www.teflons-torque.com, Teflon's Torque, Tef's-tQ, Teflon-Mike's Web-Site

  HOME Learner-Riders Workshop General Scrap-Book Miscellaneous e-mail  

Engines 'At a Glance'

Alternative Engines For Landies; What I know about those I've found

Introduction

You'll have to excuse this article for being a bit messy; its an ongoing Work In Progress, being added to as I come across information on different engines. Basically, I have dumped whatever notes or data or reports I've found for the different engine's into this like it was a note-book, and indexed it as best I can.

Information, is at times scrappy, at times scant, and a lot of it I cant verify the accuracy of. But hopefully should provide some basis or guidance for you if you are considering an conversion, as to what's available and how good it might be.

If any-one has info on any other engines that might be included, or has undertaken a conversion and can provide something to add or amend an entry, please

INDEX

Rover Diesel - 2.0 OHV
Rover Diesel - 2.25 OHV
Rover Diesel - 2.5 NADiesel
Rover Diesel - 2.5 Turbo Diesel (19J Engine)
Rover Diesel - 2/3000TDi
Rover Diesel - 2.5D 6Cyl
Rover Diesel - TD5
Rover / Perkins - Prima 2.0TD
Rover / Perkins - Prima 2.0NAD
Ford Sierra, Granada, Transit
Toyota - C series
Toyota - L series
Toyota - B series
Daihatsu - 2.5 DG
Daihatsu 2.8 DL
Daihatsu 2.8 Turbo Diesel
Perkins 4203 NAD Diesel
Perkins 4192 NAD Diesel
Perkins 4192 TD Diesel
GMC 6.2 V8NAD Diesel
Rover Petrol - V8 OHV

Rover Diesel - 2.0 OHV

S2 Land Rovers - approx 50bhp
4 Cylinder, Pushrod operated OHV, mechanically injected, normally aspirated Diesel. Rare original Diesel engine, I think introduced towards the end of S1 production, but never particularly popular. If you have a late S1 or early S2, with a petrol engine and want to convert to Diesel, then originality probably isn't high on your list of priorities, so there are a lot of other engines that would make a better choice. For anything else, this engine would be a retrograde step.

Rover Diesel - 2.25 OHV

S2/3 Land Rovers - approx 60bhp
4 Cylinder, Pushrod operated OHV, mechanically injected, normally aspirated Diesel. Diesel version of 2.25 Petrol. Often preferred to the petrol as they can give reasonable MPG. They are not quite as cheap or plentiful as the petrol, but they are even more under powered. Generally reliable, but unremarkable, though at best performance is tolerable. Main advantage is that it is the standard fitment, as with the petrol engine. Later engines gained 5 bearing crankshafts, which improved reliability, & durability, but not much else.

Rover Diesel - 2.5 NADiesel

90/110 - approx 70bhp
Shares the same engine block casting as the 2.25 5-bearing engine, so fits Series Boxes with removal of 1 location lug, and Defender box without modification. It was new engine for the 90 / 110, and shared with Sherpa / Freight rover / LDV commercials. Whilst it shares the 2.25's engine casings, about the only other common part is the fuel injector. Crank, camshaft, con rods and cylinder head, I believe are all different. Much stronger than 2.25, with a bit more power and MPG, but not a quantum leap. Relatively cheap & reasonably plentiful (Most sourced from knackered ex post office Sherpa Vans)l, and the logical swap for a tired S3 engine, as it fits in with little modification. Decision to swap needs to be informed though. A tired 2.5 from a Sherpa may be in worse shape than that in your S3, simply because a Sherpa is a commercial and WILL have lead a hard life, where your S3 may have only been used for light domestic duties. Fitment appears to be fairly straight forward, though some adaptation may be needed to fit to a Series vehicle depending on whether the engine was taken from Sherpa or another Land Rover. The areas of concern being the engine mountings, which may need changing or adapting, and the battery tray, which may need to be removed. If the engine is taken from a Sherpa, the sump pan may need changing or adapting too. The engine is reported to work much better than its quoted power figures would suggest, possibly due to increased low down torque and slightly increased engines speed over a 2.25.

Rover Diesel - 2.5 Turbo Diesel (19J Engine)

90/110 - approx 85 bhp. Basically a 2.5N/A Sherpa engine with a few tweeks to suit turbo charging. Note though that while its possible to convert an NAD to a TD or vica verca, this is not easy. The fuel injectors and metering pump are not the same, nor are the manifolds, while there are also internal differences including pistons, compression ratio and cam shaft, which are all different. From what I can glean, the engine is not much rated for reliability, but has the power the normally aspirated motors lack, and gives a series or defender enough power to keep up with modern traffic. The reliability issue is mixed though. I think that it may be a bit maligned. In a new vehicle, it probably wasn't as reliable as it ought to be, but now, in early models where it was fitted by LR, poor maintenance and wear probably has a greater influence - so really, is it much more unreliable than an old S3? Comparing a well fettled 20 year old 2.25 to a well fettled 10 year old 2.5TD would the TD let you down more often, or be more difficult or expensive to fix? One nugget I came across, was that there was a suspicion that the main & particularly the thrust bearings on the crank were not particularly well matched by Land / Freight Rover. It was suggested that if you were rebuilding a TD motor, careful attention to selecting your bearings and dressing their seating made a huge difference, and if you pay attention to the turbo oil feeds (don't ask me how), and your oil & filter changes, its an engine that can perform and last well without trouble. However, typically it is more expensive to rebuild an engine than to replace it, and as with the 2.5N/A the most abundant source of these engines will be from old Freight Rover commercials, so rebuilding one may be the only sure way to a good one. If they're cheap & plentiful enough though, the thought occurs, to treat them as disposable. Fitment to a Series Land Rover, is prety much as the normally aspirated version, though you do have to accommodate the turbo plumbing and might need a new exhaust to cope with the extra gas flow needed by the turbo. Last thought, it's been suggested that this engine, is about as far as you can go using a series gearbox, and retaining some kind of transmission reliability

Rover Diesel - 2/3000TDi

90/110 & Defender, Discovery - approx 110bhp. New Engine for Discovery, & Fitted to 90&110 when they became defenders, and supposedly based again on the 2.25 five bearing engine casing, like the 2.5NAD & TD, but again with little other interchange ability. The 2000TDi & 3000TDi are both 2.5l, so it would seem that the 3000 is an uprated version. Both seem to be liked both for performance, economy & reliability, but availability seems poor & Cost a bit high. (New engines are available at around 5-6000) I don't think that either of these engines found their way into Freight Rovers, as by the time they were introduced Freight-Rover had become LDV and were fitting engines as directed by parent company DAF. It should be likely, if the engine casings are common to the 2.5NAD, TD & 5 bearing 2.25's, that this may bolt up to the Series Gearboxes. Crank differences may mean that it is not quite so straightforward though. However, at 110BHP, the Tdi probably produces close to the safe reliable limit of power for a Series gear box, and reports from people who have fitted them would seem to bear that out, so the use of a Defender's permanent 4wd box may be preferable with this engine. Fitment to Disco has made a few more engines available, and a Disco's 2000Tdi is a likely candidate for fitment to an early 90 or 110, but as far as I can tell, there are a number of differences between the two installations that make it a bit more involved than a straight swap. Disco Transfer box has higher ratios however, which may be useful if you can swap the engine & transmission together.

Rover Diesel - 2.5D 6Cyl

Diesel Range Rover - approx 130bhp
Range Rover Specific Diesel. Considered under powered, though with 20BHP more & an extra two cylinders its probably better than the 2/3000TDI's, but less available and more expensive I would imagine

Rover Diesel - TD5

90/110 & Defender, Discovery, Range Rover? - Approx 130 bhp
Latest offering from Land Rover, a new engine since the BMW take-over. Much loved, but expensive and not readily available. I wonder whether thirty years ago, S1 & S2 owners thought the same about the 'new' 2.25Deisil? Probably not.

