2 litre Versions

[101RRS]

I always thought that there 2 versions of the 2 litre petrol engine. However reading this website Land Rover FAQ - Repair & Maintenance - Series - Data & Specifications (http://www.fourfold.org/LR_FAQ/Series/FAQ.S.Engines.html) it would seem that there are three.

"This engine again uses a bypass filter arrangement, with the 1.6l engine bored out to 2l. Spacing between the 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 cylinders is down to 1/4" which becomes a problem later in engine life. The original 2l engine was only used from Sept. 1952 to 1954 and the introduction of the 86". In 1954 the full flow 2l engine was introduced, modified bearings but still suffered from the 1/4 spacing between cylinders. In 1956 the spacing was corrected with "staggered bores" where the spacing was increased to 3/8".

It would seem the first 2 litre was a bigger 1.6. The second 2 litre brought in the full flow filter but still had the close bores and the third version had the full flow filter and had staggered bores.

I previously put a thread on how to tell the first and third versions apart - so how do you tell the difference (externally) between the two engines with the full flow filter - is it only via engine numbers and what should they be?

Also - I always thought the late petrol 2 litre and the 2 litre diesel were basically the same block etc - however this site indicates this is not so - the petrol is 1997cc (77.8mmx105mm) and the diesel is 2052cc (85.79 x 88.9mm). So are the blocks the same or is the 2 litre diesel block basically the same as the later 2.25l engines.

All so confusing:(.

Garry

[JDNSW]

Can't help with the 2 litre petrol engines - like you I thought there were only two!

The two litre diesel engine however, is basically the same block as the 2.25 petrol and diesel except that the two litre engine had wet cylinder liners. These were normal for diesels of all types at this time and the engine merely followed normal practice. However, the enlarged engine, following normal petrol practice, did not have sleeves. It was soon found that the same block could be used with the diesel, although there were serious doubts entertained initially whether the crankshaft would stand the extra capacity as a diesel - it did for twenty years, with few problems.

John

[series1buff]

Hi Garry
Hmmm .. sounds a bit strange .. that info ..I'm no expert by any means . But there is an excellent article by Ian Cox ( of cox and turner ) on the series 1 garage web site , relating to rebuilding a s1 motor .. he doesn't mention a 'in between engine' anywhere, and he would certainly know about it if there is a such a beast.

There is a lot of mis-information out there on the web . HAs anyone ever heard of a 'in between' motor , that has features from both early and later motors .

Mike

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Garry

Very interesting. The only way to tell will be to take the head off a number of 1955 engines and check for the truth.

That or ask a second generation Land Rover mechanic like Master Chief.

Diana

[101RRS]

Mike I am familar with the Series 1 garage article - it is very good. I have the Practical Classiscs restoration book which also has a engine building section and it only indicates two versions. It indicates the earlier engine numbers for RHD vehicles start with 261, 361 or 471 and the later engines begin with 571 or 170.

I found the link in the initial post by surfing the web - the more I research the more complex things seem to get for what should have be straight forward.

Garry

[master chief]

Hello All,
I think i can shed some light on this,
The 1.6 litre bored to a 2ltr,would be for a batch of 80" built in 1950 as prototype/trial vehicles.from memory about 50 were made.
after findings etc from them the 2ltr as fitted to 52,53. 80",s and 1954 86-107"
was produced.
further development/testing continued to find problems with the life span of the siamese 2ltr.
so the late 2ltr was developed.spreadbores,full flow filter,improved bearings etc.
I dont know of a siamese 2ltr with full flow filter,but some early blocks had the casting for the full flow,so in reality could be converted.with a fair amount of work.
I think rover cars were using full flow filters on the 2ltr a fair bit before the LR,s.In 1954 i think.
I have never seen any of the prototype 2ltr 80",s out here.

Justin.

[Aaron IIA]

The above mentioned website also states that the diesel and petrol differ in the following ways:

"This is the 2.25l petrol engine with different material crankshaft, different pistons, larger con rods etc."

While this is mainly correct, the important thing that is wrong is that the petrol and diesel crankshaft are the same item. They have the same part number in the parts catalogue. This leads me to suspect that not all that is contained on that website is correct.

Aaron.

[JDNSW]

One point that is likely to confuse matters - Landrover have always espoused "progressive improvement". What this means is that they feel free to change any part at any time, and the only way you know is the serial number information in the parts book - and it is not always right.

But to call an engine with a few small changes a different "version" for example is probably carrying it a bit far. However, minor changes have been institutionalised in some cases - a good example is the Series 2a; the first 2a has less differences from the Series 2 than the differences in the Series 2a with the changes in 1967 for example, and probably less than between the first and last Series 2.

For that matter, the changes between the Series 2a and Series 3 were probably less than the changes between the first and last Series 2a. And certainly there were a lot more changes in Series 1 from 1948 to 1958 than between the Series 1 and 2.

John

[master chief]

The above mentioned website also states that the diesel and petrol differ in the following ways:

"This is the 2.25l petrol engine with different material crankshaft, different pistons, larger con rods etc."

While this is mainly correct, the important thing that is wrong is that the petrol and diesel crankshaft are the same item. They have the same part number in the parts catalogue. This leads me to suspect that not all that is contained on that website is correct.

Aaron.

Hello Aaron,
Even though the parts catalogue states that the cranks for the pet and die are the same,they arent,the diesel has a bit more strength built into it.
If you pull a 2.25 petrol and a 2.25 diesel apart the first thing you will notice is one crank has a big P cast on it and the other has a big D cast into it.
Mistakes in the LR parts books and workshop manuals are fairly regular from 1948.on.

Regards
Justin.

[dennisS1]

I have a number of 1955 2L engines and they are all spredbore & full flow filters. 1 is pretty early 55. So the spredbore was definitely used in 1955.
Never seen a siamese 2l with full flow.
Dennis

[101RRS]

So it would seem to be a furfy - so in Aust we can only expect to see siamese non- full flow early engines and the later spread bore full flow engines.

Cheers

Garry

[Aaron IIA]

Hello Aaron,
Even though the parts catalogue states that the cranks for the pet and die are the same,they arent,the diesel has a bit more strength built into it.
If you pull a 2.25 petrol and a 2.25 diesel apart the first thing you will notice is one crank has a big P cast on it and the other has a big D cast into it.
Mistakes in the LR parts books and workshop manuals are fairly regular from 1948.on.

Regards
Justin.

I must have had my eyes closed the entire time that I was re-building my engine, as I did not see any D cast into my crankshaft. I was specifically looking for it.

Aaron.