Mercedes OM617

[Alk-3]

Hi everyone. I was hoping to open up a bit of a dialogue about the Mercedes OM617. I am very seriously considering doing a swap with the Robert Davis kit. The kit apparently comes with everything needed to swap the motor into my land rover, but requires a pusher fan, and requires a swap to a thinner series 3 rad.
I was looking for any and all thoughts on this swap, and what kinds of things I can expect to run into.. maybe some comments on how to choose a suitable engine etc.
Also curious about performance, and how my truck will feel different from it's current state, which is a fairly strong 2.25 petrol.

My truck at the moment is a very reliable unit in general. I drive it as my only vehicle, and have only been stranded once with a cracked head (swapped head gaskets, and opened up a pre-existing crack). all other minor issues have been solvable on rout.
The reason I'm considering the swap is layers deep:
- I get terrible milage out of my truck, and with the amount that I drive it, I spend a huge amount of fuel. (up to $400 per month)
- power is pretty bad.. good for a 2.25, bad for everything else on the road. This is less of a concern than the next point…
- the highway miles I put on the truck (I think) is putting a lot of strain on the old engine. I might drive for 8 hours at 100km/h each (or every other) weekend.. I would rather not kill this engine, so I'm thinking if I swap it out now, I will still have the original engine in good condition should I ever want to do a full restoration back to original.
- diesel fuel in general is better for me. I have a tractor than uses it, and have it around most of the time
- the Mercedes om617 is apparently a great motor that if cared for can get many hundreds of thousands of miles on it. I plan to keep my truck forever, and this engine sounds like a good candidate in that regard.

if I have to boil it all down, the real main reason for the swap is so I can use the truck without worrying that the old gas 2.25 is about to blow. Right now I am constantly worried I'm stressing the motor, and so I end up just not doing the things I would like to do with the truck.

[I Leak Oil]

Mercedesrover will be able to provide you with all the first hand knowledge you could ask for about the Mercedes swap less the RD kit.

[TeriAnn]

Instead of an SIII radiator that sits behind the front cross member you can use an aluminum cross flow radiator that sits on top of the front cross member, gain more space and more cooling. Gryphon has a stock one that some folks with engine conversions have been using. It does mean cutting down some of the baffling on the radiator bulkhead and coming up with a new horn mounting location.

I am using an electric radiator fan from a 1990's Mercedes V8 sedan. There seems to be one standard size that came with the V8. It is largest fan that will fit vertically behind the grille. It is high quality Bosh & only cost me $40 from my local wrecking yard.The Mercedes mounting struts got reused in my application. The fan sits in a shallow inverted U channel bolted to the front cross member.

63806381

When it came time to get radiator hoses I bought a pair of flexible heater air duct hoses and bent them into the shape and lengths I needed. Then I went browsing at an auto parts store looking for hoses that fit the pattern. In each case I found my needed hose inside the shape of a longer hose. I brought the hoses home and cut out the part that matched my pattern. Your alternative of course is the accordion flex radiator hoses but they do not flow nearly as well as a smooth hose.

6382

[Alk-3]

Mercedesrover will be able to provide you with all the first hand knowledge you could ask for about the Mercedes swap less the RD kit.

Yes, I've read his thread on expedition portal, and am amazed by his work. I know he used a different transmission, which I think complicated things more than the kit I plan to use will, but in the end he has a better setup as well.

[Alk-3]

Instead of an SIII radiator that sits behind the front cross member you can use an aluminum cross flow radiator that sits on top of the front cross member, gain more space and more cooling. Gryphon has a stock one that some folks with engine conversions have been using. It does mean cutting down some of the baffling on the radiator bulkhead and coming up with a new horn mounting location.

I am using an electric radiator fan from a 1990's Mercedes V8 sedan. There seems to be one standard size that came with the V8. It is largest fan that will fit vertically behind the grille. It is high quality Bosh & only cost me $40 from my local wrecking yard.The Mercedes mounting struts got reused in my application. The fan sits in a shallow inverted U channel bolted to the front cross member.

63806381

When it came time to get radiator hoses I bought a pair of flexible heater air duct hoses and bent them into the shape and lengths I needed. Then I went browsing at an auto parts store looking for hoses that fit the pattern. In each case I found my needed hose inside the shape of a longer hose. I brought the hoses home and cut out the part that matched my pattern. Your alternative of course is the accordion flex radiator hoses but they do not flow nearly as well as a smooth hose.

6382

Great advice Teriann. Thanks for tht!
Would you care to comment on the drivability, fuel consumption, and power you have experienced after the swap?
The rad swap is great advice. I was a bit concerned with clearance in the front. I'm really finicky when it comes to maintance on my truck, and some space in the front will make frequent valve adjustment a little easier (turning over the engine with the crank bolt).
I've had to do the same heater hose hunt for my tractor, and agree the according style would be a last resort.

[o2batsea]

I think she's got a EFI Ford 302 in there, at least last I knew. Whatcha running for a ECU TAW? A9L? That's not exactly a super fuel efficient engine, but then again it has to haul a heavy truck around. She can of course tell you what it's doing, performance wise.

[TeriAnn]

Engine - Ford 302 from a 1969 Mustang

Cylinder heads - Aluminum Airflow Research The ones with the small valves and small passages. They flow best under 3000 RPM of any stock or aftermarket cylinder head. Most all the "performance" cylinder heads flowed worse than standard stock below 3000 RPM. With Aluminum heads, a Ford 302 is about 50 lbs lighter weight than a stock 2.25L LR petrol engine. With Al heads a Chevy small block is about 50 lbs heavier than the LR engine.

