Basic V-6 Tech Specs, etc.

[zin]

Well, always one to be contrarian, and provide myself a challenge, I'm thinking about a V-6 Shadow build, assuming I can find one and at a decent price...

Seems there is less love for these cars and so I wouldn't feel too bad if I got a bit more radical than what I'd feel comfortable doing with any of the more rare cars I've got.

So, I'm looking for strengths/weaknesses of the various flavors of V-6 that could be made to fit, not just the stock 3.0... After all, a "good big one" is always better than a "good little one"!

I don't think I could stand to not be turbo'd so that's a factor too.

I expect custom pistons, but what about rods/crank and the block? Do we have a good idea what the stock parts can deal with or am I just going to have to blow stuff up? :eyebrows:

Thanks in advance for any and all help/pointers!

Mike

[MC#4]

Don't bother with all the nitty-gritty details! V6 is where it's at, just dive in head first and join the dark side of TM! LoL

I'm typing on an iPod or I'd get into more detail, but If you Check out a few build threads in the 3.0 section you will find some great info.

[zin]

That's a great idea! (should have thought of that).

I'd appreciate the other tips, etc as a short cut to addressing the weak links. Ultimately I was inspired to do a AWD V-6 Shadow by reviewing this thread: http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?51141-AWD-Dodge-Shadow

Just seems like it's more doable and not going to require me to cut up a GLH, GLHS, Spirit R/T or 86 Aries turbo wagon... I do like the rare and obscure cars... but I don't want to cut any of them up to fit the AWD stuff, plus, the AWD Vans were V-6 to start with, so many of the issues other than body modifications go away...

Mike

[Reaper1]

The 3.0 has proven that stock internals can withstand 500+whp with a good tune.

Vigo likes all flavors of the V6's. The only drawback to the 3.3/3.8 is that you have to find a manual transmission from a 2.7 car if you want stick, plus there's even less support for those. Not saying they can't make power (that's been proven untrue a long time ago)...just that it'll be a little more in the "dark" so-to-speak. I know there's been at least 1 3.3 boosted...I don't know of any 3.8's.

Oh, and it's basically unknown whether you can adapt the AWD system to the manual tranny of the 2.7. So, if AWD is the way you want to go, the 3.0 is a better bet right out of the box.

[MC#4]

Ok got to a pc so I'll throw my very humble opinion out with some info I'm snagged from the forums over the past 2 years.

3.0 is definately the popular choice if you go V6, although there are a few 3.5 builds going on right now which could end up yielding big power. I'm not gonna pretend to know much about the 3.5 swap so I'll stick to the 3.0 stuff. The DOHC 3.0 in the stealths/3000gt's has potential for MASSIVE power (TT's have made well over 1000whp in the 3S world) I've seen one swapped into a neon and one in a shadow but it is not a popular swap. SOHC 3.0's used in the chrysler cars have alot of potential if you take the time to piece it all together and drop some cash/time on custom parts. You can't buy much of anything high performace off the shelf for a SOHC. Everything is made to order and generally costs a bit more because of that.

Trails have been blazed long ago if you decide to use the good 'ol SOHC 3.0 found in the chrysler cars. All the important stuff has been documented and there are several knowledgable members on here who know everything you could ever want to know about them. Forged pistons have been made, Forged cranks can be sourced if you get REALLY crazy, Cams can be reground and new billet cams can be had, Turbo manifolds are available, Head porting has been done with success, engine management is tricky but very doable with a stand alone like megasquirt or AEM EMS. I think alot of people are scared to jump ship from 4 bangers to try and modify the 3.0 for big power since its so seldom done, but I see BIG potential with the right combination of parts and good old perserverance.

[shayne]

rule of thumb i kept seeing is stock cast crank up until ~550 whp with failures around 600 depending on tune. i kept reading ~600-700whp on stock forged rods. cast pistons? dont know, but i chose to go forged. head porting can reach 200cfm intake with work compared to ?180-190cfm from a 2.2-2.5l head plus you got 2 more cylinders extra. motors are really undercammed and respond well to a cam change. closed combustion chamber for good detonation resistance. at least a minimum of a two bolt per main bedplate, waaay better than the mains on a 2.2-2.5. very thick cylinder walls, i had mine checked at work before machining and it speced out to .260-.310 thick, lots better than nearly all 4 cylinders from chrysler. torquey as can be. what's to not like?

[Vigo]

Shayne is quickly becoming a top 3.0 expert, he's one to watch!

Also, i think the intake on the 12v 3.0 head has been ported to flow closer to 250cfm than 200.. It starts fairly close to 200!

I think if you want to do AWD, you have to be planning turbo anyway since there's no point to AWD at n/a v6 power levels unless you go REALLY crazy. If you can stand to run an auto, turning a factory 3.0/4spd Shadow into an AWD will be the simplest build (and you might as well keep SOMETHING simple because you're already talking AWD swap and custom turbo setup!). The only big downside there is that we dont have a way to modify the way the transmission shifts other than converting it to autostick. Shelgame has expressed ambitions in that direction but until enough people get on the 604 bandwagon i doubt it will become a priority. The plus side is that if you ask people who have looked at the insides of both the 604 and the old 3spd, people will tell you that the 604 appears be as strong if not stronger right out of the box as far as hard parts. Its main failing as far as hard parts is it CANNOT take turbo torque in 4th gear, its simply too small of a clutch pack to hold full power from a boosted motor. Doesnt really matter because you can gear a 604 to go 150 in 3rd and make all the power to do it with a turbo 3.0. There are people who have had 604s built up and put a good amount of torque through them, so it's not like it's a completely unproven thing. I think a 600hp neon ran a 604 for a while with completely stock internals but aftermarket shift controls. SebringLX here has/had a turbo 2.4 sebring with built internals and stock controls. PT GTs had them from the factory and some of them are making a lot of power.

