RE: PH Zeroes: Rambo Lambo

[f111lover]

Utter bo**oks, fantastic car, sounded great. Bet this guy drives a Fiat 500 or something!

[alexmckie]

Anybody got spare £80k

http://www.classicdriver.com/uk/find/4100_results....

[BLUETHUNDER]

300bhp/ton said:

BLUETHUNDER said:

I would just like to point out that the VM used in the RR Classic(Only LandRover product it was used in)was a dreadful,hateful engine.Underpowered,and couldnt perform at the best of times.Had a tendancy to do head gaskets,and with the stupid design of four individual heads,it made a very expensive repair.The 200 and 300 tdi were a godsend when they were announced.

Which variant of the VM engine are you referring too?

The early 2.4 was underpowered compared to the 3.5 RV8 (the only alternative engine at the time). But it marked the first step to a diesel powerplant for the Range Rover.

Even in this guise it was still more powerful than Land Rover's own 2.5 Diesel Turbo as found in the 90/110's of the time.

The latter revised 2.5 VM TD was a very good engine. We had one almost from new for many many years. It was very reliable and a good power plant for the Range Rover. It easily out performed 200 and even 300 TDI's in stock trim (had a number of these too).

The only downer was mpg, it usually managed 24-26 in the Range Rover. Compared to 200/300TDI's that'll do ~28mpg in the same vehicle.


The latter 2.5 VM TD made 121bhp and 209ft lb compared to the 200TDI which only made 111bhp and 195ft lb.

So how exactly is it, as you say - underpowered?

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 16th January 13:00

Both engines were pants.Apart from head issues.They lacked low down torque.You seem to be the only one that likes it.Which puts you in a very small minority.It might have marked the step forward for a diesel Range Rover.But it wasnt going to be with a VM unit!.

[Virage166]

Worst article on PH ever.

[300bhp/ton]

mechsympathy said:

300bhp/ton said:

Stuff

Power pedantry aside, there's no question the VM engines lunch head gaskets.

???

What on everyone of the many many engines they make for marine and automotive use??

Prove it mate?

Never heard of it with the Range Rover VM, we didn't have a problem in 10 years with it and I know where the vehicle is and its still running.

[300bhp/ton]

BLUETHUNDER said:

300bhp/ton said:

BLUETHUNDER said:

I would just like to point out that the VM used in the RR Classic(Only LandRover product it was used in)was a dreadful,hateful engine.Underpowered,and couldnt perform at the best of times.Had a tendancy to do head gaskets,and with the stupid design of four individual heads,it made a very expensive repair.The 200 and 300 tdi were a godsend when they were announced.

Which variant of the VM engine are you referring too?

The early 2.4 was underpowered compared to the 3.5 RV8 (the only alternative engine at the time). But it marked the first step to a diesel powerplant for the Range Rover.

Even in this guise it was still more powerful than Land Rover's own 2.5 Diesel Turbo as found in the 90/110's of the time.

The latter revised 2.5 VM TD was a very good engine. We had one almost from new for many many years. It was very reliable and a good power plant for the Range Rover. It easily out performed 200 and even 300 TDI's in stock trim (had a number of these too).

The only downer was mpg, it usually managed 24-26 in the Range Rover. Compared to 200/300TDI's that'll do ~28mpg in the same vehicle.


The latter 2.5 VM TD made 121bhp and 209ft lb compared to the 200TDI which only made 111bhp and 195ft lb.

So how exactly is it, as you say - underpowered?

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 16th January 13:00

Both engines were pants.Apart from head issues.They lacked low down torque.You seem to be the only one that likes it.Which puts you in a very small minority.It might have marked the step forward for a diesel Range Rover.But it wasnt going to be with a VM unit!.

I doubt I'm the only one who likes it. I know many who have driven them.

It's just one of those band wagons that the internet junkies jump on and start spewing BS about.

[BLUETHUNDER]

300bhp/ton said:

BLUETHUNDER said:

300bhp/ton said:

BLUETHUNDER said:

I would just like to point out that the VM used in the RR Classic(Only LandRover product it was used in)was a dreadful,hateful engine.Underpowered,and couldnt perform at the best of times.Had a tendancy to do head gaskets,and with the stupid design of four individual heads,it made a very expensive repair.The 200 and 300 tdi were a godsend when they were announced.

Which variant of the VM engine are you referring too?

The early 2.4 was underpowered compared to the 3.5 RV8 (the only alternative engine at the time). But it marked the first step to a diesel powerplant for the Range Rover.

Even in this guise it was still more powerful than Land Rover's own 2.5 Diesel Turbo as found in the 90/110's of the time.

The latter revised 2.5 VM TD was a very good engine. We had one almost from new for many many years. It was very reliable and a good power plant for the Range Rover. It easily out performed 200 and even 300 TDI's in stock trim (had a number of these too).

The only downer was mpg, it usually managed 24-26 in the Range Rover. Compared to 200/300TDI's that'll do ~28mpg in the same vehicle.


The latter 2.5 VM TD made 121bhp and 209ft lb compared to the 200TDI which only made 111bhp and 195ft lb.

So how exactly is it, as you say - underpowered?

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 16th January 13:00

Both engines were pants.Apart from head issues.They lacked low down torque.You seem to be the only one that likes it.Which puts you in a very small minority.It might have marked the step forward for a diesel Range Rover.But it wasnt going to be with a VM unit!.

I doubt I'm the only one who likes it. I know many who have driven them.

It's just one of those band wagons that the internet junkies jump on and start spewing BS about.

Nothing to do with the internet fella.Comes from many years around LR products.More than enough experiance of all things LR mate!.

[dealmaker]

Virage166 said:

Worst article on PH ever.

Spot on - we need to take the author outside - I've got some old sports socks with pool balls in the end - give him a good pasting eh? The LM002 is class!!

Oh..BLUTHUNDER..let me know if you ever decide to sell the 50th!

[300bhp/ton]

BLUETHUNDER said:

300bhp/ton said:

BLUETHUNDER said:

300bhp/ton said:

BLUETHUNDER said:

I would just like to point out that the VM used in the RR Classic(Only LandRover product it was used in)was a dreadful,hateful engine.Underpowered,and couldnt perform at the best of times.Had a tendancy to do head gaskets,and with the stupid design of four individual heads,it made a very expensive repair.The 200 and 300 tdi were a godsend when they were announced.

Which variant of the VM engine are you referring too?

The early 2.4 was underpowered compared to the 3.5 RV8 (the only alternative engine at the time). But it marked the first step to a diesel powerplant for the Range Rover.

Even in this guise it was still more powerful than Land Rover's own 2.5 Diesel Turbo as found in the 90/110's of the time.

The latter revised 2.5 VM TD was a very good engine. We had one almost from new for many many years. It was very reliable and a good power plant for the Range Rover. It easily out performed 200 and even 300 TDI's in stock trim (had a number of these too).

The only downer was mpg, it usually managed 24-26 in the Range Rover. Compared to 200/300TDI's that'll do ~28mpg in the same vehicle.


The latter 2.5 VM TD made 121bhp and 209ft lb compared to the 200TDI which only made 111bhp and 195ft lb.

So how exactly is it, as you say - underpowered?

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 16th January 13:00

Both engines were pants.Apart from head issues.They lacked low down torque.You seem to be the only one that likes it.Which puts you in a very small minority.It might have marked the step forward for a diesel Range Rover.But it wasnt going to be with a VM unit!.

I doubt I'm the only one who likes it. I know many who have driven them.

It's just one of those band wagons that the internet junkies jump on and start spewing BS about.

Nothing to do with the internet fella.Comes from many years around LR products.More than enough experiance of all things LR mate!.

Well I'm not doubting your knowledge, but I've got quite extensive LR experience too. Including having owned, part owned, used, driven and sold most of them. I've got 2 at the mo. My Uncle has 5 LR's.

I will admit that for ultimate off roading with stock gearing the VM turbo kicked in too far up the rpms to be ideal. But road use it was not an issue. While touring in Wales the VM easily outran a 200 and later on 300TDI 110 despite the RR weighing more. The same VM powered RR would run to the high side of 95mph on a certain section off non public tarmac where as even my modded 200TDI struggles to better 90mph on the flat.

Having driven many 1000's of miles in a VM Range Rover and having driven pretty much every other LR engine to date, I struggle to see how it was underpowered.

[PiB]

How did the transition from 2 wheel drive to 4 wheel drive and back operate?

A lot of 4x4's had locks you had to manually switch on the front axle at the wheel plus you had to back up so many feet.

[Scotty-Boy]

What a crock of poo!

This car was cool at the time... just because it's dated now does not make it a zero!

It's the same when folk critique music from the past... oh how they giggle at the likes of the 'naff' Rick Astley - didn't stop the bloke from selling squillions of records in his hey-day, so again... he was (popularly) cool at the time!

I hate these snidey pieces of lazy jouralism!

[tonym911]

Scotty-Boy said:

What a crock of poo!

This car was cool at the time... just because it's dated now does not make it a zero!

It's the same when folk critique music from the past... oh how they giggle at the likes of the 'naff' Rick Astley - didn't stop the bloke from selling squillions of records in his hey-day, so again... he was (popularly) cool at the time!

I hate these snidey pieces of lazy jouralism!

Tough crowd! Rick Astley = brilliant. And journalism's got an 'n' in it. Even I no that, and I'm a lazy one.

[BigBen]

Was an article in Classic and Sports car a while back (sadly seem to have chucked all my back issues out) which compared the LM2002 and the Hummer H1 and to confirm what others have written both were produced in response to a tender from the US military hence having the same track width as a tank etc.

The Hummer obviously won and the Lambo didn't. Have only seen one LM2002 and still remember it 20 years on, hero as far as I am concerned

Ben

[groomi]

Article reads like somebody wants to be on Top Gear. These cars are awesome just because they exist at all - and the styling for the mid '80s was spot on.

I'd have one over a Hummer any days of the week - especially with a Countach engine.

[Howitzer]

BLUETHUNDER said:

300bhp/ton said:

BLUETHUNDER said:

I would just like to point out that the VM used in the RR Classic(Only LandRover product it was used in)was a dreadful,hateful engine.Underpowered,and couldnt perform at the best of times.Had a tendancy to do head gaskets,and with the stupid design of four individual heads,it made a very expensive repair.The 200 and 300 tdi were a godsend when they were announced.

Which variant of the VM engine are you referring too?

The early 2.4 was underpowered compared to the 3.5 RV8 (the only alternative engine at the time). But it marked the first step to a diesel powerplant for the Range Rover.

Even in this guise it was still more powerful than Land Rover's own 2.5 Diesel Turbo as found in the 90/110's of the time.

The latter revised 2.5 VM TD was a very good engine. We had one almost from new for many many years. It was very reliable and a good power plant for the Range Rover. It easily out performed 200 and even 300 TDI's in stock trim (had a number of these too).

The only downer was mpg, it usually managed 24-26 in the Range Rover. Compared to 200/300TDI's that'll do ~28mpg in the same vehicle.


The latter 2.5 VM TD made 121bhp and 209ft lb compared to the 200TDI which only made 111bhp and 195ft lb.

So how exactly is it, as you say - underpowered?

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 16th January 13:00

Both engines were pants.Apart from head issues.They lacked low down torque.You seem to be the only one that likes it.Which puts you in a very small minority.It might have marked the step forward for a diesel Range Rover.But it wasnt going to be with a VM unit!.

If this is the engine with 4 seperate cylinder heads then I stripped one and every engineer who looked at it had a bit of a laugh and then walked on. Cmparing it to the wonderful 200TDI is a bit unfair as the 200TDI is actually rather good.

Dave!

[The Moose]

Where the hell can I buy one...???

No, seriously - PM me the details!

[tonym911]

BigBen said:

both were produced in response to a tender from the US military hence having the same track width as a tank etc.

The Hummer obviously won and the Lambo didn't.

Ben

Wonder why? Could it have been because the US Army saw the LM for what it was, ie a rich boy's toy that was totally unfit for whatever purpose you cared to ascribe to it? As a sports car it was hopeless. Nobody (except maybe the Sultan of Brunei) was ever going to use it as an off-roader. As a war tool that you could rely on to get you out of a life-threatening situation? Don't think so. The thing I hate most about the LM was that it pretended to be all those things. And as for it being seen as 'cool' when it came out, that's not my memory of it. Obviously I didn't read every car magazine at the time. Maybe some mags were putting across a different view. All I know is I was editing SuperBike magazine in '86, with several car mags on the same floor, and I can assure you that the journalists I knew at that time were not impressed. They thought it was a stupid thing. So I would refute the point about 'sniping in hindsight' and add the view that that's no better than rose-tinting in hindsight.

[Mars]

DAVE's rerun of Top Gear just had the LM002 going around their track... well HALF of the track. They claimed it ran out of petrol before completing the lap.

This was the general Lamborghini episode where James May drove the Blue Countach.

[BLUETHUNDER]

Howitzer said:

BLUETHUNDER said:

300bhp/ton said:

BLUETHUNDER said:

I would just like to point out that the VM used in the RR Classic(Only LandRover product it was used in)was a dreadful,hateful engine.Underpowered,and couldnt perform at the best of times.Had a tendancy to do head gaskets,and with the stupid design of four individual heads,it made a very expensive repair.The 200 and 300 tdi were a godsend when they were announced.

Which variant of the VM engine are you referring too?

The early 2.4 was underpowered compared to the 3.5 RV8 (the only alternative engine at the time). But it marked the first step to a diesel powerplant for the Range Rover.

Even in this guise it was still more powerful than Land Rover's own 2.5 Diesel Turbo as found in the 90/110's of the time.

The latter revised 2.5 VM TD was a very good engine. We had one almost from new for many many years. It was very reliable and a good power plant for the Range Rover. It easily out performed 200 and even 300 TDI's in stock trim (had a number of these too).

The only downer was mpg, it usually managed 24-26 in the Range Rover. Compared to 200/300TDI's that'll do ~28mpg in the same vehicle.


The latter 2.5 VM TD made 121bhp and 209ft lb compared to the 200TDI which only made 111bhp and 195ft lb.

So how exactly is it, as you say - underpowered?

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 16th January 13:00

Both engines were pants.Apart from head issues.They lacked low down torque.You seem to be the only one that likes it.Which puts you in a very small minority.It might have marked the step forward for a diesel Range Rover.But it wasnt going to be with a VM unit!.

If this is the engine with 4 seperate cylinder heads then I stripped one and every engineer who looked at it had a bit of a laugh and then walked on. Cmparing it to the wonderful 200TDI is a bit unfair as the 200TDI is actually rather good.

Dave!

Thats the one!

[Nuisance_Value]

Tina Turner had a LM002, I believe it was up for sale last year sometime. Unfortunately, she didn't like the manual gearbox so had a five litre Mercedes V8 engine and automatic box fitted..

Read about it here (or anywhere for that matter)..

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/21/private-dancer-...