A couple of close friends have been out touring in their DC Cruisers the last 6 weeks.
Remote touring support is now a myth.
About the only thing offered was belts, bearings and tyres.
Everything else - shipped as required.
Printable View
A couple of close friends have been out touring in their DC Cruisers the last 6 weeks.
Remote touring support is now a myth.
About the only thing offered was belts, bearings and tyres.
Everything else - shipped as required.
The bolt in kits that I saw (online) for the rear of the LC that had all new links and rear end hub to hub, looked like it used some of the leaf mounting points??? And the geometry looked HORRIBLE! The kit looked very well made and the diff etc hub to hub was hi end stuff......
There was some talk in the 2.2 engine failure thread that the 2.2 enough power etc. Well having gone from a 300tdi - 2.8 HS TGV - BT50 with 3.2, all towing the same 1.9t work trailer. I can say the 3.2 IS the engine that LR should have offered in the 110 and been stock in the 130.
The BT50 just needs the LT230....
Im not qualified to comment on the quailty of the 3.2 engine or that vs other brands. Unless you are a mechanical engineer and have inside knowledge of the design, material or QC there is no point playing the "this better than that game", especially based on number of cylinders, brand, out put etc
If you are looking at an engine swap, talk to Les Richmond Automotive in Melbourne, they're on facebook, have a website etc & have been doing all sorts of LandRover engine swaps for years,....they are pretty switched on.
Pickles.
I think I read somewhere that Ford refused to make the 3.2 available to LR, but I could be wrong.
Defintely a possibility.
What is most probable, going with LR's history and europes huge taxes on engines over 2.5 ltr. AND they only make 20,000 units WORLD WIDE per year (bloody peanuts on the global auto scale). Id say the bean counters and the marketers figured not worth the effort.
Given LR cost cutting attitude, I do wonder if they even considered it seriously and what they thought they may have need to change. Would they be concerned with Diffs, R&P, axle shafts, CVs. What about their crappy cast 2 pin centre diff, what about braking? what about suspension bush wear?
Was cooling a concern.
Funny, one could say they could be arrogant enough to think these things fine given their history and attitude to outsiders comunicating genuine, reoccurring problems.
After putting an complete exhaust, intercooler, VVT, ECU, etc upgrades to my 2.2 D90, it travels well, but still doesn't feel effortless. Would bounce a 3.2 in there in a heartbeat!
While my future plans are by no means set, I will probably be in roughly the same boat. The house sold, a block bought somewhere for a base, and a Defender purchased. It would need to be something I could live in, so a Mulgo converted 110 or 130, on airbags. I'm torn between a TD5, as i like them, or a Puma, 'cos they are more modern...., well a little. The 3.2 seems like a no brainer to me, as it addresses the one thing that has bedevilled ALL Defenders; power.
In the next month or so I am planning to come up to Sydney to talk to Daniel about Mulgo. If there is a 3.2 Defender around at that time I would seriously like to come and drive it. I would also like to follow up on an auto conversion. My former employer has a 79 series LC with a six speed auto conversion and it absolutely transforms the car.