1950 Land Rover 80" Rover 4 pot conversion.

Vidal

Vidal

Member
Hi, I am looking to buy a P6 Rover engine for my old Land Rover. My 80" is an old (and still a bit bent) comp trailler. It is my daily driver and gets used a lot for family holidays, camping, carrying wood and Euroleafing (adventures on the continent). It has a 200Tdi engine at the moment that is going strong but sometime in the future I am planning to change, I am not sure just when this will happen it could be a while as I have some more long Eurotrips planned and there is no rush at the mo. The Tdi is great for fuel economy is very reliable and has some grunt but it looks like the tide may be turning against Diesel, not being very environmentally friendly.
The P6 engine conversion was a popular mod in he 70s and 80s being a good size with good smooth power from the same stable and fairly easy to do (I think). Increasingly it seems that all early LRs are getting the full resto treatment, the outcome being lots of carbon copies rebuilt to a set template and better than new that never get properly used (as every good Land Rover should). With the history of my motor I think this conversion would be a great nod to the past while still keeping it very usable as a retro trailler.
So the question is which 4 pot should I go for?

My priorities are-

Reliability/Durability
Economy (I know I won't get Tdi miles)
Power would be nice…
Parts availability?

So everything then;).

I really love the idea of the 2200TC, being the most high performance unit, but would this be the most suitable for my needs?
I know that every Rover product suffered as BL got into its cost cutting/mismanagement 70s stride (Land Rovers too) so are the earlier engines the stronger units?
I am no great mechanic and don't know too much about the engines good points and bad points so any advice would be most welcome.

To give you an idea of what the 80" gets up to here is a part from a series of videos we did of a trip last year.

Thanks Steve.
 
Hi, One of the drawbacks of the P6 engines retro fitted in Land Rovers at the time was the power and torque characteristics of the engine weren't ideal for the vehicles use off road. Power and torque were too far up the rev range where for off roading you want low down grunt. The RV8 was much better suited for this. As you will be doing mostly road work the P6 should be OK to use. The single carb version will be better in my opinion, preferably the 2.2 litre for the little bit more torque. The single carb will be more reliable in as much they won't need tuning so often as the twin carb set up.

If you're thinking of going for a more modern engine a member on here has successfully fitted a Ford twin cam engine in a P6, there are less engine bay constraints with the LR.

Nice little project, good luck with it.

Colin
 
Years ago I saw a series one with a P6 4 pot fitted, looked bang at home in there, and completely agree with the over-restored identical vehicles out there, a period engine conversion would be a really nice feature :)

I think the 2200 has a reputation for being more unreliable in comparison to the 2000, can't remember the exact reason, but as a Land Rover doesn't particularly slip through the air like most other cars it could be something worth researching and considering?

Single carb or twin carb I'd guess would be down to personal preference. The SC would probably be easier to retrofit from the point of a simple cast exhaust manifold high up and the single carb intake.

If it were me I'd go twin carbs because I like them sticking with the HIF44's as they work well at odd angles, and look into electronic ignition at the very least. I'd seriously look into an aftermarket mappable coilpack ignition system, not too scary to fit and generally very reliable. The tubular exhaust manifold should be quite easy to cut the end off and weld a new collector on if necessary wherever you want should you go that route?

Mounting the engine to the series transmission would be a bit more tricky, though a fabricated adapter ring would be a neat solution as done with the V8 conversions.
 
Hi, thanks for the good advice. There is an adapter plate out there that fits the engine to a LR, I have seen quite a few advertised over the years.
I guess I just need to know the 2200 reliability compared to the 2000. I agree that the extra grunt from the larger engine would be welcome off road. Is having twin carbs that much of a pain? And is there a big difference in MPG between the different engine size and SC and TC?
 
The SC obviously has the single carb and only comes with a cast log style manifold, the TC only comes with a tubular steel manifold, so for you that would be part of the decision process as to which is easier for you to work with? I don't think there's a huge difference in characteristics between SC and TC apart from all out top end power and maybe idle quality? I think the reliability of the 2200 was down to the overbore and cooling, there aren't many about anymore so it's not an obviously common occurrence now?
 
