On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 12:09:57 +0000, Austin Shackles
<austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:
>>>>A 3.9 diesel?
>>>>
>>>
>>> 4BD1 Isuzu was offered here in Australia in the Stage 1's
>>>
>>
>>You learn something new every day ... especially where Land Rovers are
>>concerned. Happy New Year :-)
>
>bloody shame that LR didn't do that more widely. If they'd had a credible
>diesel option sooner (and it really did in the old days come down to
>capacity) there would've been fewer people buying jap 4x4 trucks, I reckon.
>
>The 2.1/4 diesel was proabbly not bad when they first put it in the truck in
>1957. by 1967 it was starting to look slow and by 1977 it was definitely
>out of date. Continuing it's use up to about 1987 was just silly (not
>quite, I know, the numbers were nice).
The 2.5 NA diesel that replaced it wasn't fantastic either, just
better than the 2.25. The addition of a turbo for the 2.5TDi was a lot
better.
>>The 2.1/4 diesel was proabbly not bad when they first put it in the truck in
>>1957.
It was useless from the start, a petrol engine cobbled up with a
distributor pump to allow farmers to use a common fuel. Even then it
had the worst specific fuel consumption for any diesel of the period.
>
>The 2.5 NA diesel that replaced it wasn't fantastic either, just
>better than the 2.25.
Yes but at least it acquired a decent injector pump, still absolutely
gutless and an embarrassment to drive.
>The addition of a turbo for the 2.5TDi was a lot
>better.
They put the turbo on the earlier 2.5 first, it actually went ok but
there were some engine problems which I believe they gradually sorted.
I drove a 1985 one with an aftermarket intercooler and quite liked it.
LR diesels didn't get useful till they got coil springs as well.
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:56:26 +0000, AJH <sylva@despammed.com> wrote:
>>>The 2.1/4 diesel was proabbly not bad when they first put it in the truck in
>>>1957.
>
>It was useless from the start, a petrol engine cobbled up with a
>distributor pump to allow farmers to use a common fuel. Even then it
>had the worst specific fuel consumption for any diesel of the period.
>
It wasn't. It was provided as 2litre (2052cc) diesel first, along with
the existing 2litre IOE petrol. It was then enlarged to 2286cc and
provided as either petrol or diesel. Commonality of parts between the
two engines meant that landrover could save on costs, as the bulk of
the engine parts are the same.
The differences are the head, camshaft and pistons/con rods, and what
you fitted to the camshaft - dizzy or injector pump.
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:56:26 +0000, AJH <sylva@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>>>>The 2.1/4 diesel was proabbly not bad when they first put it in the
>>>>truck in 1957.
>>
>>It was useless from the start, a petrol engine cobbled up with a
>>distributor pump to allow farmers to use a common fuel. Even then it
>>had the worst specific fuel consumption for any diesel of the period.
>>
>
> It wasn't. It was provided as 2litre (2052cc) diesel first, along with
> the existing 2litre IOE petrol. It was then enlarged to 2286cc and
> provided as either petrol or diesel. Commonality of parts between the
> two engines meant that landrover could save on costs, as the bulk of
> the engine parts are the same.
>
> The differences are the head, camshaft and pistons/con rods, and what
> you fitted to the camshaft - dizzy or injector pump.
>
> Alex
Yes, the engine was originally designed as a diesel - the petrol engine is
the conversion (which is why the petrol engine is so resistant to abuse).
And you have to remember that diesels this small were very scarce in the
fifties, even the late fifties (which is why Rover designed their own).
But the power available was inadequate for many markets right from the
start - even the 2.25 petrol was low powered compared to competition (not
that there was very much in the fifties). At the end of the fifties the
Landrover was beginning to face competition from the Landcruiser, which,
while it had only three gears, and appalling steering, and numerous other
shortcomings, had 50% more power than the 2.25. Also coming on the scene
was the Patrol, also with many shortcomings, but with a version of the BMC
'C' series engine around double the power of the 2.25. But also note that
neither of these companies offered any diesel engine at all on their four
wheel drives until around ten years after Landrover.
JD
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:07:29 +1100, JD <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> wrote:
>Alex wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:56:26 +0000, AJH <sylva@despammed.com> wrote:
>>>It was useless from the start, a petrol engine cobbled up with a
>>>distributor pump to allow farmers to use a common fuel. Even then it
>>>had the worst specific fuel consumption for any diesel of the period.
