3.2 DiD into D2

[billy bob]

How hard would it be to put the 3.2DiD diesel and auto out of the pajero into a D2.
Being only 4 cylinder it should fit.
Seeing as their from I think 2003 their shouldn't be any emmisions issues.
Have read their brilliant motors.
Just need to bolt the auto to the LT230 case.
Is it possible?

[PacMan]

The Discovery 2 comes with the TD5. I thought that is a good engine.
I like this conversion ideas but there is a lot to do.

You will need custom engine mounts, maybe custom oil sump, custom brackets or hoses for p/s and a/c, custom output shaft or coupling shaft and an adapter plate for the transfer case.
The center console wont fit anymore, maybe the drive shafts have to be shorted/extended and you need a custom exhaust.
Then coming up all the little things like clutch master cylinder, radiator hoses, wiring, air filter, fan shroud, throttle cable, etc...

If you have all that done, the hard part starts. How to get the engine computer (PCM) to talk with the body and abs computer.
The VSS on a Rover will not suite the needs of the PCM out of a Pajero. And there are a lot more issues.

If i would put an engine in my car and had to do all with custom parts, i would not put a jap 4 cylinder diesel in it...
Maybe a Mercedes 450 CDI engine would be the go. Same amount on work just the engine is still a bit pricy.

Stay with your TD5 and if you are not happy with the power, just give it more boost.


Chris

[Bush65]

I also have heard they are a good engine, but have no personal experience. A good 4cyl, common rail diesel of about 3.0+ litre should provide a good balance of performance and economy for that size 4x4.

However the TD5 is a good engine also. They have a few issues, but they are well understood and it is possible to overcome them all. They are easy to power up, and with much less $$$ than what it would cost to swap the engine you can add a larger intercooler, VGT turbo, and remap for performance that would keep most people happy.

[uninformed]

I also have heard they are a good engine, but have no personal experience. A good 4cyl, common rail diesel of about 3.0+ litre should provide a good balance of performance and economy for that size 4x4.

However the TD5 is a good engine also. They have a few issues, but they are well understood and it is possible to overcome them all. They are easy to power up, and with much less $$$ than what it would cost to swap the engine you can add a larger intercooler, VGT turbo, and remap for performance that would keep most people happy.

John,
Regardless or technology, or mods, at what point does cubic capacity and quality of design come into play....us much as a 2.5ltr engine can be made brilliant on paper, I feel that in something weighing 2000+kg and then add people and gear, it becomes an issue of engine service life.

Im not convinced that 2.5lts is good in these LR,s especially with there QC and design of cooling(water and air) etc

cheers,
Serg

[Slunnie]

I also have heard they are a good engine, but have no personal experience. A good 4cyl, common rail diesel of about 3.0+ litre should provide a good balance of performance and economy for that size 4x4.

However the TD5 is a good engine also. They have a few issues, but they are well understood and it is possible to overcome them all. They are easy to power up, and with much less $$$ than what it would cost to swap the engine you can add a larger intercooler, VGT turbo, and remap for performance that would keep most people happy.

John,
Regardless or technology, or mods, at what point does cubic capacity and quality of design come into play....us much as a 2.5ltr engine can be made brilliant on paper, I feel that in something weighing 2000+kg and then add people and gear, it becomes an issue of engine service life.

Im not convinced that 2.5lts is good in these LR,s especially with there QC and design of cooling(water and air) etc

cheers,
Serg

2.5 turbo pushing a 2500kg 4WD - or 1 litre per ton.

Mack Titan (the big one) prob about 15 litre with a GCM 240,000kg - or 0.0625 litre per ton. Even as a B-double at 80,000kg its 0.1875litre per ton and will do well over 1,000,000km or then again as a semi at 51,000kg is 0.294 litre per ton.

[uninformed]

I also have heard they are a good engine, but have no personal experience. A good 4cyl, common rail diesel of about 3.0+ litre should provide a good balance of performance and economy for that size 4x4.

However the TD5 is a good engine also. They have a few issues, but they are well understood and it is possible to overcome them all. They are easy to power up, and with much less $$$ than what it would cost to swap the engine you can add a larger intercooler, VGT turbo, and remap for performance that would keep most people happy.

