Joined
·
89 Posts
looking at a 110 with a diesel, but don't know anything about diesels. where can i found out about which ones are good and the ones to stay away from any info or websites out there?
land rover diesel
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Joined
·
422 Posts
The 200 and 300Tdi are good but I'd stay away from the others. These are both direct injection, intercooled and do not have computer controls to get wet and strand you.
Joined
·
89 Posts
Ron no it is another one.
Thanks for the info everyone.
Thanks for the info everyone.
the 2.25 and 2.5 D are POS. The bottom end is fine but the top end is known for blown head gaskets, valve problems and unreliable injector pumps.
If you want indestructable the 2.25 petrol shares the same bottom end with the 2.25 diesel and ergo the TDi motors. 7:1 compression on something designed for 20:1
You do the math. I have see 2.25s petrols run with acorns inside the motor, I have seen them run AFTER they drop a cylinder, I have seen them run on two cylinders. If you can get it fuel it will give forward progress.
Ron
If you want indestructable the 2.25 petrol shares the same bottom end with the 2.25 diesel and ergo the TDi motors. 7:1 compression on something designed for 20:1
You do the math. I have see 2.25s petrols run with acorns inside the motor, I have seen them run AFTER they drop a cylinder, I have seen them run on two cylinders. If you can get it fuel it will give forward progress.
Ron
Normally such statements would irritate the hell out of me, but the fact is he's absolutely positively right.evilfij said:
80 hp out of a 2.25L diesel? Possibly, with the addition of some nitrous, propane injection, and a turbo. Stock, they are good for around 60 hp, and that's in perfect tune. I don't think they can get over 55 hp wihout having a Lucas/CAV factory trained tech under the hood to adjust the pump.
In diesel form the 2.25L isn't overbuilt. It's a POS greasy oily smelly lump of cast iron that will barely move the thing along in 3rd. And it blows BLACK. Think Mack cement truck. Ever seen pics of the tricked out coiler 88 from Wa? It's got a 2.25L head on a 2.5 block and it seems to run, but in every picture it's blowing blue/black smoke all over the place.
The bottom end is hellastout for 8 or 9-1 comp ratio, but i't's NOT the same bottom end as the 200/300 TDwhy. They switched to 5 main bearings for a reason. Put those three main bearings to the test with 17-1 compression and diesel clatter, and they will fail eventually. You can get a 2.25L 5 MB engine, but... Why?
I thought that this opinion was universal and shared throughout all roverdom. The brits know it. The aussies know it. Hell, the world knows that you don't mess with a 2.25L diesel. They should be avoided like the plague, and the only suitable tool to improve a 2.25L diesel rover is an engine crane.
J-L
Sorry to rain on your parade, but it'll NEVER happen. 140 hp out of a diesel? That's the same figure as an Isuzu 4BD1, Cummins, etc. You'd be looking at almost tripling the output of this engine. All engines that put out this sort of HP reliably are either expensive or very very BIG. Think CAT, or a Perkins 4-236.antiredneck said:
A 2.25L diesel rangie would be as logical a swap as a Renault 5 "Le car" 4 cylinder motor into a Rangie.
J-L
I was just thumbing through the August 2001 LRO and it had a decent article on the 2.5 TD:
I have never driven, or even seen one so take it all with a grain of salt.
The article goes on to state that the engine had a redesigned block, pistons an exhaust valves. The article also desribes the bottom end as "... a bit overstressed" and notes that early engines suffered from bottom end failure. The article also describes the engine as being reasonably reliable (all the early duds died or were rebuilt).
I have never driven, or even seen one so take it all with a grain of salt.
2.25 Diesel
Antiredneck, have you ever driven a 2.25 Diesel?
My 109 had one from the factory. Even after a professional
rebuild it sucked. The 2.25 diesel has far less HP, even less
torque, than the petrol, it weighs more, and it's as smelly and dirty as a diesel gets.
In stock form your top speed will be 48 miles per hour and it'll be screaming along. The slightest incline will bleed you down to 30 mph in 3rd gear. You can push the pedal through the floorboard with no effect.
If you tweak the pump and get an OD you can make 70mph. I have ridden in a buddy's truck who has done this and would never have believed it otherwise. He's also blown the motor twice in three years.
And the noise. GOD, the noise. It will loosen your fillings. It will set off every car alarm with 100 yards. You will have to wear ear protection. Do you really wanna go off road for hours wearing shooting muffs? Forget ever having a willing passenger.
This motor will never withstand forced induction. It will never be easy to maintain. Parts are spendy and never in stock. You will be driven to tears the first time you need to remove a fuel pipe from an injector because once they're off, it is near impossible to get them to reseal. You will curse its very existence and suck the battery dry trying to start it in cold weather.
Any imagined benefit or 22-24 mpg is totally negated by the price of diesel and the time it will take you to get anywhere. Elderly people will be up your ass in traffic because you can't get out of your own way. Grandpa will give you the finger. Schoolchildren will point and laugh. People will think "That truck's on fire, lookit the smoke" or "Dude has a blown motor, I can hear the beeatch over my thumpin' base, yo!"
The 2.25 diesel is an agricultural engine. Marginally acceptable for rural England in 1965 but totally unsuitable for the US even then. The ONLY good thing about this motor is its excellent engine braking- which doesn't mean much because if you're offroad, you'll be in low box most of the time anyway, and if you're on tarmac you are going nowhere fast...I mean slow. VERY slow. Which is why I yanked that POS outta there and thank God for the 2.25 petrol.
I haven't exaggerated any of this. You might as well buy a goat to pull your Rover or wipe your butt with tens and twenties.
Mo
Antiredneck, have you ever driven a 2.25 Diesel?
My 109 had one from the factory. Even after a professional
rebuild it sucked. The 2.25 diesel has far less HP, even less
torque, than the petrol, it weighs more, and it's as smelly and dirty as a diesel gets.
In stock form your top speed will be 48 miles per hour and it'll be screaming along. The slightest incline will bleed you down to 30 mph in 3rd gear. You can push the pedal through the floorboard with no effect.
If you tweak the pump and get an OD you can make 70mph. I have ridden in a buddy's truck who has done this and would never have believed it otherwise. He's also blown the motor twice in three years.
And the noise. GOD, the noise. It will loosen your fillings. It will set off every car alarm with 100 yards. You will have to wear ear protection. Do you really wanna go off road for hours wearing shooting muffs? Forget ever having a willing passenger.
This motor will never withstand forced induction. It will never be easy to maintain. Parts are spendy and never in stock. You will be driven to tears the first time you need to remove a fuel pipe from an injector because once they're off, it is near impossible to get them to reseal. You will curse its very existence and suck the battery dry trying to start it in cold weather.
Any imagined benefit or 22-24 mpg is totally negated by the price of diesel and the time it will take you to get anywhere. Elderly people will be up your ass in traffic because you can't get out of your own way. Grandpa will give you the finger. Schoolchildren will point and laugh. People will think "That truck's on fire, lookit the smoke" or "Dude has a blown motor, I can hear the beeatch over my thumpin' base, yo!"
The 2.25 diesel is an agricultural engine. Marginally acceptable for rural England in 1965 but totally unsuitable for the US even then. The ONLY good thing about this motor is its excellent engine braking- which doesn't mean much because if you're offroad, you'll be in low box most of the time anyway, and if you're on tarmac you are going nowhere fast...I mean slow. VERY slow. Which is why I yanked that POS outta there and thank God for the 2.25 petrol.
I haven't exaggerated any of this. You might as well buy a goat to pull your Rover or wipe your butt with tens and twenties.
Mo
Really that bad?
Ok I have a 2.25 d in my truck so here goes -
9V, you are 10% wrong because the later 2.25 d are 5 main bearing, I know I have one
Yes they are slow, and yes they are noisey but I think we got a little carried away here -
My 88" runs on 750's with no overdrive, and flat out, on flat road will pull about 65mph. Usually I just cruise at about 50-55mph and its quite happy, returns about 27mpg, and starts first time every time even when the truck is covered in ice. My engine has about 115k on it and yeah they do smoke a bit. Most old 2.25's probably have a very worn timing chain and badly adjusted pump timing as a result = plenty smoke and no power at all.
The certainly aren't to everyones taste but my diesel will still be going when I have water merrily lapping over the bonnet and for that reason I don't like petrols in land rovers.
The 2.5 NA isn't too bad either, is a bit more civilised and because of the timing belt has rather more precise pump timing and tend to smoke less. The produce about 67bhp compared to about 62bhp from the 2.25d. An honest work horse of an engine.
Personally I think both of these engines quite suite series land rovers, how fast do you want to go in them anyway?
Re: Headgaskets, don't use the copper ones, they are crap. on the 2.25d its better to use the composite gasket from a 2.5 NA D. I don't know if this would apply to petrols too.
Ok I have a 2.25 d in my truck so here goes -
9V, you are 10% wrong because the later 2.25 d are 5 main bearing, I know I have one
Yes they are slow, and yes they are noisey but I think we got a little carried away here -
My 88" runs on 750's with no overdrive, and flat out, on flat road will pull about 65mph. Usually I just cruise at about 50-55mph and its quite happy, returns about 27mpg, and starts first time every time even when the truck is covered in ice. My engine has about 115k on it and yeah they do smoke a bit. Most old 2.25's probably have a very worn timing chain and badly adjusted pump timing as a result = plenty smoke and no power at all.
The certainly aren't to everyones taste but my diesel will still be going when I have water merrily lapping over the bonnet and for that reason I don't like petrols in land rovers.
The 2.5 NA isn't too bad either, is a bit more civilised and because of the timing belt has rather more precise pump timing and tend to smoke less. The produce about 67bhp compared to about 62bhp from the 2.25d. An honest work horse of an engine.
Personally I think both of these engines quite suite series land rovers, how fast do you want to go in them anyway?
Re: Headgaskets, don't use the copper ones, they are crap. on the 2.25d its better to use the composite gasket from a 2.5 NA D. I don't know if this would apply to petrols too.
Re: Really that bad?
Personally I think both of these engines quite suite series land rovers, how fast do you want to go in them anyway?
Fast enough to remain safe in modern traffic conditions without flogging the motor, and with enough power on-demand to get the heck out of a bad situation. If you do all your driving in the sticks, use nothing but country lanes, you don't encounter long grades and never drive long distances, that's one thing, but most people can't sacrifice powerplant flexibility because most people don't drive in these ideal conditions every day.
I mean, face it- Land Rover was playing "let's make do" from the start with regard to their engines. They simply didn't have the money or foresight. The Land Rover wasn't even expected to last
that long- it was a postwar stopgap. If it hadn't been for MOD contracts it might not have lasted long.
They sold well throughout the Commonwealth and the former Empire, but what was the alternative? The Jeep- which really wasn't any better. And LR had the advantage in traditionally British strongholds.
When the Japanese saw the opportunity they took it and they've swallowed a lot of LR's former market share everywhere you look, not because the whole product was necessarily better, but certainly the powerplants were- even in the prototype which was an 85 hp Six- and at a much better price. But I digress.
I spent plenty of time denying the limitations of the 2.25d and it was time wasted. I mean, who's really going to say, "Man your truck is really smelly, slow and noisy, but it's okay, because you can driver under water." Yeah, maybe when the ice caps finally melt! No disrespect, tt -diesels are great, just not this one. Ford Powerstroke- now THAT's a diesel!
Personally I think both of these engines quite suite series land rovers, how fast do you want to go in them anyway?
Fast enough to remain safe in modern traffic conditions without flogging the motor, and with enough power on-demand to get the heck out of a bad situation. If you do all your driving in the sticks, use nothing but country lanes, you don't encounter long grades and never drive long distances, that's one thing, but most people can't sacrifice powerplant flexibility because most people don't drive in these ideal conditions every day.
I mean, face it- Land Rover was playing "let's make do" from the start with regard to their engines. They simply didn't have the money or foresight. The Land Rover wasn't even expected to last
that long- it was a postwar stopgap. If it hadn't been for MOD contracts it might not have lasted long.
They sold well throughout the Commonwealth and the former Empire, but what was the alternative? The Jeep- which really wasn't any better. And LR had the advantage in traditionally British strongholds.
When the Japanese saw the opportunity they took it and they've swallowed a lot of LR's former market share everywhere you look, not because the whole product was necessarily better, but certainly the powerplants were- even in the prototype which was an 85 hp Six- and at a much better price. But I digress.
I spent plenty of time denying the limitations of the 2.25d and it was time wasted. I mean, who's really going to say, "Man your truck is really smelly, slow and noisy, but it's okay, because you can driver under water." Yeah, maybe when the ice caps finally melt! No disrespect, tt -diesels are great, just not this one. Ford Powerstroke- now THAT's a diesel!
just to clarify
antiredneck, I am sorry if I have kept your dream alive because it does sound like madness to me. I simply can't see it will take turbocharging, you'll blow the crap out of it. And while I think in its standard form its not too bad in a series I think it would feel like a pig in the comfort of a RR
Momo, no I don't think its great either, yeah its slow, noisey and smelly and is everything that people used to hate about diesel engines, but I still don't think it's as bad as you made out. maybe mine is just a good one compared to alot of others. I do about 15k miles a year in my series III. I'm not under any illusions about the 2.25 D at all, it also does not last as long as the petrol 2.25 as the top end seems to suffer and the timing chain stretches, I fitted a recon head and new timing chain at 100k which in my book is desperately low miles to have to be looking at a diesel engine.
At the end of the day I probably will not replace the engine with another 2.25 D when it dies, most likely I will go for the 2.5 NA which is 'slightly' more civilised with a small bit of extra power. Lucky for me my brother looks set to pull the 2.5na from his 2a to fit a 200tdi so I may have one heading my way.
Oh and yes a lot of my driving is in the sticks, about 50% I suppose so you make a fair point there.
cheers
www.ttrovers.com
antiredneck, I am sorry if I have kept your dream alive because it does sound like madness to me. I simply can't see it will take turbocharging, you'll blow the crap out of it. And while I think in its standard form its not too bad in a series I think it would feel like a pig in the comfort of a RR
Momo, no I don't think its great either, yeah its slow, noisey and smelly and is everything that people used to hate about diesel engines, but I still don't think it's as bad as you made out. maybe mine is just a good one compared to alot of others. I do about 15k miles a year in my series III. I'm not under any illusions about the 2.25 D at all, it also does not last as long as the petrol 2.25 as the top end seems to suffer and the timing chain stretches, I fitted a recon head and new timing chain at 100k which in my book is desperately low miles to have to be looking at a diesel engine.
At the end of the day I probably will not replace the engine with another 2.25 D when it dies, most likely I will go for the 2.5 NA which is 'slightly' more civilised with a small bit of extra power. Lucky for me my brother looks set to pull the 2.5na from his 2a to fit a 200tdi so I may have one heading my way.
Oh and yes a lot of my driving is in the sticks, about 50% I suppose so you make a fair point there.
cheers
www.ttrovers.com
Joined
·
422 Posts
Re: Re: Really that bad?
Why do people purchase V8 diesel engines in pick up trucks when their class 8 truck runs an inline 6 cylinder engine? In fact there are no trucking companies in the U.S. that utilize V8 diesel engines. Lets compare the V8 to the inline 6 engines.
