diesel engine

[the baron]

Hi I would like to fit a diesel engine into my series 2 SWB landy. What is involved and what are my engine options and roughly what will it cost. Cheers The Baron.

[isuzurover]

The easiest to fit is the 2.25D. The engine is basically a straight swap, apart from the plumbing.

People have also fitted 200Tdis - with and without turbos.

However a 200Tdi with turbo would be hard on your gearbox.

Cost depends on what you can get the engine and bits for. I think my 2.25D conversion cost $1200 all up.

[series3]

Gday Baron.

Have a look at this thread in the 'The Good Oil', http://www.aulro.com/afvb/good-oil/92338-diesel-engine-conversion-series-vehicles.html

You have plenty of options/combinations, and I haven't heard someone unhappy with a diesel series yet.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip> ... You have plenty of options/combinations, and I haven't heard someone unhappy with a diesel series yet.I find that hard to believe! Series 2.25D are slow smelly and noisy. Worse than that, they won't let you get a run up at an obstacle because the governor cuts in to retard the revs just when you need it.

[isuzurover]

I find that hard to believe! Series 2.25D are slow smelly and noisy. Worse than that, they won't let you get a run up at an obstacle because the governor cuts in to retard the revs just when you need it.

Bulldust.

My 2.25D will beat 2.25Ps up hills.

Yes it is noisy - as are all diesels.

It isn't smoky. It was only smelly when the IP was leaking.

Compared to a 2.25P they are more economical and have comparable performance. Compared to a V8 or a modern Tdi diesel - well - of course those will be a lot faster...

[series3]

I find that hard to believe! Series 2.25D are slow smelly and noisy. Worse than that, they won't let you get a run up at an obstacle because the governor cuts in to retard the revs just when you need it.

Well, at the same time I wouldn't be calling my 2.25P either fast, nice-smelling or particularly quiet!




Compared to a 2.25P they are more economical and have comparable performance. Compared to a V8 or a modern Tdi diesel - well - of course those will be a lot faster...

Are you speaking in relation to your modified 2.25 isuzurover? AFAIK a stock one is noticably slower, but just as capable.

[isuzurover]

Well, at the same time I wouldn't be calling my 2.25P either fast, nice-smelling or particularly quiet!



Are you speaking in relation to your modified 2.25 isuzurover? AFAIK a stock one is noticably slower, but just as capable.

I am comparing my 2.25D against a fresh 2.25P in an equivalent vehicle with slightly smaller tyres.

My 2.25D is essentially the same as a stock one except for:
extractors
Removed vacuum/butterfly and modified intake
One spring in the advance mechanism changed from 1.1mm to 0.9mm wire.

That is all.

[series3]

Thanks Ben.

How big is the dump pipe on the end of your extractors? Do you run stock exhaust?

[the baron]

Thanks guys looks like it will be a 2.25d. cheers, The Baron.

[isuzurover]

Thanks Ben.

How big is the dump pipe on the end of your extractors? Do you run stock exhaust?

2" and 2" exhaust.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Bulldust.

My 2.25D will beat 2.25Ps up hills. Maybe on long slow grades where they can just slug away, but not many other places

Yes it is noisy - as are all diesels. You agree then!

It isn't smoky. It was only smelly when the IP was leaking. So they are smelly at least some of the time?

Compared to a 2.25P they are more economical and have comparable performance. Compared to a V8 or a modern Tdi diesel - well - of course those will be a lot faster...You failed to contradict me about the governor limiting the revs when you need a run up.

You failed to convince me that they are not slow, just that the 2.25P is also slow.

I never mentioned smokey, but hey most 2.25D are in fact smokey!

So I guess your definition of "bulldust" is: Have to generally agree with you on those points! :D :p

Now however I would be happy to consider a noisy, smelly 4BD1! ;)

BTW: the last time I had a 2.25P was 1974 and I have not gone back to one since and even then I would not have gone to a 2.25D.

[isuzurover]

Maybe on long slow grades where they can just slug away, but not many other places

You agree then!

So they are smelly at least some of the time?



]You failed to contradict me about the governor limiting the revs when you need a run up.

You failed to convince me that they are not slow, just that the 2.25P is also slow.

I never mentioned smokey, but hey most 2.25D are in fact smokey!

So I guess your definition of "bulldust" is: Have to generally agree with you on those points! :D :p

Now however I would be happy to consider a noisy, smelly 4BD1! ;)

BTW: the last time I had a 2.25P was 1974 and I have not gone back to one since and even then I would not have gone to a 2.25D.


