My latest project: Triumph XR4x4i

My latest project: Triumph XR4x4i

Author
Discussion

MaxRothery

Original Poster:

201 posts

111 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
Well, thought I'd start a resto-mod thread as I thought it would be a good way to track my progress.

But first, a littl back ground on my car. It's a 1500TC and had it for just over two years, I bought it from someone in rugby for the small sum of £380. It had a blown head gasket and a horrible mat black and grey paint job, which was half primer grey and the other half paint brushes matte black. It was kind of a restoration project just getting it road worthy and looking ok. Me and my dad spent a few months getting the engine apart to replace all the bearings and seals which wasn't too hard compared to the next 4 months doing all the body work and interior.

The body work sanding was done by hand, by me, so it took about two months of work to sand off the black paint and to etch the primer that was exposed. My dad had some gear that he used to spray his cars when he restored his cars so he put both the primer coat and the colour layer. the colour I wanted the car was signal red as I thought it was a deep red and looked quite nice but the colour I ended up with was a very bright red, with a black roof as I didn't want to fit a vynle roof cover. It was a nice little motor, ran smooth when off choke and was roomy, but since owning it it's been through 3 head gaskets, 3!!

So after a year, I got into a small accident and crushed the nose so I took it off the road and wanted to do more than just fix the body work and I heard that an MX5 engine near enough drops straight in. After asking around on the triumph forums, I found that it didn't drop in and would be a considerable amount of work. Another idea was to make it AWD, and after asking on the Triumph forums again, I found out that triumph did a FWD and a AWD1300 and that Triumph never changed the subframe, therefore the holes for the front driveshafts are still there from the FWD. after debating using the AWD 1500 gearbox, I decided to not use the engine I had as it was totally unreliable. Then looked at some resto-mod threads on the site and seen that someone did a 2.9 V6 swap from a ford Scorpio cosworth. As they did that in the XR4x4, I thought that would make it a prime candidate for an AWD swap

So, here's the plan; get ahold of a Sierra XR4x4 2.8 or 2.9, take out the engine and all associated wiring, find a triumph FWD hub to take measurements from, get either a pair or a single custom made, get FwD spindles, made adaptor plate to attach spindles to ford front half shafts, get tail shaft custom made to connect triumph rear end to ford gearbox, uproar front brakes, convert rear brakes to disk, put LSD in the rear axle, figure out how to wire Ford ecu to dolomite dials, race seats, roll cage, wheel arch flares, 15x8 wheels and tyres, respray either light blue or red with a black roof

Kitchski

6,514 posts

230 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
Like the idea of it and the running gear from the Sierra is all good, but I'd use a different engine as the Cologne's really not up to much (speaking as a Cologne owner). Wouldn't be hard to put something different in there.

Only thing I'd point out is that (as you probably know) if you modify the shell, the car would need an IVA and end up on a Q-plate, so ideally you want all bolt-on gear, or fabricate running gear that bolts to the original mounting points.

MaxRothery

Original Poster:

201 posts

111 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
Kitchski said:
Like the idea of it and the running gear from the Sierra is all good, but I'd use a different engine as the Cologne's really not up to much (speaking as a Cologne owner). Wouldn't be hard to put something different in there.

Only thing I'd point out is that (as you probably know) if you modify the shell, the car would need an IVA and end up on a Q-plate, so ideally you want all bolt-on gear, or fabricate running gear that bolts to the original mounting points.
I've looked into it and hopefully, as I'll be using reconditioned/"replacement" parts for the front hubs, it shouldn't officially change the suspension. I will be trying my best not to cut into the shell but I'm not sure about the gearbox length as all the pictures I can find, it looks rather long. I might have to modify the front subframe to make the 'box sit lower and add a dog leg system on it. I'm planing in keeping the steering and the suspension so that gives me the 3 other points I need to keep the reg plate

Almost all the parts will be bolt on, except for the engine mounts which I'll most likely create a rail for them so the position of the engine can be changed forward and backwards slightly if I change the engine

I'm more picking the cologne engine as, although all reports on the 2.8 were it was under powered, the 2.9 has been built up to make serious power. Granted it was the BOB cosworth engine which is becoming rare, the same techniques could be applied to the 12v and make it a formidable engine

Kitchski

6,514 posts

230 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
Basically, any mods to the shell (other than non-structural flat panels) could land you in the ste, so if you modify the removable bits you're technically (I think, best to double check) ok. You could of course modify it all and just risk it as many have done for years, but VOSA are starting to catch up on the backlog, so to speak.

