Jim Warren wrote:
Geoff Mackenzie wrote:

Trouble is, I'm sure I've read somewhere that doing the latter is a
very bad idea on old fashioned diesel engines.

OK, I'm being an armchair mechanic, but my thought would be to fit the
fan you have in front of the rad, definitely remove the original as it
will only cause drag/mechanical loss and keep a careful eye on the
temperature gauge (it does have one? If not, lash one up soon as poss!).

Thanks Geoff, a very useful answer as always!

Likewise, my Triumph PI is a big lump with a need for adequate airflow.
I bought it with the fan removed and in a cardboard box in the boot,
and rather than fit it back, I put an Austin Maestro fan in front of the
radiator. Under most circumstances the forward momentum of the car is
sufficient to keep the engine at normal running temperature (the Maestro
fan has relatively narrow blades, so it doesn't obstruct the airflow
much), and only when I am stationary or crawling in traffic do I need to
put the fan on (when it creates quite a gale - much more powerful than a
Kenlowe).

.... which has reminded me that I'd fitted a Kenlowe to my Vitesse after
the fan was pulled through the radiator in a flood. And I never had any
problems with that either.

Diesels are more efficient than petrol engines (hence more mpg), so I
would have thought that the heat you need to remove would be less than
for a petrol engine of equivalent size.

That makes sense.
Thinking about it a bit, I have a feeling this engine originally came
out of a forklift truck or something similar, so would probably have had
more restricted airflow than it will in the Land Rover.

I can't see any reason why you
should need the engine driven fan - unless it is integral with the
pulley that the fan belt goes round.

No, it just unbolts, leaving the pulley behind.

I'll give it a go...