Hi ya Vidal
I lurk here as well as seriously series, if you're intent about getting shot of the TDI why not go back to the Land Rover petrol engines, if it's grunt you're after the is a compainy that bored the 2.5 out to 2.8 litres gas flowed the head and supplied a tubular inlet and exhaust manifold with SU carb not sure of the numbers but was over 100 bhp, found them

Land Rover Engines-Land Rover Components-Prices

Bit pricy but I'm sure that most of it could be done by other engine remanufactures as long as they know their business.
Don't let me put you off looking for a p6 engine but at least the Land Rover engine has the grunt in the right place to begin with.
My dream engine for my Land Rover would be a blue printed and balanced 2.5, high compression gas flowed head custom exhaust and then have a tinker with mega squirt for the fueling, hmmmmmm.
 
I might have dreamt it, but i think that the fittment of the TC engines in Land Rovers requires some cut of the inner wing in order to accomodate the rear carb.
Also i wouldn't dismiss the Land Rover 4 cyl petrol engines, either the 2286 ones or the later 2500. They bolt straight on, and their output characteristics might fit better your use. The P6 4 cyl petrol was made to rev, so perhaps it might not be exactly what you are after.
 
I'd toss a thought in the direction of a deceased County/Defender engine and box transplant if I were you, too.
With an 80" being relatively light, you might be in for a pleasant surprise regarding the V8's fuel consumption,
and you will have the LT77 box which is a lot better than the old Series boxes for strength and spares.

If you feel like going really off the wall, then look at the Toyota 4 and 6 pot engines with a LT77 or R380, you
can get adapter bell housings for them and then all your spares worries are pretty much sorted.

I guess it depends on how far you want to go off original and whether you want to offend just the LR Brigade
or a few Toyota guys, too.....
 
Hi, thanks for all the feedback. Lots to think about!
Whatever I go for it will have to be Rover unit. When I bought the 80 twenty years ago I had the option to leave the 2.25 in or have a 3.5 V8 installed. Being young and poor I decided against the big engine on insurance and fuel economy grounds. As turned out the 2.25 was really thirsty and probably not much better than the V8 would have been. I still think the V8 will be a little on the drinky side for what I need, petrol prices won't stay this low forever.
My mate is currently putting a petrol 2.5 in his 80. He has totally rebuilt it and done a cracking job. Once it's bedded in he plans on strapping a supercharger to it! I might have a go when it's in before he supercharges it and see what it's like.
As I say there is no rush so I need to way up the pros and cons.
As an idea what is the fuel consumption of the 2000 and 2200 compared to the 3500?
Cheers Steve.
 
For comparison my 2.25 powered 1959 series 2 used to get around 20-23mpg on a run with a weber carb. I say "used to" not because I don't have it anymore but because its not my daily now (it was my first car) and so doesn't get used often enough for me to really keep tabs on it. It goes pretty well really and is dead reliable - it will start easily after being sat for a month or two.

my 3.5 powered 1984 90 gets around 17-19mpg (It runs Megasquirt EFI but needs some major tuning and can be a fickle starter)

my 3.5 powered P6 consistently gets 24-25mpg (again, EFI and Megasquirt - spent a lot more time tuning this one as its my daily).
 
Vidal said:
Hi, thanks for all the feedback. Lots to think about!
Whatever I go for it will have to be Rover unit.
Click to expand...
Get hold of member SOWEN on here, he is about to remove a Rover Twincam engine from his P6 so you may be able to pick that up off him......
That could make the old 80 hop along......;)
Here's the thread, you'll have to rummage through it to find the engine.
 
Personally I find the 2 1/4 Land Rover petrol lump to be a very sweet engine. Upgrading to a 2.5 could make sense but I wouldn't fit anything else unless moving to diesel.
Back in the eighties, a friend had a Series 1 with a Rover P6 4-cyl engine and I couldn't understand how he'd managed to make a car engine sound so agricultural just by bolting it to a Landy gearbox. It felt wrong at just about every level.
 
Willy Eckerslyke said:
Personally I find the 2 1/4 Land Rover petrol lump to be a very sweet engine. Upgrading to a 2.5 could make sense but I wouldn't fit anything else unless moving to diesel.
Back in the eighties, a friend had a Series 1 with a Rover P6 4-cyl engine and I couldn't understand how he'd managed to make a car engine sound so agricultural just by bolting it to a Landy gearbox. It felt wrong at just about every level.
Click to expand...

Well, we all know the P6 4 cyl isn't the smoothest around. On the special P6 engine mounts and enough soundproof material on the P6 it isn't too bad, but i am not surprised of the results when resting in Land Rover engine mounts and the noise bouncing off the bare engine bay panels and bonnet.
 
