Thread: Which engine to use?

I woould consider the four cylinder Rover engine to be the best for your use (diesel will be more economical, but if you don't have one, the cost of the diesel engine plus conversion would buy an awful lot of fuel!).

The four cylinder Rover engine is designed for the vehicle, and parts are readily available and fairly cheap. And you know what parts to get.

The Holden six provides increased power, but for your use this is unlikely to be a major factor. On the negative side, both carburetter and lubrication are likely to perform less than perfectly on steep slopes - whether this matters depends on your terrain. If not previously registered with the Holden engine, and you do decide to get registration (now or in the future) significant engineering costs will be involved. Parts are readily available and cheap, provided you know exactly which engine you have, and what clutch etc you used.

The Rover six is more powerful and drives well, but fuel consumption is going to be higher than the alternatives. And this engine does not stand neglected maintenance like the four does. Most engine parts are a lot harder to find, and some downright difficult or impossible, and you can expect them to be expensive.

Hope this helps

John

I agree with JD. Of your 3 options, the 2.25 will give the best compromise of power, economy and reliability.

That's good, and pretty much what I was thinking. I do have at least one vehicle that has been registered with a Holden engine, but don't need much power just to plod around the farm!

So a 4 cylinder 2.25L is the choice. I have a PTO winch to go on it, and I think I'll make it a trayback because they're more useful and I've got a nice trayback body already. But....

Last question: Are the 88" and 109" chassis the same "front half" with a longer back on the 109", so that the firewall, front wings, bonnet and seatbox etc. are interchangeable? The trayback body is currently on a 109", and I prefer the 88"!

Originally Posted by Warb

.......

Last question: Are the 88" and 109" chassis the same "front half" with a longer back on the 109", so that the firewall, front wings, bonnet and seatbox etc. are interchangeable? The trayback body is currently on a 109", and I prefer the 88"!

While the chassis is not strictly the same (deeper section mainly), all body parts (and most mechanical bits) are the same from the back of the doors forward (but note the six has a different firewall, floor and transmission tunnel).

I agree that a trayback is the more useful body for most farm purposes, but my view would be that the 109 is more useful on the farm than an 88.

John

I reckon that a IIA with the 4 cyl and a trayback is a brilliant set up. Thats the way my IIA is set up and it can carry anything and is ultra reliable. The only way it go's wrong is when I run out of fuel or a flat battery. They are a great set up for farm work.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

I agree that a trayback is the more useful body for most farm purposes, but my view would be that the 109 is more useful on the farm than an 88.

That's almost certainly true, and I'm going to have to give it some thought, but I just like the look of the 88 more than the 109. As long as I can get the compressor across behind the seatback, with enough room for a couple of wire spinners and some star posts, that's all I need. I'll have to do some measuring.....

[QUOTE=Warb;1687879....... but I just like the look of the 88 more than the 109. ..............[/QUOTE]

Is this to be a farm ute or a contestant in a beauty contest?

John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Is this to be a farm ute or a contestant in a beauty contest?

You have to enjoy what you do! I'd never breed Bos Indicus cattle because I don't like the way they look, and equally I want my farm vehicle to please me aesthetically. If I wanted to be utterly functional I'd use another Hilux... or maybe an Argocat!

But you're right, and just this afternoon I decided that the 109" SIII that supplied the engine for my wife's 88", with the addition of the body and tray from a 109" IIa, will probably be the next farm ute.