garrycol

If this 110 vehicle (4x4) had the 4bd1-T engine then it would have been an odd-ball and does not represent standard 110s. http://www.allisons.org/ll/4/LandRover/Perentie/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_Perentie Even if the vehicles do sell for $15K that is an awfully expensive way to get an engine to put into your Disco - you can get brand new Chinese copies of the 4BD1 for about $5000 and as I said get an engine from a wrecker or something similar for somewhat less. If you want a Perenti the go for it but the economics of what you are proposing for your Disco doesn't hold up. Garry

Just to clear things up the engine in the 4x4 army landrovers is not the turbo version but the stock standard 4BD1. The turbo version was only fitted to the 6x6 versions which are few and far between compared to 4x4 numbers. Also this is an expensive way to get your hands on a 4BD1 - the expectation is that these vehicles will sell for top dollar - just have a look at the prices of the recently released TD5 Defenders from the Army which were not really military spec - up around $20k - $30k. Also the only gearboxes that are going to survive behind these engines are the Izusu gearboxes, the LT95 and LT85 - the R380 will probably not last long. You would be better off buying an engine at a wreckers or get a old Stage 1 or early County - they do come up cheap sometimes. Garry

I had those size tyres on my FL1 and had no real issues getting up hills as long as I could maintain a bit of speed. If the hill was steep but required slow work the gearing just could not manage it. Your Traction Control should have handles the wheel spin - my TC worked well. I also contemplated what you are planning and came up with two options. 1 cut the IRD in half so that only the rear PTO section remains in what remains of the housing and then welding a plate to seal the drivers side of the IRD - this means what you left is basically a 90 degree drive. Remove the VCD and replace with a LT 230 transfer case and make up a shaft to join the tfr case to the PTO. Install a Freelander rear diff on the drivers side of the IRD and modify the shaft that originally provided drive to the left hand wheel through the gearbox so the new front could drive it and connect a modified drive shaft to the drivers side of the new diff to the drivers hub. Yes it can be done but why bother. Alternatively you could just mount your body on a Disco 1 or 2 chassis and running gear - has been done. Garry

I had 225/70R16 All Terrains on my Freelander 1 and had no issues at all.

I had BFG ATs 225/70R16 on my FL1. You can have white letters in or out. As you can see no clearance issues

My 101 is a carbied 3.5 V8 on petrol and LPG - the sweet spot for timing is about 9 degrees BTDC - at this setting there are no issues on either fuel and power does seem similar. Fuel consumption is much worse on LPG but that is to be expected (15mpg on 91 RON petrol vs 11-12mpg on gas). So if you can dual map for gas and petrol that is great but certainly with carbies is not such an issue. Garry

Thanks for that information - that was what I was hoping - as you can see I have niot investigated the detail of the MS system.

Thanks, I appreciate you can have different ignition maps but does MS actually switch off the petrol injectors when switching to gas or do I need to use a LPG vapour injection system with MS. Cheers Garry

Thanks for the comments - I agree the carbs and exhausts are an issue - I know P38 exhausts fit on the drivers side but not sure about the left hand side. If going to all the expense of building an engine there is no way I would stay with a 4.0 if I could do it for a 4.6 - money already spent so is a 4.6. I keep my eye out for the high range gears but haven't seen any locally for a couple of years (seperate from the transfer case that is). On gear ratios - just a typo. A question more generally to the forum. This engine will ultimately be dual fuel runninng on petrol and LPG. When I switch to LPG and power to the injection system/MS is turned off does it still power the ignition side of things or does power still stay to the MS and it just turns the injectors off. Thanks Garry

I hope I am not sounding too negative to suggestions. As I indicated ealier, while the 101 has a lot in common with other Landies there is lot that is unique eg suspension/axles, wheels (6 stud vs 5 stud), bell housing, ptos, steering and it goes on. I have had a 101 on the road for quite a few years now and have investigated just about all the mods that could be suggested. Anything is possible at a price but will require major modifcations. A 4.6 is essentially a bolt on modification that would not even be noticeable if I used Carbs. Thanks for all the input. I will most likely go Gems as I have many of the bits and it does seem to deliver the torque I am after. The issue will be whether I go the original 4.6 Gems ECU or Megasquirt. If I do go the original ECU then I will just be looking at MegaJolt to run the ignition and looking at petrol and LPG maps. Cheers garry

The 101 pto does not go fore and aft like other land rover ptos - they go out sideways under the chassis to the winch which is mounted on the outer chassis midway between the wheels. The winch is not fitted to the front like most other landies. As far as I am aware there is no similar pto on the LT230, indeed there is no other LT95 PTO that is similar to the 101 pto..

I am not sure but you cannot run the winch from a LT230.

As the LT95 is a gearbox/transfer case is a combined unit in one housing it is not really viable to cut off tranfer case and develop an adaptor plate to mount an LT 230. If I was to use a R380/LT230 combo (which is a lot longer than the 101 LT95) the engine will have to move forward and that will mean cutting into body work at the front and moving controls etc - in reality all too hard - or I have to move the gearbox back that will cause problems with rear driveshaft angles. Also the 101 is the equivalent of a standard Range Rover with a 4" lift and if the RR is lifted that much it would also have a problem with driveshaft angles - hence placement of the transfer case within the 101 chassis is important - as it is the 101 driveshafts work outside UJ design limits and causes the "101 Rumble" where the front driveshaft rumbles at 80kph on trailing throttle. The bottom line is that the 101 was never deigned for highway cruising at moderately high speeds and out of mil service we are asking it to do exactly that. The 3.5 just does nor have enough puff to do this where the 4.6 should be OK. As that link you highlighted showed, it is not viable going up in diff ratio but higher speed hi range gears and overdrive is - the 3.5 will pull either is some conditions but not both together hence the change to a 4.6. With O/D and hi speed gears fitted I should be able to down to a bit less than 3000 rpm at 100kph and have the torque to pull it. That is why I am not looking to increase torque of the 4.6 at the low end (as long as the 4.6 has more torque than the basic 3.5 at the bottom end) but get as much torque as I can up around the 3000-4000rpm range. On the Gems vs Thor issue it would seem that Gems will do this a little better (and I have most of the parts) than Thor and will not be as wide when fitting into the engine compartment. Cheers Garry

While there is a lot of commonality with the 101 and earlier RR and Stage 1s, there is a lot that is unuque. The short wheelbase and high lift already cause issues with driveshaft angles and that is with the unique 101 LT95 that has a shorter input shaft and bellhousing the make the gearbox unit as short as possible. An R380 an LT230 combo would be great but it is just too long - also it does not have the PTO arrangement to run the 101s standard Noken winch. Likewise low range is no where near as low as the 101.

I agree and that is not the issue - it is which injection system to go for. The diff ratios are 5.7:1. Going to 4.7:1 causes drivability issues in low range. I haven't checked that out at this stage - the Thor certainly looks wider than the GEM but not sure if it as high.

A 101 already runs 35" tyres as standard so going larger is not really a option both legally and power wise with the 3.5v8. I already have an overdrive and the 3.5 can only pull it on the level or going downhill. Top spped is about 15kph slower with O/d in. One of the reasons in going the 4.6 was to get the torque to pull the O/d, higher transfer case gears or even bigger tyres as you suggest. I am looking to increase cruising speed to about 100kph (while the 3.5 does 4000rpm at 100kph it cannot cruise there if there is any incline) while decreasing revs to around 3000rpm but you need the torque to do that. You say the Thor gains around 20 ft ibs but at what revs?? I do not need it low down as long as the 4,6 will match the 3.5 below 2000rpm (or hopefully be better). Cheers Garry

Thanks for those great topics - the 101 revs at just under 4000rpm at 100kph and at this speed the 3.5 really lacks torque and dies on any hills. Low down torque is fine. By going to a 4.6 I am looking at better torque across the board and I am putting in a cam to increase torque at up to 4150rpm. So for my needs the Gems might be better torque at the lower end will what I need where the Thor may reduce it at cruising speed. If I go Gems I might get away with the standard ECU and use MegaJolt for the ignition. Cheers Garry

Hi All - some questions for the learned gathering - some of the answers may already exist but I cannot fins them. Background I have a 101 and am looking to replace the 3.5 with a 4.6. I have acquired a top hatted low compression 4.0 and also have a liner slipped low compression 4.6 block, crank and pistons. I am putting the 4.6 crank and conrods into the 4.0 but using the LC 4.0 pistons as the result is a comporession ratio just a bit less than HC 4.6 pistons. I am going no ditributer so in its simplest form will have a Megajolt ingnition and up speced carbies off the 3.5. The engine will be getting a mild cam to improve mid range torque - mainly due to the high revving nature of a V8 in the 101 at cruising speed. HOWEVER I also have a dead 3.9 that has its Gems manifold, plenum, and injectors still on it, so using this with a MS to run everything is an option. Also I can get a Thor manifold, plenum and injectors for a very good price. Another option. Question The simple question for the brains trust - which injection system should I put on the new 4.6 - Gems or Thor and are there any issues with MS runnning either. Also can the crankshaft indicator on the 4.6 be used instead of the MS/MJ crankshaft wheel to send crankshaft pluses to the MS/MJ ECU. Thanks Garry

