whats the fascination?

[Snagger]

Be honest, there are a few other little downsides - cambelts, heads prone to warp/crack, P-gaskets on the 300's... they're good engines but not totally flawless, and hauling a random one out of a donor truck these days is a bit of a lottery.

Cam belts are on long enough service intervals to qualify as a nuisance rather than major issue, and while 300 heads can warp, 200 heads are pretty robust. They have potential flaws like any engine, and as always you have to be careful buying second hand, but they compare well against V8 with their cam shaft, lifter and V gasket issues. I think the biggest risk is the turbo, because it'll suffer in the hands of an idiot more than the engine itself, but that is pretty easy to check for bearing wear. But I see what you're getting at: there is a myth about them being indestructible, and that is simply untrue of any engine.

[dave88sw]

Sorry, but in that case you completely ignored the drive train, so you wasted your time. If you're not going to consider the vehicle as a whole, then you are destined for failure and you'll only have yourself to blame. Doesn't matter if it's a TDi, or a V8, or some other engine from some other brand. You must consider the vehicle as a whole if you're going to do a proper job.

Same rule applies to doing suspension changes, lifts, you name it.

Don't really appreciate the tone...

I'm completely aware that you can't expect to drop an engine with twice the power in the front and expect everything to work as if it were designed to be there. My point about gearing is mostly the massive gap between third and fourth that meant it struggled to gain revs until the turbo kicked back in in 4th.

I was simply voicing my opinion, i have to live with the massive waste of cash that i poured into fitting the engine. I wanted to like it but it made what was once a characterful, enjoyable vehicle into a soulless vehicle that was a real chore to drive.

[dave88sw]

Are you saying you'd not driven a Tdi powered something else beforehand? The engine won't behave any differently in a Series to a Defender or Discovery.

As for gearing, wouldn't a better solution to have been to change that to match the engine?

I work with Land Rovers, i've driven many TDI powered defenders/discoveries. I would never deny that they are a very reliable dependable engine. They work well in the original vehicles but i think you'd have to change too much of a series to make the engine suit. If i were to change the gearbox, i'd be far too close to having a defender.

I appreciate that a lot of people like the conversion. I wouldn't have done it if it weren't for the glowing reviews but it's just not for me. I'd rather pay the higher fuel bill for the lovely 2.25 petrol.

[Tanuki]

Having driven 2.25 "series" LRs, along with a few 6-cylinder Series, a V8 or three, some 2.5 petrol, 200/300TDi and currently a TD5 Defender:

While the 4-pot 2.25/2.5 petrol lumps are 'smooth' they're also feeble and fuel-inefficient. 77BHP from 2.25 Litres is pitiful; the old 1.6 Ford "Kent" lump used in Cortinas was delivering that in the mid-1960s [with a progressive twin-barrel Weber it was doing 83BHP] and it was a lot lighter - and freer-revving - than the LR 2.25 4-pot.

The 2.6 F-head: lethargic in the extreme when compared with similar-era engines [the 2.5-litre Triumph 6-pot was 125-150BHP according to tune; the 1960s twin-carb Rover-2000/2200-style 2-litre 4-pot OHC was 125BHP] and the Rover 6-pot drank both fuel and oil at prodigious rates.

Why LR went for the Rover V8 for the "Stage 1" LR when they could have fitted the Triumph 2.5 six [twin 175 Strombergs for the poverty version, fuel-injection for the rest] I just don't understand.

In the late-1970s the Triumph 2.3/2.6 OHC sixes as used in the SD1 would have been the perfect petrol engines for LR to have used [the 2.6 version of this engine was deliberately emasculated in its SD1 fitment because if allowed to perform as it could it'd have made the 3.5 V8 a deeply unattractive option both in terms pf performance and fuel-efficiency].

If LR had wanted a truly murderously-fast "Series" LR [or Range-Rover?] for special-duties they could have fitted the 4.5-litre V8 from the Daimler stable. A 220BHP 'hemi' which would have been perfect for 'rapid intervention' vehicles or to haul armour-plated diplomatic cars. They'd have had to upgrade the Series/Range-Rover brakes though!

[FridgeFreezer]

Tanuki - the LR lumps have never been about the BHP figure, they're about chugging away smoothly and in a controlled manner making torque from almost zero. Car lumps are doing a completely different job. Case in point: I eyed up RB26DETT (Skyline twin-turbo) lumps as a possible swap for the 109 but none of them made anything below ~2000rpm whereas the big dumb old Rover V8 pulled from tickover. The Skyline ones easily hit 5-600hp whereas the Rover struggles to 250 in 4.6 form, but I know which one makes a more practical 4x4.

[Bowie69]

Tanuki - the LR lumps have never been about the BHP figure, they're about chugging away smoothly and in a controlled manner making torque from almost zero.

This.

[deep]

Tanuki - the LR lumps have never been about the BHP figure, they're about chugging away smoothly and in a controlled manner making torque from almost zero. Car lumps are doing a completely different job. Case in point: I eyed up RB26DETT (Skyline twin-turbo) lumps as a possible swap for the 109 but none of them made anything below ~2000rpm whereas the big dumb old Rover V8 pulled from tickover. The Skyline ones easily hit 5-600hp whereas the Rover struggles to 250 in 4.6 form, but I know which one makes a more practical 4x4.

Bang on. How often do we see people driving turbo diesels (or, here in NZ, little Oriental 4 pots) dipping the clutch to try to get the revs back up? Frequently. About as often as we see them come off the boil and just stall. The 2¼/2.5, early V8s and especially the sixes just don't die. They're all brilliant for their intended use, though I'll concede those sixes carry a hefty weight penalty!

[Snagger]

I work with Land Rovers, i've driven many TDI powered defenders/discoveries. I would never deny that they are a very reliable dependable engine. They work well in the original vehicles but i think you'd have to change too much of a series to make the engine suit. If i were to change the gearbox, i'd be far too close to having a defender.

I appreciate that a lot of people like the conversion. I wouldn't have done it if it weren't for the glowing reviews but it's just not for me. I'd rather pay the higher fuel bill for the lovely 2.25 petrol.

What? Fitting an overdrive, which has been a factory option since the SI, is too much of a change? Pray tell what else you think has to be changed...

[ejparrott]

Overdrive and Stage 1 V8 diffs have been working great for me for many many years. Both era-correct fitments, the OD was even an option for the 88 anyway.

[oneandtwo]

I built a 88"2a with new Richards chassis, late series 3 24spline axles, suffix d MOD gearbox, overdrive, high ratio diffs, 200tdi with 300tdi turbo and lots of TIG welding to make it what I think was the best tdi conversion I've seen - it looked completely factory with no hose joiners anywhere.

I drove it once as a test up the road and it was an awful noisy thing compared to my 2286cc lightweight and 300tdi defenders. I put it straight on eBay as an unfinished project and someone happily paid me £4500 for it.

[dave88sw]

What? Fitting an overdrive, which has been a factory option since the SI, is too much of a change? Pray tell what else you think has to be changed...

I don't understand why when one person has a different opinion, you feel the need to be condescending...

The gearing was only one of the many downsides in my eyes. It's true of anything that if you throw enough money at a problem, it can be overcome. Try and find an overdrive that's any good for less than £400. They also don't have the best reputation for longevity and parts are getting hard to find.

I tried a TDI, i didn't like it. I'm not going to apologise for that.

[Cheesy]

Bang on. How often do we see people driving turbo diesels (or, here in NZ, little Oriental 4 pots) dipping the clutch to try to get the revs back up? Frequently. About as often as we see them come off the boil and just stall. The 2¼/2.5, early V8s and especially the sixes just don't die. They're all brilliant for their intended use, though I'll concede those sixes carry a hefty weight penalty!

Most of the serries I have seen were converted to Holden 173/186, Valliant 245/265 or Ford 250s, makes them much more like the old Landcruisers!

[Cheesy]

Tanuki - the LR lumps have never been about the BHP figure, they're about chugging away smoothly and in a controlled manner making torque from almost zero. Car lumps are doing a completely different job. Case in point: I eyed up RB26DETT (Skyline twin-turbo) lumps as a possible swap for the 109 but none of them made anything below ~2000rpm whereas the big dumb old Rover V8 pulled from tickover. The Skyline ones easily hit 5-600hp whereas the Rover struggles to 250 in 4.6 form, but I know which one makes a more practical 4x4.

No RB30s in that part of the world? some of the Nissan Patrols came fitted with them.

[Jon White]

Fuel consumption, fuel consumption and fuel consumption.

I had a v8 in my series that I took out to fit the 200tdi that's still in it. Figures of 14mpg versus 34mpg are a huge difference imho.

Plus reduced maintenance and increased reliability (well ok......if you take starter motors out of the equation). Plus the tdi never overheats where I always had trouble keeping the v8 cool......

Tweeking the boost and fuelling on the tdi means mine is just as quick as it ever was with a v8. The only real downside imho is that the v8 was better off road for things like steep climbs.

I wouldn't go back to a v8. However the v8 was infinitely better than both the 2.25 petrol and the 2.5 patrols that were in it before the v8. Fuel consumption for all the petrol engines was roughly the same for me.

