land rover "defender" 2.5 diesel

[cereal tiller]

replaced a fuel injector pump in a friend's land rover recently.

it appears to be a robust unit,yes it does have a timing belt,but no obvious design flaws.

am thinking of using one should my boat's 40 year old BMC 2.5 need replacing.

are there any drawbacks with these engines?

[Bob18]

If its got a timing belt its got a turbo.

So its way too powerful for a narrowboat (can't recall the exact figure, but 86, 95 and 115hp come to mind)

 

There are three "simple" LR turbo diesels engines:

The first, oldest was a grade one pile of horse manure and is totally worth avoiding, most have probably died by now and been replaced by one of the newer ones. This one had a timing chain.

The next generation - the 200TDi was a much better beast, with a much modified block, and new head cured most of the ills of it predecessor. It also gained a fair lump of power, and an intercooler.

Then there was the 300TDi, more redesign of the block, another new head, a little bit of electronics. Early ones of htese suffered from a head problem, but most were cured at LR's expense....

In their standard form they will coke up quite badly if run at typical canal revs for long periods of time, they need the odd blast to over 2500 revs, under load, to keep them clear.

All three do not like to be run without their turbochargers - they become black smoke generators first class, even when you turn the fuelling down. The main reason is they have the wrong compression ratio to properly ignite the fuel on compression, you would have to have new special pistons made and that would cost a lot of money, if not more.

 

In short, you could do it, but expect problems.

[cereal tiller]

thanks bob

the one i attended recently was normally aspirated but seemed to run clean.

 

it was not the ancient 2 1/4 land rover engine.

 

the vehicle was an ex forces LWB,was a special batch made for this model?,i have never worked wih vehicles,always with marine engines.

 

i will heed your advice,thanks

[cereal tiller]

just looked up the history of land rover engines

 

it would seem that thit particular unit is the uprated version of the old 2 1/4.

 

in 1983 it was re-designed with a new cylinder head,increased capacity,new fuel injection equipment, and the timing chain replaced by a toothed belt .

 

turbochargers came along a year or two later.

[bottle]

Mmmmm.

 

Not an engineer or anything just some thoughts:

 

Engine will have at least twice the power of 'normal' narrow boat engine and how will a PRM gearbox fit unless you plan to use the LR box, that should make the boat shift.

 

Matching the prop may be a little difficult,

[Nickhlx]

Mmmmm.

 

Not an engineer or anything just some thoughts:

 

Engine will have at least twice the power of 'normal' narrow boat engine and how will a PRM gearbox fit unless you plan to use the LR box, that should make the boat shift.

 

Matching the prop may be a little difficult,

 

Surely a 4 speed gearbox would help !!

 

Nick

[gbmud]

Landrover 2.5 naturally aspirated diesels have a timing belt and are a reliable, long lived engine - if rather underpowered in a Landrover. IIRC they manage something about 50BHP. The first turbocharged units were just the same 2.5 with a bolt on turbocharger which had the effect of making them very unreliable and not all that much more powerful. Then came the 2.5Tdi engines which, while very reliable are probably rather too powerful for NB use at 100+BHP - though maximum torque is at 1800RPM. Much older 2.25 Landrover diesels had chain drive and were reliable but not very long lived.

 

Chris

[Henhouse]

I would echo much of what has already been said, and add a bit more detail on the various Land Rover diesels.

 

1) 2286cc ( commonly known as the 2 & 1/4 ) A rock solid engine which with clean oil will go on forever.

Still plenty of them about in series 2 and 3 Landys. Worn ones will still give good service, but may need glow plugs to start even when hot. Chain driven timing, so no belt to worry about.

Not known for it's speed.

 

2) 2495cc A totally robust engine which was simple and reliable. Again, it could be a pain to start, but would chug along all day, albeit slowly, especially when towing. Timing belt on this one needs changing at 60,000 miles or equivalent hours.

 

3) 2495cc Turbo Land Rover's attempt to keep up with foreign imports. They had a reputation for self destructing. Though some people loved them. I avoided this one. Timing belt a above.

 

4) 200Tdi. To my mind the best of the lot. I am still running one in a Defender. It's 18 years old and uses no water, and only half a pint of oil between services. Timing Belt.

 

5) 300Tdi. Updated version of above. Smoother, and quieter. as Bob said early ones had issues which were sorted. Introduction of electric management systems is a negative for me. Timing Belt.

 

6) TD5. A great engine but let down by electronics. Cylinder heads and gaskets can be an issue. As can oil leaks. Too complicated for my tastes. Timing Belt.

 

Obviously all the above is my opinion of the engines in road vehicles. Personally I wouldn't think of puting one in a Narrowboat, but if I absolutely had to, then I'd go for the old and simple 2286cc, and not have to worry about timing belt changes.

[station tug]

200 tdi less the turbo is probably the best bet...you can get them these days for less than £200....should be somewere around 50 bhp..if you tunker with the fuel pump you could get it not to use much fuel at all.......

[RLWP]

What's the availability of the marinising parts for this engine?

 

Richard

[cereal tiller]

thanks for all the above info.

 

the engine that iam currently using is a 2.5 BMC which i installed in 1998,it is still giving good service,which is remarkable considering it had been retrieved from a sunken wooden boat!

 

the BMC is rated at 50 bhp continuous,and 62 bhp max.

 

the land rover engine i may consider as a replacement is rated at 68 bhp max,so assuming that the torque curves of both engines are similar,the CURRENT PRM 260 3 TO 1 REDUCTION,and prop. 2OX19 INCH,could both be retained.

 

60bhp is more than adequate for a 70 footer,especially as the boat is used mainly on the thames,sometimes in flood conditions,which it copes with,although fuel consumption more than doubles!

 

making a bell-housing is not a difficulty,and the other marinising components should not be impossible to source or manufacture.

[Bob18]

200TDi without the turbo is a real dead dog. Even after fiddling with the fuelling there is no bottom end power, and they smoke very badly - the compression ratio is too low to properly ignite the fuel. (We tried it once on my brother's LR when he "launched" the engine into a river that was deeper than he thought, we had a 200TDi with a blown turbo, so thought "oooh goodie", nice and simple....)

 

The best for a boat is undoubtedly a late model 2.5 normally aspirated lump, if you can get one, with loads of power at low revs. Similar tom, but not the same as the BMC 2.5 (replaced the BMC engine in the London cab. Probably too much power for a narrowboat (about 75-80hp?), but OK in a large wide beam.

[station tug]

200TDi without the turbo is a real dead dog. Even after fiddling with the fuelling there is no bottom end power, and they smoke very badly - the compression ratio is too low to properly ignite the fuel. (We tried it once on my brother's LR when he "launched" the engine into a river that was deeper than he thought, we had a 200TDi with a blown turbo, so thought "oooh goodie", nice and simple....)

 

The best for a boat is undoubtedly a late model 2.5 normally aspirated lump, if you can get one, with loads of power at low revs. Similar tom, but not the same as the BMC 2.5 (replaced the BMC engine in the London cab. Probably too much power for a narrowboat (about 75-80hp?), but OK in a large wide beam.

 

 

i'd ease up on making this statement ..i owned a landrover garage for many years and have built three class winning compition landies with 200 tdi's less the turbo's....plenty of tourqe and no smoke when tuned correctly....iv just looked and cant find the videos of the build or the trialers in action or i'd post them...... <_< i wouldnt use a 2.5 N/A as the tdi is far better on fuel..quiter...easier starting...and far more reliable.....

Edited September 18, 2011 by station tug

[onthecut]

replaced a fuel injector pump in a friend's land rover recently.

it appears to be a robust unit,yes it does have a timing belt,but no obvious design flaws.

am thinking of using one should my boat's 40 year old BMC 2.5 need replacing.

are there any drawbacks with these engines?

 

I'm a 300 Tdi advocate for road use, but have to say that for a narrowboat it wouldn't figure at all. If you're not going to make the obvious conversion (to Lister !) then, joking apart, I'd have a look for a 3.152 Perkins. Much more amenable to marine use and a nice sounding lump when pottering.

 

MIke.

[landroversforever]

There are several 200Tdi's minus the turbo that have been put into old Series vehicles and suit the car, so don't go shooting them down without the turbo.

 

Personally though, I'd say that the 2.25 or the 2.5 would be the most suitable.

[gbmud]

 

6) TD5. A great engine but let down by electronics. Cylinder heads and gaskets can be an issue. As can oil leaks. Too complicated for my tastes. Timing Belt.

 

 

Actually pretty reliable post 2002 when several fuelling, oil pump and head gasket issued were addressed. The fuel pressure regulator can be a pain but is easy to replace at least and by then the oil/ECU issue is supposedly addressed. In the Td5 the timing belt was done away with in favour of a duplex chain. In unmodified form 135BHP but still lots of torque low down.

 

This is fast becoming a Landrover anorak-fest!

 

Chris

[Boatgypsy]

Hiya.

 

I have had a Land Rover naturally aspirated 2.5 lump in my boat for the last eleven years. It's very reliable, if a little basic and agricultural. There are two sorts of these engines, the earlier 3 bearing and the later 5 bearing - the code to look for is 19J. There is also a small difference in the front timing cover between a Land Rover one and a Sherpa one.

 

In terms of reliability, my engine did about 250,000 miles in a Sherpa van and a Land Rover before I put it in the boat. The biggest drawback in my view is that they are not very economical and they do need solid engine mounts as they are not very smooth.

 

I found it very easy to obtain a second hand Bowman marinising kit, comprising bell housing, engine mounts and heat exchanger. I was told that some BW workboats were fitted with these engines at one point, hence Bowman going to the trouble of making a kit. It runs a PRM 260 with no problems at all.

 

BG

 

 

[cereal tiller]

Hiya.

 

I have had a Land Rover naturally aspirated 2.5 lump in my boat for the last eleven years. It's very reliable, if a little basic and agricultural. There are two sorts of these engines, the earlier 3 bearing and the later 5 bearing - the code to look for is 19J. There is also a small difference in the front timing cover between a Land Rover one and a Sherpa one.

 

In terms of reliability, my engine did about 250,000 miles in a Sherpa van and a Land Rover before I put it in the boat. The biggest drawback in my view is that they are not very economical and they do need solid engine mounts as they are not very smooth.

 

I found it very easy to obtain a second hand Bowman marinising kit, comprising bell housing, engine mounts and heat exchanger. I was told that some BW workboats were fitted with these engines at one point, hence Bowman going to the trouble of making a kit. It runs a PRM 260 with no problems at all.

 

thanks for that information.

it is good to hear that one of these engines can give good service.

you mentioned that the engine needs to be solidly mounted

 

did you fit a weightplate to the flywheel?

 

with several engine installations on machines with a reputation for being rough,i have bolted the engine directly to a box section mild steel fabricated frame which was wider than the original mount centre by 50-60%

 

 

 

 

BG

 

 

 

oops!the mouse went mad.

yes increase the mount centres and use 6 mounts in total

 

this method makes the engine mount footprint much larger and reduces the wiggle and rock factor.

 

have used this method on several perkins 3.152's and ford 4D's

[Boatgypsy]

Oh sorry, yes, there was a larger flywheel in that Bowman kit - about twice the thickness of the original.

 

Having said that it needed solid mounts, that can make alignment easier and I haven't really had any problems with vibration, just a bit noisy.

[Bob18]

19 J is the turbo diesel block, much better as a normally aspirated engine than it was as a turbo'd engine.

Other type numbers to look for are 12J, 13J and 14J which were the normally aspirated 2.5 litre engines (I think the 14J was a 19J without the turbo)

Solid unit - only 250,000 miles, that's a low mileage unit!!! - One of my brother's engines was pulled from its donor vehicle at 400,000 miles, and is now serving in its third "victim" vehicle (a much modified lightweight...).

Just keep them serviced (more or less) properly and they just keep going.

[CaptAWOL]

Can we please have confirmation that during the making of this thread, no landrovers have been intentionally damaged or scrapped!

[Henhouse]

Can we please have confirmation that during the making of this thread, no landrovers have been intentionally damaged or scrapped!

 

No.

 

Old Landys never die, they just get morphed into another Landy like form. Think of it as a Metal Organ Donor scheme

[Evo]

When my drive coupling sheared down in little Venice this year I got talking to the bloke on the boat in front. He'd got his engine boards up and was doing his weekly checks. His engine was a 2 1/4 Landrover exactly the same as the one I had in my old series 3. My Landrover was unbelievably reliable and very smooth, but it was thirsty and slow. I thought about using the engine in the boat years ago but decided against and fixed up the BMC. In the end I gave the the LandRover away (in exchange for an Alde boiler) to Anthony at Rose.

 

The guy confirmed everything I'd thought at the time...its basically just slightly too big, both physcally and power wise. Very noisy compared to our 1.8 BMC aswell, but that could be sorted.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Evo