Thread: The "New" Defender,.....When?

Nene Overland now offer the 3.2 litre 5 cylinder as a conversion in the Defender.
I can't find anything useful for torque figures, but they claim 265bhp, as opposed to 120bhp and 360nm from the 2.2, although the standard figures for the Transit seem to be 200bhp and 470nm, which reads pretty well.

From what I've read the conversion uses the internals from the 3.2 transit gearbox (a stronger version of the Defender one) and is pretty much a bolt in conversion, with Bell Auto Services sorting out the electronics.

It's all new components, but the cost of the conversion is near £20k, on top of your Defender.
Reviews from the motoring press seem pretty encouraging, and I suspect it would sell pretty well if Land Rover could offer them for sale at a competitive price.
I'd rather have a 130 HiCap with a 3.2 Than a HiLux, L200, Navara or an Amarok as a working truck. The money involved however is somewhat off putting.

Originally Posted by Bush65

Further to my comments, and now recalling similar responses in the past. None can deny that many are happy with their small engines, but many also rush out to get them chipped, and I've never seen a mention of anyone taking out a chip because it was better with less torque/power.

Perceptions play a big part in sales, Land Rover don't sell many Defenders in Australia, because many buyers perceive the engines are too small, which they are for those who do need to pull a load. I would love to see sales numbers increase, that would be the biggest win!

When you need to pull a load, there is no good reason why the fuel consumption is going to be better from a smaller displacement engine, given similar technology, that has to struggle. Rather the reverse is usually the case.

Many people de-cat and chip modern small engines simply because the pollution gear strangles the engine and causes them to use more fuel.Like every vehicle people only see the motor,I have both the TDCi and D4D and the bigger engine has more power but the gearbox does not match it,one minute it's lugging off boost and the next minute it's run off the cam,nothing more than a bigger Tdi,try almost any of the modern vehicles,especially the auto's and they will pull away from the last generation of engines. Pat

Originally Posted by PAT303

...try almost any of the modern vehicles,especially the auto's and they will pull away from the last generation of engines. Pat

I don't think John was talking about acceleration when he mentioned low down torque.

The 2.4 goes well, but even with the low first gear it can't match the low down torque of a larger engine.

Landrover appear to limit the defender to under 100kw. From there it looks like they picked the smallest engine psa had with that number.

Originally Posted by Bush65

When you need to pull a load, there is no good reason why the fuel consumption is going to be better from a smaller displacement engine, given similar technology, that has to struggle. Rather the reverse is usually the case.

I have heard this a few times but not something I have experienced. My worst economy in my 2.4 was towing a fully loaded troopy that was towing a camprite trailer. My fuel consumption was about then same as his when he is not towing anything.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

I don't think John was talking about acceleration when he mentioned low down torque.

The 2.4 goes well, but even with the low first gear it can't match the low down torque of a larger engine.

Beg to differ,the low first will pull were's an LC needs a clutch slip,how many times have you towed with modern vehicles?,an Isuzu,TD42,1HT-FTE will all be left behind by any one of the modern small capacity diesel engines while towing,it's the old narrow minded type that carry on with BS about electrics leaving you stranded or ''will it do 500,000k's'' crap that holds back the very good drivelines we have today. Pat

Originally Posted by PAT303

Beg to differ,the low first will pull were's an LC needs a clutch slip,how many times have you towed with modern vehicles?,an Isuzu,TD42,1HT-FTE will all be left behind by any one of the modern small capacity diesel engines while towing,it's the old narrow minded type that carry on with BS about electrics leaving you stranded or ''will it do 500,000k's'' crap that holds back the very good drivelines we have today. Pat

Those examples you've got Pat are a 4 litre 4 cyl 25 year old truck engine, an indirect injection 6 cyl and a direct injection 6 cyl.

If you hook a load onto an Isuzu powered disco/rrc/110 and again with a 200/300tdi of the same era, the Isuzu will use less fuel at the same speed.
Unloaded if you slow down the 200/300tdi will use less fuel. But if you want to maintain a reasonable pace the consumption will be pretty much identical.
But this is an extreme case of 2.5L vs 3.9L.

The TD42 isn't worth mentioning here. It's not an efficient engine. The 1HD-FTE is an efficient engine when working hard, but working it hard drinks a lot of fuel. This is why pretty much no-one is making 6 cyl engines now.

What we should be comparing is 2L vs 3L diesels. I'd be very interested in fuel consumption tests in a range of different conditions on the Ford Ranger and the VW Amarok.
I recently suggested a ZD30 (3 litre direct injection 4 valve 4 cyl engine) as the type of engine that could ideally be fitted to a P38. It wasn't a popular suggestion, but some did agree with me.
The ZD30 is an example of an excellent engine with a terrible factory tune.

I think we've all read this discussion 20 times over...

We all drive what we prefer and its safe to say that Land Rover will never revert to engines that can't meet EU emission laws (inside or outside the UK, Globally Environmentally Responsible after all), so its purely academic to wish them to do so...

Bigger engines still won't give you airbags and stability control which will both cause the death of new Defenders in Australia before the engine debate and final versions gets anywhere!

Cheers,

Lou