Club 80-90 Forums

Hi,

Looking at buying a syncro, fancy a van with a petrol 2.1; but what are the pro and cons between the MV / DJ. I know the DJ outputs higher BHP buts need to run on the higher octane fuels. Likewise the MV can run on just about anything but outputs less power.

Are these engine inter-changeable like the 1.9 DF to the DG (baring peripheries), are spares available for both engines?

Any pearls of wisdom, as always, would be gratefully received.

cheers

as long as you remember that wbx are gay you'll be fine. MVs tend to be in later vans, they seem fine and are a little better at coping with slight air leaks on the intake side, but hate leaks on the exhaust, Dj's don't notice the leaks so much, but idle control a bit poorer perhaps. Timed to 5 degrees DJ fine on supermarket fuel, possibly down on power by a bit.
Use daily, regular oil changes and good cooling system good to go. Lpg on them seems fine with a bit of power loss but 9p mile fuel saving. You can lose the cat on an MV and still pass emmissions ok.

I believe (probably wrong) that the DJ was the highest compression engine of the 2.1 variants. This is why it needs to run on 98, you can alter the timing to suit 95 though, but at supermarkets it's only a few p more than regular, and still cheaper than deezel. But many MV engines run DJ injection equipment, and seem to run fine.

You will never match the levels of torque of a good deezel engine on the 2.1's, but they do run very well and suit the vehicle for road driving very well. They are more fuel effecient on long runs, and achieve 25mpg without really trying. LPG costs about a grand to do and makes them more economical than any deezel, if you dont mind not having the torque.

However I still like reading landrover magazines and the quoted figure for a 2.5 rurbo deezel 90 is 85bhp and 117lb ft torque, my dj has just been rolling roaded and gave 105.5bhp and 113lb ft torque. Result.

As everyone on this forum knows, I love the flat 4, and as a true VW fan, think that that is the best engine for the bus, I really love driving it. I drove a 2004 tranny 350 miles on saturday, and was worried that my bus would feel weak in comparisson, I need not have worried, and the torque thing is really only noticable at low revs, on very steep hills, everywhere else the power can come through just fine.

It was also interesting to note that the only unmodified vehicles at CJ's Devon weekend were two 16" 2.1 DJ syncros. VW knows best!! Keep it stock, keep it simple.

I dont think that you need worry about MV or DJ, CJ will have parts for both at syncrospares.

Good luck. Simon.

Owning a 2.5 Tdi Landrover and a 2.1 DJ Syncro I get to experience the difference regularly. The Diesel is noisy and unrefined but pulls like a train. The petrol is smooth and quiet and in my bus at least, drives really well. I would take the pertol for the long journeys every time. Like Simon says, you only really notice the lack of torque on the hills and when carrying a lot of weight.

As for referring to the WBX as gay...

I think Simon and I have shown you can come up with a more constructive review, however biased we may be.

Oh, I meant to also say that mine has a MV block but with DJ plumbing and is set to run on 95, which it does just fine.

I had a lovely DJ in my last bus. Smooth as you like and had that unique sound of a wbx. I loved it. Then some twit with a stud in his ear broke it !!!

Hi ,

I have a 16" TDI doka and a 2,1 wbx 16" van .
The WBX engine is far better for a campervan, you dont want the tractor feeling in a camper. As my daily driver its the doka TDI , i have put loads of soundisolation in the cab just to avoid the diesel noise...it helps a bit.
But i drive it with a trailer all the time and there the TDI is superior compared to the wbx.

Erwin

syncrosimon wrote:However I still like reading landrover magazines and the quoted figure for a 2.5 rurbo deezel 90 is 85bhp and 117lb ft torque, my dj has just been rolling roaded and gave 105.5bhp and 113lb ft torque. Result.

Which LR engine would that be then? Think your figures are a bit out there so your case of DJ against diesel landy doesn't stand up so well...

1961-85 2286cc, 62bhp, 104lb ft (not made during syncro production)
1984-90 (rare from 87) 2495cc 68bhp ~114lb ft
Neather have turbos and pull really well from not much above idle. Hate reving and don't do acceleration. I drive a good 2286 dayly so know first hand how low the torque comes in!

86-90 2495cc turbo 85bhp 150lb ft
Loads of torque from around 2k and a bit more go. Sadly they were designed in a hurry though and most have blown up long ago, the landys are still going but they are powered by...

90-98 2495cc Tdi - 111bhp, 195lb ft. - I don't think a VW 1.9TD could beat that torque, if it could you'd have been doing some sereous fiddleing to compete with a stock rover engine that can do 200k+ miles, get the spanners on that...(and in a landy you'll forever be fixing the back axle and gearbox).

There was a 2.5 petrol that no one bought, probubly around 80bhp and atleast 120lb ft, again really flexable but quicker than the diesel and drinks too much.

