Paint your Wagon

[Wheeledbeast]

I looks like there was loads of room from the photos ( well there was loads of room, you can see it ), but in the cab that lane felt very narrow and the bends seemed very tight .I was actualy a little bit disappointed with the 2.6. it defintly does not have the low down torque of the 2 1/4 .i found it relitivly easy to stall off road. ( although i have not tried a 2 1/4 in an FC, and my Fc is 3/4 ton heavier than my 109). what do other people think

[Wheeledbeast]

New alternator fitted, and all is well again. There are no obvious mechanical faults with the old alternator and the brushes seem fine. I will try and get an expert to look at it if it is not too expensive .

[Tomsmd]

I looks like there was loads of room from the photos ( well there was loads of room, you can see it ), but in the cab that lane felt very narrow and the bends seemed very tight .I was actualy a little bit disappointed with the 2.6. it defintly does not have the low down torque of the 2 1/4 .i found it relitivly easy to stall off road. ( although i have not tried a 2 1/4 in an FC, and my Fc is 3/4 ton heavier than my 109). what do other people think

I find the combination of 6 Cyl and 1 ton gear box to be absolutely exerllent off road. Smooth application of consistent power and I find the engine quite torquey! The 900s give very good ground clearance too.

[Wheeledbeast]

Is that up higher up the rev range i wonder if it is a difference between a car engine and a land rover one

[1960SeriesII]

I don't have much experience offroad with either the 2.25 or the 2.6, but from what little I could see, with correctly set-up throttle pedal/linkage I have no problems using the 2.6 off the road. I would guess it's on a par with the 2.25, although I can only compare it with my soft-top 88", which really isn't a match for the FC weight-wise. My guess is that the 2.25 wouldn't be doing too well with the FC's weight on its back - after all I suppose that this concern was why Rover started thinking about the 6-cylinder engine in the first place.

After cleaning and greasing the springs I was also surprised by the amount of articulation. Despite all the negative publicity the 2.6 gets, it is quite a nice engine, even if the fuel economy can be terrible if everything is not set up correctly.

I had a bit of a problem with the engine initially, with my ears set up to 4-cylinder music - I wasn't revving the engine the same as I thought the noise would be similar. It isn't - the 2.6 sounds different at the same revs on account of the additional two cylinders, so as long as I was keeping it down to the same levels comparable to the 4-cylinder, it just didn't have the power.

[Wheeledbeast]

it seemed fine at high revs, but not when you wanted to go slowly or just increase the power suddenly to get over a bump. ( yes i'm sure the extra weight would over power the 2 1/4, I was just comparing my experience of a 2 1/4 in a regular 109 with the 2.6 in the FC).

[Wheeledbeast]

i have found an Australian doppelganger it looks like yellow is the new black

[DasLandRoverMan]

That was in the current CLR magazine, with the owners 1948 80" on the back.

[Wheeledbeast]

Mine has only got 84 inches on the back, you would have to bobtail the SI and parkit on its side to avoid the jib

[DasLandRoverMan]

Or extend the back end and add an extra axle?