Tymm - well I will give you credit for putting up one of the most responded too threads for some time - as you can see we are all awake here but may not all have the answers you require. You must be a good angler because you manged to to get plenty of rises and bites but I do think the attitude needs to go. Garry

I have read about the earlier Prima version of the L series diesel in a series 1 so a Freelander L series Diesel will go as long as you can make the electrics work. A defender or disco 200 tdi might be a better option though as I believe they will bolt up to the gearbox with mimimal mods and there are no electrics and has a bit more power and torque than the Freelander diesel.

The symptoms you describe are clutch/flywheel related - also possibly the front rubber mount for the rear diff. Just so you know if the IRD fails - the car will not be driveable but may be able to move with loud banging from the front end. Obvious symptoms of a locked VC are load on the engine - like the handbrake is on - may even stall when backing with the steering on full lock. Rear tyres can scrubb out but not always. To test the VC jack up the rear right wheel, have the car in 1st gear and release the handbrake - remove the small center cap from the rear wheel and put a socket onto the large hub nut with a long breaker bar - after taking up the drivetrain slack apply steady heavy pressure to the breaker bar in a clockwise direction - the wheel should very slowly turn - if you jerk at it, the wheel will not turn. If the wheel turns, the VC is OK - if it will not turn the VC is locked - do not drive the car as the IRD and/or rear diff WILL fail. If you need to drive the car remove the entire drive shaft (2 shafts and VC) from IRD to the rear diff - the car will drive OK in front wheel drive - do not be tempted to just remove one shaft. Hope this helps Garry Canberra AUSTRALIA

Does anyone have a Freelander with a lift. I would like to discuss options - I am in Canberra - Australia. The max spring/spacer lift is 2" (because of the short front driveshafts) and I have not found any body lifts (like the 2" body lift on a subaru). My investigations have thrown up 4 options. 1. DAP type steel spacers on top of the suspension towers gives a full 2" but the cost is about $390 US plus postage etc. ($600AUD) 2. A 38mm plastic spacer system from the US is $300AUD landed in Australia but doesn't give the full 2" but is easier to install and no changes to brake lines are needed. 3. Bigger springs - Kings Springs (Aust) makes 35mm longer springs that sag to 30mm springs ($340AUD) - I would like a bit bigger lift but new shockies are not needed. Ironman (Aust) also make springs but I cannot find any details on these. 4.A guy in the UK has sent me some cad drawings of a system that replaces the suspension towers bolts with much longer ones and and you use nuts on the bolts to provide the lift - I know it works but I think registration and other authorities might have problems with this so I am not going this route. I have recently put 225/70 R16 BFG ATs on and this gives me about an inch but I want to finish the job - clearance under a standard freelander is 195mm under the engine which is effectively reduced because of the front independent suspension - with both front wheels depressed clearance is zip. So if anyone has done a lift I would like to hear about any issues you have uncovered. Thanks Gazzz

Thanks Jules -I considered the putty but that means getting at the matrix - too much hard work - I am lazy. Was hoping something poured into the radiator would be less taxing and work as well - any thoughts on these products. Cheers

The heater in my freelander has a very small leak in either the matrix or the connecting pipes. It is very small - enough to smell but not enough to see or to reduce coolant levels. The carpets is not damp but when you park on a hill a drop or two of coolant will fall into the front rubber mats. At this stage I would prefer not to pull the matrix out and as it will be heaps of work and the leak is still very small. I want to try a radiator sealant first. I am not going to use Bars Leak as it likely to clog up a lot of other things like the radiator. Years ago I used a product called Chemical Weld which is not a radiator sealant but is designed to fill small non structural head cracks but it also worked well on sealing other leaks. Any other thoughts would be appreciated - I do realise the matrix will probably have to be replaced but would prefer it to be later. Cheers Garry

So you and Julian are obviously close then Seems he has his wife sorted though - does she fetch beers as well? Brisbane - Queensland - they are different up there! As well as cousins, I have a brother living uop there as well - he is a bit weird. Unless on my way to Fraser - I try to stay away from bananna benders! Well Welcome in Advance!! Garry