>>>
>>
>> It wasn't. It was provided as 2litre (2052cc) diesel first, along with
>> the existing 2litre IOE petrol. It was then enlarged to 2286cc and
>> provided as either petrol or diesel.
That's news to me, I thought the 2286 engine first appeared in 58, I
had one in 644 FAR, about 69. The diesel didn't appear till 61. I was
unaware of an earlier diesel.
>> Commonality of parts between the
>> two engines meant that landrover could save on costs, as the bulk of
>> the engine parts are the same.
Yes this is a good point, they tried the same with the B40 and Champ.
>>
>> The differences are the head, camshaft and pistons/con rods, and what
>> you fitted to the camshaft - dizzy or injector pump.
Yes but it was still an awful diesel.
>Yes, the engine was originally designed as a diesel - the petrol engine is
>the conversion (which is why the petrol engine is so resistant to abuse).
>And you have to remember that diesels this small were very scarce in the
>fifties, even the late fifties (which is why Rover designed their own).
Again I didn't know this, have you a reference? I used to have a book
on engines (by LJK Setright I think) and it had comparison charts in
the back, I distinctly remember the Rover's poor performance.
>But the power available was inadequate for many markets right from the
>start -
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:07:29 +1100, JD <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Alex wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:56:26 +0000, AJH <sylva@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>>>>It was useless from the start, a petrol engine cobbled up with a
>>>>distributor pump to allow farmers to use a common fuel. Even then it
>>>>had the worst specific fuel consumption for any diesel of the period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It wasn't. It was provided as 2litre (2052cc) diesel first, along with
>>> the existing 2litre IOE petrol. It was then enlarged to 2286cc and
>>> provided as either petrol or diesel.
>
> That's news to me, I thought the 2286 engine first appeared in 58, I
> had one in 644 FAR, about 69. The diesel didn't appear till 61. I was
> unaware of an earlier diesel.
The 2286 petrol engine appeared in 1958, but the diesel in 2.0 litre form
over a year earlier, to be replaced by the 2286 diesel in 1961. The two
diesel engines are essentially identical except that the 2.0 has wet
sleeves with an increased bore for the 2286. Both the diesel and petrol
engines were probably running in prototypes as early as 1955, and the basic
design work presumably dates from the very early fifties.
>
>>> Commonality of parts between the
>>> two engines meant that landrover could save on costs, as the bulk of
>>> the engine parts are the same.
>
> Yes this is a good point, they tried the same with the B40 and Champ.
>>>
>>> The differences are the head, camshaft and pistons/con rods, and what
>>> you fitted to the camshaft - dizzy or injector pump.
>
> Yes but it was still an awful diesel.
Perhaps not brilliant, but there were practically no other comparable
diesels from the fifties at all. The Mercedes is the only one that comes to
mind. Other similar capacity engines were much heavier and lower power.
>
>>Yes, the engine was originally designed as a diesel - the petrol engine is
>>the conversion (which is why the petrol engine is so resistant to abuse).
>>And you have to remember that diesels this small were very scarce in the
>>fifties, even the late fifties (which is why Rover designed their own).
>
> Again I didn't know this, have you a reference? I used to have a book
> on engines (by LJK Setright I think) and it had comparison charts in
> the back, I distinctly remember the Rover's poor performance.
Refs. For example: The Landrover Story, James Taylor 1996 ISBN 1 85520 3391
p.69 describes how the Landrover wheelbase was increased by two inches in
early 1956 to accommodate the new engine, which was introduced fairly late
in 1957 in the 2 litre wet sleeve diesel version. The petrol version did
not appear until 1958 and the 2.25 diesel until 1961.
Another reference is: The Landrover, Graham Robson 1976, ISBN 0 7153 7203 3
p.38 describes the introduction of the 2 litre diesel in June 1957 and the
introduction of the 2.25 petrol engine in 1958 is described on the
following page.
>
>>But the power available was inadequate for many markets right from the
>>start -
>
> Agreed there then!
