Turbo Dodge Forums banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
That's really cool!
I wouldn't believe it, until I saw it, but seeing is believin'!
My late friend Hartwell used to tell me, "Where there's a will-- there is a way!" He also told me: "Blackberries? Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile!"
There is a formula that predicts engine power by the number of cylinders. The tenet is that the more surface area of the pistons, the more power an engine will produce. (Not counting turbocharging, of course.). So one can expect a multi-cylinder motor to have more power even if the displacement is the same It's nice to have power on tap without the complication of a turbo, but the motor must weigh a lot more, thus throwing a monkey wrench into the handling. Chrysler produced a V-6 in 1995 that has a displacement of the 2.5 4 cylinder, so whenever I call Autozone I make sure to tell them it is the 4 cylinder or otherwise they will try to give me the wrong parts. My only complaint is that a V-6 is twice as much work once you have a head gasket problem. It is best practice to rebuild and replace the head gasket on both banks. Most people don't worry about how much work it is for the machanic, unless you do your own repairs. which I do.
 

·
Old School Hot Rodder
Joined
·
1,648 Posts
A 3.3 or 3.8L along with possibly the 3.5 - 3.6L are 60° blocks and therefore narrower (or shorter front to back when sideways) so would be an easier fit than a 90° block (Ford 3.8/4.2L pushrod, GM earlier 3.8L and Chrysler 3.7L) all of which were based on a V8 block - 2 cyls.

Shoehorn, picture a DOHC V8 in a space designed for a 60° and later 90° V6. Lincoln Continental 1995 and up till a major body change were based on the 1992 - 1995 Taurus body, originally powered by a 3.0L 60° pushrod V6, SHO models had a Yamaha built DOHC engine, but the loaded models were offered with the 3.8L engine modified for FWD. There were several areas where access was near non-existent and unlike GM, there was no provision to tilt the engine for access to the rear bank. Now shove a DOHC 4.6L 90° V8 in there!

On AutoZone, Advance, O'Reilly don't forget to tell them the color.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
That's good info to know, Bill. I don't have any experience with the V-6s.
The SHO (Super High Output) program was squarely in Carroll Shelby's sights when he developed the Spirit R/T.--It had to be faster than a Ford Taurus SVO no matter what!
(I didn't know about Yamaha!, that explains a lot.)
The knowledge gained by Chrysler helped lead to the 16-valve DOHC Neon, a car that finally made money for Chrysler/Dodge. Chrysler abandoned the turbo during the Nineties, but the demand for greater efficiency brought it back in vogue. V-6 or V-8? I prefer the turbo cars and I like letting the turbo do the work, and if it doesn't work, then there's always more boost that can be added with some tinkering.. Question: what do you think of the Oldsmobile Quad-4?
 

·
Old School Hot Rodder
Joined
·
1,648 Posts
POS, it is a strong NA engine, but in the best GM tradition has a very low oil capacity (shared with the SOHC Quad-OHC) and a tiny bit low on the 4.0 quart (with filter) capacity will lead to accelerated bearing wear. This manifests itself by some engine knock as the rod bearings wear enough that the pistons start hitting the head. The other issue, water pump is driven by the timing chain so to change it, you need to open the chain cover so you don't jump time on it and you can re set or replace the tensioner. I do like how GM did the oil pump, it is the gears for the balance shafts so is under the oil at all times. A bigger pan would have been a huge improvement, but GM was on a "reduce maintenance cost" kick where all their engines had the capacity about 1 quart less than previously.

A good friend and I did 3 of these over a weekend, first was a Quad-4, where the owner had bought a used engine. We dropped the pan and checked all the bearings as we had already seen the piston to head interference on the old engine. Part of that was used to repair another, and the third was a Quad-OHC, same bottom end, different pistons and head.

As for turbos, yes, dad had a 1966 Corsa with the 180 hp 164 ci air cooled flat 6. I co-owned a carburetor shop, so, I found a pair of adapters, one to use a Stromberg WW series, like a 318 used, then a second one to a Ford or Holley pattern 2 barrel. I took a small Holley 2 barrel that had a provision for an external vacuum source for the power valve and teed that into the boost gauge line so once the turbo spooled up the power valve would stay open. Second was a 1963 Jetfire, an F85 based car with a Garrett turbo feeding a 215 ci aluminum V8. Transmission was a Roto Hydra-Matic model 5 which I dubbed a spastamatic. It drove like a 4 speed with 2nd blocked. Jump was from 3.03:1 to 1.57:1 and from a fluid coupling to straight mechanical which made it worse. After I removed the enrichment spring in the carburetor, car would deliver 23 mpg at a 65 mph cruise. Last was my 1985 Lebaron convertible, changed from a 2.6L with 3 cracked combustion chambers to what was originally just to be a 1987 2.2L T1, then a friend in NC sent me a chip for the LM, instructions on adding the two more IAC wires, a 2 piece intake and fuel rail. Engine turned out to be a 1988 service short block (left over T2 ones due to the change to a common block in 1989). Chip he sent was set for 14 psi boost and set up for an automatic. I built a strong A413 at a friend's transmission shop. Car would burn the tires for about 100 yards if you built a little boost before getting off the brakes. Shifted 1-2 at 56 mph, 2-3 at 79 mph and my son had it so fast up near DC that the Tokyo by night dash went past 99 to 00 and started back up, he got to 21 and still pulling when some jerk tried to cut him off. T2K-CAR (VA license plates) MKII is slowly nearing completion currently as T2K-CAR MKI was totaled in 2009 by a Mercedes-Benz ML320.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
I have done more work with the 3.5 V-6 than I care to remember, in the LH body cars (LHS, Intrepid, Concord). It is REALLY W I D E, with big exhaust manifolds. MAYBE if you got one from a Chrysler Pacifica (old version, NOT newer minivan), but it would still be VERY tight. And you would HAVE to use the Pacifica trans because I'm pretty sure nothing else would even bolt up. But I have considered doing that 3.0 swap myself. I have extra engines and transmissions that go together. The 3.0 trans is unique to that engine due to the water pump intake pipe going across the top of the block and exiting above the bell housing.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top