CAM - Custom COMP cam This cam is designed for low end power and fuel economy. It is basically a truck towing cam for a flat tappet 302 with SHO timed EFI.

Intake - 1991 Mustang EFI with custom fuel rails to allow the fuel to come in from the right rear of the engine. Otherwise it is stock for a '91 Mustang. All fed from a Donaldson 2 stage earth mover filter system.

Fuel pump - Late 1980's pickup external fuel pump

ECU - haven't a clue. It is what the auto parts store gave me when I asked for a ECU for a 1991 Mustang GT 5.0 with four speed. I'm hesitant about going for performance add ons. Performance parts usually add performance to the high RPMs by stealing it from the low RPMs where my engine lives.

History:
With SIII LR engine & solex - about 15 MPG highway 8 MPG city
SIII LR with Rochester - About 15 MPG highway, 7 MPG around town
Ford 302 with 500 CFM Carter AFB jetted for economy, About 15 MPG highway, 7 or 8 MPG city
Ford 302 with Mustang EFI, About 17 MPG highway, about 12 to 14 MPG city.

Conclusions: the highway speed is more limited by the truck highway speed and the truck's air resistance. And for my truck 15-17 is about as good as it gets for old school carb or EFI petrol.

EFI is MUCH better at stop & go driving than a carb. That's where my real fuel savings comes from.

And of course the 302 has more power at idle than the 2.25L has at peak so i can go the speed limit uphill. With the LR engine there were sections of Utah highways where I could not go as fast as the minimum posted speed limit. Merging into traffic on freeway on ramps is not a concern nor are big rigs behind me on steep highway hills.

With the Ashcroft high ratio kit (which my engine easily handles) 65 MPH is 2650 RPM & 70 is about 3000 RPM. Wheel alignment within spec is a must at those speeds so no do it yourself alignment. My gearbox low range first is just a tad over 50:1 at the axle. Low range first on a stock Series truck is a tad over 40:1. I prefer to go last down a hill so I don't get run over and cruise the highway with the V8 Defenders.

99% of my driving is done below 3000 RPM and even with the V8 & gearing I still seem to cruise at around 60 MPH (2500ish RPM) when I'm not looking at the gauge.

Driving with a tach my SIII engine was happiest cruising in the 3000-3300 RPM range. The engine held its power on hills down to about 2400 RPM then rapidly lost power below that. So on a hill 2400 RPM was my shift down point for maximum speed up the hill. The engine would run smoothly down to about 800 RPM but there was no usable power below about 1500ish RPM. Power fell pretty quickly below 2400 RPM.

V8s like to lug along at lower RPMs. The engine feels happiest around 2300 to 2500 RPM. It still pulls well at about 1000 RPM and when convoying with others off road I'm frequently from around 1000 RPM and 1800 RPM

[Alk-3]

Teriann, that all sounds great. You're getting much better power, and better feul economy as well. This is what I am after as well, and am hoping the diesel will fill that roll. I'm not exactly sure of the math to figure out a realistic cruising speed with the om617. I will be using a series 3 transmission, the stock transfer case, but also I have a ROVERDRIVE fitted. I don't remember my tire size, but I think they are a bit bigger than stock.
With my 2.25 I loose lots of speed going up steep hills, but everyone that has driven with me that knows rovers has commented they have never felt this much power from a 2.25. Still, we all know that's not saying much. In the summertime I run a soft top, and I don't carry a whole lot in the truck, so with the little weight I have in the truck, I find it pretty peppy, and can boot around town with plenty of get up and go (for a land rover) but the upper end feul consumption is so bad. I would be lucky to get 12mpg on the highway, with a very small amount of city mixed in.
Does anyone know what I could expect as a highway cruising speed with my setup, and an om617?

[Moose]

Does anyone know what I could expect as a highway cruising speed with my setup, and an om617?

My Series 3 88 has a 2.5 NA diesel in it, stock gearbox, 235/85-16 tires and a Roverdrive. It will cruise along the 401 at 100 km/h but is happiest at 90. The 2.5 is about equal to the 2.25 petrol engine performance wise so it bogs down a bit on hills too. Over all though, I am very happy with the engine and it returns about 25 mpg mostly city driving. Don't know what the power output of the om617 is but it's got to me more then the 2.5 NA so I would suspect you should a get fairly decent cruising speed with your set up.

Brett

[Alk-3]

My Series 3 88 has a 2.5 NA diesel in it, stock gearbox, 235/85-16 (tel:235/85-16) tires and a Roverdrive. It will cruise along the 401 at 100 km/h but is happiest at 90. The 2.5 is about equal to the 2.25 petrol engine performance wise so it bogs down a bit on hills too. Over all though, I am very happy with the engine and it returns about 25 mpg mostly city driving. Don't know what the power output of the om617 is but it's got to me more then the 2.5 NA so I would suspect you should a get fairly decent cruising speed with your set up.

Brett

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.

[TeriAnn]

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

[yorker]

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.
6391
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.

[I Leak Oil]

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.

[phoenix]

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.

[Alk-3]

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.

[Alk-3]

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..

[yorker]

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.

[yorker]

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

[Alk-3]

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.

[Mercedesrover]

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.

[yorker]

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....

Thats typical of anything new, not just rebuilt engines. Initial usage exposes flaws in components that exist from manufacturing or assembly errors. After that you typically get a troublefree time period and then finally you reach the timeperiod of failures due to wear and simply the life cycle of the components. Its a "U" shaped failure rate. Junkyard engines are almost always much closer to the right side of the "U". The last owner probably knew that and probably treated them accordingly too.

[Alk-3]

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.

