wonder if they used plastigauge ?<br>
and who turned the crank as each bearing was tightened<br>
<p></p><i></i>
BMW Diesel
-
mbellinger
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:38 am
Re: Engine Choices
A few thoughts.<br>
<br>
I have owned and driven over extended periods both the late BMW diesels - 2.0 and 3.0 litre.<br>
<br>
I have also driven the Jag diesel over 1200 miles.<br>
<br>
Forget the Jag. It is very refined, but is new and therefore ludicrously expensive to buy (even secondhand). It is also a V6, and rather wide for a narrow TR. Besides, predictably the warranty claims are rolling in thick and fast with it now and Ford and Peugeot are busily (quietly) re-engineering it.<br>
<br>
The BMW 3.0 litre was originally 184 bhp, and is very understressed in this form. It is also plentifully available as it was used in the volume 3 and 5 series variants. It is a cracking engine - very smooth, refined with a curiously nice engine note. It works better as a five speed manual than a six speed by the way. Later interations of this lump went to 218 bhp when they put it in the X5 and X3. This was achieved through different engine management and a completely different turbo (variable nozzle) and a new intercooler. In other words to turn a 184 into a 218 is not a simple re-mapping exercise. These later 218 engines are harder to find and dearer. Mine was a 184 manual and it was great. 184's can be chipped to 205ish bhp easily with no loss of driveability but a few more emissions.<br>
<br>
The 2.0 litre started life in the 3 series and across Europe is the biggest selling engine variant so supply is plentiful. Be careful though as there are many different versions. It began life as a lowly 115 bhp (though very tourquey), and in this form was flogged to Rover for the 75. BMW engineers were very concerned about the 75 nicking 3 series sales so as the 75 came out the Beemers were regraded to 131 bhp to seperate them. This was literally justa re-mapping exercise as Rover later proved when they began to offer the 131 bhp kit as a dealer fitted upgrade to the 75.<br>
<br>
In about 2002, the engine was revised again, this timne to 150 bhp and these are plentiful now. Again the five speeder is better as the sixth is literally a cruising ratio (for very flat motorways) and appears to be geared for interplanetary travel. The 150 is very different to the 115/131 with similar turbo and intercooler changes as those for the 3.0 litre mentioned above. The 150 is a lower emissions engine. Finally, the 150 was re-engineered again for the 1 series and the new 3 and 5 series to 163 brake. This remains the current powerplant and the same availability and cost constraints apply as the Jag engine. The 163 is a little more metallic in its delivery than the 150, which for a 4 cyl diesel is incredibly smooth.<br>
<br>
On the road, there is very little to choose between a 150 2.0 litre and a 184 3.0 litre. the six cyl makes a nicer noise and is smoother, but its (much) greater weight makes the car very nose heavy in corners. 3.0 litres had very different suspension settings for that reason. In a TR6, perhaps go six cyl as it is more appropriate.<br>
<br>
You will need the engine management system and loom etc (remembering that a deal of the management gubbins resides in the boot on Beemers), but all of that should be eminently do-able. If Morgan can put a BMW 4.4 V8 in a Morgan and make it go, you can certainly do it in a TR6!<br>
<br>
I know bugger all about ethanol/cooking oil/chip fat conversions, so do take the advice of others there.<br>
<br>
A few don'ts.<br>
<br>
Don't touch the Rover lumps (L series etc). They are absolute nails.<br>
<br>
Don't touch the mainland Europe only (until very recently) BMW 318d unit. This is a de-tuned 2.0 litre castrated to about 115 bhp and is horrid.<br>
<br>
The other unit worth a look is the 1997 - 2001 Merc 3.0 litre straight six turbo diesel. The only drawback with this engine is that it was never available in any world market with manual transmission. It is electronically less complex, will do 500+K miles, and can be made to run on cat piss if you want to.<br>
<br>
I hope some of these meanderings are of assistance to you. Oh and good luck - I think its a great idea.
<p>Martin<br>
<br>
1968 Triumph 1300FWD<br>
1975 Triumph 1500TC Auto<br>
1989 Honda Civic 1300 Auto<br>
2006 Mondeo 2.0 Ghia X Auto<br>
2002 Renault Scenic<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
<br>
I have owned and driven over extended periods both the late BMW diesels - 2.0 and 3.0 litre.<br>
<br>
I have also driven the Jag diesel over 1200 miles.<br>
<br>
Forget the Jag. It is very refined, but is new and therefore ludicrously expensive to buy (even secondhand). It is also a V6, and rather wide for a narrow TR. Besides, predictably the warranty claims are rolling in thick and fast with it now and Ford and Peugeot are busily (quietly) re-engineering it.<br>
<br>
The BMW 3.0 litre was originally 184 bhp, and is very understressed in this form. It is also plentifully available as it was used in the volume 3 and 5 series variants. It is a cracking engine - very smooth, refined with a curiously nice engine note. It works better as a five speed manual than a six speed by the way. Later interations of this lump went to 218 bhp when they put it in the X5 and X3. This was achieved through different engine management and a completely different turbo (variable nozzle) and a new intercooler. In other words to turn a 184 into a 218 is not a simple re-mapping exercise. These later 218 engines are harder to find and dearer. Mine was a 184 manual and it was great. 184's can be chipped to 205ish bhp easily with no loss of driveability but a few more emissions.<br>
<br>
The 2.0 litre started life in the 3 series and across Europe is the biggest selling engine variant so supply is plentiful. Be careful though as there are many different versions. It began life as a lowly 115 bhp (though very tourquey), and in this form was flogged to Rover for the 75. BMW engineers were very concerned about the 75 nicking 3 series sales so as the 75 came out the Beemers were regraded to 131 bhp to seperate them. This was literally justa re-mapping exercise as Rover later proved when they began to offer the 131 bhp kit as a dealer fitted upgrade to the 75.<br>
<br>
In about 2002, the engine was revised again, this timne to 150 bhp and these are plentiful now. Again the five speeder is better as the sixth is literally a cruising ratio (for very flat motorways) and appears to be geared for interplanetary travel. The 150 is very different to the 115/131 with similar turbo and intercooler changes as those for the 3.0 litre mentioned above. The 150 is a lower emissions engine. Finally, the 150 was re-engineered again for the 1 series and the new 3 and 5 series to 163 brake. This remains the current powerplant and the same availability and cost constraints apply as the Jag engine. The 163 is a little more metallic in its delivery than the 150, which for a 4 cyl diesel is incredibly smooth.<br>
<br>
On the road, there is very little to choose between a 150 2.0 litre and a 184 3.0 litre. the six cyl makes a nicer noise and is smoother, but its (much) greater weight makes the car very nose heavy in corners. 3.0 litres had very different suspension settings for that reason. In a TR6, perhaps go six cyl as it is more appropriate.<br>
<br>
You will need the engine management system and loom etc (remembering that a deal of the management gubbins resides in the boot on Beemers), but all of that should be eminently do-able. If Morgan can put a BMW 4.4 V8 in a Morgan and make it go, you can certainly do it in a TR6!<br>
<br>
I know bugger all about ethanol/cooking oil/chip fat conversions, so do take the advice of others there.<br>
<br>
A few don'ts.<br>
<br>
Don't touch the Rover lumps (L series etc). They are absolute nails.<br>
<br>
Don't touch the mainland Europe only (until very recently) BMW 318d unit. This is a de-tuned 2.0 litre castrated to about 115 bhp and is horrid.<br>
<br>
The other unit worth a look is the 1997 - 2001 Merc 3.0 litre straight six turbo diesel. The only drawback with this engine is that it was never available in any world market with manual transmission. It is electronically less complex, will do 500+K miles, and can be made to run on cat piss if you want to.<br>
<br>
I hope some of these meanderings are of assistance to you. Oh and good luck - I think its a great idea.
<p>Martin<br>
<br>
1968 Triumph 1300FWD<br>
1975 Triumph 1500TC Auto<br>
1989 Honda Civic 1300 Auto<br>
2006 Mondeo 2.0 Ghia X Auto<br>
2002 Renault Scenic<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
Re: Engine Choices
Great info Martin, just what I'm after. I'm still someway off from being ready for the engine transplant yet, cills and floor need replacing. The frame is all but done, trailing arm box sections needed replacing and the diff mounts just need to be reinforced due to the dreaded crack. then a lick of paint and i can start reassembly of the suspension etc.Its going to be a fairly long project as the two little un's need entertaining while the weather is good and the glorified garden shed we live in needs lots of work doing so I will fit this in when I can. Probably do the bulk of the work come winter now I've got my garage back since the Microbus is now in Blighty.<br>
<br>
Cheers again every one for the info, its not easy being on the wrong side of the pond!<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
PS Dollysteve, if you can find me one of those engines cheap I'll have a go at shoehorning it in the Greasy 6.
<p>1979 Dolomite Sprint<br>
1972 TR6 (now breaking for spares to fund the Dolly)<br>
1993 Mazda Protege ($250 Winter Hack)<br>
2000 Mazda MPV (For Sale)<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
<br>
Cheers again every one for the info, its not easy being on the wrong side of the pond!<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
PS Dollysteve, if you can find me one of those engines cheap I'll have a go at shoehorning it in the Greasy 6.
<p>1979 Dolomite Sprint<br>
1972 TR6 (now breaking for spares to fund the Dolly)<br>
1993 Mazda Protege ($250 Winter Hack)<br>
2000 Mazda MPV (For Sale)<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
-
Jon Tilson
- Posts: 1311
- Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 8:28 pm
Good Info Martin....
So what goes in the P38 DSE rangie then? Is it a 2.5 version of the 3.0? I know people chip thes to about 180 ish...<br>
Ive got quite an atraction to one of these since my dustbin lids now have their own motors (dollies natch) and the 110 TDI Landie while spacious is a tad agricultural.<br>
<br>
SO is this Jag V6 in the S type shred with pug then?<br>
<br>
Also there is a GM sourced CDI V6 in the Saab 9-5 which has interesting numbers of about 185...<br>
Looks a nice potentially cheap big deisel barge as time goes on...<br>
<br>
Jonners
<p></p><i></i>
Ive got quite an atraction to one of these since my dustbin lids now have their own motors (dollies natch) and the 110 TDI Landie while spacious is a tad agricultural.<br>
<br>
SO is this Jag V6 in the S type shred with pug then?<br>
<br>
Also there is a GM sourced CDI V6 in the Saab 9-5 which has interesting numbers of about 185...<br>
Looks a nice potentially cheap big deisel barge as time goes on...<br>
<br>
Jonners
<p></p><i></i>
-
mbellinger
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:38 am
Re: Many Questions Jonners....
...I'll try and answer them.<br>
<br>
The P38 2.5 DSE Rangie is a completely different engine. Yes it is ex-BMW but is a development of the much older non common rail straight six Beemer diesel that has its origins in the late 1980's. It is dirtier, noisier, thirstier and much slower than the newer lumps (in std form).<br>
<br>
That said it still makes quite a nice noise, and is revvy (for diesel). In its day it was a pacesetter, but it really struggles with the weight of the Rangie. You are correct, they are regularly chipped from the std 150 bhp to about 180 without problems and this makes a massive difference to the driveability esp. in the Rangie. A very robust lump but a bit of a dinosaur compared to the modern BMW stuff.<br>
<br>
The Jag V6 diesel is a partnership between Ford and PSA and they shared all development costs. It is made in France by PSA in a state of the art factory and then shipped to Coventry for the Jags and Land Rovers. It was designed from the outset to be able to be mounted transverse for fwd and long ways for rwd.<br>
<br>
It appears in the Pug 605 (ugh!) and the new Citroen C6 as well as the Jag, and of course the new Disco and RR Sport. It will almost certainly find its way into Volvo before the year is out as of course Volvo are part of Premier Auto Group (Fords upmarket Euro marques). A V8 version of it has also been developed at 4.2 litres and goes in the Rangie in November.<br>
<br>
The GM unit you refer to is a 3.0 litre common rail V6, which was developed jointly on a similar cost sharing basis with GM and Renault. It appears in the Vectra, the Saab 95 and the big (and mercifully now defunct) Renault Vel Satis. It is a very good lump and pulls strongly, but again is a transverse fwd/4wd V6 set up and therefore totally unsuitable for a TR6.<br>
<br>
Takes off anorak and reaches for cold lager......
<p>Martin<br>
<br>
1968 Triumph 1300FWD<br>
1975 Triumph 1500TC Auto<br>
1989 Honda Civic 1300 Auto<br>
2006 Mondeo 2.0 Ghia X Auto<br>
2002 Renault Scenic<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
<br>
The P38 2.5 DSE Rangie is a completely different engine. Yes it is ex-BMW but is a development of the much older non common rail straight six Beemer diesel that has its origins in the late 1980's. It is dirtier, noisier, thirstier and much slower than the newer lumps (in std form).<br>
<br>
That said it still makes quite a nice noise, and is revvy (for diesel). In its day it was a pacesetter, but it really struggles with the weight of the Rangie. You are correct, they are regularly chipped from the std 150 bhp to about 180 without problems and this makes a massive difference to the driveability esp. in the Rangie. A very robust lump but a bit of a dinosaur compared to the modern BMW stuff.<br>
<br>
The Jag V6 diesel is a partnership between Ford and PSA and they shared all development costs. It is made in France by PSA in a state of the art factory and then shipped to Coventry for the Jags and Land Rovers. It was designed from the outset to be able to be mounted transverse for fwd and long ways for rwd.<br>
<br>
It appears in the Pug 605 (ugh!) and the new Citroen C6 as well as the Jag, and of course the new Disco and RR Sport. It will almost certainly find its way into Volvo before the year is out as of course Volvo are part of Premier Auto Group (Fords upmarket Euro marques). A V8 version of it has also been developed at 4.2 litres and goes in the Rangie in November.<br>
<br>
The GM unit you refer to is a 3.0 litre common rail V6, which was developed jointly on a similar cost sharing basis with GM and Renault. It appears in the Vectra, the Saab 95 and the big (and mercifully now defunct) Renault Vel Satis. It is a very good lump and pulls strongly, but again is a transverse fwd/4wd V6 set up and therefore totally unsuitable for a TR6.<br>
<br>
Takes off anorak and reaches for cold lager......
<p>Martin<br>
<br>
1968 Triumph 1300FWD<br>
1975 Triumph 1500TC Auto<br>
1989 Honda Civic 1300 Auto<br>
2006 Mondeo 2.0 Ghia X Auto<br>
2002 Renault Scenic<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
-
Carsreunited
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2003 6:45 pm
Re: Many Questions Jonners....
Martin, are you a motoring journalist or something??!!<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
-
mbellinger
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:38 am
Re: Journalist?
Regrettably not Scott.<br>
<br>
I am in fact a property developer (filth, scum, etc), though in my defence about 75% of my project work is much needed affordable housing via housing associations, etc.<br>
<br>
My motoring knowledge is accumulated from hours and hours of reading coupled with a fair bit of pulling stuff apart. Which usually leads to rather a lot more reading......<br>
<br>
I also make it my business to try and find out as much as I possibly can about any car I run. Since the late 1970's development costs on anything to do with cars have soared and in these safety conscious days they are stratospheric. Hence manufacturers pool resources to develop engines and platforms (amongst other stuff).<br>
<br>
Knowing what is what can bring benefits. Where powerplants are shared there are often great variations in parts prices among the manufacturers who share the items concerned.<br>
<br>
This was first brought home to me at the tender age of 21 when in a moment of madness I bought a Lotus Esprit S1. The brake calipers were seized (one of a number of items that were utterly fooked). Lotus wanted £300 a side for them. Then I discovered through reading that they were Opel Ascona items (take a bow dollyboy), a piece of info that enabled me to buy brand new calipers from my local GM dealer for the princely sum of £48 each.<br>
<br>
Similarly my TR7 found itself with a Sherpa clutch (cheaper and heavy duty - work that out).<br>
<br>
I have been the same ever since. Wish I knew as much as some of you lot about Triumphs though.....
<p>Martin<br>
<br>
1968 Triumph 1300FWD<br>
1975 Triumph 1500TC Auto<br>
1989 Honda Civic 1300 Auto<br>
2006 Mondeo 2.0 Ghia X Auto<br>
2002 Renault Scenic<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
<br>
I am in fact a property developer (filth, scum, etc), though in my defence about 75% of my project work is much needed affordable housing via housing associations, etc.<br>
<br>
My motoring knowledge is accumulated from hours and hours of reading coupled with a fair bit of pulling stuff apart. Which usually leads to rather a lot more reading......<br>
<br>
I also make it my business to try and find out as much as I possibly can about any car I run. Since the late 1970's development costs on anything to do with cars have soared and in these safety conscious days they are stratospheric. Hence manufacturers pool resources to develop engines and platforms (amongst other stuff).<br>
<br>
Knowing what is what can bring benefits. Where powerplants are shared there are often great variations in parts prices among the manufacturers who share the items concerned.<br>
<br>
This was first brought home to me at the tender age of 21 when in a moment of madness I bought a Lotus Esprit S1. The brake calipers were seized (one of a number of items that were utterly fooked). Lotus wanted £300 a side for them. Then I discovered through reading that they were Opel Ascona items (take a bow dollyboy), a piece of info that enabled me to buy brand new calipers from my local GM dealer for the princely sum of £48 each.<br>
<br>
Similarly my TR7 found itself with a Sherpa clutch (cheaper and heavy duty - work that out).<br>
<br>
I have been the same ever since. Wish I knew as much as some of you lot about Triumphs though.....
<p>Martin<br>
<br>
1968 Triumph 1300FWD<br>
1975 Triumph 1500TC Auto<br>
1989 Honda Civic 1300 Auto<br>
2006 Mondeo 2.0 Ghia X Auto<br>
2002 Renault Scenic<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
Re: Journalist?
I think you mean Algtj not dollyboy <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>
<br>
A Lotus Esprit at 21! AWESOME!!! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END-->
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
A Lotus Esprit at 21! AWESOME!!! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END-->
<p></p><i></i>
-
mbellinger
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:38 am
Re: Awesome?
I think not Ad.<br>
<br>
I may have bought it at 21.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>
<br>
But it didn't run under its own steam successfully until I was 24<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :| --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif ALT=":|"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>
<br>
And I had to sell it immediately to pay off the debts I had run up getting it going.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :( --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":("><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>
<br>
Top drive though, for a short time.<br>
<br>
You are quite right - Ascona Man - apologies to Al.
<p>Martin<br>
<br>
1968 Triumph 1300FWD<br>
1975 Triumph 1500TC Auto<br>
1989 Honda Civic 1300 Auto<br>
2006 Mondeo 2.0 Ghia X Auto<br>
2002 Renault Scenic<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
<br>
I may have bought it at 21.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>
<br>
But it didn't run under its own steam successfully until I was 24<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :| --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif ALT=":|"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>
<br>
And I had to sell it immediately to pay off the debts I had run up getting it going.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :( --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":("><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>
<br>
Top drive though, for a short time.<br>
<br>
You are quite right - Ascona Man - apologies to Al.
<p>Martin<br>
<br>
1968 Triumph 1300FWD<br>
1975 Triumph 1500TC Auto<br>
1989 Honda Civic 1300 Auto<br>
2006 Mondeo 2.0 Ghia X Auto<br>
2002 Renault Scenic<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest