AJH wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:07:29 +1100, JD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Alex wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:56:26 +0000, AJH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>It was useless from the start, a petrol engine cobbled up with a
>>>>distributor pump to allow farmers to use a common fuel. Even then it
>>>>had the worst specific fuel consumption for any diesel of the period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It wasn't. It was provided as 2litre (2052cc) diesel first, along with
>>> the existing 2litre IOE petrol. It was then enlarged to 2286cc and
>>> provided as either petrol or diesel.
>
> That's news to me, I thought the 2286 engine first appeared in 58, I
> had one in 644 FAR, about 69. The diesel didn't appear till 61. I was
> unaware of an earlier diesel.
The 2286 petrol engine appeared in 1958, but the diesel in 2.0 litre form
over a year earlier, to be replaced by the 2286 diesel in 1961. The two
diesel engines are essentially identical except that the 2.0 has wet
sleeves with an increased bore for the 2286. Both the diesel and petrol
engines were probably running in prototypes as early as 1955, and the basic
design work presumably dates from the very early fifties.
>
>>> Commonality of parts between the
>>> two engines meant that landrover could save on costs, as the bulk of
>>> the engine parts are the same.
>
> Yes this is a good point, they tried the same with the B40 and Champ.
>>>
>>> The differences are the head, camshaft and pistons/con rods, and what
>>> you fitted to the camshaft - dizzy or injector pump.
>
> Yes but it was still an awful diesel.
Perhaps not brilliant, but there were practically no other comparable
diesels from the fifties at all. The Mercedes is the only one that comes to
mind. Other similar capacity engines were much heavier and lower power.
>
>>Yes, the engine was originally designed as a diesel - the petrol engine is
>>the conversion (which is why the petrol engine is so resistant to abuse).
>>And you have to remember that diesels this small were very scarce in the
>>fifties, even the late fifties (which is why Rover designed their own).
>
> Again I didn't know this, have you a reference? I used to have a book
> on engines (by LJK Setright I think) and it had comparison charts in
> the back, I distinctly remember the Rover's poor performance.
Refs. For example: The Landrover Story, James Taylor 1996 ISBN 1 85520 3391
p.69 describes how the Landrover wheelbase was increased by two inches in
early 1956 to accommodate the new engine, which was introduced fairly late
in 1957 in the 2 litre wet sleeve diesel version. The petrol version did
not appear until 1958 and the 2.25 diesel until 1961.
Another reference is: The Landrover, Graham Robson 1976, ISBN 0 7153 7203 3
p.38 describes the introduction of the 2 litre diesel in June 1957 and the
introduction of the 2.25 petrol engine in 1958 is described on the
following page.
>
>>But the power available was inadequate for many markets right from the
>>start -
>
> Agreed there then!
>
> AJH
