Thread: Land Rover vs Ford Transit

I have a 2011 transit with the 2.4 litre engine and had a 2007 2.4 Defender. I now have 2013 2.2 Defender. I swapped a 3.2 BT 50 for the 2013 Defender.


The difference between how the Transit drives versus the Defenders for me is chalk and cheese. However there was not that much difference between the 3.2 BT 50 and the Transit. The Transit runs in at 3.2 Tons and returns under 11 L/100km fuel constantly. It is easy to drive as power seems to feed in smoothly and the gear change is super slick and fast with the 6 speed.
I find it difficult to understand how Land Rover have ended up detuning to the extent that it is not recognisable to me as the same engine and gearbox combo. Now I know that there are differences in ratios, tyre size etc., but if the Defender drove like my Transit, I would be a lot happier. The Transit has just tripped over 120,000km and has freed up over that time. It seems to have way more punch when you accelerate. How the gearbox is so much more difficult to use in a Defender compared with the BT 50 and Transit is beyond me.
Putting a BT 50/Ford Ranger drive train it a Defender would be my idea of heaven. Make it part time and add diff locks. Yes please! Auto - maybe.

Originally Posted by 4wheeler

I have a 2011 transit with the 2.4 litre engine and had a 2007 2.4 Defender. I now have 2013 2.2 Defender. I swapped a 3.2 BT 50 for the 2013 Defender. difference between how the Transit drives versus the Defenders forme is chalk and cheese. However there was not that much difference between the 3.2 BT 50 and the Transit. The Transit runs in at 3.2 Tons and returns under 11 L/100km fuel constantly. It is easy to drive as power seems to feed in smoothly and the gear change is super slick and fast with the 6 speed.
I find it difficult to understand how Land Rover have ended up detuning to the extent that it is not recognisable to me as the same engine and gearbox combo. Now I know that there are differences in ratios, tyre size etc., but if the Defender drove like my Transit, I would be a lot happier. The Transit has just tripped over 120,000km and has freed up over that time. It seems to have way more punch when you accelerate. How the gearbox is so much more difficult to use in a Defender compared with the BT 50 and Transit is beyond me.
Putting a BT 50/Ford Ranger drive train it a Defender would be my idea of heaven. Make it part time and add diff locks. Yes please! Auto - maybe.

Thanks for you answer , we all know Defender's , as we know then are coming to an end . It would have been good to even have the option to have had the 3.2 , I know many are happy with the 2.2 . the point is Land Rover didn't give a choice in engines . I can't agree more about the 3.2 in a Defender , for me It would have been the perfect engine . A friend of mine has a 2.4 110 chipped , he also has a big caravan , and It tows It but It does struggle on long hill's . He got over the problem buy buying a big Chev , now he doesn't have any problems towing . He still has the Defender as well , because he really likes It !!.. Jim...

Originally Posted by jimr1

I checked this out a while back , Defender gearbox made in north east uk. Mustang gearbox made in China ....

Corrolla was at one point made here, us, japan, eu , all to the same basic spec
The 2,2 and 3.2 puma was first made in uk but is now also made in Asia for ranger, can you guess why they would make the gearbox there?

As far as i know,land rover have never been able to make enough defenders to meet demand.So why would they go to the expense of putting bigger engines in them to attract more buyers when they can't supply enough vehicles to meet demand now?

Originally Posted by rangietragic

As far as i know,land rover have never been able to make enough defenders to meet demand.So why would they go to the expense of putting bigger engines in them to attract more buyers when they can't supply enough vehicles to meet demand now?

I don't know where you heard that, but it is a pile of dog doo.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

I don't know where you heard that, but it is a pile of dog doo.

Read it in a mag once.Seems to make sense as they are hand built and the showrooms are not full of them.The european power companies and others,including the military in several countries,seem to buy most of them.No doubt the replacement will not be hand made.

LR have their hands full making all the other models,there's a waiting list for all of them so they aren't really going out of their way to make Defenders,there was an article about it in one of the mags,they are to labour intensive to make so thats why the total is low,instead of 50 guys making a dozen Defenders a day they have 50 guys making two dozen Evoque's,one of the many issue's the new model will address,anyway I'm of to a Tata dealership. Pat

Originally Posted by rangietragic

As far as i know,land rover have never been able to make enough defenders to meet demand.So why would they go to the expense of putting bigger engines in them to attract more buyers when they can't supply enough vehicles to meet demand now?

They don't make the engines , they buy them from Ford , Ford make over 1 million engines a year in the UK . Land Rover when It was owned by Ford. Ford could have picked any number of there Dura range to put in the Defender's , they stopped the manufacture of the td5 rover engine and used there own Transit engine , there is also a 3lt Dura Tech that they use on the bigger Transits , that was available , but the powers to be decided to go for the then 2.4 lt. then the 2.2lt , I will say It again there is nothing wrong with these engines , except that they seam to be detuned , and no one has told me why !!.. Jim ..