Other engines for landrover

J

JD

Guest

• May 23, 2005

• #21

Samuel wrote:

>>
>> Don't even think about mating the 3.9 Isuzu to a Rover gearbox - its not
> all
>> that high on power, but that low down torque from four cylinders is
>> guaranteed to wreck the box. Also a minor problem of maximum rpm being
>> about 25% lower.
>> JD
>
> Yeah,that was my suspicion. apparently the low-down torque of the 3.9 even
> wrecks some of the 110 g'boxes. as much as i love big, chunky diesels, i
> reckon a small 6 cylinder would be a lotbetter.
>
> are you in oz JD? do you know anything about putting the 5 speed nissan
> box into a rover, wether or not you keep the rover transfer box??
>
> Sam.

Yeah, central west NSW. Don't know anything about Nissan's I'm afraid.
Haven't had anything to do with them for over thirty years, so I can't help
you.
You are right about the Isuzu engine though - when I got my 110 I was
recommended to avoid the five speed boxes as they are marginal with the
Isuzu engine. My 110 is now approaching 400,000km with the engine still
going strong.
JD

 

B

Badger

Guest

• May 23, 2005

• #22

"Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:27:50 +0000 (UTC), "Badger"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Smurf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> eerrrrrrr spell checker strikes again .... that should have been SD1
>>> not SAD
>>
>>I built a 109 trialler with a 2.6 SD1 engine once, nice engine with plenty
>>of torque low down. (i also used the SD1's autobox, mating it to a
>>modified
>>series transfer box!) Not a lot of clearance between the front pulley and
>>radiator crossmember though, so replace cam belt before installing
>>engine!!
>>Badger.
>
> I have considered a 2.6 IOE, as I have one fitted to a SIII, however,
> given the reliablilty of this engine, and the fuel consumption I got
> from it, I have discounted this as an option. It simply won't stand up
> to the kind of hard work the truck will get once finished. The IOE
> engine is an old design, being longstroke, and simply doesn't stand up
> to the kind of use it got, even in my SIII.
>
> The 3.0 IOE engine is a possiblity, but I still wouldn't be happy at
> the long-term reliabilty of the engine.
>
> Alex

I used the OHC engine from the SD1 simply because I had it kicking around,
no other factor came into it!
Badger.

 

S

Samuel

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #23

lucky bugger. i ****-fart around in the series 3, then get to thrash around
in mums beautiful 1997 hyundai excel. motoring at it's finest i tell you.
after the landy, that thing feels like a formula 1.

Sam.

>
> List price is a tad shy of $80,000 but with a bit of arm twisting you'll
> own one for a bit under $75K - so about 30,000 pounds. But the one
> outside is the wife's company car - so I get to have fun without
> herniating the chequebook.
>
> --
> EMB

 

S

Samuel

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #24

>
> I have considered a 2.6 IOE, as I have one fitted to a SIII, however,
> given the reliablilty of this engine, and the fuel consumption I got
> from it, I have discounted this as an option. It simply won't stand up
> to the kind of hard work the truck will get once finished. The IOE
> engine is an old design, being longstroke, and simply doesn't stand up
> to the kind of use it got, even in my SIII.
>
> The 3.0 IOE engine is a possiblity, but I still wouldn't be happy at
> the long-term reliabilty of the engine.
>
> Alex

My previous car was (still is, haven't got rid of the bugger yet) a conked
out diesel landcruiser, that had quite a smoking problem. big plumes if you
give it a little with the right foot. Little did i know i was upgrading to a
car that didn't smoke, but had a terrible drinking problem. haven't done any
proper tests yet, but she seems to chew through about 20 litres per hundred.
Not my idea of efficient. i suppose the 3.0 would only be worse.

Sam.

 

E

EMB

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #25

Samuel wrote:
> lucky bugger. i ****-fart around in the series 3, then get to thrash around
> in mums beautiful 1997 hyundai excel. motoring at it's finest i tell you.
> after the landy, that thing feels like a formula 1.

