Advice on buying and owning Series II (Tax Exempt) Land Rover

Series 2/2a can be converted to LPG, but this is fairly expensive for any car. There is nothing special about the conversion compared to other cars. The diesel is less compatible with modern traffic, due to low power.

There is no reason why you can't commute in a 2/2a in good condition, especially if it is a short wheelbase, which I assume you are talking about. The only likely problem is that they only have synchromesh on 3&4, but double declutching is easy to learn (I learned it when I was twelve).

A series 2/2a is at least 35 years old (could be nearly fifty), and you need to make sure that it IS in good condition - there are a lot of dogs about. Biggest 'gotcha' is likely to be chassis and bulkhead rust, but in any case, even if you can't find any problems before buying it, make sure you allow funds for the problems you find after you buy it. Fortunately virtually all parts are readily available and cheap, and if at all mechanically minded, you can do most work yourself. But even so, if it is in bad shape it will still cost a fortune to rebuild, and you can't sell it for anything like what it will cost (so buy someone else's money pit after they have spent most of the money needed - which sounds a bit like what you are looking at) JD

P.S. If you are not aware - Series 2 1958-61, Series 2a to 71, the significant change was the diesel going from 2 to 2.25, but there are much larger changes during 2a production than the change 2 to 2a. Later models (chassis suffix G on are generally preferred for a variety of reasons, but in my view any 2/2a is preferable to a 3)

On or around Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:49:59 +0100, Cymro Gwirion enlightened us thusly:

yes.

yes but on a SWB you'll have to have the tank inside the back. On LWBs it's possible to get them underneath, I think. You can get a DIY kit to install if you're mechanically competent to do so. One such from

Driven tidily, up to 20 mpg for a good 2¼ petrol. You can improve it slightly by fitting overdrive and free-wheeling front hubs, but there are caveats attached to the latter - using them disengaged long-term will starve the upper swivel bearing of oil. This is not a reason not to have them, but you need to run some of the time with the hubs locked, so as to splash the oil around a bit.

whereabouts are you?

Chassis and Bulkhead, as has been said. Personally, I'd not have a 2¼ diesel, they're very slow and noisy. The 2¼ petrol engine is a good lump and lasts for ages, even with limited maintenance - it does prefer 20W50 oil though so don't put thin modern stuff in it.

all the mechanical stuff is not too bad to fix. check for stupid amounts of smoke from the engine, any knocking is bad, the transmission is noisy on all of them by modern standards but rattles and clonks are not good. Brakes should be good but need a firm right boot. You're talking about non-servo drum brakes, after all. The standard brakes on my SIII LWB are nonservo drums and provided you put in the effort to maintain them are pretty good.

On the chassis: rear crossmember, outriggers and front spring mount under the bumper are points to study closely. Main frame tubes are usually OK, if they're not then you're talking *much* less money - complete chassis are available as replacements but it's a labour of love to swap everything over and you need one that's mechanically sound to even think about it.

I drive a 1965 IIa SWB as daily transport, and whilst I like it, I cannot honestly reccomend it. It will be much like commuting in your

90, only slower, noiser and damper (in the rain) However, a well-maintained one will quite happily do the commute you require, but don't expect fuel consumption to be any better than 20mpg on petrol. Probably nearer 17 on town work. Original SII/IIa diesels you will find a bit of a trial on a daily commute, they're noiser, harsher and slower. A LPG conversion will cost you, perhaps not the most reliable of engines to convert, either. If you want to save money on fuel you'd be better off looking for a Series II that has had a 2.5D or 2.5TD engine in it.

Alex

Mm, but if you factor in the cost of a 9:1 flowed head, it becomes an expensive way of saving fuel.

Alex

Those engines are nothing but trouble, you would be better off using the older 5 bearing 2 1/4 diesel or stick with the petrol for short journey commuting.

Martin

On or around Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:08:24 +0100, Alex enlightened us thusly:

but you get a fun series, especially if it's a soft top SWB.

On or around Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:52:36 +0100, "Oily" enlightened us thusly:

I'd agree about the 2.5 turbo. the 2.5 nonturbo isn't so bad, but it's also not much more powerful than the 2¼. There are better engines out there... if looking for an engine top put in a SWB series I'd rate the transit TDi.

Sorry Austin, I have to disagree there. The 2.5 NA is the *worst* of the two, the pistons are so much weaker than the TurboD and break up quite easily if they are thrashed, the only engine I would consider to upgrade a Series motor would be Landrovers own 200 Tdi, twice as much power and half as many more miles to the gallon. I wouldn't consider the Transit Tdi, too noisy and you can get them down to 12 mpg if using them hard. And you need to make a conversion plate and all the other bits.

Martin.

Martin

Don't remind me. My IIa swb needs a new head and i can't afford a normal one, let alone the 9:1 Lead-free one i'd like to fit.

Alex

On or around Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:36:13 +0100, "Oily" enlightened us thusly:

you can get the conversion, I think. or used to be able to. The transit TDi I have in a transit does about 31 mpg in normal use, although it drinks diesel if you really floor it. good long-lived engine though. and I reckon pretty much any engine will drink diesel if really thrashed, or towing heavy loads or something. I once got well under 25 mpg from a 300 TDi disco by nailing it up the motorway at about 90 - about 450 miles from a tank whereas it more commonly does nearer 600.

I wasn't knocking the Transit engine and I agree with all of that, it's a bulletproof engine but a bit noisy for me.

Can't see why they didn't put the 200 Tdi in the 400 Series Sherpa though instead of the Transit engine, it's like admitting they can't build a decent engine of their own.

Martin