From the ground up?

[Pedro_The_Swift]

How many engines ( and which ones) have LR (not Jag) designed from scratch,,
and were they a success?

[gavinwibrow]

How many engines ( and which ones) have LR (not Jag) designed from scratch,,
and were they a success?

As a total ignoramus, I'll suggest TD5, (possibly the latest Ingenium? or is that Ford) and the about 2 litre petrol and diesel variants as found in the series might be potentials.

Let the gurus commence!

[PAT303]

Who designed the Tdi's?. Pat

[pop058]

Who designed the Tdi's?. Pat

Didn't they evolve from the Series diesel ????

[fitzy]

I'll put up a few-2.25 petrol/ diesel, which grew into 2.5 lt diesel which I think morfed into the Tdi. I may stand corrected on the last point though.

[V8Ian]

Weren't the Series engines, apart from the 2.25 diesel, designed for Rover cars and utilised in Land Rover?

[JDNSW]

The series 1 and the six cylinder variant that appeared in six cylinder Series 2a and 3 were designed from scratch by Rover, patents dating to 1940. The Series 1/2 2.0 diesel was designed from scratch by Rover, and evolved into the 2.25 petrol and diesel, 2.5 petrol and diesel, and Tdi 200 and Tdi 300, the last two with some outside input from, I think, VM.

The TD5 was designed from scratch as a family of 4-5-6 cylinder engines, but with the BMW takeover the five was the only one to see production.

All of the above were quite successful engines. Also designed in house, but not appearing in Landrovers was the four cylinder engine used in the Rover 2000.

Since then the only engine designed in house has been the current Ingenium range.

Landrover have, most famously used and extensively modified the alloy V8 design bought from Buick, and have bought in engines from BMW and Ford.

If you want to go back to early days, I think I am correct in saying all Rover engines post WW1 up to post war were designed in house.

It is difficult to say any of the in house engines put in Landrovers were not a success, although there were some issue with the first turbocharged 2.5 diesel. All engines have some issues, but it is hard to say any of them were not successful. The most successful would have to be the family of engines that started with the 2.0 diesel in 1955.

[cuppabillytea]

Weren't the Series engines, apart from the 2.25 diesel, designed for Rover cars and utilised in Land Rover?

They certainly look like it Ian. I completely stripped and rebuilt a P6 2000 SC. back in the late 70s. I have no idea how successful they were but I thought it was a beautiful piece of machinery and, as I said looked a lot like a series motor.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

Maybe the only measure of success is the number built,,
but as sales increase is this even true,,


a lot like football players from different era's, hard to compare,,,

[rick130]

[snip]
and Tdi 200 and Tdi 300, the last two with some outside input from, I think, VM.

[snip]

Someone once said to me they thought Ricardo had something to do with the efficient head/chamber design ?

[Pedro_The_Swift]

I'm sorry,, [bighmmm]

Ricardo?

dont hide your info under that bushell




please note how I'm not doing a daniel joke---[bigwhistle]

[JDNSW]

Someone once said to me they thought Ricardo had something to do with the efficient head/chamber design ?

Possibly, although that may be confusion with the 2.0/2.25/2.5 diesel that preceded the Tdi, which definitely used the Ricardo Comet precombustion chamber. I don't think Ricardo had anything to do with the redesign of the engine for direct injection.

[rick130]

I'm sorry,, [bighmmm]

Ricardo?

dont hide your info under that bushell




please note how I'm not doing a daniel joke---[bigwhistle]
Ricardo are one of the big independent engine development and engineering houses, although it looks like their scope goes much further these days.

They were still heavily involved in independent consultation in racing back in the nineties.
Home - Global engineering, environmental and strategic consultancy (https://ricardo.com)

[rick130]

Possibly, although that may be confusion with the 2.0/2.25/2.5 diesel that preceded the Tdi, which definitely used the Ricardo Comet precombustion chamber. I don't think Ricardo had anything to do with the redesign of the engine for direct injection.
I thought the same thing at the time John and have no idea who was involved in refining the Tdi head.

As much as I've poured scorn on the Tdi here over the years (usually when it's let me or a mate down!) It's an incredibly efficient head/piston/chamber design.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

This
Swirl Chamber | Diesel Engine Troubleshooting (http://www.dieselmotors.info/cylinder-heads/swirl-chamber.html)
makes me ask more questions than it answers[bigrolf]

[PAT303]

I thought the same thing at the time John and have no idea who was involved in refining the Tdi head.

As much as I've poured scorn on the Tdi here over the years (usually when it's let me or a mate down!) It's an incredibly efficient head/piston/chamber design.

Mine passed 512,000km's driving home from Karratha last week Rick,can't kill the bastard [bigsmile1]. Pat

[JDNSW]

Perhaps worth pointing out that when the 2.0 diesel was introduced in 1955 it was one of the first small high speed diesels anywhere. Mercedes and Citroen had them earlier, as did Standard, but the Rover engine was arguably superior to all of them, especially considering the long line of developments from them. Interestingly, all of these early small diesels used Ricardo Comet precombustion chambers. As did most of the other successful high speed diesels appearing from about 1939 to 1970.

Harry Ricardo was just about the first engineer to put the internal combustion engine on a solid scientific basis, starting with the engines in WW1 British Tanks. He developed most of the basic ideas about how combustion occurs and how to improve it between the wars, and formed his consultancy in that period.

[Fifth Columnist]

The TD5 was designed from scratch as a family of 4-5-6 cylinder engines, but with the BMW takeover the five was the only one to see production.
Freelander TD4............? [bigwhistle]

[Pedro_The_Swift]

What do you mean by hi speed JD ??

[cuppabillytea]

What do you mean by hi speed JD ??

Engines that go "broom broom" instead of "tapockata tapockata". usually Marine engines, Power stations etc.

Yes I know you were just kidding. [bigsmile]

[Pedro_The_Swift]

[bigrolf]
I do do that,,[bigwhistle]
but

is it the change from a stationary engine to one with some form of accelerator?

so just revs?

[JDNSW]

What do you mean by hi speed JD ??

Engines that turn at around the same rpm as a comparable petrol motor. The 2.0 diesel was able to use exactly the same drive train ratios as the petrol motor. From memory the maximum rpm was 3600, compared to about 4,000 for the petrol motor. A good comparison would be the Turner conversion that was the aftermarket diesel offering before that had a maximum rpm of about 2,000, and seriously compromised performance. (It started life as a boat engine!)

[JDNSW]

Freelander TD4............? [bigwhistle]

No. These engines are unrelated (as I suspect you knew!)

[V8Ian]

Engines that turn at around the same rpm as a comparable petrol motor. The 2.0 diesel was able to use exactly the same drive train ratios as the petrol motor. From memory the maximum rpm was 3600, compared to about 4,000 for the petrol motor. A good comparison would be the Turner conversion that was the aftermarket diesel offering before that had a maximum rpm of about 2,000, and seriously compromised performance. (It started life as a boat engine!)
Some early Pommie diesel engines for truck and bus power were governed to below 1,000rpm.

[donh54]

No. These engines are unrelated (as I suspect you knew!)

The K series was part of the 4-5-6 family. BMW killed it and used their own Td4 instead.

[Rick Fischer]

This thread popped into my email, so thought I'd add a little more.

Diesel RPM is limited by Cetane number. Cetane number is similar to Octane rating. Unfortunately Cetane number cannot be increased but may be lower.

Cetane number is a measure of among other things "flame rate". Unlike petrol one cannot add a flame rate retarder so as to be able to increase the ignition advance. As recall max rpm on a mechanical injected engine is around 35-3700 RPM. With a digital control "hot rail" this engine speed can be increased to around low 4000s.

Having said all that I recall an electrical generator used for aircraft starting @ 115VAC and operation of avionics with AC frequency control of engine speed for electrical output. - a NC2. This had a GE two stroke high speed diesel which I think could rev well past the 3500 limit I mentioned above. (or maybe not??)

Cheers

RF

[JDNSW]

This thread popped into my email, so thought I'd add a little more.

Diesel RPM is limited by Cetane number. Cetane number is similar to Octane rating. Unfortunately Cetane number cannot be increased but may be lower.

Cetane number is a measure of among other things "flame rate". Unlike petrol one cannot add a flame rate retarder so as to be able to increase the ignition advance. As recall max rpm on a mechanical injected engine is around 35-3700 RPM. With a digital control "hot rail" this engine speed can be increased to around low 4000s.

Having said all that I recall an electrical generator used for aircraft starting @ 115VAC and operation of avionics with AC frequency control of engine speed for electrical output. - a NC2. This had a GE two stroke high speed diesel which I think could rev well past the 3500 limit I mentioned above. (or maybe not??)

Cheers

RF

I think your memory may be a little shaky - maximum power for the Rover 2.25 is at 4,000 - which I believe is also the maximum governed rpm. The 2.0 six years earlier, was only able to run at 3,500 maximum rpm in 1965. It is unclear just what allowed the extra rpm, but it was probably refinement to the shape of the precombustion chamber and closer machining tolerance on the crankshaft to manage the higher loads. And these engines were definitely mechanically injected!

[Wraithe]

This thread popped into my email, so thought I'd add a little more.

Diesel RPM is limited by Cetane number. Cetane number is similar to Octane rating. Unfortunately Cetane number cannot be increased but may be lower.

Cetane number is a measure of among other things "flame rate". Unlike petrol one cannot add a flame rate retarder so as to be able to increase the ignition advance. As recall max rpm on a mechanical injected engine is around 35-3700 RPM. With a digital control "hot rail" this engine speed can be increased to around low 4000s.

Having said all that I recall an electrical generator used for aircraft starting @ 115VAC and operation of avionics with AC frequency control of engine speed for electrical output. - a NC2. This had a GE two stroke high speed diesel which I think could rev well past the 3500 limit I mentioned above. (or maybe not??)

Cheers

RF

2 stroke diesels are in a class of there own...

8V71 is probably the best all rounder that GM made, and in a truck non turbo it produced around 318 hp max with turbo to 350.... But what a lot dont know is it can rev to 5,000 rpm...standard truck is 2,300 and 3,500 is not a problem for long hours, but to maintain 5,000 it is only for minutes... It was an engine recommended for landing craft, thus 5 minutes high revs but continuous at lower revs....

Reading JDNSW's post, I knew about the early Rover engines being in house built(Grew up with them), but I didnt realise the V8 is another buick... There has been a lot of claims that engines originated from Buick and other without any proof... As for the early Rover engines, I dont think many manufacturers pre 1950, shared engines, most made there own, so Rover did well building there long stroke little engines, but that was a standard for low revs, high torque engines, in the day....

One thing people forget, if you want speed on road, you have to give up something....

[Pedro_The_Swift]

One thing people forget, if you want speed on road, you have to give up something....

usually money,, [bigrolf]

[Wraithe]

usually money,, [bigrolf]

Yes... [biggrin] True...

But I was referring to construction and design of the engine... Cheeky bugger....

[JDNSW]

....., but I didnt realise the V8 is another buick... There has been a lot of claims that engines originated from Buick and other without any proof... As for the early Rover engines, I dont think many manufacturers pre 1950, shared engines, most made there own, so Rover did well building there long stroke little engines, but that was a standard for low revs, high torque engines, in the day....

One thing people forget, if you want speed on road, you have to give up something....

According to Graham Robson in "The Landrover, workhorse of the world", quoting the MD of Rover, who visited Mercury Marine in the USA to try and persuade them to buy Rover gas turbines as marine engines. That didn't work, but he did sell them some 2.25 diesels for marine conversion. It was while looking at the conversions of these that he spotted a Buick V8, also awaiting conversion, that took his fancy. On finding GM had just ceased production, he started negotiations with GM that ended in buying the design and tooling, plus taking several workers who had been involved in production.

In the first fifty years or more of car manufacturing, most companies designed and built their own engines, although there was a substantial market for engines supplied by specialist engine manufacturers. Some examples - Continental in the USA supplied engines for a lot of US manufacturers plus Morris in the UK (not to mention even some Australian manufacturers in the twenties. In the UK, White & Poppe and Hotchkiss also supplied engines to Morris - the former being taken over by Dennis in 1919 or 20, and Hotchkiss being absorbed by Morris in 1925. A few still exist, e.g. Coventry Climax, and diesels have been much more commonly bought in, although usually for trucks rather than cars (e.g. Detroit, Cummins, Perkins).

By the 1930s though, most surviving manufacturers were building their own engines, this being a major point of differentiation, although there were a few small manufacturers who bought engines from a competitor, usually for a very different type - e.g. Morgan, Allard. But once legal restrictions started to be imposed on emissions and later fuel economy, the cost of developing an engine to meet these rules (and tooling up for it) became so high that only the largest companies could afford it, and this also made them more willing to share. So shared engines became much more common.

The typical long stroke engines from the UK were designed that way mainly because the tax regime was based on "Rated Horsepower", which had little to do with actual power, but was calculated using a formula that did not include stroke, but only bore and number of cylinders. So the obvious thing to do was to build engines using a long stroke to reduce tax. While these engines did, as a result, tend to be flexible and with a good torque curve, this was not a design criterion.

[Wraithe]

JDNSW,

Always wondered why the Gardiner's where rated so low on HP, but they had great torque... I had a friend years ago that put a turbo on a straight eight, in an Atkinson... It was rated at 250hp, but could pull 3 trailers with a lot less fuel and power needed than the Cummins 855's...

Amazing some of the British engines, and the same applies to all the old engines from the grand old days of mechanical only...

Electronics does get the better out of todays engines but I find people know less about what they are working with because of the fear about electronics...

Continental engines have been around since the start of last century, I know they did aircraft engines, but the engines also went into boats, some held speed records too...

International built engines before them, back in late 1800's... I know of one but dont think its still where I last saw it out in the Tanami... But international has evolved since then, ie trucks, tractors etc etc...

The truck industry has been known as a component industry, so the few that produced there own engines have dropped considerably... Just look at Mack... Cummins built engines from the word go, Gardiners where built for marine and truck, Cat was building crawlers first then released there engines for trucks... This list just goes on...

I think what really reduced the recent number of manufacturers is the buy up of so much of the auto manufactoring industry, by Detroit... I notice they still dont put there name on a company they purchase and quite often use a different company to purchase through, thus hiding the origins of the ownership from the public...

[cuppabillytea]

That torque made Gardiner's a great Marine engines too. The tractive effort delivered with so little fuss means they are easier to live with day in and day out for weeks.
Interestingly they were much favoured by Trevor Haworth to power Captain Cook Cruises.