Nodge68 said:

The oil leak from the M/T series is the only fault with them. They are a nice strong unit. They could use the standard MEMS ECU suitably mapped so all the HDC stuff will still work. The block is no wider than the L series so IRD clearance shouldn't be an issue. It weighs the same as the L series so those front springs will work.
It shares the same bell pattern as the L series and most clutch components too.
Good luck with whatever you decide

Click to expand...

The Mad Hat Man said:

I think I am correct in saying the "T" series is a redesign of the "M" series, which is a redesign of the "L" series, so there will be a lot in common, and that is why it is such a strong lump.

It also explains why the "T" turbo fits the "L" & "M" engines .

Click to expand...

I say that's jolly interesting that is! So if all the part are so similar, why do people have so much trouble imagining how you're going to fit the IRD bracket to the sump? Shirley you just have to weld some sort of adapter to the sump and attach the IRD to it? Maybe it shares the L series sump?

from wiki.....

"The Rover T16 engine was a 1994 cc fuel injected DOHC inline-four petrol engine produced by Rover from 1992 to 1999. It has a bore of 84.45 mm (3.325 in) and a stroke of 89 mm (3.5 in). It is a development of the M-Series (M16), which was in turn a development of the O-Series, which dated back to the BMC B-Series engine as found in the MG B and many others.


T16Several variants were produced for various models, but all had the same displacement. The naturally aspirated type produced 136 horsepower (101 kW), and turbocharged types were available with 180 and 200 hp (150 kW).

While the engine itself is capable of a great deal of power, its limiting factor was the PG1 Powertrain Ltd gearbox it was coupled with which could not handle the torque. Due to this the engine is electronically limited to a lower torque output than it is easily capable of, giving the engine a very 'flat' overall torque curve."

We also know it is similar to the "L" series due to the commonality of several parts - using "L" series bellhousing.....

Mazda did use the same Jatco auto box as the Freelander.

Not sure if that mean that you don't need an adaptor plate to put the Mazda lump in there.

Vertuas said:

Mazda did use the same Jatco auto box as the Freelander.

Not sure if that mean that you don't need an adaptor plate to put the Mazda lump in there.

Click to expand...

I have an idea that the auto boxes are rather weak - At least I was told when towing with a KV6 (always auto) that a bigger oil cooler was a very good idea as they are prone to overheating on the freelander.

There are several types of turbochargers used on the L series, as incidentally there are three types of L series.

We have:

- The non-intercooled D/SD L series, which is fitted with a 'vanilla' GT1549 turbocharger
- The intercooled, (SDi) fly-by-wire, also fitted with a slightly different GT1549 turbocharger
- The later L series, with the VP30 pump (25/45/ZR/etc), fitted with a GT1549S turbocharger.


- The stage one hybrid, if converted back to GT family codes, 'would' be a GT1552 (more on this later).


Let's start with the non-intercooled turbocharger (452151-0002/4/6):

This is the smallest and plainest turbocharger used on the L series, with a small compressor housing being the most obvious difference from the outside. As with all the turbochargers discussed here, compressor maps are not available, therefore information has been difficult to find. This is what we do know:

Compressor:

Inducer: 34.7mm
Tip Height: 4.44mm
Exducer: 49.07mm
Trim: 48
Hub length: 22.22
Part Number: 433256-0001


Turbine:

Inducer: 41.5mm
Tip Height: 7.21mm
Exducer: 33.99mm
Trim: 67
Part Number: 434713-0007



Intercooled (SDi) Turbochargers (452098-0002):
*Should be noted the 620 has a seperate part number (452098-0001) but this has no alteration of the spec of the turbo. (All internal components identical).

Very similar to the SD, but with a larger A/R ratio compressor housing amongst other minor differences (according to garrett this compressor housing alteration has little effect on turbocharger performance or efficiency). The mechanical parts are all the same as the SD:

Compressor:

Inducer: 34.7mm
Tip Height: 4.44mm
Exducer: 49.07mm
Trim: 48
Hub length: 22.22
Part Number: 433256-0001


Turbine:

Inducer: 41.5mm
Tip Height: 7.21mm
Exducer: 33.99mm
Trim: 67
Part Number: 434713-0007

So basically the intercooled turbocharger is a hyped up version of the SD turbo, with a compressor housing that may or may not increase efficiency to a neglible degree.

