Compression test.

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
S

Samuel

Guest
results of compression test on my 2.6 litre series 3, from front to back.

105
140
130
135
110
125

same results for wet and dry. the motor has been running well when cold but
gets rough when warm, on either lpg or petrol. the spark is perfect on all
cylinders so before comp. test i was thinking burnt exhaust valve.

as the trouble cylinders are far apart (105 and 110), that rules out head
gasket.
same wet and dry suggests its not rings, which i was 99% sure of anyway.
absolutely no crankcase pressure and no oil-smoke.

exhaust valve is all it could be right? if so, is a set of new valves and a
quick regrind within the scope of a backyard mechanic? anyone here who has
done this on the 6 cylinder rover motor? i hear they are a bit weird to do
as the exhaust valves are set in the engine block. do i need to remove the
motor to do the regrind due to space restrictions?

any help would be greatly greatly appreciated.

Sam.


 
Samuel wrote:

> results of compression test on my 2.6 litre series 3, from front to back.
>
> 105
> 140
> 130
> 135
> 110
> 125
>
> same results for wet and dry. the motor has been running well when cold
> but gets rough when warm, on either lpg or petrol. the spark is perfect on
> all cylinders so before comp. test i was thinking burnt exhaust valve.
>
> as the trouble cylinders are far apart (105 and 110), that rules out head
> gasket.
> same wet and dry suggests its not rings, which i was 99% sure of anyway.
> absolutely no crankcase pressure and no oil-smoke.
>
> exhaust valve is all it could be right? if so, is a set of new valves and
> a quick regrind within the scope of a backyard mechanic? anyone here who
> has done this on the 6 cylinder rover motor? i hear they are a bit weird
> to do as the exhaust valves are set in the engine block. do i need to
> remove the motor to do the regrind due to space restrictions?
>
> any help would be greatly greatly appreciated.
>
> Sam.

I haven't done a six, but the same setup is used in the Series 1 engine, and
I did a valve grind on one of these many years ago, with no problems. You
may find it useful to remove the LH mudguard, depending on how rusty the
bolts are, but there should certainly be no need to remove the engine. The
factory manual marks this operation as one that can be done with the engine
in place.
JD
 


>
> I haven't done a six, but the same setup is used in the Series 1 engine,
and
> I did a valve grind on one of these many years ago, with no problems. You
> may find it useful to remove the LH mudguard, depending on how rusty the
> bolts are, but there should certainly be no need to remove the engine. The
> factory manual marks this operation as one that can be done with the
engine
> in place.
> JD

all bolts lok to be in excellent condition, so i'll take your advice and
take it off before trying anything. may not save much time, but may save a
lot of frustration, and we all know which one is worth more.

states in mine that "in installations where access is restricted, to replace
valve guides on no. 5 and 6 cylinders may first require engine removal" but
as i probably wont replace the valve guides i suppose this doesn't concern
me.

thanks.

Sam.


 
In message <[email protected]>
"Samuel" <[email protected]> wrote:

> results of compression test on my 2.6 litre series 3, from front to back.
>
> 105
> 140
> 130
> 135
> 110
> 125
>
> same results for wet and dry. the motor has been running well when cold but
> gets rough when warm, on either lpg or petrol. the spark is perfect on all
> cylinders so before comp. test i was thinking burnt exhaust valve.
>
> as the trouble cylinders are far apart (105 and 110), that rules out head
> gasket.
> same wet and dry suggests its not rings, which i was 99% sure of anyway.
> absolutely no crankcase pressure and no oil-smoke.
>
> exhaust valve is all it could be right? if so, is a set of new valves and a
> quick regrind within the scope of a backyard mechanic? anyone here who has
> done this on the 6 cylinder rover motor? i hear they are a bit weird to do
> as the exhaust valves are set in the engine block. do i need to remove the
> motor to do the regrind due to space restrictions?
>
> any help would be greatly greatly appreciated.
>
> Sam.
>
>

