Jensen Interceptor Diesel

[GadgeS3C]

Talkwrench said:

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you forget any ideas about an Interceptor with a diesel engine, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you....

When I read the OPs post my first thought was that he needs hunting down by Alice (from Luther) - but then I decided that was too good for him.

Talkwrench's is the perfect solution.

[v8250]

Any of you diesel powered Jensen owners bidding on this...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/jensen-interceptor-mk3-1...

[Yertis]

I actually think it's a not bad idea. All the looks, ride and comfort of an Interceptor, with sensible MPG. Let's face it, it's not exactly a car for hooning around in is it. Losing the V8 sound seems a fairly small price to pay for all that extra economy.

[v8250]

Yertis said:

I actually think it's a not bad idea. All the looks, ride and comfort of an Interceptor, with sensible MPG.

+1 there's a lot of logic in this...why not a large capacity BMW V8? If the right engine is used the car will have considerably more bhp & torque, a much lighter engine/front end, greater fuel economy...and with a correct exhaust one would still have a great sounding V8. I once suggested this to some TVR fellows...thought they were going to lynch me!

Off now before lynching commences...

[TooMany2cvs]

roscobbc said:

MarvGTI said:

BMW don't do a V8 Diesel.

Where do Range Rover source their V8 diesels from?

It's the v8 version of the Ford/PSA joint-venture more commonly seen as the v6.

[XJ Flyer]

Yertis said:

I actually think it's a not bad idea. All the looks, ride and comfort of an Interceptor, with sensible MPG. Let's face it, it's not exactly a car for hooning around in is it. Losing the V8 sound seems a fairly small price to pay for all that extra economy.

The flaw in that idea seems to be one of missing the point that the Interceptor is actually a typical example of a comfortable British made version of an American muscle car.As such it's all about hooning using good old fashioned US V8 petrol power on the basis of there's no substitute for cubic inches but in British type style and comfort.There's no way that a diesel engine has any place in that design aim.

[ToneyCaroney]

v8250 said:

+1 there's a lot of logic in this...why not a large capacity BMW V8? If the right engine is used the car will have considerably more bhp & torque, a much lighter engine/front end, greater fuel economy...and with a correct exhaust one would still have a great sounding V8. I once suggested this to some TVR fellows...thought they were going to lynch me!

Off now before lynching commences...

Yes, quite! Increasingly popular now, in fact, to transplant Chevy LS series engines into both RV8 and Speed 6 engined TVRs.

I've yet to see a diseasal though....

[thegreenhell]

The old Chrysler lump wasn't exactly a high revver, and only produced 300ish bhp and 400ish lb.ft of torque. A modern V8 diesel, such as the 4.0 Audi V8, will match or better those numbers. I don't think too much would be lost in character if the conversion was done properly. The purist in me finds the idea abhorrent, both from the perspective of butchering a classic and the use of a diseasel engine, but on paper at least I think it makes some kind of sense.

Following this slightly disturbing theme, how about an Audi 6.0 V12 TDi transplant into an XJS for 493bhp and 738 lb.ft?

[anonymous-user]

You can tune the original engine as the Americans do, but that is missing the point. A bog standard Interceptor is a fast car. It could be faster, but so what? The frontal aerodynamics don't favour it being that much faster, and that's before you have looked at the suspension and brakes. An Interceptor does handle, in its fashion, but you have to drive it within its known limits. It is what it is (a biggish, heavyish, fast Euro GT), and what it is is very good indeed.

If I could afford to have an Interceptor S, I would, and it would be my daily, but a boggo Interceptor is plenty fine for a period style hoon around, and you can still give a modern Aston or Jag a bit of a surprise on the motorway.

[Yertis]

Of course, the Interceptor Tdi would be a faster car point to point, not by going more quickly, but by needing to refuel less frequently.

[XJ Flyer]

thegreenhell said:

The old Chrysler lump wasn't exactly a high revver, and only produced 300ish bhp and 400ish lb.ft of torque. A modern V8 diesel, such as the 4.0 Audi V8, will match or better those numbers. I don't think too much would be lost in character if the conversion was done properly. The purist in me finds the idea abhorrent, both from the perspective of butchering a classic and the use of a diseasel engine, but on paper at least I think it makes some kind of sense.

Following this slightly disturbing theme, how about an Audi 6.0 V12 TDi transplant into an XJS for 493bhp and 738 lb.ft?

That idea seems to be based on a not like with like comparison of standard v modified.There's already at least one example here of putting the resources into a modified increased capacity version of the big V8 MOPAR mill in which case forget all about the 300 hp comparison.

While the Audi V12 in an XJ idea sounds good on paper in terms of output figures.But the time,money and conversion aggravation,in addition to the loss of character in fitting the turbo oil burner,won't seem so worthwhile if the resources were put into something like a tuned 6-7 litre + Jag V12 for example without the need to bother with all the plumbing and complication of a modern forced induction oil burner where a big naturally aspirated V12 petrol engine should be.

[anonymous-user]

Faster point to point? Depends on what you are doing. The Mark II and Mark III tanks hold 20 gallons. You can get 15 mpg or a bit better on a cruisy GT run across Europe. That's 300 miles between fills, but stop a bit earlier for a rest and to allow for a fuel reserve. If you don't stop for a pause at least once every 280 miles (that will be about four hours at a fast cruise) you are probably a risk to yourselves and others.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 22 April 21:01

[Talkwrench]

Just keep your horrible, stinky, oil burning, particulate polluting, inevitably smoky diesels in the big boring cars that they usually inhabit and leave unique, soulful, charismatic cars like Interceptors alone. By all means improve them with tuned Mopars or even LS powerplants. At least they have a heartbeat. But diesels.... never! Try posting something like "My Aston DB5 is a bit thirsty. I might swap the engine for a nice BMW diesel" and see how that goes down. In my eyes, it is exactly the same.
My first post on the topic still stands.....

[Yertis]

I was thinking of the return trip to London from Bristol, at rush hour. I sometimes think I'm pushing my luck in the Monaro if there's a lot of congestion, although it's fine if I dine in town and so get a clear run back.

[aeropilot]

Talkwrench said:

Just keep your horrible, stinky, oil burning, particulate polluting, inevitably smoky diesels in the big boring cars that they usually inhabit and leave unique, soulful, charismatic cars like Interceptors alone. By all means improve them with tuned Mopars or even LS powerplants. At least they have a heartbeat. But diesels.... never!

[SV8Predator]

v8250 said:

Any of you diesel powered Jensen owners bidding on this...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/jensen-interceptor-mk3-1...

<<<jensen owner's club have just checked interceptor and it is an early mk3 with the 6.2 engine fitted
only 332 example's were built in RHD
6.2 cryisler v8 320bhp as fitted to dodge charger
and 3speed torque slide gearbox>>>>



320 bhp? Not on that low-compression, smogged-up old thing. It's a G-Series, probably the slowest of all the Interceptors (although the late 440ci versions were not much better).

Now an SP, or even a 6.3 litre (383ci) Mk2 or Mk1 with the E-Series engine - that's the way to go!

[SV8Predator]

Yertis said:

Losing the V8 sound seems a fairly small price to pay for all that extra economy.

You've obviously never driven an Interceptor, have you?

Thus you plainly don't understand the appeal.

Yet you seem to think that your opinion is valid?

[aeropilot]

SV8Predator said:

v8250 said:

Any of you diesel powered Jensen owners bidding on this...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/jensen-interceptor-mk3-1...

<<<jensen owner's club have just checked interceptor and it is an early mk3 with the 6.2 engine fitted
only 332 example's were built in RHD
6.2 cryisler v8 320bhp as fitted to dodge charger
and 3speed torque slide gearbox>>>>



320 bhp? Not on that low-compression, smogged-up old thing. It's a G-Series, probably the slowest of all the Interceptors (although the late 440ci versions were not much better).


Now an SP, or even a 6.3 litre (383ci) Mk2 or Mk1 with the E-Series engine - that's the way to go!

I'm a tad confused here......I though all Intercepters used the Chrysler RB engine, in either 383ci or 440ci, and from 1971 they only used the 440ci.

[SV8Predator]

aeropilot said:

I'm a tad confused here......I though all Intercepters used the Chrysler RB engine, in either 383ci or 440ci, and from 1971 they only used the 440ci.

Interceptors all used either a 'B' or 'RB' Chrysler engine.

[JNR77]

3.6 V8 tdi from a range rover sport? Not sure it would make much sense but they make a nice sound with sports pipes.