Thread: A Straw Poll re Holden Conversions.

I've had them all and will agree that from stop the Land Rover engines are very easy with plenty of torque. That is pretty much where the benefits end, in fact my 253V8 109 was even easier from stop and just idled over obstacles much better than any Rover or Holden straight six.

Yes there are problems with the Holden straight sixes but as Brian suggests, the oil starvation was solved by work on the sump. My choice was to get a sump from a HT Holden because it has the bulge in the centre so doesn't suffer the oil starvation. Lowering the float level in the carby was another solution for flooding.

Using an engine from a manual car or changing the cam was always preferable. Using a later plastic fan or electric pusher fans gives better airflow and fitting an external oil cooler added additional volume of cooled oil which solved the overheating problems.

I still prefer a Holden engine with standard diff ratios and a Roverdrive overdrive rather than a high speed transfer case, if only for easier starts.

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

I find it very hard to believe the above claims of better performance.

A Land Rover 2.25 petrol engine has 70.5 bhp and 16.5 m/kg of torque and a diesel has 62.0 bhp and 14.2 m/kg of torque. These are Land Rovers own figures quoted in the Land Rover Series III Salesman's Manual.

A Holden 202 has 135 bhp and 26.77 m/kg of torque in standard trim as fitted to HQ & LJ.

Your 173 is recorded as 118 bhp and 23.21 m/kg.

Obviously the Holden is going to be a far better performer.

All understood - but my IIA definitely became more tractable to drive once I put a Rover motor back in it. Like I said, there can be big differences between individual motors too. A number of people drove the vehicle both before and after the change and all noticed the same things. It definitely doesn't have the top speed that it used to, but is definitely more comfortable doing what it does in every other situation.

The VicRoads Vehice Safety Branch advised that if I am going back to factory specs & it involves no cutting & welding of engine mounts etc then no engineering certification is required.

Many years ago, I fully rebuild my brothers IIA - when he bought it, it had a running, but clapped out 2.25 in it, which was hard work on and off road.

We did a full - and proper 202 conversion in it - rebuilt engine, with new camshaft, baffled sump, 350 holley carb, high flow oil pump, etc, etc. Got it fully engineered - had to upgrade the brakes, fit seat belts, demister, etc. Bottom line is, it went brilliantly - on and off the road. Would sit on 100 if you wanted to put up with the noise and the fuel usage...

Having said that, we didn't know at the time about correctly aligning the gearbox and engine - we assumed the commersially made adaptor took care of that - WRONG! One knackered gearbox later, and a trip to an engineer to get everything aligned properly, it never played up after that.

Pity it got sold on as we were young, and we went on to other things (Women) wish I could find the old girl again, I really put in some time on that one...

Thanks to all sages & punters for your highy valued input!

I've decided that EVENTUALLY, I'd like to make this truck original but I'm at the stage of installing the drivetrain NOW.

So I will stay with the 186 ATM.

I've been persuaded by the availability of a serviceable gearbox, a VERY well made adaptor, both clutch plates & a flywheel for a reasonable price.

The current 186 runs OK albeit with compression on No. 6 down about 20%. It didn't come up at all when I squirted oil down the plughole suggesting a valve problem so I may take the head off & have a bit of a poke around. It should run for a while regardless.

The Land Rover conversion can be done (much) later giving me time to source the bits prob via the purchase of a non-restorable car with orig mechanicals.

only thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is the weight of the motors and the torque band..

the holden is much lighter and it does make a fair bit of difference to the capabilities offroad as the front end can get away from you much quicker..

and you have to have more revs on the boil to get the grunt to do a few things.

last but not least... it isnt a small job to take on back to being landy powered

so many little things....

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

I find it very hard to believe the above claims of better performance.

A Land Rover 2.25 petrol engine has 70.5 bhp and 16.5 m/kg of torque and a diesel has 62.0 bhp and 14.2 m/kg of torque. These are Land Rovers own figures quoted in the Land Rover Series III Salesman's Manual.

A Holden 202 has 135 bhp and 26.77 m/kg of torque in standard trim as fitted to HQ & LJ.

Your 173 is recorded as 118 bhp and 23.21 m/kg.

Obviously the Holden is going to be a far better performer.

Brian, you might be surprised.

Jack Hallam (sp?) in LROCB had a 2.25D that had the injector pump worked over by rocklea diesel. It blew plumes of smoke under power, but would beat 202 powered landies up hills.

My own 2.25D, with nothing more than breathing mods (intake and extractors) and pump advance spring mods, could beat JasonK's 109" (almost identical vehicle, except I had 33's and he 7.50s) up cunningham's gap.

EDIT:

Back on topic, I have met a few people who have been happy with their holden conversions. One such person commented to me that most conversions leave the motor in a bad position resulting in poor cooling. That and gearing are I think the 2 main things that need sorting for a holden conversion.

Geez, you all must be at work to have replied so quickly to this thread!

Anyway, I had a 202 in my SIIA when I bought it in '89, and not knowing anything at all about cars I just got annoyed with it over time. It just seemed to run out puff, (not enough torque down low, I realised). During the cars first rebuild in '94 I put a rebuilt 2&1/4 petrol in.

I have regretted it ever since. Even though the engine does indeed have those good low-speed characteristics as mentioned, at the end of the day it's a small, heavy motor that belongs in something small and light, like an 80", where it could do some good. It well-and-truly does not have the power it needs for a loaded 109" - and I've done about as many upgrades on this motor as you can do.

Now, with hindsight, I can see that what I should have done was to neaten up the conversion, (which included a flame-cut front crossmember and a messy angle iron radiator frame), and sort out the cam for more torque in the right place, and then do something about the gearing. I used to start off in second.

I think they are brilliant engines, with a strong but simple design, side plates for lifter access, timing gears, an oil pump hanging off the side, and now a whole pile of performance gear since they're still used for racing. I learned to work on engines with the 202 and it was the best introduction I could have asked for.

Now, I'm stalled in the middle of changing the car to a Stage I spec, having done the axles and brakes, but not quite ready to do the rest of the drivetrain. I keep wondering if I could just instead find a way to mate a 202 to the LT95 I've got, since the only worry about the conversion was the weak gearbox. I like the Rover V8 as an engine, too, but the Holden is just that much simpler and easier to get parts for that I wouldn't mind one again.