Cool reply. Fortunately, I don’t have carpet in the back at the moment
GrumpyGel
Well-Known Member
I think the answer is that anything is possible.
I'm sure some chassis modification you could fit a Merlin engine if you wanted.
However, you'd have all sorts of problems putting any non-standard engine (the 3.0 V6 is a Ford (possibly Mazda) engine) in and you'll have all sorts of problems. If you want to keep it 4WD, then the trouble is magnified a lot more.
You'll have engineering issues, electrical issues, security issues, ABS issues........
I'm sure some chassis modification you could fit a Merlin engine if you wanted.
However, you'd have all sorts of problems putting any non-standard engine (the 3.0 V6 is a Ford (possibly Mazda) engine) in and you'll have all sorts of problems. If you want to keep it 4WD, then the trouble is magnified a lot more.
You'll have engineering issues, electrical issues, security issues, ABS issues........
Nodge68
Well-Known Member
I think the first question would be why?
The Freelander is based on a vehicle with 1980s underpinnings, which while sturdy aren't exactly high performance.
Anything is possible, but for the amount of work needed to make the Freelander 1 higher performance, you might as well buy a Freelander 2 i6, which has a 235BHP 3.2L Volvo straight 6 engine.
The Freelander is based on a vehicle with 1980s underpinnings, which while sturdy aren't exactly high performance.
Anything is possible, but for the amount of work needed to make the Freelander 1 higher performance, you might as well buy a Freelander 2 i6, which has a 235BHP 3.2L Volvo straight 6 engine.
300bhp/ton
Well-Known Member
FL2 must weight more though. And the FL1 proved more than capable in high speed rally or off roading.
300bhp/ton
Well-Known Member
If you have to ask, then the answer is a no.
Not being mean. Anything is possible, but if you aren’t doing the work yourself, it’d cost a fortune to get someone to do such a conversion and all the R&D. And if you were doing the work yourself you likely have a pretty good idea already on the viability.
Nodge68
Well-Known Member
The FL2 weighs about 100kg more, which isn't much. The body is also 3 times as rigid, which helps keep the suspension doing what it's supposed to do.
The Freelander 1 was pretty good at high speed on loose surfaces (thanks for the recognition), but I suspect the FL2 would be better still. I'm not aware of anyone who has used one in such situations.
On the road, the FL2 to is much more composed than the FL1, which is down to the much more rigid body, and better suspension design.
Nodge68
Well-Known Member
To be honest you're better off not using the Duratec V6 at all, as its actually pretty crap. It only just manages 200k miles before the bearings collapse, and if it's not been maintained to the letter with correct oil, the bearings don't last 100k. It also doesn't like running at high RPM without wearing the internals into oblivion in short order. In all its no better that the Rover KV6 that LR put in the Freelander V6.
Me I'd just get an i6 Freelander 2, although I'm biased because I have one at the moment.
GrumpyGel
Well-Known Member
My mate had the 3.0 in a Mazda Tribute (Ford Escape/Maverick) he had a fair few issues with the engine and, while the KV6 usually blushes when compared to others in terms of fuel economy, I think the Duratec was every bit as bad.
Nodge68
Well-Known Member
The Duratec 3.0L is known to throw rod bearings, normally cylinders 5 or 6 IIRC. There are a couple of reasons, either the rods (they are powdered metal) don't hold the bearing tight, or oil starvation causing the bearings to run hot, neither is ideal in a so call performance engine. These issues would explain why the engine does last quiet well in vehicle where low revs and frequent oil changes are done, but fails quickly if used at high RPM, potentially with infrequent changes or unsuitable oil being used.
The primary issue the KV6 suffered was HG issues, and those were almost always due to owner's unknowingly letting the coolant run low through leaks in the system.
There were some issues with KV6 liners dropping in the early Rover 800 day's, but those issues had been rectified before it found its way into the Freelander.
The KV6 bottom end is very tough, and capable of running flat out with no bearing or crank issues.
The crank does fail if boosted to power levels over 250BHP or so, but for naturally aspirated running, the bottom end seldom gives trouble, even when oil changes are skipped.
Fun fact, the 2.0L version of the KV6 was used in MG ZS for BTCC, before they stretched the 1.8 K out to 2.0L. The BTCC KV6 made almost 300 BHP, with more torque at lower RPM than 4 cylinder rivals of the time.
The only reason the MG team switched to the K4 was down to cost as the 2.0L KV6 had been discontinued by PTP (Rover's power train department) so was getting impossible to fine new engines for building into race engines.
Here a couple of low res pictures of the BTCC 2.0L KV6.
300bhp/ton
Well-Known Member
Not sure where you are getting 100kg from. A quick Google suggests an FL1 is 1427-1555kg, while an FL starts at 1770kg!!
No idea about chassis strength, haven't seen published figures for either. That said the FL1 was very good:
Even in the hands of a World Rally Champion.
And they seem to perform very well in Comp Safari events:
So your comment of:
Nodge68 said:
Doesn't really hold water.
The FL2 should dynamically be better and certainly has a higher focus on NVH and more up market. But it is also a porker by comparison.
300bhp/ton
Well-Known Member
WTF...
The Jaguar AJ-V6 version (as mentioned by the op) is renown as one of the best modern V6's of this type. Originally designed by Porsche and Cosworth finishing the engineering.
Its so good, people spend HUGE amounts of money retro fitting them to MX-5's and other vehicles.
Rocketeer Mazda MX-5 V6 review – big engine and big character for Mazda's small roadster | Evo
A 3-litre Jaguar V6 gives a new lease of life to Mazda's iconic little roadster
www.evo.co.uk
Fitting one in a Freelander would be a major undertaking and there would probably be easier and cheaper ways to make an FL1 faster. But that doesn't mean this is a bad engine.
Nodge68
Well-Known Member
I'm not knocking the FL1, I actually have a fondness them, and have owned 8 over the years. They are good vehicles, much better than owner's of larger LRs give them credit.
I also have a an in-depth knowledge of the vehicle from design right through to its discontinuation.
It's underpinnings can indeed be traced back to the Austin Montego, which was originally designed in 1981. There's nothing inherently wrong with the FL1 or it's design, but it wasn't designed as a high performance vehicle, so it doesn't behave like one. Yes they can be made to perform and handle more power than the factory 4 cylinder engine versions make, but the V6 version is seriously lacking in handling and braking, which would only get worse if more powerful engine is installed.
It depends on what the vehicle is being used for, but when making any vehicle go faster, the first thing to do is make it stop quicker, and go round corners properly.
As for the Duratec, the Jag AJ-V6 would be the best variant to use, as it has a better valve train designel. Yes they can do good miles as I said, but they aren't very tolerant of poor maintenance, which isn't uncommon for all engines these days. I've looked at several over the years, finding a clacking big end surprisingly common.
From a practicality point of view, fitting one into a Freelander is going to challenging at best, and virtually impossible at worst.
If it were me, I'd be using the turbo K series from a Chinese MG, or a KV6 from an MG ZT 190.
I also have a an in-depth knowledge of the vehicle from design right through to its discontinuation.
It's underpinnings can indeed be traced back to the Austin Montego, which was originally designed in 1981. There's nothing inherently wrong with the FL1 or it's design, but it wasn't designed as a high performance vehicle, so it doesn't behave like one. Yes they can be made to perform and handle more power than the factory 4 cylinder engine versions make, but the V6 version is seriously lacking in handling and braking, which would only get worse if more powerful engine is installed.
It depends on what the vehicle is being used for, but when making any vehicle go faster, the first thing to do is make it stop quicker, and go round corners properly.
As for the Duratec, the Jag AJ-V6 would be the best variant to use, as it has a better valve train designel. Yes they can do good miles as I said, but they aren't very tolerant of poor maintenance, which isn't uncommon for all engines these days. I've looked at several over the years, finding a clacking big end surprisingly common.
From a practicality point of view, fitting one into a Freelander is going to challenging at best, and virtually impossible at worst.
If it were me, I'd be using the turbo K series from a Chinese MG, or a KV6 from an MG ZT 190.
Nodge68
Well-Known Member
Shameless plug. Look in the For Sale section.
WhiskyLassie
Well-Known Member
Are there any for sale anywhere?
comeinhandy
Member
I am just looking over old posts on freelander v6 and found this BTCC kv6 very interesting. Have you any details on how they got to 300bhp? I have just got my freelander sport v6 2003yr on the road running nicely, and as it is a bit of a hobby /restoration project car, further upgrades would be interesting.
300bhp/ton
Well-Known Member
Well a race car engine isn’t likely to be good for road use in a Freelander.
As for mods. Likely the standard sort of stuff. Improve breathing in and out of the engine and higher revs. So probably head and cams with supporting bolt on mods and tuning. I’d guess they would have dry sumped it too.
Don’t think there is much of a market for tuning the KV6. So I’d expect any big mods to be very expensive. While the engine is technically capable of good power. There are probably easier and cheaper ways to make power in a Freelander.
