http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1869431430

Weber conversion kits
j

Bet that thing will make an engine purr on the hwy but I wonder how it does on rock crawling at high altitude at crazy angles? :confused:

Speaking of more power. I was looking at the East Coast Rover website and noticed that they are now installing Powerstrokes in Rovers. I've seen one or two of these done in the past. I guess they are getting more popular.

I wonder how they will handle the "Sensitive Drivetrain" issue?

By selling their customers more and more stuff. That place seems the place to go if you have disposable income.

j

Originally posted by lwg
Speaking of more power. I was looking at the East Coast Rover website and noticed that they are now installing Powerstrokes in Rovers. I've seen one or two of these done in the past. I guess they are getting more popular.

I wonder how they will handle the "Sensitive Drivetrain" issue?

The powerstrokes have more torque than the standard TDi (by about 70 ft.lbs). However, at this low RPM, would the added torque be as so much of a problem as a similar torque applied at a much higher RPM (e.g. diesel vs. gas)? The Powerstroke is only putting out about 50 more ft.lbs than a 3.9 BTW. Even if the Powerstroke were able to produce 90% of it's peak torque up to 3500 RPM, the peak HP would be less than 170 HP.

I know the torque is an issue, but being so low in the powerband, could driving style be adjusted to effectively use it without killing your drive-train? And yes, I would love to have it (plus the great mileage...).

What a freaking rip off!

The mainifold is from edelbrock :Here (http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=25745)

The carb is edelbrock 500 cfm AFB style square bore. 215.00 here (http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=312) and the guys said it's worth 800.00!:rolleyes:

Originally posted by DieLucas!


The powerstrokes have more torque than the standard TDi (by about 70 ft.lbs). However, at this low RPM, would the added torque be as so much of a problem as a similar torque applied at a much higher RPM (e.g. diesel vs. gas)? The Powerstroke is only putting out about 50 more ft.lbs than a 3.9 BTW. Even if the Powerstroke were able to produce 90% of it's peak torque up to 3500 RPM, the peak HP would be less than 170 HP.

I know the torque is an issue, but being so low in the powerband, could driving style be adjusted to effectively use it without killing your drive-train? And yes, I would love to have it (plus the great mileage...).

What????????


Are you trying to tell me that a 300tdi has 450ftlb of torque at 1500 rpm???

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Originally posted by redrangie


What????????


Are you trying to tell me that a 300tdi has 450ftlb of torque at 1500 rpm???

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Are you a moron?:confused:
EDIT: No really...are you a moron? J/K


HP = torque * RPM / 5252

torque = HP / RPM * 5252

The Powerstroke produces 277 ft.lbs at 1400 RPM. I said (hypothetically) that if it could produce 90% of it's peak torque up to 3500 RPM (which, eventhough diesels have a fairly flat torque curve, is a lofty assumption; that's why I made it). By this scenario (albeit improbable, but since ECR doesn't supply torque curves, you estimate for the effects of those who can't), at 3500 RPM, the engine would produce 249.3 ft.lbs; multiply that by 3500 RPM and divide by 5252...that gives you 166 HP.
Maybe you need to drop by ECR's page http://www.eastcoastrover.com/Tdiconversions.html (BTW, at 1400 RPM at it's peak torque, the Powerstroke is making 73.8 HP).

Originally posted by redrangie


What????????


Are you trying to tell me that a 300tdi has 450ftlb of torque at 1500 rpm???

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

The powerstroke they are putting in the Rovers is a 4cyl model which produces 277lbs of torque. Its not the same motor you find in 1ton Ford. I don't think there is enough room under the hood of a Rover to get a 8cyl diesel motor. :D

Originally posted by onsafari


The powerstroke they are putting in the Rovers is a 4cyl model which produces 277lbs of torque. Its not the same motor you find in 1ton Ford. I don't think there is enough room under the hood of a Rover to get a 8cyl diesel motor. :D

Clic here:
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76191

http://www.nav-international.com.br/ingles/motores/imagens/veicular_motor_hs25l.jpg

First High Speed Diesel engine manufactured in Brazil. Low emission levels. Powers the Brazil- and UK-made Land Rover Defender and the Matra pickup truck.
Cylinders: 4 , inline
Displacement: 2.5 liters
Intake: turbochargedcooled
Max Net HP: 105-115 @ 3800 RPM
Max Net Torque: 29 kgf.m @ 1600 RPM

Originally posted by Old Scout



Cylinders: 4 , inline
Displacement: 2.5 liters
Intake: turbochargedcooled
Max Net HP: 105-115 @ 3800 RPM
Max Net Torque: 29 kgf.m @ 1600 RPM



Thanks OS. Obviously my estimates were very lofty; at 3800 rpm, it's still producing 145 to 159 ft. lbs of torque, still impressive :D

Originally posted by DieLucas!



Thanks OS. Obviously my estimates were very lofty; at 3800 rpm, it's still producing 145 to 159 ft. lbs of torque, still impressive :D

You need to step up to the 2.8 to get some real power:

http://www.nav-international.com.br/ingles/motores/imagens/veicular_motor_hs28_16v.jpg

Cylinders: 4 , inline
Displacement: 2.8 liters
Intake: turbochargedcooled
Max Net HP :
8-valve: 120-160 @ 3800 RPM
16-valve: 160-180 @ 3800 RPM
Max Net Torque:
8-valve: 30.5-33 kgf.m @ 1500 RPM
16-valve: 41-44 kgf.m @ 1500 RPM
Compliance to Emission Control Regulations:
8-valve: EURO III - MVEE
EURO III - HD
16-valve: FTP75 Tier1
EURO III - HD
EPA HD 2004

As stated before, this PowerStroke engine is just a LR 300 Tdi with a VV Turbo, with slightly more displacement. Most of us with Tdi's just want to get ahold of the turbo (for a little more boost down in the lower rpms).

Billster

Originally posted by Old Scout


You need to step up to the 2.8 to get some real power:

Cylinders: 4 , inline
Displacement: 2.8 liters
Intake: turbochargedcooled
Max Net HP :
8-valve: 120-160 @ 3800 RPM
16-valve: 160-180 @ 3800 RPM
Max Net Torque:
8-valve: 30.5-33 kgf.m @ 1500 RPM
16-valve: 41-44 kgf.m @ 1500 RPM
Compliance to Emission Control Regulations:
8-valve: EURO III - MVEE
EURO III - HD
16-valve: FTP75 Tier1
EURO III - HD
EPA HD 2004

The 2.8 from the ECR page was what I was basing my estimates on. Look at that, 160-180 HP at 3800 rpm...I estimated about 170 hp at 3500 rpm...BOOYEAH!!!! :emb2:

Okay, maybe that wasn't necessary

Originally posted by onsafari


The powerstroke they are putting in the Rovers is a 4cyl model which produces 277lbs of torque. Its not the same motor you find in 1ton Ford. I don't think there is enough room under the hood of a Rover to get a 8cyl diesel motor. :D

Now Mark, I know of a D110 from Houston who did just that. Took a lot of work, but he did it.

I think the D110 from Houston was Clarkes, if it was it has a GM 6.5 diesel and NV4500. I've driven it and it is fantastic... I need that engine in my 110! I'm working on getting it in there.

6.5 yuck!!! compare the displacement of that motor to its power and you will see why it is such a CRAPPY motor. unless you are living in the 70s then why do you want a N/A diesel motor? sure it may haul in a rover but for the amount of time, effort, and not to mention tons of money you will have spent on that swap you might as well have put in something reliable, and regarded as a REAL diesel, like a cummins or isuzu. you are going to spend the time and money one way or the other, so just do it right IMO and do it with a cummins :D


not to mention that clarke himself is a dickhead!

I'm sick... I like the GM. I drive an 83 Sub with a 6.2 and 280000 miles on it and I like it. I've also driven 6.5 turbos at work along with 6BT cummins and powerstrokes and I still like the GM. It is cheap, simple, it has all the power and mileage I want :)

Hey, my bad on the v8 thing. I am an ex-ford guy, so when you say stroker, it keys one thing to me, a navistar v8. I was still reeling from the thought of a 525 ftlb motor that ways almost as much as the truck itself. So,

oops!

j

You're forgiven
But it won't be forgotten:flipoff2:

Originally posted by redrangie
I was off!
j

lol That reminded me of dumb&dumber...."Oh, Samsonite! I was way off!"