On the engines, the 2.9 is worth 20bhp minimum (real world) over the 2.8, and does respond better to tuning, but it's still not great. It's also massively heavy, and there's a huge gulf between those and the 24v lumps.

Rover KV6 is where I'd go. Very compact, very light, very very cheap and can be bolted to a Type 9 (with a custom bell housing available off the shelf), which is what the earlier Sierra 4x4 setups used (happy to be corrected by Sierra buffs). 170bhp in the lowest guises, 190bhp in the better ones. In essence, worth another 10bhp (comparing a bad KV6 to a good 2.9 Cologne) and probably saves around 50-70kg in weight too, due to not being made of pig-iron. Only thing to muck about with is the secondary flaps, but they're easily removed, or if you're really lucky find a Rover 800 inlet as they're alloy, and don't have the stupid flaps. Don't buy the actual Rover 800 engine though, as they suffered OMGHGF. Anything MG ZS or MG ZT based is ideal. Just my opinion anyway, speaking as someone who owns a Cologne-propelled car and has owned a KV6 propelled car!

Kitchski

6,514 posts

230 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
One other point - again, happy to be corrected if wrong - the 2.8 4x4 used a Type 9 box, whereas I think the 2.9 used an MT75, and those are bigger so possibly harder to accommodate in the tunnel. That said, the 2.8 is rarer and probably worth more, so harder to find a breaker. In fact, all Sierras are screaming up in value.

steveo3002

10,493 posts

173 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
do you really need 4x4?

lots of cheap bmw around that could donate the running gear and make a fun car

MaxRothery

Original Poster:

201 posts

111 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
Kitchski said:
Basically, any mods to the shell (other than non-structural flat panels) could land you in the ste, so if you modify the removable bits you're technically (I think, best to double check) ok. You could of course modify it all and just risk it as many have done for years, but VOSA are starting to catch up on the backlog, so to speak.

On the engines, the 2.9 is worth 20bhp minimum (real world) over the 2.8, and does respond better to tuning, but it's still not great. It's also massively heavy, and there's a huge gulf between those and the 24v lumps.

Rover KV6 is where I'd go. Very compact, very light, very very cheap and can be bolted to a Type 9 (with a custom bell housing available off the shelf), which is what the earlier Sierra 4x4 setups used (happy to be corrected by Sierra buffs). 170bhp in the lowest guises, 190bhp in the better ones. In essence, worth another 10bhp (comparing a bad KV6 to a good 2.9 Cologne) and probably saves around 50-70kg in weight too, due to not being made of pig-iron. Only thing to muck about with is the secondary flaps, but they're easily removed, or if you're really lucky find a Rover 800 inlet as they're alloy, and don't have the stupid flaps. Don't buy the actual Rover 800 engine though, as they suffered OMGHGF. Anything MG ZS or MG ZT based is ideal. Just my opinion anyway, speaking as someone who owns a Cologne-propelled car and has owned a KV6 propelled car!
I've gave it a look and seems like a good engine. Was just saying using the 2.9 as according to a few ford forums, they share the block and are easily swappable. And the 2.9 24v can be tuned to north of 300hp. I'll have a look for bell housing kits.

And I'd be going 4WD as I figured that the triumph suspension is only rated to about 250 ( as that's what race sprints had) and if I want more power, I'd have to replace suspension, and then apply for a Q-plate. Plus 4wd is just plain cooler

MaxRothery

Original Poster:

201 posts

111 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
Also, I need the 2.8 cologne sump for the diff to travel through as I can't have the diff too low

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
MaxRothery said:
And I'd be going 4WD as I figured that the triumph suspension is only rated to about 250 ( as that's what race sprints had) and if I want more power, I'd have to replace suspension, and then apply for a Q-plate. Plus 4wd is just plain cooler
No idea why you are bothering with 4wd! Sounds like a good way to ruin the car to me....


(with modern tyres, decent axle location and good damping, it'll put down 250bhp easily, and it's not like you've got a lot of torque to deal with either (by modern stds)

I'd go with a mildly fettled KV6 driving the back axle only for a nice solid 200 bhp / 250Nm

MaxRothery

Original Poster:

201 posts

111 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
No idea why you are bothering with 4wd! Sounds like a good way to ruin the car to me....


