300tdi Why is it not being used?

[Bryan062087]

Why does no one swap in a rover 300tdi engine? Or why is this not a consideration with diesel swaps?

This question was asked in the 60 series forum but did not get many responses and I'm interested. Transmission adapter trouble?? Seems like a good engine and gets pretty high mpg, higher than all the toyota diesels from what I've read.

[gerg]

Two words. Land Rover. My buddy is a Land Rover fanatic, and even he hates working on them
G

[dogboy2]

TLC has installed this motor's derivative (International HS 2.8 L) in their Icon and is in the process of developing a full conversion kit for Cruisers pending availability of new motors. As of last week, the status was uncertain but that may have changed. They are currently exploring other motor options and are currently gaging interest over on Expedition Portal.

HTH,
-dogboy- '87 FJ60

[rchalmers3]

Funny you mention it. I've been driving one this week. It's in a late model Defender quad cab pickup.

I have impressions regarding the whole experience of driving a late model Defender, but nothing too positive so I'll defer.

Specifically regarding the motor: It revs and produces power like a car motor. You have to rev it up and slip the clutch to get it moving. Having driven Toyotas with the 2H and 2F (great torque producing long stroke motors), I repeatedly stalled the Defender since it has reduced idle torque (and a stupid clutch pedal movement)

The Defender loves to be driven up in the RPM ranges that seem in the 2k to 4k range. I cannot confirm this as the Defender had no tachometer. Chugging along at low speed and low RPMS do not work well on the 300TDI, at least in the Defender trim.

So to sum it up, the motor is a completely different animal, bred more for attaining higher speeds and sacrificing the low speed tractability that embodies the Land Cruiser.

I hope this post didn't offend any Land Rover lovers.

Rick

[Bryan062087]

Yeah, I've been following the TLC 2.8 conversion here and on expedition portal. Pretty interesting but $$$!! Think they paid 10k for a new 2.8.

Originally Posted by gerg

Two words. Land Rover. My buddy is a Land Rover fanatic, and even he hates working on them
G

I was not aware that they were difficult to work on. What makes them so hard as opposed to toyota diesels? I always thought they were pretty basic and simple like or maybe that stopped with the 200tdi?

One of the reasons I was interested is because of the mileage, seems like 300tdi (International 2.8 as well maybe?) gets better mileage than any of the yota diesels. I know a few on here who have swapped various diesels, 12ht and the 1hz are struggling to get 19-20mpg if that. Interested in what you all thought of the motor (300tdi)- reliability, feasibility etc.

[Bryan062087]

Originally Posted by rchalmers3

Specifically regarding the motor: It revs and produces power like a car motor. You have to rev it up and slip the clutch to get it moving. Having driven Toyotas with the 2H and 2F (great torque producing long stroke motors), I repeatedly stalled the Defender since it has reduced idle torque (and a stupid clutch pedal movement)

The Defender loves to be driven up in the RPM ranges that seem in the 2k to 4k range. I cannot confirm this as the Defender had no tachometer. Chugging along at low speed and low RPMS do not work well on the 300TDI, at least in the Defender trim.

So to sum it up, the motor is a completely different animal, bred more for attaining higher speeds and sacrificing the low speed tractability that embodies the Land Cruiser.

I hope this post didn't offend any Land Rover lovers.

Rick

Thought the max torque of the 300tdi was at like 1800 rpm or something. Also, it being a highly acclaimed offroad engine, Im surprised by you saying it doesn't want to lug along at low speeds etc. Interesting info. Kind of disappointed that it may have a car like feel/powerband.

[rchalmers3]

Well, different people drive differently. Shoot, my wife drives faster over these terrible roads than I'm willing to go. Maybe I'm becoming my dad who always seemed to drive slow!!!

Really, My driving style may not be the norm. If the masses say it's good, well then...

Rick

[Bryan062087]

Haha, not sure the masses are the ones to believe in any situation...

[roscoFJ73]

Originally Posted by Bryan062087

Why does no one swap in a rover 300tdi engine? Or why is this not a consideration with diesel swaps?

