TR6 engine swap
Discussion
aeropilot said:
Trouble is, can the Trumpet rear IRS cope with much more than 200-225hp etc., (that LS lump could be interesting in that regard!) and then once you get into the realms of axle swaps, engine swaps, tranny swaps, and everything else, VHI retention now becomes an issue, and BIVA looms its head. That's not to say that BIVA is a huge problem, if you are not bothered too much about keeping period looks and details.
Exactly my feelings. By the time you've made it work mechanically, there's precious little TR6 left apart from the handsome body and cramped interior. IMO the best place to start making a TR6 'faster' is to sort out the suspension.
300bhp/ton said:
I don't think it's that hard to see why someone might do something different. They might like the look of the car, but want more modern performance form it, with an every day 250hp+
The old TR engine is a gem, but will require a lot of money and effort to make it perform and then keep it performing. And 250hp is probably a stretch too far.
Isn't that what Kit cars are for ?.The old TR engine is a gem, but will require a lot of money and effort to make it perform and then keep it performing. And 250hp is probably a stretch too far.
DonkeyApple said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
Isn't that what Kit cars are for ?.
Why is it important that all TR6s remain as they left the factory? Why can’t someone bigger about with their own property if they wish?DonkeyApple said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
Isn't that what Kit cars are for ?.
Why is it important that all TR6s remain as they left the factory? Why can’t someone bigger about with their own property if they wish?Only thing now is that the political fun police in Brussels and Westminster don't understand such a concept and don't want their populations buggering about with nasty, evil planet raping internal combustion engine personal transportation devices and want it make it as hard as possible for anyone to do so......
Other than that, crack on....
DonkeyApple said:
Surely the act of replacing a stinky, inefficient mid 20th century engine with a modern, clean but used engine is the ultimate act of both recycling, upcycling and environmentalism?
Stop using common sense and logic, politicians don't have a grasp of such things..............
Really appreciate the input people. I know many of you think the idea is a b
disation of a great machine but what I want from the TR is the aesthetic. The shape, the style is fabulous but while I am in the process of completely rebuilding her, I want to make a few upgrades. I don’t want to change the aesthetic, just the performance.
If I wanted to build a kit car I would and would be posting on a kit car forum. I’m not so aragant that I believe I can redesign the TR but I want to build something that is based on the original and unique to me.
I still have a long way to go in the planning of this project and am only in the preliminary stages, weighing up my options and project feasibility. All the forum members have a massive knowledge base and I would be foolish not to try and tap into its resource.
I really appreciate all your input and please continue to point and advise and again don’t hate.
disation of a great machine but what I want from the TR is the aesthetic. The shape, the style is fabulous but while I am in the process of completely rebuilding her, I want to make a few upgrades. I don’t want to change the aesthetic, just the performance. If I wanted to build a kit car I would and would be posting on a kit car forum. I’m not so aragant that I believe I can redesign the TR but I want to build something that is based on the original and unique to me.
I still have a long way to go in the planning of this project and am only in the preliminary stages, weighing up my options and project feasibility. All the forum members have a massive knowledge base and I would be foolish not to try and tap into its resource.
I really appreciate all your input and please continue to point and advise and again don’t hate.
This one uses a Ford V8 - but the work involved seems huge - http://www.britishv8.org/triumph/danmasters.htm
There is a US one that uses a Skyline R33 straight six engine with Turbos but Nissan did a non-turbo 2.5 straight six in Skylines and Laurels.
There is a US one that uses a Skyline R33 straight six engine with Turbos but Nissan did a non-turbo 2.5 straight six in Skylines and Laurels.
When I was planning the build of my suffix A Rangie I knew I wanted more power to match what I had in a 5.7 Chevy Overfinch that I had at the time.
I looked at many alternate engines but the real stumbling block was the dawning reality that I would also need to substantially update the whole running gear to cope. An easier task with a Rangie than many other cars as most things had been done before but my overriding concern was the 8 point system.
In order to retain the drivetrain my solution has been to fit a Rotrex supercharger. Because it spools up like a turbo it puts much, much less strain on the drivetrain but will achieve the right end result. In theory it will also be more economical than a bigger displacement engine.
As an idea and not knowing if the triumph engine is strong enough could this be an easier engineering solution to your objective?
I looked at many alternate engines but the real stumbling block was the dawning reality that I would also need to substantially update the whole running gear to cope. An easier task with a Rangie than many other cars as most things had been done before but my overriding concern was the 8 point system.
In order to retain the drivetrain my solution has been to fit a Rotrex supercharger. Because it spools up like a turbo it puts much, much less strain on the drivetrain but will achieve the right end result. In theory it will also be more economical than a bigger displacement engine.
As an idea and not knowing if the triumph engine is strong enough could this be an easier engineering solution to your objective?
singlecoil said:
Good idea to check the height of any V engine with overhead cams. LS works because pushrod engines are not so tall.
^This.That's why I asked whether the Alfa V6 was a narrow angle V, as that could make it quite tall?
And if its wide angle, that could mean it's too wide to fit in a long narrow TR engine bay, designed for a inline 6?
I've got nothing against engine swaps, but I think the Alfa V6 is very much the wrong choice of engine.
A more modern inline 6 (BMW or Jag AJ6 perhaps) or the LS V8 seems a more sensible fit in terms of engineering and gearbox options.
I'd still be worried about that Triumph IRS though putting any substantial power through it from a more modern lump?
Back in the early 80's a workmate had a TR6 with a SAH tuned lump, and he seemed to be always having problems with his arse-end.
You need to reinforce the back-end to deal with the standard engine, let alone any increased power. The diff itself can take a bit more power but needs to be in good shape.
There's a lot of space in the engine bay – without the airbox etc I always think the engine looks slightly lost in there. But as we saw with that TR4 you can get quite a bit in there, with work.
There's a lot of space in the engine bay – without the airbox etc I always think the engine looks slightly lost in there. But as we saw with that TR4 you can get quite a bit in there, with work.
Norfolkandchance said:
The 3 litre and, I think, 2.5 litre V6 Alfa engines were used in the 75 and GTV6 which were both RWD. But, they also had a transaxle so gearbox not suitable. But at least these engines were designed to face the right way for a TR6!
aeropilot said:
Trouble is, can the Trumpet rear IRS cope with much more than 200-225hp etc., (that LS lump could be interesting in that regard!) and then once you get into the realms of axle swaps, engine swaps, tranny swaps, and everything else, VHI retention now becomes an issue, and BIVA looms its head. That's not to say that BIVA is a huge problem, if you are not bothered too much about keeping period looks and details.
Could you use a GTV6 engine + transaxle, and adapt driveshafts for the TR6 rear end?As it's seperate chassis, you've got some room to play with.
DonkeyApple said:
When I was planning the build of my suffix A Rangie I knew I wanted more power to match what I had in a 5.7 Chevy Overfinch that I had at the time.
I looked at many alternate engines but the real stumbling block was the dawning reality that I would also need to substantially update the whole running gear to cope. An easier task with a Rangie than many other cars as most things had been done before but my overriding concern was the 8 point system.
I don't think this would have been a really big issue tbh. Axles are easy, if costly to upgrade, but still remain Rover. Gearbox wise, well it depends on which engine, but there are certainly options.I looked at many alternate engines but the real stumbling block was the dawning reality that I would also need to substantially update the whole running gear to cope. An easier task with a Rangie than many other cars as most things had been done before but my overriding concern was the 8 point system.
AW111 said:
aeropilot said:
Trouble is, can the Trumpet rear IRS cope with much more than 200-225hp etc., (that LS lump could be interesting in that regard!) and then once you get into the realms of axle swaps, engine swaps, tranny swaps, and everything else, VHI retention now becomes an issue, and BIVA looms its head. That's not to say that BIVA is a huge problem, if you are not bothered too much about keeping period looks and details.
Could you use a GTV6 engine + transaxle, and adapt driveshafts for the TR6 rear end?As it's seperate chassis, you've got some room to play with.
But, you'll be almost certainly in building to BIVA rules with such a route, as you'll have lost your points for engine, gearbox, back axle, and likely chassis (mountings for everything being modified) so, as long as that isn't an issue for the builder, then would be an interesting challenge and project going that route. Only good thing about that is an 80's GTV donor car means being outside the emissions regs with the new engine. Anything dated after '91/92 and then you're in another world of pain.
300bhp/ton said:
I don't think this would have been a really big issue tbh. Axles are easy, if costly to upgrade, but still remain Rover. Gearbox wise, well it depends on which engine, but there are certainly options.
The updated HP wouldn’t handle an LS for long nor would the BW transfer case and the later axles would have been needed. Switching to the 4L box would have been a chore as well as the sump is offset the other way so you’d need to move it further back to get the forward drive shaft to clear. Plenty of people have bodged SBCs in but I’d want a properly engineered solution that kept the car compliant. Same issues using the Mercedes engine and the Jeep drivetrain elements.
The Rotrex charger solution achieves exactly what is needed which is the power upgrade without replacing the drivetrain, just uprating.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff