Outer Limits 4x4 Board

I would check the gearbox lengths very carefully, especially considering its a SWB and that leaves nothing for the rear tailshaft. I ran a Rover V8 and LT95 and couldn't make the rear tailshaft work, and so had to push the wheelbase out to 100". The way to get around that is to cut and reposition the front Xmember and panelwork so you can move the whole engine gearbox forward in the same way that the factory have done with the later Defenders/Countys and hope the sump works over the diff. You may also have to relieve the Xmember at the rear of the engine if the tailshaft hole doesn't match.

The other issue, is that your current gearbox will shat itself with a turbo, commy V6 or the lexus, so you'll pretty much have to swap out the gearbox, though how many are as stumpy as the series box? There is a Nissan/Datsun conversion which was good, though I don;t know enough about it.

C4 (C9, C10) are quite short, with a nice injected 5l windsor will get you motoring along nicely

cloughy wrote:C4 (C9, C10) are quite short, with a nice injected 5l windsor will get you motoring along nicely

Trying to look for the C4 adapted to the LR transfer case that was forsale awhile ago right now. No luck so far

Slunnie - Yeah, I have no complaints about the motor, the only only reason im considering a conversion is because I think that the gearbox is going to start blowing, it already makes funny sounds . The crossmembers which you speak of are already gone , the one under the rear of the engine was holding in rust, so it came out, and the front one came out because I wanted to lower the radiator. Another brace under the engine will compensate for the loss of crossmembers. I have a huge C section front bar which acts like a crossmember.

Im very worried about gearbox lengths. I know I can fit a trimatic in there with not much more extra length.

For those of you who don't know where I'm basing fuel efficiency figures for the GMH V6, it from a relative with a VY Comoodore Ute, V6 (ecotec I believe) and 4 speed auto. I went on a trip following him one day (I'm in my Sierra); We left Ipswich in QLD, then refilled a Warwick: I put in about 12L of petrol (alright economy), then the VY Ute put in about 25L. THATS APPAULING. Also with us was another relative with a VT Commodore wagon (I think, doesn't have it anymore), and he did only slightly better.

Those V6's in their production car seem to average between 15 to 20 litres per 100km, when driven with a right foot. If driven more sedatly its probably around 15. If you think this is good economy for a 2WD car under 2t, with reasonable aerodynamics, then I disagree with you. This economy would be severly worse in something like a Land Rover, especially in low range.

Just to ad to this further, my parents Jeep Cherokee (XJ), is suposadly an inefficient vehicle, a label they seem to have gained. However it gets similar economy to a stock standard VT-VX-VY V6 commodore.

Sorry to carry this on any further, it seems the thread has changed over to possibly considering a Ford engine, thats cool, I know nothing about them though, so I'll end this here.

Highway-Star wrote:Those V6's in their production car seem to average between 15 to 20 litres per 100km, when driven with a right foot. If driven more sedatly its probably around 15. If you think this is good economy for a 2WD car under 2t, with reasonable aerodynamics, then I disagree with you. This economy would be severly worse in something like a Land Rover, especially in low range.

I agree... there are two things that make those commo V6s good for engine conversions - they are common, and they are small. And that's it. Other than that, they are poor quality junk, and they have to rev their tits off to make any decent power or torque.

Having said that, the ford sixes are not exactly ultra economical either, but at least they make some nice torque. In a 4WD application the ford six would be so much better than the commo six that you wouldn't even bother showing up to watch the contest.

I had a vs commo and got less economy out of it then my modded td42 turbo and would rather drive the patrol anyday, commo had poor performance compared to the deisel.
If comparing commo to falcon you should check out the saloon cars, they run vn against ea n ea's out perform by miles.


" Clayfield’s Scott Nicholas is looking to continue his fantastic run in the Ford versus Holden Saloon Car class.

Nicholas’s record so far this season has been incredible; out of 16 races, he has picked up 12 wins, and four second places " taken from queensland raceway's website. These are not highly modified cars either

I've never even heard of that racing class. That would be a shiatload of cheap fun. I wonder if you can book out Calder and thrash the hell out of some EAs and VNs from Pickles Auctions

Highway-Star wrote:For those of you who don't know where I'm basing fuel efficiency figures for the GMH V6, it from a relative with a VY Comoodore Ute, V6 (ecotec I believe) and 4 speed auto. I went on a trip following him one day (I'm in my Sierra); We left Ipswich in QLD, then refilled a Warwick: I put in about 12L of petrol (alright economy), then the VY Ute put in about 25L. THATS APPAULING. Also with us was another relative with a VT Commodore wagon (I think, doesn't have it anymore), and he did only slightly better.

Those V6's in their production car seem to average between 15 to 20 litres per 100km, when driven with a right foot. If driven more sedatly its probably around 15. If you think this is good economy for a 2WD car under 2t, with reasonable aerodynamics, then I disagree with you. This economy would be severly worse in something like a Land Rover, especially in low range.

Just to ad to this further, my parents Jeep Cherokee (XJ), is suposadly an inefficient vehicle, a label they seem to have gained. However it gets similar economy to a stock standard VT-VX-VY V6 commodore.

Sorry to carry this on any further, it seems the thread has changed over to possibly considering a Ford engine, thats cool, I know nothing about them though, so I'll end this here.

Ive got a VT V6 wagon that gets approx 10.7L per 100 around town. So there was something wrong with both those vehicles your basing your figures on. Im yet to do any Hwy Ks so dont know how much better it will be.

But i agrea that in a conversion they do suck fuel and more often than not its because they are running with no speed sensor.

I am in the planning stages of a new rig that will be powered by a Commodore 3.6L Alloytech motor but i dont think it will ever do enough road Ks to ever get a fuel consumption figure.

RUFF wrote:

Highway-Star wrote:For those of you who don't know where I'm basing fuel efficiency figures for the GMH V6, it from a relative with a VY Comoodore Ute, V6 (ecotec I believe) and 4 speed auto. I went on a trip following him one day (I'm in my Sierra); We left Ipswich in QLD, then refilled a Warwick: I put in about 12L of petrol (alright economy), then the VY Ute put in about 25L. THATS APPAULING. Also with us was another relative with a VT Commodore wagon (I think, doesn't have it anymore), and he did only slightly better.

Those V6's in their production car seem to average between 15 to 20 litres per 100km, when driven with a right foot. If driven more sedatly its probably around 15. If you think this is good economy for a 2WD car under 2t, with reasonable aerodynamics, then I disagree with you. This economy would be severly worse in something like a Land Rover, especially in low range.

Just to ad to this further, my parents Jeep Cherokee (XJ), is suposadly an inefficient vehicle, a label they seem to have gained. However it gets similar economy to a stock standard VT-VX-VY V6 commodore.

Sorry to carry this on any further, it seems the thread has changed over to possibly considering a Ford engine, thats cool, I know nothing about them though, so I'll end this here.

Ive got a VT V6 wagon that gets approx 10.7L per 100 around town. So there was something wrong with both those vehicles your basing your figures on. Im yet to do any Hwy Ks so dont know how much better it will be.

But i agrea that in a conversion they do suck fuel and more often than not its because they are running with no speed sensor.

I am in the planning stages of a new rig that will be powered by a Commodore 3.6L Alloytech motor but i dont think it will ever do enough road Ks to ever get a fuel consumption figure.

i heard the same thing about the V6 conversion...... they are rarely done correctly! The ecotec i had in the heavy assed Statesman averaged about 12.5 litres per 100 on our last trip up to the Gold Coast with 5 adults in the car and a shitload of luggage. The alloytech engine is better on fuel, until you give it some numbers The engine in our VE growls under acceleration, and happily revs past 6,000rpm with ease!! I'll be interested to see how your conversion goes with one in it

RUFF wrote:Ive got a VT V6 wagon that gets approx 10.7L per 100 around town. So there was something wrong with both those vehicles your basing your figures on. Im yet to do any Hwy Ks so dont know how much better it will be.

I agree, our VT used 12.5/100 around town and 9.5/100 on the hwy without cruise control, about 10.5 with cruise control. This was all driven normally.

Turoa wrote:

cloughy wrote:C4 (C9, C10) are quite short, with a nice injected 5l windsor will get you motoring along nicely

Trying to look for the C4 adapted to the LR transfer case that was forsale awhile ago right now. No luck so far

Slunnie - Yeah, I have no complaints about the motor, the only only reason im considering a conversion is because I think that the gearbox is going to start blowing, it already makes funny sounds . The crossmembers which you speak of are already gone , the one under the rear of the engine was holding in rust, so it came out, and the front one came out because I wanted to lower the radiator. Another brace under the engine will compensate for the loss of crossmembers. I have a huge C section front bar which acts like a crossmember.

Im very worried about gearbox lengths. I know I can fit a trimatic in there with not much more extra length.

Sounds like the front and rear bumper holds it together.
What are the C4's? Do they mate to the series t/f or the LT230?

Slunnie wrote:

Turoa wrote:

cloughy wrote:C4 (C9, C10) are quite short, with a nice injected 5l windsor will get you motoring along nicely

Trying to look for the C4 adapted to the LR transfer case that was forsale awhile ago right now. No luck so far

Slunnie - Yeah, I have no complaints about the motor, the only only reason im considering a conversion is because I think that the gearbox is going to start blowing, it already makes funny sounds . The crossmembers which you speak of are already gone , the one under the rear of the engine was holding in rust, so it came out, and the front one came out because I wanted to lower the radiator. Another brace under the engine will compensate for the loss of crossmembers. I have a huge C section front bar which acts like a crossmember.

Im very worried about gearbox lengths. I know I can fit a trimatic in there with not much more extra length.

Sounds like the front and rear bumper holds it together.
What are the C4's? Do they mate to the series t/f or the LT230?

Dirty old Ford 3 speed auto's, adaptors can be found to suit either LR transfer or LT95

Im still sort of leaning toward a holden v6. I didnt mention in the original post that I was talking about an ecotec. Ive been told not to waste my time with the earlier ones. If the v6 doesnt have enough power I can always supercharge it?

In theory, shouldnt a v6 use less fuel than a v8, or am I just an idiot and it depends on the engine capacity?

I was looking for an alloytec in a wrecked car a few months ago, but it seems that it will be too many $$$. Although if I bought a car, I could probably get most of the money back by selling the rest of the parts??

Turoa wrote: In theory, shouldnt a v6 use less fuel than a v8, or am I just an idiot and it depends on the engine capacity?

A V6 assuming smaller capacity will have lower pumping losses than a V8 (esp when the throttle ain't open), having two less cylinders you'd expect less lost to friction as well.

But there are way too many other factors involved to make that call.

Hi,
I have a 96 lux extra cab that I put a vr series 2 moter in 6 years ago and have loved it ever since.I pulled the 22r out on a Friday night and had the v6 in and started on the Monday(minus the exhaust).I kept my 5 speed witch I have had no problems with either.Got the conversion kit from Marks Adaptors with a fixed fan,bought a new 3 core radiator from a diesel lux,it has pulled a 16 foot boat in sort sand (Frasier Island) for 3 hours and all good.Back then would of loved an eco tech but they where still pricey.There is heaps of room around the engine bay so its easy to service.Have had a few other mods since like proformance chip and now runs on duel fuel, and a bit of head work.Something for you to think about anyway...hope this is a help..Cheers Mark..

I have a VY ute and it averages around 15L/100ks around town and 13L/100ks on the highway. Thats not being given a hard time either. Possibly the later models lost some economy due to tuning changes?
Its an ecotec with the 4 speed auto. I will have to see if driving in 3rd makes a difference around town as I have never tried that.

I had a 86 hilux with a rb30 out of a vl bloted up to a t700 (castlemain rod shop adaptor and toyota transfere using marks adaptors kit for the auto. I left the transfere in the original place but made new engine mounts also had to mount the radiator in the tray, it went really well and was realativly cheep when i first had it bolted up to hilux five speed.

KiwiBacon wrote:

Turoa wrote: In theory, shouldnt a v6 use less fuel than a v8, or am I just an idiot and it depends on the engine capacity?

A V6 assuming smaller capacity will have lower pumping losses than a V8 (esp when the throttle ain't open), having two less cylinders you'd expect less lost to friction as well.

But there are way too many other factors involved to make that call.

exactly figure in gearing and how hard you have to peddle it. a torquey motor (like a ford 6) will be more liveable without having to flog it's rings out day in day out. and in something as aerodynamic as a landie, you won't have to drop back a gear if you hit a headwind

the motor with the most votes won due to not needing to buy any adapters etc. I can do wiring by myself, I bought a bundera transfer and auto which can bolt together. Although there will be more issues, im guessing it will end up cheaper than a v6 conversion.