My daily driver is a 2.4 diesel Hilux - my 3.3 Holden powered Series 2a
seems like a rocket in comparison! Still, the Monaro is nice to play in
- especially as it's the version badged as a GTO by the good people at
HSV, so it's got the 300kW engine and better yet it's a manual.

http://www.hsv.com.au/cars/vz/main.asp?link=main/gto.html

--
EMB

 

S

Samuel

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #26

"EMB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Samuel wrote:
> > lucky bugger. i ****-fart around in the series 3, then get to thrash
around
> > in mums beautiful 1997 hyundai excel. motoring at it's finest i tell
you.
> > after the landy, that thing feels like a formula 1.
>
> My daily driver is a 2.4 diesel Hilux - my 3.3 Holden powered Series 2a
> seems like a rocket in comparison! Still, the Monaro is nice to play in
> - especially as it's the version badged as a GTO by the good people at
> HSV, so it's got the 300kW engine and better yet it's a manual.
>
> http://www.hsv.com.au/cars/vz/main.asp?link=main/gto.html
>
> --
> EMB

How did your missus manage that for a company car?? i thought company cars
were toyota camry's and other "sensible" cars.

Sam

 

E

EMB

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #27

Samuel wrote:

> How did your missus manage that for a company car?? i thought company cars
> were toyota camry's and other "sensible" cars.

She's senior enough to have been offered something high-end and European
(like a 7-series BMW). She was told she could have pretty much what she
wanted that could be leased for the same money (and I got to make the
decision) - it would have been one of Solihull's products except they
don't fit in the parking building at her work, so HSV it was.

However the lease is up before long so I'll have to come up with a
different idea - it's a bit hard on rear tyres for some reason . I
think the new parking at her work will fit a Defender (I wonder what the
company policy on off-road events is, and whether she can get one with a
winch).

--
EMB

 

J

JD

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #28

Samuel wrote:

>
>>
>> I have considered a 2.6 IOE, as I have one fitted to a SIII, however,
>> given the reliablilty of this engine, and the fuel consumption I got
>> from it, I have discounted this as an option. It simply won't stand up
>> to the kind of hard work the truck will get once finished. The IOE
>> engine is an old design, being longstroke, and simply doesn't stand up
>> to the kind of use it got, even in my SIII.
>>
>> The 3.0 IOE engine is a possiblity, but I still wouldn't be happy at
>> the long-term reliabilty of the engine.
>>
>> Alex
>
> My previous car was (still is, haven't got rid of the bugger yet) a conked
> out diesel landcruiser, that had quite a smoking problem. big plumes if
> you give it a little with the right foot. Little did i know i was
> upgrading to a car that didn't smoke, but had a terrible drinking problem.
> haven't done any proper tests yet, but she seems to chew through about 20
> litres per hundred. Not my idea of efficient. i suppose the 3.0 would only
> be worse.
>
> Sam.

The 3.0 may actually use less - I think it is higher compression.
JD

 

P

Pantelis Giamarellos

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #29

Discovery LR3 is supposed to have been lowered in height compared to the
previous models so that it can fit in parking buildings when the suspension
is at its lowest setting.

Maybe it would be worth checking it?????

Take care
Pantelis


"EMB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Samuel wrote:
>
> > How did your missus manage that for a company car?? i thought company
cars
> > were toyota camry's and other "sensible" cars.
>
> She's senior enough to have been offered something high-end and European
> (like a 7-series BMW). She was told she could have pretty much what she
> wanted that could be leased for the same money (and I got to make the
> decision) - it would have been one of Solihull's products except they
> don't fit in the parking building at her work, so HSV it was.
>
> However the lease is up before long so I'll have to come up with a
> different idea - it's a bit hard on rear tyres for some reason . I
> think the new parking at her work will fit a Defender (I wonder what the
> company policy on off-road events is, and whether she can get one with a
> winch).
>
> --
> EMB

 

S

Samuel

Guest

• May 25, 2005

• #30

"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Samuel wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> I have considered a 2.6 IOE, as I have one fitted to a SIII, however,
> >> given the reliablilty of this engine, and the fuel consumption I got
> >> from it, I have discounted this as an option. It simply won't stand up
> >> to the kind of hard work the truck will get once finished. The IOE
> >> engine is an old design, being longstroke, and simply doesn't stand up
> >> to the kind of use it got, even in my SIII.
> >>
> >> The 3.0 IOE engine is a possiblity, but I still wouldn't be happy at
> >> the long-term reliabilty of the engine.
> >>
> >> Alex
> >
> > My previous car was (still is, haven't got rid of the bugger yet) a
conked
> > out diesel landcruiser, that had quite a smoking problem. big plumes if
> > you give it a little with the right foot. Little did i know i was
> > upgrading to a car that didn't smoke, but had a terrible drinking
problem.
> > haven't done any proper tests yet, but she seems to chew through about
20
> > litres per hundred. Not my idea of efficient. i suppose the 3.0 would
only
> > be worse.
> >
> > Sam.
>
> The 3.0 may actually use less - I think it is higher compression.
> JD