John,
Regardless or technology, or mods, at what point does cubic capacity and quality of design come into play....us much as a 2.5ltr engine can be made brilliant on paper, I feel that in something weighing 2000+kg and then add people and gear, it becomes an issue of engine service life.

Im not convinced that 2.5lts is good in these LR,s especially with there QC and design of cooling(water and air) etc

cheers,
Serg

2.5 turbo pushing a 2500kg 4WD - or 1 litre per ton.


Mack Titan (the big one) prob about 15 litre with a GCM 240,000kg - or 0.0625 litre per ton. Even as a B-double at 80,000kg its 0.1875litre per ton and will do well over 1,000,000km or then again as a semi at 51,000kg is 0.294 litre per ton.

how many gears does it have? how much cooling intercooling per litre??? what is the build design criteria compared to that of a "car" or LR. how much engine mass per litre compared to the rover .... you made a comparrison but is it anything more? as in does it prove or disprove my point....

[Slunnie]

I also have heard they are a good engine, but have no personal experience. A good 4cyl, common rail diesel of about 3.0+ litre should provide a good balance of performance and economy for that size 4x4.

However the TD5 is a good engine also. They have a few issues, but they are well understood and it is possible to overcome them all. They are easy to power up, and with much less $$$ than what it would cost to swap the engine you can add a larger intercooler, VGT turbo, and remap for performance that would keep most people happy.

John,
Regardless or technology, or mods, at what point does cubic capacity and quality of design come into play....us much as a 2.5ltr engine can be made brilliant on paper, I feel that in something weighing 2000+kg and then add people and gear, it becomes an issue of engine service life.

Im not convinced that 2.5lts is good in these LR,s especially with there QC and design of cooling(water and air) etc

cheers,
Serg

2.5 turbo pushing a 2500kg 4WD - or 1 litre per ton.


Mack Titan (the big one) prob about 15 litre with a GCM 240,000kg - or 0.0625 litre per ton. Even as a B-double at 80,000kg its 0.1875litre per ton and will do well over 1,000,000km or then again as a semi at 51,000kg is 0.294 litre per ton.

how many gears does it have? how much cooling intercooling per litre??? what is the build design criteria compared to that of a "car" or LR. how much engine mass per litre compared to the rover .... you made a comparrison but is it anything more? as in does it prove or disprove my point....

Serg, the number of wheel nuts, the colour of the chassis, the state of registration and the use of LED blinkers etc doesn't make that much difference. They still run to a controlled EGT etc and the trucks run at WOT a fair bit more than a 4WD.

[Bush65]

I also have heard they are a good engine, but have no personal experience. A good 4cyl, common rail diesel of about 3.0+ litre should provide a good balance of performance and economy for that size 4x4.

However the TD5 is a good engine also. They have a few issues, but they are well understood and it is possible to overcome them all. They are easy to power up, and with much less $$$ than what it would cost to swap the engine you can add a larger intercooler, VGT turbo, and remap for performance that would keep most people happy.

John,
Regardless or technology, or mods, at what point does cubic capacity and quality of design come into play....us much as a 2.5ltr engine can be made brilliant on paper, I feel that in something weighing 2000+kg and then add people and gear, it becomes an issue of engine service life.

Im not convinced that 2.5lts is good in these LR,s especially with there QC and design of cooling(water and air) etc

cheers,
Serg

A displacement of 2.5 litre is attractive due to a taxation carrot/stick in Europe.
I'm with you if the discussion was about the 200/300Tdi engine, but the TD5 is a very good engine.

The negatives that I can recall are:
Some early engines had porous head castings - fixed by replacement
Some early engines had oil pump bolts that weren't locktited - fixed by loctite
Early engines had plastic head dowels that fail and lead to head gasket leaks - fixed by steel dowels
Exhaust manifolds warp, which leads to shearing studs and leaking exhaust - generally fixed by removing ribs
Oil in electrical loom between ECU and injectors - small dollars to carry spare loom and swap when required
Performance wise, they lack low down grunt - upgrade to VGT turbo and re-map substantially improves that

That list is easily outweighed by the positives.

From my observations, considering good power and torque characteristics to achieve the performance and economy that suits how we normally (not comps) use our 4x4's in this country:
Modern common rail diesels in factory tune should achieve them with little more than 3.0 litre using current technology.
Four cylinders are enough for me - I'm happy to trade some NVH for the better efficiency and lower costs (through less complexity and moving parts).