-Jeff

Originally posted by western110
I'm sick... I like the GM. I drive an 83 Sub with a 6.2 and 280000 miles on it and I like it

You obviously don't live at a very high altitude. N/A Diesels are Dogs here in Colorado. My 3.9L V8 has more power than them heading up the passes.

However, to each is own!

Originally posted by 9V
6.5 yuck!!! compare the displacement of that motor to its power and you will see why it is such a CRAPPY motor. unless you are living in the 70s then why do you want a N/A diesel motor? sure it may haul in a rover but for the amount of time, effort, and not to mention tons of money you will have spent on that swap you might as well have put in something reliable, and regarded as a REAL diesel, like a cummins or isuzu. you are going to spend the time and money one way or the other, so just do it right IMO and do it with a cummins :D


not to mention that clarke himself is a dickhead!

I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with you. The 2.8 powerstroke also has a forged crank, different piston design and hopefully no cambelt issues.

Medium altitude, 4000ft with trips up to a max of about 7000ft. My 110 has a 2.5na diesel , talk about a dog! The Sub with the 6.2na diesel will tow the 110 faster than the 110 can drive under it's own power. As for the cost of the conversion it is not too bad, I'm rebuilding the 6.2 myself once I take it out of the Sub (the sub cost $750 and I've put over 40000miles on it so far). I'm making most of the parts needed to do the swap at evening machine shop classes. The NV4500 was a little expensive at about $1300 US after buying it, having it rebuilt and shipping it. I can't say that it will be cheap once I'm done but it has been fun and it is not going to cost anywhere near what buying a 300TDI and R380 would cost, it will last much longer to.

The 2.5na is 67hp and 115ftlbs
The 6.2na is 160hp and 280ftlbs (numbers varry with spec, C vs J code etc...)

Originally posted by western110
The 6.2na is 160hp and 280ftlbs (numbers varry with spec, C vs J code etc...)

You're not talking about that diesel engine that GM made in the 80's by converting an engine/block of a gasoline design to run on diesel...? Prone to cracking blocks...

I mean, there's no point in making caserole when your starting ingredients are sh*t :D

Okay, kidding aside, what are the considerations of using an engine that heavy, or am I overestimating it's girth? I'm wondering what kind of wear hauling around that much weight over the front axle may cause, and whether maintenance due to this compares to maintaining a smaller, but equally powerful TurD (hehe, my NEW abbreviate for Turbo Diesel; catchy, huh?) like the Powerstroke.

Ok, the bad GM was the 5.7L diesel which was not much more than the 350 with diesel injection added. The 6.2 and 6.5 where designed by detroit diesel for GM, they are light duty diesels in comparison to the powerstroke and cummins but as such they have some advantages.

Weight of the GM is about 600lbs depending on what externals you add, the TDI is about 500lbs. Leave the tire off of the hood with the GM and the front axle is no worse off than with the rover diesel. The Cummins and Ford are in the 1000lbs plus range.

The GM has a similar rpm range to the Rover. My 2.5na is governed at 4250 rpm, the GM varies but is about 4000 rpm and can be turned up higher by an injection shop. there are also a load of performance up grades that can be added to the GM diesels to give crazy numbers like 300+ hp and 500+ ftlbs but this would be very expensive. The ford and cummins have a much more limited rpm range and gearing issues become more difficult to deal with in a rover. Also I find the more flexable rpm range to be more pleasent to drive.

However the main thing that makes me want a GM is that it is cheap and I can get parts and service dam near anywhere in North or South America and much of the world. If the 2.5 or 2.8 TDI do become an off the shelf unit here then I would have nothing against it as it looks great other than that I can't go to my local parts store. But even then I don't think the little 4 cylinder diesel can last as long as the V8 diesels, they are just working so hard to make the power. I've had three 2.5na rover engines and they don't like life in a 110, they're luck to make it about 100000 km before a major over haul is needed. My 6.2 has 450000 km and has gone threw one injection pump (30000 km ago) one lift pump (two weeks ago) and a couple of sets of glow plugs. My 110 has 120000 km and is on it's 3rd engine,
one while it was in the army, one I had to replace this spring due to low compression, and the thrid that is in it now that I have rebuilt. Don't get me wrong I like the rover diesels but they just are not what I need here in Canada with the distances I drive.

Well I've gone well over board here, I'll just crawl off and try to live with my 2.5 powered 110 for awhile longer, I'll have that big diesel in the rover some day :)

Thanks for clearing that up Western ;)

I drove a 6.2 (the non turbo as the 6.5 was tuboed) as my personal wreck in the army. Granted, I only used it on operations, but it NEVER had any problems. (ever try to sneak into an area in a diesel?) Our entire fleet was 6.2 except for those pesky little 151's, (jeeps) with their pesky little 1 barrels. Anyway. I agree with western. I don't think there would be so many conversion parts out there if they weren't a good conversion. I have thought a lot about replacing my 3.9 with one if it ever dies (compression only 10% off at 120k) for the same reasons.

I would probably stick with the 6.2 as they are slightly less complex, and the turbo on the 6.5 is a cast unit with oil cooling. They tend to loose bearings and leak, and it sucks replacing them. The power output in HP is very similar to the 3.9, with a big plus in torque at lower (where it matters) rpm. You could find one in almost any pick-n-pull I'd reckon as well. They are PERFECTLY suited for an auto as well.

Sorry for the daylight savings time rant.

j

"powerstroke" or "powerjoke":confused:

Let's get real, this engine looks okay on paper, but wtf? These days everybody makes Enron claims and LR has made some pretty bs claims about power, durability and reliability too. :rolleyes:

1) It is being pushed by ECR as the be all to end all engine, but it is basically a warmed over Rover powerplant and LR diesels are not known for their power or longevity. And ECR has tossed out some major fibs like claiming that the stock 300TDI is more powerful than the stock V8s - which is not true at any rpm!. :rolleyes:

2) They try to ripoff the Ford Powerstrock trademark to confuse novices. What is really bad is that this 2.8L "powerjoke" engine is that it has half the nuts of a real Ford Powerstroke. :rainbow: Granted, it is about half the weight too - but guess what that means in the reliability world? :nuke: I wonder how bad they are going to get burned when big blue's legal department gets ahold of this "powerstroke" nonsense.

3) The promise is that this engine made in Brasilia has fixed all of the deficiencies of the 300 TDI - maybe, but Why would you want to speend your $$$ on some unproven nonsense? Cummins, Isuzu, CAT, Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan, Detroit, Ford etc are proven quantities - pick your price point and select what fits.

4) And what kind of parts support are you going to have with this Baby when things go :nuke: ?

5) The real kicker is the drive train. The real promise of this engine is that it is as close to a "bolt in" as you can get. But thats crap too becase the Rover powertrain is not up to nut. So you need to at least replace the tranny, and that throws the "bolt in" concept out the window. Just go for a better engine.

Better things are around the corner like Ford's V6 Powerstroke. and for those of you that don't like "V" diesels, check out Cummins' report to the SAE on a 250HP 335 ftlb V6: http://www.osti.gov/hvt/2000-01-2196.pdf (15.1 kB):barf:

Whoa Busto, easy man.

I would imagine that using the Powerstroke moniker is very okay with Ford: http://www.nav-international.com.br/caminho.asp?centro=ranger.asp

What is your gripe with the 300 Tdi (besides ECR's overblown promotion of it)? Besides timing belt issues that have been dealt with by LR, there are not many other things wrong with it.

Many UK owners report very high mileage outta their Tdi's.

I rather like the fact that this engine does not weigh alot, has a small footprint in the engine bay, absolutely no electronics (KISS)and is very "tuneable".

After transplanting a 300 Tdi in my D110, all I can say is:
One hot wire and two fuel lines to run baby!

No ecu, no ignition system to go kaput, etc, etc.