The 6-cylinder is great fun! The head/block face is at an angle
just to make things interesting. The head is also pretty heavy.
Getting it undone is straight forward, but (I did it myself) I'd
suggest that having another pair of hands for lifting it off would
be a good idea. Lapping the exhaust valves is fun - they are in the
block as you say, so you have to sit on the wing to do it, being
very careful where the grinding paste ends up.
The other bit of fun is the exhaust valve collets - they can drop
down into the oil gallery and have to be retrived with a magnet on
a bit of wire or string.
Putting the head back on is quite a challenge, but if you make up
a couple of temporary studs to locate it then its not so bad -
some help would be a definate plus.
You'll need one of each type of valve spring compressor as well,
one for the inlet valves and one for the exhaust.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems
 
>
> The 6-cylinder is great fun! The head/block face is at an angle
> just to make things interesting. The head is also pretty heavy.
> Getting it undone is straight forward, but (I did it myself) I'd
> suggest that having another pair of hands for lifting it off would
> be a good idea. Lapping the exhaust valves is fun - they are in the
> block as you say, so you have to sit on the wing to do it, being
> very careful where the grinding paste ends up.
> The other bit of fun is the exhaust valve collets - they can drop
> down into the oil gallery and have to be retrived with a magnet on
> a bit of wire or string.
> Putting the head back on is quite a challenge, but if you make up
> a couple of temporary studs to locate it then its not so bad -
> some help would be a definate plus.
> You'll need one of each type of valve spring compressor as well,
> one for the inlet valves and one for the exhaust.

I mean seriously, what is the benefit of this ridiculous IOE set-up?? there
must be something positive about it.

anyway, fairly certain i will only be doing the exhaust valves as i am
confident the inlet valves are OK. JD has suggested i take the wing off
before doing it, i'll probably take his advice. which type of valve
compressor is need for the exhaust valves, and more to the point, what are
the two different types?

i've got a couple of weeks off soon, so i think i'll set aside one of them
to doing this operation. even allowing a whole week, it'll end up taking
two!

Sam.


 
Samuel wrote:

>>
>> The 6-cylinder is great fun! The head/block face is at an angle
>> just to make things interesting. The head is also pretty heavy.
>> Getting it undone is straight forward, but (I did it myself) I'd
>> suggest that having another pair of hands for lifting it off would
>> be a good idea. Lapping the exhaust valves is fun - they are in the
>> block as you say, so you have to sit on the wing to do it, being
>> very careful where the grinding paste ends up.
>> The other bit of fun is the exhaust valve collets - they can drop
>> down into the oil gallery and have to be retrived with a magnet on
>> a bit of wire or string.
>> Putting the head back on is quite a challenge, but if you make up
>> a couple of temporary studs to locate it then its not so bad -
>> some help would be a definate plus.
>> You'll need one of each type of valve spring compressor as well,
>> one for the inlet valves and one for the exhaust.
>
> I mean seriously, what is the benefit of this ridiculous IOE set-up??
> there must be something positive about it.
>
> anyway, fairly certain i will only be doing the exhaust valves as i am
> confident the inlet valves are OK. JD has suggested i take the wing off
> before doing it, i'll probably take his advice. which type of valve
> compressor is need for the exhaust valves, and more to the point, what are
> the two different types?
>
> i've got a couple of weeks off soon, so i think i'll set aside one of them
> to doing this operation. even allowing a whole week, it'll end up taking
> two!
>
> Sam.

The inlet over exhaust setup, in this form was used by Rover from the 1940s
until the 1970's and was also used by Rolls Royce in the 1930's-1960's, and
probably other manufacturers as well. (not to be confused with the inlet
over exhaust setup that was common throughout the motor industry from the
1890's to 1920's)

This setup allows the use of an almost perfectly hemispherical combustion
chamber together with an inlet valve which is much larger than could be
used with any other valve layout for a given bore - important when the
stroke was long compared to the bore, as dictated by UK taxing methods at
the time the engine was designed. Properly done, which Rover did, it
results in an engine that is very well mannered compared to what could be
achieved with conventional overhead valves. However, this particular engine
is not all that well suited to an offroad vehicle - it does not seem to
stand up to abuse as well as either the 2.25OHV or the similar 2.0 engines,
or even the V8. And lowering the compression to make it less fussy about
fuel as was done when it was put in the Landrover resulted in pretty
abysmal fuel economy. But still a very nice engine if you look after it.
JD
 

>
>This setup allows the use of an almost perfectly hemispherical combustion
>chamber together with an inlet valve which is much larger than could be
>used with any other valve layout for a given bore - important when the
>stroke was long compared to the bore, as dictated by UK taxing methods at
>the time the engine was designed. Properly done, which Rover did, it
>results in an engine that is very well mannered compared to what could be
>achieved with conventional overhead valves. However, this particular engine
>is not all that well suited to an offroad vehicle - it does not seem to
>stand up to abuse as well as either the 2.25OHV or the similar 2.0 engines,
>or even the V8. And lowering the compression to make it less fussy about
>fuel as was done when it was put in the Landrover resulted in pretty
>abysmal fuel economy. But still a very nice engine if you look after it.
>JD

It's not a nice engine at all in the Landrover. A shame really, as in
the Rover Coupe it is an excellent engine, silky smooth and with an
abundance of power and torque.

The 2.6/3.0 IOE is a long-stroke engine from the old horsepower
calculation days (ie, prewar) which much prefers to cruise at low rpm,
which is where the efficency of the engine is. Unfortunatly in the
landrover, to get the required power from the detuned 2.6 the gear
ratio is far to low, which results in the engine sitting on the
limiter (if you have one fitted) when crusing at A-road/motorway
speeds. Even with an overdrive installed 50-60mph is still very high
rpm for the engine. This, coupled with the de-tuning results in a very
thirsty fuel consumption.

The 3.0 with the performance head would have been a much better engine
to put into the landrover, coupled with a higher-ratio transfer box,
and it was only Rover's lack of a bigger engine that meant that it
continued untill 1980ish by which time the engine was hideously
outdated, inefficient and by the emissions standards of the time, very
dirty.

If i was to consider continuing to run my 2.6, i'd be looking at some
serious work to recondition the engine, despite it having done a
genuine 30,000 miles from new (1978) the engine is on it's last legs,
including a leaking headgasket which has corroded the head bolts in,
two leaking exhaust valves and numerious other faults. Work which is
simply not worth it on the engine, it would be far better, easier and
cheaper to drop a 2.25/2.5/v8 into it. Consequently i'm scrapping the
engine, a step that wasn't taken lightly, as a straight-six is by far
my favourite engine layout. TBH, I miss the 6's pulling power and
smoothness, but it simply doesn't make economic sense to continue with
it.

Alex
 

"Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> >This setup allows the use of an almost perfectly hemispherical combustion
> >chamber together with an inlet valve which is much larger than could be
> >used with any other valve layout for a given bore - important when the
> >stroke was long compared to the bore, as dictated by UK taxing methods at
> >the time the engine was designed. Properly done, which Rover did, it
> >results in an engine that is very well mannered compared to what could be
> >achieved with conventional overhead valves. However, this particular
engine
> >is not all that well suited to an offroad vehicle - it does not seem to
> >stand up to abuse as well as either the 2.25OHV or the similar 2.0
engines,
> >or even the V8. And lowering the compression to make it less fussy about
> >fuel as was done when it was put in the Landrover resulted in pretty
> >abysmal fuel economy. But still a very nice engine if you look after it.
> >JD
>
> It's not a nice engine at all in the Landrover. A shame really, as in
> the Rover Coupe it is an excellent engine, silky smooth and with an
> abundance of power and torque.
>
> The 2.6/3.0 IOE is a long-stroke engine from the old horsepower
> calculation days (ie, prewar) which much prefers to cruise at low rpm,
> which is where the efficency of the engine is. Unfortunatly in the
> landrover, to get the required power from the detuned 2.6 the gear
> ratio is far to low, which results in the engine sitting on the
> limiter (if you have one fitted) when crusing at A-road/motorway
> speeds. Even with an overdrive installed 50-60mph is still very high
> rpm for the engine. This, coupled with the de-tuning results in a very
> thirsty fuel consumption.
>
> The 3.0 with the performance head would have been a much better engine
> to put into the landrover, coupled with a higher-ratio transfer box,
> and it was only Rover's lack of a bigger engine that meant that it
> continued untill 1980ish by which time the engine was hideously
> outdated, inefficient and by the emissions standards of the time, very
> dirty.
>
> If i was to consider continuing to run my 2.6, i'd be looking at some
> serious work to recondition the engine, despite it having done a
> genuine 30,000 miles from new (1978) the engine is on it's last legs,
> including a leaking headgasket which has corroded the head bolts in,
> two leaking exhaust valves and numerious other faults. Work which is
> simply not worth it on the engine, it would be far better, easier and
> cheaper to drop a 2.25/2.5/v8 into it. Consequently i'm scrapping the
> engine, a step that wasn't taken lightly, as a straight-six is by far
> my favourite engine layout. TBH, I miss the 6's pulling power and
> smoothness, but it simply doesn't make economic sense to continue with
> it.
>
> Alex

My thoughts precisely Alex.

my 2.6 has done only about 60,000 ks and seems to be in excellent condition
except for the leaky exhaust valves. i would love to plonk a 2.25 litre
landy motor in, but i understand it takes a lot of work. transmission must
be changed, as well as custome engine mounts etc. due to the different
transmission location. tough decision at the moment, as i dont have the
money to do any serious engine swap. but by the same token i don't want to
throw money at a lost cause.

Sam.


 

>
>my 2.6 has done only about 60,000 ks and seems to be in excellent condition
>except for the leaky exhaust valves. i would love to plonk a 2.25 litre
>landy motor in, but i understand it takes a lot of work. transmission must
>be changed, as well as custome engine mounts etc. due to the different
>transmission location. tough decision at the moment, as i dont have the
>money to do any serious engine swap. but by the same token i don't want to
>throw money at a lost cause.
>
>Sam.
>

Well, it isn't going to cost you anything to take the head off,
exhaust valves out and have a carefull examination for valve seat
recession. The IOE engine was not designed for unleaded and the
exhaust valve seats recess if it is run on unleaded. If the valve
seats are good, then it's worth grinding them in, doing a decoke and
re-assembling the engine. If the valve seats are gone, then i'd stop
right there and look at alternatives. Changing the exhaust valve seats
is not going to be a cheap job, as you'll have to send the entire
engine block away to have it done. It's not worth throwing serious
money at the 2.6, it's a better option to use the money on a
conversion. Yes, you'll need the transmission from a 2.25 as well, and
the engine mounts will have to be changed.

Alex
 
In message <[email protected]>
Alex <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >
> >This setup allows the use of an almost perfectly hemispherical combustion
> >chamber together with an inlet valve which is much larger than could be
> >used with any other valve layout for a given bore - important when the
> >stroke was long compared to the bore, as dictated by UK taxing methods at
> >the time the engine was designed. Properly done, which Rover did, it
> >results in an engine that is very well mannered compared to what could be
> >achieved with conventional overhead valves. However, this particular engine
> >is not all that well suited to an offroad vehicle - it does not seem to
> >stand up to abuse as well as either the 2.25OHV or the similar 2.0 engines,
> >or even the V8. And lowering the compression to make it less fussy about
> >fuel as was done when it was put in the Landrover resulted in pretty
> >abysmal fuel economy. But still a very nice engine if you look after it.
> >JD
>
> It's not a nice engine at all in the Landrover. A shame really, as in
> the Rover Coupe it is an excellent engine, silky smooth and with an
> abundance of power and torque.
>
> The 2.6/3.0 IOE is a long-stroke engine from the old horsepower
> calculation days (ie, prewar) which much prefers to cruise at low rpm,
> which is where the efficency of the engine is. Unfortunatly in the
> landrover, to get the required power from the detuned 2.6 the gear
> ratio is far to low, which results in the engine sitting on the
> limiter (if you have one fitted) when crusing at A-road/motorway
> speeds. Even with an overdrive installed 50-60mph is still very high
> rpm for the engine. This, coupled with the de-tuning results in a very
> thirsty fuel consumption.

Ahem - the 6-cylinder has another 800rpm over the 2¼, and mine with
overdrive would do 80mph (closely followed by a fuel tanker - 9mpg!),
a bit more with a following wind, down hill. I loved mine to bits,
and much perferred it to my Stage I. Why-oh-why did I let the ex
make me sell it.......

>
> The 3.0 with the performance head would have been a much better engine
> to put into the landrover, coupled with a higher-ratio transfer box,
> and it was only Rover's lack of a bigger engine that meant that it
> continued untill 1980ish by which time the engine was hideously
> outdated, inefficient and by the emissions standards of the time, very
> dirty.

The 3.0 was fitted - for the NAD (US) market.

>
> If i was to consider continuing to run my 2.6, i'd be looking at some
> serious work to recondition the engine, despite it having done a
> genuine 30,000 miles from new (1978) the engine is on it's last legs,
> including a leaking headgasket which has corroded the head bolts in,
> two leaking exhaust valves and numerious other faults. Work which is
> simply not worth it on the engine, it would be far better, easier and
> cheaper to drop a 2.25/2.5/v8 into it. Consequently i'm scrapping the
> engine, a step that wasn't taken lightly, as a straight-six is by far
> my favourite engine layout. TBH, I miss the 6's pulling power and
> smoothness, but it simply doesn't make economic sense to continue with
> it.
>

Ther's going to very little difference in "economy" between the B8 and
the 6-cylinder, and the 2¼ is going to seem abysmal. If you must change
it for economy, the 2.5 is the best bet by far (relatively).

> Alex

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Boycot the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay
 
>
> Ther's going to very little difference in "economy" between the B8 and
> the 6-cylinder, and the 2¼ is going to seem abysmal. If you must change
> it for economy, the 2.5 is the best bet by far (relatively).
>
>

how hard is it to put a 2.25 four-cylinder into a landy. am i right in think
that custom engine mounts will have to be made up?

Sam.


 
by that i mean put a four cylinder series motor into a 6 cylinder series 3.


 
In message <[email protected]>
"Samuel" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > Ther's going to very little difference in "economy" between the B8 and
> > the 6-cylinder, and the 2¼ is going to seem abysmal. If you must change
> > it for economy, the 2.5 is the best bet by far (relatively).
> >
> >
>
> how hard is it to put a 2.25 four-cylinder into a landy. am i right in think
> that custom engine mounts will have to be made up?
>
> Sam.
>
>
Yes - they would need to be made/moved.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Boycot the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay
 
On or around Mon, 5 Sep 2005 16:23:03 +0000 (UTC), beamendsltd
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>In message <[email protected]>
> "Samuel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Ther's going to very little difference in "economy" between the B8 and
>> > the 6-cylinder, and the 2¼ is going to seem abysmal. If you must change
>> > it for economy, the 2.5 is the best bet by far (relatively).
>> >
>> >
>>
>> how hard is it to put a 2.25 four-cylinder into a landy. am i right in think
>> that custom engine mounts will have to be made up?
>>
>> Sam.
>>
>>
>Yes - they would need to be made/moved.

is the 6 a different chassis then? seems a strange idea. I can easily
believe different mounting plates for the engine - would have expected
gearbox mounts the same, too - unless the 6 has unique propshafts, in which
case the box doesn't have to be in the same place.

Mind, it's be typical of LR to make a different chassis *and* different
engine plates.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Confidence: Before important work meetings, boost your confidence by
reading a few pages from "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 

>>>
>>Yes - they would need to be made/moved.
>
>is the 6 a different chassis then? seems a strange idea. I can easily
>believe different mounting plates for the engine - would have expected
>gearbox mounts the same, too - unless the 6 has unique propshafts, in which
>case the box doesn't have to be in the same place.

The six is a different chassis, different bulkhead, floor plates,
different propshafts, different gearbox x-member, engine x-member, and
the gearlever on a 2a is different (you can't use the cranked 2a
gearlever on a 3, you'll bang your knuckles, or strike a cranked 2a
one on the seat box in a six) but the S3 gearlever is fine.

The 2.6 wouldn't quite fit behind the rad on a series, so the moved
the engine/gearbox back about 3" to accomodate the six. Consequently
the bulkhead is deeper, the gearbox x-member is further back and the
propshafts are different lengths to a normal 109". It's not as bad as
it sounds, as all you have to do is remove the engine mounts and weld
2.25 mounts on in the right place (trial and error fit, i'm afraid,
the manuals won't have the right dimensions, and if you weld em on in
the 2.25 position they won't fit). The transmission can stay where it
is. The only problem you then have is the throttle linkage as a series
one won't fit the bulkhead, and won;t be in the right place for the
carb if you do.

>
>Mind, it's be typical of LR to make a different chassis *and* different
>engine plates.


