4 cyl vs. 6 cyl.

[CRASHCOUNT]

Hello all-

I'm new to the Series Land Rover world and would like any advice you guys can offer. I've been checking out a lot of ads for SIII 109's & have noticed that the 6 cyl engine doesn't seem to be too popular (at least there aren't a lot of them out there for sale, & all the after market websites don't mention it)
Is this because the engine has a bad reputation, or am I missing something?

Just wondering, because I've narrowed my choices down to one model that has a new 4 cyl vs. another one that has the 6 cyl. I was leaning towards the 6 cyl model (its $1900 cheaper), but then I noticed that the engine is not mentioned too much.

Would appreciate any comments.

[sean]

the 6's weren't as robust. from what i have read if the mantainence wasn't kept up the 6's would die quickly, while the 4 pots will just about run forever even if neglected.
the six also had a much shorter production run.

[TerryS]

The six was a nice engine, and pretty smooth, but gave out very few more HP. The problem with owning one today is finding any parts. No one has much to offer. I would avoid it unless the truck is an otherwise superb deal. Then you can do what many others have done(shudder) and swap it out for a chevy 6 or other appropriate engine.

Don't be afraid of the 4, it can handle it's own. A good running 4 will do anything the six would do, and with an OD, you can handle the highway, albeit, in the right hand lane.

[LR Max]

The six cylinder 109s are popular, not for their original powerplant but because the bulkhead allows for a larger engine. Swapping in a rover V8 or chevy 6 is a lot easier since the bulkhead is shaped differently.

A 4 cylinder in the 88 is plenty. In a 109, it leaves a lot to be desired.

[Muddy Oval]

Run away from the 6. If you feel like torturing yourself, try to find a water pump for one.

[onslow]

6 cylinders are a lovely engine basically a 6 pot version of the 2.0l series 1 engine.major problem is burnt out exhaust valves and heavy fuel consumption but they far outperform the 4 cyl off road and are quieter,reliability is good they seldom breakdown or wear out but leaded fuel is a must to preserve the valves and seats.

the 4 cyl is the king for mileage but the 6 is the top dog for smoothness and drivability

I dearly loved mine but fuel costs were scary here in the UK and I got offered a deal I couldnt refuse best £175 I ever spent

[Kevin]

I used to drive both the 6 cylinder (109 pick-up) and 4 cylinder (109 s/w) many years ago in the B.S.A. Police in what was then Rhodesia. The 6 pot was the most fun to drive . Much smoother and great exhaust note! Buth then again I didn't have to pay for fuel or servicing

Many years down the line I've learnt that if servicing was not high on the priority list they weren't as reliable as the 4. Much fewer sixes were made so spares would not be quite as easy to come by as the fours.

I'm still driving a 6 cylinder but converted to a Chev 4.1 litre. Don't drive too fast but all the standard series trucks fall way back on the hills . Just like I do in comparison to the Defenders

[Cerberus]

I've been running a 6-pot for over a year now and I totally agree about the smoothness and sound. As for reliability, mine has been totally reliable. You just need to make sure that the oil is changed regularly and that the coolant is properly topped up with antifreeze. With regard to valves burning, just make sure you use leaded petrol or use a lead substitute with every fill up and you should be fine.

There were only a reletively small number of series trucks made with this engine so Landrover specific spares can be a problem to come by. However, this engine was also fitted into some old Rover 100 cars so if you know where to get spares for them, you can get spares for this engine. E-bay is a good resource for parts and even complete engines.

Out on the highway, I have found that my six will cruise a good 65mph+ where as my brothers four pot preferres to be at 50-55. Both are fitted with overdrives.

One thing worth remembering, the 2.6 is almost identical to the 3 litre fitted to the Rover P5 and some earlier cars. The two can be swapped easily, complete with twin carb manifold.

130BHP Series truck anyone?

[Rebhun109]

I agree the sound that the six makes remindes me of the old WW2 landing craft that are still around in the Bahamas. It mirrors those old diseal engines. On that note I have a 109 six which ran great all the way up to the point that it through a rod. I have found that John Craddock in England has parts for those rare sixes, but it is pricy. Getting the part to the US is far more expensive than the most expensive part. In my opinion I would opt for the 2.25, there are many parts, and there are replacement engines for it. Take it from me I have a six 109 and 24volt FFR 109, if I had to do it all over agian I would opt for a simple 2.25 engine and 12 volt electronics. In making your decision way your options.

[p76rangie]

The 6 cyl will stop a bigger boat from drifting than the 4 cyl. As suggested by others, get the 6 cyl, use the motor as a boat anchor and put in a V8 or other decent motor.

Ian

[Kevin]

Let us all know which landy you eventually buy

[Lin Robinson]

I once had the opportunity to buy a 109 5 door with a 6 cyl. engine. I did not buy it. I was pretty dumb about Land Rovers at the time, but had done a bit of research and knew that references to the 6 were few and far between in the literature I had read. Parts are scarce and the gain in HP is minimal. It is very nice to just be able to visit the Internet and find most anything you need in the way of parts, as opposed to spend days searching for the most simple item. Reliability I do not know about, but cost of repair would seem to make any of the early 6 cyl. Rovers less than a bargain.

By the way, are you sure the one you are looking at has a Rover 6 cyl.? Conversion to Chev. straight 6 is not uncommon.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cerberus

130BHP Series truck anyone?

The Chev 6 cyl engine I'm running is quoted 155 bhp (116 kW) and 320 Nm of torque which if my calculations are correct is about 235 lb/ft. 4100 cc or 250 cubic inch.

With the 3.54 diff ratios it moves along a bit but keeping it straight is another story and leave plenty of distance to brake

I generally don't go much above 55 mph otherwise my fuel consumption is horrendous. But the nice thing is not losing too much speed on the hills.

[Sixpot]

Hi all, apologies for dragging up an old thread but this might be useful to someone so here goes...

I've owned a '73 2.6 station wagon for the last five years and I'll start by saying that I love it dearly. However I would advise caution to anyone looking to buy and run one of these...

Here's the good stuff:

If you want a good exhaust note then yes, these things arguably rival a V8 - they sound great. I've had people wandering up to me asking what engine I've "put in it". You also get a bit more power and quite a bit more torque than with a 2.25. Low revs it pulls well. (Don't expect a road-rocket though). Electronic ignition really makes a huge difference, well worth the expense and the 40 minutes or so to fit it. If you're looking for a real vintage project that will give you an excuse to sidle off to your garage at regular opportunities for more "fettling" then this engine might well be the one for you.

And here's the not-so-good:

If you're planning to do any milage then get ready for a bluddy big fuel bill. I was running a V8 110 and a V8 RRC before this and I still found my eyes watering. Thankfully I relocated to the US a couple of years ago and the novelty of petrol at the equivalent of one pound seventy a gallon hasn't worn off yet. Sorry to all you folks over here who think it's expensive...

The legendary smoothness is a temporary illusion if you don't keep the engine in absolutely tip-top condition. Adjusting those exhaust side valves every 3000 miles or so gets pretty old, pretty quickly, particularly when you're trying to remove that side rocker cover without removing the dipstick tube first or reaching under the exhaust manifold to get at cylinders 5 and 6. Once these engines start to wear out they get rattly - not terminal for a while apparently but not pleasant and not easy to fix either without a complete rebuild.

Parts - most are not as difficult to find as you'd imagine (bless the internet) but be prepared to pay for them and/or to do a lot of detective work. For example I've recently been trying to find a new fuel pump (in both the US and the UK) - Rovers North wanted $414 for one. Three days of googling later and I found that my local parts store had a straight swap replacement for $80 but nobody knows that. Remember also that it wasn't just the engine that was different, the bulkhead, propshafts, bellhousing, etc are too. Even the gear lever. As another example, I bought two new props for mine and they cost me three times as much as ones for a 4-potter. I've had to replace a lot of bits on this vehicle...

With regards to the engine itself there weren't many around to start with and hardly anyone has good ones to fit now if yours goes belly up. I needed to replace mine after a couple of years (too much blue smoke to pass an MOT) and couldn't cope with the cost of a rebuild or having it off the road for more than a couple of days. I searched for ages trying to find a good LR engine for sensible cash but ended up putting in a 2.6 from a Rover P4 90 car instead. As a 'conversion' it's not bad as it's pretty much the same engine and you get a few extra horses into the bargain but I'm now running a 73 Landie with a '56 donk!!! Hmmmm (If you're changing one of these engines, be prepared for it to be extremely heavy. It's also set back quite a few inches further than a 2.25 so you need to either remove the front bumper or make sure you have a crane with an extra long arm).

Knowledge on these engines is almost non-existant. Plenty of hearsay but if you've got a specific question such as "how easy is it to change an exhaust valve if it's burnt (and how do I tell if it is?)??" then you'll be met with a deafening silence on most forums.

After market support - OK. hahahahahahaha. If you're planning to fit one of those nice one-piece rubber mats you're going to be somewhat disappointed. Same goes if you want some bolt on performance improvement, or even something as simple as an adaptor to take a spin on oil filter. You might find they'll actually fit or can be easily adapted but it's rarely a case of wandering into a store - even at Billing - and finding one for a 2.6 on the shelf. Funnily enough - given the length of the 2.6 engine bay - another area of aftermarket support that is lacking is in engine conversion kits.

The upshot is, unless you have a special interest in these Land Rovers or already own one then my humble advice would be to go for a 2.25. If you want a bit more power and torque then I think you're much better off fitting a few bolt-ons to a 2.25 than you are buying a 2.6. Or better still, if you want a series with some real potential power, how about looking for a stage 1 with a factory fitted V8 instead? You can do all sorts, very easily, with that.

From my own point of view I'll be keeping the 2.6 as it is. For all it's foibles I've found I can live with it, mainly because now I no longer rely on it as my sole mode of transport. I can take it off the road when I need to and I enjoy the fact it's different and (relatively) original. I've also just found a chap in the Northwest of the US who actually knows these engines and what he's talking about - a rare breed indeed. If I can save enough cents I'll buy one of his beautiful rebuilt engines off him when this one finally goes south

Cheers
Luke

[Mercedesrover]

Originally Posted by Sixpot

With regards to the engine itself there weren't many around to start with and hardly anyone has good ones to fit now if yours goes belly up.

I've got a good running 2.6 engine and transmission for sale if there's someone here looking for one.

jim
pbs@mohawk.net