Anyway, after researching all the avail. drop in Diesels avail. here in the states it was not difficult for me to choose the Tdi. The GM 6.2/6.5 transplant is very expensive in reality. Consider the adapters, god forbid a new or rebuilt engine, an NV4500 (which is conisderably heavier as well), and all the other crap you will have to do/fab/fix to make it work. Not worth the result. Plus you will be waiting a while for the adapter if you go with the "established" source which has not produced any but the prototype to date (correct me if I am wrong).

KC, Ben, and I have proven that you can "bolt in" install a LR 300 Tdi with no prior diesel experience in about 3-4 days of work (pretty easy days at that). With nothing custom except grinding off the motor mounts and welding new one's on. Labor cost on this conversion versus a custom setup with a 6.5/NV4500 (or another of the diesels you mention)are not even close.

With a Tdi ZF auto from a Tdi Disco you would be complete bolt in for the new "PowerStroke", without having to worry about the tranny.

Parts avail. is actually pretty easy with the internet and fast overseas shipping. Besides the big heavy parts, it is realatively inexpensive. George at RDS actually has a nice stock of Tdi parts at reasonable prices here in the states. And if you need something in a big hurry he can pull a part of a salvage 300 tdi and send it out Fedex, or UPS Red.

Anyway thats it for now,

Billster (smellin like diesel with half the vehicles in the driveway "smokin"), and a very happy camper so far with the Tdi.

my main gripe is that you spend a significant amt of money (like to tell us Bill?) putting in a 300tdi, and for what? you have LESS POWER throughout the rpm range than with a 3.9V8. sure you can gas mileage and the ability to sink it, but neither of those are of tremendous concern on a trail rig (the sink it factor may be, but not the mileage).

instead of spending so much cash to end up with less power but more simplicity, i will spend the same amount of money to put in an Isuzu 4BD1T and have 300ft lbs of torque while still retaining that simplicity. not to mention i could haul ass down to the local chevy/gmc dealer and get parts for it, not have to pay RDS prices.

to each his own, but my wallet would choose the isuzu, much better bang for your buck.

Bill,

If you are happy with your 300TDI; who am I to tell you differently? I am totally frustrated with that unadulterated advertising trash from ECR. Maybe I am being too harsh, but I just figure that if a company shovels a lot of bs to sell something, the product as well as the service are suspect.

The good points of the 300TDI are: fuel economy, weight, simplicity and ease of installation. Those may totally fit the bill for some (many?), but I do not think that the 300TDI or the 2.8L "powerjoke are going to win any awards for reliablity. And I am absolutely certain that the Rover trannys are not up to much in the way of modifications. That leaves you with two potentially serious problem areas after going through a swap. And working out of an embassy, I think you very much overstate the ability of overnight and second day air for parts delivery. The issue isn't with FEDEX, it is with clearing customs.:eek: Unless you are in a first world country, that FEDEX crap does not mean a thing to the customs bubbas.

Going with a non Rover diesel is going to be more significantly expensive, and it is going to require a higher degree of engineering skill. But I think that what you gain is a significant increase in reliability and performance. And a 110 has a usable 1000+ kg payload so I think that it is not unreasonable to expect it to have more guts to bring it in line with North American driving habits.

I agree with 9v in most of his points, but I do more "exploration" type driving instead of trail runs so fuel economy is a high priority.
Otherwise, go with a gasoline rig.

Originally posted by Busto
"powerstroke" or "powerjoke":confused:

Let's get real, this engine looks okay on paper, but wtf? These days everybody makes Enron claims and LR has made some pretty bs claims about power, durability and reliability too. :rolleyes:

1) It is being pushed by ECR as the be all to end all engine, but it is basically a warmed over Rover powerplant and LR diesels are not known for their power or longevity. And ECR has tossed out some major fibs like claiming that the stock 300TDI is more powerful than the stock V8s - which is not true at any rpm!. :rolleyes:


EXACTLY DUDE!!! That's kinda why ECR is still pushing all of their other V8 engines, huh? :rolleyes:

Major fibs? Why don't you read earlier in the thread where I posted the calculations for torque and HP and a given RPM...I would have to say at around 1500 rpm near where the TDi and the Powerstroke make their peak torque, the stock V8 isn't making as much HP. Or maybe you don't quite have a grasp of the math behind "power."


2) They try to ripoff the Ford Powerstrock trademark to confuse novices. What is really bad is that this 2.8L "powerjoke" engine is that it has half the nuts of a real Ford Powerstroke. :rainbow: Granted, it is about half the weight too - but guess what that means in the reliability world? :nuke: I wonder how bad they are going to get burned when big blue's legal department gets ahold of this "powerstroke" nonsense.

Hey NEWBIE!? Did they confuse you? I had enough insight to read the whole web-page and was not in the slightest confused...maybe you're the reason why manufacturer warnings are in big bold type ('cuz you don't read?):confused:


3) The promise is that this engine made in Brasilia has fixed all of the deficiencies of the 300 TDI - maybe, but Why would you want to speend your $$$ on some unproven nonsense? Cummins, Isuzu, CAT, Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan, Detroit, Ford etc are proven quantities - pick your price point and select what fits.


It's a consumers choice. We have the choice to purchase whatever we'd like. ECR has the choice to sell/market whatever they'd like. Feel fortunate they are at least marketing some options to us, and still keeping it somewhat competitive to choose to have an engine swap done on our rigs. Look around...not too many outfits wrenching and customizing Rovers, huh? No, it sure isn't a SBC or ford. If you are unhappy with the options available, especially from ECR, feel free to pony up the overhead and establish a shop, offer us these feasible conversion options, warranty your work, and make the price competitive. Oh, yeah, locate yourself somewhere close to ME so I don't have to consider driving as far as Maine to have an outfit like ECR wrench my Rover.


4) And what kind of parts support are you going to have with this Baby when things go :nuke: ?


What kind of parts support do I have now? I've got a grey market RRC...I've already dealt with the likes of At.Brit, RN, BritPac...gee, having 1 choice for parts instead of...er, 1 choice for parts still isn't bad :D



5) The real kicker is the drive train. The real promise of this engine is that it is as close to a "bolt in" as you can get. But thats crap too becase the Rover powertrain is not up to nut. So you need to at least replace the tranny, and that throws the "bolt in" concept out the window. Just go for a better engine.


So...if I want a SBC? Hmmm...not bolt-in. How about that big GM diesel conversion?...not bolt-in. How about all those engines you listed earlier?...not bolt-in. Is there a pattern here? Sure is. You swap the engine, there are going to be other matters to attend to, whether it be the parts to complete the conversion, or replacing parts to beef up the drivetrain.


Better things are around the corner like Ford's V6 Powerstroke. and for those of you that don't like "V" diesels, check out Cummins' report to the SAE on a 250HP 335 ftlb V6: http://www.osti.gov/hvt/2000-01-2196.pdf (15.1 kB):barf:

Some of us here are not from the Ricer school of thought. We know a little bit better that "bolt-on" performance is a myth, and we are not so arrogant as to think even the most optimistic of engine swaps is either going to be "easy" or require no "engineering." I appreciate your opinion, but seriously, I don't know what your complaining about, or how it is any different from any other viable engine swap. I don't see the sins ECR has committed pushing this conversion...they don't appear too different in the marketing strategy RPi uses, too.

I financed at least 70% of the D110/300 tdi conversion from selling stuff from the D90. It was pretty amazing the amount of money people will pay for some of this stuff that is hard to get. This figure does not include some of the custom work I am having KC do though. So to answer your question Adam, about $3000 out of pocket for the D110/Tdi conversion (this includes alot of stuff I bought new that I could have had used with the engine). Plus alot of labor, and the help of some really good guys - KC, Ben, Doug A., Antonio M, and Alan D.

Again, this comes down to some guys with alot of "knowledge" about a topic (info, heresay, websites, etc) and minimal or no practical experience in actually doing an engine swap. The thought process behind doing something like SBC or other non-LR engine seems straight forward and there are even some off the shelf parts for some of the conversions (like Mark's Adapters and such), but it will be very much more difficult and expensive than you can imagine unless you are lucky enought to live close to Paso Robles.

BTW the ZF auto is more than enough tranny to stand up to most transplanted Diesels (unless you can shoehorn a full size Powerstroke or Cummins in there). I agree that the R380 is not up to the task.

