Jump to content
  • 0
c101 comando

landrover 200 tdi verses 2.5 turbo diesel

Question

i thought i would ask here as i know i will get honest opinions

a chap i know is selling a landy 110 12 seater he says its got a 200 engine in it now it on a e plate so should be turbo diesel rather than a later 200 tdi he has only had it a few weeks and its just not comfy enough for him

 

now then i want to know what sort of mpg would you expect from either version of engine i know the tdi has a much better rep than the other engine

i have yet to see it up close but it sounds solid and reasonable buy as i have kids and junk to move about and my jeep is heavy to run as it has a 4.2 in it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

The 200TDI engines are superb. More or less bomb proof and they are good on juice too, I'd say about 30-32mpg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I used to get about 28mpg from a 200tdi in a 90 running locally but up to about 34 on a long run so I would expect a bit less in a 110SW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
The 2.5 turbo diesel nearly caused the MOD to fall out with Land Rover...

 

It was the normal aspirated 2.5 diesel that caused the trouble, turbos were not fitted to MoD contracts at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Ran a 90 on a 2.5 n/a, and if I was looking for a short-haul mud-plugger I'd have another.

 

Don't expect to go anywhere quickly, but it is a bombproof donk. If you try to push it, watch your oil consumption go up.

 

For keeping up with normal traffic, it'd have be the 200tdi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
I always thought the 2.5 n/a was a good, but slow engine?

Tell me more please.

 

Back in late 80's or early 90's, the 90 and 110 engines were failing, pistons picking up, one cylinder in particular. The finer details have now escaped my mind, but it would have caused concern at Solihull. We had an engine rebuild line and these engines went through it with Land Rover engineers watching and checking as they were built, then load tested on a dyno. I think Santana pistons may have been experimented with. I think L/R took responsability and took engines back, not sure, but may have had new blocks. My thoughts at the time was that the block castings might have had insuffucient water around a certain cylinder as it always seemed to be the same one, but I never did get to hear the final verdict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think the later versions of the Turbo D engines had a much better reputation than the early ones for reliability. The 200Tdi is hard to fault. Many will smoke on first start up, but if it clears then no probs. Range Rover classic we have in the family with this engine has racked up 250K and uses no oil and not had a spanner on it. Regular oil and filters essential. Tdi is quite dependent on the turbo for heavy pulling. This returns 30-32 on a run and the Range Rover is heavy but higher geared than the 110. Check the turbo hose hasn't started to break up inside by popping one end off to have a look. A weak hose will flatten under suction, reducing performance and risking bits flying off into the turbo. :nono: The acoustic cover off a 300Tdi will fit the 200 and help to reduce the top end noise a little. Even the later 2.5 Turbos will feel pretty gutless in a 110 SW. If your TDi does go bang, there are plenty of cheap Discovery donors around-not so for the the Turbo D.

Edited by daz76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
It was the normal aspirated 2.5 diesel that caused the trouble, turbos were not fitted to MoD contracts at that time.
Richard i believe that the m.o.d were going to go down the route of the 2.5TD. It was, if i'm right the 2.5TD examples on trial with the Army that were giving the oil "blowback" in to the turbos problem.

 

I think it was to the extent to how big the problem was that LR reverted to the N/A diesel in order to save the whole contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Richard i believe that the m.o.d were going to go down the route of the 2.5TD. It was, if i'm right the 2.5TD examples on trial with the Army that were giving the oil "blowback" in to the turbos problem.

 

I think it was to the extent to how big the problem was that LR reverted to the N/A diesel in order to save the whole contract.

 

 

Mark,

 

Definitely not turbos, I witnessed the problems, they were all on in-service normal aspirated. No turbo 2.5 engines in service at that time. All manner of things were tried by L/R to solve the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Mark,

 

Definitely not turbos, I witnessed the problems, they were all on in-service normal aspirated. No turbo 2.5 engines in service at that time. All manner of things were tried by L/R to solve the problem.

 

 

 

 

I've got a 1986 N/A 2.5 diesel in my Defender. It's done 230,000kms and has been 100% reliable. They are slow as hell but are a good engine. The same engine fitted with the turbo did cause problems, and i wouldn't want one in mine. The 200TDI engine is better in my opinion than the 300TDI which suffered early problems (with the timing belt I believe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
I've got a 1986 N/A 2.5 diesel in my Defender. It's done 230,000kms and has been 100% reliable.

 

Just to put you in the picture on what I am relating about. I was in a large Army workshops at the time and it was a major problem, eventually L/R got to grips with the problem and I believe that every engine in service at the time may have gone back to them, that is why those with 2.5 N/A engines in later years are now reliable, but believe me it has serious at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The problem on 2.5 na engines on early military 90" & 110" contracts was due to oil contamination (blow-by) of the paper element air filter.

 

IIRC there was questions in the H of P.

 

Land Rover blaming squaddies overfilling the oil level. I was reliably informed there were officer witnessed morning checking of dip-stick levels on flat parade grounds as this was denied.

 

The pistons were made by AE (Associated Engineering Group part of Turner & Newall) at their Bradford works, piston ring sets were made at the Sunderland Works of Hepworth & Grandage (part of T&N Group - later Federal Mogul / AE Goetze).

 

The matter was only resolved by a REME Major who designed a "Cyclone oil recovery scavenge canister" that was installed in the engine bay with associated pipework.

 

I should be able to turn out a photograph of one of these scavenge canisters.

 

There were free issue of hundreds of new engines to replace wrecked units that self destructed as they could not be stopped dieseling on lubricating oil.

 

I forget the full story but IIRC the problem was resolved by re-designed piston sets , but it took Land Rover a long long time, there was still Rover denial to their civilian customers who were also affected badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

As a follow up , this is so long ago - was the reason in fact finally found to be :-

 

The servo brakes vacuum pump (evacuator) that sits where the distributor does on a petrol) . These pumps suck air from the servo and dump it (complete with their lubricating oil) into the crankcase. When fitted with a servo, the pump spends most of its time not pumping, so pushes no air into the crankcase. If the servo is disconnected OR YOU GET LOSS OF VACUUM ON HOSE CONNECTIONS - then the evacuator simply pumps loads of air into the crankcase, pressurising it to an alarming degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
The problem on 2.5 na engines on early military 90" & 110" contracts was due to oil contamination (blow-by) of the paper element air filter.

 

 

Land Rover blaming squaddies overfilling the oil level. I was reliably informed there were officer witnessed morning checking of dip-stick levels on flat parade grounds as this was denied.

 

 

 

 

Not quite as simple as you explain it, this went on for some time, with lots of trials and testing done. The contamination of the paper air filter.....I recollect a modification being introduced, I said at the time, what idiot would design a breathing system feeding crankcase vapours to the suction side of a paper filter, it was bound to clog as it was mixed up with incoming dust.

 

As for dipstick levels, these were altered when rebuilding the engines, and measure ot the fraction of an inch......this amused me because once an engine is running, oil is splashed and pumped around, so unless the level was grossly too high, it would not be a problem. Another thing, vehicles, especially off road ones, work at all kinds of angles, so another reason why the oil level was a red herring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Not quite as simple as you explain it, this went on for some time, with lots of trials and testing done. The contamination of the paper air filter.....I recollect a modification being introduced, I said at the time, what idiot would design a breathing system feeding crankcase vapours to the suction side of a paper filter, it was bound to clog as it was mixed up with incoming dust.

 

As for dipstick levels, these were altered when rebuilding the engines, and measure ot the fraction of an inch......this amused me because once an engine is running, oil is splashed and pumped around, so unless the level was grossly too high, it would not be a problem. Another thing, vehicles, especially off road ones, work at all kinds of angles, so another reason why the oil level was a red herring.

 

=================

 

The problem being with a Land Rover dip-stick tube , you have to calibrate it at the gland nut & olive assembly at the crankcase and they come loose , not anti-tamper - if the setting is incorrect and there is too much oil content in the sump - it can lead to contamination of the paper element (this is the story Rover maintained to even their private customers and of course that the tube height was correct but that the engine had too much oil on the dip-stick). Rover maintained that insufficient time was being given for oil to return to the sump and the squaddies were too hasty to top up - the result of this was the parade ground procedure.

Unfortunately I am unable to find a Vortex unit just now , somebody else may be able to assist with a photograph of the set up..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Just to put you in the picture on what I am relating about. I was in a large Army workshops at the time and it was a major problem, eventually L/R got to grips with the problem and I believe that every engine in service at the time may have gone back to them, that is why those with 2.5 N/A engines in later years are now reliable, but believe me it has serious at the time.

 

There were a number of modifications that Richard refers to with various engine issues. Most of these were under a programme Op Terry. Typical of that is this AESP 2320-D-122-821 Gen Instr No 68. Other issues mentioned by Richard are in Gen Instr No. 6, 10, 17, 21, 70 & 71.

 

App1476.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Do you have any technical info. just what these modification job tasks were Clive.

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Do you have any technical info. just what these modification job tasks were Clive.

 

regards

 

Yes. But just that one is 22 pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Not to bother then Clive , all history now (well almost for me - and I still havn't needed any of those fuel pipes , just as well I purchased them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

thanks fo all the help guys all very usefull i went and a good look over the 110 that was for sale it was ten years younger than my jeep 1981

the chap selling was an ok sort he was telling me how it had been very well maintained it had

newly rebuilt 200 tdi

rebuilt gearbox

new transfercase

new bushes all round

maybe i messed up but i did not buy it the doors were rotten the bulkhead was rotten and just looked like it had been used as a kennal

i know my old jeep is getting close to 30 years old but it still has all its original power train and apart from being thirsty is just about 100 per cent reliable

you watch it will breakdown on the way to work in the morning

sorry for not thanking you guys earlyer but the kids decided to fill my laptop with lucozade a few weeks back and you know what thats not good thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Sounds like you made the right decision with this one. Not much point having good mechanicals if there's nothing holding it all together. Are you hanging on to the Jeep or keeping on the lookout for something else?

 

Maybe the children thought the Lucozade would help the computer run faster.....:n00b:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

he he the laptop was very fast indeed at stopping i was a bit unhappy to say the least the kids were in hiding for a day or two

 

my plan is to keep my ear to the ground all the 110 tens i have seen for sale all seem to have loads of invoces saying that they have had major repairs

welding gearboxes and head work so without upseting the loyal landy folks

i am wondering if thats the way to go

 

my jeep runs a six cylinder 4.2 and does a tad over 16 to the gallon

on a run thats what it did on sunday when i went to bristol to fit a jeep engine

 

i am open to ideas i may sell the jeep if i can find somthing as tough as the jeep i had thought that it may have been posible to find a ex army 110 but as i say i am a bit concerned about how tough they realy are

[sorry landy fans]

me old jeep is on its second or third time round the clock in good nick and with all its original power train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...