Engine designers have very good design tools (computer simulation) these days. Given proper design, evaluation and verification procedures, there is no reason for not designing a reliable engine. The biggest problem is the emission targets that demand so much design effort and cost. Land Rover produce too few engines to ever design an engine again - they will buy from someone else (perhaps Fiat group).

It is a good while since I looked at power and torque of the Mitsu DiD, but from memory they were just below what I would like. The TD5 has less again. But swapping in a DiD to replace a TD5 will have a lot of issues that will test most peoples ability and can easily go pear shape with a big loss of $$$. I know of TD5's that have been tuned for higher power and torque and that has not affected reliability so far (and have been given a hard time).

[garrycol]

Noting that the Mitsubishi 3.2 has since been dropped and replaced by a 2.4 or 2.5 that easily out performs the 3.2. The TD5 has the same technology as these Mitsubishi engines and can easily made to out perform them.

Garry

[uninformed]

I also have heard they are a good engine, but have no personal experience. A good 4cyl, common rail diesel of about 3.0+ litre should provide a good balance of performance and economy for that size 4x4.

However the TD5 is a good engine also. They have a few issues, but they are well understood and it is possible to overcome them all. They are easy to power up, and with much less $$$ than what it would cost to swap the engine you can add a larger intercooler, VGT turbo, and remap for performance that would keep most people happy.

John,
Regardless or technology, or mods, at what point does cubic capacity and quality of design come into play....us much as a 2.5ltr engine can be made brilliant on paper, I feel that in something weighing 2000+kg and then add people and gear, it becomes an issue of engine service life.

Im not convinced that 2.5lts is good in these LR,s especially with there QC and design of cooling(water and air) etc

cheers,
Serg

2.5 turbo pushing a 2500kg 4WD - or 1 litre per ton.


Mack Titan (the big one) prob about 15 litre with a GCM 240,000kg - or 0.0625 litre per ton. Even as a B-double at 80,000kg its 0.1875litre per ton and will do well over 1,000,000km or then again as a semi at 51,000kg is 0.294 litre per ton.

how many gears does it have? how much cooling intercooling per litre??? what is the build design criteria compared to that of a "car" or LR. how much engine mass per litre compared to the rover .... you made a comparrison but is it anything more? as in does it prove or disprove my point....

Serg, the number of wheel nuts, the colour of the chassis, the state of registration and the use of LED blinkers etc doesn't make that much difference. They still run to a controlled EGT etc and the trucks run at WOT a fair bit more than a 4WD.

im not sure what your getting at. what I was saying was the points youve made and the above remarks this time around have nothing to do with what i addressed. I stated CC and quailty of design....do you think LR had the same QA in designing their engines as Cummins, Volve, or Cat????

yes you can make power out of small cc and make them effiecnt..... on paper....look at the VW1.4 SCTC petrol....but in the real world its another story...how "tired" the engine becomes and how quickly it does will be interesting...

I dont mind driving my 2.8tgv 110 ute around with nothing on/in it its OK.....but when its used to work, and driving in REAL WORLD traffic etc its just not fun...you have to predict, drive ahead behind yourself the whole time.....merging onto a hwy on a slight incline is shit....over taking is nearly non exsistant......driving out west in summer with trailer all i could manage was max 95 on level road to maintain acceptable EGT and water temp....

so the whole package is important....

yes the prime movers are in wot more....BUT look where they develop the power...very short range, hence the gears to make it work.....plus its ok to take of slow in a 40000kg truck, should we take off noticably slower than the rest of traffic in a disco etc....materials used in block/head, cooling design water and air all play a part....LR is renowned for inconsistancies....point in case when my 300tdi blew up, there were 2 others in the shop...one over heated and one had a porosity hole in the block big enough to put your pinky in....


IMO if you have 2 engines side by side same output same quality one 2.5 and 1 3.2 ....i know which one is doing less work and should last longer....

I totally agree with what John said re design tools etc ....but I do wonder if it has allowed them to build closer to the fine line of reliabilty that more so are falling over it...and who in this day looks to owning a car for 20 years???

[uninformed]

I also have heard they are a good engine, but have no personal experience. A good 4cyl, common rail diesel of about 3.0+ litre should provide a good balance of performance and economy for that size 4x4.

However the TD5 is a good engine also. They have a few issues, but they are well understood and it is possible to overcome them all. They are easy to power up, and with much less $$$ than what it would cost to swap the engine you can add a larger intercooler, VGT turbo, and remap for performance that would keep most people happy.

John,
Regardless or technology, or mods, at what point does cubic capacity and quality of design come into play....us much as a 2.5ltr engine can be made brilliant on paper, I feel that in something weighing 2000+kg and then add people and gear, it becomes an issue of engine service life.

Im not convinced that 2.5lts is good in these LR,s especially with there QC and design of cooling(water and air) etc

cheers,
Serg

A displacement of 2.5 litre is attractive due to a taxation carrot/stick in Europe.
I'm with you if the discussion was about the 200/300Tdi engine, but the TD5 is a very good engine.

The negatives that I can recall are:
Some early engines had porous head castings - fixed by replacement
Some early engines had oil pump bolts that weren't locktited - fixed by loctite
Early engines had plastic head dowels that fail and lead to head gasket leaks - fixed by steel dowels
Exhaust manifolds warp, which leads to shearing studs and leaking exhaust - generally fixed by removing ribs
Oil in electrical loom between ECU and injectors - small dollars to carry spare loom and swap when required
Performance wise, they lack low down grunt - upgrade to VGT turbo and re-map substantially improves that

That list is easily outweighed by the positives.

From my observations, considering good power and torque characteristics to achieve the performance and economy that suits how we normally (not comps) use our 4x4's in this country:
Modern common rail diesels in factory tune should achieve them with little more than 3.0 litre using current technology.
Four cylinders are enough for me - I'm happy to trade some NVH for the better efficiency and lower costs (through less complexity and moving parts).

Engine designers have very good design tools (computer simulation) these days. Given proper design, evaluation and verification procedures, there is no reason for not designing a reliable engine. The biggest problem is the emission targets that demand so much design effort and cost. Land Rover produce too few engines to ever design an engine again - they will buy from someone else (perhaps Fiat group).

It is a good while since I looked at power and torque of the Mitsu DiD, but from memory they were just below what I would like. The TD5 has less again. But swapping in a DiD to replace a TD5 will have a lot of issues that will test most peoples ability and can easily go pear shape with a big loss of $$$. I know of TD5's that have been tuned for higher power and torque and that has not affected reliability so far (and have been given a hard time).

Agreed John....if all things being equal I believe that there is enough difference going from a 2.5 ltr engine to a 3.2 ltr engine....(same design technology etc)...

Im aware of the reason LR and other euro vehicles stick to 2.5ltrs....I remeber thinking when LR bought out the TD5 why they didnt use the bore stoke of the tdi and make the 5cyl 3.125ltrs...with the TD5 technology....and then they go use the tall 2.4 from the transit...and how do they make it work (Slunnie) with a 6 speed...Id bet my left nut, looking at the gear ratios that if you were towing a decent load youll find that wanting moment due to lack of CC or low down toqure and gap in gearing...

in your opinion which is harder on a vehicle...driving hard or driving with a load ?

Do you know the power figuers of the 2.8tgv Vs the TD5?

Serg

[rick130]

Serg, I have some power/torque curves comparing the 300Tdi and both versions of the 2.8 but it's in a PDF and I don't think I can upload it to here.
Anyway, here's some raw data, sorry it's in imperial units.


LR TD5
Displacement :- 2,495 cc
Maximum power :- 136 bhp @ 4,200 rpm
Max governed rpm :- 4,200
Maximum torque :- 221 lbf ft @ 1,950 rpm (manual)
232 lbf ft @ 1,950 rpm (auto)

International HS2.8 TGV

Displacement :- 2,785 cc
Maximum power :- 135 bhp @ 3,800 rpm
Maximum governed rpm 4,000
Maximum torque :- 277 lbf ft @ 1,400 rpm

[uninformed]

Serg, I have some power/torque curves comparing the 300Tdi and both versions of the 2.8 but it's in a PDF and I don't think I can upload it to here.
Anyway, here's some raw data, sorry it's in imperial units.


