Hi George, you could always put a series 3 motor back in it here a link for a cheap 1 on ebay
eBay Australia: Buy new & used fashion, electronics & home d
Cheers Chris
just bought a Series 3 with a 161 red motor, running but rough, compression testing in the next few days. whats the thoughts on these motors, worth a rebuild if needed, or jump up to a 186, 202. seems like it is a closer size to the original motor than the others.
cheers
George
Hi George, you could always put a series 3 motor back in it here a link for a cheap 1 on ebay
eBay Australia: Buy new & used fashion, electronics & home d
Cheers Chris
Thats probably the way i'll go if the 161 proves to be a rebuild
The 161-202 red engines are easy to work on and reasonable for parts. Also they develop their max torque around 2000 rpm... a 202 has excellent torque of 267 Nm vs 207Nm for the 161 plus an additional 21HP (16kw). They are quite forgiving and ultra reliable once set up properly.
If it's running rough, but the compression is OK, I'd be looking at straightforward stuff like the electrics/carby etc.
MY99 RR P38 HSE 4.6 (Thor) gone (to Tasmania)
2020 Subaru Impreza S ('SWMBO's Express' )
2023 Ineos Grenadier Trialmaster (diesel)
Way back when I bought a new 1974 HQ Belmont sedan with the 161 engine. Great engine. After 200,000 klicks it still went like it was day one. It's an understressed engine so it can be long lived.
I had a 161 in my series 1 - ran well, was reasonably economical, and handled sitting on the redline in all gears - just listen for the valve bounce and back off a little. Just went on and on.
If running OK - leave it in a SWB as they are a good little engine.
Garry
REMLR 243
2007 Range Rover Sport TDV6
1977 FC 101
1976 Jaguar XJ12C
1973 Haflinger AP700
1971 Jaguar V12 E-Type Series 3 Roadster
1957 Series 1 88"
1957 Series 1 88" Station Wagon
The 161 gets a good wrap from a lot of people, the 179,186 and 202 are just as good but out of the lot I'd go for the 202 just for size, power and torque. The 202 may be a bit too powerful for the gearbox if your a little heavy on the right foot. But if the 161 is a goer keep it, if not it depends what you want your landy to be for. If its just a farm vehicle then maybe the smaller motors would be fine but if you want to keep up with the traffic get something like the 186 or 202.
I have heard of a few gbox and diff/axle problems from the holden motors. But as long as you dont rev it to hard you should be right.
If you are going to put another motor in go back to the land rover motor
AFAIK, the 161-173-202 series had some differences from the earlier 149-179-186 series engines. There were low compression versions of the 161 and 173 cu inch engines but not the 202. The Low Comp 161 developed max torque at about 1600 rpm! but there was very little later in the rev range. With 7-bearing crankshafts, a well tuned one was ultra smooth, especially if you fitted a Jap carburettor like an aisan or denso. By comparison, the standard Holden carby was "agricultural" to say the least....
MY99 RR P38 HSE 4.6 (Thor) gone (to Tasmania)
2020 Subaru Impreza S ('SWMBO's Express' )
2023 Ineos Grenadier Trialmaster (diesel)
Just did the compression test, what insightful reverlations do these numbers give the learned forum members
Cylinder 1: 127 2: 127 3: 125 4: 110 5: 127 6: 140.
Cylinder 4 and 6 were tested twice.
any thoughts
Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
---|
|
|
Bookmarks