I'm sure any engine they use will be de tuned, the TDV6 is a case in example, the TD6 another. I guess they sacrafice a bit of power for hoped for reliability?

Sorry about the poor spelling last night. It was after a bottle of wine and a days shopping at the Trafford centre - surely that will cut me some slack

Cheers H

All the engines that Land Rover used recently have been variations on somebody else's theme - they have to be to suit offroad ablity...... TDv6 has 2 turbos and totally different air intake, sump and lubing arrangements in it's Jaguar and Peugeot/Citroen incarnations because of Land Rover's need need to operate at weird angles and in water and do things that most sane Jaguar and Peugot/Citroen owners would never do to a road car. Land Rover also need to have more power and torque at lower revs than the others so the ECU mapping is different as well.

up until now any spy picture registration numbers on 54 plate showed up on the DVLA site as either 3192cc petrol or 2179cc diesel but there is spy picture at nuremburg ring with registration VX05NBD which shows up on the DVLA site as 3192cc Heavy Oil /diesel any thoughts? Also the 54 plate registered cars with the 2179cc diesel were not road taxed after january 2006.

Tim in Scotland wrote:

All the engines that Land Rover used recently have been variations on somebody else's theme -

K1W1 wrote:

Tim in Scotland wrote:

All the engines that Land Rover used recently have been variations on somebody else's theme -

Surely you jest dear fellow.
Recently?
When have Land Rover EVER had their own engine?

Martin wrote:

2.25 petrol, 2.25 diesel, 2.5 petrol, 2.5 diesel, 2.5 turbo diesel, 200 Tdi, 300 Tdi, Td5

The V8 wasn't just Land Rover's so that doesn't count

Thanks. I was hoping that somebody would answer like this. You have just saved me some research for a little project I want to do.

The problem is that sometimes a mule can be testing something else, for something else. We used to have Ford Mondeo's running 4.2 V8's, 4x4 systems, etc. I was reading the other day that the 3.2 is in fact the 2.9 with the bloewr removed, so poewr is down to approx. 232PS. As a result of this I wonder what future there is for the Ford V6. It seems to have not been adopted for any new models, only continuing in current models (Mondeo, X-Type and S-Type).

Coudl it be that Ford is going over to the straight 5cyl and 6cyl for future cars? The new Focus uses the 5cyl turbo. Which straight away means that the next generation of Mondeo and X-Type (which will use a Focus chassis) shall be fine with the Volvo 5cyl. Seeing as the Freelander2 is a Focus chassis and the Freelander2 is to use the straight 6cyl, I woudl niavely put 2 and 2 together to assume that the next Mondeo and X-Type may well start using more of the Volvo plants in them. Leaving Ford to deal with the smaller 4cyl units from and diesels. Whilst Volvo deals with mid sized units and Jag/LR look after the V8's.

So having done three sides of a square, maybe the 3.2 DERV could just be an error, or development of the existing 2.7TdV6. I personally thing it is an 'error' to throw people off the scent a little. The Camel Trophy Freelander is registered on the DVLA V5 as a Defender 90!!!

Amazing hey?

Out to get lobstered under the sun now as I fix my winch bumper back on to the Freelander. Photos to follow if I can work the new camera

Take care and I hope you all have a great weekend!

Cheers H

Hoped Simon would have info on engines however fair dues lucky boy. I was hoping initially that the volvo/ford D5 diesel would be fitted in the freelander until ah read about the ford /psa joint venture the 2.2-litre HDI/TDCI parallel sequential dual turbo @170PS and nearly as much torque as a D3 V8 petrol at mere 1750rpm. Relates to the 54 plate 2178cc registered freelanders and is a different/newer engine from the new mondeoST TDCI/jaguar X 2.2.@2198cc.
Due 2006 production vehicles maybe the freelander will be the first to use it as the engines high torque at low revs would suit the freelander and seems to be a couple of years in front of the competition.Do you think we are on the right track???

To be honest I was basing my engine expectations on the current Focus and Volvo S40/V50. i.e. the 125PS 1.8, and 2.4 D5, with a Mondeo 2.2TDCi in favour of the 2.0TDCi.

The problem with Ford is that most of their Diesels are branded as TDCi when fitted with the common rail. Some are the same and some are different./ thre 1.4, 1.6 and Focus 2.0 are from the same generic PSA/Ford range. Wheras the 1.8 is in facta completely different unit based on the old 1.8d, developed through the years. In addition, the Mondeo 2.0 and 2.2 is a different unit to the PAS/Ford units. Not massively different, but a slightly different version.

It was orignally used for development of a larger borem and multivalve head. With direct injection, but later on became common-rail. The 2.2 is a larger version. It is my understanding that the Transit 2.0 is the Mondeo unit, not the Focus unit, what the hell the Transit 2.4 4cyl is, is beyond me. There are rumours that there will be a Ford 2.7 4cyl for the Defender, but again I am confused as to where this will come from.

The Ranger 2.5 is to be modified in the new model to be common-rail, so forming a 2.5 TDCi, this is in effect the old 12v (3 per cyl) Scorpio unit. Whether the Defender uses a longer4 strooke version of this or not is beyond me.

personally I would just drop the Transit 2.4 into the Defender as it stands, maybe modify oil flows, etc. for extreme angles, but otherwise keep simple. Also I undertsandf that the pick-ups stick to 2.5 due to some import tax, so it would be sensible in my simple mind to magain just adopt the Transit 2.4TDCi, therefore you've a largish 4cyl for commercial purposes firing along Defender, Transit and Ranger. simplifies services, increases product simplicity - we all know how Fod like to common things up.

But, hey, what do I know, there are obviously very good reasons for doing what they do with a seemingly complex engine line-up otherwise they wouldn't do it

cHEERS h

Volvo are introducing the 4.4 V8 into the UK on their face-lifted XC90. The 2.9 T6 (is it 290ish PS?) is being replaced by the 3.2 n/a unit (232PS). This unit is less powerful than the T6, but the 4.4 V8 is more powerful than the T6, so I guess it all fits together nicely, not sure about the 2.5 5cyl turbo, guess it will stay as it makes a good introductory model with the lower poewr diesel unit.

Not 100% sure on the power outputs as its only what I've read somewhere. guess they're starting to align engines more with LR and Ford.

Cheers H

They should stop messing about and just put the TDV8 in End of problem, no need for a petrol engine, the greenies and put a big smile on all our faces

Hmm, that would be rather good fun bet it would be quite good on fuel too! they wreckon it'll do 25mpg in a RaRo!

Cheers H

harveyg77 wrote:

Hmm, that would be rather good fun bet it would be quite good on fuel too! they wreckon it'll do 25mpg in a RaRo!

Cheers H

I vote for this. They could mount the engine in the back over ther rear axle for traction and put not one but two full size spares in the front.
In a Freelander the engine could be set to run on 4 cylinders most of the time except when you put the boot into it so the economy would be good.
Luggage? Oh yeah, I forgot that part