I wouldn't call Cunningham's gap a "long slow grade" :D
I agree that diesels are noisier than petrols - but your point was?
They are only smelly if the injector pump seals need replacing (mine probably hadn't been done since 1979...) ;)
On the whole, they are no noisier or smellier than any other diesel.

I didn't bother contradicting the govrenor thing as it made no sense. I can rev mine to 4000rpm under any situation. The governor doesn't limit revs until you get to 4k (or whatever the rev limit is).

I mentioned smoky as that is what I thought you were referring to re smell.

I still fail to see what your point is??? We are talking about series vehicles, which, stage 1 aside were all fitted with small, slow engines - not unlike the 2.25D. The series gearbox is small and weak. Install an engine with too much power or torque and you better have the right foot of a pixie. It has been proven many times that diesels are much harder on gearboxes than petrols. So if you want a diesel series with the original gearbox, you are limited to options like:

2.25D
C240 ISUZU
2.5D
4JA1 / 4JB1 (NA)
200Di
etc...

Of the above, I would choose the DI engine preferably (4JX1 / 200Di), however they are more expensive to buy and more involved to fit. the 4JX1 engines are probably the pick, since they are like a mini 4BD1 - complete with timing GEARS (unless you buy one from a MU). However, all of the above are within 10Bhp of a 2.25D.

The bottom line is, if you are happy with the pace of a 2.25P, you will probably be happy with the pace of a 2.25D. Like many 2.25D owners, you will probably enjoy the good economy and improved low-down torque compared to a 2.25P.

Not so long back I drove my 2.25D powered IIA from Brisbane-Perth with about 500-750 kg of load on board. This included driving through the snowys and the victorian alps, and I could have sat on 65mph all day across the nullarbor had I wanted to.

EDIT - and I should add, that my 2.25D is a 1979 model. I have heard that the series 3 diesels were improved compared to the IIA versions. I know they changed the pump timing and pump spec a few times.

[Blknight.aus]

Worse than that, they won't let you get a run up at an obstacle because the governor cuts in to retard the revs just when you need it.

funny, I got one all the way up to the tip of the cape and back and only got stuck in a hole that also stopped every other rover in the trip including a modified 08 spec defer and it was setup as the mechanicing vehicle for the trip supporting about 8 other rovers.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Ben

I have to agree that I have little experience of the late SIII 2.25D and none on the 2.5D, all my experience relates to SII and SIIa 2.25D.

My point is, that in my experience with the 2.25D in series II and IIa Landies the engine was not very capable and had severe limitations.

What I still remember trips where people with 2.25D would fail to traverse an obstacle where everyone else would get through without being winched or towed. The worst for the 2.25D were short slippery climbs where being able to carry the revs was the technique to get through. The 2.25D would start their run-up, the rev-limiter would cut in effectively retarding the run-up and the vehicle would run out of revs or traction before it got even half way up.

Personally I admit that I am somewhat biased against 2.25D, in my Landies I went from a 2.25P, to a 2.6P which quickly morphed into a 202Holden and subsequently a 253Holden. After that it was Range Rover classics which morphed from 3.5 to 5.0 and now back to 4.6. Only recently has the series bug bitten and that is 202H.

What I will admit is that Groucho has a very nice SIII 2.25D tray-back that he uses as a daily driver on-road and is very happy with it.

[JDNSW]

I have only owned one 2.25D, and while it was no ball of fire, I drove over quite a bit of Australia in it, including six months driving round the Simpson Desert and bits of Cape York - and I can't recall ever getting stuck anywhere. (Did buy another one years later, but it was only for bits, and I sold the engine)

John

[isuzurover]

The 2.25D would start their run-up, the rev-limiter would cut in effectively retarding the run-up and the vehicle would run out of revs or traction before it got even half way up. .

What you describe has nothing to do with any rev limiter or governor, it is simply the nature of the torque curve of the two engines.

The 2.25P has 70 Bhp@4000 rpm and 120 lb.ft@ 2000 rpm, the SIIA 2.25D has 62 Bhp@4000 rpm and 103 lb.ft@1800.

So in stock form the IIA 2.25D can struggle in situations like you describe - where you need momentum to get through.