This question was asked in the 60 series forum but did not get many responses and I'm interested. Transmission adapter trouble?? Seems like a good engine and gets pretty high mpg, higher than all the toyota diesels from what I've read.

Anyone will tell you the good points of a LR diesel engines
However some landrovers owners are in a constant state of denial regarding the quality of their choice of 4x4


Here is the bad part
Landrover Discovery Oil Pump Bolt Failure Includes Defender TD5 engine.

God,the BBC consumer watchdog even did a program about it

[Dougal]

Originally Posted by roscoFJ73

Anyone will tell you the good points of a LR diesel engines
However some landrovers owners are in a constant state of denial regarding the quality of their choice of 4x4


Here is the bad part
Landrover Discovery Oil Pump Bolt Failure Includes Defender TD5 engine.

God,the BBC consumer watchdog even did a program about it

That's a completely different engine to the 300tdi. But it's still a rare problem compared to the 1HD bottom end bearings. Sorry I forgot toyotas don't break.

I haven't driven a 200/300tdi. But they're pretty easy to leave behind at the lights. The variable vane turbo and exhaust manifold from the HS engine can be fitted to the 300tdi which would solve the no low end that Richard mentioned.
But I believe they're supposed to produce max torque and boost around the 1800rpm mentioned above.

One of the main reasons there aren't many small 4 cyls fitted to landcruisers is that they have the space for big 4 cylinders and medium size 6 cylinder diesels.

[Sniperx]

Tit for tat here it begins.

I like the style and feel of the Defenders and such, but there was some reason my dad, 4 wheel drive enthusiast and mechanic for US government, hated them....I guess I adopted that hatred. That and I hate the price and people who drive most of them have more money than brains. And how the disco look like they sag in the butt moe than a 90 year old granny.

[roscoFJ73]

Originally Posted by roscoFJ73

However some landrovers owners are in a constant state of denial regarding the quality of their choice of 4x4

Originally Posted by Dougal

That's a completely different engine to the 300tdi. But it's still a rare problem compared to the 1HD bottom end bearings. Sorry I forgot toyotas don't break.

.

We have a winner

[Towpack]

Originally Posted by rchalmers3

Funny you mention it. I've been driving one this week. It's in a late model Defender quad cab pickup.

I have impressions regarding the whole experience of driving a late model Defender, but nothing too positive so I'll defer.

Specifically regarding the motor: It revs and produces power like a car motor. You have to rev it up and slip the clutch to get it moving. Having driven Toyotas with the 2H and 2F (great torque producing long stroke motors), I repeatedly stalled the Defender since it has reduced idle torque (and a stupid clutch pedal movement)

The Defender loves to be driven up in the RPM ranges that seem in the 2k to 4k range. I cannot confirm this as the Defender had no tachometer. Chugging along at low speed and low RPMS do not work well on the 300TDI, at least in the Defender trim.

So to sum it up, the motor is a completely different animal, bred more for attaining higher speeds and sacrificing the low speed tractability that embodies the Land Cruiser.

I hope this post didn't offend any Land Rover lovers.

Rick

I ran a Disco 300Tdi for 8 years and would agree with this post 100%.For it's size it is not a bad engine but I guess it's unfair to compare it to an engine almost 70% larger (1HD-FT in my case).The LC is within 3-4mpg everywhere with gobs more grunt from just past tickover.I had an issue with (almost) cam belt failiure (mine was an early unit) due to the belt riding forwards off the pulleys and wearing through on the timing cover.There was a mod to cure this and I just caught mine in time.Other than the cambelt didn't have any major problems.Wasn't impressed with the overall build quality though.LC's are not without there problems of course but,for me at least,the 80 is a completely different and far superior drive.

[Bryan062087]

Originally Posted by Towpack

I ran a Disco 300Tdi for 8 years and would agree with this post 100%.

What mpg did you experience on average?

Also, if someone wanted to put one in a LC, I guess the adaptator(s) needed would be the same ones TLC is using in its project with the 2.8?

Anyone know how much the 300tdi weighs off the top of their head?

[Tapage]

Originally Posted by Towpack

LC's are not without there problems of course but,for me at least,the 80 is a completely different and far superior drive.

Wou .. I like so much this kind of post ..

[roscoFJ73]

Originally Posted by rchalmers3

Funny you mention it. I've been driving one this week. It's in a late model Defender quad cab pickup.

I have impressions regarding the whole experience of driving a late model Defender, but nothing too positive so I'll defer.

Specifically regarding the motor: It revs and produces power like a car motor. You have to rev it up and slip the clutch to get it moving. Having driven Toyotas with the 2H and 2F (great torque producing long stroke motors), I repeatedly stalled the Defender since it has reduced idle torque (and a stupid clutch pedal movement)

The Defender loves to be driven up in the RPM ranges that seem in the 2k to 4k range. I cannot confirm this as the Defender had no tachometer. Chugging along at low speed and low RPMS do not work well on the 300TDI, at least in the Defender trim.

So to sum it up, the motor is a completely different animal, bred more for attaining higher speeds and sacrificing the low speed tractability that embodies the Land Cruiser.

I hope this post didn't offend any Land Rover lovers.

Rick

I think its better to have 130 hp from a 4 litre ,than trying to squeeze it from a 2.8
Nissan tried it with its 3.0 and it back fired(or grenaded actually)
I think the 2.8 would be suitable in a light duty 7* series to replace the 2LT when it blows up

[UpsideDown]

A power plant like the 300tdi is more of a "new" technology diesel, so comparing it to a 2H, 3B or similar is not entirely fair.

A small displacement engine, that's been tuned up by way of a turbo etc. is still not a reasonable replacement for larger displacement. Toyota has some new tech diesels as well, and though quite expensive, they will eat a 300tdi for lunch.

Fuel economy:

HJ61 with 3.70 diffs, 255x85R16s, H55F gets between 9.6 and ~11 litres/100 km in mixed highway/town driving at sea level. Not too bad for a heavy 21 year old truck.

The other reason not to use a Rover engine... it's a Rover engine.

[Tapage]

Originally Posted by UpsideDown

A small displacement engine, that's been tuned up by way of a turbo etc. is still not a reasonable replacement for larger displacement. Toyota has some new tech diesels as well, and though quite expensive, they will eat a 300tdi for lunch.

Like the 1KD-FTV D4D common rail with 168 HP .. turbo intercooled .. and it's a 3.0

[rchalmers3]

Originally Posted by UpsideDown

A power plant like the 300tdi is more of a "new" technology diesel, so comparing it to a 2H, 3B or similar is not entirely fair.

A small displacement engine, that's been tuned up by way of a turbo etc. is still not a reasonable replacement for larger displacement. Toyota has some new tech diesels as well, and though quite expensive, they will eat a 300tdi for lunch.

Not dis-agreeing with you, just saying it different:

I believe long stroke motors vs. short stroke is the difference we are really talking about. Yes manufacturers are making more and better power while going over square with the engine design. They are aiming for specific goals (max HP and NM, efficiency) Along the way they meet or exceed the numbers and efficiency of previous designs. But so what? They are really too different to compare.

I don't think the manufacturers are trying to improve the low RPM torque motors of 'yore, they are going for different goals and the new engine designs have different torque characteristics.

Thus a diesel is not just another diesel. What we are left with is the question: "What is it we (I) want/like to drive?"

This basic difference in older vs. newer driving characteristic is missing from the conversation of many of those who seek alternative power for their rides. The answer is there in the HP and torque curves, but only on the graph and not in the peak numbers.

[Dougal]

Originally Posted by roscoFJ73

I think its better to have 130 hp from a 4 litre ,than trying to squeeze it from a 2.8
Nissan tried it with its 3.0 and it back fired(or grenaded actually)
I think the 2.8 would be suitable in a light duty 7* series to replace the 2LT when it blows up

The number of nissan ZD30 failures is quite low, especially compared to the number that are still successfully running despite taking a hiding every day. But thanks to the internet the stories of them melting get around pretty quick.
The YD25 which nissan have gone back to is smaller, runs more boost and delivers yet more power.
The 1KD-FTV which Tapage mentioned is another small, high boost engine.

