Basic V-6 Tech Specs, etc.

[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

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!

[Reaper1]

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

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.

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!