Thread: how do you rate 6 cyl series rover engine

Diana
I have often dream t of those if they were as good as the 4 they would have been the Ducks Guts.
Not too many engines you could overheat until they seized go for a walk come back fill them up with water and drive them for years without issue.
There was a Bedford 330 Cu diesel that could handle it though lol

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Tony

I think you mean the P5 Rover car, (image below) the one you want is the 1962 P5 3 litre MkII with the Westlake head. The automatics have an 8 bolt flywheel/crank interface however you can use the flywheel off a 4 cyl Land Rover and the 9.5" clutch plate, with a Land Rover 6 cyl flywheel housing and gearbox bellhousing.

Addit: If contemplating the conversion to a Rover 3 litre. Also consider using the bonneted control 6 cyl Land Rover water pump adaption. The 3 litre and F/C pump use a small impeller where the LR one uses a larger diameter impeller with a lot more fins. The difference is an adapter plate fixed between the block and the LR water pump and worth the money in this hot climate.


The P6 (below) was the really good Rover car with the de dion sliding rear end and the 2 litre or the 3.5litre V8.



Diana

________________________

Looks the the P5 had a hand brake problem.

Originally Posted by Olive Drab

While reading different threads about engines it appears the 2.25l engine rates a lot higher than a holden engine in series landies.
I've had the 2.25 petrol and a holden 202, liked the 4 cyl, the 202 just doesn't feel right and is heavy on the juice. Would the 6cyl rover be a better option than the 202?

...


IMHE - yes - I've had a couple of ex-mil ser3s and they didn't give any trouble at all.... and flexible as bro, (felt like you could pull away in 4th from just about any slow speed)....

by the way - the Holden conversions had a reputation for destroying series gearboxes and there were problems with engine oil pickup in steep conditions, but never having had one maybe others can tell the stories

Just thought i would throw this in,in the days when the series 3 was new,my father had a few at work.They got a few six cylinder models,and they didnt like them.I think the main problem was fuel consumption,not much more power than the 4 cyl,and a few engine probs,i think burnt valves

It wasnt long after this.....you guessed it they went to Tojos

Originally Posted by scarry

Just thought i would throw this in,in the days when the series 3 was new,my father had a few at work.They got a few six cylinder models,and they didnt like them.I think the main problem was fuel consumption,not much more power than the 4 cyl,and a few engine probs,i think burnt valves

It wasnt long after this.....you guessed it they went to Tojos

The Rover engines in the series vehicles were the main reason that Land Cruiser got the market share it does today.

I have said it before and I'll say it again - set up correctly the 186 Holden engine out performs the Rover engines. Even the Rover engines had to modify their sumps for use in the Land Rover and that is why in the LROCS in the 1960's and 1970's when these series cars were new or recently released from Government service we fitted up the Holden engines to work efficiently in the Land Rover. There were float level changes and particular Holden sumps like the HT Holden that had the bulge in the middle so maintained its oil pressure whether it was going up hill or down dale. There were particular inlet manifolds and particular cams and fuel ecconomy of over 20 MPG was common.

However if Land Rover had not been taken over by the British Leyland debacle and we had received the Stage One like we wanted in the 1970's and the County by the end of the decade. (All of which was possible.) Land Rover would not be in 4WD tail end charlie place it finds itself today.

And yes I have owned Land Rovers throughout the entire period from 1973 to the present day, so I am talking from a point of knowledge. And importantly the Land Rovers I have owned and driven as daily drivers through that period have included all the Land Rover petrol engines, excluding the 3.9 and the 2.5 litre, but none of the diesels. I have also owned daily driver Land Rovers with 161, 186, 202 and 253 Holden engines and 4.4 and 5 litre P76 V8's.

I still appreciate an original spec series Land Rover.

Originally Posted by PAT303

I have a rover six in my 2a and it is one of the smoothest engines i've driven.I really like it but the problem is in an LR they rev their head off which causes all the problems.In a saloon they go for ever but being a long stroke engine when they are pushed hard at highway speed they don't like it.I had no problems at all with mine after I geared it up(RR diffs) which brought the revs down and stayed under 100ks/hr.LR should have fitted the high ratio transfer in all series models,that is the biggest downer on the series models in my opinion. Pat

Hi Pat,
A bit OT,
Just fitted a 200Tdi into a 2a 109 with rangie 3.5:1 diffs. The owner is over the moon and I must admit it is the nicest 2a to drive on the road that I have driven...(If only the bodywork etc was as exciting as the running gear , but that is next on the list)

JC

That P5 Rover car is, amongst others of it's era like the Jags of the day, the epitome of British car body design in my opinion. It oozes style, opulence and substance combined with a certain aloofness.

Originally Posted by justinc

Hi Pat,
A bit OT,
Just fitted a 200Tdi into a 2a 109 with rangie 3.5:1 diffs. ...

Justin

I think that (or the Tdi 300) is a very acceptable modern solution to the re-powering of Series Land Rovers. Unfortunately, while red Holden 6 cyl conversions are acceptable as "period engine replacements" for NSW Historic Conditional Registration, the 200Tdi is not.

Diana