Compression test. - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars
Ford Forum Ford Forum

» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
» Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Ford Cars and PAG Vehicles > PAG Vehicle Discussion > Land Rover
Register Home Forum Active Topics Photo Gallery Auto Loans Garage Mark Forums Read Auto Escrow

FordForums.com is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-02-2005, 21:01   #1 (permalink)
Samuel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Compression test.

results of compression test on my 2.6 litre series 3, from front to back.

105
140
130
135
110
125

same results for wet and dry. the motor has been running well when cold but
gets rough when warm, on either lpg or petrol. the spark is perfect on all
cylinders so before comp. test i was thinking burnt exhaust valve.

as the trouble cylinders are far apart (105 and 110), that rules out head
gasket.
same wet and dry suggests its not rings, which i was 99% sure of anyway.
absolutely no crankcase pressure and no oil-smoke.

exhaust valve is all it could be right? if so, is a set of new valves and a
quick regrind within the scope of a backyard mechanic? anyone here who has
done this on the 6 cylinder rover motor? i hear they are a bit weird to do
as the exhaust valves are set in the engine block. do i need to remove the
motor to do the regrind due to space restrictions?

any help would be greatly greatly appreciated.

Sam.


  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-02-2005, 22:01   #2 (permalink)
JD
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Compression test.

Samuel wrote:

> results of compression test on my 2.6 litre series 3, from front to back.
>
> 105
> 140
> 130
> 135
> 110
> 125
>
> same results for wet and dry. the motor has been running well when cold
> but gets rough when warm, on either lpg or petrol. the spark is perfect on
> all cylinders so before comp. test i was thinking burnt exhaust valve.
>
> as the trouble cylinders are far apart (105 and 110), that rules out head
> gasket.
> same wet and dry suggests its not rings, which i was 99% sure of anyway.
> absolutely no crankcase pressure and no oil-smoke.
>
> exhaust valve is all it could be right? if so, is a set of new valves and
> a quick regrind within the scope of a backyard mechanic? anyone here who
> has done this on the 6 cylinder rover motor? i hear they are a bit weird
> to do as the exhaust valves are set in the engine block. do i need to
> remove the motor to do the regrind due to space restrictions?
>
> any help would be greatly greatly appreciated.
>
> Sam.


I haven't done a six, but the same setup is used in the Series 1 engine, and
I did a valve grind on one of these many years ago, with no problems. You
may find it useful to remove the LH mudguard, depending on how rusty the
bolts are, but there should certainly be no need to remove the engine. The
factory manual marks this operation as one that can be done with the engine
in place.
JD
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2005, 23:01   #3 (permalink)
Samuel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Compression test.



>
> I haven't done a six, but the same setup is used in the Series 1 engine,

and
> I did a valve grind on one of these many years ago, with no problems. You
> may find it useful to remove the LH mudguard, depending on how rusty the
> bolts are, but there should certainly be no need to remove the engine. The
> factory manual marks this operation as one that can be done with the

engine
> in place.
> JD


all bolts lok to be in excellent condition, so i'll take your advice and
take it off before trying anything. may not save much time, but may save a
lot of frustration, and we all know which one is worth more.

states in mine that "in installations where access is restricted, to replace
valve guides on no. 5 and 6 cylinders may first require engine removal" but
as i probably wont replace the valve guides i suppose this doesn't concern
me.

thanks.

Sam.


  Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2005, 03:01   #4 (permalink)
beamendsltd
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Compression test.

In message <431909a8$0$25201$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
"Samuel" <samuelmcgregor@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> results of compression test on my 2.6 litre series 3, from front to back.
>
> 105
> 140
> 130
> 135
> 110
> 125
>
> same results for wet and dry. the motor has been running well when cold but
> gets rough when warm, on either lpg or petrol. the spark is perfect on all
> cylinders so before comp. test i was thinking burnt exhaust valve.
>
> as the trouble cylinders are far apart (105 and 110), that rules out head
> gasket.
> same wet and dry suggests its not rings, which i was 99% sure of anyway.
> absolutely no crankcase pressure and no oil-smoke.
>
> exhaust valve is all it could be right? if so, is a set of new valves and a
> quick regrind within the scope of a backyard mechanic? anyone here who has
> done this on the 6 cylinder rover motor? i hear they are a bit weird to do
> as the exhaust valves are set in the engine block. do i need to remove the
> motor to do the regrind due to space restrictions?
>
> any help would be greatly greatly appreciated.
>
> Sam.
>
>


The 6-cylinder is great fun! The head/block face is at an angle
just to make things interesting. The head is also pretty heavy.
Getting it undone is straight forward, but (I did it myself) I'd
suggest that having another pair of hands for lifting it off would
be a good idea. Lapping the exhaust valves is fun - they are in the
block as you say, so you have to sit on the wing to do it, being
very careful where the grinding paste ends up.
The other bit of fun is the exhaust valve collets - they can drop
down into the oil gallery and have to be retrived with a magnet on
a bit of wire or string.
Putting the head back on is quite a challenge, but if you make up
a couple of temporary studs to locate it then its not so bad -
some help would be a definate plus.
You'll need one of each type of valve spring compressor as well,
one for the inlet valves and one for the exhaust.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2005, 03:01   #5 (permalink)
Samuel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Compression test.