Demetris said:
Well, we all know the P6 4 cyl isn't the smoothest around. On the special P6 engine mounts and enough soundproof material on the P6 it isn't too bad, but i am not surprised of the results when resting in Land Rover engine mounts and the noise bouncing off the bare engine bay panels and bonnet.
Click to expand...

hi, That's the problem with Land Rover, the bonnet acts like a microphone and then through the hinges to the speaker of the cabin. It's best to sound proof the bonnet for best results.

Colin
 
I have put soundproofing around the engine bay already and quite a bit inside the cockpit out of sight. However loud a P6 engine is, I can guarantee it's nowhere near Tdi decibel levels. ;)
 
Vidal said:
I have put soundproofing around the engine bay already and quite a bit inside the cockpit out of sight. However loud a P6 engine is, I can guarantee it's nowhere near Tdi decibel levels. ;)
Click to expand...

Quoting for truth ;)

I've driven a couple of series Land Rover's with the tdi retrofitted, they are simply horrendous, awful conversions. The tdi is rough, in it's natural habitat of a Defender or Discovery they need so much soundproofing and big soft rubber mounts to reduce the noise and vibrations that come through. Anything is an improvement over a tdi drumming away in a little series Land Rover!

Something I pondered years ago when I still had the V8 in my series 3 was a tuned up 2.25, head skimmed to around 9:1/10:1, twin SU's or Megasquirt and coilpack ignition....

As for economy, I noticed little difference with the 3.5 V8 against the 2.25 petrol on a long run, but the V8 will guzzle fuel like a hole in a bucket on short journeys!

In a dinky little 80", I really like the idea of a perky 2000TC or 2200TC lump, nice period modification that will set it apart from all of the others. If there is any roughness, a set of modern engine mounts could be fitted to help reduce any vibrations coming through.
 
I agree with some Tdi's being awful in some Series Land Rovers. I have driven quite a few and the difference between them is quite big. My mate who's putting the 2.5 petrol in his 80" is taking out a Tdi because it's so raucous. Mine however is quite refined (I would say that), I think engine mounts have a lot to do with it. I can't really complain about the Diesel as its enabled me to drive all around Europe and do stuff like the Home-Lands End-John O Groats-home non-stop (apart from lots of fuel stops), all doing around 40mpg.
I do like the P6 engine idea though, as I say the fashion to over restore early LRs may leave some important period mods that were a big part of trialling back in the day overlooked.
Cheers Steve.
 
Hi, a quick bump of this topic, I have just agreed to buy a 2200Tc engine for a whopping £50 with the Series adapter included. As I say I am a total novice at this sort of thing so when I do eventually get it home I may be after some advice. We have some Euroleafing trips planned so I am in no rush to rip out the Tdi, it will be a long term project.
 
sowen said:
Something I pondered years ago when I still had the V8 in my series 3 was a tuned up 2.25, head skimmed to around 9:1/10:1, twin SU's or Megasquirt and coilpack ignition....

In a dinky little 80", I really like the idea of a perky 2000TC or 2200TC lump, nice period modification that will set it apart from all of the others. If there is any roughness, a set of modern engine mounts could be fitted to help reduce any vibrations coming through.
Click to expand...
How about similar modification to the 2200TC lump?
Vidal, your engine should bolt in with minimal modifications. Probably only minor electrical to pick up the differences in switches and senders, rerouting plumbing and maybe mountings.
Are you planning on opening the engine up first or are you going to drop it in and hope for the best?
 
unstable load said:
How about similar modification to the 2200TC lump?
Vidal, your engine should bolt in with minimal modifications. Probably only minor electrical to pick up the differences in switches and senders, rerouting plumbing and maybe mountings.
Click to expand...

For a start, due to a Heron cylinder head design, head skimming won't work. The 2200 TC would be 9:1 anyway. I am sure fuel injection can release a lot of potential in a Rover 4 cyl, especially with the TC head, but this is neither straightforward nor period, as i understand the OP wants it to be.

About the required modifications, as far a i know the inner wing should be modified to clear the rear carb, and it will need certainly new engine mountings, there is absolutely no relation between the 2286 and 2200 engine mounting system. But nevertheless, it won't be too difficult just using the 2200 side brackets, sitting on top of a pair of suitable mountigs that are going to rest on the LR chassis rails.
443199379EMY.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top