Jump to content

Series iii mix and match


RobSmith
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

I have a 1972 Siii Ex military FFR landrover.

That had a siezed up solid petrol engine.

It has a chassis that will require fairly major surgery to get it right so will be stripped right down to a bare chassis and then rebuilt.

I have just been given an 'A; reg (1983ish) SWB diesel landrover. That had ben partially stripped to change the bulkhead and then not put back together for about 10 years.

The chap who had it said it ran ok but there was some problem with the fuel injector / distributor thing. I have not figured out what quite goes on inside that yet.

I am wanting to end up with a vehicle for tootling about short distances (less than 20 miles) and draging a heavy trailer occasionally.

I think it is the 2.25 diesel with the pump pointing upwards.

Should I use this engine or just go straight to a 200tdi or 2.5 diesel?

The gearbox I have in my 1972 is a 'B' stamped gearbox and the one in the 1983 just has a long number. I cannot remember that off the top of my head but can go and get it if it makes any difference.

Should I use this later gearbox too?

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't bother with the 2.25D engine (unless you're a purist). 22mpg and forever changing gear - especially if you're towing. Even the 2.5 N/A would be a vast improvement as these engines go on forever. I had a 2.5 T/D engine in my 109 and it was very good in comparison, but this engine is rather prone to cracking pistons if they are used hard. You could fit a 200TDi, but it's a fair bit of work and you'll be putting 112bhp through the transmission which is almost double what it's designed for.

Les.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a tricky one.

The engine and gearbox should interchange no problem - so long as the clutches are correct for the engine/flywheel.

tHE LATE SERIES 3 IS ACKNOWLEDGED AS A(sorry capslock) very tough gearbox.

If the diesel was working I'd stick it straight in, but as it's got a problem I'd be thinking a tdi, or if it's a LWB then I'd go di.

My reasoning being you could spend £200 getting the diesel right and you still have a fairly low power unit as a result (not fun to tow with).

A tdi would cost you not much more than that, and have the benefit of a vacuum pump for the servo brakes as well as a much higher torque output.

All good fun!

For some ideas check out richard glencoynes pages on the tdi conversions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or if it's a LWB then I'd go di.

For the love of god, why? I really don't get this whole Di thing, it's totally pointless, especially if you're saying a 109 can't handle the awesome power of a full 112bhp because of the extra 20 inches wheelbase :unsure:

I ran a ~180bhp 3.9 V8 in my 109 for years, the gearbox & overdrive never complained.

Back on topic, I wouldn't bother with the 2.25, if you can find a running 2nd hand one (expect to pay ~£100) or a 2.5 from a Defender then drop it in, otherwise you're looking at a TDi as your best bet, assuming you don't want the full giggle that is a V8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the love of god, why? I really don't get this whole Di thing, it's totally pointless, especially if you're saying a 109 can't handle the awesome power of a full 112bhp because of the extra 20 inches wheelbase :unsure:

I ran a ~180bhp 3.9 V8 in my 109 for years, the gearbox & overdrive never complained.

I don't understand it either. That gearbox did eventually die whilst dragging a 4 tonne forklift out of a ditch with a very revvy 3.5v8 on the front. Even then, when stripped, I couldn't find anything wrong with it, bar being jammed in gear.

I'd say, if you can get a TDi for a decent price, drop it in. It's a well proven engine and the extra power will help especially with pulling a trailer.

(I might have a 3.5 V8 EFI, with adapter plate, clutch etc, coming up for sale soon. Just need to find myself a big diesel to fit in it's place)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the love of god, why? I really don't get this whole Di thing, it's totally pointless, especially if you're saying a 109 can't handle the awesome power of a full 112bhp because of the extra 20 inches wheelbase :unsure:

I ran a ~180bhp 3.9 V8 in my 109 for years, the gearbox & overdrive never complained.

Back on topic, I wouldn't bother with the 2.25, if you can find a running 2nd hand one (expect to pay ~£100) or a 2.5 from a Defender then drop it in, otherwise you're looking at a TDi as your best bet, assuming you don't want the full giggle that is a V8.

'cause the chassis and the tdi200 turbo want to occupy the same physical space.

I know there are tricks with clocking the turbo, and all, but for simplicity the di route appeals - lower torque (which kills gearboxes, not horse power), simple engine, unstressed, lower underbonnet temperatures, less plumbing, less fuel consumption. Also easier to fit than a 2.5 n/a as the (disco) version has the IP much higher up. Takes the series radiator, no need for oil cooling, attaches to the standard exhaust much easier.

