Thread: Warming up a 2L Series 1 motor

Google search this question as there are lots of web pages devoted to Land Rover engine mods etc.

It may take a while but spend a day searching and you will find all kinds of stuff.

Try this one for starters - http://www.rover.org.nz/manuals/landrov/contents.htm

and this one - http://home.iprimus.com.au/johnhpowl...ver/index.html

I have saved dozens and dozens of web pages for future reference.

Happy Googling.

The engine was fitted in somewhat more powerful form to some of their saloon cars and you may get some clues there. The Landrover engine was deliberately derated by using a low compression ratio and conservative camshaft and manifolding to give flexibility as well as the ability to run on low grade fuel. Unfortunately I don't think you can increase the compression ratio of these engines except by fitting higher compression pistons - the head face is flat and the combustion chamber is formed by the piston.

As far as the exhaust pipe diameter goes, I think that the reason is primarily that with these long stroke engines (imposed for taxation reasons), the size and lift of the exhaust valve is limited, so that a larger exhaust pipe is little advantage. (Other contemporary designs all seem to have larger intake than exhaust valves, so they all seem to think that getting mixture in is more important than getting exhaust out) The Rover design does at least allow a large intake valve area for the bore. I suspect the easiest way of increasing the power would be to fit twin carburetors - I can't remember whether this was done with the fours, but it certainly was with the sixes. It may be possible to fit a thinner head gasket to get a modest increase in compression, and of course, boring out to the largest piston size available would increase both swept volume and compression ratio. And then of course, either a supercharger or turbocharger would work wonders, although there is not all that much space under the bonnet to fit a lot of gear.

All the pipework, fittings etc would have to be specially made of course, as nobody does this routinely - you have to ask is it really worth it? And if you get more than a very modest increase, what else do you have to upgrade (steering, brakes, gearbox, clutch, diffs, although the gearbox, transfer case and diffs were unchanged with the 2.25 engine and, apart from the rear diff, the 2.6)

John

The 2L version of the 'Siamese Bore' motor found in the '52 and '53 80" Series 1's is the sporty version. From 48-51 they were fitted with the 1.6L motor (same motor, different bore). From memory there wasn't a huge amount of power difference between the 2L and 1.6L motor but the 2L had a marked increase in torque.
The final use of the vehicle will probably dictate what motor you fit. If you want to restore it original condition you should obviously keep the original motor. If you want to use it as a sports car, buy a sports car.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

. (Other contemporary designs all seem to have larger intake than exhaust valves, so they all seem to think that getting mixture in is more important than getting exhaust out)

Most, if not all, engines have larger intake than exhaust valves. Unless forced induction, intake charge is only pushed into the cylnder by atmospheric pressure. Exhaust gases are forced out by the piston moving up the bore.

Originally Posted by BigJon

1. Most, if not all, engines have larger intake than exhaust valves.

2. Unless forced induction, intake charge is only pushed into the cylnder by atmospheric pressure. Exhaust gases are forced out by the piston moving up the bore.

1. yes, and the Rover IOE engines have a much larger difference than is usual.

2. Yes, thanks, I thought of that but didn't put it down - my point is that the exhaust valve is so restrictive that increased tailpipe diameter would have little if any effect - and remember we are talking about a pipe handling the exhaust from 52 bhp not the 150 bhp+ you are used to looking at! And also remember that turbo diesels need a low pressure on the exhaust side of the turbine, and so ought to have an even larger pipe, if you are comparing it to its current successor the Defender.

Also worth noting that whereas a performance vehicle is usually deliberately given an exhaust that will resonate at a desired rpm to increase the peak power, this sort of peak is deliberately avoided in a utility vehicle.

John

All I can suggest is that there must be something wrong with your engine. My first 2 litre series 1 used to cruise at 60mph and get up to 70 down hill. At the time it was my everyday vehicle and I used to drive from Nowra to Newcastle and back every weekend. I even did a few overnight Newcastle to Melbourne trips - not the fastest car on the road but would cruise close to the speed limit.

When the engine needed a new carby and some other work, sadly I decided to put in a holden 161. It accelerated faster but still only cruised at 60, was more noisy and used more fuel and didn't climb steep hills as well.

My suggestion - recon your engine and bring everything back to standard specs - don't go the holden route but if you do I will have your landy engine if it is the later 2 litre rather than the earlier version.

Garry

Originally Posted by garrycol

All I can suggest is that there must be something wrong with your engine. My first 2 litre series 1 used to cruise at 60mph and get up to 70 down hill. At the time it was my everyday vehicle and I used to drive from Nowra to Newcastle and back every weekend. I even did a few overnight Newcastle to Melbourne trips - not the fastest car on the road but would cruise close to the speed limit.

When the engine needed a new carby and some other work, sadly I decided to put in a holden 161. It accelerated faster but still only cruised at 60, was more noisy and used more fuel and didn't climb steep hills as well.

My suggestion - recon your engine and bring everything back to standard specs - don't go the holden route but if you do I will have your landy engine if it is the later 2 litre rather than the earlier version.

Garry

I think you have a very good point - it is worth remembering that most Holden conversions of S1s were done, not because it provided more performance compared to the Rover engine, but because the low mileage Holden engine provided more performance than the clapped out Rover engine with the bonus that the purchase plus installation was a lot cheaper than overhauling the Rover engine, plus it gave you an engine you could get cheap parts for anywhere. The fact that it gave marginally better acceleration than the new Rover engine had to be weighed agains it being less suited to the gear ratios and less forgiving of slopes offroad. Remember in those days people drove Landrovers not necessarily because they preferred them, but because there was nothing else.

John

A good conversion for a S1 would be the 2.0TD from the freelander (the only good part of them from all reports).