Land Rover series 3s (r6) 200tdi conversion

[SteytlerL]

Hi,

I bought a LWB series 3s or R6, after consideration i thought it would be best to chuck the old petrol engine out, and convert to the 200tdi. i have done my research on this topic and found alot of information, but just as i want to start, after having a look at one last post regarding this conversion, i am back to square one with doubts on what i should do....

i have bought the engine, from a disco 1, which is the 200tdi

along with the engine i bought the radiator fitted to the disco where the engine came from,

i want to know what i have to do (manifolds, turbo "clocking" ect ect) in order to keep my turbo...

i know its been explained in detail but i am still unsure as to what to expect, everything is in the garage waiting to be started, just need that last push of encouragement form fellow landy enthusiasts....

also as far as im concerned, this is the first R6 attempt found on the web??

thanxs for the help

[Bowie69]

I forget, are you LHD or RHD in south africa?

[Snagger]

You will neither either Defender 200Tdi manifolds and turbo or 300Tdi; the existing turbo can be rotated to fit an 88", but not a 109".

[BSF]

The engine does work very well without the turbo. Performance a bit better than a two-and-a-quarter petrol and it will go twice as far on a gallon. OK, you are losing about 25% of the potential power from the engine, but on the plus side:

1. It is a much easier job to fit.

2. The series gearbox will last longer.

3. Exhaust is easy to cobble together.

4. You can use the series cooling setup and you don't need a fan.

Have a look at the glencoyne site. http://www.glencoyne.co.uk/200di.htm The engine backplate mod and the alternator fitting kit are well worth the money.

I did my conversion to a Series 3 109 a few years ago; I have never regretted ditching the turbo.

[Snagger]

As BSF says, fitting without turbo is a conversion with merit. It limits the car's performance to pretty much what it is with a late 2.25 petrol, but for most SIII owners now that's fine. Most who need more already have a Defender. It certainly makes installation easier and cheaper.

I used the same engine as you, but used Defender 200Tdi manifolds and turbo (harder to get hold of now). You can also use 300Tdi parts which are a direct fit.

The installation is covered in the engine section of my blog - click my signature below if you want to read it and check the photos.

[xychix]

I've been offered a disco 1 engine with 230K (km's) on the clock.

Does anyone know if a 200di conversion is possible with a disco 200di (turbo less) without a defender exhaust manifold?

Any other parts needed?

- can i reuse Series III steering / radiator / exhaust?

Most important can a LHD 200di conversion been done without having to go to PAS?

[Snagger]

Yes to all of the above. You will need the exhaust manifold from a 10 or 12J normally aspirated diesel. Glencoyne Engineering has instructions on his website how to mate it up as the stud patterns are a little different. I would also recommend a 2" bore exhaust; I found a standard 2.25l petrol exhaust caused high temperatures on long hills.

As for the flywheel housing to gear box bell housing, you can try the Series flywheel housing, but I know the 12J (2.5nad) housing fits the block and only needs one stud moving to mate to the SIII box. The Discovery housing will also fit, with a few studs added after their blind holes have been tapped out, but you still need to do something about the four bolts that go through the bottom of the Discovery bell housing and the flywheel housing into the ladder frame under the block. I recommend using socket head screws that secure against the surface of the flywheel housing, drilling holes for their heads in the bell housing flange. Received wisdom is to shoulder bore the flywheel housing to recess the heads, which is neat, but then you can't remove them to get the ladder frame off for crank shaft access without removing the gear box.

[steve b]

When you say R6 , does that mean it's currently a 2.6 6cyl? If so the bell housing bolt pattern is different to the 2.25 engines . Swapping the bell housing is no biggy though . The other consideration is the gearbox is further back on the 2.6 iirc

cheers

Steveb

[daslandroverman]

The R6 was a South African only model, petrol versions had a variant of the 2.6 Triumph engine that was used in the SD1, and diesel versions had a licence built Perkins 4.236,

Not sure what they had in terms of gearboxes, but certainly not the same as a UK model six cylinder.

[steve b]

Didn't know that Das , that's interesting . Now we need pics of the truck before it gets changed . The 2.6 in the SD1 was OHC I believe ?

cheers

Steveb

[Chicken Drumstick]

The 2.6 in the SD1's was quite a nice engine. Would think they have lots of potential in a Series.

Personally I see no point at all in running tdi sans turbo. All you'll end up with is a low cr lump and no real benefit for the work. That and a Tdi is noisy and unrefined in a Series. Mpg won't double vs a 2.25 either.

Don't get me wrong I like Tdi's, I have a 200Tdi 88. But I'd not even consider one without a turbo. I've not really worked on a 109, can't see why you couldn't fit one with the turbo in there.

[Snagger]

The 2.6 in the SD1's was quite a nice engine. Would think they have lots of potential in a Series.

Personally I see no point at all in running tdi sans turbo. All you'll end up with is a low cr lump and no real benefit for the work. That and a Tdi is noisy and unrefined in a Series. Mpg won't double vs a 2.25 either.

Don't get me wrong I like Tdi's, I have a 200Tdi 88. But I'd not even consider one without a turbo. I've not really worked on a 109, can't see why you couldn't fit one with the turbo in there.

You can fit the Defender 200 or the 300 Tdis, but not the Discovery/RRC 200 with the turbo still attached - it fouls the chassis badly. 109 chassis are much deeper than 88s.

