Basic V-6 Tech Specs, etc.

[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!

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! 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!

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!!!

[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!!

[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.