Gudmundur Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 hello i am wondering if it is possible to squese more power out of a series 3 diesel engine made in 1970 just thinking about increasing its hp into 80 or 85 hp is it possible or should i just throw the engine away and finde a diffrent one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Henson Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 It might be easier and cheaper to fit a more powerful engine. 2.5 N/A and T/D engines from the later 90/110's. V8's and the Tdi engines have also been fitted. Les. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gudmundur Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 can you give me som info on what years the 2,5 na was produced Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony109 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 The 2.25 diesel, depending on its current performance, can be made to perform better. Swapping the 2.25 for a later 2.5NA engine would hardly be worth the effort, as it produces little more power or torque. But the biggest disadvantage is with the later 2.5 engine is its rubber timing belt. Instead, I'd look at improving the 2.25. Injection timing can make the most difference. Wear in the bush below the pump, the scew gear and in the timing chain will add up to a great loss. Replace the timing chain alone could make a big difference. The injection timing can also be advanced by turning the fuel pump on its three mounting studs. One way advances, the other retards. If the engine has been got at in the past, you'll probably find the pump is Hard Up against the slots holding the pump. This is were a well hidden Bronze bush that suports the fuel pump could be partly to blame. But for further advance and finer tuning, the camshaft drive wheel can be removed, then rotated on the splines, to gain/lose a few degrees. . I suggest you look at a detailed workshop manual and it'll give you all the details you need. Of course pistons, rings, valve seats and ensuring sufficient fuel is reaching the engine is a good start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gudmundur Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 thanks a lot for this i will have a hard look at this , but the traveling speed what can i expect the 2,25 engine to perform as it is not going to be in an landrover the engine was put in another car i am restoring and the old lr engine was rusted stuck so i am on the look out for a new one and my car is 1700 kg if that has any efect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejparrott Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 You can also have gas flowed heads from IIRC Turners Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuck Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 If I'm reading your post correctly you want to know the top speed of an unspecified car that will be using a LR engine? Whole lot more of information needed there including gear box ratios, diff ratio, tyre sizes etc, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gudmundur Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 If I'm reading your post correctly you want to know the top speed of an unspecified car that will be using a LR engine? Whole lot more of information needed there including gear box ratios, diff ratio, tyre sizes etc, etc... i acidently eraised part of my message in general the car has axles and drivetrain from a landrover just a diffrent chassis and body sorry for lack of information Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony109 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 The Rover P4 used the 2.25 petrol and a teacher at my old school had a P4 with a Land rover diesel fitted. If the axels, gearbox are from a Land Rover then you can expect the same road speed as the donor land rover. You may have better acceleration in the lighter car but If you want the best cruising speed you'd also have to fit tyres of the same size or larger to the car and/or fit higher ratio diffs. Why not keep the cars axels? mind you, knowing what the car is, what axels it has, etc would help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejparrott Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 my car is 1700 kg if that has any efect You may have better acceleration in the lighter car My 88 weighs in at only 1500Kg, and took a while to get up to speeds when she had a 2286. Being 200Kg's heavier, I'd expect you to be slower still, so you're going to need to pay attention to tyre sizes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gudmundur Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 The Rover P4 used the 2.25 petrol and a teacher at my old school had a P4 with a Land rover diesel fitted. If the axels, gearbox are from a Land Rover then you can expect the same road speed as the donor land rover. You may have better acceleration in the lighter car but If you want the best cruising speed you'd also have to fit tyres of the same size or larger to the car and/or fit higher ratio diffs. Why not keep the cars axels? mind you, knowing what the car is, what axels it has, etc would help. baxicly i have an russian jepp that was combined with an landrover , an old farmer han a landrover wich he flipped ower so the boddy was to messed up to fix and he had an gaz 69 with a good body and chassis but no axles or drivetrain of any sort so he took axles and drivetrain from the landy wreck and used the gas body Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Henson Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 If I remember right - the 2.25 engine would get you to 72mph maximum. I've done that on the M4 in a petrol SWB, and it's a scary experience. The engine is screaming it's nads off, the gearbox is also screaming it's nads off, and the vehicle was very difficult to keep in a straight line, and the best I could do was keep it within just 2 lanes No doubt an improved engine will squeeze a few more bhp out (ported head, etc), but it'll still scream it's head off at anywhere near the top end of it's performance, and that would definitely put me off attempting it. Perhaps a better gearbox, or better ratio diffs would be a better idea? Les. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discomikey Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 ive seen a 200TDi rover P4. pretty darn quick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 The 2.5NA is not completely useless as an upgrade, they are significantly better. HOWEVER, these days a 200 or 300 TDi conversion would be far and away more preferable. If it's just a toy then a V8 conversion is also very doable if you can live with ~15mpg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondjeremy Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Peugeot / Citroen managed to eventually get 71 BHP from 1905 cc in their naturally aspirated diesel as fitted to BX 19's, ZX 1.9D's and equivalent Peugeots (as well as Fiat Vans, Rovers . . . .). This is an entirely conventional engine in that it uses 2 valves per cylinder, Ricardo Comet combustion chambers and even shares a 3.5 in stroke with the Land Rover engine. If the Land Rover engine were of comparable efficiency you'd expect it to produce about 85 BHP - a considerable increase - and remember the Citroen engine's output was measured in the beefier German Din units rather than the SAE conditions which were used to measure the Land Rover's 67 BHP output. I mention the Citroen XUD as it was about the last production N/A diesel to be developed and tuned by the manufacturers before being replaced by electronically controlled direct injection engines. So what did Peugeot/Citroen do to this engine to make it more efficient to the Rover one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 So what did Peugeot/Citroen do to this engine to make it more efficient to the Rover one? Probably design it in the later half of the century! Seriously though, the petrol is well known that the inlet and exhaust manifolds(and exhaust system actually) are a pretty big restriction, and when doing performance upgrade they are one of the first htings to change. The next is often a compression lift, though granted you can't do that so easily to the diesel... but the final one is to gas flow the heads. I'd be suprised if you didn't manage to get 85BHP out of a 2.25 diesel with all those mods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally V8 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Seeing how cheaply a 200tdi conversion can be done for,really there is little point into trying to further stress a very old unit.Which is going to need lots spent on it to be reliable at its original power output. A tdi has other advantages,better fuel consumption and instant cold weather starting being the two biggest ones.The timing belt is a non issue,they are reliable.It also means that every 50,000m a decent pair of eyes are going to be looking over the engine and be likely to spot any,(Unlikely) potential problems. I'm just about to build a 1960 IIA with a galv chassis etc,the engine will be a 200tdi - without the intercooler and the pump shut down a bit.The engine has done 232,000m,with just a head gasket at 72,000. All I will do to it is to put a new belt on it and use it.(The injectors have never been serviced,it just starts and runs really well.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejparrott Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 You'll find it runs well without the intercooler, my 88 has been running without for about four years now. You don't need to do anything to the pump thought, its fine as it is. Can I recommend you fit a 300 turbo and manifold, its downward pointing exhaust makes fitting an absolute doddle, unlike the nightmare job with a Steve Parker disco conversion, or squeezing in the defender exhaust, depending which engine you have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacr2man Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Trying to get more out of a 2 1/4 diesel is flogging a dead horse, I tried for quite a few years, as did landrover , thats why they went to 5 bearing 2.5 and then turbo . I went a different route and fitted 3.8 leyland diesel ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally V8 Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 You'll find it runs well without the intercooler, my 88 has been running without for about four years now. You don't need to do anything to the pump thought, its fine as it is. Can I recommend you fit a 300 turbo and manifold, its downward pointing exhaust makes fitting an absolute doddle, unlike the nightmare job with a Steve Parker disco conversion, or squeezing in the defender exhaust, depending which engine you have. I have both 200 and 300 engines in stock,the 300 has a mere 174,000m on it,so building it up with any combination of bits is no problem.All I want is a reliable truck,my IIa with a totally sha--ed 2 1/4 petrol makes enough power for me,so shutting down the pump and no intercooler will help with transmission reliabilty and fuel consumption...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony109 Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 baxicly i have an russian jepp that was combined with an landrover , an old farmer han a landrover wich he flipped ower so the boddy was to messed up to fix and he had an gaz 69 with a good body and chassis but no axles or drivetrain of any sort so he took axles and drivetrain from the landy wreck and used the gas body I drove my Land rover to Russia as far east as Kazan. Gaz is one of Russia's main vehicle builders and the Gaz 69 is a beautiful vehicle. The axels are mounted under the springs and its power by a 3.2 liter side valve engine, the same engine as in the ford model A of the 30's. This engine remained in production for many yeasr up til the 70's. A very good engine, tough and torquey. If you have a gaz 69 I would be strongly in favour of finding a side valve engine and the gaz running gear. But since the landrover running gear is all inplace then a just a good engine is the answer. The 2.25 cannot be made into a rocket. You can't up the performance much more and expect a reliable engine. All you can do is ensure it runs as well as it can with correct injection timing. Something that drops off very quickly on the 2.25. You could gas flow the engine, but its already a good engine for flow so you'd never notice any gains. I'd just find a landrover diesel engine of any sort, fit it and enjoy the Gaz. I trust the track of the Land rover axels is similar? Look after that gaz, its one of my favorites.. Can you post some pictures please?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discomikey Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 transmission reliability behind a TDi series is a load of old cock of you ask me. mine gets so much abuse every now and then and never gives up after 20K miles behind a TDI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejparrott Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 transmission reliability behind a TDi series is a load of old cock of you ask me. mine gets so much abuse every now and then and never gives up after 20K miles behind a TDI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony109 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 The trouble with these modern engines in a older classic vehicle is that they'll drive like a modern car. Part of the fun of driving an older vehicle is to drive them as they were. non synco, underpowered they actually need to be driven. If you want to jump into a vehicle and just press the GO button, driving soon becomes boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discomikey Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 The trouble with these modern engines in a older classic vehicle is that they'll drive like a modern car. Part of the fun of driving an older vehicle is to drive them as they were. non synco, underpowered they actually need to be driven. If you want to jump into a vehicle and just press the GO button, driving soon becomes boring. not strictly true. for what i use mine for i wouldnt have another engine. and i still double clutch it everywhere. twin stick shift in and out of overdrive and gears at the same time. however i do agree that a classic land rover with an origional engine can be fun, im building a series 2 at the moment with a 2.25p. and i also have a 2.25d series 3 to play with. ive done long journeys with each of these types of engine, and it does get very boring after the first 30 miles when youre in the slow lane doing 30 up a slight incline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.