![]() |
![]() |
|
|||||||
| Register | Home | Forum | Active Topics | Gallery | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 29
Gallery:
0
|
Hi,
I'm interested in buying a classic SIII ( ie over 30 years ), I would prefer a 2.2diesel ( for running costs) but most on offer are 2286 cc Petrols. I have read that the petrols are more reliable and the diesels are ' rough'. Any opinions? Also is it difficult to get an old petrol engine to run on unleaded petrol? I've also looked at a petrol + LPG option, any ideas on the running costs or practicalities of LPG? Thanks in advance! |
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |
Advertisement |
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 222
Gallery:
0
|
First off- I will state that I am totally biased towards the diesel engine, but I will try and be as objective as possible:
The 2.25 petrol uses the same block, timing gear and cooling system (plus most of the ancillary bits) as the 2.25 diesel. All these parts were designed to cope with the much higher stresses involved in a diesel, which means that in a petrol engine they last pretty much forever- petrol engines will happily do 300,000 miles or so with seemingly minimal servicing. There are a lot more bad diesels around than bad petrols. Like all old diesels, the 2.25 needs careful servicing. Many of them get abused because they tended to be bought by farmers and commercial users. However, as long as the oil is changed regularly and cooling system is good order, a diesel should last as long as a petrol- it just requires a little more work. Reliability-wise, niether engine has problems as such. I've found the petrol seems to need a little more day-to-day 'tinkering' (carburrettor, points, timing, HT leads, plug gaps etc.), whilst the diesel doesn't need any of this. The problem comes IF something goes wrong with the diesel- it gets expensive. When I got mine, it needed the injector pump overhauling and a new set of injectors- which came to £210 in total Economy- I get 28-30 MPG out of my diesel (that's without an overdrive, but on 7.50x16 tyres). Petrols seem to do anything between 12-20 MPG. Yes, the diesel is much noisier than the petrol, simply because it's a diesel, but it shouldn't be rough. That said, a well-sorted, well setup petrol engine is thing to behold- almost completely silent at idle, whilst a diesel will make the typical 'tuktuktuktuktuktuk' knocking noise that they all do. My Landy (being a late-type Series III) has the soundproofing mats under the bonnet and on the floor/bulkhead which make a HUGE difference to the noise levels. Top Speed- Mine tops out at just over 60 MPH, with a comfortable cruise of 55 (which it will hold for hours at a time without trouble.). Petrols will sit at around 60/65. The diesel does seem to have a better torque curve for towing/off-road use, plus it won't mind getting wet when you go and play in the water! On the other hand, the petrol has a little more power (10 hrsp more, I think), which can be handy in certain situations. Whilst the petrol engine isn't designed to run on unleaded, practical experience seems to show that it can do so without problems because they're low-stress and drastically over-built. Unleaded cylinder heads are available. LPG kits are also available (I think Chris Perfect Components do one), and that works about at about 40%-60% of usual running costs- so you'l get the equivalent of around 40 MPG from a petrol on LPG! That's probably too much information- but I hope some of it is useful! Jack
__________________
1990 Ninety County Station Wagon Diesel Turbo http://members.lycos.co.uk/threelandrovers |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 29
Gallery:
0
|
Thanks again Jack for educating me! I'm considering getting a SIII as a pet, ( you spoke to me before about the crew cab 110's etc, I've decided to hold on to my SI Disco and look for a SIII ). If I had a wish I'd get a 109 Diesel safari - is there much difference in the pulling ability of a 109 and an 88 station wagons?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 222
Gallery:
0
|
Quote:
We too have a SI Disco and my SIII, and the mixture works well- the Disco is a good long-distance tow vehicle and has bags of room for family trips, whilst the Series III is excellent for messy stuff like picking up bags of coal, plus the odd off-road jaunt. I too would love to get a 12-seater 109, sadly my new-type driving liscense restricts me to 9-seats or less until I'm 21 The legal maximum towing weight of both 88s and 109s is the same- 3.5 tonnes (although the chassis is rated to 4 tonnes, but that's not legal in the UK without a coupled-brake system). As for towing ability, we have towed 3 tons behind my SIII. It was fine- as long as you're not in a hurry. We dragged a 109 Series III on a trailer all the way from Stoke-on-Trent back to Hampshire at about 40 mph. It didn't seem to make any difference in performance in the bottom 3 gears- only when you popped it into 4th did the weight become seriously noticeable. Braking was interesting- no panics, but you did have a plan a fair bit in advance. I doubt there'd be much difference between an 88 and 109- the 109 may be heavier to begin with, but they are much more stable due to the long wheelbase (88s can get a little 'twitchy' with heavy loads), and theyhave better brakes than early 88s (in the early 1980s all Series IIIs got the 109-spec brakes). We had an ex-Army petrol 109 for a while, which coped very well towing a horsebox, but it guzzled too much petrol. However, what is noticeable in comparison to mine is that the diesel motor has much better low-speed torque than the petrol, making pulling away and slogging up hills a bit easier. To sum up (yet another rambling post- I can talk Series Land Rovers for hours if provoked )- SIIIs will tow pretty much anything, just don't expect to get anywhere fast. Jack
__________________
1990 Ninety County Station Wagon Diesel Turbo http://members.lycos.co.uk/threelandrovers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) | |
|
Series Moderator
![]() Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Lake district,UK
Posts: 532
Gallery:
0
|
Quote:
I would convert the vehicle to 3.5 V8 and run on LPG the V8 is as economical as the 2.25 with the benefit of the extra power and smoothness.it will be much cheaper to run than the diesel too |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 222
Gallery:
0
|
Quote:
Turns out I was thinking of the 2.25 petrol being 'closely related' (as the book put it) to the Series I's 2.0-litre wet-liner diesel. Jack
__________________
1990 Ninety County Station Wagon Diesel Turbo http://members.lycos.co.uk/threelandrovers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 29
Gallery:
0
|
Thanks for the info Onslow & Jack
This leaves me at a cross roads; I have an old 109 safari that broke down six years ago, the body work is good ( except door tops, foot-wells etc ), the chassis may be bad, the engine had its timing chain break and was left where it lay since. I don't know whether to try to have it restored or go out and buy a second hand one. I live in Ireland and the best advice I've got is to travel to L.M. (Landy Mecca) otherwise known as G.B. ( Great Britain ). That leaves me with the choice of transporting my old 109 to G.B. ( £££!)to be restored ( any ideas on costs if restored by pros ), or leave my 109 to rot and go to a G.B. Landrover centre and paying over the odds for a unit with M.O.T / Warranty or chance buying one from the classifieds. The bottom line is I want a reliable machine / rebuild rather than a project. Any opinions? |
|
|
|