rangerovers.pub
The only place for a coil spring is up Zebedee's arse
Member
Joined:
Posts: 544

I have just noticed that non genuine BMW expansion tanks can be had for around £50 GB or so. The genuine BMW one is usually over £100:-

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/A-Premium-Radiator-Expansion-Tank-for-BMW-3-Series-E30-E36-M3-Z3-17111712641/164409347820?_trkparms=aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D230924%26meid%3Dbb57c9eeeb4746c0b3ab4a1efd988873%26pid%3D101195%26rk%3D4%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D174446659329%26itm%3D164409347820%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D0%26pg%3D2047675%26algv%3DSimplAMLv5PairwiseWebWithDarwoV3BBEV2b&_trksid=p2047675.c101195.m1851&amdata=cksum%3A164409347820bb57c9eeeb4746c0b3ab4a1efd988873%7Cenc%3AAQAFAAACAGNe4Q09sUdZspudvGoShvjRwokroRSKlu%252B6CTItHA29piApyfGPNqd0wR6%252FX6wOVthPrSDgVFCLydQ46zFJJ%252F%252Ffsyjo2e2lLqtMhhi9SX0Rt8j4KBgE%252Fj0aNSlu5ZpjT1s%252FOu1y4VJE%252FyZwuW8J909g71QC9rlZ2MIMeR5LVVgzW4%252Fr5m0U2xwEEtGx4sqaAHeA79%252BSfN0A%252B8%252FDmu2%252B5Ljrjnib5WoXMUTxhuPY4XHRaAdSKJLU6nwyCfIPWhwITmtyxugqwzKRnE%252FZ3BL2nwKe8m9GlSiXQT42l9UtcOBUc%252BAXarZsLvQKeLSM2XpKvA3XTTnqmZL7b3A8gXAJ3Fu3WVS2ZtxtNJFeFkTI2WPd4mn5u%252FLMl1MmbFZrp36PRKrFY67pCIFv9LjV1dY6l%252FLIlEQmKQGuIdzRLLFAXJEn0t%252FqXlzmdyTw%252F6eHcUpuCBBxjqBLmPUwxsFINIG4icyOgJlMm4Z5sEGu%252FvCOYl%252BTx2sVVmfbtupL2w6mOLQkKb2oNyP6jZCfZqzkykbdz%252FWnSCoOTukCUKwOEI6fdMKVlgBIyF%252B4xWDL5r%252BD5B1bKbtTa5PvDL4YDtZConj2sY7TUUlIW7n8BZvA3dW1bMpOH7ZKJwAfKGVxRY2CAVxtszgX1iLvofxPkLKHrXLCiqhJvH8h%252Fca%252B23qzHV59vgdZ%7Campid%3APL_CLK%7Cclp%3A2047675

It will also need a level sensor which are about £10.

Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 5817

That one is only suitable for the non-EGR diesel as it doesn't have the additional spigot on the underside front.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 243

Pity you can't buy a kit to modify expansion tank --- that would be a great idea --- P38 not cheap when new got all hi tech electronic stuff yet no sensor in expansion tank --- almost laughable really

Member
Joined:
Posts: 544

I think there were a few design flaws with the p38.
Lack of a level sensor on the coolant expansion tank is obviously one. The main reason for more cracked heads with the petrol V8 and the BMW diesel engines when they are used in the p38 compared to other models with those engines?
Lack of an access hatch in the boot to the fuel tank. Nearly all 4x4 cars have them.
Decision to fit the ZF 4HP22 gearbox to the 4.0 and diesel instead of fitting the 4HP24 across the range. Why? To save a few bob? On a top of the range SUV? You kidding me? I suppose they had to pay Lord Linley, since they only sold six.

Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 5817

dave3d wrote:

Lack of a level sensor on the coolant expansion tank is obviously one. The main reason for more cracked heads with the petrol V8 and the BMW diesel engines when they are used in the p38 compared to other models with those engines?

