2.8tdi vs. 3.2 DID / indirect injection vs. direct injection...

[Guest]

... which is the better engine out of the two you rekon? Which would you have if given the choice and why? What are the merrits of both types?

I ask as i'm considering an engine swap for one of my 4x4's... and i don't know whether to go for an indirect engine or a direct injection diesel...

Thanks
Harv.

[TinyTim]

DiD injectors are a lot more expensive to re-furb and they seem a bit overly complicated to me but that's only an opinion based on posts on here mate

[Mudlark]

If you are happy to pay money to get your faults sorted, are not thinking of off-roading it seriously

[Guest]

are the direct injection engines weaker then? Or is it just the electronics that are the weak points?

[Mudlark]

I'm basing it on the weakness of the electronics which are never good when wet

[TinyTim]

I seem to remember a couple of members mention timing chain failures with the 3.2  -\

[Davie]

Not far of Tim, the chains themselfs are ok. What happens is one of the guides (usually the one at the top wears away and once slack can break off and damage the chain buggering the engine. Had mine changed for about

[shaun74]

the 3.2 engine is basically a 2.8 revamped with a lot more electronic trickery to go wrong. O0

[Guest]

The 4m40 (2.8) and 4m41 (3.2) are virtually the same engine block.
The timing chain comment is irrelevant because they are the same for both engines.

The differences lie in

• head (twin-cam 16V direct injection on the Di-D)
• injector pump (ECU controlled on the Di-D)
• electro-trickery
• turbo (much higher boost on the Di-D)
• lower compression on the Di-D (17:1)
• no history of failed heads on the Di-D

I have had my Di-D's ECU totally immersed in water, which did no damage to it whatsoever.
The power output on the Di-D is way beyond the 2.8.
Economy on the Di-D is much better too.

To me the only reason not to do the Di-D would be the cost:

• engine
• wiring loom
• motor electrician to sort out the electrics & electronics

[Guest]

So is the higher turbo boost on the 3.2 a direct result of a lower compression ratio? And by comparisson am I right in guessing the 2.8 has a lower turbo boost and higher compression ratio?