classic range rover diesel conversion
- Thread starter REDROVER
- Start date
Yorker
Adventurer
Sounds better than a wine gallon or liter- doesn't it?:sombrero:
http://www.sizes.com/units/gallon_english_ale.htm
http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/measures1.htm
junkyddog11
Oil Soaked Filter
The GM diesel / ZFHP22 (land Rover V8 version) combination will not shift very smoothly and not at the right shift points for comfortable driving. Trans will not last very long at all. The torque converter can be modified and some diesel transmission parts can be substituted that will help with this. A good ZF rebuilder that is familiar with the diesel versions is a big help.
Sounds like that wont be a big issue to figure out given the apparent resources available :ylsmoke:
Sounds like that wont be a big issue to figure out given the apparent resources available :ylsmoke:
bobtail4x4
Adventurer
It a manual (stick shift) so no losses, it has been chipped for better tourque, and the cat has been removed as not needed here for an MOT, (Ministry test)
My old classic range rover with a 200 tdi would return 36 mpg and over 40 on a run,
the TD5 is a more efficient engine,
That seems like a much higher return than most other people state for the tdi? Most guys talk about 25mpg. But overall in your experience, you're saying the TD5 is only slightly better than the tdi? Maybe 10%?
I'm still trying to figure out which way to go. The TDI seems easier, but evertime I see claimed figures like 35-40 for the TD5 vs. 25 for the TDI, seems worth the extra effort. If the difference is really only 10%, then it's not worth the effort.
Do tell.
I have thought for a while now that our pump gasolines don't have the same calorific value as the lab fuel they use for testing the EPA ratings. Either that, or the lab test does not in any way replicate the real world. Because it is absolutely impossible to match the EPA figures.
I'm still trying to figure out which way to go. The TDI seems easier, but evertime I see claimed figures like 35-40 for the TD5 vs. 25 for the TDI, seems worth the extra effort. If the difference is really only 10%, then it's not worth the effort.
Do tell.
I have thought for a while now that our pump gasolines don't have the same calorific value as the lab fuel they use for testing the EPA ratings. Either that, or the lab test does not in any way replicate the real world. Because it is absolutely impossible to match the EPA figures.
Nonimouse
Cynical old bastard
A wrote a piece a few years back on the varience of fuel quality for overland travelers. Back then UK diesel started at just under 46Mj/kg whereas US diesel started at 37.7Mj/kg (for some types of BioDiesel)
Russian diesel is just classed as diesel...
A 200Tdi in a defender can easily attain 33mpg
A 300Tdi in a defender struggles to attain 30mpg
A Td5 in a defender can squeeze 31mpg
Long term tests done in 2007 with 110 CSW's running same tyres, same loading, same drive train; over same route, over same period of time and with same driver. The only varient was the weather. That was using BP standard grade diesel. Admittedly there were varying mileages on the vehicles
I've driven a couple of the 6.2 GM converted RRC's here in the UK (they are available in all sorts of combinations and have been for the best part of 20 years. The nicest used an LT95 with an overdrive and the Torqueflight 3 speed final drive (the LT95 i the unkillable 4speed as sued in ealry RRC, Stage 1 and very early 110). There were all sorts of issues with the engines low revving characteristics and gearing - but when sorted it was a nice conversion.
The 3.9 Isuzu conversion is much nicer though, as is the Mazda 3.5Td or the Nissan FD35. The Nissan SD33 is also very sweet.
It's all a matter of personal choice though.
Russian diesel is just classed as diesel...
A 200Tdi in a defender can easily attain 33mpg
A 300Tdi in a defender struggles to attain 30mpg
A Td5 in a defender can squeeze 31mpg
Long term tests done in 2007 with 110 CSW's running same tyres, same loading, same drive train; over same route, over same period of time and with same driver. The only varient was the weather. That was using BP standard grade diesel. Admittedly there were varying mileages on the vehicles
I've driven a couple of the 6.2 GM converted RRC's here in the UK (they are available in all sorts of combinations and have been for the best part of 20 years. The nicest used an LT95 with an overdrive and the Torqueflight 3 speed final drive (the LT95 i the unkillable 4speed as sued in ealry RRC, Stage 1 and very early 110). There were all sorts of issues with the engines low revving characteristics and gearing - but when sorted it was a nice conversion.
The 3.9 Isuzu conversion is much nicer though, as is the Mazda 3.5Td or the Nissan FD35. The Nissan SD33 is also very sweet.
It's all a matter of personal choice though.
Nonimouse
Cynical old bastard
I've spent the afternnon looking for the Mj info - it's got me riled that I can't find it. I know it's here amongst all the stuff. It's amazing the things you get sent when people want you to write about stuff.
The 200Tid has always been a pretty frugal engine. I've always suspected it was simply more efficient than the 300, I also suspect that the power figures published by LR were somewhat dubious... The 200 is easier to tune and always feels more powerful in standard trim
I regularly get 35+ mpg out of my own 200 110 - however I am a follower of the lighter the better school of thought when it comes to bolting on stuff
The 200Tid has always been a pretty frugal engine. I've always suspected it was simply more efficient than the 300, I also suspect that the power figures published by LR were somewhat dubious... The 200 is easier to tune and always feels more powerful in standard trim
I regularly get 35+ mpg out of my own 200 110 - however I am a follower of the lighter the better school of thought when it comes to bolting on stuff
DividingCreek
Explorer
While I agree with this statement and have said repeatedly that the defender 200tdi is my favorite tdi engine,it pisses me off to no end for some reason. Probably because I have a 300 and know the statement to be intrinsically true. Its amazing how most on this side of the pond are brain washed into thinking that the 300/r380 are the ultimate combo and all other pale in comparison. My 110 with 200tdi and lt77s was an awesome setup. I installed the drivetrain and literally drove it straight to a rover event as the maiden voyage. Miss that truck.
Nonimouse
Cynical old bastard
Don't let it get you down - you have experienced Land Rover perfection and may one day be allowed to experience it again
The combination of 110; 200tdi and LT77 is truly perfect
I'm always surprised that folk think the R380 is better; yes it's a nice box but it doesn't have that always get you home ability; and as for that piece of poo 6 speed bolted to the crappy transit engine - don't get me started!
Nonimouse
Cynical old bastard
Try a different oil...
The 200 and 300 are very similar all in all.
But the 200 has a bigger water jacket so cools far better - too well sometimes. The viscous fan is rarely ever needed in a temperate climate
It's forgiving of overheating - the head is strong; unlike the 300 which hates too much heat.
It's more forgiving of failing injectors - the 300 isn't
It will run on utter crap - including olive oil in warm climates (if you add some vodka)
The timing belt is a PITA to change
Simple all in all