Sure, not using all the power available, and the turbo adds power and torque, but, when compared to the 2286 diesel, a huge step up!

Very tempted to do this myself, as I've a spare turboless tdi200 + 1000 litres of diesel to use up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tdi is a much nicer drive, especially for towing, and it's how you use the throttle and clutch that determine gearbox longevity more than peak torque, but fitting a Discovery unit to a 109 has big problems with the turbo position. Someone is now selling a curved pipe with two flanges to sit between the manifold and turbo to raise it above the chassis, which should solve the problem. the other solution is to find Defender manifolds and turbo or fit 300Tdi manifolds, but the boost from the 300 turbo is a bit high for a 200. There is still a fair bit of work to get everything into the engine bay, though.

A DI is a fair proposition if you're happy with 2.25 levels of performance but want a more frugal engine- it's a much easier fit.

The 2.25 diesel will have less fuel economy and performance than either of the above, but is the simplest fit. The one issue that most overlook is that the 2.25 NAD will be the smoothest and quietest option by a considerable margin, so if fuel economy and performance are less important than overall comfort or ease of installation, I'd go that way. NADs are also very tolerant of vegoil usage, as long as you fit a fuel heat exchanger to heat the vegoil before it enters the injection pump. Tdi pumps are more robust, but their direct injection system makes them prone to coking and piston ring gumming even on brand new sun flower oil or rape seed oil with the full vegoil kits.

So, you have three options, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. You need to chose where your priorities lie and decide accordingly, but don't be disuaded by those who insist a 200DI is a bad thing - it suits those who don't need performance.

Do consider that a Tdi will need some work. Everyone seems to regard these situations as a "Tdi no-brainer", citing that you could buy the Tdi engine for the cost of a 2.25 overhaul. The Tdi would need a similar level of overhaul and may need a total rebuild like mine did, and will be a more expensive installation; the assumption that a second hand Tdi will be in good order and ready for a long working life is a foolish one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will go for a 200di.

Our plan is to use it for short distance trips and to tow things about that require a bigger towing vehicle.

That towing would be for short distances (10 miles or less)

It does not need to be fast at all.

Fuel economy is important so I presume the 200di would be the best option.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just bear in mind the 2.25d is the cheapest to fit out of all the engine options (if you can find a good one!) - you can buy all the parts off the shelf for little £££. You'll need a custom exhaust of some description for any other engine really, even if it is just an increase in bore size.

I wouldn't bother with the 2.25D engine (unless you're a purist). 22mpg and forever changing gear - especially if you're towing. Even the 2.5 N/A would be a vast improvement as these engines go on forever.

That's a bit harsh on the 2.25d. I don't know what your experience was, but either that engine was shagged or its fuel was going missing somehow. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aha! My 2nd 109 had a 2.25D engine in it. I completely rebuilt it with new pistons, chain, etc, etc. Used it mostly for forestry work, which was fun. 22-25mpg is the stated consumption I believe?. Next engine to go in it was a 2.5 N/A, of unknown mechanical wear and the difference was remarkable. TD engine that went in next wasn't such a great improvement as I expected it to be - apart from the fuel consumption dropping a bit. Perhaps the two cracked pistons I found in it had something to with that :) Still - I replaced then and it lasted me a fair while before other, more serious, structural problems condemmed it to the scrapyard :(

Les.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 sounds a bit better, given it's in a 109 and doing low speed work. :lol: The worst I have got out of my 2.25d is 27mpg, and that was a combination of laning and normal driving. I've achieved 35mpg with it on a steady motorway run too, but it is in the far lighter 88 in my case. As far as I know, the given figures are around the 30mpg for normal working conditions?

I very nearly did have a 2.5 NA go in mine instead of the 2.25 too, it just so happened that parts were on the shelf for the 2.25d installation and the engine in particular had a better history than the 2.5 NA that I had the choice of. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting 26mpg on a combined cycle with my 200Tdi and about the same when laden on motorways. I think the roof rack and other accessories are putting a big dent in its economy, but I reckon it's not achieving much over 3mpg more than the 2.5nad did, though with much more comfortable speed and acceleration (but much less comfortable noise and vibration).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

One item that is easily forgotten in the planning stage - check with your insurers. many companies will not even cover a modified vehicle, and all others add a hefty premium even if the performance of the vehicle is reduced by the alteration (such as going from a 2.25p to a 2.25 or 2.5 nad). That may make the difference between engine choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hi All,

It is a long time since I have posted anything on the forum...... I have been grinding and welding and cutting and welding and more cutting, grinding and welding on the landrover chassis.

