Holden 173 in SIIa

[happykid55]

I am looking at buying an unregistered SIIa which will still need some finishing touches before roadworthyness. It already has a 173 engine, I have noticed it is a very common conversion to put the "red" engines in series land rovers. My question is does a 173 or similar conversion in a SIIa need an engineering certificate in order to be registered in NSW? I was under the impression that engineering was required if the engine increased displacement by a certain percentage or increased the number of cylinders from the stock engine, the number of cylinders has certainly increased, not sure about the displacement.
I may be wrong so any help appreciated!

[Homestar]

If it has previously been registered with the 173 in it, then you should have no problems. If not, then engineering will be required, but this is no huge deal - if it replaced a 4 cylinder engine, then the front crossmember would have been modded - this is one of the things they will look at, as well as the quality of the engine mounts, etc.

[happykid55]

Through further investigation, I now know that it was previously registered, so hopefully only a blue slip is required.
Thanks.

[Series3 GT]

The 173 isn't quite as common as the 186 but shouldn't be too bad a choice. It's a bit bigger than the 2.25 and as you mentioned it's got two more cylinders. The 173 is roughly a 2.8 so it's bigger but I don't what they produce in the way of power or torque. I'll find out.

[Homestar]

The 173 is no rocketship, but does provide more power and torque than the 2.25 petrol. Like all Holden red motors, they are easy and cheap to work on, and will run for ages without issue.

If it all checks out with the rego, don't be scared off by this motor - it will serve you well.

Cheers - Gav

[happykid55]

It also comes with a 202 not in the car, would it be worth swapping them over?
I have been told by others that they are more powerful and somehow more fuel efficient, although it seems this was their personal opinion.

[stealth]

See what clutch set up it has. That can be a pain in a..e.

[mudmouse]

Best check with the RMS (RTA) before you tip too much money into it...

My experience has been - in '93 I put a 202 in a shorty 2a. It went over the 'pits' as it was back then with no problems, the inspector said it was okay to be owner certified. In '97 I had let the rego lapse more than 3 months, so rego was cancelled. I later attempted to renew it and was told it needed a report. Got the report and got the rego. A few years later the rego lapsed beyond three months, so again it was cancelled - this time I had also changed the engine to a 186, and attempted rego again. This time I had a bit of a 'discussion' :mad: with the nice lady at the RTA because she reckoned because the engine number and capacity was altered, the engineers report was no longer valid and I needed a new one. Pigs ar$e says I. It took about two hours of negotiating between the manager and engineering
/tech section, but I had a win in the end.

I hope today there is more consistency and common sense, but anything is possible with a Government department.

All the best with it.

Matt.

[incisor]

the 173 is better than the 202 in a landy IMHO

put an electric fuel pump on it to stop the fuel vaporization issues and you will have a good truck.

my swb had a 186 in it with a toro overdrive and it went better and was more economical that a 2.25l land rover as uncleho will attest but i didnt know that an electric pump makes the vaporization issues go away or i would have not bothered doing the engine change on the vehicle.

the holden motors downside is the torque range vs the rev range. and don't weigh as much so they are not as effective off road.

a cam that puts the torque down the rev range would be an excellent value for $ improvement.

[mick88]

I have a Series 3 that has a 173 in it!
The registration is expired now, but when I purchased the vehicle it had a few weeks rego so I drove it around for a while. The conversion is a rather rough looking one but obviously it works. It used the Land Rover flywheel which is about 4 kg heavier (15kg) than a Holden flywheel and this made it excellent to drive. The vehicle would just pull away with ease without even touching the accelerator. A Bosch HEI distributor is a big improvement too!

Cheers, Mick.

[Bigbjorn]

Outputs from GM-H workshop manual.

173 high compression 118 hp @ 4400 rpm, 168 lbs/ft @ 2000 rpm

202 135 hp @ 4400 rpm, 194 lbs/ft @ 2000 rpm

My opinion is that either engine will have more power anywhere in the rev. range than a Land Rover engine.

Land Rover outputs from Series III Salesman's Manual, rpm not stated.

2.25 litre petrol 70.5 hp, 16.5 Mkg (can someone provide a conversion factor to lbs/ft for this?)

2.25 litre diesel 62. hp, 14.2 Mkg

2.6 litre six cylinder petrol 86.0 hp, 18.2 Mkg

[incisor]

My opinion is that either engine will have more power anywhere in the rev. range than a Land Rover engine.


soon as you take one for a drive you will see exactly what i mean bigfella ;)

the torque is much more useable and the extra weight of the land rover lump aids traction.

[Bigbjorn]

soon as you take one for a drive you will see exactly what i mean bigfella ;)

the torque is much more useable and the extra weight of the land rover lump aids traction.

Dave, I have driven a few of them and they are far more powerful and flexible than the original. Far, far, better again is a Chrysler 265. This latter is the pick of engine conversions for a Series without going to a large V8 of some kind which usually causes heartache when trying to register it and chews up Series drivelines even quicker than a Holden or Chrysler 6.

[Series3 GT]

I've come very close to putting in a holden six and a valiant six. I've been told to steer clear of the 202 but I'm not sure if it's a good engine or not. I kept the original 2.25 because it's still working and it suits my purpose just fine, moving around the farm and carrying loads. The Holden engines better for the road but the landy engines better for slow moving where you need torque a bit lower. Perfect for farm work and off roading. The 173 should be a great engine.

[mick88]

I've come very close to putting in a holden six and a valiant six. I've been told to steer clear of the 202 but I'm not sure if it's a good engine or not. I kept the original 2.25 because it's still working and it suits my purpose just fine, moving around the farm and carrying loads. The Holden engines better for the road but the landy engines better for slow moving where you need torque a bit lower. Perfect for farm work and off roading. The 173 should be a great engine.

The 186 is a great motor but a 202 will pull better down low as it has a the same bore size as a 186 but a 1/4 inch longer stroke.
Put a heavier flywheel on either and you will have all the torque you need and more.
186 = 245 nm torque
202 = 263 nm torque

Cheers, Mick.

[Series3 GT]

The 186 is a great motor but a 202 will pull better down low as it has a the same bore size as a 186 but a 1/4 inch longer stroke.
Put a heavier flywheel on either and you will have all the torque you need and more.
186 = 245 nm torque
202 = 263 nm torque

Cheers, Mick.
I didn't realise that the 186 and the 202 had that much torque! For a petrol thats not too bad. As you said the longer stroke of the 202 makes the difference and if you add the heavier flywheel it would be brilliant. The 173 has 220Nm for the low compression and 228 for the high compression. That's not far off.

[mudmouse]

I broke two rear axles - not being silly or carrying heavy loads either - with the 202. So I fitted a Salisbury out of an ex-mil S3. Easy fit, just fold and weld on a pair of saddle mounts because the rear springs on the LWB had a wider track than the SWB, the only problem for me was the rear prop shaft / diff pinion was then set at an excessive angle which reduced the life of the uni joint - I had ex-mil spring shackles and had moved the engine rearward (to avoid chopping the front cross member) which didn't help either.... Anyway, that was a bit off topic, but the 202/Rover combination served me well.

I had heard that 202's developed a habit of the piston crown separating during 'normal' use. I had never seen it, and it sounds like a piston material or casting issue.

I think the 173 will be nice.

Matt.

[bee utey]

I had heard that 202's developed a habit of the piston crown separating during 'normal' use. I had never seen it, and it sounds like a piston material or casting issue.

I think the 173 will be nice.

Matt.

OEM Holden pistons in the original 202s were quite prone to breaking up, although the 186 did it too. The 173 is easily bored out to 186 or even 192, and most later/aftermarket pistons should be over the problem of early failure.

[30t of coolness]

I used to have a 202 in a 2a lwb with a marks adaptor kit , It had heaps more power useable power than the origional 2.25 petrol unit . I also had a friend with a 138 red in it & drove both on the road . With the landies low gearing I actually didnt notice much difference in driveabilty on the road at least! My greatest concern would be the adaptor kit as there were a few dodgy ones out there back in the 80s (If its got a Dellow conversion have a good look for cracks & stripped bolt holes as the alloy was very thin in places);)

[4x4x2]

Hi
Im told the best motor is a 149 but they may be hard to get .something to do with the torque vs revs and not all that powerful to cause damage.Def go with electronic ign

[Homestar]

Hi
Im told the best motor is a 149 but they may be hard to get .something to do with the torque vs revs and not all that powerful to cause damage.Def go with electronic ign

Yeah, a bit thin on the ground these days. The 149 was released in the EH & early HD's and manufactured between August 63 through to Feb 65. The 179 was also an option in these, so not many examples made compared to the later red motors. The 173, 179 & 186's were produced in far bigger quantaties.

[mick88]

http://www.crowcams.com.au/media/catalogues/30.2%20Holden%206%20All.pdf

Here are a list of Crow cam for the red six.
As you can see there are cams available to increase torque and power in the low rev range.


Cheers, Mick.

[happykid55]

So iv'e picked it up.
chassis and bodywork are in excellent cond,
Engine wiring, interior, brakes and clutch still need to be finalised.
First question, where is the engine number located?
There is a number printed on top, but I thought it should be printed somewhere on the block? I just cant seem to find it.

[mick88]

On the flat just above the right engine mount!
It may start with 173--------


Cheers, Mick

[mick88]

Crow Cams...a bit over two hundred bucks each!

Cheers, Mick.

[Homestar]

http://www.crowcams.com.au/media/catalogues/30.2%20Holden%206%20All.pdf

Here are a list of Crow cam for the red six.
As you can see there are cams available to increase torque and power in the low rev range.


Cheers, Mick.

I put the Crow towing/torque cam in my last 202 - was a very sweet engine with that in it - or maybe it was just that I got all the lift back that was missing from the lobes of the old one...:D Either way, it made a big difference in the old IIA.