Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50

Thread: Mercedes OM617

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Flagstaff, Arizona
    Posts
    1,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alk-3 View Post
    I'd like to know how it compares to the 2.25 I have now.
    There are always the published power specs. Being a data junkie I just happen to have some on hand.

    Land Rover:

    2.25L 8:1 head petrol: 70 HP @ 4000 RPM, 120 lbft @ 2000 RPM

    2.5L petrol: 83 HP @ 4000 RPM, 133 lbft @ 2000 RPM

    2.25L diesel: 60 HP @ 4000 RPM, 103 lbft @ 1800 RPM

    2.5L diesel: 68 HP @4000 RPM, 117 lbft @ 1800 RPM

    2.5L turbo diesel: 84 HP @4000 RPM, 150 lbft @1800 RPM

    200tdi (2.5L): 111 HP @ 4000 RPM, 146 lbft @ 1800 RPM

    300tdi (2.5L) 113 HP @ 4000 RPM, 195 lbft @ 1800 RPM (torque may be in error or in NM/LbFt)


    Mercedes:
    OM616 (2.4L) after Aug '78: Early- 65HP @ 4200 RPM, late - 72 HP @4400 RPM, 97 lbft @2400 RPM

    OM617 (3L, 5 cyl) '81-'85: Pre Aug '83 - 123 HP @ 4350, post Aug '83 - 125 HP @ 4350, 170 lbft @ 2400 RPM

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    N. York
    Posts
    1,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alk-3 View Post
    Thats great mileage! I'd be happy with that. I think the om617 is rated at 120hp, but I don't know the rpm range of it. It is supposed to be able to reach higher rpm's than many other diesels, but that's not much of an indication really. I'd like to know how it compares to the 2.25 I have now.
    Peak torque is at 2400rpm. Idealy you'd want to cruise somewhere at or above that. IMHO the stock Series transmission isn't well suited to the additional power of the OM617- thats why Mercedes Jim used the NP-435 transmission.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	om617a-bsfc.jpg 
Views:	2209 
Size:	129.3 KB 
ID:	6391
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	om617 bsfc (2).jpg 
Views:	415 
Size:	130.4 KB 
ID:	6392
    I am puzzled why you think the 2.25 is so fragile? They are a robust engine and can get decent mpg though they are no powerhouse. There are a lot of people who have put some impressive miles on their 2.25s.
    1965 SIIa 88",1975 Ex-MOD 109/Ambulance, 1989 RRC, blah, blah, blah...

    Land Rover UK Forums

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mass.
    Posts
    1,796

    Default

    The thread on Expedition Portal is about Mercedes Rover's 109 build but I'm pretty sure he use a rover transmission on his 88 which is his original mercedes swap project. More apples to apples to what you want to do.

  4. #14

    Default

    I think a point to consider with a benz engine in a rover frame, is the oil pump and the oil pan clearance vrs the front differential... someone had pictures of the notch needed for the pan to clear the diff.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Guelph Ontario
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Thanks Yorker for the charts!
    I don't think the 2.25 engine is especially fragile, but I think it's pretty well established that the Mercedes diesel is more feul efficient, has more power, and will fit into the space provided. The only down side is the work to do the swap, which is made easier with the kit, and the expense, which is about the same as it costs to rebuild a worn out 2.25 (which WILL wear out if I drive it 8 hours at 100km/h each weekend, plus weekday driving).
    I don't think the swap is great for everyone, but it IS for me.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Guelph Ontario
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix View Post
    I think a point to consider with a benz engine in a rover frame, is the oil pump and the oil pan clearance vrs the front differential... someone had pictures of the notch needed for the pan to clear the diff.
    All valid points, but the kit is supposed to come with everything you need to do the swap, including a modified oil pan, engine mounts, flywheel etc etc. supposed to be a pretty good setup.
    Aside form the logistics of getting the engine in, or the merits of doing so, I would also like to hear how you guys think it will perform with a rover driveline in general, what speeds might be at a given rpm, feul efficiency, power etc..

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    N. York
    Posts
    1,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alk-3 View Post
    All valid points, but the kit is supposed to come with everything you need to do the swap, including a modified oil pan, engine mounts, flywheel etc etc. supposed to be a pretty good setup.
    Aside form the logistics of getting the engine in, or the merits of doing so, I would also like to hear how you guys think it will perform with a rover driveline in general, what speeds might be at a given rpm, feul efficiency, power etc..
    Yes but keep in mind- instead of waiting for the 2.25 to fail you'll be waiting for the stock series tranny to fail. If you have any substantial mileage on your 88 I would strongly suggest you consider rebuilding your current transmission before you do the swap- after all you'll be sending more torque through it than it was ever designed to withstand. Also consider the fact that I assume you intend to swap in a used OM617- it may go another 200,000 miles or it could go another 20,000 miles. Unless it is an engine you've rebuilt or have a full history on you really can't tell what abuse it has withstood over the last 30 years. A junkyard might give you a 60 day warrantee but do you really know if some guy blew a hose on the radiator and drove it 15 miles home anyway? Or just added a quart of oil when needed instead of doing proper oil changes? or god knows what else? With a rebuilt 2.25 you'd know exactly what you have. Swapping in a 30 year old used engine is always gamble on some level or another. You could be really lucky or you could be screwed. Price a rebuild on a OM617 and it makes the 2.25 look cheap.

    I'm not saying don't do it, just consider the potential downsides. Its not always roses when doing a swap of this type.
    1965 SIIa 88",1975 Ex-MOD 109/Ambulance, 1989 RRC, blah, blah, blah...

    Land Rover UK Forums

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    N. York
    Posts
    1,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I Leak Oil View Post
    The thread on Expedition Portal is about Mercedes Rover's 109 build but I'm pretty sure he use a rover transmission on his 88 which is his original mercedes swap project. More apples to apples to what you want to do.
    Jim didn't but a 617 in the 88 he has the 2.2l 4 cyl Mercedes naturally aspirated diesel in it. (OM615?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_OM615
    1965 SIIa 88",1975 Ex-MOD 109/Ambulance, 1989 RRC, blah, blah, blah...

    Land Rover UK Forums

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Guelph Ontario
    Posts
    185

    Default

    I will be using a newly rebuilt series 3 transmission. I am aware of the pitfalls of swapping motors, and also very aware of a rebuilt engine that isn't done as well as it could have been. I know the cost for rebuilding an om617 is very high, but i would never rebuild one, because i can get one at (nearly) every wrecking yard on earth. There are many stories of newly rebuilt engines failing quickly, so that's not exactly insurance... The upside to the swap is that if I put in an om617 and it fails quickly, I can get another used one just about anywhere, and do the swap in a few days. Also, it's easy to diagnose a Mercedes diesel to get a good indication of the condition.
    All of this is besides the point. I am not interested in running my 2.25 into the ground before I do a swap. I don't want to kill the engine, and then do a swap. I want to swap it out now while it still has some life left in it, so one day I might be able to do a full restoration with the original engine in good shape. In the meantime I get to enjoy more power, and better feul economy.
    The way I see it, I have two choices- rebuild the original when it fails, which would be a bit more expensive than doing the conversion, and result in a motor that is still underpowered, and still guzzles gas, OR do the diesel swap, save some money, get more power and better mileage. To me this is a no brainer, and I will be doing the swap.
    I drive my truck every day, because it's the only vehicle I own. I want to enjoy it as much as I can, and having more power and saving some gas money is in line with my personal values.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cornwall Ct
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Let me start by saying this. You will never, never, never, never, never, never save any money doing an engine swap in your Land Rover over rebuilding your existing motor. Not in the cost of the conversion, not in fuel savings . It just won't happen. That is an absolute and many times over proven fact. There are a thousand reasons this is true and I could write volumes on them. If you don't believe me on this, you might as well stop reading this post right now. There are many valid reasons to swap a diesel into you're truck but saving money isn't one of them. Also, be honest with yourself about your mechanical skills and the tools and work space available to you. If you don't possess the tools and equipment and are going to try and do this out front and hope the condo association doesn't see, this probably isn't for you.

    I've seen Robert's oil pan and things for the Range Rover but didn't know he was doing a kit for a Series truck. He's called me a bunch of times over the years asking me questions and I've seen pictures of his R.R. swaps. Last one I saw turned the engine ten degrees or so giving clearance to the factory oil pan. I've seen photos of the (very nice) oil pan and pickup tube he's building but haven't seen it in a truck yet. If he's got something for a Series truck, great, but I see two problems with that; First, the engine is just too long to fit into an unmodified, non 2.6 engine bay as far as I'm concerned. My 109 uses a 2.6 bulkhead and a Series III radiator and it just fits. And yes, I have removed the fan and run an electric pusher fan. There are pictures of the engine bay in the Expedition Portal thread....Go take a look. The 2.6 bulkhead is at least three inches deeper than the standard bulkhead and I just make it. Perhaps Robert is suggesting you move the radiator forward six inches to make room for the motor, which would work too (if you have a Series III) but that puts a lot of weight in front of the axle. Second, a good running 617 puts out 125hp and 170ftlb of torque. Series transmissions are no great piece to begin with and I wouldn't bother going through all this work and leave a questionable transmission behind it.

    If you're set on a Benz diesel swap but don't want to get into changing transmission, consider a 616 engine. They fit in the hole, are even simpler and more reliable than the 5cyl and are very efficient. This is the engine my 88" has in it and I get 25mpg all day long with it. If you use the Davis kit, (assuming the rest of it will work...can't tell you for sure as I've never seen it.) you'll have to modify the oil pans yourself (as you have an equipped shop and a tig-welder, or at least a buddy with one this isn't all that hard) but I think its a better option than trying to stuff the 5cyl. into your truck. This is only a 75hp engine (it can be turned up a bit pretty simply) but it's no speed demon. It'll have about the same power as your good-running 2.25.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Unparalleled product knowledge. Our mission is to support all original Land Rover models no longer supported by your local Land Rover franchise. We offer the entire range of Land Rover Genuine Parts direct from Land Rover UK, as well as publish North America's largest Land Rover publication, Rovers Magazine.
Join us