geoff shep
|
 posted on 13/10/02 at 12:21 PM |
|
|
V6 anyone?
Am considering (keenly) replacing my 2l pinto with 2.8 V6 for looks, power, sound, winter project etc. But don't know enough about compatibility -
like will it fit my type 9 box and will it fit? Can injection system easily be replaced by carb and inlet manifold? Was anticipating buying whole
donor car to cater for engine/box/propshaft matching.
Can anyone provide basic dimensions eg length, width and height.
Any info gratefully received.
(Wish I'd found this site sooner - I've just scrapped a pinto and a good 5 spd box which no-one wanted locally even for free!)
|
|
|
|
|
Alistair Mc
|
| posted on 14/10/02 at 03:30 PM |
|
|
the gearbox is not the same as a pinto, the bellhousing is longer on a v6 box and so is the input shaft. early granada 2.8 had a carb, mark 2 I think.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 14/10/02 at 07:21 PM |
|
|
hi
the v6 2.4 / 2.9 series cologne engines, when fitted to a manual box, USE A TYPE 9. Certainly from 1987 E reg on a Granada they did cos thats what my
car has! This is the 2.4 version of the 2.9 cologne which is basically a developed version of the 2.8.
The earlier granada did have a carb, but its the non cologne engine, and that probably does not have a type 9 box.
Take a look in the pictures section under my name and you will see a fair few pics of my engine.
The length is a couple inches shorter than a pinto. The width will go into a seven, but the height might give you more of a concern. The injection is
fairly high, and the carb version cos of the V has the carb in the centre of the V. I would suspect you might need a pancake filter thro the bonnet,
or raise your bonnet line a bit.
If you are desperate for measurements I copuld measure mine, but its under a pile of crap at the moment due to garage extension work!
atb
steve
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 14/10/02 at 08:40 PM |
|
|
quote:
The earlier granada did have a carb, but its the non cologne engine, and that probably does not have a type 9 box.
Being older than the average Locoster, I distinctly remember that the Mark 2 Granada came in two basic versions- 2.8 and 2.8i the "i" standing for
injection. All 2.8's are Cologne engines, as opposed to the Essex V6 which was normally 3ltr (some 2.5 versions)
I personally would not swap a decent pinto for a carbed v6, not much extra power and more weight. Also fuel distribution problems due to the carb
sitting over the two middle cylinders. Also exhaust system hassles.
John
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 14/10/02 at 08:59 PM |
|
|
Why not keep the injection - what's wrong with it? The Type-9 certainly uses a different bellhousing with the V6. I've got one - you can have it.
If there is an issue with the gearbox input shaft length then you can have my type-9 box too (christ I'm generous today). It's a 4x4 type-9 box but
the front half is the same as any 2WD type-9 box so you could just use that and fit it to the back part of your type 9 box, assuming the input shafts
are indeed different and you cant just use your type-9 box.
In fact you can have my 2.8i V6 if you like too. It worked fine but it has no sump, and when I removed it from the Sierra I didn't take much care to
keep bits I removed (injection etc). Oh and I removed the exhaust manifolds with a big hammer and the wiring/throttle cables etc with an angle
grinder. Good for spares maybe.
As for whether it's worth it, well its got 150bhp so about 30-40 more than a standard 2.0 pinto. What you'll really notice is over 160lbft of
torque - probably not far off double that of the pinto. Price is about 40kg extra weight (a 2l pinto is a little under 140kg and a 2.8 cologne is a
little under 180kg) so it will be rather a lot quicker. And it sounds a hell of a lot nicer than any 4-banger. Will stick out of your bonnet like a
blower on a yank hot rod.
Sounds like a great winter project  .
Liam
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 14/10/02 at 10:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Being older than the average Locoster, I distinctly remember that the Mark 2 Granada came in two basic versions- 2.8 and 2.8i the "i" standing for
injection. All 2.8's are Cologne engines, as opposed to the Essex V6 which was normally 3ltr (some 2.5 versions)
I personally would not swap a decent pinto for a carbed v6, not much extra power and more weight. Also fuel distribution problems due to the carb
sitting over the two middle cylinders. Also exhaust system hassles.
John
I agree with you on the cologne thing - the essex was a 3.0 and i think the smaller one was a 2.3 - did a 2.5 ever exist?
As far as a 'decent' pinto over a cologne, it depends on how you compare.....
2.8 = 150hp
2.8 (or was it 3.0) with mech efi on the capri = 160hp
2.3 = crappy 115hp
2.4 = 130 hp
2.9= 150hp.
The 2.4 and 2.9 are better engines has they have better exhaust porting and a chain drive cam rather than self destruct cardboard gears.
Now lets look at the 2.0 pinto :
non efi = 105 hp
efi = 115hp.
Now, if you look at the haynes manual weights for a pinto and a v6 granny, theres a 65 kilo difference - prob not all engine, but lets say it is.
If a locost comes in at around 600 kilos, its gonna add about 10% more weight with a v6.
A 150hp V6 at 150hp compared to a std pinto at 105 is near as dam it 50% more power for no cost extra for a 10% increase weight penalty.
What ever way you do the math, the V6 is better.
HOWEVER the concept of a locost is a light road burner. I might have mentioned my car isnt std  and my car can take the extra weight.
