complete td5 motor

As its quite high mileage the price is going to be depressed I would suspect the cost of rewiring and replacing the ECU in your motor before you fit the new 2.8 motor in your 90

would be an issue- a low mileage TD5 with the ECU and all the wiring is a little over a £1000 that being said what does the ECU control in a TD5 Defender I know the army kyboshed them on the grounds of a fault in an emergency being a "shit creek scenario" but surely it cant be that bad?Derek

he derek. thanks for yr reply. so far iv been quoted R20,000 on my motor which is about 1400 pounds.(u were right on the button) good news regarding the ECU is they opt to do away with it and replace it with VDO instruments as the new motor is totally mechanical and therfore no need for computer controlled instruments and so forth. it's also hard to believe that the 2.8 4-cylinder out-performs the td5-cylinder. puts a smile on my face>>>

regards

Derek wrote:

Derek and dgn57 Hi,

the 2.8 Powerstroke engine is very good and it is only logical to outperform the TD5 both in terms of power and torque output but also in terms of better fuel consumption figures (less thirsty)

It may have a sligthly bigger capacity but it is a four cylinder engine and it has a VERY advanced turbocharger.

Its main advantage though is that it suffers none of the problems we all got to know the Tdi engines for such as them being easily overheated and chaffing cylinder heads and gaskets.

The 2.8 has a completely redesigned water passage system, a redesigned cylinder head and this allow it to operate with any heat related problems. A friend here in Greece who has fitted it in his Range Rover Classic replacing a 300Tdi is absolutely in love with the 2.8 after almost a year of using it.

Another VERY serious advantage of the 2.8 over the TD5 is that it has absolutely NO ELECTRONICS. So you can very easily fit it in your vehicle. The only thing that may require some modification must be the chassis mounts and the exhaust downpipe.

I believe the Prinsmaasdijk must be offering a kit for the TD5 engined Defenders.

Take care Pantelis

HI Pantelis

really appreciate yr feed back. yr the 1st person to offer feed back that has actually had experiece with this engine. so fgar i have had 0 negative feed back regarding the HS 2.8 thanks

Pantelis Giamarellos wrote:

gdn57 Hi again,

If I were to change the engine on one of my camels I would definately go for the 2.8 Powerstroke.

I am sure you will love it and when you will get used to its power and torque you can always tweak it very easily by fitting a larger intercooler.

Andy Graham of

has an intercooler solution for the 2.8 Powerstroke engine. Remember this engine with an intercooler from Andy managed to finish the Paris Dakar last year. I do not remember the place it finished but just finishing this race is something very good by itself.

For sure there is none, we already fitted on to a customers car, but I would stay with the in reality much better TD5. It easily tuneable to give stabel 170BHP or with some smart tricks to 195BHP. A TD5 which received some help outperforms a TDI (no matter how much capacity) in every way.

Raoul

i would not go as far as saying "much better" the td5 is very much pronr to overheating and is after all a BMW motor. if it were that good, trust me i would not be replacing it with the HS. it might be good for driving around the city or smalls towns, but here in africa where the only possibility of servicing that motor would be South-Africa, Nairobi and maybe Botswana. here in africa we use a LR for what it was designed for and unfortunately the td5 was not designed for rural africa. iv had some realy dissapointing experiences as it is with mine. thats why im going for the change. "RELIABILITY" ... :) CHEERS

Raoul D>

desmodromic?

On or around Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:53:53 +0100, "William Tasso" enlightened us thusly:

you still have to drive it though. does away with valve springs mind.

18-cylinder twin-bank sleeve valve radial engine!! No valves as such, sleeves driven off a ring gear. Not ideally suited to high rpm's however. can't remember it's name, but I think it might have been the Bristol Centaurus? Badger.

On or around Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:54:38 +0100, "Badger" enlightened us thusly:

Probably. Pegasus was the little one.

OK, if you want big... 28-cylinder 4-bank Pratt & Whitney Wasp Major, aka "Corncob".

if forget the capacity. summat silly. went up to about 3800hp. oddly, can't find the details in the "book" (world encyclopedia of military aircraft, by one Enzo Angelucci).

Sad but here goes

Specifications: Manufacturer's designation Wasp Major, military designation R-4360; 28-cylinder, air-cooled radial arranged in four rows of seven cylinders each; bore 5.75 in., stroke 6.0 in., displacement 4363 cu. in.,

3000 to 3500 hp. at 2800 rpm., weight 3600 lbs, later uprated to 4000 hp. One, by Zvezda, is a 6-row radial with 7 cylinders per row, making a 42 cylinder engine for tractor pulling. Basically, it is seven 6-cylinder engines on a common crankcase with a very strong crankshaft. It started out at 4,000 hp and was developed to 6,035 hp. end of lesson :-)

Wolfie

Nice thingy, but ugly expensive :-)

Raoul

On or around Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:56:43 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@howl.com enlightened us thusly:

that makes it about 71,466 cc

yeah but at over 4 tons, i wouldn't fancy changing that on my driveway!

Wolfie