Printable View
I remember some Oz LRA engineers telling me the injection was done prior to BMW coming on the scene, and was a better design than the then BMW t/diesels as it was a true common rail design. I think the injection had some input from engineers from either CAT or DD as the US heavy diesel manufacturers were well along the common rail path long before the Europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blknight.aus
John, I've heard it said that Riccardo were involved in the 2/300 Tdi's too, but don't know if it's true or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Neither do I!Quote:
Originally Posted by rick130
Information about the involvement of Ricardo in the 2 litre engine is from James Taylor's book, although the design is clearly a copy of the Ricardo Comet combustion chamber and could hardly have been made without at least tacit approval from them - although their patents may have expired by the mid fifties, since the original dates from the thirties.
John
Thanks JD + All, Should have been more model specific. Seems td200-300 bottom end been around for ever and apart from T-belt and some w/pump issues. Looked after should not have any time bomb charecteristics.
Shouldn't, but it might be worth noting that the original 2 litre produced just 51bhp, and they had serious doubts whether it would stand enlarging to 2.25 litres. Of course, since then it has gone to five main bearings.Quote:
Originally Posted by victa125
John
I am trainspotting again. Quite appropriate considering the number of train drivers.
The TD5 has unitary injectors , not common rail. They generate the high pressures inside each injector
The injection ECU is an adapted petrol ECU design.
It was all done by Land Rover.
Advantages Vs common rail include it can run on biodiesel or Jet A with no ill effects .
Thus spake Land Rover engineer in LRO interview about 4-6 months ago.
The date seems rather improbable, given that 1961 was the year that the original 2 litre diesel engine appeared enlarged to 2.25, and that there were serious misgivings about whether the crankshaft would stand that much increase in load. Also, although they had existed for twenty years in aircraft and heavy diesels, I would be surprised if anyone had actually considered putting a turbocharger on a small automotive diesel in 1961 (partly cost, partly just not on the designer's map. The actual arrival of the Landrover 2.5l turbo-diesel in 1986 was one of the early uses of a turbocharger in an automotive engine, petrol or diesel. I'm guessing that the date on the photo is incorrect - should be 1981 not 1961 - that would be about right for the first tests of the turbodiesel.Quote:
Originally Posted by djam1
John
Found it again and this is what it says
"For some time, the War Department had also been looking at multi-fuel engines to meet the anticipated NATO requirement, and Rover had been working such an engine since 1959, This was a 2532 cc long-stroke derivative of the 2.25 litre diesel, which featured five main bearings instead of three.
Meanwhile, Solihull had also been experimenting with a turbocharged version of the 2.25 litre diesel - advanced thinking for such a small enine in those days. This engine had a turbocharger built by Rover Gas Turbines, and in early 1961 it had been tried in the prototype 129/1.
Rover now combined these two projects by adding a turbocharger to the 2.5 litre engine. This was built into a fifth 129 prototype, which was prepared as a military demonstrator, with 11.00 x 16 tyres and a dropside rear body with canvas tilt. It may have been completed as early as june 1963 and definately existed by august 21 when it was photographed. It seems then to have been delivered to FVRDE at Chobham, who took a special interest in its turbocharged engine.
According to the Land Rover specification sheet, this delivered 90 bhp at 4000 rpm and the same 160 lb ft of torque as the 3 - litre petrol engine, albeit at 1750 rpm rather than 1500 rpm."
Photo is obviously black and white poor quality but looks like a 2.25 litre Rover engine on a test bed with a turbo.
Not sure but interesting
Hope I'm not repeating any points others have made previously, sorry if I am :(
300TDi engines were released for the 1995 model year which actually made it to the shop front in March 1994. All would have had the R380 manual transmission.
Range Rover Classics had 3 diesels ex factory, 4 if you count the 2.4 & 2.5 VM diesels separately. They also had the 200TDi, all of these with the LT77 tranny, & the last few months of RRC production had the 300TDi/R380 combo.
From what I've seen published there was originally intended to be a family of diesels based on the TD5 motor, there was going to be a TD4 & TD6 based on the same bore /stroke & injection set up etc. Apparently BMW canned all the others 'cept the TD5, can't recall if the 4 & 6 ever made it to prototype stage or were just projected.
Steve.
It could have happened then - you have reminded me of the fact that Rover, having been a major contractor for building jet engines during the war was right into gas turbines in that era, and it is just the sort of thing they could have tried. This sort of thing does emphasise the lead time needed for going from prototype to a marketable product, particularly for a small company. Lead times are probably even longer today due to the need to meet all sorts of elaborate standards, and be able to prove that you can - even with computers to help.Quote:
Originally Posted by djam1
John