Rover P6 Diesel Convertible.

RedBarchetta said:
Forgive me if I'm missing the point here, but why would anybody want to put a diesel lump in a P6, least of all a convertible one? Most people who run a P6 only do so for pleasure and not everyday use. If you want an oil burner for the daily commute, there's plenty to choose from out there.
Click to expand...
The daily commute is exactly what I have a P6 for! It means getting to work in a good mood and enjoying the drive home afterwards - an extra hour's pleasure every day that I definitely wouldn't get from a modern oil burner. The only downside is fuel consumption. I can't really complain with almost 30mpg from a 2000TC, but if I could stretch it to 50mpg by fitting a diesel I'd certainly consider it. It's just the knowledge that it would probably be closer to 40mpg in the real world, that diesel is currently significantly dearer than petrol, and the shear amount of work involved that makes it non-viable as a replacement for a running 4-cyl. But if I was rebuilding a P6B with a knackered engine, I wouldn't hesitate to chuck a diesel in instead.
As for LPG, no thanks.
 
Well, Chris and Willy, I think it's highly commendable that you both run your P6s as 'dailys' , far better to be used and enjoyed rather than just brought out and polished at the weekends.

My argument is, why go to the effort of preserving something of historical significance if you're going to modify it beyond all recognition? Surely it's worth just spending a few extra pounds every year and enjoying the cars for what they are. The days of doing just that are surely numbered anyway.

David.
 
I kinda see your logic, Willy, but I'm not with you. I love that lovely V8 noise too much. It's the heart and soul of the P6 to me, and the sheer joy of listening to that rumble as I drive along makes me forgive it the fuel bill.
 
Well I think that's what I'm doing now, David. Nothing would persuade me to part with Lucky as he is. Lucky has had sensible modifications that I believe Rover could have done, and perhaps should have done, back in the day, plus a few to fit him for modern traffic conditions. The latter I'd class as the extra tail lights, high level stop light and fog light. The former, the revised front undertray - which I'm certain Rover must have considered and had cancelled from under them - and the mods to the intake and exhaust.

But I'd really like to have another P6B that I could play with using modern engineering advances to turn into a sort of Phoenix P6! Very much in the spirit of Rover, but with a lot more Chris York thrown in. I'd like it to have the original Talago sloping nose, for instance. Little if anything would change in the interior - it's already close to perfect. I might use buckskin on the door cards, 1/4 panels, screen pillars and shin bins along with Buffalo for the seats. I might improve the finish of the centre console - the only thing that I think lets the P6 interior down. At the back I'd remove the fins and lamp clusters and round the edges of the wing rear corners, then have horizontal lamps similar to a Triumph Dolomite. I might even use the hooded boot lip and roof lip characteristic of a Triumph to improve the aerodynamics. And it would have to have NADA bumpers. Then on the drivetrain a V6 diesel and multi speed auto, the improved brakes that Lucky already wears and that would be about it!

Chris
 
RedBarchetta said:
My argument is, why go to the effort of preserving something of historical significance if you're going to modify it beyond all recognition?
Click to expand...
I understand your point, but little of that could apply to my cars.
If I was going to fit a diesel engine (which is merely rhetorical and unlikely ever to happen) it would be wholly reversible.
I've never owned one that could be considered historically significant. But if I hadn't taken them on they'd have been scrapped long ago.
I like my Rovers to look standard, not modified beyond recognition - I don't even fit badge bars, flashy wheels or other trinkets that many owners feel are essential.
The only modifications I do make are mechanical improvements to improve driving, reliability and economy - halogen lights, electronic ignition, electric fan (when I get around to it), etc. A diesel engine would be an extreme example of that philosophy.
I do believe it's vital that we show our classics can keep up with modern traffic and are perfectly practical and safe for every day use and not things to be preserved for summer weekends (and misguided "Drive-it-Days") and treated like museum exhibits. Too much of the latter will see our right to use them eroded.
 
Willy Eckerslyke said:
RedBarchetta said:
My argument is, why go to the effort of preserving something of historical significance if you're going to modify it beyond all recognition?
Click to expand...

The only modifications I do make are mechanical improvements to improve driving, reliability and economy - halogen lights, electronic ignition, electric fan (when I get around to it), etc. A diesel engine would be an extreme example of that philosophy.
I do believe it's vital that we show our classics can keep up with modern traffic and are perfectly practical and safe for every day use and not things to be preserved for summer weekends (and misguided "Drive-it-Days") and treated like museum exhibits. Too much of the latter will see our right to use them eroded.
Click to expand...


I agree with what you're saying about lights, ignition etc. and recognise that they do make for safer and more reliable motoring. However I don't agree that fitting a diesel makes a P6 any better at keeping up with modern traffic, particularly in the case of a V8.

The EU do seem to be very keen for classic car owners to maintain originality, which I think is probably a fair point, and modifying them is possibly an unwise long term move.
 
Demetris said:
The Land Rover 2.25 four was a new engine developed just for Land Rovers and designed to have both a petrol and a diesel version.
They dropped this engine into the P4 in order to create a cheaper entry model.

However, the IOE 1.6 and 2.0 litre engines used on Series 1s and early Series 2s Land Rovers were indeed lifted from the P4 range.
The original Freelander IIRC before the BMW diesel, used the L series diesel.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I read or heard that the 2.25's were loosely related to an earlier engine, which was the reason the Land Rover wheelbases were changed from 86/107 to the more familiar 88/109 wheelbases.

As to the modify/diesel etc debate, correct me if I'm wrong, but Rover intended to fit a gas turbine and an inline 5 engine into the P6, or further develop the technology into a successor, before opting for the V8. Does that not imply that the P6 is in some regards not a true representation of what the original engineers/designers wished to create given the resources?

A little 'what if' engineering can be justified to look down the routes of alternative powerplants, and why not take advantage of the advances in modern technology over the past 10-20 years?

Something that has really taken off over the past 5 years or so is the diesel tuning scene, caused by rising petrol prices and the availability of knowledge. There are a number of cars I've seen which can easily out-perform their petrol counterparts, and run on cheap bio-fuels and waste oil/chipfat. Discounting diesels because they are diesels can be a little short sighted given whats now available.

I'm not advocating that everyone must modify their cars to modernise them, as for many they are perfectly adequate as they rolled off the assembly line. Many people are content with the way they are, but some of us do have an incurable itch to meddle :LOL:
 
RedBarchetta said:
However I don't agree that fitting a diesel makes a P6 any better at keeping up with modern traffic, particularly in the case of a V8.
Click to expand...
No, but it could make the difference between a car that sits in the garage forever or one that gets driven regularly. Both equally sad scenarios perhaps. I'll sit on the fence and suggest that there's room for both. There's a P4 somewhere with a Land Rover TDi engine that rather appeals to me, but I'd hate to see all P4s fitted with them.
RedBarchetta said:
The EU do seem to be very keen for classic car owners to maintain originality, which I think is probably a fair point,
Click to expand...
But you've already agreed that modified lights, ignition, etc., are acceptable. Where do you draw the line?
RedBarchetta said:
and modifying them is possibly an unwise long term move.
Click to expand...
Allowing them to get their way unchallenged is probably even more unwise.
 
Willy Eckerslyke said:
RedBarchetta said:
However I don't agree that fitting a diesel makes a P6 any better at keeping up with modern traffic, particularly in the case of a V8.
Click to expand...
No, but it could make the difference between a car that sits in the garage forever or one that gets driven regularly. Both equally sad scenarios perhaps. I'll sit on the fence and suggest that there's room for both. There's a P4 somewhere with a Land Rover TDi engine that rather appeals to me, but I'd hate to see all P4s fitted with them.
RedBarchetta said:
The EU do seem to be very keen for classic car owners to maintain originality, which I think is probably a fair point,
Click to expand...
But you've already agreed that modified lights, ignition, etc., are acceptable. Where do you draw the line?
RedBarchetta said:
and modifying them is possibly an unwise long term move.
Click to expand...
Allowing them to get their way unchallenged is probably even more unwise.
Click to expand...

I suppose the bottom line is, any individual is entitled to do to their car as they see fit, obviously within the confines of current regulations. A diesel option for me is and always will be a non starter, it's just a personal preference thing.

As to modifications to a classic, the EU government, from what I understand, are trying to have classic car owners keep their cars as close to factory spec. as possible. Halogen lights, electronic ignitions are not seen as too radical, fitting V12 Jag engines into the back of Mini pickups is.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying about allowing the EU government ( dictatorship) to go unchallenged, but will we or our politicians necessarily have the means or power to resist them? Let's hope we do.
 
Personally I'd not put a diesel in anything, because I don't like them. But that's just me.

My cars are my hobby, and I'll continue to mess about as much as I'm allowed until I'm not. My Midget is a case in point - it's running a rover K series engine, a ford gearbox and modified front and rear suspension. This makes it into a 6 second 0-60 car that'll go round corners substantially better than the original. I've done it all myself, and done it in stages so I can see the benefits. Adhering to the regs is hard for people who care about them, as I'm finding when attempting to get a transporter trailer to move the midget to track days (with the P6!)

