Page 2 of 4
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 7:21 am
by r0ck_m0nkey
Dozoor wrote:
Notice the question mark , don,t quote replies to other posts
So basically you came to the conclusion that sticking a V6 into a Suzuki was a bad idea and went with a different vehicle, yet still want to criticsie those that say it's a bad idea to stick a V6 into a suzuki. 
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 7:39 am
by grimbo
Dozoor wrote:grimbo wrote:
haven't done it myself but have driven them and have known people who have them. Have also seen two buildups started with this type of build only to be stopped because they weren't going to be a viable option.
Who says comp is the be all and end all of 4wding. Why does that have to be the definition of a true 4wder or whatever the hell you are on about.
So if we now give actual reasons for why not to do it, that still isn't good enough for you? You are the only one making this thread a friggin mess with your sooky la la comments because people think it is a bad idea.
As I said before sometimes ideas are bad ideas regardless whether you have done them your self or not. I've never made a mustard flavoured birthday cake, but I reckon it would taste awful.
Did you not read my bit about say going with a Vitara engine. Or you could go with another engine like a 4agze or perhaps a SR20. More power is fine but as I said to horror I don't think a V6 engine from a Commodore is a good way to do it.
But hey that must be all very upsetting to you so sue me.
Does the original post state he wants a choice of engines no.
He has an engine.
wow there's no pleasing you at all is there?
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 8:24 am
by Highway-Star
Oh no...
We are all doomed
To the original poster:
Maybe (I'm going out on a limb here), you should talk to an engineer/certifier before you go any further.
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 8:58 am
by Santos
given we havent got one reply from gav i think we may have scared him away, or he is an extremely intellegent and issnt getting in the argument
or maaybe just only logs on once week
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 9:02 am
by cj
Does the original post state he wants a choice of chassis?
He has a chassis
............. as well as axles and tranfser case if you want to read it like that.
Yes, there can be more than one way to build something and it is by going outside the square that innovative results can occur BUT just because you can do something doesn't always mean that you should. Competitions can actually limit your thinking sometimes too by the very nature of the rules.
I'm not quite sure what the relevance the references to comps were unless you know that he is going to be entering comps and that the end result will be a competitive outcome. Vehicles built for comps are built to various rules and budgets which may limit or encourage certain choices which may otherwise have not been made or even built with a lack of knowledge or skills. Just because someone competes it doesn't necessarily follow that they or their vehicle is better than someone who is not in competition unless YOU happen to think that that particular competition is the be all and end all of 4wding. Is a KOH rig better than a Tuff Truck rig or a winch comp rig or a rock crawler? Depends really on the intended use. I know I've seen some comp vehicles that just don't make sense but hey, they are competitors so they must be right.
As for the requirement to have actually done something before you can contribute tech well that's just
Again it depends on the info required. In my mind if people wish to point out to him BEFORE he gets too far down the path that maybe his initial choice has some issues that he may not have fully thought through like excess weight and the impact on the balance of the car then to me that is useful tech much like telling someone not to chop a high top into ute as there are possibly better alternatives to achieve a desired outcome. You don't have to have done it to know that. If he then wishes to continue then that is his choice and if people have more information that they can offer then that is great.
At this point he has offered so little info about what he is trying to achieve that other than fittting a particular engine into a particular vehicle and some people wish to alert him to the fact before he starts that it may not be the best choice.
Sitting back now to enjoy the show
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:14 am
by FC3892
if u want some ideas send me a pm, we put a V6 in a swb with an auto a month or 2 ago. 33 spoa with lockers, no issues as yet. Pm me about any pics u want to see... less tears that way
Adam
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:23 am
by lay80n
Everyone take a deep breath.
This will be unlocked in a while. I have sent Gav a SMS to see if he has got some more info about what his plans are too help get this thread back on track.
Edit - Gav has just messaged back. He has 60 series diffs to go under the rig as well as chassis extensions etc planned. He will reply soon.