So that'd be my vote. 3.0/auto/AWD shadow. But, if you want 3.0/5spd/awd, it can and has been done.

It's a personal ambition of mine to make some power on a 3.8 car (i just put one together and have a thread for it in the project log section) but as of right now, there's extremely thin/poor documentation on doing it, and unless you just want to make your job more complicated i dont think the 3.3/3.8 family is worth an engine swap over a factory 3.0 shadow which comes with an extremely strong, proven motor.

[bakes]

I still want to do the 3.5l turbo motor with 3.2l front cover and 2.7l stick and put it in a T&C wagon

[shayne]

not an expert at all, just good at reading and regurgitating facts and numbers ive read before, and following good advice after careful thought.

my thought was this, it takes major work to make a 4cyl mopar to touch 600-700 whp with very much of it experimental and close kept secrets from those in the know, the nice part about the mitsu v6 is the road is already paved for you you just chose your path, lots of guys pumping out big power with various examples of dohc and sohc 24valves, with fewer but several strong examples of 12 valves built up, i feel the power potential is much greater with these motors. the next go around with my motor i will be springing for the forged crank and h-beam rods, rework the heads more, more cam, and more boost and a stand-alone ems. 30-40psi in a 2.2l/2.5l would be really quick but in a nice smooth running 3l v6 it would try to rip your face off.
awd would be nice but based on the advice of a family friend who is a long time dealer mechanic at langley chrysler, i think the viscous coupling in the factory awd setup would prove to be an expensive weak link. he extolled the virtues of seeing many examples of town and country's, pacifica's and a couple other similar chrysler awd's and the weak link in a stock system seems to be the v.c., kind of worrisome considering they arent going to be getting any easier or cheaper to buy, unless an aftermarket supplier steps in to make them for the long term, not likely considering getrag's reputation for hard to find drivetrain parts.

[turbovanman²]

Shayne don't know squat until he drives his car, right now, its a yard queen, hehe!

Shaynes Custom plenum or spacers, internal plenum porting, forged pistons, good assembly, arp fasteners, my cams, Shaynes headers, decent turbo, bigger injectors, maybe head porting, Shelgame modifed computer, piggy back on the stocker or MS, tune, decent clutch, LSD, poly everything, decent tires, go have fun. :nod:

[Vigo]

just good at reading and ... following good advice after careful thought.

That's pretty much all you need!

One of my favorite sayings goes: "If you can do a half---- job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind". I think you're doing a lot better than half----! :p

[Reaper1]

not an expert at all, just good at reading and regurgitating facts and numbers ive read before, and following good advice after careful thought.

my thought was this, it takes major work to make a 4cyl mopar to touch 600-700 whp with very much of it experimental and close kept secrets from those in the know, the nice part about the mitsu v6 is the road is already paved for you you just chose your path, lots of guys pumping out big power with various examples of dohc and sohc 24valves, with fewer but several strong examples of 12 valves built up, i feel the power potential is much greater with these motors. the next go around with my motor i will be springing for the forged crank and h-beam rods, rework the heads more, more cam, and more boost and a stand-alone ems. 30-40psi in a 2.2l/2.5l would be really quick but in a nice smooth running 3l v6 it would try to rip your face off.
awd would be nice but based on the advice of a family friend who is a long time dealer mechanic at langley chrysler, i think the viscous coupling in the factory awd setup would prove to be an expensive weak link. he extolled the virtues of seeing many examples of town and country's, pacifica's and a couple other similar chrysler awd's and the weak link in a stock system seems to be the v.c., kind of worrisome considering they arent going to be getting any easier or cheaper to buy, unless an aftermarket supplier steps in to make them for the long term, not likely considering getrag's reputation for hard to find drivetrain parts.

There are several offroad shops that specialize in rebuilding and modifying VC's. I feel positive that something could be done with the one in our system.

[Irocelectric93]

The intake on my heads from Ed was over 200 for sure. I have a graph somewhere. Ed could probably say what his stage 2 heads do for the most part but it's not super far off from brents heads without valves and such. I think Kreel probably has the best 12v heads i've seen but i don't remember what his flow numbers were.

[c2xejk]

Here is a chart from my port work that I posted in a different thread.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/5729/dohcvs12v.png

Ed Kelly - www.kmperformance.com (http://www.kmperformance.com)

[zin]

Thanks for the charts and the links!

So the V-6s aren't really Chrysler designs, but rather Mitsu? Not that this is a problem of any kind, rather curious as to other options for heads, etc...

Are all the V-6s "related"? As in the 3.3 and 3.8 just being bigger versions of the 3.0? In another arena I plan on building a big bore, short stroke 60* GM V-6 using a 3.4 block and 2.8 crank, and am curious if something like this would be an option on this side of things as well.

Thanks again for the info guys!

Mike

[MC#4]

Thanks for the charts and the links!

So the V-6s aren't really Chrysler designs, but rather Mitsu? Not that this is a problem of any kind, rather curious as to other options for heads, etc...

Are all the V-6s "related"? As in the 3.3 and 3.8 just being bigger versions of the 3.0? In another arena I plan on building a big bore, short stroke 60* GM V-6 using a 3.4 block and 2.8 crank, and am curious if something like this would be an option on this side of things as well.

Thanks again for the info guys!