>
> The 6-cylinder is great fun! The head/block face is at an angle
> just to make things interesting. The head is also pretty heavy.
> Getting it undone is straight forward, but (I did it myself) I'd
> suggest that having another pair of hands for lifting it off would
> be a good idea. Lapping the exhaust valves is fun - they are in the
> block as you say, so you have to sit on the wing to do it, being
> very careful where the grinding paste ends up.
> The other bit of fun is the exhaust valve collets - they can drop
> down into the oil gallery and have to be retrived with a magnet on
> a bit of wire or string.
> Putting the head back on is quite a challenge, but if you make up
> a couple of temporary studs to locate it then its not so bad -
> some help would be a definate plus.
> You'll need one of each type of valve spring compressor as well,
> one for the inlet valves and one for the exhaust.


I mean seriously, what is the benefit of this ridiculous IOE set-up?? there
must be something positive about it.

anyway, fairly certain i will only be doing the exhaust valves as i am
confident the inlet valves are OK. JD has suggested i take the wing off
before doing it, i'll probably take his advice. which type of valve
compressor is need for the exhaust valves, and more to the point, what are
the two different types?

i've got a couple of weeks off soon, so i think i'll set aside one of them
to doing this operation. even allowing a whole week, it'll end up taking
two!

Sam.


  Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2005, 05:01   #6 (permalink)
JD
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Compression test.

Samuel wrote:

>>
>> The 6-cylinder is great fun! The head/block face is at an angle
>> just to make things interesting. The head is also pretty heavy.
>> Getting it undone is straight forward, but (I did it myself) I'd
>> suggest that having another pair of hands for lifting it off would
>> be a good idea. Lapping the exhaust valves is fun - they are in the
>> block as you say, so you have to sit on the wing to do it, being
>> very careful where the grinding paste ends up.
>> The other bit of fun is the exhaust valve collets - they can drop
>> down into the oil gallery and have to be retrived with a magnet on
>> a bit of wire or string.
>> Putting the head back on is quite a challenge, but if you make up
>> a couple of temporary studs to locate it then its not so bad -
>> some help would be a definate plus.
>> You'll need one of each type of valve spring compressor as well,
>> one for the inlet valves and one for the exhaust.

>
> I mean seriously, what is the benefit of this ridiculous IOE set-up??
> there must be something positive about it.
>
> anyway, fairly certain i will only be doing the exhaust valves as i am
> confident the inlet valves are OK. JD has suggested i take the wing off
> before doing it, i'll probably take his advice. which type of valve
> compressor is need for the exhaust valves, and more to the point, what are
> the two different types?
>
> i've got a couple of weeks off soon, so i think i'll set aside one of them
> to doing this operation. even allowing a whole week, it'll end up taking
> two!
>
> Sam.


The inlet over exhaust setup, in this form was used by Rover from the 1940s
until the 1970's and was also used by Rolls Royce in the 1930's-1960's, and
probably other manufacturers as well. (not to be confused with the inlet
over exhaust setup that was common throughout the motor industry from the
1890's to 1920's)

This setup allows the use of an almost perfectly hemispherical combustion
chamber together with an inlet valve which is much larger than could be
used with any other valve layout for a given bore - important when the
stroke was long compared to the bore, as dictated by UK taxing methods at
the time the engine was designed. Properly done, which Rover did, it
results in an engine that is very well mannered compared to what could be
achieved with conventional overhead valves. However, this particular engine
is not all that well suited to an offroad vehicle - it does not seem to
stand up to abuse as well as either the 2.25OHV or the similar 2.0 engines,
or even the V8. And lowering the compression to make it less fussy about
fuel as was done when it was put in the Landrover resulted in pretty
abysmal fuel economy. But still a very nice engine if you look after it.
JD
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2005, 18:01   #7 (permalink)
Alex
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Re: Compression test.


>
>This setup allows the use of an almost perfectly hemispherical combustion
>chamber together with an inlet valve which is much larger than could be
>used with any other valve layout for a given bore - important when the
>stroke was long compared to the bore, as dictated by UK taxing methods at
>the time the engine was designed. Properly done, which Rover did, it
>results in an engine that is very well mannered compared to what could be
>achieved with conventional overhead valves. However, this particular engine
>is not all that well suited to an offroad vehicle - it does not seem to
>stand up to abuse as well as either the 2.25OHV or the similar 2.0 engines,
>or even the V8. And lowering the compression to make it less fussy about
>fuel as was done when it was put in the Landrover resulted in pretty
>abysmal fuel economy. But still a very nice engine if you look after it.
>JD


It's not a nice engine at all in the Landrover. A shame really, as in
the Rover Coupe it is an excellent engine, silky smooth and with an
abundance of power and torque.

