Thread: 101 original lump vs a Diesel alternative

Garry, remote travel is alot different, your fuel consumption will sky rocket, it's no good quoteing on road figures, this mean little when traversing sand dunes, the little Mazda will stay similar and the petrol will double, maybe triple

I think you see the rover 8 through rose colored glasses

If he wanted to improve horsepower and economy with an 8, I'd slip an lsx in it, but range will still suffer in the slow stuff

And again, you think carrying large amounts of petrol is a smart idea? Your kidding right?

Originally Posted by 101 Ron

The nissan should be easier on the drive line than a 4 pot Isuzu, if you were going to do this it would be silly not to improve performance with a turbo diesel 4.2(standard 4.2 nissan non turbo would be no improvement)
I notice most people who support the diesel side of things have not owned a 101with overdrive for a long period.
Lardy, do some miles in your 101 with standard motor and get to know it well.
Overdrive is number one to cruising speed and fuel burn on a 101 with standard motor
Then make your decision
If the speed with overdrive is kept at 80 kph or less at the vehicles aerodynamic best speed and the overdrive keeping the rover 3.5 at it most efficent 2000rpm the fuel burn is supprizingly very good.
Aero dynamics on the 101 play a much bigger part than people realise diesel or not and it is usually only where a petrol motor needs to use full power the fuel burn becomes greatly different.
Work a petrol engine at the right revs and load and you will be supprized.
.

? Every vehicle uses far less fuel cruising at 80 instead of 100, I think it's the effects of drag...

Originally Posted by garrycol

Alan has just posted he is getting 16l/100km from his Mazda powered 101 (a nice 101 it is too) - on road at cruising 90-100kph I get 20l/100km from my 3.5 V8 petrol (gas about 25l/100km). A well set up dual fuel system 4.6 V8 will do a little better due to its better torque - the one area where the 3.5v8 does drop off a bit is long hills on the highway.

Garry

I have calculated the following; given today's fuel prices in my town and using Alan's and Garry's figures.
A 100km journey will cost:
Alan $26-92
Garry $30 of ULP
or $32.22 of PULP
or $26-92 of LPG
If Garry's consumption figure is for ULP, then the PULP economy will be better, so the price would drop as well.

Given that there is hardly any price difference over 100km, then the cost of a new engine and conversion, doesn't seem so worthwhile unless a phenomenal number of kilometres are to be travelled, or extensive travel is anticipated where petrol is hard to come by,

Cheers Charlie

Originally Posted by chazza

I have calculated the following; given today's fuel prices in my town and using Alan's and Garry's figures.
A 100km journey will cost:
Alan $26-92
Garry $30 of ULP
or $32.22 of PULP
or $26-92 of LPG
If Garry's consumption figure is for ULP, then the PULP economy will be better, so the price would drop as well.

Given that there is hardly any price difference over 100km, then the cost of a new engine and conversion, doesn't seem so worthwhile unless a phenomenal number of kilometres are to be travelled, or extensive travel is anticipated where petrol is hard to come by,

Cheers Charlie

You are right, it is almost impossible to justify an engine conversion on financial grounds. And often difficult to justify an LPG conversion.

However a conversion to a 4.6 as suggested will cost lots of money AND increase fuel consumption.

As posted earlier, you would need to carry illegal quantities of fuel to travel to many remote parts of WA (plus it would be insane IMHO even if legal).

Garry - sorry if you didn't like my joke. I was simply trying to point out the impracticality of a 4.6 on gas - see above for the financial comments...

To counter your points, I think many of the (non diesel) 101 owners posting in this thread have little/no experience of remote area travel, see rover V8's through rose coloured glasses, and are irrationally opposed to modifications. Furthermore, the suggestions of fitting an overdrive won't help fuel consumption in most remote areas, as you won't be going fast enough to use it. E.g., most of the CSR I did in 3rd and 4th, and almost never used 5th. As for the comments about going slower - well that is elementary. Drag force increases with velocity squared.

Lardy, the TD42T is a great engine, but will put the weight even further forward. Personally I would go for a large 4 - the mazda that Alan has is also a reasonable option.

If you want a more "modern" option, then the 4H series isuzu diesels are good, but cannot be mated to the LT95.

Isuzurover, I hope I can trust you to come help me do the job if I go Isuzu lol


Sent from my iPhone using Telepathy

Originally Posted by alan48

Hi guys,
I have a 3.5 turbo mazda diesel in my 101 camper with the normal RR 4-speed. It uses as samuari conversion and was done a number of years ago--it performs brillantly and does about 16ltrs/100 km with the heavy 'motorhome' body. Engine is from Mazda 4wd truck and same as in old Ford Traders. No way could I afford to run a petrol motor. Also has PAS done by Anthony Johnson in Melbourne.

Alan, would that be the Mazda SL35? Do you maybe have the spec for that engine?

Hi all, I'm dreaming

In my paddock at the moment is a couple of rolling chassis, one is a D1 still with it's auto and 3.5 EFI. The other chassis is a '94 Defender without a motor or gearbox .
Now every time I look at these things as I go past, my inventive side has a turn. what if? If I did this? Is this a way to go? and Hmmm, comes out of me.
(The neighbours do wonder about the old eccentric next door, that walks around talking to himself about the beautiful things in his backyard. )

My ideal camper would be based on the Defender chassis, fitted with the V8 and auto in the rear of the chassis, LPG tanks on either side of the chassis for range, the rear engine takes care of heat issues and helps with weight distribution.
The flat deck from the drivers seat to the rear built up housing containing the repositioned V8, would make pulling up for a cuppa or getting into bed in wet weather a lot more pleasant.

The body would be something like a cut down short nose van body, then fitted out as a camper.

Dream on !
.

Arthur, we all have dreams. I had been dreaming of the 6x6 FC for years before I got around to building it.
Instead of a cut down van front, stick to Landy and make it like a Carmichael Forward Control. Not as high as a 2a, 2b or 101 and the body panels look easy.
Putting the engine in the back, cooling ducting may be a problem.
Keith