Thread: 2.6 landy output

I think you will find they are somewhat lower compression than the Holden engine of similar size, and also higher revving.

I have heard several reasons for the tendency to burn exhaust valves. These include the tendency to ignore tappet clearance on them because they are hard to get at, and that there is a steel pipe inside the block to control coolant flow that is often missing due to corrosion or simply removed because someone did not know what it was for.

John

I was told by Uncle Ho that the military engines had been fitted with the wrong camshaft, which made them particularly under-powered (I can vouch for the under-powered bit, having driven brand new ones).

Harder valves may be available; in the 1950's it was common on some cars to hard-face the valves with stellite, which solved burning issues.

Compression pressures might be able to be increased, but I would think a super-charger might be the easiest way to get some oomph out of it.

I do remember reading an article in LRO magazine, in which someone bought a very low mileage civilian 2.6 (S2 or 3 can't remember which) and he was most impressed by how powerful and smooth the car was and the journalist confirmed his observations.

Good luck with your research!

Cheers Charlie

Re: Exhaust Valves.
The Rover 3 litre (almost the same motor) doesn't seem to have a tendancy to burn exhaust valves.
I'd agree with John that exhaust valves are hard to get at to adjust in a Land Rover but I'll have to speak to a colleague to see how easy it is in the the Rover. Setting it to run lean would also burn out exhaust valves.

My 6-cyl FFR had ingested plenty of dust which wore out the piston rings & bores but the valves & seats were OK but I can confirm that checking the exhaust tappets is a PITA.
There are a few pictures here: FFR Refurb

Re : Head Gaskets
Not aware of any problems but did read somewhere not to use the steel head gasket, only use the composite one. A colleague with a Rover 3-litre uses the steel gaskets without any issues.

Power
2.25 4 cylinder 77BHP @4,250rpm Max Torque 124lb/ft @ 2,500rpm
2.6 6-cylinder 83BHP @ 4,500rpm Max Torque 128lb/ft @ 1,500rpm

Not a huge increase in power or torque over the 4-cylinder but the 6 has max torque at lower revs.

I do remember when I lived in the UK that the 2.6 wasn't popular because of the much higher fuel consumption without a big enough power increase over the 4-cylinder.


A few interesting comments here on the 2.6 motor: Rover 2.6 Petrol Engine.


Add to all the above the fact that some engine parts are getting hard to locate.


Colin