The body is now off and the chassis bare.

After an aweful lot of cutting and welding is now about 40% new metal :huh:

I have been sticking to my plan of making all the sections sealed from water getting in but each section has holes drilled top and bottom to allow wax to flow throughout the chassis.

I bought new outriggers and rear cross member..... Due to the quality and water capturing design I have not used any of them and have done my own thing.

I will post some pictures shortly.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pics:

Chopping out bottom 2inches of rust to get back to good steel.

P1070263.jpg

Chopping away around spring mount

P1070273.jpg

3 inch x 3mm wall box section welded in. Chassis is now 1 inch deeper but that suits me.

Note the additional box sections clamped to the top set to drawing dimensions to keep the chassis straight.

P1070288.jpg

More to follow

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More pics.

Chopping away the other side:

P1070291.jpg

Chopped away outside skin. Note repair has three puddle welds through onto the original doubling plate inside and the 10mm hole which is a wax sloshing around and drain hole.

P1070629.jpg

The back end. (This now has some extra bracing too)

P1070631.jpg

I have more photos to follow but need to remember to take the camera outside when it is light.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plan is to seal up all the holes in the chassis except three drain holes in the lowest points. These have M12 nuts welded there now to allow me to plug up the drains. The chassis will have a couple of 1/2" BSP bosses welded onto the front legs of the chassis so I can then mix up a wax mix and fill enough so it slops around and gets everywhere inside. The plugs will be unscrewed to release the excess.

I will mix up a mixture our local car breaker mixes up for his landrover. It is a mix of black underseal, bit of diesel and cleanish gearbox oil from the scrapped cars. This is for the inside but will have painted the outside first. The outside will be grit / sand blasted back to bare steel and I will then paint it with a couple of coats of galvafroid zinc primer. Then a coat or two of Tractol or Tekaloid undercoat (I forget the number). Then a gloss coat of Tractol or Tekaloid gloss. Then some sort of sticky gloop. Maybe the same gloop I am using on the inside.

The bodywork is not getting touched at all. I still want it to look 1972.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have added the wax sloshing around hole is part way up the chassis is because the rear spring forwards mounting has a horizontal plate at the level of that hole. Another one got drilled at the top to allow air out of the sealed box so the suspension mount will fill up with wax and then drain out.

I will go and take another picture.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Picture of the right spring mount. Note it does not stick out like the original as on the left hand side this will be the position of one of the exhaust silencers as I am changine to 200tdi. The exhaust will run around the outside of the LH fuel tank and then tuck back in to a short silencer in the big space there will now be:

P1070865.jpg

The outrigger behind the rh fuel tank. I have moved it back 1" 7/8 and created a simple bracket to pick up the fuel tank. Moving it back should prevent the big muck trap between the fuel tank and outrigger. This was packed with muck when I dismantled it so changed that. Spot the deliberate mistake! I cut the box section 1"1/4 too short so ended up welding a bit back on.... doh.

P1070867.jpg

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you've gone to all that effort, why not have it galvanized, then you won't have to recoat it?

I have debated that. We live about 100yds from a galvanising plant.

The outside might be fine galvanised but bits of the inside are quite well painted with a thick black gritty hard coating.

They acid clean the steel before it goes in the zinc but it is only meant to get a bit of rust of and not thick paint.

The hot zinc might burn off this coating but leave a mucky surface and the muck might still be in there and leave bits ungalvanised or piles of burnt off muck built up somewhere inside. I would rather have it known what is in there. I saw some gates several years ago made from big box section which is similar and they rusted from the inside where the zinc had not got bits.

I think if it were all new then galvanising would be the best way forward but it is not all new and I still want it to be 1972...ish.

I shall be re-galvanising the bumper, bumperettes and other bits that bolt on. All the bolts, except suspension, will be changed for stainless steel. There are not many of the original bolts left anyway ^_^

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention our local car breaker has his own S3 landrover and every couple of years just refreshes the gloop on the underside with his homemade underseal, diesel and gearbox oil mix. It is all black and sticky under there but it seems to keep the rust away well.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy