I don't know if I should raise this question but here goes, would this engine be any use in a Classic Range Rover with overdrive or would the top speed be ridiculously slow, or what about a 6247 ? is there a weight issue
Rich
I don't know if I should raise this question but here goes, would this engine be any use in a Classic Range Rover with overdrive or would the top speed be ridiculously slow, or what about a 6247 ? is there a weight issue
Rich
I had a classic with a 4203, unbelievable pulling power but knack all go.
Its a combine harvester engine IIRC, and is best suited to stay there.
Can't answer about the 6247
Si
The 6.247 is also made under licence by Mazda as the ZB. In Mazda guise it's rated for 115BHP@3600RPM. IMO it would be ok with an overdrive in terms of speed but significantly underpowered for the application.
Makes an even better boat anchor if attached to the end of a suitable chain! ;-) Badger.
So you all are not impressed with these then, dont they have loads of grunt and reliability going for them though?
Rich
They´re considered heavyweights even for a 101. And what do you think you mean by grunt ? Power, or Torque, or Power/weight ratio.
Steve
Building a high speed tractor and want to go deaf?
There are much better engines around to fit. These may have been ok in old series land rovers when there wasn't much else around.
Sean
73FL74 101GS 2000 110 CSW
Well in terms of grunt I would mean pulling ability so it would be torque ! surely power is not that much of an importance as the torque, I am aware that they go hand in hand, but is not the torque the important one in terms of being able to tow, say 2 plus tons on most road conditions, I am not after performance just to cruise at about 60 ish with a trailer but when it comes to a hill would prefer to not to change down several gears as I use to have to do in it when it had the 3.5 V8 and then crawl up it doing 30MPH !!!!
Rich
Pardon dint quite hear that, can you speak up a bit, ;-) But doesn't the growl of a big diesel send shivers down your spine !!!
Rich
On or around Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:40:34 +1300, EMB enlightened us thusly:
and I did hear once of someone putting a 6354 into a rangie, which has got to rate among the more off-the-wall conversions.
daft idea. The 4203 is very suitable for a massey-ferguson tractor. The
4236 would be a bit better, but it's still very low-revving. Also it has a raft of torque at lowish revs and is good for snapping half-shafts on series motors, although the rangie should be a bit stronger.There are plenty of more suitable engines around.
A good reliable engine in its time, always outlasted the ancilliaries, even the oil pump, but slow revving, not as fast as the old 2286cc L/R engine it was replacing but pulled better, OK with Range Rover diffs fitted but not powerful enough for the Range Rover. 6.247 was powerful and smooth in the Range Rover but very expensive for parts if you needed them. Can't beat the V8 if it's waterproofed well but the Perkins 4/236 was unstoppable for off road and towing, but again, slow but would stand more abuse than the 4/203. Also very good was the Mazda 3.5 Turbo and those look suspiciously like a Perkins 4/236. I'll stick with my old 200 Tdi though, it still seems to outperform those old engines (except V8 of course) and 265K miles.
Martin
That's 'zactly what they are.
No wonder they look familiar, I've just given one away. I've also got a good spare crank and mains shells for a 4/203 for disposal, I don't want to scrap it.
Martin
My previous postings:
The manual went some time ago, though.
Well, as I see it, Power = Torque x speed - unless you have enough of it from the engine, an awful lot of torque from the gearbox won't make you go any faster.
Not trying to be awkward, I'm just trying to understand !
Like Austin says, there are better engines. I nearly fitted a Perkins Phaser to my Ambi, but in the end rebuilt a 200 TDI instead.
Steve
Remember that torque varies with engine revs. The 4203 had *loads* of torque at idle, but rapidly ran out of revs.
I used to tow my 2.3T catering trailer (very un-aerodynamic - 12x12x8 box) with the 3.5v8 110. It would do 50mph everywhere, 60 on the flat, and 45 up fairly steep (motorway) hills. That was enough for me. Since I have an Isuzu Trooper (Bighorn) now, I'd love it's 3.1 diesel engine in a 110...Pulls at 60mph just about everywhere, and I'm told the earlier 2.8 was as good, or better, and the 3.0 worse, unless you've had all the recalls done, in which case it's better. I really would be looking at fitting one of these engines, and 3.1/2.8 engines have been fitted to landrovers, so it's easily doable.
Well afaik MF stopped using it in the 165 around 1967, replacing it with the
212 and 236 with a higher powered 248 version later, around 1972 I think. Bear in mind that these used a stressed block, which means the engine formed part of a heavy duty chassis, which also means they are extremely heavy. They also max out at 2000 rpm.And few less suitable.
Huw
Thanks all for your inputs to this and the suggestions, will look in to other options.
Rich
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.