Jensen Interceptor Diesel
Discussion
MarvGTI said:
BMW don't do a V8 Diesel.
This one?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M67
I still wouldn't though.
Even if you do 12000 mile a year, putting a big diesel into something the shape. size, weight and drag coefficient of an Interceptor is only going t reduce your fuel bill by £3000 a year. If you can;t afford that, you can't afford the rest of the proper upkeep of an Interceptor used as a daily driver over that sort of mileage. Also it would utterly slaughter the capital value of the machine as it would effectively become saleable only as a breaker for spares.
A much better way to improve the fuel consumption dramatically is by putting in an LSx with a modern GM automatic transmission, which also dramatically improves the performance and leaves the thing with a reasonably appropriate sound track, and some resale value. But again it's not something you'd do as a genuine economy measure given the up-front cost and the fact that these cars are now appreciating strongly if they have been properly restored and not buggered about with.
A much better way to improve the fuel consumption dramatically is by putting in an LSx with a modern GM automatic transmission, which also dramatically improves the performance and leaves the thing with a reasonably appropriate sound track, and some resale value. But again it's not something you'd do as a genuine economy measure given the up-front cost and the fact that these cars are now appreciating strongly if they have been properly restored and not buggered about with.
Edited by Lowtimer on Sunday 20th April 07:44
roscobbc said:
Where do Range Rover source their V8 diesels from?
Rosco, checked on the LR/RR site and couldn't find anything about the origin of the SDV8 engine, I thought it stopped with BMW's 8 speed auto. But like I said, apologies.I didn't know better and jumped to an early conclusion.
An Interceptor is (compared to cars with similar sized engines) a heavy car. It really needs an engine with plenty of torque. Yes a big capacity diesel is one answer but a re-working of the oem 383 cu in for more torque is one answer. However its not the best choice - the 440 cu in is a better bet as base engine. When I had my BBC 'stroker' engine built -up and dyno'd by John Sleath for my Vette (489 cu in) at that point some 5 years ago it had developed the highest torque reading for any normally aspirated engine he had built to date (565 ft lbs @3850 rpm). Immediately after that he built two 'stroker' 496 cu in Mopar engines, both going in Jensen Interceptors, both (like my Chevy) with aftermarket heads, cams, carb etc., one of these beat my engine with something like an additional 30 ft lbs of torque, a new record for John at the time. Put an engine that engine back in a Jensen, add fuel injection and a heavy duty overdrive auto box and you will get the best of both worlds - 50% better power with no reduction in fuel economy -the reverse in fact, expect an improve of up to 20%.
MarvGTI said:
Rosco, checked on the LR/RR site and couldn't find anything about the origin of the SDV8 engine, I thought it stopped with BMW's 8 speed auto. But like I said, apologies.
I didn't know better and jumped to an early conclusion.
Apologies not required - so many car manufacturers seem to share/source engines and running gear from some surprising sources its hardly surprising we all get confused about this. I still have trouble taking Aston Martin engines seriously, following ownership and technical input from Ford for so many years. Likewise with Bentley, which for me is an up-market Audi/VW. Rolls Royce, likewise an up-market BMW. I didn't know better and jumped to an early conclusion.
roscobbc said:
An Interceptor is (compared to cars with similar sized engines) a heavy car. It really needs an engine with plenty of torque. Yes a big capacity diesel is one answer but a re-working of the oem 383 cu in for more torque is one answer. However its not the best choice - the 440 cu in is a better bet as base engine. When I had my BBC 'stroker' engine built -up and dyno'd by John Sleath for my Vette (489 cu in) at that point some 5 years ago it had developed the highest torque reading for any normally aspirated engine he had built to date (565 ft lbs @3850 rpm). Immediately after that he built two 'stroker' 496 cu in Mopar engines, both going in Jensen Interceptors, both (like my Chevy) with aftermarket heads, cams, carb etc., one of these beat my engine with something like an additional 30 ft lbs of torque, a new record for John at the time. Put an engine that engine back in a Jensen, add fuel injection and a heavy duty overdrive auto box and you will get the best of both worlds - 50% better power with no reduction in fuel economy -the reverse in fact, expect an improve of up to 20%.
^ This being that the Interceptor is all about big capacity US MOPAR power not fuel economy.If it was me I'd have that 496 otion with twin four barrel carbs and a manual box. XJ Flyer said:
roscobbc said:
An Interceptor is (compared to cars with similar sized engines) a heavy car. It really needs an engine with plenty of torque. Yes a big capacity diesel is one answer but a re-working of the oem 383 cu in for more torque is one answer. However its not the best choice - the 440 cu in is a better bet as base engine. When I had my BBC 'stroker' engine built -up and dyno'd by John Sleath for my Vette (489 cu in) at that point some 5 years ago it had developed the highest torque reading for any normally aspirated engine he had built to date (565 ft lbs @3850 rpm). Immediately after that he built two 'stroker' 496 cu in Mopar engines, both going in Jensen Interceptors, both (like my Chevy) with aftermarket heads, cams, carb etc., one of these beat my engine with something like an additional 30 ft lbs of torque, a new record for John at the time. Put an engine that engine back in a Jensen, add fuel injection and a heavy duty overdrive auto box and you will get the best of both worlds - 50% better power with no reduction in fuel economy -the reverse in fact, expect an improve of up to 20%.
^ This being that the Interceptor is all about big capacity US MOPAR power not fuel economy.If it was me I'd have that 496 otion with twin four barrel carbs and a manual box. Probably well known by now, but saw this on Twitter: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11153600.Chance_t...
rollerderby said:
I'm thinking about buying a Jensen Interceptor and talking to guy today who mentioned a mate with a Interceptor. He said he uses it a lot and has a diesel nailed into it. There seems a couple of posts with people saying the same.
Are there people who have done this and enjoying loads of reliable good fuel consumption miles out there?
Not one for the purists but a practical Jensen?
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.... Are there people who have done this and enjoying loads of reliable good fuel consumption miles out there?
Not one for the purists but a practical Jensen?
Seem to remember some years back in mid 70's there was a truck mechanic who would always buy a 60's yank station wagon, junk the engine and install a Perkins diesel married up to original auto box. Was desecration then and even though oil burners are more sophisticated now it is still desecration.
If in any doubt about Mopar capabilities look here and scroll down to Paul Strange
http://www.john-sleath.com/portfolio4.htm
If in any doubt about Mopar capabilities look here and scroll down to Paul Strange
http://www.john-sleath.com/portfolio4.htm
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff