| Author |
Message |
    
LR Max
| | Posted on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 09:19 pm: | 
|
Well, I like my "new" rover and after driving it constantly for the last few weeks, I have decided I need to make some major upgrades (well, major to me  ). I have two choices that I need to decide between, I can only do one or the other because I have a limited amount of money.
1. Upgrade engine. I think I have a healthy 7:1 engine, or a sick 8:1 (did a compression check). I am going to get a new cylinder head that has some performance mods (any recemendations?) and a better exhaust.
or
2. Get parabolics. My current springs allow absolutely no suspension flex. I suspect when I go 4 wheeling, I will have to have some "help" along the way. Besides, I want a better ride (anybody got any suggestions on parabolic springs?)
The truck is a Series 3 109" military truck that is a daily driver. The reason why I can only pick one or the other is because I am tight on money, so, if you had to pick one, which would you pick?? Thank.
Max T. |
Ron
| | Posted on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 09:30 pm: |
|
2. if your springs are shot definately if they are OK then maybe disassemble and oil them to get them moving
Save your money for a real engine.
but if you do choose 1. spend the money on the head (turner) and put a rochester M on it. My original 7:1 2.25 FLYS with no mods and a model M rochester. It will do 70+ on the flats.
A model M goes for 50 rebuilt or 10 in a junkyard and 10 for a rebuild kit.
Ron |
Leslie N. Bright (Leslie)
| | Posted on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Questions for ya....
When you did the compression test, what did it come out at? How close were the cylinders to each other? Did you have the engine warmed first, or was it cold? How did you have the carb's butterfly set when you checked it?
If all of the cylinders are fairly close to each other, then the engine's probably sound, whether or not it seems anemic. (In yours, I'd be VERY shocked if it was a 7:1... dollars to donuts it's an 8....) Ron's suggestion to save for another engine is sound. FWIW, although not something for your budget at the moment, I really like Robert Davis' engines. Pricy, but about as clean as you can get that much power in a Series.
Springs: I've not done a side-by-side comparison on several different ones, so take this w/ a grain of salt...
TI Console's were the first ones (Paul's), then Wise Owl came out w/ his (Ray's). British Spring has come out w/ parabolics now, too.
I've heard of some of TI's going flat after awhile, sooner than expected. May have been a short-term production issue.
TI's and British Spring have helper leaves. They claim that they're not a problem; I've seen them get caught when crossing logs, though. Not pretty. For that reason alone I have a tendency to lean towards Wise Owl's....
Most people state that they ride much better, but they're also usually comparing old worn out springs to new parabolics.... Maybe, new spring to new spring, the parabolics aren't THAT much different. But, they do articulate more, and add a little lift....
I've wondered if, maybe, they have too much bounce... I was following one along a trail, and it seemed to me as if it had too much side-to-side roll, as it crossed ditches. Maybe not....
Hmmmm.......
Tough decision. Hopefully a little more info will help ya, though.....
-L |
Ron
| | Posted on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 10:49 pm: |
|
I have new regular springs in Noah. And I have ridden in RM parabolics. The parabolics are definately softer. The main problem I see is that people have stock springs that have siezed solid which makes it ride like crap and have zero articulation. in new or oiled/non siesed condition stock springs are not that bad. Unless you have broken leaves I would try the rehab first, especially if you are on a budget. Roberts conversion is FAST and really clean. If you have more time and less money you can DIY a similar conversion. Look out for a 4 banger chevy nova, pull the engine, fab some mounts, buy the adaptor for $500 and away you go.
Personally i like to keep it all in the family (rover) but it is up to you where to go with your truck.
Ron |
LR Max
| | Posted on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 04:58 pm: |
|
Thanks for all of the input y'all. Lesie, the compression check was done after the engine had been run for a while and was done correctly. I got the following results:
Cyl. 1=145
Cyl. 2=145
Cyl. 3=143
Cyl. 4=140
I know those are good numbers and they are very close together. That is why I said a 7:1 or a sick 8:1. The green bible says that the 7:1 has that compression, and a 8:1 has about 165.
As for engine swaps, I am staying away from those. Sure, they are nice, but too much work and I don't think I could pull it off without seriously screwing something else up. It looks good, but not what I want. Also, were is the best place to get a Turner cyl. head? What is a reasonable cost?
The reason I would like parabolic springs is b/c I would like some better articulation on the trail, as well as on the road (I'll save that story for later ). David Gage said I had "new" springs and shocks on the truck, but since it is a military truck, the springs will only flex when I got a load in the back. Since I don't usually carry a load (I never will), the springs aren't what I want/need (I also think they are rusted together). As for the brand, I had heard TI console wears out quick, but I didn't really know what to think. I do like the helper spring idea, so that if (and only if) I have to carry a load, it can do it. The downside, previously explained by Lesie.
Any more ideas? Thanks.
Max T. |
Jeff Bieler (Mrbieler)
| | Posted on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 05:03 pm: |
|
Max, I think you have a good strong 8:1. The LR guides are at optimal conditions. Something you can't replicate easily at home in your garage with a handheld testor. You're engine seems to be in good shape.
Spend your money on that suspension and other upgrades. Get a Pertonix and get rid of your points, add an spin on oil filter adapter to make oil changes easier, throw on a pair os D90 axel remote axle breathers, etc.
You're engine is in good solid shape based on those #'s.
Jeff |
Ron
| | Posted on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 05:09 pm: |
|
Max,
Those #s are near perfect. The guage could be slightly off. No need to mess with that at all.
Maybe try the rochester carb for a cheap power boost.
HD miliary springs do not flex much. However they could be rusted together. I normally don't recommend this kinda thing but get them oiled and then hit a bump of two and see if they free up.
If they are still in ok shape they do have some resale value.
RM parabolics seemed nice when I rode in them. |
Leslie N. Bright (Leslie)
| | Posted on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 10:34 pm: |
|
Max, you're running right w/ mine, and I know mine's a 8:1.... you're as good as it gets for a 2.25.... You've got a sound block and head. A Turner is a well-done head, but it's not magic... w/ numbers like yours, you wouldn't see a dramatic difference.
You've got a Weber 1-barrel, right? That's a fine little carb. Rochersters are fine too, but if you've got the Weber already I wouldn't bother to change it, unless it's having problems.
New plugs, new wires, new rotor and dizzy cap. Either new points, or spend a little and get the Pertronix (http://www.pertronix.com/Ignition/index.htm, the Ignitor). Set your timing well.
If it's not doing well enough at that point, then maybe try opening up the exhaust a bit, IF IF IF your exhaust isn't in good shape; but really, it's not going to be THAT much better, not if your exhaust isn't shot.
Truth is, a 109's heavier than an 88... Aerodynamics aren't on your side... and a 2.25 just isn't huge. A Series is happiest at lower speeds, up to about 45 or 50pmh... over that and you're really having to wind it up for more.....
Most engine swaps aren't "clean"... you have to start changing this or that. Robert Davis' engine is as easy as it can be. It's designed to be a simple swap-in, and really makes it come alive. Not cheap, but worth the $$$ IMHO if you just have to have a Rover go faster than the 2.25 currently is. A 109 really needs it more than a 88, IMHO. Robert's is nice also because you don't have to change anything... if you later want, you can pull the engine back out and put the original in and no one would know... no mods needed.
W/ a 109 like yours, or an 88 SW w/ a roofrack like mine, I'd go w/ RM's 3-leaf rears http://www.parabolicsprings.com/home.htm to see if that helps the ride. I'd suggest trying the rears first.... you might like it just as is, and not need the fronts too. The front just doesn't move much, it's the back that needs more help IMHO.
Most importantly, though.....
Have fun. Enjoy tinkering on it....
-L |
Ron
| | Posted on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 10:52 pm: |
|
The only thing I would have a different opinion on is the one barrel weber. That carb is SMALL. Smaller than stock zenith I believe. The rochester M is big (for a series).
The rochester M and a non oil bath air cleaner will get you a decent power increase.
I can only relay my own experience with this one. I had the rochester and took it off and put on a solex, well power was so noticabley down I went back to the rochester. Yes it runs rich, yes the mileage sucks, but it does make it go faster. Hopefully, I can get my OD sorted out and see what kind of top speed I can get out of the old girl.
Ron |
Leslie N. Bright (Leslie)
| | Posted on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 11:35 pm: |
|
FWIW, I like my Weber. It depends on how its jetted, is my understanding. The "factory" jets are restrictive, you have to change them to larger for it to work well. (note: I haven't rejetted mine, because it was already on there).
If I was going to pick "any" carb, I'd go with the double-barrel Weber. But, if you go that route, you need to change cams, rejet the carb, and do a bit of fancy linkage modification... you want it to open both barrels simultaneously. It's a bit of a hassle, but if done right, it's nice.
A common problem with the Weber single-barrel is that they evidentally have a tendency to ice up under the right conditions, but I've not had that happen to me. Yet.
The Weber is very drivable, and better on mileage.
The biggest down for it, IMO, is that it's probably the more expensive after-market carb out there for a Series.... something like $200 or so... Ron's right, the Rochester is good, and cheap! Zenith or Solex, they're original, but they're not cheap at all, double a Weber, about.
Ya want a simple carb? How about an SU? Almost like pouring gas down a funnel, lol... Or, a Stromberg? I'm sure you could get them to work, too.... No, I wouldn't bother, lol, but....
It all depends on what you want....
-L |
Ron
| | Posted on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 11:48 pm: |
|
just so you know what i am talking about I am not referring to the common model B rochester I am talking about the rochester monojet. They came on mainly 4 and 6 banger chevy's.
for a series it is huge. But it works. I would even be willing to bet it has a higher cfm than the two barrel weber.
There are retrofit kits for both the SU and a stromberg but again its a matter of why? The SU one uses a new intake manifold.
A 2.25 petrol is never going to be fast but with a couple mods it can be faster. Run the rochester, bump the timing, get it tuned up.
Ron |
Leslie N. Bright (Leslie)
| | Posted on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 12:02 am: |
|
I know EXACTLY which you're talking about...
http://www.geocities.com/bayourovers/trick1.html
Can't knock it, it's a good setup.
I used to have a Rochester on the T/A I had, a QuadraJet. I loved it, because unlike a Holley, once you got it tuned you didn't have to fiddle w/ it. It ran well. Just sucked gas.....
But, on the Cherokee, it had a Rochester, a VariJet. It was nothing but the biggest PITA piece of emissions crap.
Problem tho'.....
The 2.25 can't use much more cfm.... I think that the Rochester just may be too much.... I saw that happen with a lot of musclecar-wannabees... they'd put a 850 double-pumper on there, and take it to town. Yeah, it'd run, but not any better than a 650 would have, they're just dumping excess gas out the exhaust....
IMHO....
-L |
Ron
| | Posted on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 12:06 am: |
|
See thats why I said what I said.
Jim has the model B I am talking about the model M monojet
A strong 2.25 can use some more cfm, I still have the 7:1 head and it helped me.
Ron |
Steve D.
| | Posted on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 12:08 am: |
|
I put wiseowl parabolics on my truck and after one week at Moab they were FLAT. I run 109 military springs on my 88 with the clamps open. Harsh ride but great articulation.
I have been running the Rochester. British Pacific can tell which jets to use. Tried the others off roading and they stalled the truck on a hard front lean. The Rochester works better.
I am currently putting a Peugeot turbo diesel in the truck. Easy conversion with kit from Steve Parker in UK. Engine for 250.00 out of a junkyard and probably 7-800.00 in the kit.
Good luck
Steve D. |
ron
| | Posted on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 12:12 am: |
|
Thats an interesting junkyard find.
The nissen diesel in early 80s maximas would also be cool.
Ron |
Leslie N. Bright (Leslie)
| | Posted on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 12:31 am: |
|
Doh! lol..... I thought it was an M.... I don't know old Rottys well enough..... lol...
You've got me thinking, though...
I wonder if there's a Holley out there that would do well?
Steve,
Did you talk to Ray about 'em? Which springs were they? 2-leaf? 3-leaf? Could have been an untempered set....
Ron,
I must've had a wire crossed or something. The problem the Designa chassis had was that it was WAY out of square.... the rear tub couldn't be bolted down in the back and kept flopping from side to side. And, from what I was told, it's not uncommon to find one out of square. Even Marsland will occasionally have one off, but it's supposedly a bit more regular w/ Designa, FWIW....
-L |
Ron
| | Posted on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 12:54 am: |
|
Humm, way out of square. Seems to be that could be a shipping problem, ie dropped? I dunno, out of square would be no big thing to have it fixed.
Ron |
Leslie N. Bright (Leslie)
| | Posted on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 01:46 am: |
|
May have been shipping-related, but I'm not so sure....
Not that it isn't possible, but it would be a PITA to think that you've got a new chassis, and it's not ready to use on arrival....
-L |
Jeff Bieler (Mrbieler)
| | Posted on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 09:01 am: |
|
Ron, how does the M bolt up? The BV drops on (with a minor wallowing of the mounting holes) and all linkages, etc hook right up.
I lost 1~2MPG when I went from my DOA Solex to the BV, but picked up some power. Off road, it works well off camber, hills, etc. I get about 12MPG around town and 16MPG on the freeway. My little 7:1 is getting tired.
I've had my RM's for about 9 months and love them. Have done some pretty twisted stuff, but the truck is always pretty light, even with a box full of gear in the back. |
Tad
| | Posted on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 05:54 pm: |
|
Max-
Please take this as you will, I really mean no disrespect (I don't know you that well) But I think you are trying to make the 109 into a something it's not. IMHO you will never get the beast to do the 65+ MPH on the road with a 2.25 (barring tail wind and downhill). I can push Rusty along at a somewhat comfortable 62 and really push him to 65, but I really don't like the way things sound at anything above 62. I know many people would scream at me for pushing the truck this hard on a daily basis. It hasn't been great on the engine and as soon as I am out of grad school I will put some real time and money into him.
I have now heard from three people about parabolics going flat after a time. I was sold on them but my mind is changing. I know of a guy who is experimenting with teflon sliders such as the 'yota's run.
I have been using T-9 Boeshield lube for years now and it works wonders on the springs. Jack up the frame, let the springs sag and get as much lube in between the leaves as possible. Find a place to realy test your articulation - I just used a snow bank today - and let the lube move about.
For a good price on the Pertonix try here: http://www.coupers-cars.com/Pertronix%20Performance%20Products.htm
I relly like the unit so far - it has only been a week, however.
There are a bunch of things that you can do to boost the HP of a car a percent or two, but you really won't see much performance increase until you get up into the 15+ HP increase. (see this month's Road & Track).
It sounds like you have a really hearty truck, I would almost kill for compression readings like that - mine are about 10 lbs less with a drop on #3. Again, I honestly mean no disrespect, but I think you've got to learn to live with what you've got. If you want power and better ride find an old Rangie. If you want some style and a truck that is very easy to DIY keep the Series and learn to enjoy the scenery at 55.
Have Some Fun!
Tad |
Ron
| | Posted on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 09:08 pm: |
|
The M bolts just as the B does.
Ron |
Ricky Smart (Rikstaboogie)
| | Posted on Friday, June 07, 2002 - 01:53 pm: |
|
you do know that your engine number etc will give you the correct infomation about your engine?? its just a thought and would solve all pondering.
Ricky. UK. ex 109 owner... now got 2a 88" 1962 + 1973 series 2a 88" + 300tdi disco '95 hehe :-P + 2 rangie classics on the way... |
motormonkey
| | Posted on Friday, June 07, 2002 - 08:09 pm: |
|
Did I read that right?
an 88 on 109 springs?
try the rear units first,
5 ft spring in a 4 ft space!
Can I watch?
MM |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page