Thread: Is Bigger Really Better?

Jaguar introduces new range of 3.0L turbo-diesel V6s. Land Rover specification engines expectedsoon! - The Land Rover Chronicles - Land Rover and Range Rover News, Reviews and Blogs!

a link to the new jag engine that may go into the landrovers.

plus alink for those that want to get a bit more power in their defenders

Welcome to the JE Engineering Website

Originally Posted by muddymech

Jaguar introduces new range of 3.0L turbo-diesel V6s. Land Rover specification engines expectedsoon! - The Land Rover Chronicles - Land Rover and Range Rover News, Reviews and Blogs!

a link to the new jag engine that may go into the landrovers.

plus alink for those that want to get a bit more power in their defenders

Welcome to the JE Engineering Website

The Jag engine sounds very impressive! Diesel technology has come sooooooo far in the last 10 years! It'll be interesting to see how it performs after LandRover detune it to 90kw and put it into the Defender.

Originally Posted by Slunnie

The Jag engine sounds very impressive! Diesel technology has come sooooooo far in the last 10 years! It'll be interesting to see how it performs after LandRover detune it to 90kw and put it into the Defender.

Geez slunnie they cant have a "Jaguar" and a "Puma" then all the storm owners really will get upset with their pants non predatory like name

Originally Posted by mcrover

Lets not get into another one of these stressed/over stressed rubbish when talking about engine capacity.

A small engine with no turbo will only put out a set amount of horse power.

If you then add a turbo/supercharger and your effectively increasing capacity by forcing more air into the same space.

The forced induction is the only thing adding stress and the motors are built to handle it so thats not worth worrying about.

Large engines pull large loads alot better and more effortlessly due to their capacity so if you had a strong bottom end and good internals which would handle boost and you could feed the fuel into it there is no problems getting high HP/Torque figures form very small capacity engines.

The main reason for capacity over this sort of thing is normally cost rather than reliability or any other reasons.

Ive been lucky enough to drive a VL Commondoore with nearly 1000Hp under the bonnet from a nissan 6 and then the same blokes other car which was a Pintara which had just over 800hp.

Both cars were off their guts with mods and the engines were worth about 2 of my Disco's each but when you think 1 was a 3.0ltr inline 6 with a massive turbo hanging off the side and the other was a 2.4ltr inline 4 cyl with an even bigger turbo hangning off the side of it and intercoolers which were nearly too big to fit head lights in etc you wouldnt call them slow even though their capacity's are relatively small.

Ive also driven a few fairly powerful V8's and although they sound great, I wouldnt say that the same rush of power comes over you than when a massive turbo comes on boost.

The saying is "There is no substitute to cubic inches"...this is true but I would add "Except for PSI).

A semi-trailer with around 450 hp has little trouble sitting on the speed limit, up and down hills. Imagine how they would go with a 800 hp 2.4 litre Pintara engine

What were Cummins and the other medium size diesel engine makers thinking. Someone should set them straight - smaller is better (I read it here)

Originally Posted by CaverD3

Variable vane turbos gives boost at low revs without compromising the high speed boost. (also solved by twin turbos, one at low speeds one high) These can give turbo boost from very low revs.
Common rail ijection
High pressure fuel injection
Engine management of injector timing, fuel pressure and turbo timing and boost.

.............For a start.

Isuzu was one of the first smaller diesel manufacturers with computer controlled high pressure unit injectors, IIRC licensed from CAT, and AFAIK well before the Europeans except Land Rover.

The Euro manufacturers are only borrowing the technology from the big diesel manufacturers who have been using computer control and unit injectors close on twenty years now.

The Nissan ZD30 (the kaboom engine) used contra rotating balance shafts, DOHC, four valves per cylinder and a broadband inlet manifold (instead of a VVT, but then VVT's were still in their infancy when this engine came out). (<edit> actually, I think it uses a type of variable nozzle control, at least according to my manual, but we have the venerable TD42T so I can't pull any bits to check)
It used electronic control of the injection, but no high pressure.
The new 3.0 CRD adresses these things.

The Toyota V8 IMO is limited so they could use an existing driveline. If the engine was tuned to it's potential I think the g/box, t/case and front diff would go bang pretty quickly.

Originally Posted by Bush65

A semi-trailer with around 450 hp has little trouble sitting on the speed limit, up and down hills. Imagine how they would go with a 800 hp 2.4 litre Pintara engine

What were Cummins and the other medium size diesel engine makers thinking. Someone should set them straight - smaller is better (I read it here)

Lol, horses for courses and torque curve matters alot with 50/60 ton on the back.

If you could gear it properly so that it took off within the rev range which would suit the KA24T Pintara engine then it would have no probs pulling the load as with trying to get the prime mover down the 1/4 mile in under 10sec on street tyres, I recon it would struggle as well.

My point is based holey and squarely at 4wd/car engines not trucks, I could go into it in depth with trucks, trains, tractors and other large diesel equipment if you want but I dont see the point, 800rpm to 2500 Rpm just doesnt suit most peoples driving styles

Originally Posted by mcrover

800rpm to 2500 Rpm just doesnt suit most peoples driving styles

That is precisely a Toyota 1hz power band.

Originally Posted by Slunnie

That is precisely a Toyota 1hz power band.

With a 1HD-T if its running, its in the power band.