Anyway,

I have a diesel and you don't - nah nee nah nee boo boo

Billster

heheh thats ok Bill, soon enough i will have a bigger diesel than you that has more torque and better gas mileage :flipoff2: :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Busto

<<<but I do not think that the 300TDI or the 2.8L "powerjoke are going to win any awards for reliablity.>>>

How do you know? Have you owned one, or worked on one, or driven one? Many on the 300 Tdi mailing list would disagree with you on that point.

<<<<And working out of an embassy, I think you very much overstate the ability of overnight and second day air for parts delivery. The issue isn't with FEDEX, it is with clearing customs.:eek: Unless you are in a first world country, that FEDEX crap does not mean a thing to the customs bubbas.>>>>

I agree with the overseas stuff taking a bit to get, but the overnight stuff is readily avail. from George at RDS, who by the way has very reasonable prices, and amazing inventory. Specially for repeat offenders.


Billster

Originally posted by 9V
heheh thats ok Bill, soon enough i will have a bigger diesel than you that has more torque and better gas mileage :flipoff2: :D

Bring it on Adam, we would all love to see it built, although I doubt you will beat the mileage on a stock 300 Tdi (when all other things are equal - like gearing, tranny, etc).

Billster

maybe maybe not, we will see in years to come :D

the cool part will be that i will steal some 3.9 stickers off a disco and then some Tdi stickers off a 90 and make it say "3.9 Tdi" and then people will be like WTF :flipoff2:

Originally posted by 9V
maybe maybe not, we will see in years to come :D

the cool part will be that i will steal some 3.9 stickers off a disco and then some Tdi stickers off a 90 and make it say "3.9 Tdi" and then people will be like WTF :flipoff2:

Don't forget the HSE badging off of a later model RR :D

How about those springs, Adam?

d'oh! forgot about you. i will grab the springs out of the back of the RR tomorrow afternoon (its at a garage next town over) and get you the shipping quote so your RR can soon be lifted :D

I have to agree with what has been said about ECR. As far as I can tell they don't do anything special or innovative, they just have a nice website to advertise with. I hear that they get $23K to do a 300Tdi conversion. I know for a fact that the LR genuine 300Tdi conversion kit runs less than $10K so they are pretty proud of their labor. It must be their little Tdi light console with the glow plug coil they're so proud of that makes it so expensive.

Now I'll admit I have no love for the 6.2, 6.5 GM/Detroit motors but in a light duty application like a Rover I think they work. They're pretty light and they make power, I just don't like the idea of having one in my car. They also sound wimpy.

To avoid confusion the Navistar 7.3L V8 diesel could be referred to as a T444E so we all know which powerstroke we're talking about. Since powerstroke is likely Navistar's name they can apply it to whatever engine they wish, I don't think it's up to Ford. Again like the 6.2/6.5 they're not really a heavy duty engine but for Ford trucks they work fine. Most International salesmen will not recommend it and advise the DT466 instead.

I really think the 2.8L Maxion/Navistar engine is a great conversion due to relative ease of installation, good economy, much improved torque over the rover V8s, and variable geometry 'charger for good response. The best thing is that is in stock form. I would not be happy with a stock Tdi but after adjusting them they are great. The possibilities for this motor are very exciting. The 2.8L also has a forged crank and connecting rods, new piston design and other improvements over the 300Tdi. I can't wait to do one in the coming months to see how much better it really is.

Originally posted by Fear Factory
I hear that they get $23K to do a 300Tdi conversion. I know for a fact that the LR genuine 300Tdi conversion kit runs less than $10K so they are pretty proud of their labor.


At $50/hr, that's 260 hours of labor :eek:

Or a little more than 10 days of work with 3 guys wrenching 8-hours a day :D

Major fibs? Why don't you read earlier in the thread where I posted the calculations for torque and HP and a given RPM...I would have to say at around 1500 rpm near where the TDi and the Powerstroke make their peak torque, the stock V8 isn't making as much HP. Or maybe you don't quite have a grasp of the math behind "power."
Well, we are off to a good start, and you have tried to throw a lot of crap at the wall to see if something sticks. Trust me I understand the math -and will put my Engineers degree, my MS in Operation Research (oh shit! he's an analyst!) +17 years of experience to prove it. Your earlier post is an excercise for 3rd or 4th semester engineering students. Guess what, the torque curve of the V8 is a nice, slightly convex (flat) curve while the 2.8L diesel is pretty damn peaky so that nonsense about "... diesels have a fairly flat torque curve..."assumption is crap. Want to run the curves through S-plus for analysis? Or would you prefer to look at:

http://www.rpiv8.com/faq-dimension-graph.htm
and page three of:http://www.nav-international.com.br/revista_out01.pdf

Look at the LR engine power/torque curves - you will see that the stock 3.9L V8 power/torque curves DOMINATE the stock 300TDI power/torque curves at all points on the chart. Now if you want to compare *improved* engine choices, look at the rover 4.6L V8 to the 2.8L "powerjoke" and guess what, the 4.6L V8 DOMINATES the 2.8L - even operating in the 2.8L's optimum rpm range (~75 kw to ~55 kw at 1400 rpm)!

But the real issue isn't about bs calculations based on bs HP + torque claims. It is about real world quantitative analysis, not theory. The V8s have a broader, more useful powerband than the TDIs. I guess there is a reason the British Army (which probably has more institutional knowledge about LRs than you do) chose the V8s for gun tractors and the bulk of the SAS vehicles? Oh, well, the SAS TDIs did pull duty as fuel carriers.

Hey NEWBIE!? Did they confuse you? I had enough insight to read the whole web-page and was not in the slightest confused...maybe you're the reason why manufacturer warnings are in big bold type ('cuz you don't read?)

Actually, your statement has nothing to do with reliability which is what I was talking about. Maybe you should actually read my post.:eek: And there is a thing about being truthfull, even in advertising. They don't have to point out flaws, they just need to emphasize the good points.

The argument for the LR 300 TDI or its derivatives comes down to availability, ease of installation and economy - not power or torque.

Bill,

Two more points. First congrats on the engine swap;) . Second, I was talking about geting parts in a 2nd/3rd world country, not getting overseas parts in the US (which is a snap).

Originally posted by Busto

Well, we are off to a good start, and...

oooo....Touche...looks like the sh*t ain't stick'n.

Still, at 1500, the Powerstroke IS making more torque and HP than the 4.6 (275 vs. 250...but maybe ECR has inflated that value) and my auto tranny rarely shifts after 4K rpm with the throttle pegged, negating any gains across a "usable RPM range" since I never see that range.

So with the Powerjoke, I get decent mileage and a decent usable powerband. With the 4.6, my mileage doesn't change and I get some great power gains out past where my tranny shifts and generally where I don't want to take a relatively low-performance pushrod V8 on a routine basis.

Nonetheless, I can't afford the TurD or the Powerjoke so I'm stuck with my 3.5 (and the 3.9 in my Disco). And I shouldn't even be happy that anyone is even offerring different options should I choose to win the lottery and buy myself happiness.

BTW, you're not in the US, right?


EDIT (like anybody cares...):
After rereading your points 1-5, I still don't see where you are coming from. Maybe my response was a little too sarcastic and character-critical, but I can't find half of your claims on ECR's webpage (minus the error of claiming the Powerstroke has more torque than the 4.6, but the rest, I can't find a single instance where ECR blatantly claims either the TurD or Powerstroke has more power/is more powerful). Unless you are miffed from a personal exchange with ECR where they misled you, I'm not reading what you are reading. Enlighten me...

Originally posted by 9V
6.5 yuck!!! compare the displacement of that motor to its power and you will see why it is such a CRAPPY motor. unless you are living in the 70s then why do you want a N/A diesel motor? sure it may haul in a rover but for the amount of time, effort, and not to mention tons of money you will have spent on that swap you might as well have put in something reliable, and regarded as a REAL diesel, like a cummins or isuzu. you are going to spend the time and money one way or the other, so just do it right IMO and do it with a cummins :D



The cummins is a sweet package, but even more $$ then the GM.
The 6.2 and 6.5 are real diesels, don't confuse them with the 5.7.
A 6.2 N/A can be easily rebuilt to deliver. Placed in a 3/4ton full size GMC 4x4 and dyno'ed at the wheels produced 200hp and 300ftlb. I don't remember the RPMs for those ##s sorry. Truck is running 0-60 in 9.8 seconds. Not a record, but not bad.
Pete

pete- i just read through your engine swap website yesterday actually. it looks like you did a great job with it and are enjoying it very much.

the 6.2 is a mediocre engine. it does provide decent power and torque, but my main reasoning is that if you are going to go through the effort of the conversion, it would just make sense (to me at least) to save up for a few months and put in a better engine and not one that will just do the job. because the 2.25L does the job nicely (at least mine does, with 2.5L cam, .040 overbore, and weber 2bbl).

if i am going to do an engine swap it will be to one that will make a BIG difference, not just an average one.

IMO.

9v

Where you even alive when GM was producing the 6.2 non turbo diesel? How many have you driven. You will find that a K5 blazer is VERY similar in weight to a 110/rangie. Smoky? Yes. Noisy? somewhat, but nothing compared to a direct injection motor. Do you even know how direct injections work? Ever held one in your hand? Anemic? Hardly. Bullet-proof? Would the armed forces buy thousands under contract if they were suspect? They used those trucks, and the guard still does, for over 15 years.

Busto,

Easy killer. I am glad that you are an engineer. Really. Life would be rather plain without engineers. Now. Let's get back to reality. I would rather have a torque peak at 1500 rpm rather than 3000 rpm. Now I have only been wheelin a little while, but if I am doing 3k rpm and I am NOT going downhill using engine breaking, I am already in deep kimchee.

There is a reason that almost in high load bias design uses low rpm peak torque motors. (semi's)

In passenger cars, GM has been designing their engines, the 3.8 litre v6 for one, with max torque around 1250 rpm. I works better for the type of driving that most americans do. Quick and short accelerations.

As for a comparison, a 4.6litre with full ecu conversion is a NIGHTMARE! So, if you use a 4.6 block and swap out the injectors from a 4.2 and the ecu for a 4.2 you won't run into starvation issues, but you will NOT make those wonderful numbers from RPI. Those figures are for a fully bosch managed system. Not some hybrid.

I have seen, driven and participated in converting a 4.6 block with 3.9 heads and acillaries. It works, it cures the low power blues, but I haven't seen the dyno figures. I would be amazed if you see 300NM's out of it. 260 maybe. Remember that the 4.6 is a STROKED version on the 3.9. Torque comes from oversquare motors usually.

Billster,
I will find the contact information for the adapter plates and such for a company in the uk that is doing the 6.2/6.5 conversions just for sh!ts and giggles.

rant off.

j

Anybody see this recently:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1871287507

Probably not the most ideal base to start with...small 4 cyl. diesel that is N/A. The seller claims he ran it in his Series and it ran great (however, he admitted he pulled it to install a 3.9 from a Disco). Any of you diesel guru's know much about it, or the diesels Ford built of this size? South American import? Could the internals take some boost ('cuz that's what that engine is going to need)?
Okay...okay, a lot of questions, probably very few answers, and maybe the seller will let it go cheap enough to make it a worthwhile paper-weight (I'm doubting the reserve is going to be met on a "high demand" engine such as that...).

red- i have ridden in many vehicles powered by 6.2 diesels, a blazer or two and once a van. they are pigs in vehicles that size. and also your agrument about the military using them holds no water. the military is not the be-all end-all measure of somethings durability, as many army mechanics will tell you.

lets compare the numbers-

a naturally aspirated 6.2 diesel puts out 155hp, 270tq@2200rpm.

a 3.9L land rover V8 puts out 180hp, 227tq@3250rpm.

a 4.6L land rover V8 puts out 225hp, 280tq@3000rpm.

a stock L98 Chevy 350 puts out 225hp, 330tq@2800rpm.

a 300Tdi puts out 112hp, 195tq@1800rpm.

a naturally aspirated 2.5 LR diesel puts out 68hp, 116tq@1800rpm.

a cummins 3.9L 4BT puts out 120hp, 302tq@1650rpm.

my gripe with the 6.2 is not so much the power output, but the reliability record. Gm stroked the 6.2 to 6.5 liters in the beginning of the 90s. this still wasnt enough power for the big trucks, so then added a turbo onto them in the mid 90s. wham, big issue. all of a sudden thousands of owners are blowing headgaskets on a regular basis and warping heads and blocks and breaking this and that in the motors. if this engine cant even handle putting a mild turbo on it, then it is not worthy of consideration as a serious diesel engine. i can take an off the showroom floor ford mustang and put a big centrifugal blower on it with no issues, why cant i put a mediocre turbo on the 6.5 DIESEL off the showroom floor? and dont tell me that the engine was not built for it, because there are two answers to that question- 1. It should have been if they are going to do it, and 2. The Mustang motor isnt built for a blower either.

since the early 90s, Ford has barely changed their Powerstroke design. they changed to direct injection and strengthened a few things, plus added a turbo, but thats it.

Dodge has been using the same basic cummins motor since then, with a few refinements (ISB, 24V, etc).

chevy has taken the 6.2, stroked it to 6.5, added a turbo, and then finally ditched it all in favor of the new (awesome) duramax diesel that not surprisingly is built by ISUZU.

detroit diesel builts very nice heavy duty diesels, but their light duty diesel is lacking in its performance, reliability, and usability.

Originally posted by redrangie


Now I have only been wheelin a little while, but if I am doing 3k rpm and I am NOT going downhill using engine breaking, I am already in deep kimchee.



MMMMMMMMMM.......KimChee!

ok im pissed, i just typed up this huge reply that i researched for and everything and then the board goes down... :rolleyes:

but thats ok in summary it said that the 6.2 does not have very good power for its displacement. if you look at the power alone its fine, but when you realize that thats 366ci doing it its not very impressive at all. they arent notoriously reliable either.

edit- yay it came through!

ok,
I am talking about the 6.2. No turbo, no head or bottom end issues. VERY similar output with lower torque curve than the 3.9, and about 10-15 more mpg, for those that drive on the road. I would put it in just for that reason alone!

The powerstroke (navistar) came out in 94. Everthing before was a injector pump driven 6.9 of FOMOCO design. Don't even put them in the same sentence. Worse performer than the 6.2 gm. Even with a sh!tload of mods from Banks.

You helped make my point to busto. Notice the rpm numbers for the gas vs. diesel. This is critical for off-road or other low speed applications. I don't give a rats ass about 3k rpm torque peak. I want it as low as possible. Unless you have a 225:1 crawler, anything above 2k is useless. Period. Unless you drive like Way! :flipoff2:

Thanks for posting those figures 9v. They helped. ;):flipoff2:

red- if you have a gas motor and the torque peak is at 3k, i can guarantee you that it is nearly a flat torque curve up to about 4000. give me a little while and i will play around in desktop dyno and build a SBC with some low RPM torque.

post back in a few.

Originally posted by Serious One


MMMMMMMMMM.......KimChee!




:eek:

oh yeah forgot, if you have never been at 3k or over wheeling, then you arent gettin it :D

i do all the time, but dont consider myself a maniac driver. it is especially helpful in mud and stuff but wet slimy rocks (uphill) it can happen too. but then again comparing my wheeling here in new england to you in CO is like comparing a 6.2GM diesel to a 5.9L Cummins :D

Originally posted by Serious One


MMMMMMMMMM.......KimChee!

Who wouldn't eat something that was buried for 3-6 months in their backyard?

:p

Originally posted by 9V
oh yeah forgot, if you have never been at 3k or over wheeling, then you arent gettin it :D



Dude, I get it. I get it awn, up and over, and I don't break my shiat! (my wife won't let me:eek: )

j

ok here we go. this is a basically stock .040 over 350 with pocket porting on the heads and an 800cfm carb, dual plane intake. stck cam.

unfortunately Dyno2000 only goes down to 2000rpm but you get the picture.

Originally posted by 9V
[B]oh yeah forgot, if you have never been at 3k or over wheeling, then you arent gettin it

B]

Hmmm..