The 2.6/3.0 IOE is a long-stroke engine from the old horsepower
calculation days (ie, prewar) which much prefers to cruise at low rpm,
which is where the efficency of the engine is. Unfortunatly in the
landrover, to get the required power from the detuned 2.6 the gear
ratio is far to low, which results in the engine sitting on the
limiter (if you have one fitted) when crusing at A-road/motorway
speeds. Even with an overdrive installed 50-60mph is still very high
rpm for the engine. This, coupled with the de-tuning results in a very
thirsty fuel consumption.

The 3.0 with the performance head would have been a much better engine
to put into the landrover, coupled with a higher-ratio transfer box,
and it was only Rover's lack of a bigger engine that meant that it
continued untill 1980ish by which time the engine was hideously
outdated, inefficient and by the emissions standards of the time, very
dirty.

If i was to consider continuing to run my 2.6, i'd be looking at some
serious work to recondition the engine, despite it having done a
genuine 30,000 miles from new (1978) the engine is on it's last legs,
including a leaking headgasket which has corroded the head bolts in,
two leaking exhaust valves and numerious other faults. Work which is
simply not worth it on the engine, it would be far better, easier and
cheaper to drop a 2.25/2.5/v8 into it. Consequently i'm scrapping the
engine, a step that wasn't taken lightly, as a straight-six is by far
my favourite engine layout. TBH, I miss the 6's pulling power and
smoothness, but it simply doesn't make economic sense to continue with
it.

Alex
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2005, 04:01   #8 (permalink)
Samuel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Re: Compression test.


"Alex" <nospam.alex@cbmsys.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kabkh1l2qs1rejh85uakafvuff39urbje4@4ax.com...
>
> >
> >This setup allows the use of an almost perfectly hemispherical combustion
> >chamber together with an inlet valve which is much larger than could be
> >used with any other valve layout for a given bore - important when the
> >stroke was long compared to the bore, as dictated by UK taxing methods at
> >the time the engine was designed. Properly done, which Rover did, it
> >results in an engine that is very well mannered compared to what could be
> >achieved with conventional overhead valves. However, this particular

engine
> >is not all that well suited to an offroad vehicle - it does not seem to
> >stand up to abuse as well as either the 2.25OHV or the similar 2.0

engines,
> >or even the V8. And lowering the compression to make it less fussy about
> >fuel as was done when it was put in the Landrover resulted in pretty
> >abysmal fuel economy. But still a very nice engine if you look after it.
> >JD

>
> It's not a nice engine at all in the Landrover. A shame really, as in
> the Rover Coupe it is an excellent engine, silky smooth and with an
> abundance of power and torque.
>
> The 2.6/3.0 IOE is a long-stroke engine from the old horsepower
> calculation days (ie, prewar) which much prefers to cruise at low rpm,
> which is where the efficency of the engine is. Unfortunatly in the
> landrover, to get the required power from the detuned 2.6 the gear
> ratio is far to low, which results in the engine sitting on the
> limiter (if you have one fitted) when crusing at A-road/motorway
> speeds. Even with an overdrive installed 50-60mph is still very high
> rpm for the engine. This, coupled with the de-tuning results in a very
> thirsty fuel consumption.
>
> The 3.0 with the performance head would have been a much better engine
> to put into the landrover, coupled with a higher-ratio transfer box,
> and it was only Rover's lack of a bigger engine that meant that it
> continued untill 1980ish by which time the engine was hideously
> outdated, inefficient and by the emissions standards of the time, very
> dirty.
>
> If i was to consider continuing to run my 2.6, i'd be looking at some
> serious work to recondition the engine, despite it having done a
> genuine 30,000 miles from new (1978) the engine is on it's last legs,
> including a leaking headgasket which has corroded the head bolts in,
> two leaking exhaust valves and numerious other faults. Work which is
> simply not worth it on the engine, it would be far better, easier and
> cheaper to drop a 2.25/2.5/v8 into it. Consequently i'm scrapping the
> engine, a step that wasn't taken lightly, as a straight-six is by far
> my favourite engine layout. TBH, I miss the 6's pulling power and
> smoothness, but it simply doesn't make economic sense to continue with
> it.
>
> Alex


My thoughts precisely Alex.

my 2.6 has done only about 60,000 ks and seems to be in excellent condition
except for the leaky exhaust valves. i would love to plonk a 2.25 litre
landy motor in, but i understand it takes a lot of work. transmission must
be changed, as well as custome engine mounts etc. due to the different
transmission location. tough decision at the moment, as i dont have the
money to do any serious engine swap. but by the same token i don't want to
throw money at a lost cause.

