Rob Allison
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 04:26 AM |
|
|
To use the V6 duratec in rwd you need the gearbox from an S-type jag. This is the 3.0L duratec rwd and not the one based on the Mondeo (x-type).
There is also a US model that also uses the 3.0L V6 in rwd form but i can't remember the name of it. Manual box goes for £500 to £1500 new
|
|
|
|
|
marksimon
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 06:36 PM |
|
|
I've done a bit of research about fitting a Jaguar V6 engine into a 7 type car.
The following are my key findings:
The Ford and Jaguar V6 duratec engines have a similar block, and that the cylinder heads and valve gear are the key differences. The Ford uses
roller finger followers for the valve actuation, the Jaguar uses mechanical buckets. The Jaguar engine has a forged steel crankshaft; I do not know
what type is used in the Ford engine.
Power and torque for the Jaguar engines are high even considering there capacity, and it is easy to extract over 280 BHP for the Jaguar 3.0 via
throttle bodies and a good exhaust. The bottom end is good for about 330 BHP according to Mountune (to get to 330 BHP you also need to add new set
of cams). I suspect that this is ample power for a 7 type car; I look forward to the day when I drive such a beast.
Engine weights are not as bad as I first expected. In the Jaguar installation the engine is about 150kg - this includes all fluids, the aircon
compressor and power steering pump, the exhaust manifolds (heavy cast iron items of about 8kg) and the heavy inlet system (about 9 kg), although it
does not include the flywheel or starter. In a seven type car I estimated the engine and transmission weight to be about 170kg including starter
motor, flywheel, throttle bodies, exhaust manifold and alternator.
The best option I found for the inlet was two sets of throttle bodies from a Triumph three cylinder, thus saving about 6kg, should enable more power,
and are relatively cheap, just need a little bit of time to get to fit.
The easiest gearbox to use is the Getrag 221 as used in the Jaguar S-Type and Lincoln LS V6. It is quite compact and light - about 33 kg.
In my opinion, the Jaguar V6 seemed to offer one of the best routes to cheap reliable horsepower whilst remaining relatively light. The Nissan V6
from the 350z may be even more attractive an option if available. I guess it will be a similar weight and would give more power.
Regards,
Mark
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 06:46 PM |
|
|
That's the way forward I was planning on the tb's. Two sets from triumph speed triples. They were quite cheap last time I looked, since
most need 4 pot sets.
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 06:52 PM |
|
|
Is 78k miles excessive on these engines? I know a zetec's good for 200k with regular belt and oil changes.
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 06:57 PM |
|
|
Interesting info!
Out of interest - where did you get the engine weight figure from?
Liam
|
|
|
RazMan
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 07:08 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DIY Si
Is 78k miles excessive on these engines? I know a zetec's good for 200k with regular belt and oil changes.
Just about run in really - I stripped an 80K engine and there was practically no wear that could be measured.
Cheers,
Raz
When thinking outside the box doesn't work any more, it's time to build a new box
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 07:11 PM |
|
|
Mmmm. Might try sneaking buying another engine.  God know's where I'd put it though. So mileage should be treated as per the zetec? Or
just ignored if there's a fsh?
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 07:35 PM |
|
|
Yeah that's nothing for a lazy v6! I wouldn't be surprised if the cambelt interval is 40000 so at 78 it will need a belt and tensioner
kit. But you'd do that anyway for your locost...
Liam
|
|
|
RazMan
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 07:40 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Liam
Yeah that's nothing for a lazy v6! I wouldn't be surprised if the cambelt interval is 40000 so at 78 it will need a belt and tensioner
kit. But you'd do that anyway for your locost...
Liam
No cambelt - 'tis chain 
Cheers,
Raz
When thinking outside the box doesn't work any more, it's time to build a new box
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 07:50 PM |
|
|
Oh yeah, duuuuuur. Fantastic then!! Would be nice to see history with it then i suppose, just so you know it's not still running on original
oil.
|
|
|
marksimon
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 08:31 PM |
|
|
Liam,
Engine as shipped weight and gearbox weight are from information supplied by Jaguar Technical Information.
Component weights are approximate based on measurements taken by myself.
Mark
|
|
|
major
|
| posted on 30/7/06 at 05:47 PM |
|
|
A little late!!
Next to the getrag 221, a MCT-5 (sucsessor of the type 9, sort off) will be an option. A bellhouse is beeing developed by Power torque I heard. Also
the S-type is not the only one the morgan roadster is also has a Duratec 3.0L V6 RWD.
|
|
|
major
|
| posted on 30/7/06 at 05:47 PM |
|
|
A little late!!
Next to the getrag 221, a MCT-5 (sucsessor of the type 9, sort off) will be an option. A bellhouse is beeing developed by Power torque I heard. Also
the S-type is not the only one the morgan roadster is also has a Duratec 3.0L V6 RWD.
|
|
|
rocket
|
| posted on 6/8/06 at 07:41 AM |
|
|
v6 ford
Just to throw a spanner in the works. . . .
Why all the talk of a nice sounding heavy v6 that will cost good money to put in ( gearbox etc.)
When you can get a rover 3.9 at 225-300bhp that weighs much less and will sound even better?
Am I missing something here?
Plus it's been done and it works!
Or is this the point
Rgds
Roger
|
|
|
.JPG)