1. Block: Inline 6 blocks are much heavier and more rigid than V8 blocks and that is why the main bearing caps are not cross-bolted.
2. Crankshaft: The inline 6 crank utilizes 7 main bearings, the V8 has 5 main bearings. Each connecting rod on an inline 6 has its own journal on the crankshaft and the V8 has 2 connecting rods per journal on the crank.
3. Connecting rods: The inline 6 rod has a much larger rod bearing, wrist pin and wrist pin bushing than the V8 rod.
4. Pistons: The inline 6 piston has a thicker dome, longer skirt and larger wrist pin bore.
5. Exhaust manifolds: V8 diesel engines exhaust manifolds have extremely sharp 90 deg turn ups on the back side and the exhaust travel up to the turbo. The turbo is a great distance from the front cylinders thus allowing the exhaust a chance to cool down before entering the turbo. The hotter the exhaust the quicker the turbo spins. On an inline engine the turbo is positioned right between the #3 and 4 cylinder.
6. V8 engines produce more horsepower than inline 6 engines. However the inline 6 has a longer stroke, which equates to more torque and torque is what pulls a load up the mountain. Horsepower is good for acceleration with light weight.
Yeah right.Momo said:
Why do people purchase V8 diesel engines in pick up trucks when their class 8 truck runs an inline 6 cylinder engine? In fact there are no trucking companies in the U.S. that utilize V8 diesel engines. Lets compare the V8 to the inline 6 engines.
1. Block: Inline 6 blocks are much heavier and more rigid than V8 blocks and that is why the main bearing caps are not cross-bolted.
2. Crankshaft: The inline 6 crank utilizes 7 main bearings, the V8 has 5 main bearings. Each connecting rod on an inline 6 has its own journal on the crankshaft and the V8 has 2 connecting rods per journal on the crank.
3. Connecting rods: The inline 6 rod has a much larger rod bearing, wrist pin and wrist pin bushing than the V8 rod.
4. Pistons: The inline 6 piston has a thicker dome, longer skirt and larger wrist pin bore.
5. Exhaust manifolds: V8 diesel engines exhaust manifolds have extremely sharp 90 deg turn ups on the back side and the exhaust travel up to the turbo. The turbo is a great distance from the front cylinders thus allowing the exhaust a chance to cool down before entering the turbo. The hotter the exhaust the quicker the turbo spins. On an inline engine the turbo is positioned right between the #3 and 4 cylinder.
6. V8 engines produce more horsepower than inline 6 engines. However the inline 6 has a longer stroke, which equates to more torque and torque is what pulls a load up the mountain. Horsepower is good for acceleration with light weight.
Re: Re: Re: Really that bad?
the cummins 6BT is an absolutely fantastic engine for hauling and off road kind of work. but where they really, and i mean really, lack is in every day driveability because the RPM range is so small and horsepower (on the older, non HO motors) was somewhat lacking.
a V8 diesel, for the reasons you listed in your response, is a better all around engine than an inline 6 of the same displacement.
with that said, given the oppurtunity i would take a properly designed inline six for an automotive/light truck application over a V8 designed for a medium/heavy truck platform.
thats great and all but that doesnt mean that a V8 diesel is crap. the powerstroke is a VERY good LIGHT TRUCK DIESEL. last i looked my land rover wasnt a medium or heavy truck. what you described is true, though, to a point.Fear Factory said:
the cummins 6BT is an absolutely fantastic engine for hauling and off road kind of work. but where they really, and i mean really, lack is in every day driveability because the RPM range is so small and horsepower (on the older, non HO motors) was somewhat lacking.
a V8 diesel, for the reasons you listed in your response, is a better all around engine than an inline 6 of the same displacement.
with that said, given the oppurtunity i would take a properly designed inline six for an automotive/light truck application over a V8 designed for a medium/heavy truck platform.