Jon

[jai_landrover]

Chicken we ended in the same points in the national! Same group!!

I'm not a fan of the TDi for trialling it's point and squirt ability sucks! Mine has been good done many years good service but I'd take a good 2.25 any day over a tdi for competition driving. Not in a heavy motor but an 80-88 yea be Just sweet.

A tdi you are thinking ahead and for me

Not being able to recover when low on revs and stalls is the worse point about the engine. A 2.35 will keep going keep pulling (not like a v8 but better than a tdi at 800 rpm. For my 90

It's fine for a tow motor, maybe the odd rtv it's cheap cheerful and runs on and on. My personal preference would be the v8 for Comps now I'm Talking, then a sorted 2.25 then a 2.5na and then tdi. Everyday then tdi v8 2.25.

To rebuild any engine properly it's not cheap. It's very rare these days people actually do a rebuild.

. But a 2.25 is relatively cheap around £600 gets you a decent start bored and Pistons rings head skimmed a lot. If you spend the time

On the head which is time not ££ assuming you have good serviceable engine to begin with.

Now my absolutely std v8 was around that when we pulled it apart for worn rings due to my uncle having a slight over heat. That was a fully

Rebuilt engine a couple of year previous to the overheat (typical sd1 driver towing a boat) watching stone henge instead of the temp

Gauge!! Then stored in the garage for 10 years.

A 2.25 has real potential too.

Bhp wins boys talk in Asda car park torque wins races. Where Torque is produced is important too. No point having no torque at Tickover for trials or pulling trailers. Even if maximum torque is massive if it's not producing any of it at 1000-1500 rpm then forget it.

[jai_landrover]

Finding it hard to get torque read outs at various RPM for each engine. The 2.5tdi has

More torque at 1800rpm than the 2.25 at 2000rpm however I really would Like to know torque at 700rpm 800 900 etc. I believe the 200 tdi tails right off considering the turbo at lower rpm, far More than even a 2.5na. Maximum or overall torque may not be as high but I would hazard a guess the 2.25 has a much flatter torque curve with obviously less overall torque than a 200tdi.

Maybe it's time to tweek the 200 alas it's done a lifetime with me as it is super reliable so cannot fault it really. I feel pained to just tweek the pump. If I'm going to mess with it I have a spare engine I can rebuild properly so no nasty surprises and do some mods to get it more efficienct which result in gains in every aspect, torque, mpg and intake temp. Getting the intake down just a few degrees will help no end for free efficiency gains. Hmm guess I better weigh in the 300 block in on my engine stand and get this 200 on It ready to rebuild!! Anyone want a 300 lump of junk to mess with!!

[deep]

Most of the serries I have seen were converted to Holden 173/186, Valliant 245/265 or Ford 250s, makes them much more like the old Landcruisers!

My Series 2 has a Holden 202. It feels exactly like a Land Rover 2¼ but with 50% more poke. It's lighter and more economical, to boot. Really lovely motor, until you put it on a steep hill and the carburettor shows it's serious limitations (apparently it's possible to have a similar problem with the oil pick up). Not sure about the big Valiant/Falcon motors. Much heavier for a little more torque. Not so flash.

All these motors bring challenges to the gearing too. I recall a lot of Rover 90s were killed to get the diffs out for converted Land Rovers. Sometimes, only the back diff was changed. Cringe!

[Cheesy]

My Series 2 has a Holden 202. It feels exactly like a Land Rover 2¼ but with 50% more poke. It's lighter and more economical, to boot. Really lovely motor, until you put it on a steep hill and the carburettor shows it's serious limitations (apparently it's possible to have a similar problem with the oil pick up). Not sure about the big Valiant/Falcon motors. Much heavier for a little more torque. Not so flash.

All these motors bring challenges to the gearing too. I recall a lot of Rover 90s were killed to get the diffs out for converted Land Rovers. Sometimes, only the back diff was changed. Cringe!

Not scientific but my IIa sat higher with a cast iron head 4.1 crossflow motor than the 21/4 Landy diesel, it didnt rev like the 173 my mate had but it had huge amounts of torque, like using high4 instead of low4. From what I have heard the Valliant motors had the power/torque and reved too

[deep]

Not scientific but my IIa sat higher with a cast iron head 4.1 crossflow motor than the 21/4 Landy diesel, it didnt rev like the 173 my mate had but it had huge amounts of torque, like using high4 instead of low4. From what I have heard the Valliant motors had the power/torque and reved too

Fair enough. I've had an early Falcon 250 and a Series 3 petrol motor out of the vehicle and my impression of the Falcon was one of sheer mass but time can distort memories. I do remember the Falcon motor (which replaced a 200, which replaced a 160 in my old XP) being mighty torquey but thirsty and prone to running hot. I loved it though. I actually wish you could still use motors like that in new Land Rovers!