LR TD5
Displacement :- 2,495 cc
Maximum power :- 136 bhp @ 4,200 rpm
Max governed rpm :- 4,200
Maximum torque :- 221 lbf ft @ 1,950 rpm (manual)
232 lbf ft @ 1,950 rpm (auto)

International HS2.8 TGV

Displacement :- 2,785 cc
Maximum power :- 135 bhp @ 3,800 rpm
Maximum governed rpm 4,000
Maximum torque :- 277 lbf ft @ 1,400 rpm

thanks Rick.

looking at those figures, id hate to have a td5 in my truck running stock r380 gearing etc...having less toqure and higher up would suck in a work vehicle....yes it may be better than the stock 300tdi but i never said they were good lol

IMO 400nm in a 2t work truck that is rated to tow 3.5

Serg

[rick130]

Doing a Google and I just found this on a Pommy forum

I have a 2.8TGV in my Defender 110, which has been a great engine to date, returning similar mpg to the 200TDi it replaced and providing a lot more torque, especially at low rpm...
Unfortunately, this morning, I was driving up to Bolton to visit a client but I only got about a mile from home, then it went bang! Well, more to the point, it went bang bang bang knock knock bang! I haven't taken it to bits yet but I suspect the oil pump may have packed up or maybe the oil pick up fell off, leading to oil starvation and wrecking just about everything! I dread to think what it's going to cost to fix but I reckon I won't get much change out of 3k by the time it's back on the road again. I've done about 70k miles on that engine from new and have always looked after it with regular oil and filter changes and decent (gtx magnetec) oil, so I had hoped it would last quite a bit longer than that - I got 250k miles out of my old 200TDi before it died.
I am seriously considering my options now and a V8 petrol with a gas conversion certainly figures in those options now... I really don't need an engine that doesn't even go for 100k before blowing up!

Paul

http://forum.landrovernet.com/showthrea ... l-HS-2.8-L" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No follow up unfortunately, I'd love to know what happened but geez it sounds like a 300Tdi, doesn't it

[Slunnie]

im not sure what your getting at. what I was saying was the points youve made and the above remarks this time around have nothing to do with what i addressed.

If you cant understand what I'm saying or see what the relevance is to your question - then perhaps we'll just leave it there hey.

[uninformed]

im not sure what your getting at. what I was saying was the points youve made and the above remarks this time around have nothing to do with what i addressed.

If you cant understand what I'm saying or see what the relevance is to your question - then perhaps we'll just leave it there hey.

you quoted some numbers that state the weight per cc of compassion engine/vehicls.....i stated its not that black and white....you make some flimsy comparison that had nothing to do with it....i guess i fail at reading between the lines as usual..

my point was not only cc but design and exicution of engine build for a required job...

Serg

[uninformed]

Doing a Google and I just found this on a Pommy forum

I have a 2.8TGV in my Defender 110, which has been a great engine to date, returning similar mpg to the 200TDi it replaced and providing a lot more torque, especially at low rpm...
Unfortunately, this morning, I was driving up to Bolton to visit a client but I only got about a mile from home, then it went bang! Well, more to the point, it went bang bang bang knock knock bang! I haven't taken it to bits yet but I suspect the oil pump may have packed up or maybe the oil pick up fell off, leading to oil starvation and wrecking just about everything! I dread to think what it's going to cost to fix but I reckon I won't get much change out of 3k by the time it's back on the road again. I've done about 70k miles on that engine from new and have always looked after it with regular oil and filter changes and decent (gtx magnetec) oil, so I had hoped it would last quite a bit longer than that - I got 250k miles out of my old 200TDi before it died.
I am seriously considering my options now and a V8 petrol with a gas conversion certainly figures in those options now... I really don't need an engine that doesn't even go for 100k before blowing up!

Paul

http://forum.landrovernet.com/showthrea ... l-HS-2.8-L" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No follow up unfortunately, I'd love to know what happened but geez it sounds like a 300Tdi, doesn't it

mine has done 40k youll here me sware from here if it blows up..... i have an egt gauge and oil pressure gauge plus a new temp gauge...i drive alot by these.
if i had the time and money, it would be moved back, full width rad and inter cooler and some other small mods.....no power increase

Serg

[Bush65]

I also have heard they are a good engine, but have no personal experience. A good 4cyl, common rail diesel of about 3.0+ litre should provide a good balance of performance and economy for that size 4x4.

However the TD5 is a good engine also. They have a few issues, but they are well understood and it is possible to overcome them all. They are easy to power up, and with much less $$$ than what it would cost to swap the engine you can add a larger intercooler, VGT turbo, and remap for performance that would keep most people happy.

