Diesels in Series vehicles?

[Muddy Oval]

The Mercedes swap really sounds like a great way to go-

I'll actually take back about 2/3 of what I've said about the 200tdi. I still stand by the fact that it's lucky the 200 shares major components with the newer 300- because support for the 200 specifically is dropped by the OEM suppliers. However, I just drove a 200tdi converted D90 that we did today and I have to admit it was much better than the previous 200 powered trucks i've played with. I didn't get a chance to run it on the highway, but it did OK.
Better than I expected- but considering a 4.6 would have been cheaper I still wouldn't make the change.
More info on the Benz swap would be appreciated though. I'm considering either adding a turbo to my 109 or maybe some other swap... I'd like to keep the new transmission I already have though.

[onslow]

Originally Posted by archaeology_student

back to the heart of the thread. Does anyone have pics or know of any pics that show the various diesels in the series rovers besides the rover engines (e.g., the 200 tdi or 300 tdi)?



Can't we all just get along, and call it a draw with some

Main stream diesel conversions for series

mazda 3ltr N/A
nissan sd33 3.3l N/A 6 cyl
daihatsu 2.5/2.5Td/2.8
mercedes 5 cyl 3l
perkins 4203 3.3l
perkins prima 2l TD
isuzu 2.8 non turbo


I would not entertain a diesel engine over 3 litres N/a or a 2.5 TD on a standard series drive train they wont take the torque unless it was bolted to a recon gearbox even then expect breakages.

This is taken from many years of ownership of such vehicles and also working on different vehicles,for my money the 200 Tdi is hard to beat but supply and spares can be a major factor in personal choice,in the states practical conversions are few and far between,its all well and good someone making a few adaptor plates but that component is only a small part of the package that makes up a reliable conversion and bills can run in to thousands of dollars above the estimated costs due to additional machining,fabrication of mounts/brackets and time taken,even with some of the best kits produced in the UK it still takes time and money to get the job finished properly.

Also additional mods have to be taken into account for example a petrol fitted series will need the front springs swapping for the correct diesel ones if a diesel is fitted,the tank will need modification/replacement,electrical system will require major modification,exhaust will need fabrication,fuel system will need alteration,brakes may need to be upgraded to cope with additional speed/weight it can snowball way out of control and you end up with a vehicle unfinished with no more funds to complete it and probably worth less than half your investment.

If at all possible weigh up the details try not to kid yourself, sometimes the path that appears the more expensive initial choice tends to work out the cheapest in the long run my advice is to stick to a landrover diesel whether it be a 2.5 N/A 2.5 TD or 2.5 TDi simplicity is the key to a successful reliable conversion

[p76rangie]

You forgot to mention changing gear ratios for the lower revving diesel.

Depending on what model series you are talking about, the drive train will handle a lot more power. I don't think you will have much issue with any diesel you will be able to fit in.

Again, depending on the model you are talking about, you may have to move the grill (Series 2a and before). Often the fan pully on the motor will no longer line up with the radiator, so you will have to modify the cooling system. Also you will most likely have to fit a larger radiator for cooling There is also a fair chance that you will have to modify the front chassis cross member. You also have to be very careful about the overall height of the motor and whether the bonnet will still close. Then if you go for a turbo diesel you will have to think about where you put the intercooler.

Be careful what you wish for as it might come true.

[p76rangie]

Just to silence the idiots of this world (TerryS, Onslow, and 300Bhp) here are sections from 6 different sources about how a torque converter works and the multiplier effect. I am yet to see anything other than stupid comments to back up anything they have stated. Also the reason that the old autos were quoted was explained in the quote. That is, most modern torque converters have a multiplier effect of between 2 and 3. Those old autos had a unique design that allowed the multiplier effect to be much greater, but are no longer used. But here are the sources that all state that the multiplier effect is 2 or greater. Now the idiots can try and find something that backs up their views. But they can't get past the FIGJAM.

1) Torque Converters Explained
Torque converters are somewhat of a mystery, and their function can be difficult to understand. We'll try to make some sense of their function here without getting into the physics of fluid dynamics.

Simply stated, a torque converter functions to transfer and multiply engine torque to the transmission. This is accomplished via the precise movement of hydraulic fluid, under centrifugal force, within the converter.

Stock converters have a multiplication ratio of around 2:1, while a higher stall converter (due to the changes mentioned above) could be as high as 2.8:1.



2) What is torque multiplication?

Torque multiplication is a term used to describe the amount of torque the torque converter will multiply. A torque converter is basically a fluid coupling between your engine and transmission. There is no direct mechanical link until the torque converter is in lockup mode. The pump assembly of the torque converter is directly linked to the crankshaft of the engine, however the turbine assembly of the torque converter is not. It is connected to the transmission input shaft. When the oil is pumped to move the turbine it is actually pushing the turbine at a higher rate. Each torque converter pump and design pushes the fluid differently, therefore giving you different rates of turbine speed . All of this only means that different torque converters will give you different torque multiplication rates simply by design.



3) After measuring the torque output on the dyno, we can assign a value or ratio to the torque multiplication by using the equation: output torque / input torque = torque ratio. B&M’s dyno measured 537 lb-ft of output torque, and we divide it by the input torque of 230 to find the torque ratio of 2.33 (537/230=2.33). This is the multiplication ratio produced by the torque converter. Torque ratios between 2 and 2.5 are common for most converters. Torque ratio is like having an additional lower gear in your transmission.



4) Time To Multiply
If you imagine taking a garden hose and spraying a stream of water into a cereal bowl, the water hits one side of the bowl then curves at the bottom and exits the other side with nearly as much force. To fill the bowl properly you have to either cut way down on the nozzle pressure or find some other way to limit turbulence.
Inside the converter you have the same problem. Every drop of oil that spills away from a vane is a little energy that is lost. However, if you collect all that energy by precisely directing the oil into the vanes you can effectively multiply the torque of the engine until such time that the pump and turbine are spinning at the same speed. It follows, of course, that the greater the difference in relative speeds, the greater the torque multiplication.
To accomplish torque multiplication engineers have curved the pump and turbine vanes to reduce turbulence. They have also added another component that, at high relative speeds, re-directs oil flow into the turbine's vanes to take advantage of "lost" energy. The solution to that problem is the stator, and the converter multiplies torque through the use of one or more of them.



5) A torque converter will actually double engine torque on takeoff. This torque-multiplication factor remains in effect until the vehicle speed catches up with engine speed. A purpose-built high-performance torque converter can multiply torque even more, up to 2.5 times. OEM torque converters can vary greatly in the amount of torque multiplication and stall speed. Replacing your stock torque converter with a high-performance torque converter can decrease 1/4-mile times by .4 to .5-seconds with no other changes. Installing a high-performance torque converter should be the first step in any performance upgrade program.



6) The torque multiplier effect means that a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission and torque converter will output more torque to the drive wheels than the engine is actually producing. A typical torque converter will have a torque multiplication ratio in the area of 2.5:1. The main point to remember is that all properly functioning torque converters do indeed multiply torque during initial acceleration. The more drastic the change in fluid path caused by the stator from its "natural" return path, the higher the torque multiplication ratio a given converter will have. Remember, the ratio is still a factor of the engine torque in the relevant range of the torque converter stall speed, i.e.: a converter with a multiplication ratio of 2.5:1 that stalls 3000 rpm will produce 500 ft.-lbs. of torque at the instance of full throttle acceleration if its coupled to an engine producing 200 ft.-lbs. of torque at 3000 rpm. However, if this same engine produces 300 ft.-lbs. of torque at 4000 rpm, we would be better off with a converter that stalled 4000 rpm with only a 2.0:1 torque multiplication ratio, i.e.: 300 x 2.0 = 600 ft.-lbs. at initial acceleration. Of course it would be better yet to have a 2.5:1 ratio with the 4000 rpm in this example (provided his combination still allows the suspension to work and the tires don't spin.) This is just a brief overview as the actual scenarios are endless.

[Hillbilly Raider]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

After 10 years in this current stint of 4WDing, too much. That is why I am actually backing off on the driving a bit and getting more involved in other 4WD related activities, like competitions.

You spend all your time and money making the truck better and better to tackle those harder tracks. Then you have to find harder and harder tracks to make it interesting. Then you get to a point where it is hard to find challanging tracks and you end up getting board with doing the same ones over and over. So stick to your standard series vehicles and have fun, as any track is a challange in them.

you STUPID LITTLE MAN
i get PAID to go playing in my SERIES in places you could only DREAM of going to.
so YOU stay wasteing your life sitting on a computer TALKING ....
i know which one i'd rather do.
www.Alpinerovers.com.

[p76rangie]

Hillbilly, the photos on that site show you touring around the countryside. So what is your point. I drove a series 2a for a total of 7 years. I have taken it places that you would only dream of. I enjoyed driving it and I am tempted to get another for the reason I stated in my post. That is, it is a lot easier to find a challenge and have some fun. But if you are into the scenery thing and that is what you have your vehicle for, then good luck to you and I hope you continue to enjoy it for many years.

For your infomation I do between 20 and 30 trips a year. Either weekly or fortnighly during winter and around once a month during the summer months. These are a mixture of day, weekend, and extended trips. These cover over 10,000 km a year. I am not sure how often you want me to get out, you might give me a guage by telling me how often you get out on trips other than pay and play sites.

Unfortunately you are like many on this forum who like to fling insults rather than have any meaningful discussion.

[300bhp/ton]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Just to silence the idiots of this world (TerryS, Onslow, and 300Bhp).

Ok lets see it's 3 on 1 plus two are mods yet you still think you are right.


LOSER!!!!!

Although I guess that means that my z/28 being an auto and makes about 300rwtq would really mean near 600lb ft at the engine and of course all the manual Fbody's only have half the power and are much slower.........



Or is it just BOLLOX?

[p76rangie]

Just put up or shut up. Find one article or reference of any sort that goes against what I have said. Just one will do. You have not provided and will never provide any backup for the crap that you write.

Come on, just one source or reference. That can't be hard for such an inteligent person like yourself. Gee wiz, if you can put bonnet straps on your car, upgrade your headlights, put a sports muffler on, built a custom rear floor, put on a couple of headlight guards, fit NATO hooks, blah blah blah, you are obviously a serious off-roader with excellent mechanical abilities.

[300bhp/ton]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Hillbilly, the photos on that site show you touring around the countryside. So what is your point. I drove a series 2a for a total of 7 years. I have taken it places that you would only dream of. I enjoyed driving it and I am tempted to get another for the reason I stated in my post. That is, it is a lot easier to find a challenge and have some fun. But if you are into the scenery thing and that is what you have your vehicle for, then good luck to you and I hope you continue to enjoy it for many years.

For your infomation I do between 20 and 30 trips a year. Either weekly or fortnighly during winter and around once a month during the summer months. These are a mixture of day, weekend, and extended trips. These cover over 10,000 km a year. I am not sure how often you want me to get out, you might give me a guage by telling me how often you get out on trips other than pay and play sites.

Unfortunately you are like many on this forum who like to fling insults rather than have any meaningful discussion.

Yeah but at least they're aren't a cock like you are bing.

[p76rangie]

Didn't think you could come up with something to back you up. Just more insults. Or I assume that they are insults. What a Gordon.

[300bhp/ton]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Just put up or shut up. Find one article or reference of any sort that goes against what I have said. Just one will do. You have not provided and will never provide any backup for the crap that you write.

Prove what, I'm not the dumb shit who thinks they have a 520lb ft 4.4 Rover V8.

I'm also not the one who thinks Tdi's make the same torque at 1800rpm and 4000rpm and only have 146lb ft (would you like a reference to you saying this).

I'm also not the person who claimed, 30, then 40 and now 50% of the engine power is lost thru the transmission.

There does not appear to be a SINGLE person here who even remotley agrees with what you are saying - DOES THIS REALLY NOT GET THRU YOUR THICK SKULL

Nobody, not a single person is here to make you look a tit, but you are posting total and utter rubbish and people are simply trying to help you out. Swallow your pride for pitys sake.

So some questions:

1. What EXACTLY would you like me to prove and supply reference to? Please supply a list and I'll happily do what I can to find out the required info.

2. Will you post some bloody specs of your motor and stop dodging the question?

3. Please provide an engine dyno that substantiates that a 4.4 Litre Rover can make 520lb ft, or come at least get close. Hell even a 5.3 litre making over 400lb ft @ 1600rpm would go a long way.

[p76rangie]

You only have to supply one reference that states that a torque converter does not multiply the torque 2 to 3 times. You can look up the standard specs for a 4.4 and the standard torque is 285 ft Lb. Even taking the lowest multiplier of 2, that means the torque converter can create 570 ft lb torque. Assuming a 50% reduction on the Dyno to the wheels and it would be 285 ft lb at the wheels. If you take yours and others views that it is less than 20% reduction to the wheels, then it would put out 455 ft lb at the wheels. But then my motor is not stock and puts out higher than the standard figures.

So with a stock motor and what you state you lose through the drivetrain, I should have over 455 ft lb at the wheels. So why do you insist that 265 ft lb is impossible.

So you can start by answering this.

Yes I was being consevative at 30% reduction through the drive train to stop reactions from people like yourself. I believe it closer to 40% reduction, but talking to guys that have had their engine dynoed as well as at the wheels, they assure me that it is 50%.

In regards to mods to my car, the roof, 2 doors, tailgate and glass areas are standard. Nothing else is.

[300bhp/ton]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

You only have to supply one reference that states that a torque converter does not multiply the torque 2 to 3 times.

I know what a TC does, your claim was that you lose 50% over the engine power to the wheels which is total BS.

Drivetrain loss on an auto even with 4wd will not zap half of it's power.

The "torque generated" by a TC is due to a non lock up, meaning the eninge is spinning faster than the output shaft on the TC.

This means you can see higher torque at lower speeds, but not at lower rpms.

Take a muscle car like my Camaro, a 3500rpm stall is common, this means on a loaded dyno the engine will rev to 3500rpm even at low speeds, in 3rd (1:1) 3500rpm would equate to 98mph if the TC was locked however 3500rpm can be seen from much lower speeds in the same gear, this is due to slippage of the TC which allows more torque and power at that speed. But it is due to the engine spinning faster.

On a dyno it will not normally account for this unless the software is designed to do so (winPEP 7 for example on a Dynojet). This means there is an inconsistancy between the roller rpm and the engine rpm, so the HP calculation becomes invalid.

But up until now this isn't what you have been saying. You have been claiming over 400lb ft at the flywheel based on your flawed drivetrain loss assumption.




So no, I do not dispute the functions of a TC nore the cut and pastes you have done.

I do however dispute your miss-understanding of the information you have cut & pasted.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

You can look up the standard specs for a 4.4 and the standard torque is 285 ft Lb. Even taking the lowest multiplier of 2, that means the torque converter can create 570 ft lb torque.

This is where you lose people and get yourself confused.

Above you have been saying the wheel figures are 50% of the engine, yet here you are saying the complete opporsit.

Which is it?

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Assuming a 50% reduction on the Dyno to the wheels and it would be 285 ft lb at the wheels.

And the very next sentance you are saying the opporsit of the previous, it can't be half and double at the same time.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

If you take yours and others views that it is less than 20% reduction to the wheels,

Nobody has said that, what has been said is if the engine makes 'x' power then due to frictional losses in the drivetrain then tpyically 'x - 20%' will make it to the wheels.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

In regards to mods to my car, the roof, 2 doors, tailgate and glass areas are standard. Nothing else is.

Not a single person has asked or given a chuff about your Range Rover, what has been asked about FIVE times is what mods does the engine have?

You know:
-Displacement (bore x stroke)
-cam
-heads
-Exhaust
-Intake
-Any power adders
-induction
-any other substantial mods that would affect bhp/torque

[Muddy Oval]

Did any of you guys at least Google the torque converter multiplier theory? just curious- because it is actually a real thing.

[Hillbilly Raider]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Hillbilly, the photos on that site show you touring around the countryside. So what is your point. I drove a series 2a for a total of 7 years. I have taken it places that you would only dream of. I enjoyed driving it and I am tempted to get another for the reason I stated in my post. That is, it is a lot easier to find a challenge and have some fun. But if you are into the scenery thing and that is what you have your vehicle for, then good luck to you and I hope you continue to enjoy it for many years.

For your infomation I do between 20 and 30 trips a year. Either weekly or fortnighly during winter and around once a month during the summer months. These are a mixture of day, weekend, and extended trips. These cover over 10,000 km a year. I am not sure how often you want me to get out, you might give me a guage by telling me how often you get out on trips other than pay and play sites.

Unfortunately you are like many on this forum who like to fling insults rather than have any meaningful discussion.

THAT countryside i just potter around in is
ITALY
FRANCE
GERMAY
ROMAINIA
GB
IRELAND
HUNGARY
TRANSILVAINIA
ETC ETC ETC ETC

i dont do playsites as they are frequented by people like yourself that are
only there to play "I HAVE A BIGGER DICK THAN YOU"
i merely asked why it is SO important to you to keep banging on about this subject that( other than entertainment value to other readers)has no point?