Rover / Perkins - Prima 2.0TD

Montego Diesels - 81BHP
2.0L OHC Turbo charged. Adapter plate available for Series gearboxes. According to the Montego fans, this engine was developed by Perkins from the Montego's 2.0l 'O' series petrol engine. When it was launched it was a bench mark design, a high reving overhead cam, turbo charged diesel that offered almost petrol engine performance & response with diesel economy. Dated by modern saloon car standards, its still rated a cracking little engine, and still a couple of light years ahead of series diesels. Conversion kits to fit it to the S3 gear box are available, and will fit onto 90/110's LT77 gearbox using Sherpa bellhousing and clutch. It seems to be gaining popularity at the moment, though It doesn't seem to have gained quite the popularity of the 2.5 NAD. This is probably because Montego diesels are still in some demand, and they weren't as rust prone for some reason, though as the engines are pretty long lived, there should be a fair few coming into the breakers soon enough, as second hand car prices remain depressed. Its possible that this engine could be a good fit for a series landie. Looking at it, its likely that an engine can be easily sourced from a broken Montego that's seen light domestic duty, and failed its MOT for rot, rather than the 2.5 NA's or TD's that are likely to have come from overworked commercials. With an adapter kit, its probable that the installation isn't that difficult, and shouldn't need much more work than fitting a 2.5NA. The only tricky bit seems to be the Turbo exhaust. LROI featured an installation in an S1, and it looked neat tidy & not to demanding, and they rated the response, performance & quietness of the engine. They also got round the turbo & exhaust installation easy enough by using the Montego exhaust, almost in its entirety & just cutting & Clamping sections together to get it to fit. Once fitted, it has just over 80bhp, which is about 20bhp more than a series diesel, 10bhp more than a 2.5NA, about on a par with the 2.5TD and not that far off the power of the V8 stage 1! In addition, the engine is a lot more happy to rev, so where the series diesels make their power low down and are well past their best the sort of RPM needed to maintain a decent road speed, the prima is likely to be making its peak power at or close to the sort of revs you use on the road, so it should feel more powerful than it actually is. I think that this is probably the reason the 2.5 is rated as highly as it is in series landies, its not that it makes that much more power than the 2.25, its just that it makes what little extra it does is at an engine speed thats a bit more useful. If you are going to go away from the standard engine, this one could be a good choice. Noted in an LROI follow up they showed an installation in an S2 with an intercooler, that made it even better, and got nearly 100bhp. Some authorities believe that the engine suffers a lack of low down torque however. Practically, this shouldn't be a great issue, other than it would mean working the lower gears harder, unless you are looking for low box, low down pulling power, in which case it may not be much better than a standard 2.25Deisel. An interesting thought on the topic of Turbo installation. It is often mis-quoted that turbos boost power at the top end when the engine is spinning fast enough to drive them. In actual fact, the boost a turbo provides is dependent on load, or how wide open the throttle is, not how fast the engine is spinning, so can potentially give more boost at low revs than they can at higher ones. The other bugbear of the turbo is 'lag', which is often regarded as a bad thing. This is the delay between you opening the throttle and the turbo starting to work. Given a light vehicle, its possible that under acceleration, the engine could accelerate faster than the turbo, helping to propagate the myth that turbo's only work at high engine speeds, but in a heavy vehicle, the acceleration of the engine is likely to be a lot lower, so its more likely that the turbo will have a chance to cycle and make boost, ie the lag will be less noticeable. Consequently, the theory suggests that the Prima engine in Turbo form may work better in a Landrover than in a Montego, and better still in Long Wheel base model than a short one. The question of reliability is often raised in connection with these engines. As the Montego went out of production nearly ten years ago though, mileage and maintenance probably has greater influence on possible engine life than its inherent design. Certainly, the Normally Aspirated Prima fitted to early Sherpa's and Meastro vans was not renowned for reliability, but build control was not very good during this period of Rover's history. In all likelihood, any 'duff' engines should have been weeded out by now, and the Montego TD never seems to have suffered faults as the earlier NAD was reported to have done

Rover / Perkins - Prima 2.0NAD

Meastro Van Diesels
As far as I can gather this is the same as the Turbo charged Prima, but without the turbo. It would seem that its not a lot more economical than the turbo version and makes quite a bit less power. I would estimate it probably only makes about 65-70bhp, which puts it a bit behind to about on par with the 2.5NA. Without the turbo, the power deficit probably defies the main reason for wanting to fit a prima engine. However, its possible that reliability, availability, price and not having to mention the word 'turbo' to your insurance company could make this version of the engine worth considering in some instances.

