Greetings fellow CSK-philes!
I have just come across the site - I bought No.153 last October having always wanted a 3 door, somehow Morris Marina door handles never quite seemed right!
As has already ben recorded on the site it had a new 4.6 engine at 120000 miles, (now on 158,000). This was from RPi engineering, the plenum and ancillaries have been retained to keep the original look. Also at that time a new mallory distributor with optical triggering was fitted.
Performance is quite startling for a classic Range Rover; my wife has a T5 Volvo (police spec) and it doesn't seem sluggish in comparison! I am particulary impressed with the brakes, during the recent snow I undertook an, ahem, 'assessment of function' on a deserted side road and the car just stopped with no drama from 30mph.
My only concern with the CSK is 18mpg, I have considered LPG but would not wish to degrade it's value/desirability, although of course the engine is not original - any comments on this would be very welcome.
Best wishes
George Johnson
CSK 153
-
John.Reddie
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:12 pm
Re: CSK 153
Hello
Welcome to the site. I run an LPG'd CSK and have to say that once you've got used to going twice as far for the same money the "originality" argument begins to fade! Not to mention the environmental issues - if we're going to run thirsty vehicles in C21st then perhaps significantly less obnoxious emissions are a good way to (try and) justify it?
I suppose the advantage of any LPG system is that it can always be removed again if a "purist" owner of an oil-well or two decides to acquire the vehicle!!!
Performance-wise I find little difference between gas and petrol until I really push it, and even then it's less than I expected. With your 4.6 things might be more obvious, but RPi have gassed a few in their time and I'd heed their advice.
We hope to arrange a "rally" at some stage this year, so let's have a few "underslung" CSKs out there???
Welcome to the site. I run an LPG'd CSK and have to say that once you've got used to going twice as far for the same money the "originality" argument begins to fade! Not to mention the environmental issues - if we're going to run thirsty vehicles in C21st then perhaps significantly less obnoxious emissions are a good way to (try and) justify it?
I suppose the advantage of any LPG system is that it can always be removed again if a "purist" owner of an oil-well or two decides to acquire the vehicle!!!
Performance-wise I find little difference between gas and petrol until I really push it, and even then it's less than I expected. With your 4.6 things might be more obvious, but RPi have gassed a few in their time and I'd heed their advice.
We hope to arrange a "rally" at some stage this year, so let's have a few "underslung" CSKs out there???
John - CSK072
WebMaster - www.rangerovercsk.com
WebMaster - www.rangerovercsk.com
Re: CSK 153
Hi
My CSK is converted to run on LPG with underslung tanks. I currently drive a Freelander TD4 for work and cover about 22000 miles a year the Range Rover on LPG was more efficient.
My CSK is converted to run on LPG with underslung tanks. I currently drive a Freelander TD4 for work and cover about 22000 miles a year the Range Rover on LPG was more efficient.
Simon CSK
CSK no.98
CSK no.98
Re: CSK 153
Same as Simon, I ran mine on two underslung 33l tanks getting just over 150 mile range, could do over 16 mpg on a steady 70 mph (ahem) run, which was adequate for my purposes at the time, transferred the kit to a friends LSE as I wasn't doing the mileage anymore.
You can do it sympathetically and removing it won't be such an issue, go for an SG system though. The only thing you will have to replace if you go back is the plenum.
You can do it sympathetically and removing it won't be such an issue, go for an SG system though. The only thing you will have to replace if you go back is the plenum.