I know a pinto is fabled to be able to be tuned to 150hp but we are talking megabucks - a cologne comes free with a scrapped granada.
Given a free choice I would have used the V6 vauxhall engine in 2.5 form thats currently used. smooth, revs freely, and makes a last model cavalier
do 0-60 in 7.5 and 148 mph - making 170hp - so you can imagine what it would be like in a locost!
atb
steve
PS for Liam.
I have kept the EFI. Seems that people dont for three reasons : perception (or reality) that the engine is taller with efi, that carbs might make more
power and finally, scared of the electrics.
I cant see on the v6 that the carb would be lower - it might even be higher. Dunno if a carb is better for power on this engine. USing the haynes
manual and stripping the SEPERATE loom from the efi off the car, mine worked first time. But then im an electronics person.
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 15/10/02 at 07:45 AM |
|
|
The 2.5 was a version of the essex V6. The 2.3 was a version of the cologne engine
About the decent pinto thing. NOT megabucks. All you need is a decent cam (surely you would change the cam anyway, when preparing an engine for locost
use) and a second hand rejetted weber 38dgas (twin choke as used on many v6's), I expect a locoster would be using a new 4 branch manifold anyway,
hey presto 130-135 bhp.
I don't think we should rely too much on published fugures, they are for new engines in rather different installations. The 130 bhp figure for the
pinto set up as above is based on my experience and many others.
John
|
|
|
Alistair Mc
|
| posted on 15/10/02 at 08:27 AM |
|
|
As for the cam, a kent cam for the 2.9 and 2.8 v6 is available. Listed with a 22 bhp increase in power. not bad for just a cam change. with decent
exhusts this will make 2.9 v6 about 180 bhp. plus these engines are are very strong, and easy to get hold of.
As you may have guessed I am using a 2.9 in my locost.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 15/10/02 at 09:12 AM |
|
|
How convenient that my Dad's 2.9i manual has just gone tits up then!
It's 'E' reg and he keeps going on about when he took it to the garage once they told him that his gearbox is rubbish and that the one that came
out a year later was far better.
Is this really the case? Aren't they basically a Type9?
Cheers,
James
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 15/10/02 at 09:57 AM |
|
|
If one already has a V6 which they know to be in condition then they should use it. They should NOT use carburettor, only injection. 2 reasons, 1.
fuel distribution, carb sits over middle 2 cylinders 2. bore wash, over fuelling causing neat petrol to wash oil off the cylinder bores and causing
premature bore wear, leading to 6 rebores and 6 new pistons.
I built a 3ltr v6 Dutton many years ago and it went very well. It had a 3ltr 4spd capri gearbox which worked just fine, difficult to overload a
gearbox in a light car due to lack of traction on road tyres.
If I already had a 'decent' pinto in a locost, however, I would not change it for a V6.
John
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
Alistair Mc
|
| posted on 15/10/02 at 10:39 AM |
|
|
later granadas used a mt75 box, this will be the one they are refering to. lighter and stronger than the type9 they started using them about 1990.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 15/10/02 at 12:07 PM |
|
|
quote:
later granadas used a mt75 box, this will be the one they are refering to. lighter and stronger than the type9 they started using them about
1990.
Thanks. That's what I thought they must be refering to. Is there much difference between the Granada Type9s and MT75s and the Sierra ones (other than
the size as mentioned above)?
My father reckons that at 100mph his is only doing 3000RPM so I guess the ratios may not be desperately useful in a Locost.
Thanks,
James
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 15/10/02 at 01:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
My father reckons that at 100mph his is only doing 3000RPM so I guess the ratios may not be desperately useful in a Locost.
Thanks,
James
I'd be a bit surprised if the Granada gearing is actually as tall as that, but in any case this is more to do with the final drive ratio and the
wheel/tyre size than it is the gearbox.
5th gear is virtually the same in type 9 and MT75 gearboxes BTW
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
Pure5ty1e
|
 posted on 15/10/02 at 02:14 PM |
|
|
New to this site. Thought id let you know,
Theres a 24 Valve Cosworth V6 on ebay going for less than a grand, That would be my choice. Use the engine, sell the rest.
Must be fun with this in, and would look more impressive.
Cheers
John.
|
|
|
Macca
|
| posted on 15/10/02 at 02:20 PM |
|
|
I know of one for less!
A lot less.
Col.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 15/10/02 at 02:27 PM |
|
|
There's a 2.0 turbo engine going for £700.
Go on somebody-make another Hicost! 
James
|
|
|
Alistair Mc
|
| posted on 15/10/02 at 02:29 PM |
|
|
friend of mine has a 24v granada, I think it cost him £450. Heads are quite large on the 24v might have a problem fitting it in a locost, I know a
standatd 2.9 has a few problems see my photo archive
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 15/10/02 at 06:36 PM |
|
|
according to the ratios in the manual that came with my donor, there is no difference in the v6 to any other 2.0 engine gearing when fitted to the
granada.
I got a spread sheet from TOL that calcs gear speeds, and at 3000 in top, it would be doing around 73 mph.
Are you sure its a 2.9 manual - they are pretty rare.
Agree with the poster earlier - you can cam and pipe a V6 and get a power gain too, so the 150hp gets bigger as would a pinto given similar tuning.
atb
steve
|
|
|
