Engine size

[Big Unit]

When and why did they drop the engine size of the Puma engine

[Drover]

Early 2012 ish

To meet Euro IV or was it V one or the other.

[slug_burner]

The current emission standard is Euro V.

There is also a requirement for manufacturers to get an average emission level across the whole fleet. If you make a few Range Rover V8s then you have to make a few smaller engines to keep your average down.

[Big Unit]

so the defender has been dropped down to a 2.2 litre engine

[Blknight.aus]

AFAIK, It wasnt for emission it was to do with a tax break in engine sizes....
(same reason the Tdi is a wierdo engine size like 2.499999999999L)
the puma runs the same engine as the transit when the engine wasnt available for the transit it was no longer available for the Ford.

[newhue]

naaa, CEO bonuses have been offered to kill of the Defender in a socially acceptable way. Isn't there a 1.5 scheduled if the dam 2.2 keeps selling. :p

[Blknight.aus]

I cant proove it (no-ones stupid enough to let me have access to that much prototyping capabilty.

With todays metalurgy and technology I reckon that you could make all the power you need for a deefer from about 1.8L

What I'd like to have a go at is doing diesel electric, you can run a much smaller engine in that configuration.

[superquag]

Go for steam... using a Doble style flash boiler and closed cycle... would almost be viable. Certainly quieter ! :p:p:p

If they can build a STEAM -powered plane, a LR should'nt be too hard.:eek:

[Blknight.aus]

steam? are you serious? you know steam is just water under lots of pressure right?

60+ years in the business and they cant keep water under control at atmospheric pressure and you expect them to do it at 100+psi?

[goingbush]

But look at the Plus side, at least you would not have to fit a heat exchanger for an onboard hot water bush shower setup, and the billy would always be on the boil if you wanted a cup of tea.

[Babs]

How about Plutonium? You would not have to worry about long range tanks :)

[JDNSW]

I cant proove it (no-ones stupid enough to let me have access to that much prototyping capabilty.

With todays metalurgy and technology I reckon that you could make all the power you need for a deefer from about 1.8L

What I'd like to have a go at is doing diesel electric, you can run a much smaller engine in that configuration.

Once you accept that you are going to have a turbocharger, power (and torque) from a given displacement can be increased almost indefinitely, limited by the structural strength you can build into the engine and the size of turbocharger and intercooler you can accommodate (and afford). This is apparent from the upgrades available by rechipping, bigger intercooler etc.

It would be interesting to know though if there is in fact any advantage (other than fitting in under a capacity limit) whatever in the smaller capacity, in what is essentially the same engine. For example, a smaller capacity engine should be lighter - but if it is smaller bore, it may not be - depending whether the casting of the block is the same. (If shorter stroke, presumably the crankshaft is a bit lighter). But I suspect the engine mass is virtually identical.

John

[Blknight.aus]

I was thinking a 2 stroke wet sleeve honeycomb ally block long throw crank with the blower set up for supercharging.

[slug_burner]

Is there no limit?

I guess the more air and fuel you can get in to the engine the more waste heat available to spin the turbo(s).

I think that the turbo path does have advantages in weight and volume as I just can't see a 5lt normally aspirate diesel coming in smaller and lighter that a 300 tdi plus turbo!