If you are wheeling at over 3K 'all the time', then I suggest you carry the following:

1. Spare diff. Open stock 2-pin LR carriers don't like to be subjected to lots of wheelspin for excessive lengths of time. You'll snap a center pin and punch a hole in your diffcover. Don't believe me? I've done it twice.

2. Spare CV/axle. When you finally hook up from that mighty wheelspin you're gonna snap something. Hopefully for your sake it's a rear axle, 'cause that front CV joint's a biatch!

3. Tools to install either of the above (maybe both).

How 'bout some pics of all the times you've been wheeling at over 3K????

this is what happens when you add roller lifters and rockers.

Originally posted by Serious One


Hmmm..

If you are wheeling at over 3K 'all the time', then I suggest you carry the following:

1. Spare diff. Open stock 2-pin LR carriers don't like to be subjected to lots of wheelspin for excessive lengths of time. You'll snap a center pin and punch a hole in your diffcover. Don't believe me? I've done it twice.

2. Spare CV/axle. When you finally hook up from that mighty wheelspin you're gonna snap something. Hopefully for your sake it's a rear axle, 'cause that front CV joint's a biatch!

3. Tools to install either of the above (maybe both).

How 'bout some pics of all the times you've been wheeling at over 3K????

mike- i do carry both a spare diff and spare rear axleshafts :D

if i have a problem with the front i will pull the whole thing apart and run nothing in it with no driveshaft to get out of the woods.

and "all the time" does not mean 100% of the time, just a number of times in any trip. you need to with the big tires and stock gears cause otherwise the motor (stock 110k mile 3.5) has no power.

i will take pics next time it happens.

You guys made me hungry!

this is when you replace the carb with Tuned Port fuel injection.

thats all for now, if you guys want me to i will build a dream torque small block but you have to promise that you wont say i faked the graph :D

I can't believe I am doing this, but my systems down at work.

9v,

Those are THEORETICAL NUMBERS! Workbench vs real world are often two different things. You can't figure in improper tensioning, inadequate lubrication, fuel starvation, swirl inefficiency, sensor variation, blah blah blah into a computer program.

Mike,

Its called youth.


j

red- i know that they are theoretical numbers, but they are still close enough (i would estimate 10% error) that they can be used in non-scientific calculations like what we are doing here.

and although the numbers may not be totally accurate, i think its safe to say that the RPM ranges at which they occur (my main point) are close.

Bon Appetite!

Originally posted by redrangie


The powerstroke (navistar) came out in 94. Everthing before was a injector pump driven 6.9 of FOMOCO design. Don't even put them in the same sentence. Worse performer than the 6.2 gm. Even with a sh!tload of mods from Banks.

You helped make my point to busto. Notice the rpm numbers for the gas vs. diesel. This is critical for off-road or other low speed applications. I don't give a rats ass about 3k rpm torque peak. I want it as low as possible. Unless you have a 225:1 crawler, anything above 2k is useless. Period. Unless you drive like Way! :flipoff2:


Before the direct injection Powerstroke there was a 7.3L indirect injection motor with an available ATS turbo kit installed as an option. This was an International motor and I think the 6.9 was as well. Compared to the Cummins that was out at the same time these engines really looked bad. Most dodge sales were due mainly to the Cummins B5.9 prior to 1994.

In my limited personal experience the performance of the 300Tdi is far better than the 3.9 in off road situations. It seemed like the 3.9 wanted to stall out all the damn time. The 3.9 wouldn't idle along a rocky field like my Tdi will. Those who have rockcrawled with a manual tranny 3.9 should know what I'm talking about. With the addition of an underdrive i really only need idle speed to crawl around on the rocks and I don't think the 3.9 would do as well. I think it's in the engine management which totally blows. A 4.0L jeep wrangler can maintain an idle with little driver input while crawling at idle. The 3.9 V8 stalls when it even sees a rock or incline coming up.

Anyone would have a hard time convincing me to go back to gas motors for anything except a performance car. Off road it works great for me. For a tow vehicle........:evil: :evil:

Originally posted by redrangie
I can't believe I am doing this, but my systems down at work.

9v,

Those are THEORETICAL NUMBERS! Workbench vs real world are often two different things. You can't figure in improper tensioning, inadequate lubrication, fuel starvation, swirl inefficiency, sensor variation, blah blah blah into a computer program.

Mike,

Its called youth.


j

They sure are Red...however, many engine builders have been able to support DesktopDyno and EngineAnalyzer from actual dyno tests to about 5% error. The program itself is not that bad, it's all the information going into it. If you have all of the head-flow, carb-flow, exhaust-flow, etc. data, you can get a good idea with the estimates. Yes, the programs often make wild assumptions like perfrect atomization, A/F ratio at stoich, etc., but there are some benefits...like estimating the differences in HP and torque when changing a particular component/variable, like compression ratio, cam timing/lift, displacement, etc. I've never cared for the absolute values from an estimate, but rather, whether changing a specific component yeilds any gains where I would need them. As the saying goes, garbage in = garbage out. The engine is just an air-pump and if your input values are sound, then you may get a better estimate. I'll say it one more time to get the point across: estimate. Not that my dyno-pants could do better!

But, hey, what good are actuall dyno runs? No two dynos read the same. They are accurate to a percentage. What's the procedure to calibrate a dyno, and how do they compare across engine or chassis dynos?

It's all relative. Bragging rights are great, but like RTI scores, it's only good if you can quantify the gains over a previous state of tune.

Yes, there was a 7.3. For 2.5 yrs I believe. I NEVER saw one WITHOUT the turbo. Maybe that's just cause we're in the mountains. I had forgotton about that one, and yes, it was an international motor, just a sad one.

Tuning programs are fine, as long as baseline on the tested engine are established. Sitting at your desk, with a "non tested, non baselined" motor saying: "this is what it is with lifters" is moronic. More like just fantasy.

I don't have the articulate words, but unless you baseline a motor, and register all sensor input first, you shouldn't assume that something works.

j

once again 9V it seems that real world experience escapes your grasp. My family owned 6.2 and 6.5 turbo diesel suburbans from 1982-1997. While the 6.2 wasn't great it actually would run at 85 all day long and still get 25 mpg. Now I would have to say the suburban is one of the heaviest vehicles that GM offerred at the the time. Granted when we were towing a boat or a long float it wouldn't crest 65 on a grade but it was still liveable. Also there was a 6.2 turbo that not many people knew about and the reason that they stopped offerring it is it kept blowing trannies (they didn't have an upgraded tranny at the time (82-84)) not because the engine couldn't handle it. Fast forward to 95 when the first 6.5 turbo made it into the suburbans. That thing was a rocket you could serious spin the stock tires (which was extremely different from the 6.2) and would tow our 32 ft float with a backhoe on it all day with no problems. The only problems that we had with it were at about 72.000 miles where the injector pumps started giving out. I think we went through 6 pumps and finally my dad traded it in for a gas (what a sad day he still regrets it and is going to be one of the first in 2004 to get the 6.6 in a truck) Now I would call that personal experience we got a new truck every 1.5 to 2 yrs because he put so many miles on them and the company bought them. I would have to say that they are extremely reliable (every truck had 100+k miles on them except the 6.5 turbo) and pretty simple. Granted these may not be the end all be all for a swap into a rover but I do think that they are a viable option.

To address the 3.9 stalling issue I would have to agree with a manual coming up to a ledge or climb they need some throttle input but with an auto they actually crawl just like you are speaking of.

Finally in response to the original message yes the swap is easier with a rover engine (obviously) and I have to admit Bill's truck has quite a bit of pep (I was in Dallas Sunday Bill) but it may not have the weight of most rigs that are running this engine. There was a truck down from ECR at MAR that was a 110 with the conversion done and they were towing a D-90 behind it and the driver said that they averaged 65-70 all the way down, so if he was telling the truth that would mean while towing a 90 + trailer (let's say 3500+1500= 5000) they were still able to pull the hills between virginia and maine. So I would offer that up as a testament to the power of the engine in question. I would also have to say that when taken care of the 300 tdi has a comparable life to most deisels. Wow I'm never writing that much again I have a hand cramp now.

-ben

Originally posted by 9V
and although the numbers may not be totally accurate, i think its safe to say that the RPM ranges at which they occur (my main point) are close.

