Date: Wed, 4 Apr 01 09:14:08 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <twakeman@cruzers.com>
Subject: RE: LRO: RE: Parts availability vs. bulletproofing
>>Thus to be a Land Rover one must have the 2.25L Petrol or Diesel, or the
>2.6L.
>Twit!
I agree with that one. Land Rover used a variety of engines in their vehicles over
the years. The initial Series machines used an engine that had been designed for
and used in some of Rover's passenger cars. The 2.25 didn't come along until
the diesel was introduced. The basic diesel design was reworked into a
petrol engine so the company only had to run one engine assembly line instead
of two. I don't have any of my LR books here, but I think the 2.6 was designed
in an attempt to get more power for military use, but I may be way wrong on that.
But as the years went on, there were refinements of the basic petrol engine, and
then of course the acquisition of the rights and basic tooling for the aluminum
V-8 from GM. Then there has been the whole series of diesel Tdi engines. For awhile,
Land Rover was using VM diesels from Italy in the Range Rover, and possibly other
vehicles as well. Then an arrangement was made with BMW to use a modified
version of their passenger car diesel in the Range Rover, and this same
engine was used in some Defenders, particularly the ones assembled in Africa.
This arrangement was made prior to BMW's purchase of Land Rover, by the way.
Then Land Rover developed a new series of diesel engines, the only one of which
survived to be produced being the five-cylinder "Storm" engine. Now there are the
engines being used in the Freelander, although I have to admit I don't know if these
are Rover-produced units or engines supplied by other manufacturers.
But in any event, I don't believe that unless a Land Rover has a 2.25 or 2.6 engine it's
not a Land Rover. An interesting dilemma arises when considering older Series Land Rovers
that have been fitted with Rover V-8s. Are they Land Rovers? Given that Land Rover
never fitted (to my knowledge) the V-8 to Series vehicles until close to the end of Series
production, I would say, no, an SII with a Rover V-8 isn't a Land Rover in the true sense
of the name. Others will disagree, of course. I guess I draw the line at whatever
changes the basic nature of the machine. Roof racks, driving lights, bumper over-riders,
winches, skid plates, home-made trailer hitches, cobbled up gas can holders, galvanized frames,
and so on ad infinitum don't, in my opinion, change the nature of the beast. But
changing its heart does.
A Land Rover with a totally different engine is just not a
Land Rover anymore. It may be a great vehicle for the owner's purposes, and it may
improve vastly over the characteristics of an original Land Rover. TeriAnn's 109 hybrid
sounds like a well-thought-out conversion, and I gather it suits her purposes much better
than the vehicle did in its factory-original condition. I am not a purist to the point
of saying Land Rovers should never be re-engined or otherwise modified. But I will never
buy into the notion that such a vehicle is still a Land Rover. Were I shopping for a
Land Rover, I would never consider buying a re-engined version unless the price was
virtually giveaway and the vehicle was in a condition to be put back the way it was originally.
To me, getting a Land Rover complete with underpowered, crude
engine is what getting a Land Rover is all about, if you are into such things. If I wasn't willing
to settle for a vehicle with an underpowered, crude engine, I'd buy something that didn't have one.
TeriAnn's hybrid is something she had built to her specifications using a Land Rover as a
starting point. Kind of like the show everyone on this list seems to like so much, Junkyard
Wars. You take a bit of this and a bit of that and make something that does what you need it
to do. But is a dragster that uses the front end and engine of a Kawasaki motorcycle and a
home-made final drive and two-wheeled axle using the wheels off a compact car still considered
a Kawasaki motorcycle? Not to me. A re-engined Land Rover falls in the same category.
I know TeriAnn doesn't agree with me, so never the twain will meet.
We've pretty much beat this to death, and I'm probably more guilty than anyone for flogging
this thread along. I suspect most everyone on this list is ready to move on to something else.
I suggest a long, drawn out argument over whether the tropical roof really works as advertised
or if it was just a scam. Or how about "Is a Land Rover with a plastic grill as cool as a Land Rover
with a metal grill?" Or "Real men/women use capstan winches. Drum winches are for wusses."
Cheers,
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
(original owner)
1973 Land Rover Series III-88
1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
Seattle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 05 2001 - 01:28:00 EDT