Defender V8 options

On or around Sun, 9 Nov 2003 21:26:11 +0000, hugh enlightened us thusly:

aye, I dare say, but IIRC the insurers have a list of engine capacities too. But IME they use any possible and some impossible excuses to raise premiums.

All Land Rovers traditionally had very low insurance, but the underwriters seem to have cottoned on to a missed opportunity, and they've all been re-grouped :-( I bet yer 50th is about 3 groups higher than a normal V8

Its all down to marketing regardless of exact cc

In message , Austin Shackles writes

Can't remember exactly what I paid this year - about 300 I think inc protected NCB with NU Direct.

Austin - you mentioned in another post that you didn't think that you didn't think LR had done a 3.9 with disk/drum like you have, I'm pretty sure that the 110 NAS did have drums on the back. It's been some time since I've seen one, but I'm reasonably sure of the above :)

LR seems to have done most combinations at some stage!

Regards

William MacLeod

In message , Badger writes

And that is what is fitted in my 90

On or around Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:18:42 -0000, "Badger" enlightened us thusly:

oooer. you live and learn.

don't suppose anyone has a spare engine dipstick for a P5B variant around? thought not...

mine seems to have taken itself off somewhere.

I expect I can use a Range-Rover one.

In message , Badger writes

Make you wonder why they called it a 3.9 in the first place. Did a quick mental check and of the 18 or so vehicles we have owned over the past 40 years in every case the actual capacity has been just

On or around Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:04:35 +0000, hugh enlightened us thusly:

most of 'em are - summat to do with insurance, or licensing, I suspect.

However, looking at a couple of mine:

PSA 1.7 = 1769cc PSA 1.9 = 1905cc Rover V8 = 3528cc and of course, the LR 2¼ was in fact 2286.

not sure what they claimed for the 1256cc Vauxhall, though it was designated

ISTR when they brought in the tax break for 1100cc cars, it was discovered that sundry "1.1s" were in fact 1104, 1108, etc. and thus failed to qualify.

The HC had 2 engine options which were officially called the "1159HC (High Compression)" and the "1256" - they didn't round them off at all. All that came later.

Of course there was the "Almost an HC on steroids" that was the Magnum with the 1800 (1756 I think) engine and the Firenza with something stupid in the line of a 2200 engine, but they didn't cound.

P.

I'd forgotten - I did have a Viva HC for a while, a 1256, - but as you say they didn't round them off in those days.

And this obsession with cc's is all irrelevant anyway - the reason the Rover V8 started out at the odd size of 3528 is because it's really a 215ci and it's designers had probably never heard of the metric system. . . . . . ;-)

On or around Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:12:26 GMT, "Exit" enlightened us thusly:

mind you, 215 is a funny sort of size, too... I suspect they make the engines first and then measure 'em.

after all, hardly any of 'em are nice round numbers.

In message , Austin Shackles writes

How is capacity defined - is it just the swept volume (bore x stroke)?

On or around Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:00:18 +0000, hugh enlightened us thusly:

dunno. I suspect so, but maybe they include the combustion chamber volume too. Techincally, the swept volume is the most relevant, since that's the maximum volume of air you can get in for any given inlet manifold pressure.

Most manufacturers just use the swept volume the 2 1/4 has a swept volume of approx 571.5 cc per cylinder

Andy

It gets a bit weird with Wankel engines though - ISTR depending on the authority/country they use 1x, 1.5x, 2x or 3x the swept volume. So the same engine can be classed as 1.3l, 2l, 2.6l or 3.9l depending on where it's sold!