Maybe the V8 is the best match for the DJ, 114bhp but as its 3528cc torque is better, engine note is just as nice and fuel consumption? On gas they are convinceing alternatives to the Tdi.

Remember all those have really low gears on tap as standard too making them slog even better (infact top gear on my landy isn't much different to the syncro eather, infact its higher geared but the engine doesn't really rev enough so its slower).

All the above points fall into insignificants when you start considering road refinement and bodyshape into your do anything vehicle- Thats where syncros win hands down!

There will always be a diesel/petrol argument and each have their merits and folowers so it'll never end. (Same goes with LR vs "Others" as there are so many LRs in the UK). Truth be told though they all do the job pritty well and thats why they all have their happy folowings. If they were "pooh" you wouldn't get them or they'd be worthless - Anyone ever herd of or actully seen a LR Discovery Mpi? Theres a resion for that! Maybe its just because I'm not good at written/typed stuff but I think if these conversations happened in a pub it'd go so much better and no one would get afended as they can see the grins people talk through - gets lost online.

I drive diesels and love the way you get a lump of torque low down, I even like the sound - if you hate any of that you'll never like a diesel. When I drive a petrol I miss the torque delivery but love the way they rev freely (and the noise so long as its not an inline 4 or worse, an inline 3 - hate those crappy little cars the RAC give me when the syncro breaks again) - if you hate that you'll never like a petrol! I must say off the back of all that I like my landy and the [diesel] syncro though I wish the latter broke less (not engine problems before you ask), also used to drive a DJ auto with high mileage - that was a really good truck too. Infact off the back of that I was worried I wouldn't like the diesel but they are different enough in their own right to have apeal - thats what I like from a vehicle, apeal.

Rant over, If a DJ detuned for 95 octane = MV power wise, both have simular reliabilty (petrol stroppy breakdowns seem to stem from the dizzy just like they did in the 50's - the ECU usally just gets on with it?) there isn't much in it. Design wise the MV's Digifant injection is the generation after the DJ's Digijet so could be considered better though it seems that mainly benifited emissions at the expence of power (though the power came from 4star fuel).

Wasn't CJ running a bog standard base spec 14" singlecab 1.9 petrol in devon? Didn't look modded at all when I saw it, but it worked.

CJ's single cab was standard except for 16" wheels and tyres, and it coped admirably. The other standard vehicle was Stefan's 16"Doka (other than mine)

The magazine was LRO International Feb 2008 where they were testing the 10 engines available. It was the 2.5TD 85BHP and 117lb ft. In that test they raved about the South African 2.8i Petrol Landrover, only critising it for lack of engine braking.

I agree completely that the torque curve of a diesel is superior to a petrol.

I just stick up for petrols. I would be very happy to have any Land Rover on my drive, they are just so right, but I did enjoy my Range Rover Classic Vogue V8, that is a fantastic vehicle.

Yeah it's Man United v Liverpool isnt it, they both get the job done.

Thanks for all the info and advice

It seems that there is not much between the two, certainly not enough to dissuade me from buying a van with either engine.

With regard to availabilty of spares, is it siginificant that Justkampers/gsf do not list parts for the MV? I know Cj, Syncro nutz et al are a good source of replacement parts but sometimes a visit to your local GSF is useful when the clocks ticking.

Just for the record; I have read many of the diesel vs petrol threads on the forum and for me petrol is the best option, if for no other reason than I am used to fixing petrol engines (never touched a diesel engine in my life other than replacing the cam on an old rover).

Having read your comments on octane rating, I was thinking about my desire to get to Mongolia in my new syncro (when I get one), so I had a look at fuel availability in mongolia. The average octane rating is 78 -80 ...Any ideas?!!! Oh and little diesel availability.

Thanks again.

There was a third unmodified DJ at the Devon weekend Mine! Well apart from the wheels and tail pipe. Going to LPG it and use more regularlary as transport because I can't bear to part with it.

So bye bye car hello monster bus, our boys want to go off-roading again as well so can't disappoint them.

Hope you find a nice one.

If the intention is to travel where fuel quality is an issue.. a DG (1.9) or MV (with the corect digifant system) would be a sensible starting point... (now a 2.1/2.2 dg would also be an option but thats another story)
as both the DG and MV were designed to run on 91 unleaded... in reality I would suspect the fuel quality will be that... a DJ will struggle to survive on low grade...

From what I gather CJ was actually very surprised at the DG'd ability... it isnt a bad engine off road.. (my 1992 doka is DG) and from my experience I tend to use less rpm than the TD's I go out with...

Comparing a Syncro to a Land Rover is a bit difficult... I have driven an 88 and thought "what a bloody tractor" deffo a cramped driving position and a crap ride... why anyone would want to go far offroad in one is beyond me.... a disco is better but it feels like the rear axle isnt actually attached to the vehicle...

and the room in the back of a 110 is dreadfull... overland trip... nah.. not for me...

If you want to go to a far away place, then the vehicle needs to be built to a good standard... no mater what engine..

akira28 wrote:There was a third unmodified DJ at the Devon weekend Mine! Well apart from the wheels and tail pipe. Going to LPG it and use more regularlary as transport because I can't bear to part with it.

So bye bye car hello monster bus, our boys want to go off-roading again as well so can't disappoint them.

Hope you find a nice one.

Sorry Jim, I was being a bit pedantic about the stock thing, and including wheel size.

ripley wrote:Thanks for all the info and advice

It seems that there is not much between the two, certainly not enough to dissuade me from buying a van with either engine.

With regard to availabilty of spares, is it siginificant that Justkampers/gsf do not list parts for the MV? I know Cj, Syncro nutz et al are a good source of replacement parts but sometimes a visit to your local GSF is useful when the clocks ticking.

Just for the record; I have read many of the diesel vs petrol threads on the forum and for me petrol is the best option, if for no other reason than I am used to fixing petrol engines (never touched a diesel engine in my life other than replacing the cam on an old rover).

Having read your comments on octane rating, I was thinking about my desire to get to Mongolia in my new syncro (when I get one), so I had a look at fuel availability in mongolia. The average octane rating is 78 -80 ...Any ideas?!!! Oh and little diesel availability.

Thanks again.

I would defo go for an mv or dg if you are going to low grade petrol areas, the dj has the highest compression ratio of all the flat 4's, and needs quality fuel. The DJ only makes more power than the MV at revs, and you would be hard pushed to notice the difference.
It is only the injection side that differes on an MV, the ecu being able to alter ignition timing as well as fuelling, and it has a lambda probe to monitor the mixture and protect the cat. These are things that you will not want when in India.
The injection system works great, until it stops, then it's a pain in the a***.
For ultimate reliability and fix on the road ability, a carb would be better imho. You can get from CJ a DG carb, or use twin carbs on Variant T3 manifolds. Just get the carbs set up by someone who knows what they are doing.

The bently manual is an epic read, sad ending, and covers the MV model.

Good luck, and keep us posted.

syncrosimon wrote:The magazine was LRO International Feb 2008 where they were testing the 10 engines available. It was the 2.5TD 85BHP and 117lb ft. In that test they raved about the South African 2.8i Petrol Landrover, only critising it for lack of engine braking.

Wouldn't be the first time LRO have made a typo. I know too much about series 1's and I've seen them print what I can only describe as utter lies about them. On the hole though they aren't bad and I used to learn quite alot from them - only so much I could stand though as after yet another artical saying how to lift a disco and how it was the best thing in the world that every landy enthuseast really wants I couldn't get over the fact I definately didn't...I surpose they wouldn't be in buisness if they recomended what I bought when I wanted coil springs, turbo engine and perminant 4WD . Just looked it up in a book though and its 150lb ft@1800 and 85bhp(DIN)@4000rpm, which would mean 111lb ft @4000rpm so thats quite a wide band. Turbo is a Garrett T2 so theres another link it has in common to some syncros.

Fuel in Mongolia, I've driven there! Most westerly place I saw a syncro running was in Kazakstan but it seemed happy. There is also alot of Golf Countrys in Russia. The fuel of cloice anywhere out there is 72 or 80oct and Lada's love it. Anything more modern doesn't do it though and thats a growing number of cars so a grade between 90-95 is just as widespread and growing. There is usally a low 90's offering aswell as a 95. 98 is very very rare. Prittymuch everything was unleaded from what I could tell. Its probubly handy to have a range of 400-500miles for the really remote places but for most roads you won't need more than half that. Range is ofcourse the main thing going for a diesel as an expedition vehicle. I was told diesel is hard to get out there but most places I passed sold it - big lorries use it even in syberia so so long as your range generous its avalable.
The car I was running was a carb fead SEAT/Fiat 903cc pushrod thing with carb and points, chosen deliberately as I thought it'd be easyer to fix than EFI if needed. That never hinted at problems on the low 90's octane but we didn't dare trying 80 (something I sort of regret actully, its about 33% cheeper than 92, 95 is not much more). A friend had a carb fead suzuki SJ and that detonated badly if it wasn't ran on 95+. Some people had more modern cars with injection and they seemed perfectly happy, I never herd of one needing tweeking (and I was asking as I was interested in how they went). Basicly it seemed like only the late 4star cars hinted at problems (ie designed for 97octane+). If the injection system has a knock sensor I think its probubly better than a purely mecanical engine if its introduiced to the lower fuel slowly as some can self ajust (does the MV?). I think the MV could well be fine but the DJ might struggle.