Is Bigger Really Better?

[vnx205]

I've heard the argument that there is no substitute for cubic inches and I have read an enormous number of posts on this forum by people who are convinced that Land Rovers need bigger engines. However I remain unconvinced.

Surely a bigger, more powerful engine will probably be heavier and if the same level of reliability is to be maintained won't most of the transmission components need to be stronger and therefore heavier? That means the suspension will need to be stronger and heavier and the chassis will need to be stronger and heavier. Before you know it, your Land Rover has turned into a Hummer.

I always though that part of the reason my Series III was so capable offroad was that it weighed only a bit over 1600kg and was lighter than a Hilux 10 years ago.

I know people have fitted bigger engines to Land Rovers, but I often wonder whether they are the same people who get a lot of practice at replacing broken axles, diffs and other transmission components.

I know that Land Rovers were once fitted with a fairly big and heavy Izuzu engine, but if my memory serves me correctly, the one I saw at the Murrumbateman Field Day when they first appeared had a plaque on the firewall warning not to use full throttle in 1st Low. Surely that is tantamount to saying that the transmission components were not strong enough for the torque produced by that engine. I'm not sure I want an engine that can break the rest of my vehicle.

As far as I'm concerned the 2.25 petrol engine was the right engine for my Series III and the 300Tdi is the right engine for my Defender.

I have this mental picture of an overweight Land Rover dragging a heavy engine and all the other heavy components around being a bit like the way Elvis finished up and that wasn't pretty.

Then again my thinking may be coloured by the impressive performance of my Haflinger which had a 643cc engine, weighed about 650kg and had the same payload as a SWB Land Rover.

[87County]

Is Bigger Really Better?

I am reliably informed here that it is ......;)

[rick130]

I've heard the argument that there is no substitute for cubic inches and I have read an enormous number of posts on this forum by people who are convinced that Land Rovers need bigger engines. However I remain unconvinced.

Surely a bigger, more powerful engine will probably be heavier and if the same level of reliability is to be maintained won't most of the transmission components need to be stronger and therefore heavier? That means the suspension will need to be stronger and heavier and the chassis will need to be stronger and heavier. Before you know it, your Land Rover has turned into a Hummer.

I always though that part of the reason my Series III was so capable offroad was that it weighed only a bit over 1600kg and was lighter than a Hilux 10 years ago.

<snip>.

And my old 1974 Jeep CJ6 had a 232 cu in straight six and the entire driveline was much heavier duty than a Series Rover.
It also tared out at 1375kg and weighed in over the weighbridge, including all fluids, steel hardtop and bullbar at just on 1600kg.

[Slunnie]

I see how you are approaching this, but it isn't necessarily the case.

There is little weight difference between the 4.6 and the 3.5, likewise it would be interesting to know the difference in weight between the V8 and the Series 2.25. I doubt much. The chassis is strong, like strong and will deal with a hell of a lot more power than what people put through them. The gearboxs also have reserve, the typical ZF 4HP22 takes up to abut 380Nm and the ZF4HP24 up to about 480Nm, but the old Torqueflite's apprently are good for high powered drag cars that are running ***well*** beyond that of any LandRover motor. The Salisbury diff is completely oversized and under half shafted but is more than strong enough, even the Rover axles can have a lot of power put through them as seen with the Bowlers etc, they just don't like to be shocked, especially if standard.

Especially with improved technology and materials and also aftermarket supplier, I don't belive that a lean mean powerful machine is a misleading notion.

[Panda]

I may be wrong about this but ... I think the V8 is actually lighter than a 2.25, (at around 375lb) because the V8 is aluminium, whereas the 2.25 (at around 450lb) is cast iron. Has anyone got any idea if this is right?


I see how you are approaching this, but it isn't necessarily the case.

There is little weight difference between the 4.6 and the 3.5, likewise it would be interesting to know the difference in weight between the V8 and the Series 2.25. I doubt much. The chassis is strong, like strong and will deal with a hell of a lot more power than what people put through them. The gearboxs also have reserve, the typical ZF 4HP22 takes up to abut 380Nm and the ZF4HP24 up to about 480Nm, but the old Torqueflite's apprently are good for high powered drag cars that are running ***well*** beyond that of any LandRover motor. The Salisbury diff is completely oversized and under half shafted but is more than strong enough, even the Rover axles can have a lot of power put through them as seen with the Bowlers etc, they just don't like to be shocked, especially if standard.

Especially with improved technology and materials and also aftermarket supplier, I don't belive that a lean mean powerful machine is a misleading notion.

[GuyG]

The only experience I've had is with 3.5 rovers and P76 engines, my 77 2 door went much better with the P76 in all conditions except for steep inclines due to the holley fitted. Towing was great because it had lots of torque, as was soft sand driving because it had plenty of torque to keep the wheels turning, although sometimes this just meant you dug in deeper:twisted:, whereas the 3.5 would just run out of puff. The above were matched to the LT95, however with my fathers P76 powered rangie with the torqueflight just doesn't have the same output as the auto sucks too much from the engine.

1st low with the early LT95's with a P76 is next to useless on road

My current rebuild 3.9 goes very nicely although I haven't been through soft sand to be able to compare but would imagine it would be similar as it has a higher than standard compression and torque cam fitted - I asked one of our regular mechanics how it compared to other 3.9's - he thought it was a 4.6:twisted:

At the end of the day it probably comes down to how healthy your engine is and in terms of breaking drive line I think driving styles has a lot to do with it as well as correct maintenance.

[Slunnie]

I may be wrong about this but ... I think the V8 is actually lighter than a 2.25, (at around 375lb) because the V8 is aluminium, whereas the 2.25 (at around 450lb) is cast iron. Has anyone got any idea if this is right?
Ahhh, god bless Terriann
Power specs for engines commonly used in Series Land Rover engine conversion (http://www.expeditionlandrover.info/enginePwrSpecs.htm)


LR 2.25 4cyl - 450lbs
LR 2.6 6cyl - approx 600lbs
LR 3.5 V8 - 318lbs (wiki has this at 375lb)
LR Isuzu 3.9 - 711lbs

full cast iron Chev 350 - 575lbs, the more alloy then the lighter it got
LS1 - 450lbs

[Panda]

:D:D Bloody hell, didn't realise there was such a difference between the 2.25 & the 2.6! And to think the SIII does so well hauling all that weight. :cool:



Ahhh, god bless Terriann
Power specs for engines commonly used in Series Land Rover engine conversion (http://www.expeditionlandrover.info/enginePwrSpecs.htm)


LR 2.25 4cyl - 450lbs
LR 2.6 6cyl - approx 600lbs
LR 3.5 V8 - 318lbs (wiki has this at 375lb)
LR Isuzu 3.9 - 711lbs

full cast iron Chev 350 - 575lbs, the more alloy then the lighter it got

[Slunnie]

:D:D Bloody hell, didn't realise there was such a difference between the 2.25 & the 2.6! And to think the SIII does so well hauling all that weight. :cool:
What is surprising is the weight difference between the 6 and the full iron Chev.

[djam1]

I know that Land Rovers were once fitted with a fairly big and heavy Izuzu engine, but if my memory serves me correctly, the one I saw at the Murrumbateman Field Day when they first appeared had a plaque on the firewall warning not to use full throttle in 1st Low.

The Rover V8 from 1970 ish also stated that the application of full throttle in the bottom two gears of the box were not desirable.
Hands up how many people have broken them while dishonoring this command

I agree with your line of questioning why could a Series 3 with at 2.25 outperform either a Nissan or a Toyota with a 4 litre engine??
Could be something to do with a better suspension design for the era in question

[camel_landy]

IMO - The extra power is only useful when used on-road. From there, it's then going to be down to what you want from your vehicle.

If you want a sports tourer... Go the big CCs. Change the handling, fit bigger disks, larger rims, etc... (effectively what Overfinch do) but don't expect it to perform off-road.

If you want an off-roader... Yep, you can fit the bigger engine but if you keep the rest of the car standard, you could land yourself in danger quickly if you unleash all of the power when on the black stuff. (speed, stopping, cornering, tyre ratings, etc...)

This is all assuming that you have the skills to handle the power in the first place. TBH - Most road users out there are dangerous with a small 4pot engine, even before being let loose with a big V8. In fact, I'd be surprised of there's more than just a handful on AULRO that would truly know what they're doing... (even I'm still learning)

So... What am I saying here???

Well, the manufacturers have to strike a balance, take LR as an example.

If you want an off-roader, buy Defender.
If you want a Sports Tourer, buy a Range Rover Sport.

IMO - The Puma lump is all the power I'd want in the Defender. As for the Range Rover Sport... @£$k me, I'm glad I've got DSC working when out in the Supercharger!!! (Turn off DSC and you quickly see how dangerous that power is!!!)

M

[camel_landy]

Oh yeah... As for Power vs Weight, you an see why people like fitting the big motorbike engines to track cars, especially the 'Busa lump. :eek:

M

[Bigbjorn]

I keep telling people on here that US industry developed lightweight thin wall iron casting techniques in the 1950's-1960's that made aluminium engines uneconomical. Chev., Chrysler, and Ford small block engines are all lighter than most Europom engines of half their capacity and the Europoms contained many aluminium components. The Jaguar six cylinder and the Rover six cylinder are perfect examples of the high, bulky, heavy engines that I call the Early English Vertical School of Engine Design. Compare a Rover 6 to an Australian Chrysler Hemi 6. The Chrysler is 4.3 litres, physically smaller, and much lighter than the 2.6 or 3 litre Rover and can whack out an easy 300 tractable horsepower when put together by any competent fitter.