But the grandaddy of them all is the BWM 535d engine, 3 litre straight six diesel which puts out 580Nm. A few years back they were pushing 42psi boost into it. Probably more now.

The larger engines are losing favour for a few reasons. The extra drag means more fuel consumption at part load, the extra size means they're slower to get to temperature which is an emissions concern, the space and weight are also something car makers hate.
Not to mention taxes on engine capacity.

[Bikerso]

The 300TDI and it's newer version the 2.8 are really reliable engines. I think the main reason for not swapping these into LC's is cost---a lot of individuals who want a diesel swap tend to lean more toward the used diesel engine--but finding a used 300 TDI is very hard--most people who have them don't want to give them up. So if you want a 300TDI or 2.8 you have to buy it new. There is a company out of Canada:

Old British Wheels Canada

That currently imports the 2.8 from Brazil and you are looking at $9100.00 shipped to your door for a new 2.8. Parts are not an issue for the 300tdi or 2.8 both engines have been used a lot in other parts of the world. They are a simple engine to work on---people may say crap about Land Rovers--but these engines were built really well. Every automotive maker has there week areas and this engine was not one of Land Rovers. The 300 tdi will do fine at low speeds as well as speeds up to 80 mph---I am not sure what the other fellow was having issues with at lower speeds with the defender he was driving. There is a gentleman in the US that sometimes offers used 300tdi's:

Rovers Down South

So to some it up I think price is the number one reason and if there were to be a second it is people being stuck on who makes the engine---most of whom don't really research the truth. Hope this helps.

[Towpack]

Originally Posted by Bryan062087

What mpg did you experience on average?

Also, if someone wanted to put one in a LC, I guess the adaptator(s) needed would be the same ones TLC is using in its project with the 2.8?

Anyone know how much the 300tdi weighs off the top of their head?

Best I ever achieved with the LR was @34mpg on long solo runs at motorway speeds (65-75mph).With the LC I can just crack 30 on the same run.Curiously enough towing the boat on the same journey both cars would do around 25-26.Maybe this was due to the LR having to work harder?? The Disco was also quite a bit lighter than the 80,the aluminium body panels playing no small part in this no doubt.

[Dougal]

Originally Posted by Towpack

Best I ever achieved with the LR was @34mpg on long solo runs at motorway speeds (65-75mph).With the LC I can just crack 30 on the same run.Curiously enough towing the boat on the same journey both cars would do around 25-26.Maybe this was due to the LR having to work harder?? The Disco was also quite a bit lighter than the 80,the aluminium body panels playing no small part in this no doubt.

At low load smaller engines have a big advantage. But at heavy load it ends up being much of a muchness.

I have a large Isuzu diesel in my rangerover. It returns a steady 28mpg. But treat it nicely and it doesn't get any better.
The 200/300tdi guys get similar economy, but if they slow down they can get a lot more and I can't.

[crushers]

everytime i hear "the masses think it is great" i think of lemmings and a cliff

Originally Posted by Bryan062087

Haha, not sure the masses are the ones to believe in any situation...

[roscoFJ73]

Originally Posted by Dougal

The number of nissan ZD30 failures is quite low, especially compared to the number that are still successfully running despite taking a hiding every day. But thanks to the internet the stories of them melting get around pretty quick.
The YD25 which nissan have gone back to is smaller, runs more boost and delivers yet more power.
The 1KD-FTV which Tapage mentioned is another small, high boost engine.

But the grandaddy of them all is the BWM 535d engine, 3 litre straight six diesel which puts out 580Nm. A few years back they were pushing 42psi boost into it. Probably more now.

The larger engines are losing favour for a few reasons. The extra drag means more fuel consumption at part load, the extra size means they're slower to get to temperature which is an emissions concern, the space and weight are also something car makers hate.
Not to mention taxes on engine capacity.

Nissan inside