Oh I don't know, the straight 6 petrol engines of the same era are notorious for cracked heads following an overheat so I can't see why the diesel should be any different. The V8 doesn't crack heads, it may warp them so the gasket blows, or following a really serious overheat, can pull the threads out of the block or cause a liner to shift but that same will happen on any all alloy engine if you get it hot enough.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 544

Maybe I should have phrased it a bit better. I admit I am not that knowledgeable about the V8. Rather than cracked heads I should have said detached liners. Seems quite frequent occurance reading the forums. I am not aware it happens to other cars to the same extent as with the p38, like the TVR for example.

BMW cars with the same M51 diesel engine cover huge mileages typically 300,000+ kms on the continent. The Vauxhall Omega with the BMW engine similarly. BMW petrol engines are irrelevant to this discussion.

As with all IC engines, if you don't catch a cooling issue in time, you can quickly damage the engine. Some more, some less.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 303

the big reason for these issues is the cost , you do know that every p38 sold was sold at a loss , i think it was a billion dollars or more loss. it was the cost factor why they didn't put the 4.4 v8 in along with other things . but a hole in the floor for access to the fuel pump would be handy .to look at it in hindsight now and comment is easy. you have to make the odd mistake to learn what not to do or how to do it properly. if it was made today it would be different , well i would hope so ....

Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 5817

Yeah, it would have a design life of 10 years and be falling apart after 5.....

Member
Joined:
Posts: 303

yes that's very right Richard , if i was to buy a new car today i really don't know what i would actually buy but it would hopefully have access to the fuel pump 😁 😁

Member
Joined:
Posts: 2139

or not need a fuel pump!

Member
Joined:
Posts: 226

The 2.5 engine issue is real. They might well do 300k in the car application, which is what they were designed for. However, they weren't designed to cart around a 2+ tonne SUV with the aerodynamics of a well rounded brick, that may well have a 3 tonne trailer on behind.

The same issue is well demonstrated with the 6cyl Landrover. The engine, from a Rover 90, was a lovely, smooth and long lasting engine in its designed application. It would run at about 40% of its power curve when cruising. In the Landrover however, it would run closer to 90% of its power curve when cruising, ending up in short engine life.

It is a shame that Perkins couldn't get the Iceberg project to work properly, as a 3.5 litre, alloy, turbocharged diesel would have been a nice option.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 544

The Rover 90 engine was a good engine. Overhead valve inlet and side valve exhaust. A good cross flow head design for its time.
I helped a mate rebuild one when I lived out in Africa.

Had a Classic that had been fitted with a Perkins engine. It was really a tractor engine with a big heavy flywheel. Worlds apart from later BMW diesels. The Perkins engine would only rev to 2800 rpm. It had a govenor that prevented it going any faster. Made overtaking hairy on occasion. It would pull a house down on torque.

Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 5817

You obviously aren't aware of the Iceberg project then. I live in Perkins home town (part of the ring road is called Frank Perkins Parkway) and know quite a number of people that work or have worked there. Things like the Perkins 4108 were fitted to no end of things, including Land Rovers, but it was far too agricultural and only suited to tractors and boats. Iceberg was a project to investigate the possibility of converting the 3.5 litre LR V8 into a diesel. Whether there was ever any intention to add a turbo I don't know but had it worked I'm sure that would have followed. The Iceberg project was dropped but there were benefits that came from it. The bottom end was strengthened with cross bolted mains, making that the big difference between the 3950cc engine fitted in the Classic and referred to as the 3.9 and the 3950cc engine fitted to the P38 and referred to as the 4.0 litre. The first engine to benefit from this change was the 4.2 unit (same bore as all the others but 71mm stroke so longer than the 4.0 litre but not as long as the 4.6) that was fitted to the LWB Classic.

Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 934

Reminds me of the unit GM pushed out the 6.2 N/A diesel that was based on the petrol equivalent

IIRC 130hp and 240ft-lbs from 6.2 litres to pull around their land yachts

Could never understand why it was needed, fuel economy was nothing to crow about either

The VM HR492 was the first diesel engine offered in the RRC with 106hp and 230nm it couldn't pull yer knob straight, it wasn't until they pushed out the 425OHV that the RRC diesel appealed, 300nm made it bearable.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 303

Morat wrote:

or not need a fuel pump!

so what is the towing capacity off an electric 4wd, 3500kg is the base limit , my shack is 300km return , sorry not really an option is it .

Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 5817

None would do what you, and I, want it appears

https://www.carbuyer.co.uk/tips-and-advice/160343/towing-with-an-electric-car-hybrid-or-plug-in-hybrid

Member
Joined:
Posts: 243

Project iceberg-;---- bad name ---- a lettuce
Wonderful 🙄

Member
Joined:
Posts: 226

Or indeed, majestic and huge mountains of ice floating around the polar latitudes :)

Member
Joined:
Posts: 226

Further to Richard's post ...

In the late 1970s, British Leyland became aware of the increasing importance of diesel engined cars to the British, European and (especially) North American markets in the wake of the 1979 energy crisis. It was decided that a new series of diesel engines powerful, refined and economical enough for use in BL cars was needed. However, with development funding tight, it was necessary to use existing BL petrol engines as a base. This included a diesel version of the 3.5 litres (3,532 cc) V8, the development project for which was code-named 'Iceberg'.emphasized text

BL collaborated with Perkins Engines of Peterborough to develop the engine. Both naturally aspirated and turbocharged versions were produced, both using a Stanadyne rotary mechanical fuel injection system. Power outputs of around 100 (naturally aspirated) and 150 (turbocharged) horsepower were achieved.

The Iceberg engine was slated for fitment in the Range Rover, Rover SD1 and the Jaguar XJ but the project encountered problems with failure of the alloy cylinder heads and internal cooling. They were limited by the need to use the same basic block casting as the petrol engine to allow the Iceberg engine to be produced on the same production line to reduce costs. Whilst these problems could have been overcome, the project ran into financial and logistical problems caused by the reorganisation of BL and specifically the splitting of Land Rover and Rover into separate divisions.

Land Rover took over production of the V8 engine in 1982, moving it from the main BL engine plant at Acock's Green into a new, much lower-capacity production line in the Solihull works, where it was built alongside the other Land Rover engines. This meant that there was no spare capacity to build diesel versions of the engine. Coupled to this, it was clear that the market for large diesel engined cars in North America had not developed as expected.

BL finally pulled out of the project in 1983. Perkins initially decided to pursue the project alone, and even produced advertising brochures for the engine as an industrial power unit, but BL withdrew all technical support and Project Iceberg was wrapped up in late 1983. BL's other collaboration with Perkins (producing a diesel version of the O-Series engine) produced the highly successful 'Prima' unit. BL (and its Rover Group successor) bought in 2.5-litre 4-cylinder turbodiesel units from VM Motori to use in the SD1 and Range Rover.

Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 5817

Years ago, a friend had an Austin Maestro van which was fitted with the Prima engine but after around 150,000 miles it was getting a bit tired so he asked someone he knew that worked in R&D at Perkins what he suggested. At the time Austin Rover, as it had become by then, were looking for a power unit for the newer generation Rover 400 series and they didn't think the Prima was up to scratch. Perkins R&D had been refining the Prima to make it more powerful, quieter and more fuel efficient but Rover chose to go instead for something else (Honda I think due to a collaboration with them on the Accord/Rover project). As a result there were a number of these refined Prima engines sitting around Perkins R&D making the place look untidy so one was sneaked out of the factory one night shift and went into the Maestro van. A few weeks later I needed a van to take an Austin Healey 3 litre engine to the south of France and was offered the loan of it. Somewhere, I have a photo of my co-driver's hands holding the steering wheel and the speedo showing 140 mph. That van would cruise at a ton all day long with two people and a big lump of cast iron in it......