Re: Re: Re: Really that bad?
Also, the anatomy lesson on diesel inline Sixes was interesting, but the torque numbers on the two most popular diesel truck engines (Dodge and Ford) are pretty similar.
I've driven the Dodge with the 5.9 Cummins, nice setup, but then it was empty on flat ground and we weren't pulling anything. It was a five speed, helluva nice truck. I know you could pull your house behind the damn thing and it wouldn't know it's back there.
I love Powerstrokes because I've put so many miles on them and never it never failed to satisfy. This was in an E-350 ambulance weighing around 9400 lbs and it went like a scalded dog.
In any case, if you buy the Dodge/Cummins you get 460 ft lbs of torque, the Ford/Navistar claims 500. The conventional wisdom I've read says the Powerstroke is more drivable, but the Cummins edges it out for better for towing. So unless you're pulling horse trailers or something you're splitting hairs. Either way you're getting lots of low end grunt for offroad applications.
Not sure what your point is. Commercial trucks? Over-the-road freight trucking is entirely irrelevant here. That said, I see a lot more Powerstroke V8 equipped Fords in commercial and municipal fleet service than Inline 6 Dodges, and in all kinds of configurations from power company trucks to railroad trucks to light-duty fire apparatus.Fear Factory said:
Also, the anatomy lesson on diesel inline Sixes was interesting, but the torque numbers on the two most popular diesel truck engines (Dodge and Ford) are pretty similar.
I've driven the Dodge with the 5.9 Cummins, nice setup, but then it was empty on flat ground and we weren't pulling anything. It was a five speed, helluva nice truck. I know you could pull your house behind the damn thing and it wouldn't know it's back there.
I love Powerstrokes because I've put so many miles on them and never it never failed to satisfy. This was in an E-350 ambulance weighing around 9400 lbs and it went like a scalded dog.
In any case, if you buy the Dodge/Cummins you get 460 ft lbs of torque, the Ford/Navistar claims 500. The conventional wisdom I've read says the Powerstroke is more drivable, but the Cummins edges it out for better for towing. So unless you're pulling horse trailers or something you're splitting hairs. Either way you're getting lots of low end grunt for offroad applications.
There are a lot more factors that go into why commercial trucking companies typically choose inline 6 diesel engines over V8s. And those reasons are not necesarilly valid for the consumers market. Commercial truck companies are looking at a very specific market in terms of rebuildability, economy, fleet maintenance costs etc. And many of the engine makers that cater to that market are far more reluctant to retool than automotive companies. This is why Cummins proposed an aluminum head V6 diesel instead of an I6 for the light truck market, but have not produced one.
Some of your argument seems to be comparing industrial I6 diesels to consumer V8s. If you go to the industrial marine market you will many opposing examples for V6, V8, V12, and V16 propulsion diesels. Small - medium (by marine terms) V8-V16 engines do quite well compared to their I6 cousins. Frankly, the choice comes down to application which is what really determines engine choice. Your points:
1) "I" (inline) engine blocks have to be much heavier and beefier because the block would twist otherwise! Compare the cross section of a V-block to an inline motor and you will see that they can be made much more rigid for the same length than an inline engine.
2) Good point
3) An inline 6 has to carry a third more HP/torque per cylinder than an equivalent displacement/ comparable power V8 too. This isn't really a point in either a well designed inline or V- type engine.
4) Again, this is the choice of the designer, not an inherient characteristic of I6 engines. There are plenty of V8s that use essentially the same pistons as their I6 cousines (some detroit marine diesels for example).
5) This is yet another implementation versus superiority of design issue. You could run two small turbos on a V8 (as oppossed to a single large turbo) and then the I6 would suffer comparatively.
6) Wrong! for the same displacement, simular design strategies (e.g. number of valves per head), equivalent materials, an I6 is going to have less internal friction than a V8. Also, I6s do not necessarilly have longer strokes, than a V8.
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!