Yeah, sounds feasible. mind you, wouldn't be hard to up the compression from
the piddly 7.0 to 1 that my old 2.6 beast has. (may be the 7.8 to 1 version,
i dunno).

on that point, would it have any big effect if i were to shave a couple of
thou off my 2.6 head. anyone out there done this?? maybe get the comp up to
8.5 or something. the motor has only done about 60,000 ks so it's not as
though i'm flogging a dead horse, just trying to liberate a couple more
horses from the old donk, and possibly not have to feed it as much (petrol
that is, not hay).

Sam.

 

S

Samuel

Guest

• May 25, 2005

• #31

>
> Yeah, central west NSW. Don't know anything about Nissan's I'm afraid.
> Haven't had anything to do with them for over thirty years, so I can't
help
> you.
> You are right about the Isuzu engine though - when I got my 110 I was
> recommended to avoid the five speed boxes as they are marginal with the
> Isuzu engine. My 110 is now approaching 400,000km with the engine still
> going strong.
> JD

so i take it you have the 3.9 isuzu and a 4 speed 'box is that right?? what
is it like in top gear? would barely get over 90k/hr wouldn't it??

Sam.

 

J

JD

Guest

• May 25, 2005

• #32

Samuel wrote:

>>
>> Yeah, central west NSW. Don't know anything about Nissan's I'm afraid.
>> Haven't had anything to do with them for over thirty years, so I can't
> help
>> you.
>> You are right about the Isuzu engine though - when I got my 110 I was
>> recommended to avoid the five speed boxes as they are marginal with the
>> Isuzu engine. My 110 is now approaching 400,000km with the engine still
>> going strong.
>> JD
>
> so i take it you have the 3.9 isuzu and a 4 speed 'box is that right??
> what is it like in top gear? would barely get over 90k/hr wouldn't it??
>
> Sam.

Top speed is above 120kph. This installation has a high range ratio of about
0.9:1 in the LT95 to match the maximum rpm of 3200.
(The engine has had injectors overhauled and a new thermostat - the gearbox
has been overhauled)
JD

 

J

JD

Guest

• May 25, 2005

• #33

Samuel wrote:

>
> "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Samuel wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I have considered a 2.6 IOE, as I have one fitted to a SIII, however,
>> >> given the reliablilty of this engine, and the fuel consumption I got
>> >> from it, I have discounted this as an option. It simply won't stand up
>> >> to the kind of hard work the truck will get once finished. The IOE
>> >> engine is an old design, being longstroke, and simply doesn't stand up
>> >> to the kind of use it got, even in my SIII.
>> >>
>> >> The 3.0 IOE engine is a possiblity, but I still wouldn't be happy at
>> >> the long-term reliabilty of the engine.
>> >>
>> >> Alex
>> >
>> > My previous car was (still is, haven't got rid of the bugger yet) a
> conked
>> > out diesel landcruiser, that had quite a smoking problem. big plumes if
>> > you give it a little with the right foot. Little did i know i was
>> > upgrading to a car that didn't smoke, but had a terrible drinking
> problem.
>> > haven't done any proper tests yet, but she seems to chew through about
> 20
>> > litres per hundred. Not my idea of efficient. i suppose the 3.0 would
> only
>> > be worse.
>> >
>> > Sam.
>>
>> The 3.0 may actually use less - I think it is higher compression.
>> JD
>
> Yeah, sounds feasible. mind you, wouldn't be hard to up the compression
> from the piddly 7.0 to 1 that my old 2.6 beast has. (may be the 7.8 to 1
> version, i dunno).
>
> on that point, would it have any big effect if i were to shave a couple of
> thou off my 2.6 head. anyone out there done this?? maybe get the comp up
> to 8.5 or something. the motor has only done about 60,000 ks so it's not
> as though i'm flogging a dead horse, just trying to liberate a couple more
> horses from the old donk, and possibly not have to feed it as much (petrol
> that is, not hay).
>
> Sam.
I don't think it is feasible to shave the head at all on that engine, and if
it is, it will not affect the compression ratio since the combustion
chamber is formed by the shape of the piston head and the exhaust valve
pocket in the block - the face of the head is flat. Differences in
compression ratio are given by different pistons.
JD