Cummins ISF 2.8 in a LR3? Just an question...

R

ROBINSON110

Member
As I'm lurking on the Cummins repower thread and coveting a ISF 2.8 for my 110 this question came to me, would a 2.8 work in a LR3?
I personally rebuilt my '06 4.0 SOHC (Ford motor by the way) and pulling the motor was more straight forward than I thought. If you could isolate the LR3's subsystems so that the computers don't take a dump would it work?

Thoughts?
 
O

Overlander

Well-known member
Callsign: KM4BOR
here's your first obstacle...

"...the R2.8 generally is suitable for Model Year 1999 or earlier light duty trucks."
 
Uncle Douglas

Uncle Douglas

Well-known member
Callsign: delete
fwiw Cummins has asked me to build them a d2 demo/display truck powered with the 2.8 and a 6l80e and they extended the year model up to 2001.
 
Ray_G

Ray_G

Well-known member
ROBINSON110 said:
As I'm lurking on the Cummins repower thread and coveting a ISF 2.8 for my 110 this question came to me, would a 2.8 work in a LR3?
I personally rebuilt my '06 4.0 SOHC (Ford motor by the way) and pulling the motor was more straight forward than I thought. If you could isolate the LR3's subsystems so that the computers don't take a dump would it work?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think you are going to have a hell of a time isolating the subsystems. In theory-and with enough time (& $$$) anything is possible. In application, with the integrated laptop on wheels that is an LR3, I think it would be a tall order.

I believe-and Jimmy or one of our other techs may come along and confirm-there are at least 16 CPUs in the LR3. Connected via a fiber optic MOST ring, these things can't lose a brake light bulb without it affecting the rest of the truck. I can't fathom repowering it and not running into significant issues with the truck wondering where its inputs are as a collective.

Not saying don't do it...just saying you probably want a computer engineer on the team.
r/s
Ray
 
R

ROBINSON110

Member
I concur with the prevailing sentiment. It would be all about keeping the computer happy.
It was just a hypothetical and came to mind after rebuilding my LR3 4.0 SOHC. I mean that 4.0 has been used in so many diffrent Ford vechial applications.
Other than the LR3 proprietary air intake and a few other sensors it was practically a Ford Explorer motor set up, and that got me thinking about a diesel repower.
 
O

OH+D

Member
The fiber optic MOST ring is strictly for the infotainment system, not powertrain or body control. It may be a relatively easy swap (compared to swapping any other engine into an LR3) due to the J1939 (CAN bus) interface that the 2.8 has. It would depend on what outputs are available. Would have to play with it.

Adam
 
R

ROBINSON110

Member
OH+D said:
The fiber optic MOST ring is strictly for the infotainment system, not powertrain or body control. It may be a relatively easy swap (compared to swapping any other engine into an LR3) due to the J1939 (CAN bus) interface that the 2.8 has. It would depend on what outputs are available. Would have to play with it.

Adam
Click to expand...
Interesting...I was thinking along those lines but was unsure of how the total system would interface. I think that most folks would be surprised at just how straight forward a LR3 engine replacement is, I'm by no means an expert but with online, and forum resources it was easier than I would have thought.
Anyway, it's definitely food for thought. Now, back to the 110!
 
O

OH+D

Member
Removing/replacing like for like (especially a V6 with tons of room) is easy. That is 1/10th the effort of an engine conversion. In addition to the electronics, which would likely amount to 100+ hours of problem solving, we'd also need a custom machined adapter and possibly flywheel to mate the 2.8 to the LR3 ZF 6HP transmission.
 
jymmiejamz

jymmiejamz

Founding Member
Callsign: KN4JHI
Anything is possible with enough time and money, but my question would be why? The engine is one of the only redeeming factors of the LR3 in my opinion.
 
1of40

1of40

Well-known member
Shitty fuel economy is true but the delta in total cost of ownership isn’t really even interesting, is it?
 
A

Adam

Well-known member
1of40 said:
Shitty fuel economy is true but the delta in total cost of ownership isn’t really even interesting, is it?
Click to expand...

100% Correct.

Putting an $8k diesel motor (not even counting the rest of the job, lets call it $25k - Doug's going rate) in a 15 year old vehicle to extend the time between fill ups has nothing to do with TCO. It has everything to do with the irrational attachment people have for a vehicle or platform.

Sign me up.
 
erover82

erover82

Well-known member
You can buy a lot of fuel for $8k. The "fuel efficiency for long-distance off-grid travel" scenario doesn't make sense either, as the rest of the LR3 isn't nearly reliable or simple enough for such use.
 
WreckITFrank

WreckITFrank

Technical Excellence Contributor
I got rid of my LR3 mainly due to my 12MPG/19MPG long trip in a not so fun 4.4l. Ultimately left LR as my daily due to no diesel option in something I could afford. I love the 28, and would love to see one in there regardless of how practical it may be. Why not just go large and do an LS swap? The dude that did one some years ago claimed it had better mileage anyway.
 
Uncle Douglas

Uncle Douglas

Well-known member
Callsign: delete
Red90 said:
I'm sure they show up later at your house to make sure you did not lie about the VIN.
Click to expand...

Short sighted way of thinking.

Of course Cummins has no enforcement. They fulfill their obligation to EPA by getting a valid legal vin.

Aside from being illegal, @ that price point most would rather not lie since they would like the 1600hr/2yr warranty they are paying for, which of course would not be honored if they lied to the mfr.
 
Last edited:
R

Red90

Well-known member
Uncle Douglas said:
Aside from being illegal
Click to expand...

Cummins just does the VIN question thing to prevent getting shut down by the EPA. Plausible deniability. These engines are not "EPA Certified". They have just had testing that shows they could have been certified if it was 1999. Cummins figures it is enough to prevent an angry EPA from chasing them down.

This whole thread is stupid to start with. Anyone crazy enough and capable enough to do an engine swap in an LR3 does not need to ask random people on the internet for help. And they could care less about warranties.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top