Bigj66
-
Posts
3,373 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
26
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by Bigj66
-
-
Anyway.... I’m also interested in having soft and compliant suspension on the rear of mine especially as it will be a truck cab and not tow or carry any significant weight. With having the heavier 6 cylinder engine up front will that over stress 2 leaf parabolics and should I look at using 3 leaf springs instead? Really don’t want to make the front too harsh a ride either though.
Thinking of going the Heystee route.
-
11 hours ago, secondjeremy said:
What i do know is that the later 5 bearing engines have a different pitch circle to the 3 bearing ones - sorry to be vague but I can't remember which is bigger.
The 3 bearing engine seems to have 8 bolts - I think the 5 is the same on a different circle.
Cheers. If someone is able to measure the diameter of a 2.25 flywheel and the PCD of the bolts that would be really helpful.
-
Do my eyes deceive me or are the 2.25 petrol and diesel flywheels 8 bolt patterns? Anyone have one in their shed they can check for me please and maybe take some measurements?
-
There’s a photo of an IOE flywheel housing on my 6 cylinder thread if it’s of any help. I’m led to believe they are all the same bolt pattern for the bell housing.
-
21 minutes ago, Gazzar said:
The only concern is have about using adaptors to pick up on existing mounts is that the balance of the engine is now nose heavy. This may be totally irrelevant, especially with a gearbox and transfer box bolted to it.
That was my concern and I reckon there must be a limit for that very reason. Just not certain what that limit is.
-
This is a link to a 4-cylinder to V8 conversion kit on EBay. Looking at the engine mounting brackets I wondered if I could do the same with the 6 pot rather than move the chassis mounts forward?
Im assuming they bolt to the existing chassis mounts?
-
The guy I spoke to did mention the possibility of plugging the holes but I’ll leave it to them as I’m no expert on this subject.
I did think of a new flywheel but I reckon the cost of having one made would be pretty high. It will be around £200 for the mods alone.
The rear of the flywheel will also need to be opened out on the lathe as the boss of the crank (not to be confused with the Cranky Boss), fits into the recess and is centred in that way along with the two dowels.
The bolts themselves just serve to hold the two together rather than act as ‘weight bearing’ in their own right.
Trial fit of the LR flywheel housing and starter on the 3.0 block.
-
Valid points chaps. I’ve just quite literally come back from the engineering company who will do the work for me. They do development work for F1 companies so the standards are quite high.
I need to obtain some accurate dimensions of the crank boss but in essence yes they can do the work for me 😀. That means I should be able to use the standard 6cyl LR bell housing and clutch.
As for the engine mounts needing to be moved forward about 4” on the chassis, could I instead extend the engine block mounts rearward and keep the existing 4 pot chassis mounts?
-
Well I haven’t given up on this just yet having messaged Jeremy and Michele (thanks guys) read through some interesting posts and done a bit more research.
Whichever way I go I will need to modify one or two parts to get the gearbox and engine mated. Having looked at a number of options, each with their own pros and cons, I think I will try the modified flywheel route as this seems to be the least invasive and will retain a greater number of standard components.
Here is the standard 2.6 flywheel with the 6 bolt crank pattern.
Here is the spacer off the end of the 3.0 crank showing the 8 bolt hole configuration.
If I place the spacer over the flywheel you can see that it would be possible for a good engineering company to weld up the existing holes in the flywheel and redrill them to the 3.0 pattern along with the dowel holes.
If I can get this done then I can fit the 2.6 flywheel to the 3.0 crank and use standard LR parts to complete the process. I’m not a welder but I believe TIG rather than MIG welding would be more appropriate for this? At the same time I can get the face of the flywheel cleaned up with a skim on a lathe.
Can anyone see any issues with this plan?
-
I’ve just received confirmation that the 3.0 flywheel out of the manual is the same diameter as the auto and thus too big.
Bugger.
-
Small update. I have been sent a photo of the 3.0 flywheel from a Rover specialist and it has the correct 8 bolt pattern. I wasn’t sent the diameter so I can compare with the LR version so have asked for measurements.
Seems you can buy them in Sainsbury’s 😳
-
15 hours ago, steve b said:
A 2.6 flywheel could be made to fit by a good machine shop if all else fails to set things correct for the gearbox
cheers
Steve b
Weld up the existing bolt holes and redrill?
-
2 hours ago, steve b said:
Putting aside the flywheel issue does the 2.6 flywheel housing fit the back of the block? I'm sure this is possible , I recall several 3.0 IOE conversions back in the early 80's and I don't recall any conversion housings either .
cheers
Steve b
Yes, as far as I can see the housing bolt holes are all in the same position it’s just the housing itself which is slightly wider.
-
1 hour ago, Keeper96 said:
If you do end up having to use the larger flywheel and therefore housing, could a machinist not make an adapter? Should be fairly straight forward, a piece of plate cut into a ring shape with holes in the outside to match the engine and holes on the inside edge to match the gearbox?
It’s a possibility but I’m tight for space between the front pulley and the rad as it is so pushing the engine further forward may create additional problems. Best chance is the manual flywheel from the Rover is the same diameter as the LR one.
-
I think I may have met my match with this conversion. I know I’m going to have to use the flywheel off the Rover P5 manual car due to the crank bolt pattern however, the ring gear that was originally on the auto box engine I have is around 15mm larger in diameter than the LR 2.6 flywheel and thus has a larger housing for the ring gear to sit in.
If it ends up that the P5 flywheel is the same diameter as the auto ring gear and not the same as the smaller 2.6 then that would mean it would require the larger housing which my gearbox will not mate to.
I’ll need to check with a P5 specialist so fingers crossed.
-
Can anyone identify these parabolics from the photos?
-
6 pot it is then 👍
-
Cheers Jeremy, they are really helpful 👍. Can you get access to the exhaust valves ok in that space between the bulkhead and valve chest?
-
12 hours ago, Gazzar said:
I've a 2a 6 cylinder bulkhead in the container. I'll be using the dash panels to convert a TDI bulkhead to 2a style.
Happy to swap for a similar 4 cylinder 2a bulkhead. If it helps.
I think it needs foot well repairs, and can take some photos.
Mines a S3 so not much good to you but in any case I think I need to get my 6 pot engine bolted up to the gearbox and see how things look. First impressions are that the access to the valve chest is restricted (awkward) more by the height of the N/S wing than the width of the bulkhead but wings are easy enough to remove if needs be.
That said it’s a fair point about maintenance as I don’t want to design in issues for the future, quite the opposite in fact. I think it’s only when I have the engine sat in the bay and bolted up to the gearbox that I will really see what level of access I have to the main components. I could, retrospectively, modify the bulkhead if that was my only option to keep the engine. If I can’t then I either need to abandon the idea or fit a V8 and try to overcome the issues with noise. If I need to modify the bulkhead for the 6 pot though then I might as well look at the V8 option.
The 3.9 Serp in my RRC Softdash pulls like a train 👍 but the elektriktrikery puts me off.🤨
-
1 hour ago, lo-fi said:
I'm afraid it's not that simple... The passenger footwell is chopped considerably to clear the valve chest in the same fashion you would to a 4 pot to fit a V8, as well as having the extra tunnel clearance.
Ok, cheers. Thanks for the heads up on that. I need to get my tape measure out again then. That said I’m sure Jeremy said his bulkhead didn’t need to be modified in his SWB due to the gearbox remaining in its current position.
-
35 minutes ago, FridgeFreezer said:
A V8 can be as quiet or as loud as you like, most of the noise in a Land Rover is from the transmission (unless you fit a rorty exhaust). Our 127 ambulance has a V8 and the loudest thing in that is the overdrive, even with extra soundproofing. Mind you, it's a lot quieter on the motorway than a TDi even then.
If I recall correctly from days gone by, there’s really only room for one silencer on an 88 which limits the number and sizes of boxes that can be fitted without strangling the V8. I used to do Billing and back without any problems but I was 20 odd years younger then...
-
3 hours ago, lo-fi said:
You're going to have to chop the bulkhead to fit the 6 anyway, though... Unless you've got a 6 pot bulkhead already, which means fitting a V8 requires no cutting and drops straight in.
I don't think three hours in a series with any engine does anyone's eardrums any good
I don’t think you do need to chop the bulkhead to fit the 6 pot as the gearbox will remain in the same position unlike on the 109 where it sits further back and thus needs the additional room around the bellhousing.
On the 88 the engine will sit further forward than the 4 pot and its the clearance between the fan and radiator that is critical hence the need for an electric fan most likely. Worst case is trimming some material from the front panel to move the rad forward an inch or two.
-
This is the 2.6 flywheel sat on top of the 3.0 ring gear. Not a great photo but you can just see the difference in sizes with the 2.6 flywheel being 25mm smaller in diameter than the 3.0. The 2.6 also has a 6 bolt pattern compared to the 8 bolt of the Rover engine.
I have the flywheel housing from the 2.6 (thanks Soren) which is the same size as the 3.0 so that part should be fine. If by luck the 2.25 flywheel did work then that would be great as it would take care of the spigot, clutch and input shaft issues.
The 2.25 flywheel needs a diameter of 340mm if anyone is walking past one with a tape measure....
I did actually go outside the other day and pop the bonnet to see what it would take to drop a V8 in as an alternative. The thing is I have a Defender heater and an expensive acoustic kit fitted to the bulkhead which, if I was to widen for the V8, would mean affecting both of these in addition to cutting up the bulkhead itself.
I want to use the vehicle as a daily which is why I want the increased power to pull a higher gear range and this will include a fair bit of motorway driving. As great as the V8 sound is, I don’t thing 3 hrs of it travelling across the Pennines from Wales to Hull will do my aging eardrums or sanity any good. I’m hoping the 6 pot might be a compromise between the 4&8 in terms of noise and I’ll also be converting to a truck cab in the process which should help.
The 6 pot is a challenge no doubt about that but it’s fairly well supported with parts (at a price), reasonably easy to maintain and if I can get the conversion done neatly at the front panel in particular then I think it will both look and perform well in the Series.
I did consider the 2.8 upgrade for the 4 cylinder that I currently have but at best it will kick out 117 bhp for a lot of wedge and I think to pull a set of high ration gears which I plan to fit, it might not be the best option. The 6 pot is 129 bhp as standard so should be able to perform with the higher gears and be a bit kinder to the standard box.
-
I know it’s not a flywheel but having taken off the torque converter from the Rover engine this morning I decided to measure the diameter of the ring gear which is 340mm compared to the 315mm diameter of the 2.6 flywheel I have.
Flywheel will need to be the same diameter as the ring gear was in order to engage the starter I assume unless the starter off a 2.6 has a wider dog gear than the 3.0?
I’m sure I said something about keeping this conversion simple....
6cyl SWB?
in Series Forum
Posted
Well here’s a stroke of luck (at last). Seems like the 2.25 diesel flywheel will fit straight onto the crank of the 3.0 engine with no mods
Question - is there any reason why I couldn’t use a diesel flywheel as opposed to a petrol one, weight, thickness? Presumably I could just fit the S3 clutch assembly as they are all the same according to the manual including the spigot bush.