>
> AJH
>
> >>>It was useless from the start, a petrol engine cobbled up with a
> >>>distributor pump to allow farmers to use a common fuel. Even then it
> >>>had the worst specific fuel consumption for any diesel of the period.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It wasn't. It was provided as 2litre (2052cc) diesel first, along with
> >> the existing 2litre IOE petrol. It was then enlarged to 2286cc and
> >> provided as either petrol or diesel.
I don't think so! The early 2286 petrol engines had much smaller crank
journals and had the same short (top to bottom ) timing case as the 2 litre
diesel. On the later 2286 engines from about '65 with the bigger bearings
the crankshaft was cast iron on the petrol and forged steel on the diesel
with the same size bearings for both. Also the water pumps were different
along with the timing case and head castings. You can tell the early blocks
by the size of the side core plugs as well
>
> That's news to me, I thought the 2286 engine first appeared in 58, I
> had one in 644 FAR, about 69. The diesel didn't appear till 61. I was
> unaware of an earlier diesel.
I'm sure you mean '59 not '69, that would be the small crank version which
didn't last long.
> >> Commonality of parts between the
> >> two engines meant that landrover could save on costs, as the bulk of
> >> the engine parts are the same.
>
> Yes this is a good point, they tried the same with the B40 and Champ.
Now thats a new one on me, a diesel Rolls B40.
> >>
> >> The differences are the head, camshaft and pistons/con rods, and what
> >> you fitted to the camshaft - dizzy or injector pump.
>
And crankshaft. And flywheel.
> Yes but it was still an awful diesel.
No it wasn't, it was absolutely reliable and if you ground the camshaft,
lightened the valve gear and cam rollers, polished the con-rods, balanced
the crank, upped the injector pressures and played with the timing it would
equal if not outperform the petrol version and still return 25 m.p.g.
Marvellous in those days. What nostalgia!
> >Yes, the engine was originally designed as a diesel - the petrol engine
is
> >the conversion (which is why the petrol engine is so resistant to abuse).
> >And you have to remember that diesels this small were very scarce in the
> >fifties, even the late fifties (which is why Rover designed their own).
>
> Again I didn't know this, have you a reference? I used to have a book
> on engines (by LJK Setright I think) and it had comparison charts in
> the back, I distinctly remember the Rover's poor performance.
>
> >But the power available was inadequate for many markets right from the
> >start -
>
> Agreed there then!
>
> AJH
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 00:27:08 +0000 (UTC), "Oily"
<martin@nofritterswoodendgarage.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> That's news to me, I thought the 2286 engine first appeared in 58, I
>> had one in 644 FAR, about 69. The diesel didn't appear till 61. I was
>> unaware of an earlier diesel.
>
>I'm sure you mean '59 not '69, that would be the small crank version which
>didn't last long.
No I meant I had it first in 69 by which time it was 11 years old.
>>
>> Yes this is a good point, they tried the same with the B40 and Champ.
>Now thats a new one on me, a diesel Rolls B40.
No the B40 shared lots of bits with the B80 which was in army service,
I think the ferret had common parts too. So the champ was designed
with it to appeal to the army, made it expensive.
>> >But the power available was inadequate for many markets right from the
>> >start -
>>
>> Agreed there then!
>>
>> AJH
>
>Disagreed ;-)
>
>Martin.
> >>
> >> That's news to me, I thought the 2286 engine first appeared in 58, I
> >> had one in 644 FAR, about 69. The diesel didn't appear till 61. I was
> >> unaware of an earlier diesel.
> >
> >I'm sure you mean '59 not '69, that would be the small crank version
which
> >didn't last long.
>
> No I meant I had it first in 69 by which time it was 11 years old.
>
Sorry, I misunderstood, must learn to read properly!
> >>
> >> Yes this is a good point, they tried the same with the B40 and Champ.
> >Now thats a new one on me, a diesel Rolls B40.
>
> No the B40 shared lots of bits with the B80 which was in army service,
> I think the ferret had common parts too. So the champ was designed
> with it to appeal to the army, made it expensive.
>
And the Humber Pig, with a B60 version I think, correct me if I'm wrong,
and yes I see what you meant.
> >> >But the power available was inadequate for many markets right from the
> >> >start -
> >>
> >> Agreed there then!
> >>
> >> AJH
> >
> >Disagreed ;-)
> >
> >Martin.
>
> fairy nuff
>
> AJH
>
Absolutely ;-)
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