John,
Regardless or technology, or mods, at what point does cubic capacity and quality of design come into play....us much as a 2.5ltr engine can be made brilliant on paper, I feel that in something weighing 2000+kg and then add people and gear, it becomes an issue of engine service life.

Im not convinced that 2.5lts is good in these LR,s especially with there QC and design of cooling(water and air) etc

cheers,
Serg

A displacement of 2.5 litre is attractive due to a taxation carrot/stick in Europe.
I'm with you if the discussion was about the 200/300Tdi engine, but the TD5 is a very good engine.

The negatives that I can recall are:
Some early engines had porous head castings - fixed by replacement
Some early engines had oil pump bolts that weren't locktited - fixed by loctite
Early engines had plastic head dowels that fail and lead to head gasket leaks - fixed by steel dowels
Exhaust manifolds warp, which leads to shearing studs and leaking exhaust - generally fixed by removing ribs
Oil in electrical loom between ECU and injectors - small dollars to carry spare loom and swap when required
Performance wise, they lack low down grunt - upgrade to VGT turbo and re-map substantially improves that

That list is easily outweighed by the positives.

From my observations, considering good power and torque characteristics to achieve the performance and economy that suits how we normally (not comps) use our 4x4's in this country:
Modern common rail diesels in factory tune should achieve them with little more than 3.0 litre using current technology.
Four cylinders are enough for me - I'm happy to trade some NVH for the better efficiency and lower costs (through less complexity and moving parts).

Engine designers have very good design tools (computer simulation) these days. Given proper design, evaluation and verification procedures, there is no reason for not designing a reliable engine. The biggest problem is the emission targets that demand so much design effort and cost. Land Rover produce too few engines to ever design an engine again - they will buy from someone else (perhaps Fiat group).

It is a good while since I looked at power and torque of the Mitsu DiD, but from memory they were just below what I would like. The TD5 has less again. But swapping in a DiD to replace a TD5 will have a lot of issues that will test most peoples ability and can easily go pear shape with a big loss of $$$. I know of TD5's that have been tuned for higher power and torque and that has not affected reliability so far (and have been given a hard time).

Agreed John....if all things being equal I believe that there is enough difference going from a 2.5 ltr engine to a 3.2 ltr engine....(same design technology etc)...

Im aware of the reason LR and other euro vehicles stick to 2.5ltrs....I remeber thinking when LR bought out the TD5 why they didnt use the bore stoke of the tdi and make the 5cyl 3.125ltrs...with the TD5 technology....and then they go use the tall 2.4 from the transit...and how do they make it work (Slunnie) with a 6 speed...Id bet my left nut, looking at the gear ratios that if you were towing a decent load youll find that wanting moment due to lack of CC or low down toqure and gap in gearing...

in your opinion which is harder on a vehicle...driving hard or driving with a load ?

Do you know the power figuers of the 2.8tgv Vs the TD5?

Serg

Land Rover's plans for the TD5 were to use a 4 cyl version for Freelander, 5 cyl version for Discovery and Defender and 6 cyl version for Range Rover. BMW bought them out before the 5 cyl (TD5) version was finished and that was all they permitted - Range Rover got the BMW 6 cyl diesel.

Simply looking at peak power and torque values will miss useful information only found by looking at the shape and areas under the power and torque curves (or practical real world results).

High torque, particularly at low speed requires injecting and burning the fuel at the top of the stroke, but that produces the harsh diesel knock and most of the NOx is also created there - both undesirable in modern cars more luxurious than work horse vehicles. Cars with common rail diesels use multiple injection events to quieten them and reduce NOx, and loose some low down torque.

The common rail engines don't suffer as much as might be thought from this, as the technology was evolving at the same time to allow much higher injection pressures, which combined with smaller holes in the injector nozzles produces better atomisation of the fuel, which gives better combustion. Also 4 valve heads allow the injector to be in the centre which is much for combustion and reduces pumping losses through less swirl required for good combustion (older direct injection engines require high swirl - except very large marine and locomotive engines).

With old tech engines, the commercial engines gained long service and durability through their mass providing rigidity (reduced deflection, keeping bearings inline, and reduced vibration under the high combustion loads) and the thermal benefits.

This is not dependent on engine displacement, but what has happened is the smaller displacement engines were designed mainly for cars and light 4x4's.