The gearbox has a different bellhousing, as it mounts to the 2.6 IOE,
which is the same as the old 2.0 IOE in the S1/early S2. You can
either change the bellhousing (beware! the bellhousing is different at
the gearbox end, depending on which model & suffix gearbox you have)
or drop a 2.25 in complete with transmission.

Alex

PS. if anybody wants chassis measurments from a S3 2.6, i havn't cut
mine up yet (still lyting around with engine etc etc on it) so i can
go round and put a tape measure on it.
 
In message <[email protected]>
Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> On or around Mon, 5 Sep 2005 16:23:03 +0000 (UTC), beamendsltd
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >In message <[email protected]>
> > "Samuel" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > Ther's going to very little difference in "economy" between the B8 and
> >> > the 6-cylinder, and the 2¼ is going to seem abysmal. If you must change
> >> > it for economy, the 2.5 is the best bet by far (relatively).
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> how hard is it to put a 2.25 four-cylinder into a landy. am i right in think
> >> that custom engine mounts will have to be made up?
> >>
> >> Sam.
> >>
> >>
> >Yes - they would need to be made/moved.
>
> is the 6 a different chassis then? seems a strange idea. I can easily
> believe different mounting plates for the engine - would have expected
> gearbox mounts the same, too - unless the 6 has unique propshafts, in which
> case the box doesn't have to be in the same place.
>
> Mind, it's be typical of LR to make a different chassis *and* different
> engine plates.
>

In terms of engine mounts - yes it is different, and yes, the prop
shafts are unique. The bulkhead is also unique. They made an awful lot
of 6-cylinders, so they probably count as different rather than unique.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Boycot the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay
 
Samuel wrote:
> by that i mean put a four cylinder series motor into a 6 cylinder series 3.
>

Given that you're in Aus and it'll be a custom fabrication job whatever
you fit, why don't you drop a Holden 6 in? It won't be any harder to do
and should be more economical than a 2.25 petrol and certainly a lot
more driveable.


--
EMB
 

"EMB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Samuel wrote:
> > by that i mean put a four cylinder series motor into a 6 cylinder series
3.
> >
>
> Given that you're in Aus and it'll be a custom fabrication job whatever
> you fit, why don't you drop a Holden 6 in? It won't be any harder to do
> and should be more economical than a 2.25 petrol and certainly a lot
> more driveable.
>
>

i have been giving that option a great deal of thought, but am having
trouble finding a conversion kit for the 6 cylinder. it needs a different
bellhousing and different mounts to the 4 cylinder conversion. i don't have
the money to do a custom job at the moment so i have to keep an eye out for
some second hand bits.

Sam.


 
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:40:24 +1200, EMB <[email protected]> wrote:

>Samuel wrote:
>> by that i mean put a four cylinder series motor into a 6 cylinder series 3.
>>
>
>Given that you're in Aus and it'll be a custom fabrication job whatever
>you fit, why don't you drop a Holden 6 in? It won't be any harder to do
>and should be more economical than a 2.25 petrol and certainly a lot
>more driveable.

I want to do a custom fabrication job to mate a GM 30NE lump to a
series box, but can i find anyone prepared to make an adaptor plate
for anything approaching a reasonable price? And even it it was a
reasonable price, i couldn't really afford it. Hence that project has
been shelved for another year, untill i can get the required engine in
and make a conversion myself

Alex
 
Samuel wrote:

> i have been giving that option a great deal of thought, but am having
> trouble finding a conversion kit for the 6 cylinder. it needs a different
> bellhousing and different mounts to the 4 cylinder conversion. i don't have
> the money to do a custom job at the moment so i have to keep an eye out for
> some second hand bits.

Bolt a 4cyl bellhousing onto the gearbox, and then it's all easy.


--
EMB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

xDParis64
Drinking Coolant / Head Gasket
Replies
18
Views
3K
Nodge68
Nodge68
W
Rough idle and running rich
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
norseman
norseman
T
101 LPG conversion NO COMPRESSION
Replies
2
Views
1K
kermit_rr
kermit_rr
L
3.5 V8 COOLANT LOSS - THOUGHTS PLEASE!
Replies
1
Views
348
saxavordian
saxavordian
O
L322 4.2SC misfire after engine rebuild
Replies
15
Views
2K
onebounce
O
Back
Top