Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user. If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.
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).
...
Since posting that, I read that Tata are considering a collaboration of Tata, and Land Rover Jaguar engineers designing new engines for Land Rover and Jaguar to replace the range of engines they use now - to further reduce emission.
If this goes ahead, no doubt they will think about 4 cyl diesels of about 3 litre displacement.
Edit quote added below.
... PM Telang, MD of Tata Motors' India operations, told TOI that the two companies intend to jointly develop smaller engines that could be strapped on vehicles of all the three brands.
He said, while the portfolio of Tata Motors was growing, JLR was facing pressure due to emission norms in Europe. "So they will have to start downsizing their engines and there will be some areas, where there will be synergy between these two companies. All this will be examined to find out if there is some interplay available for us to take joint engine development which will meet some of their requirements and some of Tata Motors' requirements."
The engines for JLR are currently supplied by Ford, which the brands before Tata Motors bought them in a $2.5 billion deal. However, stricter emission norms in Europe and supply constraints has prompted Tata Motors to look at developing newer engines, especially smaller and more efficient ones. "The current range of engines that they use, which are from Ford, are fairly large engines. For passenger cars, they are upwards of 3 litres and going up to 5.5 liters," Telang said.
While Telang refused to elaborate further, it is believed that Tata Motors may chip in with its knowledge in compact engines as well as low-cost development philosophy to combine with the R&D expertise of JLR.
And the move to develop smaller engines comes at a time when Tata Motors is looking at assembling the Land Rover in India, to bring down the cost of the off-roaders and increase their potential in the market. "We have started retailing Jaguar and Land Rover in India and got a good response. Now we are examining the market for CKD (completely-knocked down) operations for larger volumes," Telang said.
Last edited by Bush65 on Tue Aug 31, 2010 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
uninformed wrote: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).
sorry if i missed it John, but what is the capacity of this Isuzu? does it have a 6 speed manual with it?
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).
...
Since posting that, I read that Tata are considering a collaboration of Tata, and Land Rover Jaguar engineers designing new engines for Land Rover and Jaguar to replace the range of engines they use now - to further reduce emission.
If this goes ahead, no doubt they will think about 4 cyl diesels of about 3 litre displacement.
i wonder what will become of the 2.5ltr tax rule....as in I know the rule wont change but will they actually build something over 2.5?? bit of a moot point as the next gen def will be monocouque with IFS/IRS
good chance the engine could end up east west, eiether way I doubt it suitable for the coil sprung defenders....
I think most places in europe have moved from displacement tax to emissions/consumption tax. The UK is big on that, under 100g/km of CO2 and you don't have to pay to drive around London central.
A mate who works for a landy dealer says the current defender will keep being built until sales stop.
Regarding gearboxes for the 4JJ1 engine, both Isuzu NPR trucks and D-max utes use a 5 speed, you could adapt other six speeds but it doesn't appear a bolt up option exists. This engine should share mounts with the 4JB1 which has been a common landrover conversion worldwide. It's a 3 litre 4 cylinder.
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).
...
Since posting that, I read that Tata are considering a collaboration of Tata, and Land Rover Jaguar engineers designing new engines for Land Rover and Jaguar to replace the range of engines they use now - to further reduce emission.
If this goes ahead, no doubt they will think about 4 cyl diesels of about 3 litre displacement.
i wonder what will become of the 2.5ltr tax rule....as in I know the rule wont change but will they actually build something over 2.5?? bit of a moot point as the next gen def will be monocouque with IFS/IRS
good chance the engine could end up east west, eiether way I doubt it suitable for the coil sprung defenders....
Serg
JLR (Jaguar Land Rover) use engines up to 5.2 litre from memory. From what I have read, that is what is worrying for them - they are currently using small displacement engines in other models, such as Defender, Freelander, and to some extent Disco to offset emissions from the larger engines in Jags and Range Rover.
As I took the brief report I referred to above, to mean, they particularly want smaller engines to replace those in Jags and RR.
There was earlier talk of using the Freelander engine in the next gen Defender (at 2.2 litre it has higher torque/power values than the 2.4 litre Puma engine - but we know peak values are not the full picture).
The life of the current gen Defender is pre-destined by incoming safety requirements for stability control and SRS airbags.
swamp wrote:I know its a bit off topic but in the graphs shouldn't the power and torque curves cross at 5252 rpm.
I dont understand this statement???? what about engines that have a peek rpm of 4400???
cheers,
Serg
If imperial units of power (HP) and torque (ft lbs) are used, the relationship of power to torque is:
HP = ft lbs x rpm / 5252
So at 5252 rpm, the last 2 terms rpm / 5252 cancel each other out giving HP = ft lbs (only when rpm is 5252)
As Dougal indicated above, the HP and Torque curves cross at 5252 rpm, but only if using imperial units of HP and ft lbs, and the same vertical scale for both. If the engine could only reach 4400 rpm, then the curves would not cross.
The power and torques that were posted use SI units and have different scales (power on left vertical axis and torque on right vertical axis), so that rule doesn't apply.
Re the new D-Max/Colorado engine, one of the neighbours works for the Council here and gets a new ute every two/three years.
The latest Colorado is superior on fuel economy to his old Rodeo by a massive margin (can't recall the km/l but it's significant) and seeing as he doesn't pay for his fuel it must be good to be noticed. (he has a hydraulic tailgate and usually a fuel tank for the dozer in the back of the ute)
