Lorne,
You may imagine that I have been sitting here quietly while the two of you
muse over this
issue. It would seem to me, not being at all familiar with what has been
done to these
propane cars, that if Phil has a 1992 spec. 3.9 Range Rover engine with
9.35:1 compression,
parts for a re-conversion could be obtained from an assortment of wrecked
Range Rovers,
making the whole proceedure reasonable, if not totally inexpensive. (The
ECU and some of
the harnesses would otherwise be prohibitive.) Come to that, a 1994 or 1995
Defender could
yield some useful parts, but would require a very seasoned Land Rover tech
to work out
which chip to use since the Morgan may have no speed sensor. A 4.2 chip
might be needed
if the fueling is too lean due to the light load a Morgan presents to this
engine. I believe a
1992 Range Rover was already 50-State compliant. This engine produces 182
BHP @
4,750 and 227 Ft. Lbs. @ 3,250 in stock trim.
And no, Lorne, it will not run like my 4.0, but it has got to be better on
94 RON unleaded
than it is on Propane, or I am missing something? Petrol has more energy
content than
Propane, and Land Rover only runs 3 PSI back pressure stock and with cats.
Also, BTW,
a 3.9 has significantly more torque than a 3.5. (Those NAS units only
produced 150 BHP
as well.) I know a tech in Portland who could do this job blind-folded and
so could Jim
Allen in Grand Junction, CO if he weren't too busy writing books or
magazine articles.
Both might need a healthy bribe.
The Rimmer solution might be excessive. Rimmer would need to do a lot of
R&D on the
engine in the car. A 3.9 needs to have the distributor modified and a lot
of programing
would need to be done since the computer in this set-up is largely blind to
the boost.
With a 4.0, it's basically a bolt-on due to the knock sensors and the other
OBD II inputs.
It may also be the case that only you, Lorne, need 235 BHP in a Morgan!
Will it even
hook up?! This is WAY more torque and BHP than an EEC 4.6 in every respect.
(Rimmer's
work is 50-State compliant, according to them.)
If you are really into excess, why not buy a 4.5 J.E. Engineering unit and
drop in 280 BHP?!
That could likely turn the drive shaft into a pretzel or tear the rear axle
to shreads. Rovers
North in Vermont has them as well as a few odd bits which might be required
for any type
of re-conversion.
In a 4.0, which has the same displacement as a 3.9, but is otherwise a very
different
engine in character, the 1998 Morgan is using a 1996 Discovery wiring
harness without
advanced evaporative emissions, and the ECU was originally a GEMS Range
Rover unit.
In the production cars it IS SAGEM, but neither Range Rover nor Discovery,
and has
a chip unlike any we use since, I believe, the cats were getting toasted
using the chip
for a Discovery 5-speed which MMC was originally given from Gaydon, Rover
Group.
Are we all confused yet? And Lorne, just in case you didn't know, Phil and
Elaine
have the most excellent taste in colour, i.e. Royal Ivory.
Regards,
Willie
William G. Lamb, III
Land Rover Specialist
NAS 4.0 Plus 8 #1 (R-11953)
(The earlier three were EPA test mules and not production cars.)
At 02:34 PM 12/10/1999 -0500, Lorne M. Goldman wrote:
>---
>LMG
>webmaster@gomog.com
>http://www.gomog.com
>
>Hi Phil,
>
>The earliest UK Vitesse Plus 8's (unmodified) can match an Isis
turbo-charged propane on power and have the advantage of being much
lighter. Hardcastle had them leaving the factory with 208bph and 1888
pounds. But there are even less of them than Bill's beauties.
>
>If you were to reconvert a propane 8 back to petrol without prejudice to
power or the pain of failing an emissions test an Eaton Super Charger from
Rimmer Engineering in Colorado Springs (no relation with the British supply
house of the same name)would be worth looking into.
>
> Everything you lose with the reconversion would be returned with the
charger and Rimmer has had a fine rep with Rover V8s for some time. The
advantage of using US bred expertise is that they would be familiar with
your emissions exigencies. They can do the work (if you send them the car
or the engine) or send you the kit to be installed by your expert.
>
>Like you I have an affection for lusty Plus 8s.
>
>Lorne
>
>1984 Plus 8 EFI
>
>
>On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:42:47 Phil Fisher wrote:
>>Lorne,
>>
>>I fully concur with your observations that the propane powered Plus
>>8's are definitely more potent than the stock SU or injected petrol
>>versions. One of my biggest Morgan ?thrills? was in the late 70's
>>when Bill Fink took me for a spin on the streets of San Francisco in
>>one of his propane 8's that had been turbocharged. Talk about
>>Bullitt revisited! The closest I've been to that level of thrill in
>>a petrol 8 was with Jim Robinson last May in Altrincham (Manchester,
>>UK) in his current Plus 8 which has been very nicely built including
>>quad Weber downdrafts.
>>
>>My personal thing with propane has mainly to do with MOA type trips.
>>We've done both MOA's so far, and as I recall the only propane
>>powered Morgan that has done both trips in full is a Fiat powered +4
>>that lives in Idaho. The trials and tribulations of locating propane
>>sources in totally unfamiliar territory leaves a bit to be desired in
>>my mind. In our part of California, most heating is done either by
>>electricity or natural gas. Thus, propane tends to be regularly
>>available only at those locations that cater to the recreational
>>vehicle crowd. On the other hand, my in-laws live just outside
>>Yosemite in the Sierras where most heating is either electric, fuel
>>oil or propane. I've always thought it would be great to be able to
>>drive one's Plus 8 alongside the family propane tank and give it a
>>shot at heating fuel prices rather than street prices. Of course
>>this might be termed tax evasion - don't know if heating propane
>>smells different from street propane; wouldn't do too much good to
>>add a colorant like diesel in some farming areas.
>>
>>One of the original purposes (at least technically??) for getting the
>>Plus 8 was to be able to keep up with our Brit friends on the
>>upcoming 2000 MOA trip. Again, this focused our attention on looking
>>for a petrol version (very nearly bought a new one from Bill). But,
>>after living with and loving Sally for the past two plus years we've
>>decided the trusty 4/4 will be making the trip to New Orleans with us
>>in September to start MOA III. It's really hard to give up the
>>storage space available in a 4-seater!
>>
>>Phil Fisher
>>1970 4/4 4-seater
>>1992 Plus 8
|