Thanks for the insights on this! I will have to talk to Robert about the conversion, as it is sold as a direct swap, without modification to the bulkhead. I don't know how he pulls this off if you are saying it simply can't be done. He does say you have to swap to the series 3 rad. Apparently several of these conversions have already been done. I have seen pictures and there appears to be about one to one and a half inches of clearance between the rad and the crank bolt. Its hard to really tell from the pictures, so it might be less. I will discuss this further with him, and decide if it's the right engine for me.
I'm mechanically inclined, and have done engine swaps before. I know it's not easy, or cheap.
As far as cost savings, I agree that maybe the cost of the conversion itself may not actually save a whole lot with all the odds and ends that need to go into it, but I honestly can't see how I wouldn't save in fuel costs. I get 12mpg right now and spend about $400 per month on gas. The amount I drive I really can't see how I won't save money on fuel over the long run.

[TeriAnn]

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.

And that's a true fact. You will never recoup money spent in fuel savings before it is time to replace the engine. And if you have the stock gearbox and a more powerful engine you might as well carry a spare fresh gearbox & set of tools in the vehicle to get you home.

An engine swap to anything more powerful than a 200 or 300 tdi is not pretty unless you reengineer the entire drive train. And even with those 2.5L tdis, if the rest of the drive train is stock, you need to keep spare rear axles aboard, a spare gearbox ready to go and a long mileage towing insurance card in your pocket.

Make the swap because you are a diesel head with a good notion of system engineering and money is not a limiting factor.

When I was deciding upon what drive train I wanted, I had first decided on a diesel to save money on fuel. Any way I ran the numbers for a diesel noticeably more powerful than the 2.25l petrol, it was going to cost me a lot more than a fresh under warranty small block American V8. No matter how many times I ran the numbers, the difference in fuel costs was not going to pay for the difference in purchase and installation of a turbo diesel conversion instead of an American small block conversion.

The American V8 has off the shelf parts to mate to an American light truck gearbox, no special fuel delivery stuff nor intercooler & plumbing. All things that requires a lot of specialist design and fabrication to do right. There was no way I had the skills or experience with the myriad of little swap gottchas to do the job myself and people who have those skills are not cheap.

I went with a fresh under warranty small block V8, off the shelf bell housing & clutch, NP435 into a Series transfercase with Ashcroft high ratio conversion, uprated high angle prop shafts & uprated axles. And saved a suitcase of $$ over a turbo diesel conversion because of the differences in parts costs and increased complexity of assemblies that do not just bolt together. Plus I had to pay someone who could do the conversion right, Tim Cooper.

Find another reason than fuel savings to justify a swap. For me it was safety. Impatient people behind you do some really dangerous things to get past you and 18 wheelers coming up behind you 20 or 30 MPH faster than you during a stormy night can be just plan scary as you hope they see you. I decided better to spend a small fortune with a reengineered modified drive train and have it installed by someone who knows Series Fabrication then to spin the wheel of fortune one more time traveling long miles slower than everyone else.

[Alk-3]

Thats typical of anything new, not just rebuilt engines. Initial usage exposes flaws in components that exist from manufacturing or assembly errors. After that you typically get a troublefree time period and then finally you reach the timeperiod of failures due to wear and simply the life cycle of the components. Its a "U" shaped failure rate. Junkyard engines are almost always much closer to the right side of the "U". The last owner probably knew that and probably treated them accordingly too.

Yes, I agree with you. What you discribe is true I think. The Mercedes diesel is a bit of an exception in many cases though, at least in my area. The car itself typically rusts out completely before the engine wears out. regardless, let's assume I find a serviceable engine.iwould not bother doing a swap unless I was confident in the donor engine, obviously.
I'm more concerned with the fit, the performance, the tranny, and the mileage, because I am confident I can find a suitable engine, ever it takes a lot of searching.

[Alk-3]

Great points Teriann. Right now, after reading the responses here, I am most concerned with the stock tranny.. Cost of the conversion might be a bit different from when you researched it, simply because of the kit that claims to make things much easier, and basically bolt in. I should not need to do any engineering that has not been done several times now by the kit builder. All this assumes the kit is ready to bolt in, and really doesn't require the added expense and engineering. That I can't say I'm positive about.
Ideallyid like to do a tranny swap as well to something more robust, but this would open the door to a serious job that requires a lot of fitting, tinkering and trial and error. These things I'm trying to avoid and you no doubt know all to well.
Realistically, do you see the stock tranny being up to the task? I'm not a speed daemon by any means, and never stomp on the gas, but one of the main reasons for the swap is the performance (highway merging and uphill sections in the slow lane are scary, as you well know!
I'd like to swap out the tranny to something better, but I don't see an easy pre engineered setup being available, in the same way this kit is.

[I Leak Oil]

In all honesty stock transmissions don't last all that long behind a stock 2.25 gasser so any increase in power and torque isn't going to help it. Perhaps in it's day (the 40's and 50's) a rover tranny was on par with some of its counterparts but even by the late 50's and 60's it was already sub par based on what it's competitors were putting out.
Agreed that it's more work but if you're going as far as a 5 cylinder mercedes swap then I'd just go the extra mile and be done with it.

[yorker]

As far as cost savings, I agree that maybe the cost of the conversion itself may not actually save a whole lot with all the odds and ends that need to go into it, but I honestly can't see how I wouldn't save in fuel costs. I get 12mpg right now and spend about $400 per month on gas. The amount I drive I really can't see how I won't save money on fuel over the long run.

