thorne
Part of things
Posts: 69
|
|
Feb 19, 2014 19:08:15 GMT
|
Evening all, just browsing eBay and noticing all the cheapest and usually better condition Sierras are the cvh engined ones, anyone dropped in the cologne v6 themselves? Obviously would need the v6 gearbox and uprated brakes possibly, wondering what else I'd need? Propshaft? Diff? Just thinking if there's not too much to change it might be a cheaper way of getting a decent condition Sierra with a bit of go, anyone have any idea how much stuff would need to be changed to make it xr4i spec?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2014 20:44:16 GMT
|
Might be easier to buy a rotten XR4i and reshell the mechanicals into the CVH. After all you'd need to source XR4i parts and doing that individually will be far more expensive than buying whole car yourself and breaking with the surplus bits being sold to offset the costs.
Paul H
|
|
|
|
thorne
Part of things
Posts: 69
|
|
Feb 19, 2014 21:35:22 GMT
|
Would be easier if I had the space for two more cars lol, the idea was to buy a cheap Sierra, cheap probably meaning underpowered poverty-spec, and fit a v6 at a later date, but what's needed other than engine and box? I wasn't sure what else was different on the v6's? I'd assume springs/shocks, bigger brakes etc
|
|
|
|
thorne
Part of things
Posts: 69
|
|
Feb 19, 2014 21:44:08 GMT
|
Not thinking of it as a big project or specifically xr4i spec, more as an upgrade to a daily driver, seeing as Ford made this car with this engine....how hard can it be? Haha
|
|
|
|
thorne
Part of things
Posts: 69
|
|
Feb 19, 2014 21:44:32 GMT
|
Not thinking of it as a big project or specifically xr4i spec, more as an upgrade to a daily driver, seeing as Ford made this car with this engine....how hard can it be? Haha
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2014 22:25:24 GMT
|
Or you could put a decent engine in? lol
If my saph doesn't sell I'm gonna drop a rover v8 in, if I'm gonna have a curse word engine in it it might as well have 8 cylinders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2014 22:28:28 GMT
|
I've got no experience of the zetecs but these seem to be fairly common in older RWD fords? If you got a cvh sierra wouldn't that be a fairly straightforward swap?
|
|
|
|
thorne
Part of things
Posts: 69
|
|
Feb 19, 2014 23:43:53 GMT
|
Good call on the v8 lol, but the thinking behind the v6 is that it'd be quick and easy-ish, if I didn't have to get anything custom made or modified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2014 23:47:31 GMT
|
Good call on the v8 lol, but the thinking behind the v6 is that it'd be quick and easy-ish, if I didn't have to get anything custom made or modified For the work involved you will be disappointed by the performance of the v6, go with a zetec swap for an easy life.
|
|
1988 Mercedes w124 superturbo diesel 508hp 1996 Mercedes s124 e300 diesel wagon 1990 BMW E30 V8 M60 powered! 1999 BMW E46 323ci project car
|
|
|
|
|
3.0 Duratec V6 instead
|
|
|
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,201
Club RR Member Number: 170
|
|
Feb 21, 2014 21:05:49 GMT
|
I'd say the Duratec V6 but truth be told they are not cheap engines secondhand and if a water pump were to go it would be a royal pain to change (it would sit at the bulkhead, it's a pain to change it on a FWD Mundaneo with the pump at the front of the engine!)). The Cosworth V6 would be a better bet and such a conversion is well catered for (a Type 9 IIRC fits as well as countless Capris being converted to them .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2014 21:24:06 GMT
|
I think you would be better off fitting a zetec engine if you buy one with a cvh engine, i fitted a xr4i engine into a 89 sierra a few weeks ago and its not fast at all and that's in a striped out track car.
|
|
|
|
thorne
Part of things
Posts: 69
|
|
Feb 21, 2014 22:17:47 GMT
|
Cheers for the opinions guys, should probably clarify, when I said "quick" I meant the actual job of changing the engine and getting it going again, not necessarily making a quick Sierra lol just something a bit quicker and hopefully a bit nicer sounding than a tappetty old cvh, the idea being the quickest factory Sierra after the cosworth (too expensive, don't go there) was the xr4i, so should be easy to dump one of those engines in a clean Sapphire shell right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2014 23:08:11 GMT
|
Cheers for the opinions guys, should probably clarify, when I said "quick" I meant the actual job of changing the engine and getting it going again, not necessarily making a quick Sierra lol just something a bit quicker and hopefully a bit nicer sounding than a tappetty old cvh, the idea being the quickest factory Sierra after the cosworth (too expensive, don't go there) was the xr4i, so should be easy to dump one of those engines in a clean Sapphire shell right? The v6 engines tap just as badly as the cvh, even the cossie v6 sounds horrible at idle. I fitted a v6 cossie into my brothers sapphire, all the front suspension and cradle needed swapping over, fuel lines on the wrong side of the car, and then there was the wiring... The zetec would be a faster conversion, you could probably get it running in a long weekend. Or be a real man and copy the xr8 sierras, those could give a cossie a run for it's money.
