European & NADA engine's

[Donnie]

I notice the 6 cylinder engines in the series trucks taking it in the shorts by a few members on here.
I'd like to see/ hear a discussion of these engines by those who have them or have had bad or good experiences with either design....THE GOOD<> THE BAD & THE UGLY......
I'm sure that there is at least someone on here that can present an interesting discussion on either.
My '67 109 is of European design & it has served me well.......ANYONE ?????????????
Donnie

[yorker]

2625cc Petrol, inlet-over-exhaust: Borrowed from the Rover saloon range, in response to demands from mid-Sixties Land Rover users for more power and torque. The big, heavy old straight six was heavily detuned for commercial use. Acquired a reputation for overheating and cracking cylinder heads, mainly due to operator neglect. (Nothing much wrong with the engine, as long as you keep fluids topped up and don't let it go out of tune.) Also it was thirsty and barely more powerful than the four cylinder petrol engine, although it sounds lovely and develops usefully more torque. Parts supply these days is patchy (although the engine remained available until 1980). The Weslake-head 3 litre engine from a Rover P5 is near enough a direct swap and used to be very popular, so check those serial numbers.

Mark Rumsey (Series II Club technical guru) adds: "(The straight six) feels barely more powerful than a 2.25 when driven in the same way, but in fact is quite a lot more powerful, around 20% in fact. If you use the full rev range of the engine you can take advantage of exceptional low speed torque, and if you are prepared to run the revs up you can get rapid acceleration. However, stick with the mid range (2000-3000rpm) and its only slightly better than a 2.25. Where the 6 shows it potential most is on hills. Where a 2.25 would start losing speed, the 6 just keeps pulling. Also the Weslake head on either the 2.6 (Rover P4 110 engine) or 3 litre won't fit without modification to the clutch pedal box. However, the early non-Weslake 3 litre drops straight in."

http://www.glencoyne.co.uk/enghist.htm

see also http://turtleexpedition.com/vehicles/turtle-i-2/

If you like F heads they can be an OK engine. They are definitely an enthusiast's engine, not for an everyday fair weather Land Rover owner. If you like it and it works for you that is really all that matters.

[o2batsea]

If you like taking an engine halfway apart every few months to adjust valves, you'll love your 2.6. It also sucks down fuel like you're pouring it straight in.

[mearstrae]

If you like it, stick with it. My '76 started life as a 6cyl and is now a v-8. The motor came from an '80's Range Rover, now it has power through the roof (for an SIII) and no loss of mileage (on old carb'd Rovers it wasn't that good). No valves to adjust, nothing to fiddle with, just get in and drive. And...engine parts are everywhere (even at; Advance, Auto Zone, and Pep Boys).

'95 R.R.C. Lwb (Gone...)
'76 Series III Hybrid 109
'70 Rover 3500S

[leafsprung]

I have both euro and NADA 6s. They are great in many ways - they are so much smoother than the 4 or 8 cyl motors. The euro is cool because it makes all its torque low and will keep chugging when a 2.25 will stall. The NADA likes to rev and will cruise down the highway . They do require you to be a little more savvy in terms of parts sourcing and maintenance. Contrary to Bill's assertion adjusting the valves is not the travesty he makes it out to be. They have their shortcomings but I like driving them more than the 2.25, 300tdi, V8 etc. Only thing I like better is 2.0 gas and dare I say 2.0 diesel is fun