Were SU or Strombergs fitted to the 2.6/3.0 Six?

General Landrover stuff, greenlane trips, shows, journeys, stories, etc.
User avatar
fuckwit
Running on six!
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:29 pm

Were SU or Strombergs fitted to the 2.6/3.0 Six?

Postby fuckwit » Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:12 am

LRs generally have issues with the various flavours of Weber, Zenith and Strombergs fitted to 2.25 & 2.5 engines. Whole threads on carbs witter on about this carb or the other. Agreed age doesn't help, yet other marques don't have quite so many problems. I fitted an ACR SU conversion to my 2.5 and have never looked back.

Browsing various places I keep hearing mention of the 2.6 fitted with SU carbs? I thought, even in 'Auntie Rovers' the 2.6 six cylinder left the factory gates with Strombergs. Is the SU a conversion, or did some variants have these?

Th0ma_s
Low Range
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:23 pm

Re: Were SU or Strombergs fitted to the 2.6/3.0 Six?

Postby Th0ma_s » Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:39 pm

My 109 2.6 have a Stromberg 175cd.

So did mye spare engines until i took them of to rebuild the best one of them.

User avatar
fuckwit
Running on six!
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:29 pm

Re: Were SU or Strombergs fitted to the 2.6/3.0 Six?

Postby fuckwit » Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:29 pm

Yes, that's what i thought. Solihull, for whatever reason, always fitted everything else. Never an SU?

DasLandRoverMan
The 1-Ton Welder
Posts: 1274
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:33 am
Location: West Lakes
Contact:

Re: Were SU or Strombergs fitted to the 2.6/3.0 Six?

Postby DasLandRoverMan » Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:14 am

I've seen a few sixes with the SU on them, both 2.6 and 3 litre flavours, although all in Forward Controls, which also got a Stromberg from the factory.

I think part of the reasoning was to do with SU's suffering fuel starvation running at more 'extreme' angles, which the Strombergs didn't get.
Car V8's had SU's from the word go, whilst the Land Rover ones had Strombergs up until the late 80's.
Westlakes All Wheel Drive

Carpe Dentum - Sieze the Teeth!!!

Boehler
Low Range
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:34 pm
Location: Austria

Re: Were SU or Strombergs fitted to the 2.6/3.0 Six?

Postby Boehler » Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:04 pm

Hi,
My FC IIB 2.6 petrol got a SU mounted , plate on it says AUD81.
aud81.jpg
Considering the low mileage and general unmolested state of the vehicle i think this is its original configuration.
Apart from that, the Parts catalogue says so :-D
page 76.jpg
best regards
Alex

User avatar
fuckwit
Running on six!
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:29 pm

Re: Were SU or Strombergs fitted to the 2.6/3.0 Six?

Postby fuckwit » Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:06 am

I had heard the SU wasn't so good at extreme angles, WW2 Spitfires were fitted with a form of SU, which was a disadvantage against the fuel-injected opposition.

Despite the "No good on inclines" trope, almost the complete British Leyland car line-up at the time had SUs. I did wonder why some didn't stray to Rover. Seems they did.


In a leafer, at angles where this matters, can't see it myself, you will have already fallen out of the thing.

My 12YO boy likes to sit out back, tail-gunner position. Next time I pull negative G with a BMW on my tail, I'll let you know.

User avatar
22900013A
The 1-Ton Wonder
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:22 am
Contact:

Re: Were SU or Strombergs fitted to the 2.6/3.0 Six?

Postby 22900013A » Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:09 pm

As well as FCs, early bonneted sixes had the SU.
http://sebvehicles.blogspot.co.uk/
http://eblrs.org/
1966 IIA Swb 24125067C ex-SEB managers vehicle HMO968D
1969 IIA 1-Ton 22900013A ex-SEB NBK148G
1972 III 1-Ton 26600078A ex-SEB Cherrypicker VJT440L
1973 III 1-Ton 26600082B ex-SEB MRX287L


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest