S2 v S2A differences

[newhue]

your thoughts please
I'm interested in acquiring a Series 2 109 ute. I have areal spot for them, or that shape.
I seem to have in my head to restore one, a S2 would be a bit more collectable than a 2A. Simply because the build years of a S2 were only 3, and 10 years for a 2A. However this could all be in my head.

I'm having trouble determining the differences of the two.
Many seem to say only an engine number, some say lots of small things but don't really say, others say not much.

can you help me deferate please.

ps: happy to be linked if this topic has been covered before, my search didn't turn up much.

[gromit]

I'm sure someone will come along with the main differences but in the meantime.....

Series 2 and a 2a... what is the difference? - Land Rover Zone (http://www.landyzone.co.uk/lz/f16/series-2-2a-what-difference-22501.html)

Colin

[Warb]

I'm no great expert, having only recently returned to Land Rover ownership, but I now have a number of S2's and S2A's, and I would say that the main difference is simply the model number!

There are some differences, as mentioned in the link posted above (like the vent knob), but I suspect the main reason for the name change was the introduction of the 2.25L diesel engine. So comparing a late model petrol S2 with an early petrol S2A will reveal few significant differences.

The S2A seems to have changed far more over its production life than any change between S2 and S2A, and most of the noticeable changes (grille mounted lights to guard mounted, handbrake lever with a bend, 6 cylinder petrol engine, twin windscreen wiper motor to single motor etc.) were made through the course of the S2A production.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

your thoughts please
I'm interested in acquiring a Series 2 109 ute. I have areal spot for them, or that shape.
I seem to have in my head to restore one, a S2 would be a bit more collectable than a 2A. Simply because the build years of a S2 were only 3, and 10 years for a 2A. However this could all be in my head.

...Actually the SII covers 4 years. i.e. 109" Prefix: 15*8 = 1958
15*9 = 1959
15*0 = 1960
15*1 = 1961The SIIa all have a suffix letter to their Car Number/Chassis Number.

The SII 109" also have a bottom adjuster on the 11" rear brakes, which allow for more even wear of the brake shoes.

Where * is the variable "market" variable.

[JDNSW]

The Series 2 Landrover had continuous development from 1958 to 1971. The model designation "2a" was introduced in 1961, with the defining event being the replacement of the 2.0 diesel by the 2.25 diesel. At the same time all the chassis numbers acquired an "a" suffix. This suffix changed over the years as the changes accumulated, but the model number did not. Changes did not occur at the same time on all types, nor at the same time in all locations, and quite often there was a long period where both the earlier and later bits were fitted to cars.

To my way of thinking there were much more significant changes than the change 2-2a. For example, the changes to negative earth in 1967, which involved major changes to the wiring harness, dashboard, wipers, steering wheel etc. I would argue that there are more significant differences between a 1971 2a and a 1961 2a than between a 1960 2 and 1961 2a! (Salisbury diff on 109, availability of the six, electrical differences above, headlight position, and numerous other less obvious changes, including a major shift from BSF to UNF threads.

John

[bulletproof]

The 1958 2s are totally different because they have all Series one running gear.

1 2 litre petrol engine
2 Series one steering with arm on the top of the swivel housing
3 Series one brakes with the bottom adjuster
4 series one type radiator
5 Knob vent ajdusters
6 Series one dash
7 Sparto lights

Etc Etc so there are lots major differences between these and a 2a

Cheers Richard

[Warb]

All of which means that there was an evolution all the way from Series 1 through to.....

The early Series 2 is different to the late Series 2 is different to......

As has been stated, Land Rover (actually most car manufacturers of the day) kept using the bits they had on hand until they ran out, then switched to the new part!

I think I've read that the 2litre motor was only used in the SWB Series 2 (not in the LWB version), and I'm fairly sure that one of my 2A's has the top mounted steering arms, though it might have been changed at some point in its life.

