Thread: Bits that make up a Freelander ...

Originally posted by DionM
I always knew that the engine was from Rover (KV6) and that the gearbox was a Jatco unit used in Jags, VWs etc.

Yesterday while having a damn good look around under it (was bored) I found a few other interesting things - the a/c unit is a Denso unit (hah! to all those stupid Toyota owners who claim LR a/c is no good) and the rear diff is a Dana unit (at least that's what its stamped!).

Must say I was a little surprised ...

There drive train is really strong on the freelander (considering it was maen't as a shopping car [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img] )

My brother races an Ex Paris- Dakar Freelander (2003 model TD4). He has won the 2003 , 2004 and well on the way to win the 2005 British off road championships. Not bad considering the trucks he is racing against all have engines at least twice the size. Most of them Tomcats and Bowlers



His wife races a K seris 1.8 petrol engine Freelander

Unfortunately the Hippo's Achilles heel - the IRD - is pure Landrover.

Originally posted by garrycol
Unfortunately the Hippo's Achilles heel - the IRD - is pure Landrover.

Ahh yeah my brother has gone though a few of them in the years

What I don't understand is why LR put in a viscous coupling in the tailshaft when they already had a much better option at hand - why didn't they just take out the centre diff (and difflock) out of the transfer case of a discovery, put it in a different housing and mount that - it wouldn't take up as much space as the VC and damper, provide full AWD on the hard surfaces instead of the 90/10 split and have the lock option for hard going. The IRD issue would not then have been an issue because the CDL would take care of the difference in front and rear diff ratios and the handbrake drum (which is about the same dia as the VC etc) could be mounted in the CDL giving the Freelander rear disk brakes rather than drums - not that there is any problem with the drums.

And while they are at it - why not put in a two speed gearbox to give low range in the spot in the gearbox where the diff used to be when the gear box was used in 2wd rovers and other cars loke BMWs for the later Freelanders. In 2wd cars the diff was in the gearbox but in the freelanders this spot is empty and the front diff is in the transfer case (IRD).

Gazz

Originally posted by garrycol
What I don't understand is why LR put in a viscous coupling in the tailshaft when they already had a much better option at hand - why didn't they just take out the centre diff (and difflock) out of the transfer case of a discovery, put it in a different housing and mount that - it wouldn't take up as much space as the VC and damper, provide full AWD on the hard surfaces instead of the 90/10 split and have the lock option for hard going. The IRD issue would not then have been an issue because the CDL would take care of the difference in front and rear diff ratios and the handbrake drum (which is about the same dia as the VC etc) could be mounted in the CDL giving the Freelander rear disk brakes rather than drums - not that there is any problem with the drums.

And while they are at it - why not put in a two speed gearbox to give low range in the spot in the gearbox where the diff used to be when the gear box was used in 2wd rovers and other cars loke BMWs for the later Freelanders. In 2wd cars the diff was in the gearbox but in the freelanders this spot is empty and the front diff is in the transfer case (IRD).

Gazz

That would have been to easy though Garry. With Low Range the Freelander would easily compete with the new cherokee which is similar in size, and low range would go more towards justifying the 40k plus price tags. Matt

Matt - You have a good point there - Yesterday , I actually priced the new Cherokee CRD Limited - top of the range - $49K on the road - leather, 2.7lDiesel, dual range - about $2K cheaper than the equivalent Freelander. The Cherokee Renegade - basicallt the same as the Limited without leather - $45K on the road - seems good value.

Also looked at a VW Tourag - very nice, dual range - bells and whistles but at $87K on the road I think I would pay that little bit extra and go for a RR Sport. Easy to think it- harder to pay for it - but one can dream.

On the RR Sport - why would you buy a D3 HSE TDv6 when for the same price (or a bit cheaper) you can get a RR Sport.

As I said one can dream.

Gazzz

Originally posted by Ace

That would have been to easy though Garry. With Low Range the Freelander would easily compete with the new cherokee which is similar in size, and low range would go more towards justifying the 40k plus price tags. Matt

From what I have read the new Cherokee isn't much chop anyway. While it has low range, it doesn't have traction control, I think?

Give me TC over low range anyday - for my light offroading/exploring. TC will get me out of boggy tracks. Low range won't.

But yes, the IRD is an unnecessarily complex thing

The fact is, Land Rover could add low range to the Freelander for very little cost. The new Cherokee is as weak as ****, they are hopeless off road, from the tests i have read, and they arent much chop on road. With a Low Range box the TD4 Freelander would be pretty hard to beat in terms of value. With some good tyres, a bit of a lift and low range they would make for a very capable budget off roader. Matt