Print

[Wittsend]

[2286]

Sorry; your point is what, exactly?

Obviously, I don’t speak for everyone, but the paperwork for my 109” is totally in order. Numbers, capacities, colour, fuel type etc. My insurers are aware of all my Land-Rover’s modifications and I’m confident it would pass any scrutiny. I have a detailed file of money spent, work done and fuel used that backs up its current status and condition, and I have written detailed articles published in various parts of the web (on the Tdi conversion in particular) which provide a timeline for the work.

Fair point well put.

The only police attention mine has attracted was welcomed as vehicle was on the move after curfew, and it passed pnc and scrutiny.

[-OTTO-]

i´ve got a 2.25 petrol Engine
Motornumber 151 123907

[Dentman]

Sorry; your point is what, exactly?

Obviously, I don’t speak for everyone, but the paperwork for my 109” is totally in order. Numbers, capacities, colour, fuel type etc. My insurers are aware of all my Land-Rover’s modifications and I’m confident it would pass any scrutiny. I have a detailed file of money spent, work done and fuel used that backs up its current status and condition, and I have written detailed articles published in various parts of the web (on the Tdi conversion in particular) which provide a timeline for the work.

I've just seen this reply after being away.
I'm not checking on anyone !! I bought a 12J engined IIA 10 years ago and found it was still described as the original 21/4 petrol
I made the changes officially after collecting supporting evidence, NOW I've replaced that diesel lump with a 2/14 petrol again 
So my point is, do I go through this rigmarole once again? Does anyone bother? Now that the subject of engine swaps has come up, I thought I'd ask....That's all 

[Sunny Jim]

I went for a 'Power Plus' 2.5 petrol and find the fuel consumption is about the same as the 2¼ petrol round town but better in journeys. Like Wittsend, I get about 18 pottering about stop start (and a lot of trips involving going up a back lane and across a site in low gear). The extra power means you are not thrashing up hills in low gears and the extra compression ratio increases the efficiency of the engine - I am not sure if the SU carburettor makes it more economical as well. I have to admit to generally treating mine with no mercy, I have never had it completely flat out but am sure it could top 80mph if I was brave enough. I generally use the extra mid range power as there are a lot of hills round here, plus the novelty of being able to overtake people when necessary! The five bearing engine is noticeably smoother and quieter, after the previous 39 years with 2¼ three bearing engines. The engine mine came with was an original type 151 that had been bored out to +40, the next one was a poor recon and lasted only 5 years with camshaft problems, then the last one did 29 years until two years ago! It is now in the back garden minus its cylinder head that I have stashed (it was a Turner unleaded head so worth keeping). The block had been bored to +60 but has a large repaired crack down the side of it. Whilst this has never given me problems, I would not offer it as an exchange!

Sunny Jim

[2286]

I've just seen this reply after being away.
I'm not checking on anyone !! I bought a 12J engined IIA 10 years ago and found it was still described as the original 21/4 petrol
I made the changes officially after collecting supporting evidence, NOW I've replaced that diesel lump with a 2/14 petrol again 
So my point is, do I go through this rigmarole once again? Does anyone bother? Now that the subject of engine swaps has come up, I thought I'd ask....That's all 

I think it gives owner peace of mind, and insurers can use discrepancies to void policy. 

If it were a cc change of series to 90/110 4 cylinder rather than a fuel type this could be considered less vital.

I personally like vehicle to correspond to paperwork.

[Dentman]

Me too 2286
Hence my correction on purchase, following my latest swap I met with Are you really going to bother 
On reflection, I'll correct the paperwork. So there, another function of this fine forum, keeping me on the straight and narrow 

[MrTDiy]

Currently run a tdi with out the turbo. Noise is high but always been impressed with its economy and how ridiculously easy it is to start. The original petrol 2 and a quarter was lovely but worn and the fumes were noticeable and mpg poor...at the time my only car so had to swap to survive. It was a lovely engine in the 109 I used to drive for the recce  unit I was in...and so quiet...much more tactical. But I like the way the diesel drives and would only swap for a non ice option in the future

[Wittsend]

Assuming your V5C registration document is correct with your name & address and the chassis number, date of manufacture matches up with the registration number on the vehicle and document.

THEN

  There is no reason not to inform the DVLA of any engine change or colour change.
BUT
Only send in "one change" at a time - the DVLA get easily "confused".

Keeping the vehicle details work in your favour - should the vehicle get stolen, written off, or stopped at a road-side check.
Can save a lot of bother.
ALSO
Should fuel rationing ever come back - and I can remember the fuel crisis in 1973 and still have my ration books.
You got a certain number of coupons depending on engine size and fuel type.
Could be embarrassing if they ever bring back rationing

[2286]

That is a fascinating snapshot of recent history re fuel rations.

MrTDiy did you remove the turbo as it was damaged or faulty and that was the reason the engine became available.  I would be intrigued to see how a tdi with turbo removed drives next to a 2.5n/a.

I know the 2.5 turbo d was essentially a 2.5n/a with a turbo nailed on, there were issues in there own right with the engine but the pep baited drivers to use the new found pace making them short lived and delicate compared to what came before and after.

Dentman glad to know I am not in the minority, there are those who choose not to have vehicle corresponding to paperwork simply through not wishing to engage with the dvla and those who do it for more sinister reasons.  I recall a chap who was selling a 1970 range rover.  I was very interested in what was if it was a very very early example.  When I found the chassis number actually belonged to an 88 series2a land rover I was no longer a potential buyer.  The fact it was running a tdi and 5 speed ex disco and still registered as 3.5 petrol became the lesser of two evils on this occasion.  The seller was insistent that it was all legitimate 'as it had been through an mot like that and not been picked up'.  Very scary indeed.

[Wittsend]

Yes, a further example of why you might want the vehicle numbers to match those on the V5C reg document - when it comes to selling and buying time.

 
Do not buy a vehicle where the numbers don't match.

Walk away - there are plenty of others for sale with the correct paperwork.

 
It matters not what a seller says - what the DVLA did years ago is irrelevant - what matters today is what rules they are currently working to.
Do not believe the seller.
You can always check (in confidence) with our VRO ( [email protected]).


As an aside.
Back in '73 my MG was recorded as having a 1622 cc engine. However, for some reason a PO had fitted a 1489 cc engine and hadn't bothered to get the log book (as they were then called) updated.
At fuel rationing time, I would have got a slightly bigger fuel allowance 
As we know rationing was avoided, but the price of petrol doubled almost over night 

[MrTDiy]

That is a fascinating snapshot of recent history re fuel rations.

MrTDiy did you remove the turbo as it was damaged or faulty and that was the reason the engine became available.  I would be intrigued to see how a tdi with turbo removed drives next to a 2.5n/a.

I know the 2.5 turbo d was essentially a 2.5n/a with a turbo nailed on, there were issues in there own right with the engine but the pep baited drivers to use the new found pace making them short lived and delicate compared to what came before and after.

Dentman glad to know I am not in the minority, there are those who choose not to have vehicle corresponding to paperwork simply through not wishing to engage with the dvla and those who do it for more sinister reasons.  I recall a chap who was selling a 1970 range rover.  I was very interested in what was if it was a very very early example.  When I found the chassis number actually belonged to an 88 series2a land rover I was no longer a potential buyer.  The fact it was running a tdi and 5 speed ex disco and still registered as 3.5 petrol became the lesser of two evils on this occasion.  The seller was insistent that it was all legitimate 'as it had been through an mot like that and not been picked up'.  Very scary indeed.

Hi, I deliberately planned not to use the turbo as it simplifies the installation no end and also meant that it was more reversible ....coupled with the fact that I can't weld and need to get my wheels back on the road quickly. It meant I didn't need oil cooling or intercooling. In fact I Butchered the flanges on the untried turbo in order to build a jig so I could then take that jig with the flanges to Bells silencers in Swindon who then made me a joiner so I could come off the manifold stick this adaptor in and then use a Steve Parker exhaust conversion....which made the process very quick and look quite professional.

Hope that helps. In terms of power....It felt fairly similar to my old petrol....smidge better with no spike in power that might jeopardise the transmission