Land Rover Series II

Land Rover Series II: which version to buy

The Land Rover Series II was sold in one generation (1958–1971) as an SUV 3-doors, so the buying choice is not “which generation” but which of the three powertrains. All three share the same name pattern on the gearbox and drive: Manual, 4 speeds, AWD. Ground clearance is 203 mm on every version. Front and rear suspension are Dependent, leaf spring; front and rear brakes are Drum.

The Land Rover Series II was sold in one generation (1958–1971) as an SUV 3-doors, so the buying choice is not “which generation” but which of the three powertrains. All three share the same name pattern on the gearbox and drive: Manual, 4 speeds, AWD. Ground clearance is 203 mm on every version. Front and rear suspension are Dependent, leaf spring; front and rear brakes are Drum. Boost is No on all three. The split is engine only: 2.3 MT at 69 hp (Gasoline), 2.3 MT at 63 hp (Diesel), and 2.0 MT at 52 hp (Gasoline).

There is no restyling listed as a separate generation, and no second body type in the data. Years of sale for every version are 1958-01-01 to 1971-12-31. If two cars are both a Series II, they are the same generation; the arithmetic below is the whole decision.

Specs by version: the three engines side by side

Two rows are both named 2.3 MT. They are not the same car: one is 69 hp / 50 kW Gasoline at 2250 cc; the other is 63 hp / 46 kW Diesel at 2286 cc. Use power and fuel, not the shared label.

Fuel system: Carburetor on 2.3 MT (69 hp) and on 2.0 MT; not measured on 2.3 MT (63 hp). Engine position: Front, longitudinal on both 2.3 MT rows; not measured on 2.0 MT. Fuel grade: 80 on 2.3 MT (69 hp), Diesel on 2.3 MT (63 hp), not measured on 2.0 MT. Compression ratio 6.8 and bore × stroke 77.8 × 105 are listed only for 2.0 MT; both figures are not measured on the two 2.3 MT versions. Peak power rpm is 4000 on 2.0 MT and not measured on both 2.3 MT versions. Torque rpm is not measured on all three.

Engine comparison: power per litre and what the extra displacement buys

2.3 MT (69 hp) makes 69 / 2.250 ≈ 30.7 hp per litre. 2.3 MT (63 hp) makes 63 / 2.286 ≈ 27.6 hp per litre. 2.0 MT makes 52 / 1.997 ≈ 26.0 hp per litre. The Gasoline 2.3 MT is the densest of the three; the Diesel 2.3 MT sits in the middle; 2.0 MT is the least dense.

Displacement order is not the same as power order. The Diesel 2.3 MT is the largest engine at 2286 cc — 36 cc more than the Gasoline 2.3 MT (2250 cc) and 289 cc more than 2.0 MT (1997 cc) — yet it is 6 hp below the Gasoline 2.3 MT (69 − 63) and only 11 hp above 2.0 MT (63 − 52). The Gasoline 2.3 MT is 253 cc larger than 2.0 MT and 17 hp stronger (69 − 52), about 33% more power on 13% more displacement (253 / 1997).

In kilowatts the same ranking holds: 50 kW vs 46 kW vs 38 kW. The Gasoline 2.3 MT is 4 kW above the Diesel 2.3 MT and 12 kW above 2.0 MT. The Diesel is 8 kW above 2.0 MT.

Torque is a one-sided comparison. 2.0 MT lists 140 Nm. Both 2.3 MT versions list torque as not measured, so you cannot rank pull from this catalogue: you only know that the smallest, least powerful engine is the one with a published figure.

Layout is the same where it is measured: 4 cylinders, Inline, boost No. Do not read a different cylinder bank into any version. The Diesel 2.3 MT is still 4 Inline, not a different architecture.

Generations: nothing changed in the catalogue except the engine row

There is 1 generation. Body is SUV 3-doors for that generation. Modification count is 3. Production window is 1958–1971 for the generation and for every version. There is no later Series II generation in this dataset to “buy the facelift” or “avoid the early years” by generation number. Chassis items that are measured do not move between versions: 203 mm clearance, Dependent, leaf spring front and rear, Drum front and rear, Manual 4, AWD.

Choosing a later calendar year inside 1958–1971 is not supported by a second generation row. The only measured differences are the engine table above.