The TD5 keeps weight down, but uses other methods to increase rigidity - head bolts go down to the bottom end and pre-stress the lot (not unlike pre-stressed lightweight concrete bridges), but don't cause the distortion of the bores like conventional head bolts - the TD5 is light years ahead of the old Tdi in many ways.

Modern modelling software allow thermal and fluid design that was not available in the past, and if applied properly to a modern engine they should not suffer thermal issues, unless coolant is lost. The old heavy engines didn't suffer high temp rise like lighter engines when coolant problems arise - but this is not a displacement issue.

Regarding 2.8tgv vs TD5, I see Rick covered that. But note that the TD5 doesn't have the VGT turbo. Swap turbos between 2.8tgv and TD5 and the results will change. The following shows difference between the 2.8 with waste gate and VGT turbo - note the VGT turbo allows more torque and from usefully lower engine rpm.



Driving hard vs load in respect to harder on vehicle is too subjective.

[billy bob]

Noting that the Mitsubishi 3.2 has since been dropped and replaced by a 2.4 or 2.5 that easily out performs the 3.2. The TD5 has the same technology as these Mitsubishi engines and can easily made to out perform them.

Garry

Just went on the Mitsi site and the pajero is still running the 3.2
I brought a V8 petrol, cheaper. But now wish I got a diesel, drinks like a sailor.
I read on the pajero forum about a guy who put one of these 3.2's in an early model pajero.
Everyone talks about puttting these old 3.9 isuzu motors in their rover, but when I saw that pajero I thought my disco's coils with that motor would be awesome.
Another bonus is the 3.2 has 15,000 km service intervals

[garrycol]

Ok I stand corrected - the Triton has certainly gone back to the smaller motor.

[KiwiBacon]

Another point that may or may not concern you. A landrover with a mitsubishi pajero engine is going to have terrible resale.

Serg, I don't see the capacity difference between 2.5 and 3.2 as being enough to worry about. Sure it's 25% bigger, but if 100% is a concern to you, then 125% would still be a worry.

[Bush65]

Another point that may or may not concern you. A landrover with a mitsubishi pajero engine is going to have terrible resale.

Serg, I don't see the capacity difference between 2.5 and 3.2 as being enough to worry about. Sure it's 25% bigger, but if 100% is a concern to you, then 125% would still be a worry.

I think Serg was making a point about durability of small displacement engines used as work horses. His experience of the 300Tdi is not unlike mine except more expensive IMHO they are not up to it.

Truck engines are designed to be more durable than small automotive engines - I think it is because of the design for purpose rather than displacement per tonne, which determines this, but examples of small displacement engines that have been designed with the same criteria as truck engines are like chicken teeth.

In the case of the Tdi, they are descended from the old rover 4 cyl engine, designed for lesser service in another period long past, and suffering from some poor change decisions arguably influenced by bean counters.

[uninformed]

sorry for the derail....but thanks for all the replys. John as always I appreciate your time to help me understand.

To John, Rick and Dougal, what new current engines in the 3ltr or there abouts class would be a good option??? Isuzu? Iveco? peugot?

cheers,
Serg

[KiwiBacon]

The only small truck engine that comes to mind is the Isuzu 4JB1T. Later the 4JH1T was basically the same engine but 3 litres capacity.
They are not a refined car engine, the direct injection gives them that characteristic isuzu grumble.

The most recent incarnation of that engine is the 4JJ1 used in the current colorado/rodeo. But it is commonrail so won't be as straight forward to swap.

[uninformed]

The only small truck engine that comes to mind is the Isuzu 4JB1T. Later the 4JH1T was basically the same engine but 3 litres capacity.
They are not a refined car engine, the direct injection gives them that characteristic isuzu grumble.

The most recent incarnation of that engine is the 4JJ1 used in the current colorado/rodeo. But it is commonrail so won't be as straight forward to swap.

id be thinking for a LR work vehicle that youd want the matching gear box......6 speed would make sense due to the power caracteristics and needing lower first and close ratios to keep moving under load. top end isnt so important but would be nice to be able to over take a semi doing 100 in 110km zones and be able to sit on 110km with out skulling fuel and running high egts...

am I asking to much??

[rick130]

sorry for the derail....but thanks for all the replys. John as always I appreciate your time to help me understand.