Sam.


  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2005, 05:01   #9 (permalink)
Alex
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Re: Re: Compression test.


>
>my 2.6 has done only about 60,000 ks and seems to be in excellent condition
>except for the leaky exhaust valves. i would love to plonk a 2.25 litre
>landy motor in, but i understand it takes a lot of work. transmission must
>be changed, as well as custome engine mounts etc. due to the different
>transmission location. tough decision at the moment, as i dont have the
>money to do any serious engine swap. but by the same token i don't want to
>throw money at a lost cause.
>
>Sam.
>


Well, it isn't going to cost you anything to take the head off,
exhaust valves out and have a carefull examination for valve seat
recession. The IOE engine was not designed for unleaded and the
exhaust valve seats recess if it is run on unleaded. If the valve
seats are good, then it's worth grinding them in, doing a decoke and
re-assembling the engine. If the valve seats are gone, then i'd stop
right there and look at alternatives. Changing the exhaust valve seats
is not going to be a cheap job, as you'll have to send the entire
engine block away to have it done. It's not worth throwing serious
money at the 2.6, it's a better option to use the money on a
conversion. Yes, you'll need the transmission from a 2.25 as well, and
the engine mounts will have to be changed.

Alex
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2005, 02:01   #10 (permalink)
beamendsltd
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Re: Compression test.

In message <kabkh1l2qs1rejh85uakafvuff39urbje4@4ax.com>
Alex <nospam.alex@cbmsys.co.uk> wrote:

>
> >
> >This setup allows the use of an almost perfectly hemispherical combustion
> >chamber together with an inlet valve which is much larger than could be
> >used with any other valve layout for a given bore - important when the
> >stroke was long compared to the bore, as dictated by UK taxing methods at
> >the time the engine was designed. Properly done, which Rover did, it
> >results in an engine that is very well mannered compared to what could be
> >achieved with conventional overhead valves. However, this particular engine
> >is not all that well suited to an offroad vehicle - it does not seem to
> >stand up to abuse as well as either the 2.25OHV or the similar 2.0 engines,
> >or even the V8. And lowering the compression to make it less fussy about
> >fuel as was done when it was put in the Landrover resulted in pretty
> >abysmal fuel economy. But still a very nice engine if you look after it.
> >JD

>
> It's not a nice engine at all in the Landrover. A shame really, as in
> the Rover Coupe it is an excellent engine, silky smooth and with an
> abundance of power and torque.
>
> The 2.6/3.0 IOE is a long-stroke engine from the old horsepower
> calculation days (ie, prewar) which much prefers to cruise at low rpm,
> which is where the efficency of the engine is. Unfortunatly in the
> landrover, to get the required power from the detuned 2.6 the gear
> ratio is far to low, which results in the engine sitting on the
> limiter (if you have one fitted) when crusing at A-road/motorway
> speeds. Even with an overdrive installed 50-60mph is still very high
> rpm for the engine. This, coupled with the de-tuning results in a very
> thirsty fuel consumption.


Ahem - the 6-cylinder has another 800rpm over the 2, and mine with
overdrive would do 80mph (closely followed by a fuel tanker - 9mpg!),
a bit more with a following wind, down hill. I loved mine to bits,
and much perferred it to my Stage I. Why-oh-why did I let the ex
make me sell it.......

>
> The 3.0 with the performance head would have been a much better engine
> to put into the landrover, coupled with a higher-ratio transfer box,
> and it was only Rover's lack of a bigger engine that meant that it
> continued untill 1980ish by which time the engine was hideously
> outdated, inefficient and by the emissions standards of the time, very
> dirty.


The 3.0 was fitted - for the NAD (US) market.

>
> If i was to consider continuing to run my 2.6, i'd be looking at some
> serious work to recondition the engine, despite it having done a
> genuine 30,000 miles from new (1978) the engine is on it's last legs,
> including a leaking headgasket which has corroded the head bolts in,
> two leaking exhaust valves and numerious other faults. Work which is
> simply not worth it on the engine, it would be far better, easier and
> cheaper to drop a 2.25/2.5/v8 into it. Consequently i'm scrapping the
> engine, a step that wasn't taken lightly, as a straight-six is by far
> my favourite engine layout. TBH, I miss the 6's pulling power and
> smoothness, but it simply doesn't make economic sense to continue with
> it.
>


Ther's going to very little difference in "economy" between the B8 and
the 6-cylinder, and the 2 is going to seem abysmal. If you must change
it for economy, the 2.5 is the best bet by far (relatively).

> Alex


Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Boycot the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay
  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Ford Cars and PAG Vehicles > PAG Vehicle Discussion > Land Rover



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 15:21.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.