Adam are those flywheel or rear wheel?

As I said a built up 6.2 NA with the rear wheels on a dyno measured 300 peak torque. This was around 19-2100 rpms. Sorry I do not remember where exactly. At 3000 rpms the torgue was 250.
The engine idles at 600 rpm. As soon as you press the right pedal you have torque, it was around 170 torque at 1000 rpms.

Yes it's a big lump-o-steel. Yes it's the best of late 70's technology. But sticking it into 50s tech series 88 it's like going from a Commodore to a 2gig P4.

I get 25mpg in a 5000lb vehicle on the highway and 17-20 offroading.

I am able to put-put over obstacles that D90s are having to hammer hard. I like 90's, hell I want a 90. But the power in a well built diesel is just amazing. I worked for awhile in a hotrod shop and I do know what is possible with a GM small block. After this conversion, I will never put a petrol into an offroader again.

The 6.2 is a 377ci engine. I have seen 6.2 and 6.5 na's with 300,000 miles on em. My block had 104k when I got it. It had zero wear on the crank and cylinders when we tore it down. Still had cross hatching on the cylinders. PO was a retiree in Oregon. Used the truck every summer to tow a goose neck camper. Replaced the glowplugs and gp controller at 75k. Everything else was scheduled maintenance.

Yes the 6.5 was available normally aspirated.

Yeah a 6.2 will slow down to 55mph on a steep highway grade, but it will also pull 55mph up the same grade with 7k on a trailer behind it and still get 20mpg.

Because of the 5.7 deisel, GMs have gotten a bad rap. There WERE some issues with the early mechanical injector pump, where they needed rebuilding at 50k.

There is a guy running solid 10's in a LPG injected Banks twin turbo'd 6.2.

Thanks for your time
Pete

Originally posted by Serious One
Bon Appetite!

So Mike can I take this to mean that you will be preparing dinner on NewYears?
Seesh, you making me home sick. I haven't found a good plate lunch place anywhere in the past year.

hmmmmm, good eats,
Pete

Peter,

Yeah me neither. Tha'ts why I've resorted to cooking my own!

Bento is hard to find once you leave the left coast.

New Year's is going to be a blast. Last time I was on a mendo trip that had a pot-luck I cooked Korean food in Portland and brought it own. It didn't last long on the table.

We should start to plan some joint-cooking. Ed and Meredith like to eat well, and I've got a freezer full of Omaha steaks I'll be bringing.

Maybe this conversation is better for the e-mail???:flipoff2: (to everyone else)

Aloha,

I lived in Hawaii for 5 years. Of that 5 years, I was in Korea off and on, and all over the PAC-Rim. (former army intel guy). There used to be a GREAT plate lunch place right outside sunset, right after Haliewa town. They made me learn Korean, and I swear the only place it payed off was the restaurants!

j

Mike,

One more thing in common with ya..... It's getting scary.

j

Pete sez:

Yes it's a big lump-o-steel. Yes it's the best of late 70's technology. But sticking it into 50s tech series 88 it's like going from a Commodore to a 2gig P4.

Pete [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh baby, look who just showed up.

Welcome dude!

I gotta side with Pete on this one. The 6.2 isn't crap. It's not an industrial duty diesel, but it's miles ahead of a comparable gas engine. In fact, if it wasn't so goddarn fat and wide, I'd have one in Valdez. Imagine, 20 mpg. Whoa.

I prefer a 5.9 cummins, but a 6.2 is still a darn good motor. I used to think otherwise, I know now that I was wrong.

J-L

Originally posted by HandBuilt

Oh baby, look who just showed up.

In fact, if it wasn't so goddarn fat and wide, I'd have one in Valdez. Imagine, 20 mpg. Whoa.

I prefer a 5.9 cummins, but a 6.2 is still a darn good motor. I used to think otherwise, I know now that I was wrong.

J-L

Someone mentioned Rover and 6.2 Oil Burner...my spidee senses were tingling.

Fat and wide??? Nahhh. But I am thinking about using Dzus fasteners to hold the wings on.

Pete "I ain't always right, but I've never been wrong"

Originally posted by m016324
There was a truck down from ECR at MAR that was a 110 with the conversion done and they were towing a D-90 behind it and the driver said that they averaged 65-70 all the way down, so if he was telling the truth that would mean while towing a 90 + trailer (let's say 3500+1500= 5000) they were still able to pull the hills between virginia and maine. So I would offer that up as a testament to the power of the engine in question. I would also have to say that when taken care of the 300 tdi has a comparable life to most deisels.
-ben

If ECR said that then that's their biggest embellishment to date. There's no way a 300 Tdi could move a 10,000lb GCWR rig at 65-70. The only way I see they could average 65 is if they went 45 up hills and 85 down them. Defenders are crappy to tow on a trailer, you've got a brick sitting up high on a trailer to push double the wind the 110 is pushing alone. When you get to 65 and 70 the wind drag becomes substantial. My friend with a modified 300Tdi in a 110 does well to maintain 65-70 going up the flint hills in Kansas while keeping EGTs at safe levels. Just starting off from a standstill with ECRs peanut diesel rig would suck. I've towed a 90 thousands of miles and it takes a decent amount of power to go fast on flat ground.

Red,

Good points about the 6.2l, I am not impressed by the motor, but I do think that it has an underserved reputation for failure.

Would the armed forces buy thousands under contract if they were suspect? They used those trucks, and the guard still does, for over 15 years.

Red my friend … in a word, yes they would. As a member of the armed forces (in addition to the engineer/analyst), I can testify that ALL weapons, vehicles, ammunition and equipment in the armed forces are made by the lowest bidder. We are a capabilities vice requirements driven force. In other words, we buy the most amount of capability we can afford, rather than what we think we need.

Now. Let's get back to reality. I would rather have a torque peak at 1500 rpm rather than 3000 rpm. Now I have only been wheelin a little while, but if I am doing 3k rpm and I am NOT going downhill using engine breaking, I am already in deep kimchee.
Reality is that you are trying to compare a specialized application without qualifying your response. In and of itself, who cares what the power band of the engine is. You are not considering the entire design and are ignoring a host of other factors (like gearing) that stand your argument on its head. If I swap diff gears (trival expense compared to a $10k+ diesel swap) I shift my rpm into the power band of my V8. If I add a lower xfer case gear or swap in a crawl box, I get an even better RPM match at less than a third of the cost of a diesel swap. Real world for most means driving to the trail and not being trailered. Real world for most means that a truck should perform well in a broad spectrum of off road conditions: mud and sand as well as rock. Look again at the HP/torque curves and you will see that when we compare the rover gasoline V8 family and the Rover 300 TDI diesel and its derivative, the Rover V8s perform better across the spectrum (a true nice flat torque curve). Real world, the big advantage of the TDI is in the realm of fuel consumption savings – which is not a trivial issue. Real world, this is why the British SAS (a special operations force with a lot more latitude in getting what they want) chose the V8 over the TDIs in their 110s! Those vehicles need to perform high speed attacks on airfield tarmacs, transport heavy weapon/crew loads in the mountains of Afghanistan, cross deserts in North Africa and the middle east and even cross a mud bog or two in Asia or Africa. Now the Austrailian SAS (another SOF force) chose to buy converted 6x6 Land Rovers with the Isuzu diesel over the rover TDI!
In passenger cars, GM has been designing their engines, the 3.8 litre v6 for one, with max torque around 1250 rpm. I works better for the type of driving that most americans do. Quick and short accelerations.
Says who! If I am buying a VW golf with fuel economy as the overiding consideration maybe. But the trend through the 90s for trucks has been larger, heaver, faster vehicles. Just look at what is going on with the Dodge/Ford/GM pickups! The HP and torque are tweaked towards more highway performance. The automakers are not doing it for fun, they are meeting customer demand.
As for a comparison, a 4.6litre with full ecu conversion is a NIGHTMARE! So, if you use a 4.6 block and swap out the injectors from a 4.2 and the ecu for a 4.2 you won't run into starvation issues, but you will NOT make those wonderful numbers from RPI. Those figures are for a fully bosch managed system. Not some hybrid.

