Thread: Land Rover vs Ford Transit

Rest of the driveline not up to the pain the mojo produces????
Easy way out is de-rate the mojo
Andrew

It is quite possible that each manufacturer has reshaped the power and torque curves for their vehicles to make them more suitable for their application. This could, in the case of Landrover, be to lengthen the life of the engine in an application where they can be expected to operate in much more demanding circumstances.

Or, just as likely, there is little real difference in the power and torque curves, but Landrover have made theirs smoother, to enhance driveability, where Ford sees a greater advantage in being able to quote a higher peak figure in advertising, and forget driveability.

John

Jim, good post & interesting figures.
I agree. 114KW & 385NM would've been good,..would've just given the vehicle "a little bit more",....can't see those figures affecting reliability, there's plenty of guys in the UK who've had remaps for 150ks+ with 170/180kw with no driveline issues.
Pickles.

The different intakes & exhausts will make a difference too. Transit was designed for it, the Defender had it shoehorned it.

I stand corrected, but I think the European DIN standards for dyno measurement requires all pump & accessories etc to be fitted & running. That would include air filters & mufflers. Maybe the Transit doesn't have air con? That would account for a couple of horsepower.

By contrast, the US norm used to be the SAE standard - stripping the accessories and tuning standard components was allowed. Richen the carburettors, advance the spark, anything to get an extra hp on the dyno. Advertising big numbers was the rage in the 60s. Still is.

Regards
Max P

You have the same difference between the defender and the ford ranger with the 2.2 puma, defender 90 and 360nm ranger 110 and 375 nm with same engine in povo pack ranger! It's a good way to lose customers, considering the ranger runs on a 130 in wheel base.Ford Australia - Ranger - Specifications & Options

I'll say it, why couldn't LR copy a few things from their ex-partner , they have only sold the f series as the highest sold model for decades. A defender factory version of the F150 raptor would have sold well and set a draw card. The raptor has hill decent, 4.1 gears, front LSD and rear locker, 12 in travel rear and 11.5 front traction control, top spec engine dual fox shocks upgraded drivetrain with wider footprint, better suspension parts and 35in tyres on headlock rims all encased in an ALUMINIUM body! At $47,000 us.
Instead all the traffic of knowledge went to ford, who took the LR technical bits and aluminium experience , without LR bothering to learn a few tricks from the masters. A draw car in each range that a vast majority won't buy but let the joe in his basic spec F150 think it's related to the 50% more expensive hero car.

you think Ford bought LR to actually improve it??

Just to add I've got an old 110 county , have had It for about 12 years , It has the Salisbury rear end maxi drive axles , It also has an r380 gearbox , pus a Leyland 4.4 . This thing pulls like a steam train 200 plus HP. Getting a bit old now , but It's done 300,000 plus Km . I also have a td5 now they don't put out as much power as a series 2 disco , and they are the same engine . I spent a bit of time looking at what other manufacturers of 4x4s put into there vehicles , and for some reason the Defender's are at the lowest end of power . Like many of you , I'm a Land Rover devotee , I just wonder why they de-tune there Defenders , when they could so easily give a choice of power at the Dealerships . Maybe It's never been suggested , or even thought of before !!..Jim ...

Another reason occurs to me - Landrover's major market is Europe - and fleet wide average carbon emissions are a serious problem for any manufacturer who does not make mass market cars.

The Defender is probably the one model that power and hence emissions can be reduced on without a significant impact on the market.

Certainly, this would not stop them from having a special model for the Australian market, but the size of the Australian market certainly would almost certainly prevent this.

John