[SteytlerL]

HI guys,

haven't been on here in a while now, however i have made some progress with the old girl...

firstly the bell housing on the 3S (R6, stage one) (call it what you want, its pretty much the same thing in my eyes..might be wrong) is NOT the same as the series 3

this is obvious to me now, but it is not something i considered when doing my research for the conversion...i have 2 series 3 landy's and now the 3S. so in my haste i was only looking at the series 3...anyways, the engine and the gearbox is at the workshop getting the adapter plate made to fit the 200Tdi with the santana gearbox

got new engine and gearbox mounts coming this friday, and hopefully ill be able post a photo of the conversion within a month or so...for now, cleaning and repainting the chassis

please hep me out here, i was under the impression the R6 was originally a holden engine 4 cylinder, which was converted to a 6 cylinder in stellenbosh???

[SteytlerL]

I forget, are you LHD or RHD in south africa?

we are RHD, thankfully

[SteytlerL]

Didn't know that Das , that's interesting . Now we need pics of the truck before it gets changed . The 2.6 in the SD1 was OHC I believe ?

cheers

Steveb

i will take some pics and post them, but yes, R6 was only here in SA, with the santana gearbox, apparently they are as strong as an ox

[SteytlerL]

The 2.6 in the SD1's was quite a nice engine. Would think they have lots of potential in a Series.

Personally I see no point at all in running tdi sans turbo. All you'll end up with is a low cr lump and no real benefit for the work. That and a Tdi is noisy and unrefined in a Series. Mpg won't double vs a 2.25 either.

Don't get me wrong I like Tdi's, I have a 200Tdi 88. But I'd not even consider one without a turbo. I've not really worked on a 109, can't see why you couldn't fit one with the turbo in there.

i love the whistle of a turbo, and petrol isn't for me, im a diesel guy

[Ratty43]

I converted a series 3 to 200tdi sans turbo and frankly hated it. It was far (as in a galaxy etc) noisier and gutless although the mpg was better by a small margin. I say that as a firm believer that the 200tdi was the best LR engine by a country mile but it's better left as it's designers meant it to be.

[Snagger]

The designers intended it to come in turbo charged and normally aspirated form. The normally aspirated version was dropped.

[Chicken Drumstick]

The designers intended it to come in turbo charged and normally aspirated form. The normally aspirated version was dropped.

Yes but not simply by removing the turbo, the n/a version would likely have been a different CR and maybe other things, to improve it's n/a performance.

As a for example. The 2.0 litre turbo engine in my Impreza was also designed to be n/a also. However the n/a version isn't simply a turbo unit with the turbo removed, retaining the same CR and tune....

[lo-fi]

Just to add to what chicken drumstick said: in some diesel engines the timing is even different between NA and turbo engines of the same design. A diesel without a turbo is a horrible, horrible thing IMHO. There's a reason every modern diesel has a turbo bolted to it...

Anyway, this guy is active on here, and has published this great piece:

http://www.landyowners.co.uk/index.php?topic=3923.0

[Snagger]

Yes but not simply by removing the turbo, the n/a version would likely have been a different CR and maybe other things, to improve it's n/a performance.

As a for example. The 2.0 litre turbo engine in my Impreza was also designed to be n/a also. However the n/a version isn't simply a turbo unit with the turbo removed, retaining the same CR and tune....

I know that - that's why the 12J had a cr or 23:1 and the 19J 21:1. The point is, LR originally conceived the engine as having a non-turbo variant, and it would only have been slightly peppier than the "200di".

[Chicken Drumstick]

I would think it would be a lot better tbh. I'm yet to find anyone who has dyno'd a "200Di", but all evidence I can find suggest they'd make 65-70hp tops. I'd think a factory Di would have had to have done better than that.

Also remember without the turbo, you won't get the fat torque curve either. So while PEAK hp is down a lot, PEAK torque will be massively down.

[Snagger]

Personally, I'd not go the 200di route either, but some want the simplicity and don't need the power or torque. I know a few people who have done it and all are very pleased with the results. At the end of the day, it's going to be far more frugal, powerful and have better torque than a 2.25 diesel or a 12J. The lack of compression would be more than offset by the direct injection when compared to the 12J.

Ultimately, we have to remember that not everyone wants an engine swap so that they can drive at 80mph with a load. Some just want similar performance as from the original engine but with better reliability and far reduced fuel consumption. If they are happy with the old performance, it is not our place to tell them that theirs is a bad choice or that the car will be a bad driver. It may suit them far more than the full Tdi conversion.

[LaRoNut]

HI guys,

please hep me out here, i was under the impression the R6 was originally a holden engine 4 cylinder, which was converted to a 6 cylinder in stellenbosh???

The R6 engine was developed from the BMC E6 engine used in the Princess (UK). Leyland Australia turned the engine into a 2.6. The tooling was then sold to Leyland ZA and the engine was used here in the Marina, Rover SD1 and Land Rover Series IIIS. The IIIS was our version of the Stage1 V8, but with some differences...gearbox and engine, mainly. Stellenbosch only worked on the cam and carburation for the Landy application, IIRC.

[missingsid]

I had a 2.2 E6 in a UK car, loverly engine but front drive, power steering, braking and all that weight on the front wheels made it go straight on in tight bends even at 25mph in the summer it ended up on the footpath!