So there may be significant differences between two vehicles that are supposedly the same model (2 or 2A) but very little difference between a 1961 S2 and a 1961 S2A.......

[newhue]

Thanks all, so it seems not much in it really which opens it up a bit. Seems better to focus on the vehicle condition over model. Now just need to stumble on one.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The 1958 2s are totally different because they have all Series one running gear.

1 2 litre petrol engine
2 Series one steering with arm on the top of the swivel housing
3 Series one brakes with the bottom adjuster
4 series one type radiator
5 Knob vent ajdusters
6 Series one dash
7 Sparto lights

Etc Etc so there are lots major differences between these and a 2a

Cheers RichardExcept that: the 1958 109" had the 2 1/4 litre petrol only the 88" had the 2 litre.
The pendant type steering levers continued right through series 2.
The bottom adjuster continued after 1958.
All the SII years had the knob type ventilaror regulators.
Dash continued into series 2a. Only in 1967 did they change to toggle switches.

[Warb]

Thanks all, so it seems not much in it really which opens it up a bit. Seems better to focus on the vehicle condition over model. Now just need to stumble on one.

There are a couple of other things you might like to consider.

Overall condition might be less important than avoiding things you don't like - for example you might be happy to fix a seized engine but not really interested in doing bodywork, panel beating and painting.

Then there's the question of what you're going to do with it. A full restoration to original spec.? Or creating a usable and fun vehicle?

If original spec. is the aim, then look for one that as far as possible has original parts, matching numbers etc. In this case having some history of the vehicle is also nice, and even better if it has done something interesting (Vietnam, Snowy Scheme etc.).

But it you want a fun toy, then you may well change things anyway - the one I'm building for my wife has improved (later model) brakes, modern electrics, engine upgrades etc. to make it fun rather than a challenge to drive! If I can find one I'll probably use a Series 3 gearbox to avoid the lack of 1st and 2nd gear syncromesh in the original. In that case the originality is secondary, so a vehicle that has already had parts swapped for later version is still OK. The 2A that is my farm vehicle has a very battered tub, but I've just found a later 2A that has a flat tray and a a body to suit (the body ends 4inches behind the doors) so at some point that bodywork will go on my SWB and I'll build a new tray. That trayback 2A also has a PTO, so I might fit that as well.

Most of all, get one you like. I prefer the short wheel base models, in the canvas top or ute body. To me the station wagons and LWB versions are too much like a proper car, but some people prefer them.

[newhue]

Nice words Warb, all good stuff.
I'm a ute man at heart, a 109 hard top style side is my soft spot. I sometimes wonder if a soft top would be better. Screen down, wind in the hair kind of stuff, but I'm not a big fan of the sun in summer anyway.
My father in-law has me interested in restoring stuff, and for me, original or as close to if the effort is to be made. That's why I was pondering if a 2 would be a more collectable end product opposed to a 2A. Not really interested in restore and resell, just something to enjoy. Day trips with the SLOW crowd, or a burn around the block with the kids. My wife thinks I'm nuts but finds it amusing as she rolls her eyes.
To restore one for me it's all up hill, little space, few tools, limited mechanical knowledge, but I have an interest, enthusiasm, some AULRO mates, and can wave a spray gun around the place.

ye ha look out.

[dfendr]

I had series 2
It had a slightly different head
The crankshaft had smaller bearings and it had an 8 bolt water pump .In addition the transfer case had the smaller intermediate shaft as in the series 1

[bulletproof]

Except that:

the 1958 109" had the 2 1/4 litre petrol only the 88" had the 2 litre.
The pendant type steering levers continued right through series 2.
The bottom adjuster continued after 1958.
All the SII years had the knob type ventilaror regulators.
Dash continued into series 2a. Only in 1967 did they change to toggle switches.

I am talking about the differences between an early 2 and 2a

The steering arm on a 2a comes from the bottom of the swivel housing instead of the top
The 2a has a solid pin to hold the shoes instead of an adjusting slide bolt
The 2a has slide controls for the vents instead of a knob
The 2a has plastic lights in the dash instead of brass

Cheers Richard

[Col.Coleman]

Nice words Warb, all good stuff.
I'm a ute man at heart, a 109 hard top style side is my soft spot. I sometimes wonder if a soft top would be better. Screen down, wind in the hair kind of stuff, but I'm not a big fan of the sun in summer anyway.
My father in-law has me interested in restoring stuff, and for me, original or as close to if the effort is to be made. That's why I was pondering if a 2 would be a more collectable end product opposed to a 2A. Not really interested in restore and resell, just something to enjoy. Day trips with the SLOW crowd, or a burn around the block with the kids. My wife thinks I'm nuts but finds it amusing as she rolls her eyes.
To restore one for me it's all up hill, little space, few tools, limited mechanical knowledge, but I have an interest, enthusiasm, some AULRO mates, and can wave a spray gun around the place.

ye ha look out.

You've got a LWB hard top. Get yourself a SWB rag. You'll thank me for it.

For me, Late 11a are the pick of them.

CC

[Warb]

I've just remembered - all my Series 2a's have Lucar ("spade") connectors through the wiring loom, where the Series 2's have screw/eye/clamp connectors. I'm not sure if that's an official "difference"........

And the Series 2's wheel were body coloured, whilst the 2A's were often (?) not.

[JDNSW]

I had series 2
It had a slightly different head
The crankshaft had smaller bearings and it had an 8 bolt water pump .In addition the transfer case had the smaller intermediate shaft as in the series 1

None of these changes coincide with the change Series 2 to 2a! It was simply continuous change, and in 1961, with the introduction of the 2.25 diesel, the designation changed.

John

[newhue]

You've got a LWB hard top. Get yourself a SWB rag. You'll thank me for it.

For me, Late 11a are the pick of them.

CC

Care to share why a late 2A gets your thing pinging. Are you talking headlights in the gards type of late?

Your right, I'll have to go for a ride in a rag top one day, and a FC

[Col.Coleman]

Yep, Headlights in the guards type of late.

As a vehicle to to lots of running about in, you get alot of the things that made it nicer. Single wipers, marginally better headlights, negative earth, but still with alot of the character of an early series. The series 111's are nice, but the dash is not as nice as a metal one, and the plastic bits start coming in.

So keeping things original, you get the updates, but keep all the metal.

It is only my personal opinion, but the headlights in the breakfast panel, only look good on series 1's, and military series 11a's with the square cut guards and no apron panels. It is to do with the lines and the ratio of the panels to the height of the vehicle. Hence I am not a big fan of the 58's to 69's. (Even though I own a '59 series 11)

As I said though, personal opinion.

CC

[incisor]

None of these changes coincide with the change Series 2 to 2a! It was simply continuous change, and in 1961, with the introduction of the 2.25 diesel, the designation changed.

John
as did the internals of the 2 1/4 petrol motor

the early 2 1/4 petrol had internals based on the 2ltr diesel internals

i believe in 61 the 2 1/4 petrol was beefed up with the new 2 1/4 diesel internals which had bigger crank etc etc and the shallow thermostat housing and a few holes in different places eg the lifting lug bolt holes...

[JDNSW]

as did the internals of the 2 1/4 petrol motor

the early 2 1/4 petrol had internals based on the 2ltr diesel internals

i believe in 61 the 2 1/4 petrol was beefed up with the new 2 1/4 diesel internals which had bigger crank etc etc and the shallow thermostat housing and a few holes in different places eg the lifting lug bolt holes...

Yes, I believe that is correct. As many parts as possible were made common between the petrol and diesel engines, right from 1958, so when changes were made to the deisel they were, where possible , incorporated in the petrol engine as well. (although, judging from other changes it would be surprising if all these changes coincided exactly with the change to 2a!)

John

[newhue]

So is a diesel preferable over a petrol, or there is little difference in that choice as well.
I'd image the diesel requires more patience and allows more sight seeing due to the amazing pick up and speeds normally aspirated diesels deliver.:D But the reliability or economy should stand out. The diesels are 24V are they?

[123rover50]

No. Diesels are still 12volt too.

[Col.Coleman]

Diesel's don't go too bad in a shorty, but a bit slow in the long wheel bases.

The thing to remember, landies are not the quietest of vehicles at the best of times, the diesels make this much worse.

Depends on your usage, and you have a modern tourer. I'd probably stick with a petrol.

CC

[Warb]

In my area the diesels are quite rare, most have had their motors replaced with Holdens. This fate is not reserved solely for diesels, all LR engines seem to have been fair game for replacement, but the diesels and the 6 cylinders seem to have been replaced more often than the 4 cylinder petrol version.

It's always struck me as strange, because the tractors and machinery of the same era were largely diesel powered, so diesel fuel was on hand which should make it the preferred power source - the same reason why most farmers drive diesels now!

[newhue]

I guess warb the farmers probably stuck with the diesel, accepting any downside for it intended purpose. However what sells cars today probably was not what old diesels had back then, POWER. This alone probably inspired the transplant of an aged diesel to a holden donk in a second hand car or original car.
I'm not opposed to a diesel, however part of me likes the idea of having the same 2lt motor as the S1 to simplify knowledge and parts at my end. It sounds like a 2.25 petrol is not all that different anyway.
In the end either one shops for a long time looking for "the right car" in the right budget. Or accepts what they can live with. It's not like you go down the local dealer and pick and choose.

[JDNSW]

In my area the diesels are quite rare, most have had their motors replaced with Holdens. This fate is not reserved solely for diesels, all LR engines seem to have been fair game for replacement, but the diesels and the 6 cylinders seem to have been replaced more often than the 4 cylinder petrol version.


Landrover engines were, in my experience, usually replaced by Holden engines because this could be done for much less than the cost of overhauling the existing engine. In addition it gave the promise of better performance (certainly better than the worn out engine) and readily available and cheap parts, plus an engine that all mechanics were familiar with - this last becoming important as sales of new Landrovers and numbers of dealers shrank.

The same applied to the diesels, with the increase in performance being larger, and petrol relatively cheap at the time. And the cost of overhauling the diesel was also much higher, and many mechanics and overhaulers were reluctant to touch diesels, especially unfamiliar pommy ones.

John

[Lotz-A-Landies]

....
It's always struck me as strange, because the tractors and machinery of the same era were largely diesel powered, so diesel fuel was on hand which should make it the preferred power source - the same reason why most farmers drive diesels now!Except the LR 2 1/4 diesel was exceptionally poor performer, usually topping out at about 80KPH and were hopeless negotiating obstacles where momentum was required. Just as the diesel was getting up to speed and need to keep the revs up the governor would cut in and the Landy would be stuck in the middle of the mud etc.

Those Landys fitted with Perkins diesels were better performers than the OEM variety.

[newhue]

Except the LR 2 1/4 diesel was exceptionally poor performer, usually topping out at about 80KPH and were hopeless negotiating obstacles where momentum was required. Just as the diesel was getting up to speed and need to keep the revs up the governor would cut in and the Landy would be stuck in the middle of the mud etc.

Those Landys fitted with Perkins diesels were better performers than the OEM variety.

:eek2:
Thanks Dian, you and VK3UTE have just sold me on NOT getting a diesel.

[VK3UTE]

My diesel goes like a rocket to 75kph! :eek: and with all the noise it feels like your doing 130kph.

I still love her, even if she's a bit slow:D

[numpty]

S11.........nice choice. My preference (and in my opinion) :angel:, the prettiest Land Rover ever built was/is a S11/11A swb truck cab in Deep bronze green and limestone. Bloody lovely.