[Slunnie]

I agree with your line of questioning why could a Series 3 with at 2.25 outperform either a Nissan or a Toyota with a 4 litre engine??
Could be something to do with a better suspension design for the era in question
Thats interesting. I would agree that the Rover rear leaf suspension is better, but I think the Toyota front is better. I've been doing a lot of comparisons lately.

[JDNSW]

Thats interesting. I would agree that the Rover rear leaf suspension is better, but I think the Toyota front is better. I've been doing a lot of comparisons lately.

My experience comparing Series Landrovers and Landcruisers and Patrols is from the mid to late sixties. At that time the superior performance of the Landrover offroad was, in my view, mainly better gearing - four as against three gears, and a bigger difference between high and low, plus the gearing was better matched to the engine torque curve, particularly with the diesel (and no Jap four wheel drive had a diesel available in Australia at that time).

Other factors were the Landrover's lighter weight (and lower centre of gravity), better carburetters for off road, and, as mentioned, better rear suspension. Not too sure about the front suspension, but the Landrover steering was far better than the Toyota at least.

John

[vnx205]

My experience comparing Series Landrovers and Landcruisers and Patrols is from the mid to late sixties. At that time the superior performance of the Landrover offroad was, in my view, mainly better gearing - four as against three gears, and a bigger difference between high and low, plus the gearing was better matched to the engine torque curve, particularly with the diesel (and no Jap four wheel drive had a diesel available in Australia at that time).

Other factors were the Landrover's lighter weight (and lower centre of gravity), better carburetters for off road, and, as mentioned, better rear suspension. Not too sure about the front suspension, but the Landrover steering was far better than the Toyota at least.

John
My experience of driving both Series Land Rovers and Landcruisers dates from the same time.
On dirt roads the Landcruiser steering and suspension both seemed sloppy and vague.
Ofroad the Land Rover certainly had more convenient gearing.
The carburetor on the early Landcruiser was quite unsuitable. Climbing up out of a dry creek that presented no problem at all to the Land Rover caused all sorts of surging and hesitating in the Landcruiser.

[Panda]

Can't say I really have much experience with other four wheel drives. But am happy with the Series III the way it is. Never seen a need to change it :)

[Slunnie]

Thats an interesting point and not to speak volumes about either of them, LandRover did use whats a very solid bush in the springs and shackles which I would guess reduces the lateral movement in the springs when turning forces are put into the steering, where the Toys were rubber which would probably introduce that vagueness and probably wandering.

[B92 8NW]

It really depends what you intend on using the vehicle for. The only times I believe that my 300Tdi auto lacks power is when towing and overtaking. I've overcome the problem by flogging someone else's V6 car for heavy towing. The trade off is 20L/100km as opposed to 10, but it'll do 110 up every hill.

I find it interesting though, in fact borderline delusion, when people compare Land Cruisers as gutless against Tdi's. I think they're comparing the 4.2 NA diesel with the Tdi in which case it is true. But not in the case of the 4.2 TD. If I was towing on a regular basis and increased fuel consumption wasn't an issue, I'd be reaching for a 1HD-T 80 series over a Tdi. So in that regard, bigger certainly was better.

[F4Phantom]

interesting discussion. I had a nissan 2.5D (SD25) non turbo diesel which was gutless at 57kw. But it was efficient, strong but one time I went up a steep hill and stalled it in low 1st & at speed it was hopeless. I also had a mitsu 2.5D (4D56) with 70kw but with intercooler and turbo. This never ran out of puff in low gears and was brilliant in steep hill climbs but at speed on long climbs and towing it was hard to live with.

I now have the RRC with a nissan 3.5L (FD35T) 100kw TDI and I use less fuel than the lighter and smaller capacity mitsu, its about on par with the nissan 2.5.

On monday I did a very steep climb in low 2 and it had so much power I went to low 3, on the way home I went in an overtaking lane up a long steep incline and passed heaps of cars in 4th. It was nice to have a good 4x4 off road with the right power but also have enough top end to do high speed work with. So in my case I dont feel like I need a 4, 5 or 6L as the 3.5 seems to give most of the power I want but still only uses 9.8L per 100. Up to 11.5 when towing.

The only drawback is its a very rattly 4 cylinder engine which makes the nissan 4.2L 6 diesel seem smooth. But being a man I can handle that.

[JDNSW]

Thats an interesting point and not to speak volumes about either of them, LandRover did use whats a very solid bush in the springs and shackles which I would guess reduces the lateral movement in the springs when turning forces are put into the steering, where the Toys were rubber which would probably introduce that vagueness and probably wandering.

Nothing to do with the spring bushes - the Landcruiser steering linkage design was appalling - the drag link from the relay connected to the tie rod, not the steering arm, so that the first bit of movement only rotated the tie rod - which not only introduced free play, but ensured rapid wear of three tie rod ends. In addition, the steering relay had the vertical separation of the two bearings about one inch (compare Landrover's six inches), with the vertical separation of the pullpoints on the two arms about four inches. This meant that any play on the bearings was amplified by about four to one, and as the bearings were heavily loaded by steering forces, and very small compared to the Landrover ones, wear was rapid. In my experience the relay arms rocked noticeably even after the first couple of thousand miles.

John

[rick130]

IMO the Jeep CJ suspension from prior to 1975 was the best off road of all the commonly available leaf suspensions.
Fantastic articulation from funny little short springs, even with the heavy duty suspension pack option that all the Australian imported ones sported.

The secret was a narrow, parallel railed chassis with underslung springs. This narrow spring base allowed excellent articulation, particularly with the 3" backspace Sunraysias that were an option in Australia. Spring rates (and wheel rates) were identical front and rear so the chassis stayed more or less flat as the axles went about their job.
The downside was that it really felt like you were going to roll much earlier than a TLC 40 Series or Series Land Rover as the body just went floppsy on sideslopes and used to scare the bejeezus out of me. They also body rolled on road much more than a Range Rover from the same period :eek:
Gearing with the stock 3 speed box was poor, even with the 4.27:1 Dana diffs. (44 in the rear, 30 in front) and the Dana 20 t/case only had a 2.03:1 low range.
The Warner T18A 4 speed was available as an option in NA and it used a 4.42:1 first gear, but they were never imported into Australia with this 'box.

I talked to Bill Larman once about this and he said that he had to double diff lock his Series Rovers and use very aggressive tyres for the day to keep up with mates with stock CJ5's and CJ6's off road.

[Bush65]

It really depends what you intend on using the vehicle for. The only times I believe that my 300Tdi auto lacks power is when towing and overtaking. ...
I would add headwinds to your list. Pretty frustrating when traveling into head winds all day, flogging engine at high rpm's and egt's, can't use top gear, can't reach the speed limit and pulling over to let semi's past.

So 300Tdi had to go - Isuzu 4BD1-T is better (bigger) for what I want.

I wouldn't mind a Land Rover V6 or V8 diesel in the engine bay, but not easy to find and electronics are beyond my capabilities.

[mark2]

Series rovers have a much shorter front leaf than the Japanese equivalent.
While this limits potential travel, it makes for a much better approach angle - look at how much chassis sticks out in front of a 40 series TLC for example. I'd like to think that this was a deliberate design decision by Landrover.

I'm of the general view that bigger is better, to a point - Hummers are going too far.....
Part of the reason (and there are many) that Landrover lost the mainstream 4WD market in Australia to the Japanese and relegated Landrovers to an enthusiasts vehicle was the fact that buyers didnt/dont want weak axles and diffs (Nissan/Toyota diffs arent that much heaver than Rover diffs). Buyers also wanted an engine with decent power and torque output. The Toyota 2F/2H engines for example were a lot more appealing to the mainstream market than what LR had to offer.
The use of small drivelines by Landrover in a large 4WD is more to do with convenience of component availablity and British cultural/taxation quirks rather than sound design/marketing decisions. I find it easier to accept this, rather than to try and justify it.

[rovercare]

Don't let having a widdle motor, dent your pride, its how you use it that counts:p

[Slunnie]

Nothing to do with the spring bushes - the Landcruiser steering linkage design was appalling - the drag link from the relay connected to the tie rod, not the steering arm, so that the first bit of movement only rotated the tie rod - which not only introduced free play, but ensured rapid wear of three tie rod ends. In addition, the steering relay had the vertical separation of the two bearings about one inch (compare Landrover's six inches), with the vertical separation of the pullpoints on the two arms about four inches. This meant that any play on the bearings was amplified by about four to one, and as the bearings were heavily loaded by steering forces, and very small compared to the Landrover ones, wear was rapid. In my experience the relay arms rocked noticeably even after the first couple of thousand miles.

John
I would say that contributed then, rather than nothing to do with. ;)

I've just checked out my Series ute which has LC60 axles in it with LC60 PAS - I'm not sure how that compared to LC40 steering linkages but it sounds the same where it connects into the axle. The balljoint at the PAS box is aligned so that the draglink radiates out directy from the balljoint rather than being offset - so rotation is irrelevant. Down at the axle, the draglink connects directly into the tierods ball joint (which is silly as slop develops) but it is offset so that the centreline of the draglink is still aligned with the tierods balljoint. The links will all rotate, but it doesn't affect the relationship between the steering knuckle and the drag link.

Pics to follow

[Slunnie]

Pics to follow
This is LC60 steering transplanted

Steering box end with boll joint in the centre of the linkage.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/01/1604.jpg

Drag and Tie connect - note that they are close to parrallel and the draglinks ball joint is aligned with the tie rods balljoint by using an offset mount on the tierod.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/01/1609.jpg

Unobscured
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/01/1610.jpg

When the steering linkages rotate on the tierod balljoints it makes no difference to the steering, and the linkage setup shouldn't induce rotation.

[rovercare]

40 series had a steering box, then a relay box, crap set up;)

[mark2]

40 series had a steering box, then a relay box, crap set up;)


Just as well Landrover never used a relay box....:cool:

[Slunnie]

Just as well Landrover never used a relay box....:cool:
:lol2: Based on Johns info, at least they did it better. A crazy number of joints in that setup.

[rovercare]

Just as well Landrover never used a relay box....:cool:

Did they in the series rovers? I got no idea, I got over leaf springs many years ago, in 40 series Tojo days

[Slunnie]

Did they in the series rovers? I got no idea, I got over leaf springs many years ago, in 40 series Tojo days
The steering wheel went into a steering box on the firewall that pushed a linkage ove the chassis rail forwards or backwards. This went to a relay at the front that then operated a drag link down to the axle.

[rovercare]

The steering wheel went into a steering box on the firewall that pushed a linkage ove the chassis rail forwards or backwards. This went to a relay at the front that then operated a drag link down to the axle.

*shudders* ickypoos:o

[vnx205]

My impression from comments by others with greater experience and knowledge than me is that to build a competent 4WD vehicle you have to get the balance right and you have to accept that there will always be compromises.

Ric130's comments about the benefits and drawbacks of his Jeep show that there are always trade-offs. Try to improve one thing like articulation and something else suffers like stability.

While it is true that there is good design and bad design and there are some materials that are more suited than others often there has to be a balance between strength and weight or between performance and longevity.

And of course a change that makes a vehicle better in one application makes it less suitable for another. One example that springs to mind is the auto gearbox. General consensus seems to be that they are great for going uphill but either a pain or downright dangerous going downhill.

While someone suggested that Land Rover components have enough reserve capacity to handle more power, I still expect that many components will wear out faster if worked harder. After all the chassis seems to work pretty well on a 110, but when it has to cope with the extra stresses sometimes imposed by a 130, it can crack.

We all have our personal preferences. I prefer an offroad vehicle to be nimble. I want it to progress with finesse not brute force. After driving a few Series IIA SWB and LWB, I had a short drive of my brother's Series I on an easy track. I loved it. It felt even more like an extension of my arms and legs than the Series IIs.

I think Land Rover has the balance about right for what I did with my Series III and what I want to do with my Defender.

[rick130]

Can take some piccies of a friends HJ47 steering setup this arvo if anyone is interested, and the old S1 over in the neighbours paddock to compare.

[350RRC]

Hi vnx,

I have a RRC with a 350 in it. Bought after taking about 10 RRC's with 3.5's for test drives.

You don't notice the extra weight if the springs and shocks are right. People who talk of upsetting the 'balance' can't have driven one.

The effortless power is only one of the pluses. Parts are dirt cheap, aftermarket stuff is everywhere. There is none of the nonsense of oil pumps losing their prime or slipped liners.

Mine has always been on gas and currently costs right on 10c / km to run. It has a C9 auto and does crawl downhill in low range.

I don't see any of these attributes as a compromise. It's all good and I would buy another the same tomorrow.

cheers, DL

[Panda]

Hi DL,

Just wondering, how does it go offroad. What sort of things do you notice?




Hi vnx,

I have a RRC with a 350 in it. Bought after taking about 10 RRC's with 3.5's for test drives.

You don't notice the extra weight if the springs and shocks are right. People who talk of upsetting the 'balance' can't have driven one.

The effortless power is only one of the pluses. Parts are dirt cheap, aftermarket stuff is everywhere. There is none of the nonsense of oil pumps losing their prime or slipped liners.

Mine has always been on gas and currently costs right on 10c / km to run. It has a C9 auto and does crawl downhill in low range.

I don't see any of these attributes as a compromise. It's all good and I would buy another the same tomorrow.

cheers, DL

[Slunnie]

You don't notice the extra weight if the springs and shocks are right. People who talk of upsetting the 'balance' can't have driven one.
Even the LS1 weighs the same as a Rover 2.25 4 cylinder.

[PAT303]

If you look at slunnies photo's in the first one the joint on the bottom of the drop arm is the main one that gives trouble.It is a cup that collects water,grit and rust's,flogs out and it can fail,I know of one death from it.We had very clear instructions to check them every service,inspection as any movement would cause wobbles in the steering.The biggest problem with LC's is the front springs are back to front so as they compress the spring moves forward pushing the wheel harder into the bump.As far as engines go I think everyone should get there engines tuned properly as many have said they have no power but mine seem to go fine and like the balance between power and economy. Pat

[Slunnie]

Pat, is that the one that goes onto the steering box?

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/01/1604.jpg

[350RRC]

Hi Panda,

Not sure what info you're after. Powerwise everything is pretty effortless. The motor is the truck version and must have had the heads done for gas when fitted. It could be done up to put out a lot more ponies, but I don't have the need. Probably done about 400,000 kms.

I don't go rockcrawling or use it as a submarine, just 4wd tracks and off road. Very rarely use low range, and even then its generally only while going downhill. Don't need a 4 speed automatic box with a torquey motor. The C9 was in a RRC I bought for the body. Had it completely rebuilt and bulletproofed which cost the huge sum of $850.

Used to have a LT 95, but I would never go back to that. In low range the C9 hunts around too much in D, so I just leave it in 1 or 2. It has 31 x 10.5 tyres and I have never had to let the tyres down yet, even in the Little Desert.

It is also my daily driver.

cheers, DL

[rovercare]

Hey DL, you've been around long enough, I think its about time for pics:D

[mark2]

*shudders* ickypoos:o


At least Toyota were nice enough to put the relay on the outside of the chassis where it didnt require a tactical nuclear warhead to remove..........

[Panda]

Hi DL,

Wondered how you found the performance generally, any differences in perforamance, and what sort of four wheel driving you used it for. :)

By the sounds of it, you've got it just about as you need it, without having to spend heaps of dough! :D



Hi Panda,

Not sure what info you're after. Powerwise everything is pretty effortless. The motor is the truck version and must have had the heads done for gas when fitted. It could be done up to put out a lot more ponies, but I don't have the need. Probably done about 400,000 kms.

I don't go rockcrawling or use it as a submarine, just 4wd tracks and off road. Very rarely use low range, and even then its generally only while going downhill. Don't need a 4 speed automatic box with a torquey motor. The C9 was in a RRC I bought for the body. Had it completely rebuilt and bulletproofed which cost the huge sum of $850.

Used to have a LT 95, but I would never go back to that. In low range the C9 hunts around too much in D, so I just leave it in 1 or 2. It has 31 x 10.5 tyres and I have never had to let the tyres down yet, even in the Little Desert.

It is also my daily driver.

cheers, DL

[vnx205]

Hi vnx,

I have a RRC with a 350 in it. Bought after taking about 10 RRC's with 3.5's for test drives.

You don't notice the extra weight if the springs and shocks are right. People who talk of upsetting the 'balance' can't have driven one.

............. ............................ ...............

cheers, DL
I'm sure you're right, but that's not quite what I meant by balance.

I meant it in the very general sense of the balance between power and economy, simplicity and complexity, comfort and ruggedness, performance and longevity, size and space, articulation and stability, weight and nimbleness as well as all the other compromises a manufacturer has to make.

Weight is one of the factors that manufacturers have to consider, but I was talking in a much more general sense.

[F4Phantom]

I'm sure you're right, but that's not quite what I meant by balance.

I meant it in the very general sense of the balance between power and economy, simplicity and complexity, comfort and ruggedness, performance and longevity, size and space, articulation and stability, weight and nimbleness as well as all the other compromises a manufacturer has to make.

Weight is one of the factors that manufacturers have to consider, but I was talking in a much more general sense.

I dont think LR ever really thought about balance. BMW care about balance and the application of their engines, in fact they differentiate and sell their cars mainly on engines. LR on the other hand had a good car but needed propulsion and used the quickest and cheapest way to get this. In the end most of LR's engines are substandard but they did come up with the odd class leaders when they tried. The 3.5L v8 was shoved in everything they made for 30 odd years unlike bmw who make a new engine for every new car (just about)

So if you like a LR model, I dont see a problem improving it with a more suitable engine and a big lazy american pushrod v8 is the best way to do this.

In my case I only want a diesel & I dont think even "general" balance has been effected and I believe my more powerful 4cyl TD RR is better now than with the old underpowered 3.5L. Had LR had access to these engines years ago they would have used them too.

[350RRC]

Hi vnx,

Just imagine if RRC's had come stock with a 350, or a 351 or 253 or 308 with spring rate to suit. Do you really think people would be pulling the motors out and putting 3.5's in to improve them?

cheers, DL

[vnx205]

Hi vnx,

Just imagine if RRC's had come stock with a 350, or a 351 or 253 or 308 with spring rate to suit. Do you really think people would be pulling the motors out and putting 3.5's in to improve them?

cheers, DL
I suspect not.

Most people are focusing on the power of the engine, its weight and the driveability of the vehicle with that engine. That's fair enough because the engine was the first thing I mentioned.
However I was also thinking more generally of some of the other things that would be affected by the increase in power.

