Thread: diesel replace for V8 range rover

.. the Jeep CRDI's seem to be doing well though.

Then again, its not a JEEP engine anyway. Its European, V-Motori, - Wonder how it would go in a Rangie ?

Its European, V-Motori, - Wonder how it would go in a Rangie ?

You could just go and buy one as the 89-91 RRC had a VM diesel (2.4 and 2.5), which was the great grandfather of the current one in the Cherokee.

BUT you should maybe ask people what they think of them!!!!
Regards Philip A

I have an 87 classic with a 300tdi and 5 speed out of a disco
In it. The pump has been tweaked and it has gas injection. It averages 12-14l per 100km with a best of mid 10 occasionally achieved. It cruises much better than my brothers 93 classic with the 3.9 at 110kmph maintaining speed up and down hills in fifth whist his searches up and down trying to hold speed. Although his does accelerate a little faster.

Unless you can do the conversion yourself I think you will need 10-12k to do the conversion and get gas injection.

Hey Superquag, your 78CM Velo
Did it have this engihe it ?
245LC (Low Compression) released in 1977

• Bore Size: 3.76 (95.5mm)
• Stroke: 3.68 (93.5mm)
• Compression ratio: 7.6:1
• Power: 130 hp (97 kW) estimate
• Torque: 180 ft·lbf (240 N·m) estimate
• Intake valve head diameter 1.845 inch (46.9mm)
• Exhaust valve head diameter 1.500 inch (38.1mm)

Seeing your Rover engine is only a ex BOP from 1961 buick
then the old 1961 engine produced (Fuel injection does nothing for outright power )
61BuickSpecial155 @ 4600210 @ 32008.75:12Bbl
62OldsmobileCutlass185 @ 4800230 @ 480010:25:14Bbl
63OldsmobileJetfire215 @ 4800300 @ 320010:25:1
so thats the Velo's at
215 140 HP
245 165 HP
245 LC 130 HP
265 203HP
265 E49 Charger 302 HP
Now with average carbed 3.5 in the 140 to 160HP range
and the 3.9 in the 180 to 200 hp range
then really the old Velo hemi is and was nothing special .

Originally Posted by 400HPONGAS

Hey Superquag, your 78CM Velo
Did it have this engihe it ?

245LC (Low Compression) released in 1977

• Bore Size: 3.76 (95.5mm)
• Stroke: 3.68 (93.5mm)
• Compression ratio: 7.6:1
• Power: 130 hp (97 kW) estimate
• Torque: 180 ft·lbf (240 N·m) estimate
• Intake valve head diameter 1.845 inch (46.9mm)
• Exhaust valve head diameter 1.500 inch (38.1mm)

Seeing your Rover engine is only a ex BOP from 1961 buick
then the old 1961 engine produced (Fuel injection does nothing for outright power )
61BuickSpecial155 @ 4600210 @ 32008.75:12Bbl
62OldsmobileCutlass185 @ 4800230 @ 480010:25:14Bbl
63OldsmobileJetfire215 @ 4800300 @ 320010:25:1
so thats the Velo's at
215 140 HP
245 165 HP
245 LC 130 HP
265 203HP
265 E49 Charger 302 HP
Now with average carbed 3.5 in the 140 to 160HP range
and the 3.9 in the 180 to 200 hp range
then really the old Velo hemi is and was nothing special .

Fuel injection does nothing for outright power? your kidding right?

What is the point of this post?

Have you ever looked on youtube and seen that 3.5l td mazda running thats the way i think i am going as you can get all the bits and adapters from uk or buy a whole car for a few hundred pounds an ship it over seen quite a few on ebay since i have been looking they used to do a lot of those conversions, M & D engineering.

Good grief NO ! - Mine had the 160 hp high(er) compression engine.
I agree 100%, the Valiant Hemi was rather ordinary, even in its time... - You needed Eye of Newt and skin of Toad to get the ELB working perfectly, which then could give around 14 to 10 l/100km. Sometimes.

I was more making the comparison between a crude, rough, very primitive and unashamedly thirsty Valiant engine.... and the supposedly New! Improved! Whiter than White, betterer 'cos ROVER had continued with R&D etc ex-Buick V8...

In around 20 years.... there has *NOT* been a decent level of improvement, certainly not IMHO to justify keeping the 3.5 / 3.9 instead of either using someone elses tried and proven engine, or starting again.

As a friend of mine (Rover and Triumph 'Tragic') says.... "the Range Rover is a car designed by a Genius, -- and built by ***s"

To which I'd add...with parts supplied on the cheap by incompetant Management.

It was always shoddy workmanship, cheap and nasty and/inappropriate quality parts, and most importantly, pig-headed stupid management that ran Land Rover down to the embarrasing sell-off.

Credit where its due, - LR's Marketing Dept IS the best in the world.... Who else could sell "Unreliability" as a desirable thing ?

Putting ANY other engine in a Range-Rover where appropriate should be encouraged. - A 3.5 MAZDA diesel in any LR would be a Good Thing.

I could almost have tolerated the thirst... if LR had put a decent sized fuel tank in the Rangie, give us masochists a decent range..without spending yet more money on custom built/extra tanks...
Even my 1989 Mitsi Pajero has more than 91 litres (petrol or diesel).. and when LR brought out 'their' Pajero, (Disco I) the tank was still smaller...

Anyway, thats my rant for the night !

Grumpy James in Gosnells.

'95 Vogue SE, an original Two-door car, but with 2 rear doors tacked on.

Rovercare ."Fuel injection does nothing for outright power? your kidding right?"
No , not Kidding , one trip to the dragstrip will demonstrate that .
Although modern EFI , (as distinct from MFI)is far better for all the other reasons , such as meeting pollution DRS, reliability,economy,tuneability,startability (made that one up !) outright control and 100 other reasons , it still wont make an engine develop more peak power than the appropriate Carb , perhaps systems like the VE11 SIDI is the only example, but that required a radical redesign of the heads. (yeah make them like a diesel ,LOL)

As for Superquags Story , just demohnstrating that the original 1961 BOP 215 engine made more power than his 1994 EFI 3.9 and was comparable in power to his 1978 CM Velo .
So what Superquags says about , levels of improvement ,cheap parts , useless management , selling unreliability , design by genius , etc etc Im going to have to agree with !!