I recall seeing somewhere (maybe my SIII manual) that the late SIII engines had 67 Bhp and 113 lb.ft. Nothing to write home about but up there with a 2.25P. The 2.5D only has 68 and 117 stock.

The (former?) president of the LROCB has an ex-military 2.25P 109 ute in very good condition. The only significant difference between my vehicle and his is that he has 7.50's and I have 33's. On some occasions, he could just manage to make it up a hill in 2nd low where I had to resort to first. I find that over time though you can adjust your driving style slightly to accomodate.

There are plenty of people who managed to get a lot more go from their 2.25Ds than I have. Either by uprating the pump or changing the cam timing by a couple of teeth. There was one 2.25D in the LROCB which could beat holden powered landies up hills on the highway. It had a pump which had been modified by a diesel place in brisbane (Rocklea?) and had a bit of a "dirty" tune but really flew.

[JDNSW]

What you describe has nothing to do with any rev limiter or governor, it is simply the nature of the torque curve of the two engines.

The 2.25P has 70 Bhp@4000 rpm and 120 lb.ft@ 2000 rpm, the SIIA 2.25D has 62 Bhp@4000 rpm and 103 lb.ft@1800.

So in stock form the IIA 2.25D can struggle in situations like you describe - where you need momentum to get through.

I recall seeing somewhere (maybe my SIII manual) that the late SIII engines had 67 Bhp and 113 lb.ft. Nothing to write home about but up there with a 2.25P. The 2.5D only has 68 and 117 stock.
...........

From S3 owner's handbook dated 1978 - Diesel 67bhp@4000, 105lb ft @1800; Petrol - 81bhp @4250, 127ft lbs @ 2500.

My experience in the desert was that the very wide useful torque range meant that if you picked the right gear you hit the bottom of a sandhill on the governor at 4000, and it would pull strongly right down to a stall - by which time you were over the soft crest.

John

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Ben

Must accept your data of the torque curves between all the engines however can not accept your comment about it not being the rev limiter/governor. I have clear recollections of the numerous 2.25D attempting to negotiate many obstacles on many trips.

They were (are) fabulous when wading through deep water particularly one which had a snorkel which was rare in those days. They never got their ignition systems wet! ;)

However I also have clear memories of the vehicles approaching various obstacles, the petrol engines would rev up with some drivers almost valve bouncing the engines as the revvs increased, but the 2.25Ds would start their run-ups and you could hear the start increasing its revs and then hit a note and rev no faster. The sound is almost like when someone pulls on the choke on a petrol engine. The vehicle would get to the obstacle and not have the momentum to carry it through and with your figures on the early 2.25D not have the torque to power up either.

With modern diesels and it seems with the late SIII those days have gone.

[Aaron IIA]

I drive a suffix a 2.25D every day. I would not have it any other way. The engine is limited to 4000 rpm for a very good reason. To keep all four legs in bed. You are right, it may sound as if the engine dies down when you climb a dune, but this is because the torque comes in at lower speeds. It will still be lugging along well after a petrol has stopped. Many a time my passengers (2.25P drivers) have commented that they thought my engine would stall, but were surprised that it still lugged over the dune. Remember, the only reason the petrol doesn't chuck a leg out of bed when you over noise it, is because it has a diesel block and bottom end. The fuel economy over a 2.25P more than compensates for the noise. If it is blowing smoke, it is dribbling or being over fuelled. If it is smelly, it is leaking. Both of these problems can be fixed with a pump/injector service. The other benefit is that you now have a factory fitted cruise control. Don't knock it until you have driven it in all conditions, and driven it properly.

Aaron.

[Blknight.aus]

correct and off idle hill starts just by lifting the clutch is a cool thing too.

[Aaron IIA]

I can get to third gear without touching the accelerator or hand throttle. Can you do that in a petrol?

Aaron.

[Johnno1969]

Bulldust.

My 2.25D will beat 2.25Ps up hills.

Yes it is noisy - as are all diesels.

It isn't smoky. It was only smelly when the IP was leaking.

Compared to a 2.25P they are more economical and have comparable performance. Compared to a V8 or a modern Tdi diesel - well - of course those will be a lot faster...


Ditto. I love my little 2.25D. Engine noise has never bothered me either (especially I like the little tractor sound at low speeds and as I can't hear it over the overdrive on the highway anyway). It pulls like a little horse, runs very cleanly, gets 28-34mpg (avg 30mpg) and, though I might prefer my 200Tdi Defender on long hills, it gets around just fine.