Mike

I don't know the exact origins but yeah the 3.0 is considered a Mitsu engine. I think chrysler just took the Mitsu version and changed a few things around to fit its own apps.

Not aware of any other heads that will actually work. Oversized valves and port work on stock heads has been done though

Afaik the 3.3/3.8 are similar to each other but share nothing with the 3.0

I believe Ray Pampena has a stroker kit out for the TT 3.0 but I know its big money and I don't know if its applicable to a SOHC but it would be something to check out if money isn't an issue.

[c2xejk]

True, but the Mitsu 3.5L (aka 6g74) and Mitsu 3.8L (aka 6g75) do share some with the 3L (aka 6g72)

[zin]

Ah, I figured there had to be some engines of different displacement with come commonality between them...

I don't think I'll worry about stroking it, more likely to de-stroke it, depending on the L/R ratios, etc.

But for now, I think I'll do best to simply work with what "ain't broke", before I have to fix it!

Now to find that insanely cheap, cherry of a Shadow!

Mike

[MC#4]

Ah, I figured there had to be some engines of different displacement with come commonality between them...

I don't think I'll worry about stroking it, more likely to de-stroke it, depending on the L/R ratios, etc.

But for now, I think I'll do best to simply work with what "ain't broke", before I have to fix it!

Now to find that insanely cheap, cherry of a Shadow!

Mike

I'm not sure how set you are on a shadow but remember the 3.0 came in an absurd number of vehicles. There are a lot of REALLY nice 4-door 3.0 cars that can easily be swapped to a 5-speed. There are a few nice ones around my area for ~$1000 running/driving/inspected.

[shayne]

do a turbo 3l caravan and make simon jealous of the power band

[Reaper1]

Thanks for the charts and the links!

So the V-6s aren't really Chrysler designs, but rather Mitsu? Not that this is a problem of any kind, rather curious as to other options for heads, etc...

Are all the V-6s "related"? As in the 3.3 and 3.8 just being bigger versions of the 3.0? In another arena I plan on building a big bore, short stroke 60* GM V-6 using a 3.4 block and 2.8 crank, and am curious if something like this would be an option on this side of things as well.

Thanks again for the info guys!

Mike

The 3.0 was a joint venture between Chrysler and Mitsu.

There are possible head swaps, but in most cases it's not as easy as plopping on some heads and go...there's usually at least a few peripherals that are different. Brent (Ondonti) has done EXTENSIVE research in this area.

The 3.3/3.8 engines are true ground-up Chrysler designed engines. They share nothing in common with the 3.0 besides most of the bellhousing bolt holes and the flywheel bolt pattern line up.

As for the GM engine..which 3.4 are you talking about? The one from the early 90's, or the newer 3400? From what I know the one from the 90's IS a 2.8 block that has been bored and stroked...they put a balance shaft in where the cam was in the 2.8/3.1 and drove the DOHC heads off of that. It's a GIANT pain in the @ss to work on. The newer 3400 I don't know much about besides it a gutless dog.



I believe Ray Pampena has a stroker kit out for the TT 3.0 but I know its big money and I don't know if its applicable to a SOHC but it would be something to check out if money isn't an issue.

There are/were a few stroker kits for the 3.0. I don't know what's available anymore, but I'd venture to say there is still something out there as it is still a popular engine. It won't be cheap, though.



I don't think I'll worry about stroking it, more likely to de-stroke it, depending on the L/R ratios, etc.

But for now, I think I'll do best to simply work with what "ain't broke", before I have to fix it!

Now to find that insanely cheap, cherry of a Shadow!

Mike

The rod ratio of the 3,0 out of the box is 1.82...can't do much better than that! ;)

[Ondonti]

I don't see any goals listed here so I am not sure what point there is bringing up super specific details on various motors without a purpose.
The proper way to do this would be to have some target points and minimums and then seek motor suggestions that could meet, exceed, or compromise those goals.
For me
__________________________________________________ __
Octane (determines boost level during most situations) Also, will you run race gas sometimes or full time E85?
HP
rpm spool (complicates things with huge power and early spool)
Weight
budget
Use of vehicle.
Interest in oddities.
transmission (clutch or converter or budget or ability to rebuilt or desire to experiment)
Engine management
----Then you look at your turbo choice and see what fits the motor that you want to use. See if it meets low boost, mid boost, and high boost goals. You may never want more then low boost.
__________________________________________________ __________
If the goal is off the beaten path and not modifying a car that has sentimental value, then just go ahead with any version of AWD transmission you feel like and slap a 3.0L on it (or 3.3 which I only include out of respect for vigo). The 3.0 12 valve can be run cheap and if you really like how things turn out you could go crazier on the motor swap but I think its a big step for a project you have been putting off for years (i can say the same for myself).

My Spirit with holset and stock 12 valve motor (with bigger ring gaps...big enough for more then I need) has been holding together with Felpro gaskets on 10 pounds for quite awhile. Trapped 108mph pump gas in a heavier car with stock computer and stock timing and stock rev limiter.
I count about 59 cars on http://www.turbo-mopartimes.com/ with faster trap speeds. One of them is me :P A little more boost (or cam, intake manifold, better exhaust manifold, megasquirt, headwork blah blah blah) and that number would drop a lot. Those cars are almost always running all out to get those trap numbers and my street car is sipping boost, costs, and upkeep on a stock motor.

In those goals I would include octane choice because that makes a big difference on how you set things up and makes a difference in convenience and usage costs.
Joe is running more boost then me on an ebay turbo and did over 300whp with megasquirt controlling timing and fueling etc.

Is this a fun daily with fun innovative drivetrain setup or is this a roadrace car or a drag car or a crazy streetcar that is hard to legally enjoy?
Picking a superior motor platform does often does not equate to superior results. You don't see anyone out here racing their car much and the cars that should be quite fast don't make dyno runs or track visits. Kyles 6262 12 valve with MS3 should be very fun but you don't see him using it once he built it.
I feel that the 12 valve is enough to overcome most transmission setups and that is something I have been considering. JT has been having trouble with 5 speeds without really giving it his all and I don't know if the 3 speeds will work with the awd setup (I have thought this is the only guaranteed way to use big power 6g7x's) and even the 3 speed has serious problems from watching RED SLED's transmission problems. Brian Slowe has the only transmission out there I have seen taking huge abuse and even that failed. When you need that kind of expertise and then have to rely on them during failures, your costs go up.
6g7x's have potential to make more power then any of these transmissions have been proven to hold (at reasonable vehicle weights). I also don't know if choosing a motor just because it has the most potential is a great idea. Do you really want that potential?
I find it more academically pleasing to look at the things the 3.0 12 valve needs to be pushed farther. I feel quite certain that any motor choice I can make fun and not feel like I am doing something inadequate. Anyone who really pushes the idea their motor/car choices are superior and choosing differently makes you "dumb" must be building a catalog LSX Chevy with a powerglide and a ford 9" or they ARE DUMB by their own (i one up'd you) standards.

Reaper wants to build a Masi powered Daytona and has a lot of reasons why he feels it is a great path but we could all list plenty of reasons something else might be better. In the end he has to stick with 'cause I want to" or the project will probably not get finished or feel satisfying.

[Vigo]

Lots of good point here.

My opinion, and ive probably already said it in a more oblique way, is if you are going turbo then DISPLACEMENT DOES NOT HELP YOU. Brent already did at least two versions of a 12v 3.0 that made 500+hp and more torque than you can actually use, and one of them had stock pistons. At that point, what does a stroker kit get you? What does a 3.8 get you over a 3.0? My opinion is it gets you nothing but a whole lot more money dumped into your motor (assuming stroker stuff).

If you are going n/a, displacement may still not even help you, especially if you are stuck with relatively low-flowing top ends (which the 12v 3.0 and the 3.3/3.8 heads are, compared to 24v heads in the same engine families). How much hp do you really want? For example, hyundai has a family car n/a 3.3 that makes about 300hp. Porsche's 3.8s make around 400hp n/a. Do you even want that much power?

But more importantly, if you run one of the lower-flowing top ends, putting more displacement under it just shifts your powerband to the left. Ultimately that may not be as fun as a smaller displacement under the same top end.

So my opinion is not to get hung up on displacement unless you are going for a really mildly-modded n/a motor where 'starting with more' counts for more than the mods you will do to it. Once you get into boost and other serious mods, displacement is not that important.

[zin]

As for the GM engine..which 3.4 are you talking about? The one from the early 90's, or the newer 3400? From what I know the one from the 90's IS a 2.8 block that has been bored and stroked...they put a balance shaft in where the cam was in the 2.8/3.1 and drove the DOHC heads off of that. It's a GIANT pain in the @ss to work on. The newer 3400 I don't know much about besides it a gutless dog.

The 3.4s I'm considering are the SFI OHV version used in the F-Bodies and some S-10s, the Twin Dual Cam has plenty of potential, but those heads make it ginormous! If I was going to fight packaging like that, I'd have to do V-8... they'd fit easier!:D

I'm working with an 81 X-11 and I'm in the People's Republic of Kalifornia, so the iron head version is probably what I'll start with, once it has the carb'd intake on it, you'd be hard pressed to know it's not a stock 2.8... However, I do like me some FI, and I think I could make a destroked 3400sfi look like an earlier 2.8/3.1FI engine... I really hate that I have to subjegate myself to the smog whims of government... especially when what I'll have created will be many times cleaner than what I start with! But I digress...


I don't see any goals listed here so I am not sure what point there is bringing up super specific details on various motors without a purpose.
The proper way to do this would be to have some target points and minimums and then seek motor suggestions that could meet, exceed, or compromise those goals.
For me
__________________________________________________ __
Octane (determines boost level during most situations) Also, will you run race gas sometimes or full time E85?
HP
rpm spool (complicates things with huge power and early spool)
Weight
budget
Use of vehicle.
Interest in oddities.
transmission (clutch or converter or budget or ability to rebuilt or desire to experiment)
Engine management
----Then you look at your turbo choice and see what fits the motor that you want to use. See if it meets low boost, mid boost, and high boost goals. You may never want more then low boost.
__________________________________________________ __________
If the goal is off the beaten path and not modifying a car that has sentimental value, then just go ahead with any version of AWD transmission you feel like and slap a 3.0L on it (or 3.3 which I only include out of respect for vigo). The 3.0 12 valve can be run cheap and if you really like how things turn out you could go crazier on the motor swap but I think its a big step for a project you have been putting off for years (i can say the same for myself).

I didn't get into specific goals beyond AWD and turbo because I didn't know what would be practical, but I do have some basic parameters/limitations, at least to start with.

Briefly they are: A fun, near stock reliable street car that does not require exotic fuel (water injection will be fine) and will surprise the sh!t out of the various high-end sports cars and their owners.

HP? All of it!:lol: If 500HP is possible without exotic parts, I'm all over that, but I don't want to come off as unrealistic. Really, what I have in my head for now, and thanks in no small part to the info provided, is to optimize what's there first. This, to me, means mild porting of the heads (mostly bowl work it seems), cams, intake, etc to complement the heads, and durability upgrades as and if they are required.

Why AWD? Because I like the concept and, if I do it right, I'll need it to put the power down without turning the car into a drag race special, I like to turn too!

Why V-6? Because the AWD will "bolt up" to the drivetrain with less fabrication, and who wouldn't want a "good big one" vs. a "good little one"? Not to mention the inherent advantages of a V-6 over an I-4...

Oh, and I do enjoy the "engineering challenge"/problem solving aspect of doing something "outside the box" to use a tired phrase!:thumb:

So far it seems like my best plan of action is going to simply be to get a V-6 Shadow, add the AWD and the turbo, and see what breaks! Fix that link in the chain and repeat as needed!

Mike

[Vigo]

Alright, sounds like you have a basic plan. Now to turn this into a craigslist thread!

[zin]

I'm not sure how set you are on a shadow but remember the 3.0 came in an absurd number of vehicles. There are a lot of REALLY nice 4-door 3.0 cars that can easily be swapped to a 5-speed. There are a few nice ones around my area for ~$1000 running/driving/inspected.

I do like the look of the Shadow, and it seems like a nice, light platform to start with, but I'm open to suggestions... What other models do you think would be a good candidate?


do a turbo 3l caravan and make simon jealous of the power band

That is a very tempting option, and probably the easiest to do, as the AWD stuff comes from the vans... They are just so heavy!

Mike

[MC#4]

I do like the look of the Shadow, and it seems like a nice, light platform to start with, but I'm open to suggestions... What other models do you think would be a good candidate?



That is a very tempting option, and probably the easiest to do, as the AWD stuff comes from the vans... They are just so heavy!

Mike


The list is endless for me, Virtually any FWD mopar from 87-94 is a possible candidate. There's a part of me that would also love to do a 3.0 van some day just to be different. I don't recall ever seeing a fast 3.0 van.... ever.

[zin]

That is tempting... lots of underhood room (compared to cars), and is AWD ready... And I do have most of the AWD parts (less the trailing axle)...

I wonder what a really nice one would cost... But it is still heavy...

Mike

[MC#4]

That is tempting... lots of underhood room (compared to cars), and is AWD ready... And I do have most of the AWD parts (less the trailing axle)...

I wonder what a really nice one would cost... But it is still heavy...

Mike

Vans are only heavy compared to old turbo dodges. Wiki says second gen vans weighed 3300lbs. Thats about 600 lbs over a shadow. But A TT Stealth weighs 3800lbs.

[shayne]

think of the sucker punch you could deliver to an opponent in a 500hp awd turbo minivan.. you dont get much more different than that. and it just so happens it could be pretty easy to build it, leaving you to dedicate more time to making big power reliably.

[Reaper1]

Reaper wants to build a Masi powered Daytona and has a lot of reasons why he feels it is a great path but we could all list plenty of reasons something else might be better. In the end he has to stick with 'cause I want to" or the project will probably not get finished or feel satisfying.

Truer words never spoken! LMAO! It really is "because I want to".

Vans aren't really that much heavier than the cars. Especially if you take the rear seats out. I honestly think that a 2800# comfortable street driven van is possible. You might lose a few amenities (manual rear windows, no rear wiper...stuff like that), and weight reduction that takes planning and work will have to happen for sure. I have been convinced for a LONG time a van is a PERFECT sleeper because of this. Most everyone thinks vans are heavy slugs, but they really aren't.

Van....DO IT!!! :thumb:

[zin]

Damn it .... this is starting to make too much sense! Aero is now my only real argument now ... really trying to not talk myself into a van, but it does have alot going for it.

Mike

[Vigo]

It's probably easier to make a turbo 3.0 van trap 120 than it is to make an 8v van trap 110.

Also, the vans are not that heavy. My van with a back-halfed interior and no cutting or other weight reduction (only had the interior out for wiring work) was 3000lb even. Make the same van long wheelbase and AWD and you're at maybe 3300. Make it a SWB AWD and actually put a little effort into your weight reduction and you're probably at 3000-3100 again. People here have gotten FWD vans into the 2500 lb region iirc so a very lightened AWD van would probably be under 3000 lbs, close to a stock 4dr 3.0 shadow. As long as you didnt want more than two seats..

There was a pretty decent 2nd gen 3.0 cargo van (factory weight reduction) for sale on here for $1000 a couple of week ago, running and driving, even had shelby lancer wheels and light mods.

[shayne]

the aero on the shadow is horrible as well, the sharper lip at the front edge of the hood looks like it would cause separation at high speeds, the pic of turboshads carbon fiber hood bulging up while racing looks to confirm that to a point, the windsheild to roof angle is very sharp too, and the rear window drop from the roof looks like a highly turbulent area as well. other than more frontal area the front profile of a 1st gen van or a 2nd gen looks to at least not have too sharp of a transition at the front of the hood, and the windshield to roof transition LOOKS to be better. just add a good air dam, ditch the roof rack and add a small camm-back type spoiler or vortex generators to the top of the hatch to try to minimize the wake if possible.

[Reaper1]

^^ Agreed!! :thumb:

[zin]

Anyone have a link to Cd for the vans vs cars? I'm almost afraid to look, I have a feeling the latter vans are fairly slippery... if that's the case, I think my fate is set.

Mike

[thedon809]

I'm curious about the potential of the 2.7l. Everyone rights it off but the later year 2.7's were pretty solid. The heads are pretty similar to dohc neon heads so they should be able to flow pretty damn good. It has a forged crank and 6 bolt main caps so the bottom end should be incredibly strong.

[zin]

I'm going to keep it simple, keeping to the original 3.0 mostly because I'm going to have to deal with smog nazis.

Mike

[shayne]

i think just about all k-cars and variants have a pretty poor cD. but look at it this way the new camaro zl1 has a cD over .40 which is worse than most coupes, and hotrod took a lingenfelter zl1 to 200mph, so.....

[Reaper1]

The Daytona is around .32, Shadows are around .36 (I think...I did actually find a number a few years ago and posted it in a thread where Bent and I were discussing aero stuff). Spirits are in between IIRC. Hard top LeBarons are supposed to be very good, but I've never seen a published number.

[zin]

Ok, but the $10,000.00 question is .... what are the van's CD?

I know frontal area will probably trump Cd, but if it's decent, I think I can convince myself a van is the way to go.

Mike

[Force Fed Mopar]

The list is endless for me, Virtually any FWD mopar from 87-94 is a possible candidate. There's a part of me that would also love to do a 3.0 van some day just to be different. I don't recall ever seeing a fast 3.0 van.... ever.

Rob Carter had one w/ a 5-spd swap that went low 15's, that's probably the fastest I've seen.


The Daytona is around .32, Shadows are around .36 (I think...I did actually find a number a few years ago and posted it in a thread where Bent and I were discussing aero stuff). Spirits are in between IIRC. Hard top LeBarons are supposed to be very good, but I've never seen a published number.

Well Mopar chose the hard top Lebaron to hit 200mph back in the day, on a destroked 2.2. I think it ran a 199.xx average on the salt flats.

[shayne]

the only cD i could find for a caravan was .35 for 96-2000. for the record the cD for a dodge shadow according to allpar and ecomodder.com is .42.
the van would be nice to have, having a little daughter and family now i can really appreciate the functionality more, plus simons van is pretty fun to drive, you wont ever find a better sleeper, which sucks because my 92 daytona es isnt much of a sleeper because it is designed to LOOK fast. if i did it over again i would pick up a 3rd gen awd van and swap in a 3l. nice chassis plenty of features and comfort, cheap to repair(minus the awd components, a viscous coupling goes for between $450cdn-$800cdn depending on who you know), common to find (at least the non awd ones).

[Vigo]

Rob Carter had one w/ a 5-spd swap that went low 15's, that's probably the fastest I've seen.

There's been at least a few modded n/a 3.0 vans that could run 15s (shouldnt take much, really), but the only turbo 3.0 van i remember seeing so far was Splatmaster_86's van. He's not really active here anymore and never had timeslips for it but from all indications it performed similarly to every other turbo 3.0.. really well. I think the highest he took it was 8 psi. When Ondonti ran his full-weight spirit at 8 psi it trapped 108mph, and that's not an optimized or drag-oriented setup in any way.

[Reaper1]

I'm curious about the potential of the 2.7l. Everyone rights it off but the later year 2.7's were pretty solid. The heads are pretty similar to dohc neon heads so they should be able to flow pretty damn good. It has a forged crank and 6 bolt main caps so the bottom end should be incredibly strong.

The stock rods and pistons are too weak. Forward Motion tried to turbo one back around 2000. I saw it at Carlisle. They were trying to develop a turbo kit. Shortly thereafter the bottom end scattered and they abandoned it due to engine internal weakness.

On paper the engine looks great. If you throw some money into good parts and tuning, it might be pretty good, but you'll run into more problems with peripherals like the intake manifold (made of plastic)...so I'd just assume stay away for a project like this.

[Vigo]

As far as the 2.7, i think the main hurdles are tiny little ringlands, tiny ring gaps, and high-ish compression. I have a 2.7 car and might get around to trying it some day but realistically i dont think you could push too much through it without taking the engine apart unless you ran a crapload of meth or a cooling nitrous shot with the boost.

[Sundance 6g72]

ive always heard that the 2.7 is weak as crap once you give it more power. I drove my dads all the time and it never let us down, despite how hard I was on it.. but it was not modified. It deff pulls well on the top end, the 4spd auto did not help though, lost power when it shifted. Wasnt very fast by any means but it favored top end rpms.

[Vigo]

There is a magnum that dyno'd 180whp through the 4spd auto RWD drivetrain of a magnum, so i figure that thing is making some decent power. There is a guy on the 3.0 section at TD who claims he has a 220whp dyno from a 2.7 stratus but he has never produced it. I dont know if the 2.7 will ever be really fleshed out as far as it's performance potential, but i for one certainly dont think of it as a crap motor. I think it's sort of like the 3.3/3.8 in that it is largely ignored because it was mostly bolted to boring cars.

[Reaper1]

They were supposed to be a great motor, kind of peaky, yes.

I think the main reason most people will bypass the 2.7 is the HORRIBLE reputation it has. It is in the top 5 of worst engines ever built amongst myself and a few friends. Yes, that means diddly in the grand scheme of things, but hey, a LOT of people think the same way.

Kind of like the Mitsu 2.6. Yeah, it can be made to make power, but most of us don't like that engine for various different reasons, and would swap it for something different in a heart beat given the chance.

[Ondonti]

My memory says more like AA body is .41 and P body is .42 for cD. They are quite terrible. Neon is more like .33 and probably a smaller frontal area as well. I never had a problem getting to high speeds with even mild boost levels. I think the aero stuff is really more important well above 100mph, and really in the 150mph+ area. You see liter bikes beat people up until their terrible aero takes over at high speeds.