(with modern tyres, decent axle location and good damping, it'll put down 250bhp easily, and it's not like you've got a lot of torque to deal with either (by modern stds)

I'd go with a mildly fettled KV6 driving the back axle only for a nice solid 200 bhp / 250Nm
Reading on the Triumph forum, there's a guy who swapped in a rover V8 that was running 250nm or torque and he bent the trailing arm.

Plus AWD makes for great acceleration and that's what I'm ultimately going for

Kitchski

6,514 posts

230 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
MaxRothery said:
Plus AWD makes for great acceleration and that's what I'm ultimately going for
Only off the line. It's hinderance once you get going.

MaxRothery

Original Poster:

201 posts

111 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
Oh, ok. Fair enough. Still, would help deal with wheel spin slightly

steveo3002

10,493 posts

173 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
dropping the 4x4 idea would open so many other engines , maybe lighter or more powerfull ones from a modern car that wont be needing a rebuild before you get going

sun.and.rain

1,649 posts

138 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
Check out Ken Woods rally Dolly Sprint with a kv6. Its on youtube and the interweb. Impressive.

LanceRS

2,171 posts

136 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
If you want the 4wd so you can launch of the line, I fear that you may be disappointed. As much as I am a fan of the 4x4 Sierras, the systems are not exactly famous for strength and reliability.
The mt75 setup is a bit stronger but you will break bits regularly with repeated enthusiastic launches.

MaxRothery

Original Poster:

201 posts

111 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
steveo3002 said:
dropping the 4x4 idea would open so many other engines , maybe lighter or more powerfull ones from a modern car that wont be needing a rebuild before you get going
I've looked into some engines before doing this, such as an 1.8 mx5 engine with a supercharger. Would make about 200hp, and an upper limit of 225 hp due to gearbox. Also thought about an RB series, like an RB20, engine but they are too long, engine is 73" long and engine bay is 75" and is too tall and would have to be mounted at a slant. I also considered a BMW M3 v8 as it just sounds gorgeous.

Oh, I didn't know that they weren't that strong.

ManOpener

12,467 posts

168 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
Could drop a BMW or Audi V8 of just about any kind in there. Even avoid the S/RS/M stuff you'd still see over 300bhp from an Audi 4.2 V8, they're fairly small in size, and surprisingly cheap.

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

189 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
This all sounds cool, but it also sounds like a complete vapour build.

Of course there are wacky people out there that do build amazing cars. But this project sounds like a heck of a lot of work and bespoke customisation.

The reality is, this means:

-Lots and lots of £££££
-Lots of hours
-The need to have the skills, tools, equipment and time to complete such a project.


I wish you all the luck, but I'm also willing to wager that it's also highly unlikely to ever happen.

I also think you'll struggle to have such a radically modified car and not need an IVA.


And as for performance, the cost of getting 300bhp+ n/a from the old Ford V6 must be astronomical. And if you really want to build it purely for acceleration, then the entire build concept seems highly flawed IMO.

MaxRothery

Original Poster:

201 posts

111 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all

ManOpener said:
Could drop a BMW or Audi V8 of just about any kind in there. Even avoid the S/RS/M stuff you'd still see over 300bhp from an Audi 4.2 V8, they're fairly small in size, and surprisingly cheap.
If I can remember the bay dimensions, they might fit. It's 75" long x 30" wide x 22" deep (I think from the cross member). An RB might fit if I got a lower profile sump. If I were to go above 300hp, I'd probably strengthen the suspension just I case it bent.

MaxRothery

Original Poster:

201 posts

111 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
This all sounds cool, but it also sounds like a complete vapour build.

Of course there are wacky people out there that do build amazing cars. But this project sounds like a heck of a lot of work and bespoke customisation.

The reality is, this means:

-Lots and lots of £££££
-Lots of hours
-The need to have the skills, tools, equipment and time to complete such a project.


I wish you all the luck, but I'm also willing to wager that it's also highly unlikely to ever happen.

I also think you'll struggle to have such a radically modified car and not need an IVA.


And as for performance, the cost of getting 300bhp+ n/a from the old Ford V6 must be astronomical. And if you really want to build it purely for acceleration, then the entire build concept seems highly flawed IMO.
Yes, tuning an n/a cologne V6 would be expensive, but who said I would do it n/a, was thinking using a tt kit, as for custom parts, all I can think of is hubs, spindles, headers, tail shaft, engine mount, and wiring loom. Just the usual things that are custom for an engine swap