CAN YOU INCREASE BORE/STROKE ON THE PUMA FOR MORE GRUNT??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n plus one

You'd be surprised how much extra poke you can tweak out of the standard engine for limited cost. Mine is up around 50% in power (135kw) and around 25% in torque (470nm) - its much stronger to drive than the standard truck, despite significant weight increases.

By way of comparison, this is slightly less power and slightly more torque than the standard LC76 V8 motor.

Next step will either be a 3.2 Puma conversion or a Duramax :twisted: - but that's 150,000 kms away at least.

---

That is impressive numbers. Is it possible to PM me the cost of the tweaks as I might get it done sooner rather then later.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pickles2

Yes, that would be a great conversion, do you know anyone that has done it?
Cheers, Pickles.

---

Pickles someone posted an article where they have done it in the U.K and it went into a 90. Looked really nice, they featured it in LRO magazine.

yes the 3.2 has been swapped into a LR or 2…but you better take out a small home loan for the stand alone harness to control it :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voltron

That is impressive numbers. Is it possible to PM me the cost of the tweaks as I might get it done sooner rather then later.

Cheers.

---

Happy to make 'em public.

~ $1,000 for a BAS remap (by far the biggest difference)

~ $1,000 for Allisport intercooler and silicone hoses

~ $200 for a Nugget air intake kit (makes a surprising difference according to my seat-of-the-pants dyno)

~ $1,600 for a Taipan exhaust (haven't done this yet - cheaper options include a simple decat and removal of the centre muffler)

Pretty straight forward stuff that make a MASSIVE difference to the truck.

Not as much as a Duramax conversion though :angel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n plus one

You'd be surprised how much extra poke you can tweak out of the standard engine for limited cost. Mine is up around 50% in power (135kw) and around 25% in torque (470nm) - its much stronger to drive than the standard truck, despite significant weight increases.

By way of comparison, this is slightly less power and slightly more torque than the standard LC76 V8 motor.

Next step will either be a 3.2 Puma conversion or a Duramax :twisted: - but that's 150,000 kms away at least.

---

You figures don't align with those quoted on the BAS site i.e. stock 122 HP and 360 Nm to 170 HP (127 kW) and 450 Nm

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...013/12/495.jpg

Then you have to factor in cost, etc. to ship the engine control module to BAS and return after re-map

Quote:

---

Remap by post is ONLY applicable to engine control modules with part number CH12-12C520-AD and NOT with part number CH12-12C520-AC. In cases that the ecu has already had a software update at the dealers then this exclution is not applicable.

---

Edit: Although the thread mentions Puma, the OP has the Mazda based 2.2 litre engine, not the Puma engine so I guess that is where the confusion comes from.

It seems many are calling Defenders Pumas these days even though they are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bush65

Edit: Although the thread mentions Puma, the OP has the Mazda based 2.2 litre engine, not the Puma engine so I guess that is where the confusion comes from.

It seems many are calling Defenders Pumas these days even though they are not.

---

The 2.2 is a Puma (Ford Duratorq) engine and is a development of the 2.4 unit. Might be fitted to the Mazda BT50s but is from the Puma family of engines.

I think you are thinking of the W engines which are Mazda engines and are not related to the Puma. The 2.2 in the Defender is not one of these engines.

Garry

Yeah, I was pretty sure the 2.2 continues to be a 'Puma' motor - although Bush 65 is correct in that the remap procedures (and outcomes) are slightly different for the 2.2 v.s. the 2.4 motor.

Re costs, I wouldn't have thought postage on a remap module/ecu would be a material consideration relative to the quantum of figures I posted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garrycol

The 2.2 is a Puma (Ford Duratorq) engine and is a development of the 2.4 unit. Might be fitted to the Mazda BT50s but is from the Puma family of engines.

I think you are thinking of the W engines which are Mazda engines and are not related to the Puma. The 2.2 in the Defender is not one of these engines.

Garry

---

Thanks Garry, I can't find where I got the info that stuck in my mind, it also told me about the update to the fuel injection system.

However the Wikipedia page on the Ford Duratorq supports what you said. And says the 2.2 developed from the Mazda engine was used in the evoque and freelander.

I still don't think it is valid to call Defenders Pumas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bush65

Thanks Garry, I can't find where I got the info that stuck in my mind, it also told me about the update to the fuel injection system.

However the Wikipedia page on the Ford Duratorq supports what you said. And says the 2.2 developed from the Mazda engine was used in the evoque and freelander.

I still don't think it is valid to call Defenders Pumas.

---

mazda 2.2? Im reading that 2.2 as in the Evoque and Freelander as being a PSA DW engine (parent company of Citroen and Peugeot). Only reference I can find to Mazda is the 2.5l and 3.0l engine:

"Codenamed Puma during development, these Ford 2.0 L, 2.2 L, and 2.4 L engines are called ZSD. They are produced at the company's Dagenham plant in east London.
Note: the 2.5 and 3.0L "W" engines in above table are NOT Puma engines. They are Mazda designed commercial Diesel engines with no commonality to Puma. The "W" engine family is used in the Asia Pacific Ranger and Everest models currently running out."

we never called the Tdi "Gemini" either ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bush65

Thanks Garry, I can't find where I got the info that stuck in my mind, it also told me about the update to the fuel injection system.

However the Wikipedia page on the Ford Duratorq supports what you said. And says the 2.2 developed from the Mazda engine was used in the evoque and freelander.

I still don't think it is valid to call Defenders Pumas.

---

No wurries - i agree about calling the Defender Pumas as it is the engine that is coded Puma not the vehicle - we don't call any other Landies by their engines code names.

There was a heated discussion on this some years back where I got flamed because I said that if we were going to call them Pumas we might as well call them Big Pussies but that went down like a lead balloon, particularly with the Defender owners.

Wikipedia is a great resource but not always correct.

Cheers

Garry