 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / January 2006series gearbox
i have a 1980 series 3 2 1/4 petrol i have seen a gearbox out of a series 3 diesel on e-bay will this be the same gear box for a petrol series 3 and will it fit >i have a 1980 series 3 2 1/4 petrol i have seen a gearbox out of a series 3 >diesel on e-bay will this be the same gear box for a petrol series 3 and >will it fit Yes it will fit - gearboxes are the same for petrol and diesel series 3's. >>i have a 1980 series 3 2 1/4 petrol i have seen a gearbox out of a series >>3 diesel on e-bay will this be the same gear box for a petrol series 3 and >>will it fit >> > Yes it will fit - gearboxes are the same for petrol and diesel series > 3's. Except the Stage 1 V8 & 3.9diesel which have a different gearbox. JD >>>i have a 1980 series 3 2 1/4 petrol i have seen a gearbox out of a series >>>3 diesel on e-bay will this be the same gear box for a petrol series 3 and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Except the Stage 1 V8 & 3.9diesel which have a different gearbox. > JD A 3.9 diesel?  SignatureRegards Steve G >>>>i have a 1980 series 3 2 1/4 petrol i have seen a gearbox out of a >>>>series [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > A 3.9 diesel? 4BD1 Isuzu was offered here in Australia in the Stage 1's Adam <snip> >>A 3.9 diesel? > > 4BD1 Isuzu was offered here in Australia in the Stage 1's > > Adam You learn something new every day ... especially where Land Rovers are concerned. Happy New Year :-) SignatureRegards Steve G ><snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >You learn something new every day ... especially where Land Rovers are >concerned. Happy New Year :-) bloody shame that LR didn't do that more widely. If they'd had a credible diesel option sooner (and it really did in the old days come down to capacity) there would've been fewer people buying jap 4x4 trucks, I reckon. The 2.1/4 diesel was proabbly not bad when they first put it in the truck in 1957. by 1967 it was starting to look slow and by 1977 it was definitely out of date. Continuing it's use up to about 1987 was just silly (not quite, I know, the numbers were nice). SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Satisfying: Satisfy your inner child by eating ten tubes of Smarties from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton. >>>>A 3.9 diesel? >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >out of date. Continuing it's use up to about 1987 was just silly (not >quite, I know, the numbers were nice). The 2.5 NA diesel that replaced it wasn't fantastic either, just better than the 2.25. The addition of a turbo for the 2.5TDi was a lot better. Alex >>The 2.1/4 diesel was proabbly not bad when they first put it in the truck in >>1957. It was useless from the start, a petrol engine cobbled up with a distributor pump to allow farmers to use a common fuel. Even then it had the worst specific fuel consumption for any diesel of the period. >The 2.5 NA diesel that replaced it wasn't fantastic either, just >better than the 2.25. Yes but at least it acquired a decent injector pump, still absolutely gutless and an embarrassment to drive. >The addition of a turbo for the 2.5TDi was a lot >better. They put the turbo on the earlier 2.5 first, it actually went ok but there were some engine problems which I believe they gradually sorted. I drove a 1985 one with an aftermarket intercooler and quite liked it. LR diesels didn't get useful till they got coil springs as well. AJH >>>The 2.1/4 diesel was proabbly not bad when they first put it in the truck in >>>1957. > >It was useless from the start, a petrol engine cobbled up with a >distributor pump to allow farmers to use a common fuel. Even then it >had the worst specific fuel consumption for any diesel of the period. It wasn't. It was provided as 2litre (2052cc) diesel first, along with the existing 2litre IOE petrol. It was then enlarged to 2286cc and provided as either petrol or diesel. Commonality of parts between the two engines meant that landrover could save on costs, as the bulk of the engine parts are the same. The differences are the head, camshaft and pistons/con rods, and what you fitted to the camshaft - dizzy or injector pump. Alex >>>>The 2.1/4 diesel was proabbly not bad when they first put it in the >>>>truck in 1957. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Alex Yes, the engine was originally designed as a diesel - the petrol engine is the conversion (which is why the petrol engine is so resistant to abuse). And you have to remember that diesels this small were very scarce in the fifties, even the late fifties (which is why Rover designed their own). But the power available was inadequate for many markets right from the start - even the 2.25 petrol was low powered compared to competition (not that there was very much in the fifties). At the end of the fifties the Landrover was beginning to face competition from the Landcruiser, which, while it had only three gears, and appalling steering, and numerous other shortcomings, had 50% more power than the 2.25. Also coming on the scene was the Patrol, also with many shortcomings, but with a version of the BMC 'C' series engine around double the power of the 2.25. But also note that neither of these companies offered any diesel engine at all on their four wheel drives until around ten years after Landrover. JD >>>It was useless from the start, a petrol engine cobbled up with a >>>distributor pump to allow farmers to use a common fuel. Even then it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> the existing 2litre IOE petrol. It was then enlarged to 2286cc and >> provided as either petrol or diesel. That's news to me, I thought the 2286 engine first appeared in 58, I had one in 644 FAR, about 69. The diesel didn't appear till 61. I was unaware of an earlier diesel. >> Commonality of parts between the >> two engines meant that landrover could save on costs, as the bulk of >> the engine parts are the same. Yes this is a good point, they tried the same with the B40 and Champ. >> The differences are the head, camshaft and pistons/con rods, and what >> you fitted to the camshaft - dizzy or injector pump. Yes but it was still an awful diesel. >Yes, the engine was originally designed as a diesel - the petrol engine is >the conversion (which is why the petrol engine is so resistant to abuse). >And you have to remember that diesels this small were very scarce in the >fifties, even the late fifties (which is why Rover designed their own). Again I didn't know this, have you a reference? I used to have a book on engines (by LJK Setright I think) and it had comparison charts in the back, I distinctly remember the Rover's poor performance. >But the power available was inadequate for many markets right from the >start - Agreed there then! AJH >>>>It was useless from the start, a petrol engine cobbled up with a >>>>distributor pump to allow farmers to use a common fuel. Even then it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > had one in 644 FAR, about 69. The diesel didn't appear till 61. I was > unaware of an earlier diesel. The 2286 petrol engine appeared in 1958, but the diesel in 2.0 litre form over a year earlier, to be replaced by the 2286 diesel in 1961. The two diesel engines are essentially identical except that the 2.0 has wet sleeves with an increased bore for the 2286. Both the diesel and petrol engines were probably running in prototypes as early as 1955, and the basic design work presumably dates from the very early fifties. >>> Commonality of parts between the >>> two engines meant that landrover could save on costs, as the bulk of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes but it was still an awful diesel. Perhaps not brilliant, but there were practically no other comparable diesels from the fifties at all. The Mercedes is the only one that comes to mind. Other similar capacity engines were much heavier and lower power. >>Yes, the engine was originally designed as a diesel - the petrol engine is >>the conversion (which is why the petrol engine is so resistant to abuse). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > on engines (by LJK Setright I think) and it had comparison charts in > the back, I distinctly remember the Rover's poor performance. Refs. For example: The Landrover Story, James Taylor 1996 ISBN 1 85520 3391 p.69 describes how the Landrover wheelbase was increased by two inches in early 1956 to accommodate the new engine, which was introduced fairly late in 1957 in the 2 litre wet sleeve diesel version. The petrol version did not appear until 1958 and the 2.25 diesel until 1961. Another reference is: The Landrover, Graham Robson 1976, ISBN 0 7153 7203 3 p.38 describes the introduction of the 2 litre diesel in June 1957 and the introduction of the 2.25 petrol engine in 1958 is described on the following page. >>But the power available was inadequate for many markets right from the >>start - > > Agreed there then! > > AJH > >>>It was useless from the start, a petrol engine cobbled up with a > >>>distributor pump to allow farmers to use a common fuel. Even then it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> the existing 2litre IOE petrol. It was then enlarged to 2286cc and > >> provided as either petrol or diesel. I don't think so! The early 2286 petrol engines had much smaller crank journals and had the same short (top to bottom ) timing case as the 2 litre diesel. On the later 2286 engines from about '65 with the bigger bearings the crankshaft was cast iron on the petrol and forged steel on the diesel with the same size bearings for both. Also the water pumps were different along with the timing case and head castings. You can tell the early blocks by the size of the side core plugs as well > That's news to me, I thought the 2286 engine first appeared in 58, I > had one in 644 FAR, about 69. The diesel didn't appear till 61. I was > unaware of an earlier diesel. I'm sure you mean '59 not '69, that would be the small crank version which didn't last long. > >> Commonality of parts between the > >> two engines meant that landrover could save on costs, as the bulk of > >> the engine parts are the same. > > Yes this is a good point, they tried the same with the B40 and Champ. Now thats a new one on me, a diesel Rolls B40. > >> The differences are the head, camshaft and pistons/con rods, and what > >> you fitted to the camshaft - dizzy or injector pump. And crankshaft. And flywheel. > Yes but it was still an awful diesel. No it wasn't, it was absolutely reliable and if you ground the camshaft, lightened the valve gear and cam rollers, polished the con-rods, balanced the crank, upped the injector pressures and played with the timing it would equal if not outperform the petrol version and still return 25 m.p.g. Marvellous in those days. What nostalgia! > >Yes, the engine was originally designed as a diesel - the petrol engine is > >the conversion (which is why the petrol engine is so resistant to abuse). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > AJH Disagreed ;-) Martin. >> That's news to me, I thought the 2286 engine first appeared in 58, I >> had one in 644 FAR, about 69. The diesel didn't appear till 61. I was >> unaware of an earlier diesel. > >I'm sure you mean '59 not '69, that would be the small crank version which >didn't last long. No I meant I had it first in 69 by which time it was 11 years old. >> Yes this is a good point, they tried the same with the B40 and Champ. >Now thats a new one on me, a diesel Rolls B40. No the B40 shared lots of bits with the B80 which was in army service, I think the ferret had common parts too. So the champ was designed with it to appeal to the army, made it expensive. >> >But the power available was inadequate for many markets right from the >> >start - [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Martin. fairy nuff AJH > >> That's news to me, I thought the 2286 engine first appeared in 58, I > >> had one in 644 FAR, about 69. The diesel didn't appear till 61. I was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No I meant I had it first in 69 by which time it was 11 years old. Sorry, I misunderstood, must learn to read properly! > >> Yes this is a good point, they tried the same with the B40 and Champ. > >Now thats a new one on me, a diesel Rolls B40. > > No the B40 shared lots of bits with the B80 which was in army service, > I think the ferret had common parts too. So the champ was designed > with it to appeal to the army, made it expensive. And the Humber Pig, with a B60 version I think, correct me if I'm wrong, and yes I see what you meant. > >> >But the power available was inadequate for many markets right from the > >> >start - [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > AJH Absolutely ;-) Martin. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.