|
|
1988 Mercedes w124 superturbo diesel 508hp 1996 Mercedes s124 e300 diesel wagon 1990 BMW E30 V8 M60 powered! 1999 BMW E46 323ci project car
|
|
thorne
Part of things
Posts: 69
|
|
|
A 5 litre V8 would be awesome but bank account says no lol, am I right in thinking the cvh sump is used for the zetec conversion? Sierra box and standard prop etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2014 10:28:53 GMT
|
My Pinto sierra used to leave xr4i's standing, saying that it showed a lot of things a clean pair of heels, 2.8 sierras just aren't quick at all not worth the effort really
|
|
|
|
bortaf
Posted a lot
Posts: 4,549
|
|
Feb 22, 2014 14:21:58 GMT
|
3.0 Duratec V6 instead Yeah if you want to spend loads on getting a RWD manual box and then a one off prop, then there's the water punp issue and the weak H/Gs, no available RWD mounts ect ect Any engine swap is going to need wiring sorting, a change of fuel tank and fuel lines, personly the 2.9 is ok but not a great engine, the 2.8 is just a waist of time for 150 BHP i'd fit a zetec (torque aside) at least with a zetec there will be no front spring mods needed ,it will bolt to the existing gearbox and prop, diff ratio will be ok ect ect
|
|
R.I.P photobucket
|
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2014 18:36:33 GMT
|
Was just thinking the 3.0's are 200 bhp stock, jags use a RWD version don't they for the box? Noble's defintely do a conversion plate to mount to a ford box.
Keep thinking about sticking one into the Transit but have no idea what box I could use as ideally i'de like an auto (with no electronics) &n the thought of having to build and understand a Megasquirt to do the fueling puts me off. Haven't come across any H/G issues (fingers & toes crossed from now on though)
There are a few cheap Mavericks coming up and they break well to get your money back on for the engine.
|
|
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,201
Club RR Member Number: 170
|
|
Feb 22, 2014 19:18:56 GMT
|
3.0 Duratec V6 instead Yeah if you want to spend loads on getting a RWD manual box and then a one off prop, then there's the water punp issue and the weak H/Gs, no available RWD mounts ect ect Any engine swap is going to need wiring sorting, a change of fuel tank and fuel lines, personly the 2.9 is ok but not a great engine, the 2.8 is just a waist of time for 150 BHP i'd fit a zetec (torque aside) at least with a zetec there will be no front spring mods needed ,it will bolt to the existing gearbox and prop, diff ratio will be ok ect ect I normally agree with alot of what you have to say (I can only guess that you are in the trade with your experience), although the above not so much. It was going be left until I saw the reply from Dodgerover Was just thinking the 3.0's are 200 bhp stock, jags use a RWD version don't they for the box? Noble's defintely do a conversion plate to mount to a ford box. Keep thinking about sticking one into the Transit but have no idea what box I could use as ideally i'de like an auto (with no electronics) &n the thought of having to build and understand a Megasquirt to do the fueling puts me off. Haven't come across any H/G issues (fingers & toes crossed from now on though) There are a few cheap Mavericks coming up and they break well to get your money back on for the engine. IMO whilst they can have weak HGs alot of their issues are down to poor maintenance. They do have a bit of a rat's nest when it comes to cooling hoses, and IMO they are run very much on the warm side (on both of my v6s the fans did not kick in until 100 oC, with the higher speed coming in at 110!. Having leaks at this temperature (which IME tends to stem from the heat exchanger pipes behind the front exhaust manifold (I guess the heat does them no favours) along with the header tanks which can crack. The fact that people simply put water into them to run them (they are an all alloy engine) along with ignoring coolant leaks leads to their reputation IMO. in addition to careless mechanics working on them (on both of my V6s the top coolant hose was rubbing on the water pipe pulley shortly after coming out of the garage, a recipe for disaster, but then again it does take almost forever to work on them in comparison to a 4 pot!). On both of my V6s (the first one (an '04 2.5 where I changed the engine at 140k for a 70k item and then drove it until 280k. and now my 3.0 on 245k) the water pumps were fine (yes they were plastic but I am sure the issues are down to the above; I changed the water pump on my first one only to find (at 260k) that there was nothing ever wrong with it, my 3.0 is still on its stock pump). Both were run on Ford's Antifreeze when I bought them (the first only had tap water in a lovely shade of white (engine corrosion) and I kept a careful eye out for coolant leaks, rectifying them whenever possible. Both however did have the above issues (the former I ended up changing every single coolant hose due to them being cut by careless mechanics or simply swollen due to the previous engine overheating so badly prior to me buying it). Touchwood the V6 stays faithful after this post. But that's my 2p on the matter .
|
|
|
|
bortaf
Posted a lot
Posts: 4,549
|
|
Feb 23, 2014 17:59:53 GMT
|
Maybe my post was a bit short on why the duratec isn't the best choice I agree the V6 duratec "can" be a good engine but i see (or rather saw) more with knackerd WPs than ones with good ones and that invairiably leads to the HG issues, any engine will go on forever with decent regular servicing but a strong engine will go on forever "despite" a lack of decent regular servicing and as you say they run very close to thier thermal limit (for emmisions reasons) and it doesn't take a lot to put them over that and IME it only takes the one overheating to cause the start of an issue (alloy engines are like that), obv i get to see more cars with issues or they wouldn't be in my yard so it can be hard to see the overall picture of an engine reliabilty I often have this same discussion with owners of K series rovers who claim them to be bullet proof cos thier HG hasn't gone, yet (Ok Ok i know that was unfair but i like to dig at the K series which is a good engine HG aside) BUT in the context of "a cheaper way of getting a decent condition Sierra with a bit of go" the duratec simply doen't fit the bill, on ease of fittment, cost of fittment or (in comparison to the cologne) reliability, where it does win is on refinement and economy, no-one can argue agaianst those 2 points! the cologne is rather rough Then we get to the RWD aspect, X type Jags are AWD or FWD, S type are 99% auto, manual boxes are not expensive but harder to find then you'll need a prop and gear linkage sorting pluss you need to sort a flywheel as the don't usually come with the box.
|
|
R.I.P photobucket
|
|
|