[Snagger]

I don't understand why when one person has a different opinion, you feel the need to be condescending...

The gearing was only one of the many downsides in my eyes. It's true of anything that if you throw enough money at a problem, it can be overcome. Try and find an overdrive that's any good for less than £400. They also don't have the best reputation for longevity and parts are getting hard to find.

I tried a TDI, i didn't like it. I'm not going to apologise for that.

That's fine that you didn't like it, but you said there was an extensive amount of modification needed to make a Tdi work in a Series vehicle, and that simply isn't the case. Even the overdrive is optional, though the exercise would be fairly pointless for most people without increased gearing. As for my tone, your statement that fitting a Tdi turns a lovely vehicle in to a soulless truck that is a chore to drive is fairly insulting to those who have made the mod and are proud of their vehicles. Personal opinions are fine, but blanket statements about ruining vehicles and incorrect postulations about the characteristics when you only did half the job are going to provoke a reaction.

[Chicken Drumstick]

I built a 88"2a with new Richards chassis, late series 3 24spline axles, suffix d MOD gearbox, overdrive, high ratio diffs, 200tdi with 300tdi turbo and lots of TIG welding to make it what I think was the best tdi conversion I've seen - it looked completely factory with no hose joiners anywhere.

I drove it once as a test up the road and it was an awful noisy thing compared to my 2286cc lightweight and 300tdi defenders. I put it straight on eBay as an unfinished project and someone happily paid me £4500 for it.

That would seem rather bonkers to me.

[Chicken Drumstick]

Finding it hard to get torque read outs at various RPM for each engine. The 2.5tdi has

More torque at 1800rpm than the 2.25 at 2000rpm however I really would Like to know torque at 700rpm 800 900 etc. I believe the 200 tdi tails right off considering the turbo at lower rpm, far More than even a 2.5na. Maximum or overall torque may not be as high but I would hazard a guess the 2.25 has a much flatter torque curve with obviously less overall torque than a 200tdi.

Maybe it's time to tweek the 200 alas it's done a lifetime with me as it is super reliable so cannot fault it really. I feel pained to just tweek the pump. If I'm going to mess with it I have a spare engine I can rebuild properly so no nasty surprises and do some mods to get it more efficienct which result in gains in every aspect, torque, mpg and intake temp. Getting the intake down just a few degrees will help no end for free efficiency gains. Hmm guess I better weigh in the 300 block in on my engine stand and get this 200 on It ready to rebuild!! Anyone want a 300 lump of junk to mess with!!

I know where you are coming from with this and don't really disagree. Although I would say, I've not notice it being an issue for me personally with a Tdi. Although if I'm honest I prefer a V8 off road. The white pickup in my avatar is my Uncles factory V8 90, which I've used a lot and competed in a 3 Nationals with.

I also can't find much data on torque output at low rpm for the Tdi or 2.25.

I do have some speed for given rpm though.

LT-77 with 3.59:1 first, stock 3.32:1 LT230 low and 32" tall tyres gives:

500rpm = 1.1mph

1000rpm = 2.3mph

1500rpm = 3.4mph

2000rpm = 4.5mph

Compare that with a Series 3 88 with first gear of 3.68:1 and a low range of 2.35:1 also with 32" tyres. You get:

500rpm = 1.2mph

1000rpm = 2.4mph

1500rpm = 3.6mph

2000rmm = 4.8mph

They would seem pretty evenly geared. For trialling I know you sometimes need to go very slow, but tick over 1st is probably fine in either for me.

[ejparrott]

I built a 88"2a with new Richards chassis, late series 3 24spline axles, suffix d MOD gearbox, overdrive, high ratio diffs, 200tdi with 300tdi turbo and lots of TIG welding to make it what I think was the best tdi conversion I've seen - it looked completely factory with no hose joiners anywhere.

I drove it once as a test up the road and it was an awful noisy thing compared to my 2286cc lightweight and 300tdi defenders. I put it straight on eBay as an unfinished project and someone happily paid me £4500 for it.

Series 3 88" never had 24-spline axles only 24 spline drive flanges. The Salisbury axle from the Stage 1 V8 and the 109 had a 24-spline rear diff but the front was still 10 spline. I've got two examples here.

[FridgeFreezer]

Well there goes a thread about engines...

[Retroanaconda]

So what have we learned in these five pages?

Perhaps the fact that it seems there is no perfect engine and that it really does depend on your intended use just goes to show the versatility and adaptability of the Land Rover.