Surely there are parts that would wear out more quickly or break sooner because of the extra stresses. If those part had to be made stronger the weight of the vehicle goes up and some of the benefits of the extra power are lost. If they have to be made from more exotic materials, the cost of the vehicle would probably go up.

My question in response to your is, do you think Land Rovers would cost about the same and weigh about the same if they were fitted with those engines and they were built with the same level of reliability and durability?

Maybe I have just been spoiled by my experience with my Series III, but I have this expectation that with regular maintenance, a Land Rover will just keep plodding on forever without having to replace a lot of broken parts.

[Slunnie]

My question in response to your is, do you think Land Rovers would cost about the same and weigh about the same if they were fitted with those engines and they were built with the same level of reliability and durability?
I don't think that there would be a lot in it if LAndRover demonstrated some type of awareness globally and with regards to engineering/manufacturing. Take the Salisbury for example. There would be very very little difference between a Salisbury that will handle a 454 Chev and 44's in comparison to that used in a SIII. It would basically be a different cut on the diff sides, axles diameter and hubs to suit, but for some strange reason LR decided to have this massive diff and make the halfshafts from paperclips. Total cost of upgrade to LandRover.... probably $20 per axle which would be more than made up for by a different reputation.

ZF - there is little difference between the 22 and 24 - all within whats basically the same package. It cost me again very little, maybe $100 or something to upgrade the middle clutch packs to suit. Cost to LandRover....... probably $20.

See where this is heading. The LT230 - not an issue.

[350RRC]

Hi vnx,

The stock driveline is strong enough, except for the diffs and axles if the car is thrashed. I look after it off road.

Mine is only running 10 splines, which I suspect are heavy duty because I haven't broken them yet. Don't know to tell if they are. Matt?

The thing has done a gazillion km's and only gets a really hard time up against ricers at the lights..........just can't help myself.

cheers, DL

[hoadie72]

I dont think LR ever really thought about balance. BMW care about balance and the application of their engines, in fact they differentiate and sell their cars mainly on engines. LR on the other hand had a good car but needed propulsion and used the quickest and cheapest way to get this. In the end most of LR's engines are substandard but they did come up with the odd class leaders when they tried. The 3.5L v8 was shoved in everything they made for 30 odd years unlike bmw who make a new engine for every new car (just about).
The M30 engine was used by BMW from 1968 to 1994 and was used in cars from the CS to the 5, 6 and 7 series as well as the M1.

[rovercare]

Hi vnx,

The stock driveline is strong enough, except for the diffs and axles if the car is thrashed. I look after it off road.

Mine is only running 10 splines, which I suspect are heavy duty because I haven't broken them yet. Don't know to tell if they are. Matt?

The thing has done a gazillion km's and only gets a really hard time up against ricers at the lights..........just can't help myself.

cheers, DL

Very unlikey if the axle ends are the little humps as per factory

A sensible driver on 31's will be fine............its only us silly ones that can kill them so easy:D

[PAT303]

Pat, is that the one that goes onto the steering box?

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/01/1604.jpg

Thats it.The cover will degrade over time and let water in.The problem is it has no way to get back out. Pat

[PAT303]

Very unlikey if the axle ends are the little humps as per factory

A sensible driver on 31's will be fine............its only us silly ones that can kill them so easy:D

My disco still has the original drive flanges,12 years and counting.When I grease the uni's I grease the flanges.It's driven everyday,first 9 years in sydney traffic. Pat

[rovercare]

My disco still has the original drive flanges,12 years and counting.When I grease the uni's I grease the flanges.It's driven everyday,first 9 years in sydney traffic. Pat

Sooooooooo, what's your point?

[PAT303]

Not bad for little humps as per factory. Pat

[rovercare]

Not bad for little humps as per factory. Pat

Pat, your an idiot:)

The little hump as per what is likely to be fitted to DL range rover, are not the same as the drive flanges fitted to yours, they are an integral flange, cast in with the axle, then final machineing is done

That's very nice that your rover has done 400kays, well done, oviously well maintained

But everyone has different purposes/expectations for their vehicles, I build modified rovers, to serve a purpose, oddly enough, everyone who has a larger motor/tyre/diff etc fitted/built, is always happy, the ONLY people I hear prattle on about how good they are stock, seem to be very narrow minded and forever justifying their purchase

If it happens that a stock rover, suits you, thats excellent, but expand your mind a little and appreciate, others have different intentions sometimes

[vnx205]

Rovercare, I love the way you say,"Pat, you're and idiot", and then choose an emoticon that will probably let you get away with it.:D

However, I do feel the need (largely because I am filling in time waiting for my wife to cut up a few things that I need to throw on the barbecue) to take exception in a lighthearted way to your comments about people with stock vehicles.:p

I'm not sure that I was prattling on about how good the standard vehicle is. What I was trying to do was point out that I believe there is a downside to some of the things that people often think would transform the Land Rover into a world beater.

Just in case you think I am an unimaginative narrow minded person unable to consider other possibilities, I offer my experience some years ago with a Honda SL125 as evidence that I might not be.

They were universally acknowledged as the ideal bike to teach your girl friend to ride because they produced almost no power at all and were so predictable.

I pressed the sleeve out, bored it out a bit and fitted the sleeve from a 305 Honda CB77. I had that bored to take a piston from a Honda 740. That gave me 145 cc.

Next I bought a stroked crankshaft from America to take the capacity out to 175cc.

A Webcam camshaft restored the breathing a bit.

Running it at 16:1 compression on alcohol gave it enough power that I could easily beat the 125cc racing bikes available at the time.

Surely converting a Honda SL125 into something that could thrash purpose built racing bikes suggests that I am capable of looking at potential improvements.

Before anyone suggests that my modifications to the engine proved that bigger was better, I had better point out that there was a price to pay for having an engine with a powerband even better than your big American V8s. In fact it was almost like a steam engine or an electric motor. If it was running it was in the powerband.

The price I had to pay was that I went through head gaskets with such monotonous regularity that I resorted to making my own from sheet copper. I also wore out the big end, something that would never have happened with the original setup.

Anyway things are now cut up ready for the barbecue, so I had better stop. :D:p

[F4Phantom]

The M30 engine was used by BMW from 1968 to 1994 and was used in cars from the CS to the 5, 6 and 7 series as well as the M1.

Dammit, I knew someone would pick this up. OK all car companies do share engines, its impossible not to. But the M30 is one hell of an engine.

Its 3.5L straight 6 putting out more kw and nm than the 4L v8 RR engine. It is lazy and never works and lasts for 600,000km with oil changes. Its super maintainable with everything in an easy place, the oil filter is cartrige. And it was upgraded a lot but in the end it was superceeded by a 3.0L v8 with only 5 more kw. It also has a chain which never dies and there are no weak points to the engine. Also very simple to work with at home.

However BMW have many types of engines and even when the M30 was in the 5 series, it was sold along side at least 3 or 4 other engine choices for the same model.

LR used the one engine for everything and I still say bmw is an engine company and LR is a 4x4 company in need of any old powerplant that will propel the vehicle.

[rovercare]

And, the moral is?:confused: I don't get it

You built a bike engine with to much compression and it wasn;t as good (reliable) as stock?

[vnx205]

And, the moral is?:confused: I don't get it

You built a bike engine with to much compression and it wasn;t as good (reliable) as stock?
You almost got it though.:p

I doubled the power output of the engine and it wasn't as reliable as standard.

The moral is that improvements in one area (in the case of the Honda 125, an enormous increase in power) often comes at a cost (in the case of the Honda, increased wear).

However that whole story was just to try to illustrate that people who are happy with standard Land Rovers are not necessarily incapable of thinking about and carrying out modifications.

[cewilson]

I drive a 200tDI Defender - and the way I see it is as follows:

A nice V8 -
1. Brilliant on-road and for towing
2. No better off road I believe than my 200tDi - yes it has more power, but it isn't necessary for any obstacle I've driven so far, including the beach. The gearing in the Defender is excellent and works well with the engine.
3. You would need to upgrade the diffs, axles and CV's - however saying that I have still broken the rear axles and the front diff with the 200tDi - so much a much.
4. 5 speed transmission - I'm not really sure if it would handle a V8 (say a 5litre). I think it might struggle a little - esp in the heat department.
5. LT230 - are brilliant. They would handle the power of a V8 without even needing to consider it.
6. Suspension - would handle the V8 easily.
7. Fuel consumption - would absolutely suck (unless you went with gas) compared to the 200tDi. And even with gas it wouldn't compare quite. Anyone doubting that - check my fuel consumption for the Fraser trip.
8. Weight - there would be two tenths of stuff all in it. Nothing that'd matter in a Defender anyway.


Overall, quite honestly if I could fit a nice V8 with an auto into my Defender - I would most likely look at it when this engine eventually dies. Parts especially are so much cheaper than any Land Rover engine, and the extra power for towing/hills/headwinds would be very handy. However I would run it on gas to help my running costs. I would not expect any problems from the chassis or the running gear by running this set up.


Cheers
Chris

[rovercare]

You almost got it though.:p

I doubled the power output of the engine and it wasn't as reliable as standard.

The moral is that improvements in one area (in the case of the Honda 125, an enormous increase in power) often comes at a cost (in the case of the Honda, increased wear).

However that whole story was just to try to illustrate that people who are happy with standard Land Rovers are not necessarily incapable of thinking about and carrying out modifications.

That's lovely, but if built correctly it would have made the HP WITH reliability;)

[350RRC]

Hi vnx,

I suppose what I was trying to get across is that I have a pretty stock RRC with a 350 in it. Gets driven everywhere every day. Has done over 200,000 kms since I've had it and probably another 200,000 kms before that.

Has not broken ANYTHING in the driveline. Pretty reliable I think, and cheaper to run on gas than even a 200 TDI at the moment.

cheers, DL

[PAT303]

Rovercare the point to this thread is if you start to change things you go outside the parameters that parts are made for.You have rubbished the ZF auto because it won't handle an LS1 bolted to it,it was never designed too,same as the diffs,they break with 35's rover has never fitted them.Engineers design the vehicles to do a job,if you raise it,re-power it or fit oversize tyres you can't expect not to have problems. Pat

[350RRC]

Hi Pat,

I have a 2 - 3" spring lift (rotated the swivel balls), the 350, 31 x 10.5 tyres (last set went 120,000) and I have NO RELIABILITY OR DRIVETRAIN PROBLEMS and have had no such problems for over 200,000 km's.

What more could you want?

cheers, DL

[Slunnie]

What more could you want?

cheers, DL
To have a wild night with Roxy in Basic Instinct. :cool:

[B92 8NW]

To have a wild night with Roxy in Basic Instinct. :cool:

You know Brooke Shields turned that role down?:no2:

[Slunnie]

You know Brooke Shields turned that role down?
Serious! I didn't know that. I bet its one of those decisions that she didn't forget either. It may not have been big enough for her.

[rick130]

You know Brooke Shields turned that role down?:no2:

<edit>
Greta Scacchi turned down Catherine.
Seems it was hawked around a bit before Sharon Stone accepted the role.

[abaddonxi]

Did someone say BMW?

BMW E32 750il V12 - eBay, Passenger Vehicles, Cars, Cars, Bikes, Boats. (end time 10-Jan-09 21:33:43 AEDST) (http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150318699197&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:AU:1123)

[350RRC]

The popcorn must be out if we're now at the movies.

cheers, DL

[cewilson]

Hi vnx,

I suppose what I was trying to get across is that I have a pretty stock RRC with a 350 in it. Gets driven everywhere every day. Has done over 200,000 kms since I've had it and probably another 200,000 kms before that.

Has not broken ANYTHING in the driveline. Pretty reliable I think, and cheaper to run on gas than even a 200 TDI at the moment.

cheers, DL

Until you start towing or playing in soft sand :angel:

[350RRC]

Hi CE,

You must be talking about $$$$ rather than breaking things. You're right if that is the case, comparing my POS with a 200TDI. Gas consumption rises pretty quickly when towing 4 tonnes, but nothing broke in the driveline. I don't tow a lot of stuff very often.

Haven't noticed any big gas consumption probs driving in sand. Maybe there would be if you had a 350 up front and were running the stock razor blade tyres, I don't know.

cheers, DL

[rijidij]

I meant it in the very general sense of the balance between power and economy(Isuzu 4BD1/T), simplicity(Isuzu 4BD1/T)and complexity, comfort and ruggedness(County/Defender), performance and longevity(Isuzu 4BD1T), size and space(County/Defender), articulation and stability(Any coil sprung Landy).

I own or have owned and driven, 3.5 V8 auto RRC, 4.2 V8 County and I recently bought a '99 Td5 Defender, but for me, my Isuzu 4BD1Turbo in the County out shines them all. The Rangie is comfortable, but simply guttless for the amount of fuel it uses. The 4.2 in the County was a fantastic motor, plenty of go on the road and excellent torque down low off road, but used too much fuel also. I've only had the Td5 a few weeks, and I must admit I am impressed with the on road power it has for a little 2.5 litre motor (even if you do have to rev the crap out of it) and the fuel economy, but it lacks torque.
The 3.9 litre Isuzu Turbo (intercooled) would give my 4.2 V8 a run for it's money on the road and as good as the 4.2 was off road, the Isuzu is better.
Compared to the Td5, and regardless of it's apparent reputation as a 'harsh' motor, the Isuzu is more relaxing to drive, and you don't have to ring it's neck having an abundance of torque along with great fuel economy. And with 500,000 kms + between rebuilds (and that's when they've pulled 7 tons GVM all day, every day) it's cubic inches and no electronic crap for me.

[PAT303]

Say whatever you like but a daily driver that has 500k on it is a donkey.Don't let the big miles that trucks run up fool you into thinking all of them do it easily and how many times have any of you done that many k's anyway,probably none and that motor will cost more than you will want to spend come rebuild time. Pat

[rick130]

<snip>
and that motor will cost more than you will want to spend come rebuild time. Pat

always been the big disadvantage with Japanese diesels.....

[Reads90]

I dont think LR ever really thought about balance. BMW care about balance and the application of their engines, in fact they differentiate and sell their cars mainly on engines. LR on the other hand had a good car but needed propulsion and used the quickest and cheapest way to get this. In the end most of LR's engines are substandard but they did come up with the odd class leaders when they tried. The 3.5L v8 was shoved in everything they made for 30 odd years unlike bmw who make a new engine for every new car (just about)

.

Land rover do balance the V8 when i went to the factory i watched them do this .

[rijidij]

Say whatever you like but a daily driver that has 500k on it is a donkey.Don't let the big miles that trucks run up fool you into thinking all of them do it easily and how many times have any of you done that many k's anyway,probably none

and that motor will cost more than you will want to spend come rebuild time. Pat


always been the big disadvantage with Japanese diesels.....



These engines do go the distance. I've heard of more than a few that have 350,000 to 500,000 + on them and I've spoken to a couple of guys with more than 750,000 on the clock......all of them in Landys and all still going strong.

As for rebuilding costs, I have the receipt for the FULL rebuild on my 4BD1T. $6202 including rebuilding the injector pump and retipping the injectors, even removing and refitting the engine to the vehicle. Look up the list price for a Td5 injector, 5 of them will cost you more than my full rebuild. I even know of an injector pump from a 2.25L Landy diesel that cost $1200+ to rebuild.

Cheers, Murray

[Bearman]

Say whatever you like but a daily driver that has 500k on it is a donkey.Don't let the big miles that trucks run up fool you into thinking all of them do it easily and how many times have any of you done that many k's anyway,probably none and that motor will cost more than you will want to spend come rebuild time. Pat

I have gotta say that I am one who has done 750k on an aftermarket turboed Isuzu 4BD1 and it cost virtually nothing in maintenance - replaced a couple of seals and had the injectors cleaned twice - both times they didnt need it apparently. Eventually it lost compression due to worn out compression rings but was still running pretty good just lacking power on hill climbs and accelleration. When it came time to rebuild I looked around and found a complete genuine replacement motor for $3500. I would't say that was an arm an a leg. AAAND it gave excellent fuel economy......
I have also had a S111 that I converted to 351 Ford cleveland V8 with C4 auto. Now that was a magnificient machine. I put the earlier series low range transfer gears in (lower gearing), rangie front axle (with leaf spring mods) and extensions on my rear Salisbury axle to match the RR front track (made by Mal Story) and 3.54 diffs. Surprised many a toyo/****in nissan driver. I had a maxi locker in the rear and offroad/in sand hardly ever had to get in 4WD. The auto did all the work with the big cubes effortlessly pushing it. Was a bit heavy on fuel around 15mpg but that was in the days when fuel was cheaper and it didnt matter that much. The transfer box axles chassis etc all handled the extra grunt without any problems. Got a couple of pics somewhere if anyone wants to look at it....Bearman

[rovercare]

Rovercare the point to this thread is if you start to change things you go outside the parameters that parts are made for.You have rubbished the ZF auto because it won't handle an LS1 bolted to it,it was never designed too,same as the diffs,they break with 35's rover has never fitted them.Engineers design the vehicles to do a job,if you raise it,re-power it or fit oversize tyres you can't expect not to have problems. Pat


Sigh...........:(

[cewilson]

Hi CE,

You must be talking about $$$$ rather than breaking things. You're right if that is the case, comparing my POS with a 200TDI. Gas consumption rises pretty quickly when towing 4 tonnes, but nothing broke in the driveline. I don't tow a lot of stuff very often.

Haven't noticed any big gas consumption probs driving in sand. Maybe there would be if you had a 350 up front and were running the stock razor blade tyres, I don't know.

cheers, DL

Yeah I was talking about $$$$. I wasn't talking about breaking things.

One of the advantages I find with the 200 is when towing (or even soft sand etc) the fuel consumption does not go up much at all, compared to a petrol engine.

I remember a couple of years ago, we went from Birdsville to Mt Dare on the one standard tank. I had the jerry cans but I didn't need to use them. Every other vehicle in the convoy used for fuel than us by a lot. The two pertol Landcruisers nearly doubled our fuel consumption. :o

You've got me interested in the V8 idea now you bugger :D

Cheers
Chris

[Panda]

Hi all,

Just wondering ... how come diesel engines are so incredibly expensive compared to petrol engines? :angel:

[clean32]

Hi all,

Just wondering ... how come diesel engines are so incredibly expensive compared to petrol engines? :angel:

but are thay ?? Isuzu 4BD1 engine bearings 110 Landrover - eBay Other Engines, Components, Engines, Components, Car Parts, Accessories, Cars, Bikes, Boats. (end time 04-Jan-09 16:14:27 AEDST) (http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Isuzu-4BD1-engine-bearings-110-Landrover_W0QQitemZ140247642791QQcmdZViewItemQQptZ AU_Car_Parts_Accessories?_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116)

[F4Phantom]

but are thay ?? Isuzu 4BD1 engine bearings 110 Landrover - eBay Other Engines, Components, Engines, Components, Car Parts, Accessories, Cars, Bikes, Boats. (end time 04-Jan-09 16:14:27 AEDST) (http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Isuzu-4BD1-engine-bearings-110-Landrover_W0QQitemZ140247642791QQcmdZViewItemQQptZ AU_Car_Parts_Accessories?_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116)

The question is not diesel vs petrol so much anymore, rather new engines vs old. New engine parts seem to cost so much money that it makes old engines (both petrol or diesel) look cheap. In a common mazda engine O2 sensor through mazda they quoted me $500. Thats not cheap but its a modern petrol engine. Go any euro cars and triple that price.