I like driving, and I increase my enjoyment of driving by modifying my cars so they are better to drive (in my opinion). Interestingly, my dad has a standard midget and it feels like a wobbly disaster compared to mine. Lever arm shock absorbers, thin tyres and 60ish bhp are well out of date, and only belong (IMO) on a car that doesn't get driven hard. I regularly do 200 mile trips in my K-midget, and am planning to track it at some point if I can get a roll bar to fit.

The P6 is slightly different because it's quite good to start with. Nothing screams "I need to be better!", but I'll tinker with it to make improvements that make it better to drive. If I didn't, I wouldn't drive it as much, and that would be sad. But it'll only be modified to make it better at what it does, there's no point in trying to make it fast in real world terms as the K-midget because it won't be. Likewise I wouldn't destroy the character of the big V8 by fitting a diesel in it (but I'm all in favour of mad V8 stuff). The K-series midget I think retains the character of the original, and in a way is the car MG should have built in about 1990 when the MX5 came out. And they both make me smile every time I drive them, which is the best reason to have them.
 
sowen said:
Demetris said:
I'm not advocating that everyone must modify their cars to modernise them, as for many they are perfectly adequate as they rolled off the assembly line. Many people are content with the way they are, but some of us do have an incurable itch to meddle :LOL:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure where I would draw the line. Installing the ZF in my car is a very significant modification, but it is wholly reversible, the car looks stock from anywhere but underneath, and it gains a significant improvement in driveability without compromising its character. And perhaps that's the line. A diesel engine would massively alter the car's character. It would be much less of a P6 after that. However, I accept that everybody is going to have a different opinion on this.
 
Hi I have a 1970 P6 we fitted a 1.9 turbo diesel with the pump tweaked it will spin its wheels on take off and still pull a ton up the motorway.
 
Hi Paul, would you like to post some photos and more info about your diesel conversion to a new thread? Even if it's not to everyone's taste, I'm sure we'll all find the technical aspects interesting.
 
Ill try, It took me about half an hour to log in! I can convert vehicles far easier then use computers, one other conversion I did many years ago..... Series one Land Rover fitted with a 4.2 ltr Jaguar engine, Transit front axle and a P6 rear axle.... went like stink we clocked her at 135mph (allegedly your Honour )
 
Paul 2000td said:
Hi I have a 1970 P6 we fitted a 1.9 turbo diesel with the pump tweaked it will spin its wheels on take off and still pull a ton up the motorway.
Click to expand...

Good engines they are, very strong and can handle a fair whack of boost and fuel and still remain reliable :D . Still one of the most fun and quickest cars I've ever driven was a diesel 205 with the pump turned upto max and the wastegate jammed shut on a trackday 8)

+1 on more details please :D

Would you mind passing on some of the details of the Transit axle on the Land Rover, I'm dead interested to know more about that!
 
The Land Rover became 2wd, the rear leaf springs were moved to the front, one for the weight of the engine and two we were missing the front springs, the spring hanners were lengthened at the front of the chassis, because rear springs are longer then the front ones. The beam of the transit axle was shortened to make it the same width as the LR, the P6 rear axle was used because of the length of the engine and gear box ment there was no room for a prop shaft so we needed a mounted diff with independent suspension, the prop shaft was two UJ joined together, I think we used a transit steering box but cant remember, It looked like a standard Series 1 LR till it pulled away from traffic lights and would leave a GTI standing, happy days, long before VOSA came along to spoil things. to keep you V8 boys happy, we have a Ferguson t20 (little grey Fergi) which now has a 3.9 V8 Rover engine top speed of 50 mph and will wheely in 3rd gear!
 
Paul 2000td said:
The Land Rover became 2wd, the rear leaf springs were moved to the front, one for the weight of the engine and two we were missing the front springs, the spring hanners were lengthened at the front of the chassis, because rear springs are longer then the front ones. The beam of the transit axle was shortened to make it the same width as the LR, the P6 rear axle was used because of the length of the engine and gear box ment there was no room for a prop shaft so we needed a mounted diff with independent suspension, the prop shaft was two UJ joined together, I think we used a transit steering box but cant remember, It looked like a standard Series 1 LR till it pulled away from traffic lights and would leave a GTI standing, happy days, long before VOSA came along to spoil things. to keep you V8 boys happy, we have a Ferguson t20 (little grey Fergi) which now has a 3.9 V8 Rover engine top speed of 50 mph and will wheely in 3rd gear!
Click to expand...

Excellent thanks for that! I've been looking at Sherpa/LDV front beam axles as they're more readily available and reportably can be narrowed quite easily, finding an early Transit now would be difficult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top