B34R said:

Doing a spot of reading...

It all started with the O series, which you could get in petrol or diesel, and were virtually identical blocks.

Perkins took the O series and developed the Perkins Prima diesel from it (or it just became known as this, a little unclear) This was then further developed into the L series.

The O series was also developed into the M, then T series petrols with few block changes.

So, you have O-->PP-->L AND O-->M-->T meaning both engines have effectively the same development root.

As for the gearing, the longer diesel gearing would be a massive advantage, I wouldn't want to try and put 200+hp through the K series 1st gear, its massively too short to,be useful! If you've got the torque, you want lengthy gears or you're going to spend more time changing gear than accelerating.

I'm tempted to pick up a K turbo lump at the end of summer as a winter rebuild project, I hear they may fit with a minimum of wiggling with a V6 nose?

Click to expand...

B34R said:

Ahh, so the bit I didn't understand that I now see, in the Freelander the L series is adapted to a K gearbox?

Is the adaption a non separable part of the block, or can it be transferred over?

Click to expand...

B34R said:

Oh, btw my point about the 1st gear on a K ratio'd box wasn't about whether it could handle the power... it was about how pointless the gear would be. 1st on a K is very, very short imho, and if you apply masses of hp to it its just going to redline immediately.

Hence why if you've got the low down grunt of a turbo K, I think itd drive a lot better with the longer diesel ratios?

Click to expand...

htr said:

All good information but know I have another hypothetical question. Smooth air flow is everything. I understand that the st'd K series 1.8 is restricted by it's airflow. I'm not looking for MG performance I still want a half decent 4WD. I've mod'd the head, decat'd it, cleaned out plastic flash from the inlet side, cleaned up weld splatter and burrs from the exhaust to the cat and port matched the exhaust side. I've fitted a K&N Apollo airfilter and a CAF. For my next step I was thinking about fitting the VVC front pipe/s as they are a larger diameter and possibly the VVC's inlet manifold and throttle body. If I did do that what is the potential gains - if any. It's all low cost as I've the parts on hand already. Other than that I could set up another head and fit larger valve seats to if and the valves from that VVC head and do that inlet / exhaust work too. How would that work? There is some cost in the machining of the head and the larger valve seats to.

Click to expand...

B34R said:

The big problem with the K is the tiny valves, that were designed for a 1.1/1.4 engine iirc?

If you want big valves, grab a VVC head and a static conversion kit, which effectively gives you a VHPD head at a fraction of a cost.

It's all a bit pointless though to be fair, allowing more flow starts screwing with the torque band and drivability. IMHO they set the Freelander K up as well as they could, peaking its torque at a usable 2000rpm.

Best performance boost you'll get is by dropping a turbo on set to very low boost, maybe 6-7 psi and you may not even need to change the ecu. Might experiment with this as winter rolls around.

Click to expand...

Nodge68 said:

A static timing conversion isn't that cheap. It would be cheaper to fit a complete VVC engine, it's loom and ECU. On an early pre 2001 MY Freelander, it's not that difficult to do.

A light pressure turbo isn't a bad idea. I think you will need a piggyback ECU as the standard ECU won't take MAP inputs over atmospheric pressure. A 5 PSI boost would give you a worthwhile boost in torque. If you can make it work correctly.

Click to expand...

B34R said:

What does the turbo K engine use then?

Different map sensor with the ability to go into +?

Or an actual boost sensor *ponder*

Click to expand...