Performance and mpg: what is not measured

0–100, top speed, city consumption, highway consumption, mixed consumption, and CO2 are not measured for 2.3 MT (69 hp), 2.3 MT (63 hp), and 2.0 MT. Eco class is not measured on all three.

You cannot pick a version on 0–100 or mpg from this data. A ranking by “faster” or “thirstier” would be invention. The only performance-adjacent numbers that exist are the power, kW, and the single 140 Nm on 2.0 MT. Fuel type is the other economy-related fact: Gasoline vs Diesel vs Gasoline, with grade 80 only on the 69 hp 2.3 MT.

Dimensions and weight

Kerb weight is not measured on all three versions. Gross weight is not measured on all three. Tank size is not measured. Wheel sizes are not measured.

Ground clearance is 203 mm on 2.3 MT (69 hp), 2.3 MT (63 hp), and 2.0 MT. That is the only dimension in the data. Weight per horsepower cannot be calculated: mass is missing, so 69 hp, 63 hp, and 52 hp cannot be turned into kg/hp.

Body type does not split the choice: every version is SUV 3-doors.

Reliability and problems

No reliability scores, failure rates, or problem lists are in the data. Treat reliability as not measured for 2.3 MT (69 hp), 2.3 MT (63 hp), and 2.0 MT. Shared hardware that is listed — Drum brakes, Dependent, leaf spring suspension, Manual 4, AWD, boost No — is identical, so it does not favour one version over another. Compression 6.8 on 2.0 MT is a spec, not a reliability verdict.

Which version to choose

Buy 2.3 MT (69 hp) if the ranking you care about is power. It is the strongest row: 69 hp / 50 kW, 2250 cc, Gasoline, Carburetor, Front, longitudinal, fuel 80. Versus 2.3 MT (63 hp) you gain 6 hp and 4 kW on 36 cc less displacement, and ≈3.1 hp/L more specific output (30.7 − 27.6). Versus 2.0 MT you gain 17 hp and 12 kW on 253 cc more capacity. You give up the only published torque figure (140 Nm is on 2.0 MT only). Peak-power rpm is not measured on this version.

Buy 2.3 MT (63 hp) if the ranking you care about is Diesel. It is the only Diesel in the set, at 63 hp / 46 kW and the largest displacement, 2286 cc. Versus the Gasoline 2.3 MT you lose 6 hp and 4 kW despite 36 cc more capacity. Versus 2.0 MT you gain 11 hp and 8 kW on 289 cc more capacity. Fuel system, compression, bore × stroke, and torque are not measured here. Engine position is Front, longitudinal. Do not confuse it with the other 2.3 MT: same name, 6 hp less, Diesel not Gasoline.

Buy 2.0 MT if the ranking you care about is the documented 2.0-litre Gasoline spec sheet. It is the weakest: 52 hp / 38 kW at 4000 rpm, 1997 cc, Gasoline, Carburetor. It is the only version with 140 Nm, compression 6.8, and 77.8 × 105 bore × stroke. Specific output is the lowest of the three (≈26.0 hp/L). Engine position and fuel grade are not measured. Versus Gasoline 2.3 MT you give up 17 hp; versus Diesel 2.3 MT you give up 11 hp. You do not give up clearance, gears, drive, springs, or brakes: those match the other two.

What extra money cannot be shown to buy. There are no prices in the data, so “what the extra money buys” is only the spec delta: 17 hp from 2.0 MT to Gasoline 2.3 MT, 11 hp from 2.0 MT to Diesel 2.3 MT, 6 hp between the two 2.3 MT rows, plus Gasoline vs Diesel and the extra measured fields on 2.0 MT. No version buys a different generation, a different body, more speeds, another drive type, more clearance, or measured economy.

Short rule. Same SUV 3-doors, same years 1958–1971, same AWD Manual 4, same 203 mm. Pick 2.3 MT 69 hp for maximum listed power; pick 2.3 MT 63 hp for the only Diesel; pick 2.0 MT for the only 140 Nm and the only full small-engine geometry (6.8, 77.8 × 105, 4000 rpm). Any other ranking — mpg, 0–100, weight, tank, wheels, reliability — is not measured on all three.