Mercedes OM617

[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 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 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.