Ford - 2.0D Diesel / 2.0TD Diesel / 2.3D Diesel / 2.5TD Diesel

Ford Sierra, Granada, Transit - Peugeot 504? (possibly other Peugeot models, + Citroen, maybe some Renault, & possibly some of the Italian Marques)
Noisy, & unrefined. Not hugely powerful, but reasonably economical. Bullet-proof if looked after, troublesome if not. Main problem is most transits thrashed and ill-maintained by fleet operators cutting costs.
Adapter plates to S3 box available from Steve Parkers, I believe.

Toyota - C series - 1C(1.8l) and 2C(2l) and 2CT

fitted to cars and the small vans
Revvy, not much torque
 

Toyota - L series - 1L(2.2) 2L/2LT(2.4) 3L/3LT(2.8) plus a 3L

Hi Lux, Hi Ace and 4 Runner/Surf
Popular motor, goes about 250K if the oil is changed regularly, needs the timing belt changed every 80,000 km. There does seem to be something about this motor that means it doesn't recondition well, if it has been reconed, make sure the oil pump drive gear has been replaced. (Wook's comments)

Toyota - B series - 1B(2.8) 2B(3.2) and 3B(3.4)

Diesel Pushrod 4 cylinder motors "need sound proofing". Solid and reliable, their only susceptibility is to poor air filtration. I personally think the 3B would make a great Landy motor if your not in a hurry, but want unstopable torque. Weight would possibly be an issue. (Wook's comments)

Daihatsu - 2.5 DG

Fortrack - Diesel 66bhp
So, the Daihatsu 2.5NA, looks like its not worth fitting, unless as a real budget option. But then you would have to virtually be given a brand new engine to make it more economical to buy an adapter kit than to fit a recon 2.25D. 3700 2530 Limited

Daihatsu 2.8 DL

Fortrack - Diesel 72bhp
The Daihatsu 2.8NA, is about comparable to a 2.5NA. If it is basically the 2.8TD without the turbo, then it should be an easy fit, but look quoted capacity is different, so I suspect its not the same block. Either way, a 2.5NAD would probably make more sense

Daihatsu 2.8 Turbo Diesel

Fortrack - Diesel 101
Wook's comments sound encouraging, but. He paid 1200 for the engine, and engineconversions.co.uk/landrover.html quote about 250 for the adapter kit. Given the 'odds & sods' to put it all together, we are looking at between 1500 & 2000 for the conversion, though its doesn't seem to be too much more involved. Overall, it's probably drops between a 2.5TD conversion and a 200Tdi conversion, give or take. The Rover 2.5TD option is probably a bit cheaper, the 200Tdi a bit more expensive. The Dihatsu possibly will need less attention for longer than either Rover engine, but when it does need attention, it will probably be dead. The Dihatsu 2.8TD makes about 15BHP more than a Rover 2.5TD, but about 10BHP less than a 200Tdi. As a more powerful option to the 2.5TD, it looks a bit expensive. The reliability issue would probably tip the balence. Its reported to be a very strong engine, but if it does go wrong? But then what if a 2.5TD went wrong, sure you CAN fix them, but. As a cheap 200Tdi? Well, its down on power and its down on revs. So, it would have to offer a pretty good cost saving and or reliability gain. With 200TDi's fetching quite high prices, again the reliability issue would probably tip the balance. A good 200Tdi could easily fetch 2000+. Add some bits and pieces to complete the installation and we could be looking at over 3000. And there's a risk that a second hand 200TDi could be a cam belt/zeus gear failure that has been removed, replaced in the original vehicle, then cobbled back together after the rockers had been araldited back together and the pushrods beaten straight on a vice. So the Dihatsu engine may offer a cash saving and a bit less risk, for the 10BHP and the revs it looses." 3400 2767 Suitable