Something must be wrong with your 2.25 I got 17mpg with the single barrel Weber and get 14mpg now driving like a maniac with the 2 barrel with no OD. If you are doing highway driving you should definitely be doing better than 12. I know a few people who have done better than 20-22 on highway but the best I ever have managed was 19. As for the 8 hours on weekends that is no big deal for these engines, they were used for hours and hours and hours on end as agricultural vehicles and especially the Fitted For Radio British Army trucks. As for the 2.25's longevity qite a few of us have driven them past 200k, I think Aronson had over 300k on one of his? Where is he anyway?

[yorker]

In all honesty stock transmissions don't last all that long behind a stock 2.25 gasser so any increase in power and torque isn't going to help it. Perhaps in it's day (the 40's and 50's) a rover tranny was on par with some of its counterparts but even by the late 50's and 60's it was already sub par based on what it's competitors were putting out.
Agreed that it's more work but if you're going as far as a 5 cylinder mercedes swap then I'd just go the extra mile and be done with it.

I agree- the Series transmission is really marginal when you compare it to later designs. Also the diesels are known to kill transmissions that are otherwise happy with more powerful gasoline engines- due to the way a diesel produces torque peak at lower RPMs.

I wonder if Davis' om617 conversion kit could be used with a short bellhousing R380? then either use that with the LT230 or adapt it to the series t case with Ashcroft's adapter?

I guess you could also use an ax15 or NV3550 (http://www.mercedesdiesel4x4.com/Default.asp) coupled to the Series Transfer case with AA's new adapters, that would likely be too long though.

Lastly you could use one of Ike's NP435 adapters with a chevrolet bellhousing and one of these:

http://www.4x4labs.com/products/diesel-conversions/om617gm/

http://www.transmissionadapters.com/Mercedes%20diesel.htm

That would probably give one the shortest drivetrain and toughest transmission. Plus you should be able to use a nice big GM truck clutch too.

[Jeff Aronson]

I've been asked to step into this thread with my experiences with my '66 II-A, so I offer these experiences:

When I bought my Rover in 1990 it came with 111,000 indicated miles. I promptly used it for traveling throughout New England and upstate New York, averaging 20,000-30,000 miles per year. By about 150,000 miles, it needed rings. By 170,000 miles, the cylinders were just too worn to hold off massive blowby. I must note the Rover still started, ran - albeit without much power on the highway at 60 mph - and provided reliable transportation, if using large quantities of oil during any trip. I realized I had to do something when oil consumption rose to 80 miles per quart!

The "something" was rebuilt long block from Rovers North, installed there during a work trip from Maine to Vermont. I broke it in carefully and then continued my annual mileage rate until 2001, when my work became more island based. Now its long-distance trips happen less often, but when they do, they're anywhere from 2 hours - 6 hours each way. Most of the Rover's daily use is short distances, hauling work trailers around dirt roads and fields.

So I've had this engine in the Rover since the mid-1990's, over 15 years now. I've changed the oil and filter faithfully every 3,000 miles or every season. I keep it tuned up so it runs with the proper mixture and an appropriate ignition spark.

In turn, the engine has given me over 350,000 miles of reliable driving. I haven't had the head off since it was rebuilt and installed in the Rover. The Rover can run at 5 mph or 65 mph without a problem. I've made several 600-mile round trips in recent years.

The transmission is the non-synchro first/second II-A type. In the 500,000+ miles I know of in the car, it's been rebuilt once, by me in the late 1990's. I've had one differential failure [spider gears] and a few snapped axle shafts. I've gone through two Fairey overdrives [one failure was my fault in not checking the fluid drain plug for tightness]. I shift constantly, all day, between gears as well as low/high range. The transmission is not a weak spot on this vehicle

My first engine came with a single-barrel Weber and I've stuck with them, generally getting over 100,000 miles per carb before replacing it. I've installed three so far. I've retained the stock Lucas distributor/points system, replacing the distributor once in the 21 years I've owned the Rover (mo other Rover has the original Solex, which makes it feel peppier in operation).

Together with a good tune-up, my fuel mileage is as high as 18-19 mpg [highway driving at 60 mph], and as low as 14 mpg [pulling a loaded trailer at slow speeds all day]. The overdrive really only makes me feel more comfortable and slightly improves gas mileage. I should also note that when the original Warn hubs on the Rover's front axles wore out, I went to standard hubs all the way around.

My experience tells me there's nothing inherently fragile about a Land Rover 2.25 petrol engine or transmission, especially with today's oils. My experiences with my self-maintained engine and transmission have demonstrated their strengths to me.

[Alk-3]

I agree- the Series transmission is really marginal when you compare it to later designs. Also the diesels are known to kill transmissions that are otherwise happy with more powerful gasoline engines- due to the way a diesel produces torque peak at lower RPMs.

I wonder if Davis' om617 conversion kit could be used with a short bellhousing R380? then either use that with the LT230 or adapt it to the series t case with Ashcroft's adapter?

I guess you could also use an ax15 or NV3550 (http://www.mercedesdiesel4x4.com/Default.asp) coupled to the Series Transfer case with AA's new adapters, that would likely be too long though.

Lastly you could use one of Ike's NP435 adapters with a chevrolet bellhousing and one of these:

http://www.4x4labs.com/products/diesel-conversions/om617gm/

http://www.transmissionadapters.com/Mercedes%20diesel.htm

That would probably give one the shortest drivetrain and toughest transmission. Plus you should be able to use a nice big GM truck clutch too.

VERY interesting! I will be doing some reading on this for sure. Thank you for the suggestions.

[TeriAnn]

I've been asked to step into this thread with my experiences with my '66 II-A, so I offer these experiences:

<BIG SNIP>

Together with a good tune-up, my fuel mileage is as high as 18-19 mpg [highway driving at 60 mph], and as low as 14 mpg [pulling a loaded trailer at slow speeds all day].

My experience tells me there's nothing inherently fragile about a Land Rover 2.25 petrol engine or transmission, especially with today's oils. My experiences with my self-maintained engine and transmission have demonstrated their strengths to me.

Jeff I don't think anyone is arguing that the Rover 2.25l petrol engine isn't built to last. I think every pro mechanic who first opens one up remarks about how seriously overbuilt the engine is. And I agree that with proper maintenance the engine will keep running long past the point where others won't even start.

My personal beef was that the engine is not powerful enough to be safe pushing a 109 Dormobile in traffic when everything around you had 2X to 3.5X the power. I personally went to a higher power engine for safety in some of the places I drive and I hate failed climbs because the engine just grinds to a stop.

The Series gearbox was considered quite robust and advanced when it was first used by Rover in 1932. The design has undergone a number of upgrades since then and the box seemed a good match for a topless 80 inch SI with its 1.6L petrol engine.

But with the SII the body got a lot heavier, especially the 109 stationwagons. The 2.25L engine was a decent power increase over the original 1.6L engine. Rover uprated the gearbox a few times. Early gearboxes tend to break lay shafts and main shafts at the circlip groove positions. Late 2A lay shafts without the circlip groove are stronger than the early ones. By the D suffix the SII box got about as robust as it was going to get. But even then it is reliable for only up to about 120 HP and 160 lbft of torque.

As you say it is plenty good for a Series 2.25l engine and even a 2.5L upgrade and at 200/300 tdi stretches it close to its reliable limit.

I agree completely that a stock 2.25L engine with stock LR gearbox all with genuine LR parts is a reasonably reliable combination that if treated properly and well maintained can last for many many miles. Uprated rear axles would really help though. If this is the performance envelope you feel comfortable with and have access to genuine parts then it is a good solution.

However, Rover has been happily discontinuing genuine parts for Series rigs and the aftermarket parts available for SII gearboxes are proving to be substandard. Too many people are rebuilding gearboxes these days and having aftermarket component failure within a year of heavy use. I think that's why so many people are looking for alternatives to a Series gearbox these last few years.

As for your 18-19 mpg [highway driving at 60 mph] figure, I'm guessing it is a little high unless you are running an 88 with spare on bonnet, no roof rack, a Weber one barrel out of the box and possibly a soft top. Oh and you are driving 100% petrol and are below 3000 feet. Add good street tyres and that is about as good as it gets. A lot of the time a Weber right out of the box is a little under jetted. Have you had a sniffer put up the pipe & got an air:fuel ratio test?

Alcohol gas blends alway decrease mileage from 100% pure petrol.

I agree the thread's starter has got some issues going on with 12 MPG IF HE IS TALKING HIGHWAY MILES ONLY. I think 12 MPG COMBINED highway and city is fairly common for most people. I think most Series rigs get between 14 and 17 MPG highway depending upon their configuration, weight, tyres and state of tune. Those claiming 20-22 MPG highway are likely figuring imperial gallons or running real lean and cruising for a bruising in the form of burnt valves or a hole in a piston.

If you are happy with the performance of a 2.25L engine, don't over stress your drive train and have a source of 100% genuine parts, I agree the stock drive train is good and reliable. Except for the 10 spline rear axles. You will never get me to say good things about them other than they make good pry bars. But 12 MPG combined mileage is pretty much ball park for a stock Series rig.

Some of us look for more and I think that is what this thread is all about.

[martindktm]

Sorry ti hi-jack the post a little bit but I sometimes think about a conversion in mine and no-one semms to have done it like I think. If I was to do it I would try to find a Toyota 22r engine and 5 speed gearbox and drop it there and forget about it. Should be pretty easy to fit..

[yorker]

Sorry ti hi-jack the post a little bit but I sometimes think about a conversion in mine and no-one semms to have done it like I think. If I was to do it I would try to find a Toyota 22r engine and 5 speed gearbox and drop it there and forget about it. Should be pretty easy to fit..

That has been done before but every time I'm aware of it was done with the transfer case too. Matt Stoffregen's: http://www.4wdandsportutility.com/features/rover/0611_4wd_1957_range_rover/viewall.html

[yorker]

The Series gearbox was considered quite robust and advanced when it was first used by Rover in 1932. The design has undergone a number of upgrades since then and the box seemed a good match for a topless 80 inch SI with its 1.6L petrol engine. But even then it is reliable for only up to about 120 HP and 160 lbft of torque.
As you say it is plenty good for a Series 2.25l engine and even a 2.5L upgrade and at 200/300 tdi stretches it close to its reliable limit.


I'm curious where these figures come from? I've seen them passed around as fact for years but have never seen any indication that Land Rover's engineers considered them to be the case. If they did then why bother to develop the LT95 for the RRC and 101? The original incarnation of the LR 3.5l v8 is pretty anemic at 91bhp (net) at 3,500 rpm 166 lb ft at 2,000 rpm. The most powerful engine the transmissions were ever meant to cope with was the 2.6l at a paltry 83bhp (net) at 4,500 rpm 128 lb ft at 1,500 rpm. Considering the troubles Land Rover was having in the 1970's they wouldn't have designed and used a new transmission unless they really felt it was necessary.


---------------------------------------------------------

As for 2.25 mpg claims you can get a better idea of how they do on a whole by searching through Fuelly and the other MPG tracking sites. Neil (Moses) is one person who has well documented his mpg pretty well and incorporated some reasonable upgrades in his 88's 2.25.
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/drfisher/series-iii

Scott Osta has done a decent job of tracking his MPG with his 2.25 propelled 109 ambulance
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/osta/series-ii

Contrast them to Solemn Warning's:
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/solemnwarning/series-ii

I know for a fact that Solemn's consist of short 10-25 mile trips so I'd be inclined to consider his MPG at the worst end of the spectrum.


I'd love to see more people post and track their MPG there, it would be interesting to see the results compiled over time, the sample right now is too small to be anything more than interesting but not statistically significant.

[Alk-3]

My primary concern at this point is the gearbox. If I'm going to go through the trouble of the swap, I want to know that my gearbox is up to the task. I'm currently considering the smaller Mercedes diesel (615?) or maybe just putting in a turner block when i need it, and leave the swap till I have the time to swap in a stronger gearbox, and swap out the axles as well.
Right now I have a tuner gas flowed head in the truck, that I just replaced, and have maybe 1000 miles on, so I would really only need their 3/4 option. This would be the cheapest and easiest option, but I will have to address my fuel consumption. I could also explore possibly fitting a 2.5 cam.
I am in fact getting 12 miles per gallon. I have checked it a dozen or more times. What I normally do is fill up the tank, drive about 4 hours with my iPhone running a gps app that tells me exactly how far I've gone, then I fill up again and see how much I can fit in the tank. It's about as accurate as I can get it, and it's always 12 mpg or slightly less. This is driving at 100km/h for about 2.5 hours, and 80-90km/h for 1.5 hours. So it's not full out for the whole way, but nearly.
I think I need to get a reading on my emissions to figure out what needs doing, as I don't want to risk burning a valve or worse by running too lean.
If I could get my mileage up to the high teens, or better on the highway, I'd be happy, at least with the mileage. Power is a different story..

[Alk-3]

I'm curious where these figures come from? I've seen them passed around as fact for years but have never seen any indication that Land Rover's engineers considered them to be the case. If they did then why bother to develop the LT95 for the RRC and 101? The original incarnation of the LR 3.5l v8 is pretty anemic at 91bhp (net) at 3,500 rpm 166 lb ft at 2,000 rpm. The most powerful engine the transmissions were ever meant to cope with was the 2.6l at a paltry 83bhp (net) at 4,500 rpm 128 lb ft at 1,500 rpm. Considering the troubles Land Rover was having in the 1970's they wouldn't have designed and used a new transmission unless they really felt it was necessary.

I can't answer for Teriann, but I've always assumed those numbers where a result of trial and error putting different engines into land rovers over the years.

[CMorris]

I can speak from real world experience having already done what you're thinking about with a lot of help/advice from Jim Young. I transplanted a 240D engine into a SII 88, used a reman. SIII tranny from Rovers North and installed a Fairey OD. The truck returns low to mid twenties MPG around town. I've clocked just over 6000 miles to date.............two oil changes, diesel fuel, and one burned out glow plug.............it's a wonderful combo IMHO. The truck will not out perform a good running 2.25, but I'm pretty sure it will out last the 2.25 long term. The conversion is not without it's challenges. problem solving, aggravations, etc., however, if asked whether I would do it again the answer would be absolutely. Tons of info. at SeriesTrek and Jims thread on Expedition Portal.
64046405

[Mercedesrover]

^^^^Don't listen to this guy^^^^
He's cRaZy!!!
(but he does nice work!)

[yorker]

I think the 4cyl Mercedes like Jim has in his 88 makes a lot of sense for what you want to do. Depending which one you get they have more or less the same power as a 2.25 Diesel all the way "up to" a 2.25p. Before I embarked upon that though I'd go through the 2.25 and see if I couldn't find a way to improve it. Maybe there is something simple you are overlooking. What carb do you use?


http://www.summitracing.com/parts/SUM-G2986/
http://www.scirocco.org/tech/misc/afgauge/af.html

[Alk-3]

That 4 cylinder diesel makes sense. That would satisfy the mileage issue indeed, however, it leaves a bit to be desired on the power end. I thing I might be asking for trouble swapping in the merc om617 without also upgrading the rest of the driveline. In the end, I do want to have more power. Hmmmm.

I use a webber 34ich, and it might be running a tad on the rich side, but not by much, if any.
I have a very slight intermittent miss, based on listening to my exhaust, but I also have the upgraded stainless exhaust sold by RN which is a bit bigger and louder than stock, so it's hard to really tell if it's missing.
I have the timing dialed in pretty good, with no detonation under load, but good power.

[yorker]

You have an OD too right?

Much more power opens a Pandora's Box of either upgrades or failures. You'll always run into a "that guy" who has hooked a Chevy 350 to a Series transmission with "no trouble" but when it comes right down to it it isn't suited to much more power.

Why not contact Simon Schofield ans ask him about his 2.8l swap? EFI, decent but not excessive power and I believe he was getting good MPG.

Simon Schofield Future@execulink.com
Future Patterns and Prototypes
167 Industrial Boulevard PO Box 831 St. George, ON NOE 1NO

519-448-4605
519-448-4610 Fax

[mongoswede]

Or buy a 03/04 Dodge/mercedes sprinter van and drop the drive line in from that...inline 5 cyl 2.7 turbo diesel. at 70 mph on the highway I just got 23.6 mpg over the course of 500 miles in the van. Should be better but mileage goes down fast at 70....60 - 65 is a better range.

[Alk-3]

yes, I have a overdrive. My original thinking was that the original axles would be like a fuse, and be the first to break if I applied too much power, and in turn that would save my transmission. this is a bit flawed I think, and not really the way it works.
Simon is less than an hour from me. I may get in touch and see what he says.

[CMorris]

^^^^Don't listen to this guy^^^^
He's cRaZy!!!
(but he does nice work!)
Thanks Jim!..................I think!?!?:cheers:
Hope all is well!

[rdavisinva]

Hi everyone. I was hoping to open up a bit of a dialogue about the Mercedes OM617. I am very seriously considering doing a swap with the Robert Davis kit. The kit apparently comes with everything needed to swap the motor into my land rover, but requires a pusher fan, and requires a swap to a thinner series...

Back in the early 1980s had a job that allowed me to travel to places like Malta and Greek governed Cyprus. I saw several Series IIA Land Rovers with Mercedes 4 cylinder diesel engines. At the time knew little about the Mercedes diesels and don’t remember exactly which engine, but they all looked similar to the OM616.

All were based on an adapter similar to what Mercedes Jim developed years later with a custom portion about 2 or 3 inches long sandwiched between the Mercedes rear aluminum casting (that is about 1.5 inches long) and the Land Rover transmission bellhousing. In all cases was told that the stock Mercedes flywheel was used.

Fast forward to 2002 when I bought our 300TD Wagon and was very impressed by the performance and outright reliability. For a few years did several one off diesel conversions with Perkins Prima, Isuzu, Diahatsu, and Rover 200 & 300 TDIs. Also decided to eventually phase out the GM gasoline engine conversions I was building at that time.

In 2007 started doing research to build a Mercedes conversion. At first was going to use a modified version of the OM616 4 cylinder complete with turbo, but the costs were not practical (to do it right) because it required a complete remanufacturing: drilling the block for the oil squirters, using the correct version of OM617 turbo diesel rods and pistons, and upgrading the IP to have the same characteristics as the OM617 turbo diesel. There was also the issue of making a custom exhaust manifold to mount the turbo like I did for the Diahatsu engines.

In 2008 started looking more closely at the OM617 and asked lots of people lots of questions including Mercedes Jim and 2 other friends who had also successfully completed OM617 conversions in their 109s using kits they bought in Germany that may have originally been for the Unimog. All these installs had several common requirements that I needed to avoid. They required a 109 6 cylinder bulkhead, a huge undertaking to swap out for someone who had a 4 cylinder bulkhead making the conversion impractical for the average person. The stock oil pans were modified requiring both steel and aluminum welding and fabrication which is totally impractical for a conversion kit. All these earlier incomplete kits typically included only an engine adapter and an oil filter relocation adapter plate leaving the rest of the parts for the conversion missing. All had an engine adapter based on the stock Mercedes manual flywheel that is on the thick side. With any conversion, the clutch has to be spaced the correct distance from the clutch release bearing. The distance needed for the pressure plate is added to the flywheel thickness to determine the total length of the engine adapter. So a thicker flywheel essentially equals an even thicker engine adapter. All of the conversions I saw also required discarding the stock oil filter housing for a filter relocation adapter that routed the oil to an externally mounted remote oil filter via hoses. The stock oil filter housing has the correct temperature controlled oil flow to and from the oil cooler, something I vowed to keep.

So continued to do a little research here and there to overcome what I determined to be the conversion issues of mounting an OM617 in a series IIA, III, 90 or 110. If these issues could not be overcome, then a complete conversion kit for the average DIY person to install over a weekend would be impractical and the research would end with a "no go".

Determined that in order to build a kit that could be easily installed the 4 major obstacles to overcome were to eliminate the need for the 6 cylinder bulkhead swap requiring the dismantling and reassembly of the entire body, build a custom oil pan from scratch that eliminated the front diff clearance issues that the original pan has in both the Series and Defender style vehicles, locate the engine so the stock oil filter housing could remain in place, and have the adapter between the engine and transmission much thinner to allow the engine to fit in a series IIA or III 109 or 88 engine bay without having to cut up the radiator support and/or use a custom radiator. In other words, build a kit that someone can install in a weekend and drop off for a custom exhaust on Monday and drive home that same Monday evening. Indeed a tough "nut to crack".

Was it s "go or no go" ???

After building several prototypes and improving each one, was finally able to overcome all of these obstacles and am making the second install in a 110 this weekend. Then will make the second install in an 88 the first weekend in September. When fitting an OM617 with my kit into an 88 and 109 that originally had a 4 cylinder, the engine falls short of the stock radiator with about 1/2" - 5/8” clearance which leaves enough room to slip a fan belt between the back side of the thinner Series III stock radiator and the nose of the OM617 water pump. This is with the stock 4 cylinder bulkhead in place and the stock Rover gearbox and transfer case in their original position.

It's a go...

Anyone who says the OM617 won’t fit between the stock Series transmission and the stock Series III radiator has clearly not seen my new conversion kit that does fit into this space. However, if you bolt the adapter I saw in Malta onto an OM617 or the adapter Mercedes Jim made (which were both excellent work years ago) then the total length of the OM617 with this much thicker adapter is too long for the 88 and 109 engine bay and won't fit in this same space where my kit does fit.

Let me summarize to be perfectly clear: using my kit, you can remove a stock 2.25 Rover 4 cylinder out of a 109 or 88 and bolt a OM617 in it's place without changing anything (except for the thinner series III radiator if you have the thicker IIA radiator) as a 1 for 1 swap. In the IIA or Series III 88 & 109 (that left the factory with a 4 cylinder engine), there is no need to use a Rover 6 cylinder bulkhead or any additional modifications. The engine bolts in just like the 4 cylinder GM engine conversions I built for over 25 years. This is the key point of this post.

The goal of a complete conversion kit is to make the engine install no more difficult than replacing the stock engine with another stock engine, in other words a bolt in 1 to 1 exchange (less the exhaust system which is different).

During each install started with the donor vehicle stock engine (88, 109, 90 or 110) in place at 5:00 pm on Friday and using only hand tools. In all cases were able to remove the engine from the Land Rover along with the exhaust system, drained the fuel tank, and completed other tasks Friday evening stopping work at 10:00 PM. On 8:00 AM Saturday started with the built up Mercedes engine with the custom oil pan in place with the custom adapter, custom flywheel with Mercedes ring gear, Land Rover 9.5" clutch, and custom motor mounts. Because the motor mounts bolt directly from the engine and mate to the stock chassis, there is no custom welding or cutting. On the 88 & 109 used the Mercedes alternator with a custom mount that placed it up where the PS pump originally was. The 90 and 110 install uses all the stock Mercedes ancillaries without any clearance issues in both RHD and LHD vehicles.

In both the 88 and 110, by 5:00 PM on Saturday the OM617 engine was in place and could be running if you used the manual shut off or jumped the glow plugs (if the controller was not hooked up). Sunday installed things like an electric cooling fan, any extra gauges (like oil pressure or boost), and vacuum shut off switch. The conversion is not difficult (about the same as the GM), but took longer because of the electric fan, vacuum shut off switch, glow plug controller (which is an easy install kit option), and other odds and ends. This kept me working Sunday from 8:00 AM to about 1:00 or 2:00 PM that in all cases satisfied the weekend install with time to spare.

Having the correct oil cooler with lines that match the stock Mercedes oil cooler housing, radiator hoses, accelerator linkage, and so on makes for an easy install. For the 90 & 110, the custom power steering hoses were bolted in place and connected to the stock Mercedes PS pump.

In this thread, you asked if fuel savings could be realized with an OM617 conversion. I have talked to owners of 80s era Mercedes sedans like the 300D that save over $4,000 a year on fuel that burn Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO) in their OM617. The drawbacks they report are mainly concerns with cleaning the fuel and the time it takes to collect it from a local restaurant. Know a guy who bought a centrifuge and collects once a week and when in his shop, runs the centrifuge and gets pretty clean oil. So far he has not had any issues, but have talked to other people who had to replace injectors and the Injection Pump (IP) from using WVO, but this was after tens of thousands of miles driving free on WVO fuel. At our local pick-n-pull OM617 engines are about $300, and IPs are $50. You can't fill up a 2.25 gas engine from a grease dumpster, but the OM617 seems to run fine on WVO.

Performance is very good and the engine is in the correct torque range to mate in harmony with the stock transmission and differentials. In the early 1990s worked on an aviation maintenance management project with the USCG in Elizabeth City and got to be friendly with the reliability engineering crew. At the time was designing a new cam for the GM 3.0 liter crossflow conversion and did not want to overstress the transmission. The engineering shop analyzed a series IIA and a series III transmission making tests on the gears and shafts. The real limit believe it or not was the main shaft, but regardless, they reported that the max torque for the main box was around 185 foot pounds. In other words to maintain reliability you should not put an engine in front of the stock series transmissions that puts out a lot more torque than 185 foot pounds. I've seen people off roading tear up a series transmission with the stock engine, so driving technique definitely comes into play. The OM617 is near the top end, but still within this acceptable range.

In our 1985 110 pickup, am installing an intercooler. The OM617 has the stock turbo clocked to take the hoses with an inlet manifold from a 1976 Mercedes W115 300D, but that's a totally different discussion. The point I am trying to make is there are some inexpensive options to get just a little more power out of the OM617 Turbo Diesel, but am just getting into this area and am no expert, so for me it is just another learning experiment.

In closing, it has been a long, expensive, time consuming journey, but the OM617 engine fits in the stock location without cutting or welding into an 88 or 109 that originally had a 4 cylinder and also fits nicely in a 90 or 110. A custom oil pan is required, but a custom oil pickup is not with the latest "production" version. We also have a separate kit with a longer adapter to mount the OM617 into a 109 that originally had a Rover 6 cylinder and have one of these conversions up and running as well.

Without the "pioneers" like Mercedes Jim and others who proved this conversion possible, I probably would have never bought our 1982 300TD wagon and would have never looked at using the marvelous OM617 that some claim will go for a million miles and is the most durable and reliable engine in the world. Thanks to all of you, especially Mercedes Jim who provided some advice back when I was doing research. He didn't always tell me what I wanted to hear, but "told it like it was".

With so many activities, have little time for bulletin board forums, but just wanted to make this post to provide some accurate information about the upcoming kits that will be available in the near future. I almost never check posts and only knew about this one when a friend sent me the URL.

RdavisinVA

[albersj51]

For clarification, you have a kit that will allow the OM617 (5 cyl MB diesel) to fit in an 88" series that came with the 2.25 4 cyl petrol or diesel without chassis/body modifications? If so, I am in heaven and will begin saving immediately!

[rdavisinva]

For clarification, you have a kit that will allow the OM617 (5 cyl MB diesel) to fit in an 88" series that came with the 2.25 4 cyl petrol or diesel without chassis/body modifications? If so, I am in heaven and will begin saving immediately!

Yes
Recalling a quote from Forest Gump: "That's all I have to say about that".

RdavisinVA

[Dibsen]

Waking up an old post here

I am looking for someone who sells the adapter for the OM617 to mate to the SIII trans. Does anyone have info on that? A good point of contact, price, availability ect.

I PMed Rdavis but I'm trying to see if there is another way to get in touch with him or if he has a web site.

[SafeAirOne]

Robert Davis is selling them. Search www.landroverexchange.com for the info.

A bunch of info and pics provided by Robert Davis can be found here: http://siteground237.com/~gunsandr/showthread.php?1158-Question-for-Mercedes-Jim

[Boston]

He's active over on the Defender source forum