
>>>>> I'd love this engine in a 110, which would be my dream vehicle.
>>>>> No electronics or gizmos. I think they are known to be reliable and
>>>>> should run round the clock at least twice with basic
>>>>> maintenance.
>>>> I had one, ace indeed - alas my head gasket went!!! A bit thirsty
>>>> too.
>>> That's not unusual on the 3.1 - compared to the earlier 2.8 it's a
>>> dog of an engine. Between blowing head gaskets and wearing out
>>> rings/bores far too often it's not something I'd own (but was
>>> always good to see on our client list cos they are a guaranteed
>>> source of income for a mechanic).
>>
>> Hang on, mine was a 91 & it might have been a 3.2 anyway!!!
>
> Don't get me wrong - when they're running ok they go bloody well, it's
> just that they don't seem to do so for overly long. And yours could
> possibly have been the 2.8 at that age.

I have had a J registration, which makes it one of the very first into the
UK, 3.1 Citation Trooper in the family from new. The engine and most
mechanical items have been fine but the electrical bits have been a pain in
the arse. However, this 113hp indirect injection engine is not the one I
have in mind to fit but the slightly earlier direct injection 2.8.
I know of one still going strong at over 250,000 miles. The trooper I have
bought today for £300 has been idle with a flat tyre for a couple of years
but we went to see the moss covered mess behind an old caravan and the owner
decided to give the starter a go. He had to untie a few old gates which
formed part of the barrier supplemented by the trooper and he said he had
not tried it in two years. Hells bells! It had juice in the battery and it
cranked over and spluttered a couple of times before settling down to run as
sweet as a nut with hardly any smoke of any kind.
It has a faulty stop solonoid but other than that it is great as far as I
can see. Another £300 for a kit and maybe £500 for labour and bits and bobs
plus some 500 to get it through the MOT will see another year or three for
£2k.

I may regret it yet.

Huw


 
EMB wrote:


> Don't get me wrong - when they're running ok they go bloody well, it's
> just that they don't seem to do so for overly long. And yours could
> possibly have been the 2.8 at that age.
>
>

I thought the 3.1 was an enlarged 2.8 - similar heritage etc. I've
heard of 2.4 Toyotas and head problems, but I've never heard that of
the 3.1 Isuzu, although the many reliability reports I read (that
dammed the 3.0 Isuzu) never mentioned anything about the 3.1? Over in
ITOC (where they understandably love the Trooper as much as Landrovers
are loved here) there are many reported 3.1's with global mileages.
Turbos seem the main failure point, if any.


--
Regards, Danny

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

 
On or around Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:04:22 +0100, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>I have had a J registration, which makes it one of the very first into the
>UK, 3.1 Citation Trooper in the family from new. The engine and most
>mechanical items have been fine but the electrical bits have been a pain in
>the arse. However, this 113hp indirect injection engine is not the one I
>have in mind to fit but the slightly earlier direct injection 2.8.
>I know of one still going strong at over 250,000 miles. The trooper I have
>bought today for £300 has been idle with a flat tyre for a couple of years
>but we went to see the moss covered mess behind an old caravan and the owner
>decided to give the starter a go. He had to untie a few old gates which
>formed part of the barrier supplemented by the trooper and he said he had
>not tried it in two years. Hells bells! It had juice in the battery and it
>cranked over and spluttered a couple of times before settling down to run as
>sweet as a nut with hardly any smoke of any kind.
>It has a faulty stop solonoid but other than that it is great as far as I
>can see. Another £300 for a kit and maybe £500 for labour and bits and bobs
>plus some 500 to get it through the MOT will see another year or three for
>£2k.

It's amazing how some Di engines will do that. I did some work on a bloke's
2.8 once, not engine, fettling the brakes. That had about 250,000 on the
clock and ran beautifully.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink;
Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by;
Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710)
 
Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:04:22 +0100, "Huw"
> <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> I have had a J registration, which makes it one of the very first
>> into the UK, 3.1 Citation Trooper in the family from new. The engine
>> and most mechanical items have been fine but the electrical bits
>> have been a pain in the arse. However, this 113hp indirect injection
>> engine is not the one I have in mind to fit but the slightly earlier
>> direct injection 2.8.
>> I know of one still going strong at over 250,000 miles. The trooper
>> I have bought today for £300 has been idle with a flat tyre for a
>> couple of years but we went to see the moss covered mess behind an
>> old caravan and the owner decided to give the starter a go. He had
>> to untie a few old gates which formed part of the barrier
>> supplemented by the trooper and he said he had not tried it in two
>> years. Hells bells! It had juice in the battery and it cranked over
>> and spluttered a couple of times before settling down to run as
>> sweet as a nut with hardly any smoke of any kind.
>> It has a faulty stop solonoid but other than that it is great as far
>> as I can see. Another £300 for a kit and maybe £500 for labour and
>> bits and bobs plus some 500 to get it through the MOT will see
>> another year or three for £2k.
>
> It's amazing how some Di engines will do that. I did some work on a
> bloke's
> 2.8 once, not engine, fettling the brakes. That had about 250,000 on
> the clock and ran beautifully.

The one I have bought has around 160,000 miles on it. If it lasts another
five years and 30,000 miles I will be a happy bunny.


Huw
Huw


 
Huw wrote:
>
> The one I have bought has around 160,000 miles on it. If it lasts another
> five years and 30,000 miles I will be a happy bunny.

It should well do - that's about 250,000km and the last dead Isuzu 2.8 I
saw had done around 450,000km before it went bang.


--
EMB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
110 with Izizu 2.8 - Converting Back to 200tdi - What Mods?
Replies
11
Views
1K
SimonBrown
S
Trench Rat
Petrol or diesel?
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
300bhp/ton
300bhp/ton
the_wolf
Scunnered with the brakes
Replies
5
Views
581
tottot
tottot
vizsla
Diesel heater
Replies
2
Views
1K
Rougharse Racing
Rougharse Racing
J
Drive Before I Decide?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
5K
lightning
lightning
Back
Top