Right, things are about to get interesting. Trust me.



Intercooled (Later L series - 25/45/ZR etc) Turbochargers (452283-0001/0002/0003):


Shares a seemingly similar compressor housing to the SDi, however there are clear visible differences in the compressor wheels, with the half height fins not being visible if compressor looked at straight on. The compressor wheel is also 'taller' with more angular fins.


Compressor:

Inducer: 34.67mm
Tip Height: 3.53mm
Exducer: 49.0mm
Trim: 48
Hub length: 24.79
Part Number: 436132-0003


Turbine:

- Is the same old story:

Inducer: 41.5mm
Tip Height: 7.21mm
Exducer: 33.99mm
Trim: 67
Part Number: 434713-0007

As you can see, the differences are in millimetres, however they probably provide sufficient difference to explain partly why the 25/45's etc seem to gain power more easily than the other L series.

Now before I finish up, I thought i'd treat you to another turbo rundown - The Stage one Hybrid!



Stage One Hybrid Turbo - (exclusive to certain L series) - (Hybrid Style)


The stage one hybrid was an unknown quantity as no-one knew what it 'consisted of'. At best, you would be told it had the compressor wheel from a GT17 turbo and a standard gt15 exhaust side. Of course, we know as both GT17 and GT15 only tell you the turbo frame size, it gets us no nearer! Until now... (yep I've been dismantling!)

So without any further ado:

Compressor:

Inducer: 38.61mm
Tip Height: 3.53mm
Exducer: 52.0mm
Trim: 55
Hub length: 26.09
Part Number: 436132-0003


Turbine:

SAME AS ALWAYS!

Inducer: 41.5mm
Tip Height: 7.21mm
Exducer: 33.99mm
Trim: 67
Part Number: 434713-0007

To anyone who dislikes technical discussion - the general outcome really is 'more compressor than we need'!!!!

So here we are, at the end of this really long post. It doesn't tell us anything more than could be guessed, I suppose, and we are limited because of a lack of compressor maps, but maybe it will help understand our turbos a bit better.

It's the exhaust that is letting the side down. The L series turbocharger was only specced for an engine producing 100bhp, and the only turbocharger currently fitted to any L series with a bigger exhaust side (that can, to put it very simply -flow more through it) is actually the stage two, which just happens to be stuck inside a very small a/r standard machined exhaust side.

It's like giving yourself bigger lungs to help breathe in space.

Now, a long post like this wouldn't be any fun without pictures, so let's finish off with a nice family portrait of all the SDi, Rover 25 and Stage 1 hybrid compressors together:

Side by side:



Top: SDi - Left: R25 - Middle: Stage 1 Hybrid



Clear shot:

The Mad Hat Man said:

I think I am correct in saying the "T" series is a redesign of the "M" series, which is a redesign of the "L" series, so there will be a lot in common, and that is why it is such a strong lump.

It also explains why the "T" turbo fits the "L" & "M" engines .

Click to expand...

Not far off
The T series is a modification of the M series. The M series was an O series block with a 16 valve head slapped on top. The O series has its roots way back in the late 60s with the S series.
The L series is a modified Perkins Prima which was designed around the S series block Dimensions I believe.

WLJayne said:

I say that's jolly interesting that is! So if all the part are so similar, why do people have so much trouble imagining how you're going to fit the IRD bracket to the sump? Shirley you just have to weld some sort of adapter to the sump and attach the IRD to it? Maybe it shares the L series sump?

Click to expand...

The IRD end bracket shouldn't be a major problem. The T series block has various cast on lugs on the side left over from when it was a rear wheel engine. Something should be workable.
Don't forget you can assemble the entire power unit(engine,gearbox and IRD) on the bench/ floor or stand. This would mean making brackets for the IRD would be easier

Toyota stuck a 2.0 turbo in their Celica GT-4.
If I remember correctly it was also 4WD.
Would that be easier to convert for the Freelander?

I am sure you have read those but just in case :

http://forums.mercedesclub.org.uk/showthread.php?t=105226

--

I am extremely proud of myself today! We started up a long-term project vehicle this afternoon.

It's a '98 LandRover Freelander, with the 18K4 motor. These engines give enormous amounts of trouble and are ridiculously expensive to repair, and even if repaired well, it's still a really rubbish engine!

So, some mechanics have started fitting different engines, anything from 1970's Datsun L-series to Lexus V8's. (Yes, really!) But all of these conversions involve replacing the gearbox with a gearbox that bolts onto the replacement engine, and an aftermarket fuel injection control system. All of the extras needed to get the car running again come to around R40 000, depending on the engine used. (That's about £3000)

Over the past few weeks, we have developed a conversion kit consisting of an adaptor plate that fits the LandRover gearbox to a Toyota 3S (2.0 16 valve) engine, and brackets to fit the LandRover ps pump, ac compressor and alernator to the engine. We also adapted the LandRover management system to run the Toyota engine! And it runs beautifully!!

We can now do this conversion for about the price of reconditioning the Landy engine, and best of all, it's in in the morning and out the same afternoon! (Well, maybe the next afternoon until we've had some practise). The cars still sell for about R85 000 so spending R15000 on an engine is good value around here!

I just had to post this story, I'm about to burst woth pride, because so many people said that it couldn't be done!

Phil
--

To answer some of the frequently emailed questions:
A) Yes, I still do the conversions, and we are by now rather good at it!
B) Yes, I can replace the old 2.0 litre Rover turbodiesel with the same petrol Toyota motor
C) No, I cannot do the conversion to the BMW engined TD4's
D) For quotations and queries, email me @ philip.pienaar@yahoo.com, or send an email from these forums.
E) The gearbox in the Freelander is basically the same 'box as used in the Rover 75/ MG ZT and can as such handle vastly more power than the 3S Toyota motor can deliver.
F) The conversion will not render the 4x4 system ineffective, this was done by the designers at LandRover, and I have no need to compete with their stupidity.

Thanks for the encouragement from members of this forum. And thanks to the forum for the exposure!!!

Phil

duncanpage4 said:

Toyota stuck a 2.0 turbo in their Celica GT-4.
If I remember correctly it was also 4WD.
Would that be easier to convert for the Freelander?

Click to expand...

I posted that on the first page but nobody noticed my comment lol

SES88 said:

I posted that on the first page but nobody noticed my comment lol

Click to expand...

Oops! Sorry!
Great minds think alike!

Now the MR2 can easily be fitted with the V6, so in turn can the Freelander be fitted with the Toyota V6 (Camry etc) be fitted using the same tecnique as the 4pot Toyota lump?


Different thought- if the L series diesel is an update of the Perkins Prima- could it fit a Series 3 using the Prima adaptor kits?

Spacemonkey... said:

Now the MR2 can easily be fitted with the V6, so in turn can the Freelander be fitted with the Toyota V6 (Camry etc) be fitted using the same tecnique as the 4pot Toyota lump?


Different thought- if the L series diesel is an update of the Perkins Prima- could it fit a Series 3 using the Prima adaptor kits?

Click to expand...

The Toyota 3.0 V6 is a heck of a lot better than 2.5 normally used in the FL, would be interesting if it could be done

Might have some sort of economy in comparison too...

SES88 said:

The Toyota 3.0 V6 is a heck of a lot better than 2.5 normally used in the FL, would be interesting if it could be done

Click to expand...

Better in what way?

Spacemonkey... said:

Might have some sort of economy in comparison too...

Click to expand...

A 3.0L engine will use more fuel than a 2.5L engine regardless of who made it.

Ah, but stuck on a manual box? From what I recall the KV6 isn't bad in the Rover 800 on economy, but what went wrong in the Freelander?

Nodge68 said:

Better in what way?

Click to expand...

reliability for one, mega miles without any grief as long as its looked after right

Spacemonkey... said:

Ah, but stuck on a manual box? From what I recall the KV6 isn't bad in the Rover 800 on economy, but what went wrong in the Freelander?

Click to expand...

weight, drivetrain and the engine map probably!

Spacemonkey... said:

Ah, but stuck on a manual box? From what I recall the KV6 isn't bad in the Rover 800 on economy, but what went wrong in the Freelander?

Click to expand...

The best thing to improve economy would be dump the cats and O2 sensors so the engine can run open loop fueling. Mapped correctly it would be 20 to 30% better on fuel!! Sadly it's illegal to save the environment by reducing CO2 emissions