Land Rover and Range Rover Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi, I am experiencing big problems with my land rover 90 6.2 v8 gmc fitted with a Santana box.

I'm shocked by its poor performance!, I only brought it as it was suppose to pull like a train at speed, yet I can tell no difference at all between this and my other land rover 90 tdt 200, with a 3ton trailer on the back it still dies up a hill exactly the same as the 200tdi yet its a 6.2 v8 with 300lbs of torque and 160bhp.

I just can not understand this!, has anyone got any information or know anything I can try, as surely this can not be right?

Would appreciate any help at all guys.
Thanks very much
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
The GMC/Detriot Diesel designed 6.2L was never designed as a power house like todays cummins and ford/navistar power stroke diesels. Even in the light half ton chevy and gmc trucks it only had the power of a factory tuned 350 v8 gas engine, but with better fuel economy. You can get a turbo kit from Gale Banks for it, but it will never be a power monster without major beefing up of the lower end bearings and head work. You can have the injector pump timing checked by a reputable diesel shop to see if its up to spec, as well as having the injectors themselves "pop" tested. If the timing is off, injector pump is worn or injectors themselves are worn, it will make the engine really have no power. I just wish I had a 200 or 300 diesel in my NAS spec 96 Discovery, I hate this 16.5mpg I get. Cheers Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
I'd had a couple of GM diesels over time and the other thing to consider is the gearing of the box and axles need to be in line with the torque/power band of the GM 6.2 diesel. If your conversion project didn't take this into account, I am not surprised you are disappointed.
My '83 4x4 Blazer with 6.2 had a 3spd auto and 3.73 gears in it. Once in the power band, it did pull like a train, but wasn't a 0-60 terror. Then again, what trucks are?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
I agree with the gearing posting. You need to see what the final gear ratio in the santana box is. And then look at your differential gearing. You could be way off for your powerband.
 

·
2002 Discovery II SE
Joined
·
578 Posts
Most diesel trucks round these parts run a 3.73 to 4.30 rear end depending on the transmission. I had a 3/4 Chevy with an Allison transmission on the Duramax and it had a 4.30 Rear End. It would pull an 23 foot travel trailer loaded with gear AND a 21 foot flairstack (can pull two trailers here). Top speed was about 80 MPH empty if i recall. It didnt even hit the governor. But I wouldn't recommend that truck to my enemies.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,895 Posts
I think the OP may not be checking this as it's a year old lol


Geez I'm distracted by looking at series porn and still noticed that :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
109 Posts
My '95 D1 with a 6.2L GM diesel pulls like a mule. Is the pump assisted with a second pump? Fuel filter proper and clean? The original filter is too small. Did you solve your problem or still sorting it out?

-Den

1995 D1 GM diesel conversion
2002 RR HSE
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
My '95 D1 with a 6.2L GM diesel pulls like a mule. Is the pump assisted with a second pump? Fuel filter proper and clean? The original filter is too small. Did you solve your problem or still sorting it out?

-Den

1995 D1 GM diesel conversion
2002 RR HSE
So...

do I assume from this that you have an electric fuel pump as well as the mechanical one on the engine? What sort of gearbox do you use? What sort of fuel consumption do you achieve?

I'm going to do an engine swap in my recently-rebuilt 1970 Rangie and have several to choose from: a GM 6.2 diesel, a Perkins 4.236, various Rover V8s or Chevy 350s and a Mercedes 5.6 V8.

Preferred 'fun' choice would be the Mercedes, though the physical shape of the engine makes things very difficult. The lower part of the oilpan (and oil pump) are at the front of the engine, so would foul the front axle without major modifications to the engine and/or chassis. Mercedes Benz engines are without question the best in the world, so that'd also be my preference on reliability grounds (my E320CDI has now done 554,000 miles...)

Preferred 'sensible' choice would be the 4.236, since I have one of these in another old RR and driven gently it returns nearly 40mpg but can also pull a gross train weight of 5 tons as if it's not there. The car would mainly be a towing tug since I have several fast Mercs if I want to try for the Nottinghamshire Land Speed Record.

What sort of performance do you get from that GM 6.2, as it may be a resonable compromise?

cheers
Dave:sheep:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,065 Posts
You have a 1970 Range Rover and you want to put in a 6.2 GM boat anchor in it? You do realize that it would be worth far more with a correct date 3.5 V8 Rover engine in it? All 2 door Rangies have restoration potential but a 1970....the very first year! Wow, Its your truck mate so do what you like but don't tell series3guy, he will go bananas.

Anyway, back to the question. If you must change the engine I would not even bother looking at the 6.2 engine. It is very heavy, rough, noisy, low torque, high maintenance POS. Even die hard GM guys don't like it. It was quickly replaced with the 6.5 that was replaced itself by the Duramax a few years later.


The quality Merc engines compared to their complexity are a matter of opinion. The Chev V8s are heavy and the Perkins sounds and shakes like a tractor. But any one of these engines are preferable to the 6.2.


Obviously I'm pulling for the Rover V8 but it has several practical points going for it. First the vehicle will be worth more. Parts and local expertise will be easier to come by. A Rover V8 can make plenty of power and torque for towing in the Range Rover application. The Rover unit is a good reliable engine and will pull very well, you just need to take care of it and lastly you don't have to modify anything to get it to work properly.


Are you in Nottingham? I grew up there. Small world.

Cheers, Matt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Yeah, point taken about the value/authenticity of the vehicle (it's chassis # 120), but the fact is that inefficient old centre cam lumps like the Rover V8 are simply uneconomic to run in this country. You did the right thing in getting out of this third world crapheap - you wouldn't recognise Nottingham now, we never venture there unless we have to. Petrol is £1.12 a litre too.

The Perkins 4.236 in my rotting 1972 Rangie (a series of holes held together by rust, and due to be replaced with a Land Rover body on the original chassis) is - as you say - noisy and rattly, shakes the fillings out of yuor teeth and sounds like Farmer Palmer's tractor (oooh ar) but it'll tow the Queen Mary, pull the side of your house down and drag your granny out of bed. All before breakfast. And it can do mid-30s plus to the gallon with the overdrive in.

We delivered an engine to Kent recently and I kept at about 50-55mph just to see what it'd do. I noticed countryside that I'd never seen before, usually blasting past it in the big Merc at God-knows-what-speed keeping my eyes peeled for the Old Bill. I simply couldn't believe how economical it was. Know what I did with the original V8? 12mpg. TWELVE. I just hate, loathe and detest that one-eyed Scottish buffoon Gordon Brown too much to pay him that much tax.

If I could somehow make a Mercedes engine fit, I'd do so. Perhaps more sensible than the V8 would be a 6 cylinder common rail diesel unit. Sure, they're orders of magnitude more complex being a CAN bus job with sensors poking out everywhere, but it's only computers :)

The M117 560 engine is really pretty simple with mechanical fuel injection and single overhead cams. The ECU is a really simple affair compared to the later engines. I'm currently working on putting an M120 6.0 V12 from an S600 into a track car and that's so complex it's scary. You plug the (simple) wiring together and talk to it with a laptop. It talks back in codes. In German. With the 560 it's just that they had to put the bloody oil pump at the front. Damn.

So the 6.2 is not worth the bother, then? That's a shame.

cheers

Dave

(I just love those skipping sheeps....) :sheep::sheep::sheep:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,065 Posts
Yup, almost as old as the 6.2 diesel lump. I'm just amazed I found someone on here from my Town!

I don't think I can take this anymore. First Ian and his over abundance of 2 door Rangies and spares, scrapping them left right and centre, and now oilydave has chassis #120 from 1970! I think I'm going to cry.


Tell 'ya what........ How about a swap, my 94 for your 70?
 

·
MISSING SOUTH LONDON.
Joined
·
3,433 Posts
"don't tell series3guy, he will go bananas"



NO ****!!! What utter butchery. Too bad this thread is a few years old.

I am however, temped to build a time machine and go back and beat his ass.

Once again...lets take something special,bastardise it,spend an utter fortune trying to put a piece of **** motor in the truck...then after the truck fails to operate as expected due to it not being building right ,the guy gets pissed off with land rovers and go's back to the Jeep crowd **** talking Land Rovers and their reliability. ARG!!!!!!!!

Now that I think about it...Land Rovers arn't reliable. Carry on.:wave:
 

·
MISSING SOUTH LONDON.
Joined
·
3,433 Posts
Yeah, point taken about the value/authenticity of the vehicle (it's chassis # 120), but the fact is that inefficient old centre cam lumps like the Rover V8 are simply uneconomic to run in this country. You did the right thing in getting out of this third world crapheap - you wouldn't recognise Nottingham now, we never venture there unless we have to. Petrol is £1.12 a litre too.

The Perkins 4.236 in my rotting 1972 Rangie (a series of holes held together by rust, and due to be replaced with a Land Rover body on the original chassis) is - as you say - noisy and rattly, shakes the fillings out of yuor teeth and sounds like Farmer Palmer's tractor (oooh ar) but it'll tow the Queen Mary, pull the side of your house down and drag your granny out of bed. All before breakfast. And it can do mid-30s plus to the gallon with the overdrive in.

We delivered an engine to Kent recently and I kept at about 50-55mph just to see what it'd do. I noticed countryside that I'd never seen before, usually blasting past it in the big Merc at God-knows-what-speed keeping my eyes peeled for the Old Bill. I simply couldn't believe how economical it was. Know what I did with the original V8? 12mpg. TWELVE. I just hate, loathe and detest that one-eyed Scottish buffoon Gordon Brown too much to pay him that much tax.

If I could somehow make a Mercedes engine fit, I'd do so. Perhaps more sensible than the V8 would be a 6 cylinder common rail diesel unit. Sure, they're orders of magnitude more complex being a CAN bus job with sensors poking out everywhere, but it's only computers :)

The M117 560 engine is really pretty simple with mechanical fuel injection and single overhead cams. The ECU is a really simple affair compared to the later engines. I'm currently working on putting an M120 6.0 V12 from an S600 into a track car and that's so complex it's scary. You plug the (simple) wiring together and talk to it with a laptop. It talks back in codes. In German. With the 560 it's just that they had to put the bloody oil pump at the front. Damn.

So the 6.2 is not worth the bother, then? That's a shame.

cheers

Dave

(I just love those skipping sheeps....) :sheep::sheep::sheep:
Where in the UK are you??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,065 Posts
Perhaps you should just sell the old Rangie to me and buy a newer one with the 200 or 300 TDI? It would probably end up being cheaper and parts would be far easier to get hold of, Plus you don't have to mess about with a conversion.

My Family all still live in Nuthall.

Between Nott's and Lincoln eh......Southwell (or South-well, depending on how posh you are) area then? Nice part of the world.

One Question, are a Forrest or a County man?

Cheers, Matt.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
109 Posts
Dave,

I have only an electric fuel pump feeding the injection pump. The pump pressure regulator is set all the way down to 'nothing-reading-on-the-gauge.' It's get over 19 mpg in town driving, and is smooth and peppy. I really like the fact that replacing this engine is cheaper than repairing it. I also like that some minor adjustments on the injection pump can make it a screamer. I prefer economy as you can tell by my settings.

Den
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top