To John, Rick and Dougal, what new current engines in the 3ltr or there abouts class would be a good option??? Isuzu? Iveco? peugot?

cheers,
Serg

I honestly don't know Serg, it all comes down to $.

Your engine is still a valid choice IMO and the easiest swap of all.
It appears MWM have addressed a number of the short comings of the 4 cyl block/bottom end, within design limitations. BTW I've found an official MWM importer in Sydney too, (they specialise in stationary/ag engines) so you should at least be able to get parts if needed.

From MD Engineering in the UK

The HS 2.8L engine was developed from the 2.5 ‘300’ Tdi and has the same backend and engine mounting points on the cylinder block. The 2.8 will fit in to any application that already has the ‘300’ Tdi installed. The position of the air inlet to the inlet manifold and turbocharger and the turbo exhaust outlet are different.

1.The improved head gasket is now steel laminate.

2.The crankshaft is forged not cast.

3.The cylinder bock has been re-designed to improve cooling .

4.The combustion system has been re-developed by AVL.

5.The improved connecting rod has the cap secured by bolts with thread in rod.

6.A new piston has been developed.

7.The rear crankshaft seal clamping has been improved to stop oil leakage.

8.The rpm at maximum torque has been reduced, 1400 TGV &1600 WG (1800 Tdi)

9.The power and torque have been increased, see comparison below.


Interestingly the raw numbers on the latest common rail Patrol engine aren't much different to your engine, 380Nm torque with a few more neddies at 118kw. I'd love to see how it's delivered, ie. the power/torque curves too.

I've had a soft spot for Iveco and I'll probably cop a pasting for this but I reckon the old Fiat diesels were good bits of gear ( I love our old Fiat tractor) but I really have no idea how reliable their latest stuff is.
The engine and the gearbox out of the Daily look interesting. There is a 4wd version (part time) and it's the same engine/gearbox (6 speed) as used in the new Massif. (Which has a fair bit of Santana in it I think ? )

3l, common rail DOHC, with the VGT version having;
176HP/130kw @ 3200-3500RPM
400Nm from 1250RPM to 3000RPM

That's a flat torque curve, I'll try and find a graph.

http://www.iveco.com.au/3-0hpi.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.massif.iveco.com/index.php?l ... =driveline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KiwiBacon]

Contrast the flat torque curve in many motors, to the flat power curve in the Puma.
Page 38 in the PDF below.

http://landrover.brochures.tagworldwide ... n_OINT.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[rick130]

Here's the 3.0 HTP Iveco.
Sorry, it's pretty coarse.

[Bush65]

sorry for the derail....but thanks for all the replys. John as always I appreciate your time to help me understand.

To John, Rick and Dougal, what new current engines in the 3ltr or there abouts class would be a good option??? Isuzu? Iveco? peugot?

cheers,
Serg

Further to what Rick and Dougal have posted, the following pics shows power and torque curves for the Isuzu 4JJ1-TCS as used in the NNR 200 truck. Nett 110 kW at 2800 rpm and 375 Nm at 1600 to 2800 rpm. The NNR 200 is a good bit heavier than a Landy.

I can't recall figures for the 4JJ1 used in Holden and Isuzu D-Max utes, but probably higher.



Edit: being from an Isuzu truck with manual transmission, I assume the computer stuff would be relatively simple to keep with the engine (stand alone, and not need untangling from other computer systems in the vehicle).

[Bush65]

...
Just went on the Mitsi site and the pajero is still running the 3.2
I brought a V8 petrol, cheaper. But now wish I got a diesel, drinks like a sailor.
I read on the pajero forum about a guy who put one of these 3.2's in an early model pajero.
Everyone talks about puttting these old 3.9 isuzu motors in their rover, but when I saw that pajero I thought my disco's coils with that motor would be awesome.
Another bonus is the 3.2 has 15,000 km service intervals

Sorry I don't know much about the various computer systems used in Disco II's or Pajero's and how they interface. Land Rover tend to have quite a few and they interact to some degree, which makes it difficult.

I wasn't aware at first what engine you had in the Disco, now I can understand the attraction for putting in a good diesel to replace the V8.

I do know of a Disco II that had a 3.9 Isuzu 4BD1T swap in place of a V8, so no doubt it would be possible to fit a 3.2 DiD Mitsu, and it should be a good engine, but I can't help with how difficult it would be.