Thread: Puma Engine broken and bleeding with missfire and choofing

Mate i feel for you, i really do.
As MLD said im sure you can get a new engine supllied and installed for a lot less.

Im willing to chip in $100 towards helping you if we can get others do the same it will help soften the burden on you.

Originally Posted by 1nando

Mate i feel for you, i really do.
As MLD said im sure you can get a new engine supllied and installed for a lot less.

Im willing to chip in $100 towards helping you if we can get others do the same it will help soften the burden on you.

If that is the last resort, yes I'd help too but I think it should be taken to the absolute limit with LR first.

Originally Posted by cuppabillytea

If that is the last resort, yes I'd help too but I think it should be taken to the absolute limit with LR first.

Thanks All,
Much appreciated in your offer to assist, however; I will gracefully decline, as it is not the money that is the issue it is the principle.
I have been able to source a new Ford 2.2 motor from Transit automotive, for $4500 +GST, however; they are not 100% sure if the ford 2.2 is the same as the Defender 2.2.
They are certain that the 2.4 is OK.
Can anyone one confirm if the Ford 2.2 is the same as the LR 2.2?

The defender 2.2 has a different oiling system to acomadate offroads angles that could potentially starve the engine

Originally Posted by 1nando

The defender 2.2 has a different oiling system to acomadate offroads angles that could potentially starve the engine

The duratorq 2.2 is also found in the Ranger 4x4. With no actual knowledge, I would be surprised that Land Rover would go to the effort to order a 2.2 with different engine design to that in the Ranger 2.2 and the Transit. Economics would dictate that the Land Rover engine would fall into line with the larger production run.

The comment above is correct in principle and true for the duratorq 2.4 up to 2004 production. Post 2004 duratorq 2.4's were the same engine design in the Transit and Defender. It was in 2004 that the oiling system was modified. Keeping in mind the primary difference between the 2.2 and 2.4 engine is stroke, ignoring all the improved bits that bolt onto the block, i assume the oiling modification carried over into the 2.2. For the reasons above, i would be very surprised that Land Rover 2.2 has an improved oiling design over the Ranger 2.2 and Transit, particularly when that modification was implemented in 2004 in the 2.4's.

OzRob - the engine code will confirm whether its the same. If Transit Auto say it's fine for the Ranger 4x4 I'd take comfort in that. Still an expense that no one wants. The silver lining: its only $4,500 + GST. Cheaper than a long block 2.4 and far cheaper than LR dealership quote.

There at least 1 common engine code between the Transit and the Land Rover if you used this engine surely it would be ok???

As a new donk is going in have you thought about the 3.2 motor?

When car manufacturers talk of a "different oiling system" they usually mean a deeper or baffled sump.
it bus hard for me to imagine that Ford would change any internal components of the engine for what is a tiny volume customer.
Examples that come to mind are theD3 v6 petrol and the 2.7 diesel.

regards PhilipA