100mph the difference between Neon and Shadow is 15hp to get to 100mph. Not much
125mph the difference is like 30.
150mph the difference is 52hp
All not a big deal in a 1/4 car. Means you will trap a few mph slower but probably get nearly the exact same E.T.
http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/aerohpcalc.html

To me these numbers are sorta significant until I think about the actual difference in E.T. When you make 100hp this is a big deal but you also don't go 150mph in the 1/4 with 100hp. Or even 100mph :p

Street light to street light you only see boring mph and weight just ain't gonna kill you. Just watch any stockish 3000gt street racing a much faster car up to a certain mph. Even with AWD you will overpower all 4 street tires on a hard launch if you have too much power.

[Vigo]

I agree that you shouldnt really worry about aero until you've already beaten the existing van trap speed record. Until then it is just a distraction, or worse, an excuse.

[Ondonti]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2atLBT3xCXs

Here is an example of a super basic 5psi 3.0 12 valve 5 speed van. No fancy parts, stock ecu. This van on 10-15 pounds and motor upgrades and megasquirt and billion rpms and AWD oh my! Fun. Or just run 5psi all day on a cheap setup and a junkyard motor.

I am more interested in 3.0 12 valve heads at the moment because I want to explore the reving potential. The Mivec heads are an unknown there, the dohc heads will handle 9k with valvetrain upgrades. The bigger displacement motors are not as rev friendly based on the math but hondas have terrible reving motors based on shortblock math. As it stands, nobody with big displacement is reving their motors high except Nelson Bernarde. His 3.6L setup (bored out 6g74 instead of a 3.8L 6g75, possibly wall thickness reasons) is dry sump and he has some sort of custom valvetrain setup because OEM hydraulics fail in the middle 9000's and the available solids break other parts.

Me, I don't want a van. I hope I am able to avoid one despite a growing family.

[Ondonti]

I agree that you shouldnt really worry about aero until you've already beaten the existing van trap speed record. Until then it is just a distraction, or worse, an excuse.
It also seems like a lot of people who build crazy projects like this don't end up racing them at the track so worrying about the track is not always important.

[Vigo]

The fastest AWD caravan i know of has a helicopter turbine engine and it DEFINITELY wasnt built for the dragstrip! :p

[Reaper1]

The fastest AWD caravan i know of has a helicopter turbine engine and it DEFINITELY wasnt built for the dragstrip! :p

That turboshaft powered van is awesome! Technically you can call it AWD, but I think he leaves it in neutral when he's using the turbine engine, which powers the rear wheels (for those that didn't know).

Honda's do have terrible bottom end geometry compared to what is considered "optimal", but due to their small bore and lightweight reciprocating assembly, it helps them be able to achieve the revs they do. If they were as large as our engines, you probably wouldn't see factory redlines at 8500rpm.

Aero starts to take effect noticeably around 60mph, but really starts to make a difference around 100mph. After 130, it will really make a difference.

Brent is right about short acceleration bursts. Traction is where it's at (to a point...a Geo Metro isn't going to out accelerate a Mustang GT simply because it can't break the tires loose). I will say this about 3000GT's specifically: I used to go out and watch/participate in street racing almost every Saturday night for a few years. There was a 3000GT and a 300ZXTT that used to run a LOT. Usually the race went like this: the 3000 would launch really hard and get about 2 cars on the Z. After about 1/8th mile the Z would catch it, and usually pass it. They were very evenly matched as far as power goes. The AWD simply sapped the power and allowed the Z to take advantage of it's more efficient 2WD at the top end. If they were trying to beat each other to a merge lane or something...the 3000 would kill the 300 every time. On the highway the Z would just WALK the 3000.

[Vigo]

That turboshaft powered van is awesome! Technically you can call it AWD, but I think he leaves it in neutral when he's using the turbine engine, which powers the rear wheels (for those that didn't know).

As far as i know the turboshaft engine drives the AWD propshaft with a chain around a sprocket added to the propshaft. The AWD system is intact so the turboshaft engine 'backfeeds' power to the front wheels as well. That's my understanding of it. So i think it is still AWD.

[Reaper1]

Hmmm...well it's been a while since a read the description and he's never shown (to my knowledge) any detailed pictures of the setup. You could very well be right.

Would the VC allow power to backfeed to the front? I thought it would only allow torque to be applies to the driveshaft in one direction?

[zin]

The viscous coupler would still work, you're probably thinking of the overrunning clutch further down the line on the rear end.

Mike

[Vigo]

Thats a good question. I assume it works basically the same in both directions. My old 2g AWD Van rear diff has an overrunning clutch built into it so that function is in the rear axle on my parts.

[Reaper1]

Yeah, sorry. I was thinking of the overrunning clutch. My bad.

If the sprocket is before the ORC, then I could see it backfeeding the system and driving all 4 wheels pretty easily. :thumb:

Somebody with a AWD van go out, put your van on 4 jackstands in neutral and spin the driveshaft by hand and see if the front and rear wheels spin! :P Hehe!

[Force Fed Mopar]

You guys are really making me want to mod my '91 AWD Caravan...and that is really not what I need to be doing at the moment :D

[Ondonti]

Chris got his first view of AWD parts today. His main comment was "Those are really big, much bigger then a DSM.

[Vigo]

Factory DSM makes LESS torque than stock 3.8 and the van's GCVW is probably twice as much.

[Reaper1]

Both VERY true! Seeing the parts in person, and having seen the DSM and 3Si "equivalents" really puts things into perspective.

Knowing what I do now, it really makes me wonder why I "followed the pack" on the old thinking that the AWD van parts aren't capable of handling any power back in the old days. LOL

There are a few weak spots, but the only one that is of any real major concern to me is the PTU shaft that engages the diff in the transmission. That part to me (Brent pointed it out and I agreed) looks like it would end up being the real fuse in the whole thing. Everything else either looks like it would do just fine, or it could be beefed up with just a little effort and it would never be an issue again.

I was also pleasantly surprised at how relatively light the parts are! I honestly believe there is merit to putting the AWD system behind some good power and letting it rock!

[Vigo]

You're talking about the hollow shaft that splines onto the side of the diff carrier? I guess you are thinking the splines themselves are the weak point?

[Reaper1]

Yeah, just like the CV axles. The stress riser at the end of the splines would be my concern. Of course there is more contact area, and the torque will be shared, so overall the splines will probably see less stress than a FWD car with a posi, big power, and a hard launch.

Only way to know is to try it, really!

[Vigo]

I would look and see how Kreel was launching his AWD/5spd van. IMO the hardest part of an AWD launch as far as parts strength is when you put the momentum of the motor@ high rpm through it at launch. I personally doubt that power levels have much effect on that initial load unless you are building boost at the line. If Kreel was launching his full-weight grand van from near redline with the 3.0, i would bet that it can take truly goofy power levels under normal acceleration.

[Reaper1]

I agree...hard launching, like dumping the clutch at high revs and/or with boost built up will be the hardest thing the system has to deal with, which is what I think most people worry about that race AWD cars. That is unless you are in a condition where high torque is hammered on the system like in special stage rally racing.

In general you can apply high power to most drivetrains if they are already in motion. The hard parts more than likely will live for a while. There are always exceptions, however. ;)

[Rrider]

Zin, graft a 1967 volvo wagon body on to a 3.0 awd minivan. Retain the pre-smog vin from the volvo.. kiss smog nazis goodbye.

Like this except minivan: http://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst/cto/3770376729.html :P

[zin]

Nice!

[Ondonti]

You're talking about the hollow shaft that splines onto the side of the diff carrier? I guess you are thinking the splines themselves are the weak point?
I wonder if it would help at all to polish down the sharp edges of the splines near where they convert to normal shaft. The shaft also necks smaller after the splines so it is thinner then even the edge would lead you to believe. What one person said about the shaft was hoping that the large diameter would be able to deal with something that a smaller solid shaft would not. I know my large hallow shaft axles never broke in those large hallow areas. The input shaft of the PTU would really only see about 200 of 400hp or 400 of 800 hp. Those shockloads though, I don't know what kind of clutch Kreel was launching with or how violent it hooks up. I think a carbon carbon clutch would help if we did find failures. Something that slips at the hit and then locks up. Its hard to always be perfect with your clutch on launch (especially with nerves).

[Vigo]

Definitely. Personally, i kind of want to try a very stiff disc with extended clutch lever and a stock disc material. I know there is one guy on TM who ran low 11s on a stiff plate and stock disc, but it was a <3000 lb car. I would think that would have friendly engagement. We already know that a super stiff disc and solid 3 puck is overkill on torque handling but probably suffers in drivability and durability for a heavy van as you'd need to slip it a lot to get rolling. I think a super stiff pressure plate and stock disc might be nicer for that kind of setup. Or one of TU's purple plates with a stock-style disc.

Ive put a 4 puck in a <2500lb car and it drove fine once you get used to using it. But, ive also driven 6puck in a full-weight short wheelbase caravan and imo the amount you have to slip it to get rolling nicely with that weight makes it a bad fit. I just dont think a ceramic puck clutch is going to be the best disc choice for a heavy van. My .02

[Reaper1]

To give you an idea, my Z weighs 3115# race weight. (ok...did LOL) Anyway, I'm running the TU purple plate and 6-puck set-up and it drove around town beautifully.

I had a dual diaphragm PP with a 6-puck clutch and that thing was TERRIBLE. Brent says his clutch is stiff in his Duster, but when I pressed on it it was MUCH easier than what I had...even with an extended clutch arm. Not only was it a pain to push the pedal down, but feeling engagement was pretty much non existent. It was darn near impossible to take off smoothly with that clutch set-up.

I've driven a stock weight Spirit with a 4-puck and a TIII PP and that was easy as well.

From my experiences I'd still suggest the TU set-up. It simply works, and works very well. Also, it is pretty much mandatory to keep a steel flywheel if using a pucked clutch. From my own experience and from what others have also posted about, the aluminum flywheels simply don't work as well as they should with pucked clutches. Also, for the heavier vehicle (and AWD), having that extra mass spinning so the momentum can help things to get going is probably beneficial, even though you may be sacrificing some transient response of the engine.

[Ondonti]

Part of the trouble with driving my daily is the aluminum flywheel not getting along with my solid 4 puck. My 3 puck has a steel flywheel. It engages much much better then my 4 puck but can still be violent. My aluminum flywheel likes to cause the clutch to shudder, my 3 puck just locks the heck up if I accidentally let it out a little too much. . I also wonder if the plate is bit weaker since I bought it in 2007.

Stock type disc with strong plate is not a bad idea for the cheap way of doing things. Just need to make sure you order something that will still handle your goals. Not sure what those custom setups Cindy and others have run cost.

[Reaper1]

All I can say is I tried doing it on the cheap....it ended up being more expensive than if I had just done it right the first time.

[Vigo]

Well I never drove the duster or even pushed the clutch but if that clutch effort was livable than that's sort of the cheap option i was looking at: a DD plate, extended clutch arm, and a stock disc. If you can reuse your stock disc and fab the clutch arm you are looking at $200 and change.