[Panda]

:BigCry::BigCry::BigCry: Now I'm just confused!


The question is not diesel vs petrol so much anymore, rather new engines vs old. New engine parts seem to cost so much money that it makes old engines (both petrol or diesel) look cheap. In a common mazda engine O2 sensor through mazda they quoted me $500. Thats not cheap but its a modern petrol engine. Go any euro cars and triple that price.

[PAT303]

So rididij your telling me you fully rebuilt your engine,from lift out,machined block,reco head,reco turbo,reco injector pump,pistons,rings,bearings seals and refitted for 6 grand?.The Tojo T/D 6 have a common fault were they break cranks and I cannot rebuild one for a price that makes it worthwhile,I can buy crate engines for 10 grand so your price is cheap to the point of unreal. Pat

[rijidij]

So rididij your telling me you fully rebuilt your engine,from lift out,machined block,reco head,reco turbo,reco injector pump,pistons,rings,bearings seals and refitted for 6 grand?.The Tojo T/D 6 have a common fault were they break cranks and I cannot rebuild one for a price that makes it worthwhile,I can buy crate engines for 10 grand so your price is cheap to the point of unreal. Pat

Well that just proves how over-rated and over-priced Toyota stuff is. Not that I think Toyota make a crap product, they don't, they just brainwash their customers into thinking they have 'the best' because of their massive advertising budget. The managing director of Land Rover Aust told our club that Toyota's advertising budget for the Kluger alone was equivilent to his budget for the whole Land Rover range for a year.

You can buy a basic rebuild kit for an Isuzu 4BD1/T for under $1300 see here >>>> (Isuzu 4BD1 (http://www.dieselspares.com.au/kits/isuzu/4bd1.php))
The thing is, the Isuzu engine is a simple, tough donk and was made with rebuilding in mind as it's VERY widely used in trucks and industrial applications throughout the world.
Speaking of cranks, the 'Tufftrided' crank in the 4BD1T is so hard you can't even machine it. And a lot of the parts are rebuildable and not 'throw-away' items. It might be a Jap engine, but it wasn't initially aimed at domestic vehicles, so being a commercial engine, you should expect it to be cheaper to rebuild to fit in with commercial economics.
My receipt (from 'Head Torque' in Melbourne) doesn't mention the turbo, but I expect they checked it out. But even without a turbo rebuild, 6 grand is quite realistic IMHO.

Cheers, Murray

[Slunnie]

Speaking of cranks, the 'Tufftrided' crank in the 4BD1T is so hard you can't even machine it.
Thats not an uncommon state for materials be it through tuftriding or heat treatment. Files and centrepunches are other examples of parts that cant be machines as they are. The reason the whole crank is like that is because of the tufftriding process where it isn't a localised process, but it is a very thin hard layer - which has benefits too.

[CaverD3]

Well that just proves how over-rated and over-priced Toyota stuff is. Not that I think Toyota make a crap product, they don't, they just brainwash their customers into thinking they have 'the best' because of their massive advertising budget. The managing director of Land Rover Aust told our club that Toyota's advertising budget for the Kluger alone was equivilent to his budget for the whole Land Rover range for a year.

Cheers, Murray


Exactly.
Most who are buying the 'new' Tojos are buying them because they think; "There is no substitute for cubic inches."
TDV8 is 4.5 litres gets the same torque as the Land Rover TDV8 and the torque curve is flatter. Land rover do it with only 3.5 litres.
In fact you can get close to the Tojo figures by re-mapping 2.7 TDV6. :angel:
The Tojo engines are also failing using oil and burning out valves.
LC200 is not much different from the 100 exect the engine and KDS.
The 70 series is based on a very old Prado (one we did not get here) they just widened the front track to fit in the V8 and no facility to fit airbags so they don't have them!:o
But Toyota market them as 'new model' implying you are getting an improvement on the old ones.

With modern engines you don't need the capacity to get a good tractable engine.

[350RRC]

So rididij your telling me you fully rebuilt your engine,from lift out,machined block,reco head,reco turbo,reco injector pump,pistons,rings,bearings seals and refitted for 6 grand?.The Tojo T/D 6 have a common fault were they break cranks and I cannot rebuild one for a price that makes it worthwhile,I can buy crate engines for 10 grand so your price is cheap to the point of unreal. Pat

You could come pretty close to getting THREE Chev crate motors for 10k.

cheers, DL

[Slunnie]

Exactly.
Most who are buying the 'new' Tojos are buying them because they think; "There is no substitute for cubic inches."
TDV8 is 4.5 litres gets the same torque as the Land Rover TDV8 and the torque curve is flatter. Land rover do it with only 3.5 litres.
In fact you can get close to the Tojo figures by re-mapping 2.7 TDV6. :angel:
The Tojo engines are also failing using oil and burning out valves.
LC200 is not much different from the 100 exect the engine and KDS.
The 70 series is based on a very old Prado (one we did not get here) they just widened the front track to fit in the V8 and no facility to fit airbags so they don't have them!:o
But Toyota market them as 'new model' implying you are getting an improvement on the old ones.

With modern engines you don't need the capacity to get a good tractable engine.

I guess thats if you're talking outright power and torque, but take the Nissan 4.2TD and 3.0TD. Both have similar power etc, but where the CC's shows is when lugging - the 4.2 has torque, the 3.0 has stall. There is no chance in hell that any LR diesel that I've had anything to do with has to total lugability that the old stinky dog of motor that Toyota call the 1Hz has. The Isuzu is the exception. The 1Hz I generally dont even rev to over 2500rpm, where the TD's dont even start making power until just under 2000rpm.

[CaverD3]

I would not call the Nissan motors modern diesels. So that is why the difference in cc will make a difference to the torque.

[Slunnie]

I would not call the Nissan motors modern diesels. So that is why the difference in cc will make a difference to the torque.
:eek:

So you're saying that the whole reason behind this is because you don't consider Nissan diesel motors to be modern? :Rolling:Surely there's a more technical explanation. :p

[JDNSW]

Having looked at this thread I see there are two factors being confused. These are the need for power - whether we need a couple of hundred horsepower to do what Series landrovers did on well under a hundred (and with speed limits generally lower than they were thirty years ago), and the spearate question as to whether this extra power can only be gained by increased engine displacement.

The first question is simply a matter of where your priorities lie - the more powerful engine, everything being equal, will be heavier, use more power and cost more, but you are making the decisions. Driven exactly the same the fuel usage will not be very different and could go either way, but the more powerful engine will encourage driving that uses more fuel.

As far as the second question goes, for diesels at least, it is possible to get exactly the same power and torque distribution over a wide range of capacities, simply by increasing boost and fuelling. The unsupercharged engine does not have this option, so the only way of changing the power output other than fairly marginally is to use higher rpm or increased capacity. With the supercharged diesel, boost and fuelling can be increased to give any desired torque at any rpm within the designed speed range, limited only by structural strength, cooling and turbocharger size, so in this case it is incorrect to say there is no substitute for capacity.

The main reason that parts for the "new" engines are so expensive is that for the "traditional" designs, the basic design and development was done many years ago, and the cost of this is amortised over perhaps fifty to eighty years of production. New design engines that incorporate newly designed parts (such as, for example the TD5 injectors) have only a few years production to cover those costs (and usually the patents are still current and there is only one manufacturer, so no competition (compare for example Bosch injectors with interchangeable parts made by Nippon-Denso).

John

[mike 90 RR]

The answer lies in the application required

Towing a caravan .... Cubic horsepower is better
Climbing a mountain .... The gears & the cubics you have should do it
Touring ... Maybe a bit more H/P ... But there's enough to be comfortable
Passing traffic in the country .... Falcon XR8 is great mate :)

Cubic size is better as it limit's the stress factor on the engine for a better H/P output ... Where as a smaller motor with higher specs is liable to run hotter and have more internal motor stress which = issues

However ...upgrade the motor ... and you will have to upgrade the drivetrain to suit // Just have a look at some of Rovercare mods and the damage done

Mike

:)

[B92 8NW]

My ideal diesel engine would be a straight six indirect injection, NA with inline injection pump, massively ridiculously undersquare of about 5,000 cc:D.

[Slunnie]

John, your 2nd paragraph contradicts your 3rd.

[C H T]

I own or have owned and driven, 3.5 V8 auto RRC, 4.2 V8 County and I recently bought a '99 Td5 Defender, but for me, my Isuzu 4BD1Turbo in the County out shines them all. The Rangie is comfortable, but simply guttless for the amount of fuel it uses. The 4.2 in the County was a fantastic motor, plenty of go on the road and excellent torque down low off road, but used too much fuel also. I've only had the Td5 a few weeks, and I must admit I am impressed with the on road power it has for a little 2.5 litre motor (even if you do have to rev the crap out of it) and the fuel economy, but it lacks torque.
The 3.9 litre Isuzu Turbo (intercooled) would give my 4.2 V8 a run for it's money on the road and as good as the 4.2 was off road, the Isuzu is better.
Compared to the Td5, and regardless of it's apparent reputation as a 'harsh' motor, the Isuzu is more relaxing to drive, and you don't have to ring it's neck having an abundance of torque along with great fuel economy. And with 500,000 kms + between rebuilds (and that's when they've pulled 7 tons GVM all day, every day) it's cubic inches and no electronic crap for me.


I agree with rijidij - i have owned 2.25 Landrover petrol and diesel engined series vehicles, Stage 1 V8 109, 2 3.5 lt Rangies (both 4speed manuals); 2 300Tdi defenders, 1 300TDi disco (still do), and now the Defender with the 4BD1T - it leaves all the others far behind, for smooth relaxed long distance capapbilities, fantastic offroad performanace and great as a tow vehicle, and all combined with bullet proof reliability without electrickery.

Simplicity, capacity, and inherit toughness will always outlast light duty engines in almost any application

FWIW

CHT

[mcrover]

Lets not get into another one of these stressed/over stressed rubbish when talking about engine capacity.

A small engine with no turbo will only put out a set amount of horse power.

If you then add a turbo/supercharger and your effectively increasing capacity by forcing more air into the same space.

The forced induction is the only thing adding stress and the motors are built to handle it so thats not worth worrying about.

Large engines pull large loads alot better and more effortlessly due to their capacity so if you had a strong bottom end and good internals which would handle boost and you could feed the fuel into it there is no problems getting high HP/Torque figures form very small capacity engines.

The main reason for capacity over this sort of thing is normally cost rather than reliability or any other reasons.

Ive been lucky enough to drive a VL Commondoore with nearly 1000Hp under the bonnet from a nissan 6 and then the same blokes other car which was a Pintara which had just over 800hp.

Both cars were off their guts with mods and the engines were worth about 2 of my Disco's each but when you think 1 was a 3.0ltr inline 6 with a massive turbo hanging off the side and the other was a 2.4ltr inline 4 cyl with an even bigger turbo hangning off the side of it and intercoolers which were nearly too big to fit head lights in etc you wouldnt call them slow even though their capacity's are relatively small.

Ive also driven a few fairly powerful V8's and although they sound great, I wouldnt say that the same rush of power comes over you than when a massive turbo comes on boost.

The saying is "There is no substitute to cubic inches"...this is true but I would add "Except for PSI).

[djam1]

My ideal diesel engine would be a straight six indirect injection, NA with inline injection pump, massively ridiculously undersquare of about 5,000 cc:D.

I liked the 6BD1 Isuzu not sure if it meets your spec but we use to convert Bedford trucks with these and they were a good engine

[CaverD3]

:eek:

So you're saying that the whole reason behind this is because you don't consider Nissan diesel motors to be modern? :Rolling:Surely there's a more technical explanation. :p

Variable vane turbos gives boost at low revs without compromising the high speed boost. (also solved by twin turbos, one at low speeds one high) These can give turbo boost from very low revs.
Common rail ijection
High pressure fuel injection
Engine management of injector timing, fuel pressure and turbo timing and boost.

.............For a start.

[Slunnie]

Cool, I considered the Nissan 3.0TD to be modern, though not quite as variable turbos. Thats the thing which will probably make the big difference with the lot that are coming out these days, though interestingly I read some motor is coming with sequential turbos which will do a similar thing - a trick the Mazda RX7 was using years ago.

[Slunnie]

Theres discussion that a smaller motor can make the power of a bigger motor with state of the art technology and chipping remaps etc, something that has been mentioned a couple of times by different people. I look at it and think that ok perhaps that may be the case, especially with the use of variable turbos down low.

But thats not working on the assumption of all things being equal. If we take a full sized 4WD motor and apply the same techology then is the smaller motor still going to keep up. I doubt. The sad thing is that there are very few full sized 4WD motors that are state of the art like there are in the smaller motors.

[CaverD3]

If we take a full sized 4WD motor and apply the same techology then is the smaller motor still going to keep up. I doubt. The sad thing is that there are very few full sized 4WD motors that are state of the art like there are in the smaller motors.

I thought that the new LC200 TDV8 would give much higher output that it did, given that its capacity of 4.5L was as much as the bigger sixes.
But Jap motors have stll not caught up to the euro diesels even with variable vane turbos and two at that. :angel:

[mcrover]

Theres discussion that a smaller motor can make the power of a bigger motor with state of the art technology and chipping remaps etc, something that has been mentioned a couple of times by different people. I look at it and think that ok perhaps that may be the case, especially with the use of variable turbos down low.

But thats not working on the assumption of all things being equal. If we take a full sized 4WD motor and apply the same techology then is the smaller motor still going to keep up. I doubt. The sad thing is that there are very few full sized 4WD motors that are state of the art like there are in the smaller motors.

The thing that really seals the deal as to what goes in what is probably that yu cant fit a 26 ltr engine in a mini so they need to do things like fit big turbo's or superchargers to get the numbers the bigger engines get.

I cant understand why they dont get much more power, economy and trque out of these modern V6 and V8 Turbo Diesels when you consider the numbers they will get out of 3,4 & 5 Cyl turbo diesels.

[F4Phantom]

I thought that the new LC200 TDV8 would give much higher output that it did, given that its capacity of 4.5L was as much as the bigger sixes.
But Jap motors have stll not caught up to the euro diesels even with variable vane turbos and two at that. :angel:

I bet toyota only put out 150kw so they can easily bring out new models by chipping it all the way to 200kw. They are going to make a mint getting toyota buyers to buy the new model because it has 155kw next year, and then 160 the year after that.

If a small engine has the same NM and kw at the same rpm at a larger engine then it is the same driving experience. It coulde be a 1.5CC engine but the graphs are the same then you should not be able to tell the difference. BUT a slower rpm engine will likely last longer. Thats why the RR engine uses CGI? carbon whatever the hell to make a smaller lighter engine with big output. 220kw from 3.6L is excellent. Ford are making the same engine a 4.4L.

Also its worth noting that new smaller CRD with heaps of power like the bmws 3.0L 220kw diesel and jags twin turbo 3L v6 (with the large turbo for low revs and the small turbo for high revs) have the ability to use more fuel. Old diesels were good towing and sand because they did not have the ability to consume more fuel and produce more power, they relied on nm. But with electrics in diesels, electric crystals and the ability to squirt 7 times per stroke and vary the volume, small diesels can now give more power and they do it by consumption. I have heard of the nissan 2.5L CRD using 17L/100 towing, not saying it didnt do a good job, but it has the ability to play with the larger engines and use the same fuel as the larger engines.

The big advantage is not that you can have lots of power from a small engine, but rather when you are not using lots of power and using it for around town, it behaves like a small engine in consumption. So you get the best of both worlds, an efficient small diesel most of the time and heaps of power along with massive fuel usage increase when you need it.

I still think the verdict is out on small modern diesel lasting a long time.

[Gaz69]

I have been following this post for the last couple of days with interest and now am compelled to throw my two bobs worth in. I am sure that most engine manufactures do not rate their new engines at maximum potential to give them more ceiling to 'Uprate'. Sadly land rover has lost the plot with giving the defender a decent grunty engine to keep up with the Opposition. Even the Freelander has more power,(not sure on torque output though). I have a 97 defender 130 single cab ute as my work vehicle and love the thing but always wanted more horse power. Even a headwind makes the poor old girl struggle.

I bought a TD5 130 twin cab in 2007 to set up as a tourer and the 1st thing i did was pull the engine out to allow me to set up an engine conversion that would give me what i wanted in a vehicle. I am putting in a 6.6LTR Duramax diesel with its 6 speed allison auto and adapting it to the LT230. Thought about the rangie V8 diesel but they are not available second hand yet and wanted something a bit more modern than a mechanical injected jap diesel or the older indirect injected 6.2 & 6.5 chevies. The Duramax makes 360 HP and just under 900mn of torque so i reckon head winds and 200 series owners wont worry me:twisted:. A big V8 diesel and keep the revs low with the double overdrive and i should still get resonable economy if i can keep off the loud pedal.
mcrover wrote

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slunnie https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2016/08/768.jpg (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/70051-bigger-really-better-post881818.html#post881818)
Theres discussion that a smaller motor can make the power of a bigger motor with state of the art technology and chipping remaps etc, something that has been mentioned a couple of times by different people. I look at it and think that ok perhaps that may be the case, especially with the use of variable turbos down low.

But thats not working on the assumption of all things being equal. If we take a full sized 4WD motor and apply the same techology then is the smaller motor still going to keep up. I doubt. The sad thing is that there are very few full sized 4WD motors that are state of the art like there are in the smaller motors.

The thing that really seals the deal as to what goes in what is probably that yu cant fit a 26 ltr engine in a mini so they need to do things like fit big turbo's or superchargers to get the numbers the bigger engines get.

I cant understand why they dont get much more power, economy and trque out of these modern V6 and V8 Turbo Diesels when you consider the numbers they will get out of 3,4 & 5 Cyl turbo diesels.


Check out the specs on the new 3.0L engine that Jag is getting soon and then hopefully Disco 3. 600nm of torque and apparently 202kw for the Jag spec's!

Cheers Gaz

[Slunnie]

I bought a TD5 130 twin cab in 2007 to set up as a tourer and the 1st thing i did was pull the engine out to allow me to set up an engine conversion that would give me what i wanted in a vehicle. I am putting in a 6.6LTR Duramax diesel with its 6 speed allison auto and adapting it to the LT230. Thought about the rangie V8 diesel but they are not available second hand yet and wanted something a bit more modern than a mechanical injected jap diesel or the older indirect injected 6.2 & 6.5 chevies. The Duramax makes 360 HP and just under 900mn of torque
Please keep us up to date with how this comes together. It would be an excellent setup I reckon.

[B92 8NW]

I am putting in a 6.6LTR Duramax diesel with its 6 speed allison auto

FMD:eek:

[Gaz69]

Slunnie wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaz69 https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2016/08/768.jpg (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/70051-bigger-really-better-post881903.html#post881903)
I bought a TD5 130 twin cab in 2007 to set up as a tourer and the 1st thing i did was pull the engine out to allow me to set up an engine conversion that would give me what i wanted in a vehicle. I am putting in a 6.6LTR Duramax diesel with its 6 speed allison auto and adapting it to the LT230. Thought about the rangie V8 diesel but they are not available second hand yet and wanted something a bit more modern than a mechanical injected jap diesel or the older indirect injected 6.2 & 6.5 chevies. The Duramax makes 360 HP and just under 900mn of torque

Please keep us up to date with how this comes together. It would be an excellent setup I reckon.
No worries Slunnie. Will start a thread in a week or 2. Have to work out how to post phots etc yet and also shifting houses so not much time. Fired it up before Christmas and sounds nice. Should have it all finished this year and only have to get spud shaft made now.

Cheers Gaz

[muddymech]

Jaguar introduces new range of 3.0L turbo-diesel V6s. Land Rover specification engines expectedsoon! - The Land Rover Chronicles - Land Rover and Range Rover News, Reviews and Blogs! (http://rovering.squarespace.com/journal/2008/12/29/jaguar-introduces-new-range-of-30l-turbo-diesel-v6s-land-rov.html)

a link to the new jag engine that may go into the landrovers.

plus alink for those that want to get a bit more power in their defenders

Welcome to the JE Engineering Website (http://www.jeengineering.co.uk/)

[Slunnie]

Jaguar introduces new range of 3.0L turbo-diesel V6s. Land Rover specification engines expectedsoon! - The Land Rover Chronicles - Land Rover and Range Rover News, Reviews and Blogs! (http://rovering.squarespace.com/journal/2008/12/29/jaguar-introduces-new-range-of-30l-turbo-diesel-v6s-land-rov.html)

a link to the new jag engine that may go into the landrovers.

plus alink for those that want to get a bit more power in their defenders

Welcome to the JE Engineering Website (http://www.jeengineering.co.uk/)
The Jag engine sounds very impressive! Diesel technology has come sooooooo far in the last 10 years! It'll be interesting to see how it performs after LandRover detune it to 90kw and put it into the Defender. :p

[dullbird]

The Jag engine sounds very impressive! Diesel technology has come sooooooo far in the last 10 years! It'll be interesting to see how it performs after LandRover detune it to 90kw and put it into the Defender. :p


Geez slunnie they cant have a "Jaguar" and a "Puma" then all the storm owners really will get upset with their pants non predatory like name:D

[Bush65]

Lets not get into another one of these stressed/over stressed rubbish when talking about engine capacity.

A small engine with no turbo will only put out a set amount of horse power.

If you then add a turbo/supercharger and your effectively increasing capacity by forcing more air into the same space.

The forced induction is the only thing adding stress and the motors are built to handle it so thats not worth worrying about.

Large engines pull large loads alot better and more effortlessly due to their capacity so if you had a strong bottom end and good internals which would handle boost and you could feed the fuel into it there is no problems getting high HP/Torque figures form very small capacity engines.

The main reason for capacity over this sort of thing is normally cost rather than reliability or any other reasons.

Ive been lucky enough to drive a VL Commondoore with nearly 1000Hp under the bonnet from a nissan 6 and then the same blokes other car which was a Pintara which had just over 800hp.

Both cars were off their guts with mods and the engines were worth about 2 of my Disco's each but when you think 1 was a 3.0ltr inline 6 with a massive turbo hanging off the side and the other was a 2.4ltr inline 4 cyl with an even bigger turbo hangning off the side of it and intercoolers which were nearly too big to fit head lights in etc you wouldnt call them slow even though their capacity's are relatively small.

Ive also driven a few fairly powerful V8's and although they sound great, I wouldnt say that the same rush of power comes over you than when a massive turbo comes on boost.

The saying is "There is no substitute to cubic inches"...this is true but I would add "Except for PSI).
A semi-trailer with around 450 hp has little trouble sitting on the speed limit, up and down hills. Imagine how they would go with a 800 hp 2.4 litre Pintara engine :eek:

What were Cummins and the other medium size diesel engine makers thinking. Someone should set them straight - smaller is better (I read it here) ;)

[rick130]

Variable vane turbos gives boost at low revs without compromising the high speed boost. (also solved by twin turbos, one at low speeds one high) These can give turbo boost from very low revs.
Common rail ijection
High pressure fuel injection
Engine management of injector timing, fuel pressure and turbo timing and boost.

.............For a start.

Isuzu was one of the first smaller diesel manufacturers with computer controlled high pressure unit injectors, IIRC licensed from CAT, and AFAIK well before the Europeans except Land Rover.

The Euro manufacturers are only borrowing the technology from the big diesel manufacturers who have been using computer control and unit injectors close on twenty years now.

The Nissan ZD30 (the kaboom engine) used contra rotating balance shafts, DOHC, four valves per cylinder and a broadband inlet manifold (instead of a VVT, but then VVT's were still in their infancy when this engine came out). (<edit> actually, I think it uses a type of variable nozzle control, at least according to my manual, but we have the venerable TD42T so I can't pull any bits to check)
It used electronic control of the injection, but no high pressure.
The new 3.0 CRD adresses these things.

The Toyota V8 IMO is limited so they could use an existing driveline. If the engine was tuned to it's potential I think the g/box, t/case and front diff would go bang pretty quickly.

[mcrover]

A semi-trailer with around 450 hp has little trouble sitting on the speed limit, up and down hills. Imagine how they would go with a 800 hp 2.4 litre Pintara engine :eek:

What were Cummins and the other medium size diesel engine makers thinking. Someone should set them straight - smaller is better (I read it here) ;)

Lol, horses for courses and torque curve matters alot with 50/60 ton on the back.

If you could gear it properly so that it took off within the rev range which would suit the KA24T Pintara engine then it would have no probs pulling the load as with trying to get the prime mover down the 1/4 mile in under 10sec on street tyres, I recon it would struggle as well.

My point is based holey and squarely at 4wd/car engines not trucks, I could go into it in depth with trucks, trains, tractors and other large diesel equipment if you want but I dont see the point, 800rpm to 2500 Rpm just doesnt suit most peoples driving styles :p

[Slunnie]

800rpm to 2500 Rpm just doesnt suit most peoples driving styles :p
That is precisely a Toyota 1hz power band.

[B92 8NW]

That is precisely a Toyota 1hz power band.

With a 1HD-T if its running, its in the power band:D.

[JDNSW]

John, your 2nd paragraph contradicts your 3rd.

? I've just reread it and I don't see the contradiction - second paragraph is talking about the need for more power, third is talking about how to achieve this, quite different subjects, so there is no possibility of contradiction as far as I can see. Perhaps you could be more explicit.

I'll admit it may not be well worded - you try typing with a seven year old pestering you!

John

[abaddonxi]

? I've just reread it and I don't see the contradiction - second paragraph is talking about the need for more power, third is talking about how to achieve this, quite different subjects, so there is no possibility of contradiction as far as I can see. Perhaps you could be more explicit.

I'll admit it may not be well worded - you try typing with a seven year old pestering you!

John

Can I spot you two three-and-a-half year olds.;)

[Slunnie]

the more powerful engine, everything being equal, will be heavier, use more power and cost more,

As far as the second question goes, for diesels at least, it is possible to get exactly the same power and torque distribution over a wide range of capacities, simply by increasing boost and fuelling.

Its not really that important though john. It just read as if to say you've got to have a heavier motor to make more power, but a smaller motor can make the same power as a bigger one.

[rovercare]

However ...upgrade the motor ... and you will have to upgrade the drivetrain to suit // Just have a look at some of Rovercare mods and the damage done

Mike

:)

Has a little to do with the bush work the vehicles do, easy to break these auto's with stock engines and little tyres, if worked;)

[mark2]

The ZF 4HP22 was a designed as a car transmission, used in Volvos, BMW's, Jags and a few others - some were fairly powerful eg 7 series BMW and Maserati but a Landrover is probably its toughest gig. Landrover did fit a bigger sump which was a good thing.

[Bush65]

Here is a link to a small powerful engine MYT Engine (http://www.greeninventions.info/)

[Slunnie]

Here is a link to a small powerful engine MYT Engine (http://www.greeninventions.info/)
Thats a fascinating engine John! Its interesting as the very basic design concept reminds me a lot of the Sarich orbital engine - obviously this is a significantly improved design of a multi combustion cycle though compared to that and the wankel motor, but I hope it doesn't get pushed underground in the same manner. Something like this has the potential to open up so many possibilities in vehicle design!