I have seen, driven and participated in converting a 4.6 block with 3.9 heads and acillaries.
Stop. You have gone beyond the scope of my argument. I am not talking about conversions. I f we want to go there you need to start with the real weakness in the Rover drive train which is the transmission.

Originally posted by Busto
Stop. You have gone beyond the scope of my argument. I am not talking about conversions.

WTH are we talking about? I thought the last 4 pages of banter were exactly about that...conversions; you know, stuffing a non-stock engine into our Rovers in order to fix previous inadequacies (pick one or pick all). It's pretty obvious that when it comes to choosing a replacement powerplant, it's different strokes for different folks, regardless of logic, since we all place different emphases on torque/power, mileage, etc.

Plain and simple...there is no magic bullet. If you think so, you're wrong ('cuz I said so) :flipoff2: We can effectively use any of the engines we've been bickering about as long as we are willing to live with whatever inadequacies that are inherent within the design/choice. FWIW, I'm keeping the 3.5 in my RRC, but I'm gonna add a hamster and running wheel to the nose of the crankshaft...if anything else, I'll have a dead hamster whirling around on a running wheel attached to my crankshaft. That in itself should be pretty cool.

Originally posted by DieLucas!


...if anything else, I'll have a dead hamster whirling around on a running wheel attached to my crankshaft. That in itself should be pretty cool.



Dude, do you think you can crank out two of those? I need one for the crew-cab. Can I pick out the color of the hamster?

lucky enough for you mike, you want a few extra hampsters, you just have to go down to NAPA and bolt on one of the trick aluminum plenums or any toher assortment of bolt on goodies that they have for those damn 350's.

Originally posted by Serious One


Dude, do you think you can crank out two of those? I need one for the crew-cab. Can I pick out the color of the hamster?

I tried to PM you the custom order sheet, but your box is full.

Originally posted by untrakdrover
lucky enough for you mike, you want a few extra hampsters, you just have to go down to NAPA and bolt on one of the trick aluminum plenums or any toher assortment of bolt on goodies that they have for those damn 350's.

Therin is the magical secret of the SB Chevy!

Blow it? Sure! Supercharge it? No problem! Turbo? We've got a dozen! Alternator? Here, we're giving them away!!!!

Yeah, I take a lot of comfort knowing that everything is just a 30 minute drive away.

Now, the rest of the truck.....well.....that's another story! :flipoff2:

Busto,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Busto
Stop. You have gone beyond the scope of my argument. I am not talking about conversions.

Uh, WE were.


WHO ARE YOU? I mean really. I am not pulling the I've been here longer shit, but come on. A little humility wouldn't hurt. Christ. I mean the whole world works on the lowest bidder to some extent. I work for AT&T, sell and design HUGE networks, and you know what, A LOT OF THE TIME EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL, AND IT COMES SOMEWHAT TO "HOW LOW WILL YOU GO". You've OBVIOUSLY never bought something on price.

I should have clarified my comments about gm. I was referring to their passenger CARS! Gawd. You know my wife is a scientist, and I have to clarify everything, and make it black and white for her. I guess that's what we have to do for you. A modern GM passenger vehicle has 2.83 gearing and TONS of torque to meet some semblance of highway mileage, and to offset the cafe standards, as well as make up for the bigger heavier vehicles you reference.

As for the gearing, well, most people here don't want to go above 4.7 for the gearing, but you don't know that do you. I know a bunch of toy people who run 5.29's and 5.88's for just that purpose of torque distrobution. However, they can't get out of their own way. Now on a buggy or strict off road vehicle that makes sense. On a dual purpose rig it doesn't. Which most in this discussion have.

Maybe this will work.

YOU'RE RIGHT!

now chill the fawk out.

:flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2:

what's with the bashing of the LR tranny? yeah the r-380 is a piece. The LT-77 isn't too much better. However the LT-85 (granted only a 4 speed) is a quite robust tranny and the ZF is good enough to be run behind 7 series 300+ hp engines for BMW (granted with different clutch packs) So I'm not so sure where all the hatred for the LR trannies comes from unless everyone has a r-380.

-ben

RedRangie and DieLucas,

Okay, My word choice was crap. To clear up confusion; substitute "engine modifications" for "[engine] conversions" and you get my point. Once we start comparing modified engines to stock engines you get beyond the scope of the argument unless we are going to pull each individual engine and test it (HP/, torque, fuel consumption, longeviety, cost, etc).

And Red, I agree with you about going above 4.7 gearing. That is why I like the crawler box that gives you the gears when you need it, but can be disconnected when you don't. You get your cake and eat it too (at almost $3k cost). Note: this is the second time I actually agreed with you so please stop taking this personal. I threw rocks at the "powerjoke god", not at you. Even so, if your priority is low fuel consumption/range, the 300TDI/2.8L isn't a bad choice. But no engine is the end all to every application. Even the Cummins ISB are just too dang heavy and long to be a "practical" swap (but some joker has probably done one some where).

M016324,

Most of the trannies in D90s are R380s which was the only "option" for '94 and '95. Obviously, Discos had the ZF as a choice. But if you want a manual tranny for what ever reason, the cost of a ZF swap makes looking at domestic mannual tranny swaps competative. And there is no comparing the strength of a good NV4500/Ford ZF five speed with the Rover boxes.

Originally posted by Busto
Red my friend … in a word, yes they would. As a member of the armed forces (in addition to the engineer/analyst), I can testify that ALL weapons, vehicles, ammunition and equipment in the armed forces are made by the lowest bidder. We are a capabilities vice requirements driven force. In other words, we buy the most amount of capability we can afford, rather than what we think we need.


Sorry but not ALL. Never use a blanket statement cause it only takes one example to show you are wrong. There are too many instances of the DoD getting something for 2,3,4..10 times what you or I would pay for the exact same item. Simply because Senator Soandso needs to save some jobs in his district.
It's sad but true that many times the piece of gear we are issued is decided upon in a comitee room on the Hill.

The 1008/09/10/etc series of vehicles were selected because GM was able to bid 3 different vehicles (a pickup, blazer, and suburban) that all used similar parts. It may also have been the cheepest.
The HMMWV is a totally different animal all together, but it obviously fit the specification. It sure as hell aint cheep.
But it too uses the Detroit Diesel designed engine.

Not saying that the engine is the end all be all of diesel engines, or that it's even the best engine you could ever put into a Rover. But if built correctly it will easily run 250,000 miles, getting 25mpg, work better offroad while still being able to travel the hgihway at 65mph. If you are building a strict trailer rig things change, but in the realm drive it to the trail, wheel it, drive it home, a diesel is a great choice. :)
Not THE choice or ONLY choice, but a great one.

Oh and it's not a 10k conversion....or where you refering to the ECR TDi?

Later
Pete

Originally posted by m016324
what's with the bashing of the LR tranny? yeah the r-380 is a piece. The LT-77 isn't too much better. However the LT-85 (granted only a 4 speed) is a quite robust tranny and the ZF is good enough to be run behind 7 series 300+ hp engines for BMW (granted with different clutch packs) So I'm not so sure where all the hatred for the LR trannies comes from unless everyone has a r-380.

-ben

Ben,

Actually the LT-85 is a 5-speed transmission that was offered in several different Land Rovers. It actually is a Santana transmission and is quite robust.

I believe you're thinking about the LT-95, which is a 4-speed. There aren't that many of them around, I was lucky to get two, one of which was usable. VERY strong transmission, it's weak link is the center diff is still two-pin (remember the t-case is integral with the tranny), and the gear ratios in the transmission aren't changable. I wish I could get some lower gearing in it, which is why I'm probably going to put 4:7's in it sometime this fall.

Anyway, not to bash, just clarify hopefully.

Clear as mud right??? Yeah, this whole thread is just about as clear as mud.

:flipoff2:

That's one of the things I just LOVE about modifying LR's. No one knows everything, so whatever choice I make is the right one! Every time! (well, most of the time....)

Originally posted by Serious One



That's one of the things I just LOVE about modifying LR's. No one knows everything,

WORDS TO FAWKIN LIVE BY!

j

Originally posted by Serious One


Clear as mud right??? Yeah, this whole thread is just about as clear as mud.



...If you squint just right, you can make out the outline of 'the big picture.'