Land Rover and Range Rover Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
The Sherpa engine (which is a '14J' engine) is the same as the 2.5 N/A diesel in the Landy 90 and 110 (these engines are called the '12J'). The only difference is that the Land Rover version has a cast timing belt cover that can be sealed simply by fitting the wading plug. The Sherpa engine has a lightweight aluminium (I think) casing, which is not waterproof, so if you plan on going wading, get it sealed.

They are a straight swap from a 2.25 diesel (which for the record, is the '10J' ;) ). You need to keep the engine mounts from the 2.25 motor, plus its clutch system and fuel filter/spill return system. You'll also need the thermostat housing off a 2.25 so you the 2.5 engine will fit a Series radiator.
You'll also need to make up some form of cable throttle control, since the injector pump is in a different place on the 2.5 compared to the 2.25. To keep it easy, use the intake/exhaust manifolds off the 2.25 as well and use the standard oil-bath air filter system.

Someone I know who used to have a Ninety with a 2.5 N/A got around 28-30 MPG, that was with a 5-speed gearbox. Having said that, my 2.25 does the same with a 4-speed.

There wasn't much difference is acceleration or top speed (the 2.5 only has 6 more horsepower than the old 2.25), but it was noticeably better at climbing hills. It was still pretty slow, but you could hold 4th gear slightly longer, and when towing it seemed to have a little more 'oomph'.

If you want the figures:

2.25 N/AD = 62 hrsp @4200 rpm, 103 lb-ft @ 1800 rpm
2.5 N/AD = 68 hrsp @ 4200 rpm, 114 lb-ft @ 1800 rpm
 

·
Series Moderator
Joined
·
536 Posts
log burner said:
hi again
any no of any one out ther thats fitted a sherpa 2.5 lump ive heard thay are a stright fit can any body give me some info on mpg on a run and do thay pull any better the the old 2 1/4 D
I had a 2.5 shepa unit in my 110 in place of a 2.25 petrol not the best engine in the world but a slow steady plodder maginally better than a 2.25 and a little more refined.

In this day and age I would be looking at a 2.5 petrol or V8 on LPG cost per mile no diesel will beat them a 2.5 diesel will manage a sluggish 28mpg max at 90p a litre,where as a V8 in a series will show a spritely 15-16mpg on LPG at 38p a litre.

cheers ONz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Hi All,

If you want some pics of a 2.5 Sherpa motor installation let me know - I have one in my Lightweight. Would pretty much go along with everything said above though!

Buckle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
log burner said:
iam looking for a engine which will take a 120 mile round trip a day and will do at least 65 aint too worried about mpg ....how about the 2.5di transit
I haven't heard much about the Transit motor, but what I have heard is generally quite good, and they will certainly do 65. The other motor that might suit is a Perkins Prima turbo (out of an Austin-Rover Montego), which will also do over 30 MPG without too much trouble. Both engines will probably need an overdrive or higher gearing for best results over long distances.

Jack
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Just thought I'd offer my opinion from experience:

If its a short wheel base you have, then deffinately go for the Perkins Prima. It will do high 30s to the gallon, revs higher than the standard landrover units (including the 2.25 petrol), it has instant starting regardless of the weather, they are good for well over 200,000 miles and can be easily tweaked to produce over 100BHP. Just tweak the pump and add a decent intercooler similar to the one on the MG Montego Turbo.

The reason I know this: I have a Montego DLX that has done 220,000 miles and is still going strong. Midrange acceleration is very good and it will do up to 60MPG in the car. I have also driven an 88" fitted with this engine and it was nothing short of brilliant. You have to give it few revs to get the turbo spining but once you get going they really fly.

Not sure it would work in a 109" though. the extra weight might slow down acceleration too much before the turbo spins up properly giving a longer turbo lag.

As for the Transit engine, this is the conversion of choice for me in my own 109". I only get about 18-20MPG out of my 6 cylinder and thats no longer funny. Think about it: A fully laden Transit weighs considerably more than a Landrover but will still (eventually) top 70mph. How many of you out there have driven a Transit from one end of the country to the other absolutely flat stick at 70+ without it breaking? Reliability is a forgone conclusion. Spares are dead cheap and a complete running Transit can be bought for a couple of hundred quid. The only downside I can see is that the Di engine is abit noisy. But what the hell-its a Series-Itsalways going to be noisy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
di looks a good choice

so ok a di transit looks good for a swap any body no whats needed to do the job ie what parts and what mods to be done.................. i like my 109 the style and the way it looks but the engine is letting me down this looks like the only way to save her:D and as for the noise well thats all part of it along with all the rattles shakes groans whines ect ect bit like my other hafe lol;)
 
1 - 11 of 11 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