Perkins 4203 NAD Diesel

No Info on this engine yet found - any one with any details or experience of this engine in a Land Rover - comment would be much appreciated

Perkins 4192 NAD Diesel

No Info on this engine yet found - any one with any details or experience of this engine in a Land Rover - comment would be much appreciated

Perkins 4192 TD Diesel

No Info on this engine yet found - any one with any details or experience of this engine in a Land Rover - comment would be much appreciated

GMC 6.2 V8NAD Diesel

No Info on this engine yet found - any one with any details or experience of this engine in a Land Rover - comment would be much appreciated

Rover Petrol - V8 OHV

Rover P5, P6, SD1 Saloons, Range Rover, Stage 1 & Defender, TVR, Morgan, & Numerous other sports, kit & custom cars
90bhp in S3 Stage 1. 120-135bhp in carburated Range Rover. Typically 150-200bhp in other applications
Featured in Land rover Owner International, November 2003'Alternate Engines' feature, plus various conversion articles.
Conversion parts available to suit most applications, Steve Parker, Conversions & Precision, for Land Rover. A 'standard' in the kit car & custom car world, adapter plates and fly wheels are available to fit this engine to most common gearboxes, most notably Ford Mk4 5-speed, the 'Sierra' box.
Engine is strong and generally long lived. One in our Rangie covered 140,000 miles before needing attention, and reports of motor covering well over 150K are common. Design features a low pressure lubrication system that helps make motor durable, but neglect will see them die of black death, when the lubrication system is so sludged up oil stops flowing, and rapid wear ensues. Rocker shafts and rockers can wear quickly, and cam chains last about 50K. Worth checking and changing these parts before fitment to car.
General opinion is that the motor really needs permanent four wheel drive gearbox, as Defender or Range Rover. Fitment to Series Landies has been common, but usual problems are either short series gearbox life, or conversion to permanent four wheel drive transmission, that impacts on axles suspension and steering. A lot of BAD conversions out there.
One alternative is to use later Range Rover or defender gearbox, but with adapter plate to take Series transfer box. This seems a good compromise, though getting a transfer box adapter now may be difficult. I've noticed, however, that in the states, there is a tendency to fit Chevrolet V8's, the 350ci (5.9litre) so aptly names 'small block' engines, using corresponding GM manual or auto transmissions from GMC pick up trucks, with series transfer box humg on the end with an adapter plate, and I caught an article about a Series 1, with a Jaguar straight six fitted, using the Borg Warner box that came with, again with a Series transfer box grafted on the end. I suspect that if you can find an accommodating engineering company, or have the skill yourself, this could make things a practical proposition. Cost of adapter plate might be relatively high, but probably worth it for increased gearbox reliability and saving in having to modify the rest of the transmission and or steering & suspension.
For a Series Land Rover, one interesting fact is that the V8 is 32" long from the back of the engine casing to the nose of the water pump. It may be possible to remove the fixed fan and machine down the water pump shaft by about 1" to get some extra clearance, but you will probably need that extra inch to fit an adapter plate between engine and bell housing. From the flange of the S3 bell housing, it is 31 1/2" to the back of the radiator. This means that you may need to get a bit creative with the bulkhead and or front panel to fit a V8 in a Series engine bay. Easy option is to fit a flat front end as with the Stage 1 & defender, but if you want to keep the 'step' of the original Landy, alternative solutions must be found to solve the clearance problem. For note, front of front panel is 36" from the front of the bell housing! It is tantalisingly close, but there isn't a lot of room for the radiator!

 

  HOME Learner-Riders Workshop General Scrap-Book Miscellaneous e-mail  

Hit Counter
stats counter

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +