Printable View
Outputs from GM-H workshop manual.
173 high compression 118 hp @ 4400 rpm, 168 lbs/ft @ 2000 rpm
202 135 hp @ 4400 rpm, 194 lbs/ft @ 2000 rpm
My opinion is that either engine will have more power anywhere in the rev. range than a Land Rover engine.
Land Rover outputs from Series III Salesman's Manual, rpm not stated.
2.25 litre petrol 70.5 hp, 16.5 Mkg (can someone provide a conversion factor to lbs/ft for this?)
2.25 litre diesel 62. hp, 14.2 Mkg
2.6 litre six cylinder petrol 86.0 hp, 18.2 Mkg
soon as you take one for a drive you will see exactly what i mean bigfella ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm
the torque is much more useable and the extra weight of the land rover lump aids traction.
Dave, I have driven a few of them and they are far more powerful and flexible than the original. Far, far, better again is a Chrysler 265. This latter is the pick of engine conversions for a Series without going to a large V8 of some kind which usually causes heartache when trying to register it and chews up Series drivelines even quicker than a Holden or Chrysler 6.Quote:
Originally Posted by incisor
I've come very close to putting in a holden six and a valiant six. I've been told to steer clear of the 202 but I'm not sure if it's a good engine or not. I kept the original 2.25 because it's still working and it suits my purpose just fine, moving around the farm and carrying loads. The Holden engines better for the road but the landy engines better for slow moving where you need torque a bit lower. Perfect for farm work and off roading. The 173 should be a great engine.
The 186 is a great motor but a 202 will pull better down low as it has a the same bore size as a 186 but a 1/4 inch longer stroke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Series3 GT
Put a heavier flywheel on either and you will have all the torque you need and more.
186 = 245 nm torque
202 = 263 nm torque
Cheers, Mick.
I didn't realise that the 186 and the 202 had that much torque! For a petrol thats not too bad. As you said the longer stroke of the 202 makes the difference and if you add the heavier flywheel it would be brilliant. The 173 has 220Nm for the low compression and 228 for the high compression. That's not far off.Quote:
Originally Posted by mick88
I broke two rear axles - not being silly or carrying heavy loads either - with the 202. So I fitted a Salisbury out of an ex-mil S3. Easy fit, just fold and weld on a pair of saddle mounts because the rear springs on the LWB had a wider track than the SWB, the only problem for me was the rear prop shaft / diff pinion was then set at an excessive angle which reduced the life of the uni joint - I had ex-mil spring shackles and had moved the engine rearward (to avoid chopping the front cross member) which didn't help either.... Anyway, that was a bit off topic, but the 202/Rover combination served me well.
I had heard that 202's developed a habit of the piston crown separating during 'normal' use. I had never seen it, and it sounds like a piston material or casting issue.
I think the 173 will be nice.
Matt.
OEM Holden pistons in the original 202s were quite prone to breaking up, although the 186 did it too. The 173 is easily bored out to 186 or even 192, and most later/aftermarket pistons should be over the problem of early failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by mudmouse
I used to have a 202 in a 2a lwb with a marks adaptor kit , It had heaps more power useable power than the origional 2.25 petrol unit . I also had a friend with a 138 red in it & drove both on the road . With the landies low gearing I actually didnt notice much difference in driveabilty on the road at least! My greatest concern would be the adaptor kit as there were a few dodgy ones out there back in the 80s (If its got a Dellow conversion have a good look for cracks & stripped bolt holes as the alloy was very thin in places);)
Hi
Im told the best motor is a 149 but they may be hard to get .something to do with the torque vs revs and not all that powerful to cause damage.Def go with electronic ign