Layto....
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:47 am
by suzukigav
Well what a fight ths thread turned into.
At the end of the day i have already bought the motor and box and they are going in the car,
I have a pair of 60series diffs waiting to go in also and a chassis extension on the way. Thanks to the people who actually contributed helpful info,
I'l post a build up thread if anyone wants so there is some actual info on the conversion.
this is the zook it's going into just so people know...
Again Pm me if anyone has helpful information.
Gavin
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 12:24 pm
by skez
lol at the end of the day its still gonna have bulk power and be sick as so who cares but i reckon an auto would be alot better for the drivelines sake there alot smoother and has contant load when underpower
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 12:59 pm
by lay80n
I'm not a fan of the dunny dore V6, but as you have decided that is the way to go, i would deffinatley suggest an auto. Much more control over the power delivery and much easier on the drive line.
Layto....
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 1:53 pm
by suzukigav
only reason i decided to go with the manual was that it is smaller so less tunnel modification and i was told that with auto i would have to look at high stall kit etc to make it actualy any good on the rocks.
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:01 pm
by lay80n
suzukigav wrote:only reason i decided to go with the manual was that it is smaller so less tunnel modification and i was told that with auto i would have to look at high stall kit etc to make it actualy any good on the rocks.
No way will you need a high stall kit. Standard stall will be fine. Tunnel modification should be the last worry if you attempting a conversion like this. You will already be doing a large amount of cutting/fabrication, so dont be put off by a bit more. The auto will be so much better. A high stall kit on rocks will just superheat your auto oil for no real gain.
Layto....
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 3:25 pm
by FC3892
again i say lol, my brothers is a daily driver. we made mounts an did the hole swap. if u want any pics or info pm me
Adam
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 4:43 pm
by mnemonix
That zook looks familar. I've seen it around the traps a few times.
Are you coordinating this conversion with an engineer? Or is this going to be another non certified, street driven abortion?
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 4:58 pm
by GRPABT1
Being a self confessed commodore nut i know you could get good money (up to $1500) for that v6 t5 gearbox too. And auto's are cheap as chips. I hate auto's but in this situation it's the best option.
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 7:13 pm
by grimbo
and this goes to show why it is important to provide as much detail as possible in your intial post. The more info supplied about what you are doing and what you are hoping to achieve goes a long way in ensuring you get relevant info back. Which I still stand by but that upsets people for some reason so whatever.
Good luck with the build. Is this going to be a street legal engineered vehicle or just an unregoed comp vehicle? Are you going to compete in it, if so have you checked with the organisers to make sure what you build will meet their regs?
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 7:21 pm
by joeblow
even in a comp vehicle i wouldn,t use an oversized paperweight like a commo motor.
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 8:27 pm
by mrRocky
trans tunnel mods will be necessary even with a manual although they will be minor compared with an auto. It is possible with widening the shifter hole and a 2" b/lift to do it with no mods but it is easier just to cut the tunnel out fit the g/box and engine then weld whats needed back on.
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 8:35 am
by FC3892
we had to cut an shut my brothers a bit. but the out come wasn't to bad, thats with an auto
Adam
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 2:21 pm
by suzukigav
it's going to be engineered and road driven but not a daily, and yes it is being built for comps, and if it's not allowed in some comps i'm not really worried i'l still have fun in it on week ends, and compete in a mates car.
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 2:42 pm
by Dozoor
With the tunnel mods, you can cut around 2" out of the bottom of the heater unit and still retain the demister function .
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:21 pm
by Gwagensteve
I'm going to add my 2C worth into this debate.
No, I haven't done the conversion. I don't think that's entirely relevant. I haven't put a 4BT Cummins motor either, but I don't think I'd have too much trouble explaining why it would/wouldn't be a good idea.
I have seen a couple of commodore V6 converted sierras.
Can it be done? Undoubtedly. The engine does fit in the hole, if only just.
Is it a good idea? That depends on how much traction you have, and how you can use it.
I have about the same power and less torque than a 1.6 carby vitara motor in my sierra. I don't have any trouble breaking traction offroad. No, I can't do big smoky burnouts in carparks, or hit 80km/hr in low range, and a bit more torque on the highway would be nice, but it gets the job done. I can still break stuff, but I'm pretty "safe" with chromo axles and a rear diff in the front. I do have lots of gearing- about 125:1 or so.
What that is another way saying is that I'm traction limited. That's because my car is still fairly light, and we're not driving massive rock faces with massive traction. I'm not trying to drive against the clock either.
a V6 commodore converted sierra will have to have lots of traction to make all the work worthwhile. Ground pressure equals traction, and so does even weight distribution. That means a heavy, long, wide car can generate more traction (and therefore use more torque) than a light, short car.
So, your build plan is right on target for a heavy(ish) big(ish) sierra. You real issue is that with a fairly standard wheelbase, you are going to struggle to overcome the weight transfer and generate much traction.
bear in mind that Paul Pisani's Commodore sierra was based on GQ running gear, and was very wide, long and flexy ( and a masterpiece) and Otis wasn't a masterpiece. I have a spent a long time discussing Otis with Pat Callinan. In any case, it too was basically just a hilux with an impractical body on it once finished.
both of these were/are auto though. It's going to suck the big one as a manual, and expecially with the road car gearing of the T5.
Have you checked the length of the tailshaft housing of the T5 to work out how much wheelbase you have to add to the car? I'd wager it's going to be long so the transfer is going to have to come back a lot, meaning the back axle will too.
Commodore V6's are cheap, but the cost of making the car reliable and legal in it with that motor in it is going to be many times the cost of the motor, in fact, the installation cost to once you factor in driveline, wiring, cooling etc will mean that ANY motor (that's feasible) will be cheap compared to the finished cost.
PS is you really want a silly engine/gearbox/transfer combination that will give you a much, much much better result look at a 3.9 EFI rover V8+auto+transfer and your 60 series diffs.
This is a better idea for about eleventyfive reasons.
Steve.
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 11:23 pm
by Santos
yes steve but he alreadey has THE motor, trading swapping, sourcing the other rover v8
speaking of traction when are you unrestricting the little f6?
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 10:26 am
by GRPABT1
Santos wrote:yes steve but he alreadey has THE motor, trading swapping, sourcing the other rover v8
But who cares, it's not like her just spent thousands on that motor which I could get for a carton. He could sell the gearbox seperate and make a profit.
I am with steve on this one, a turbo 4cyl would make more power than the commy v6 and be heaps easier. And with the gearing available for sierras these days low down torque isn't an issue.
This comes from me, a power and torque hungry lunatic who just spent $17K on a holden V8 stroker to go into my VN commodore. There is nothing more I would like than bulk power in my zook too but I have to stop and think sensibly sometimes and realise my GTi motor has enough power to get the job done and get it done right. A turbo on a GTi, 1.6 efi, or even a CA18det or 4AGE would be way more power and tourque than is ever required to turn even the stupidest size tyres with the gearing available for zooks. And even going twin transfer for even more gearing would be easier than a commy engine swap (edited out by mods).
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 10:53 am
by sierrajim
Why not a Toyota 3RZ? They're only 10 or so KW's less than a Commodore motor, they bolt up to a Hilux gearbox which then bolts up to a Hilux transfer with available gears and disconnect.
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 10:56 am
by Highway-Star
This post is for the people still bound up with the engine suitability debate, here is some extra info for your own interpretation:
so ok working with the 175kW 168kg alloytec (more favourable then said 3.8), compared to 47kW and about 70kg G13A. I'll assume about a 900kg Sierra.
Now for the vaunted power to weight ratio (from my various possibly dodgy sources):
Suzuki Motors:
G13A: 19.15kg per kW
G16B: 13.85kg per kW
H20A: 9.5kg per kW (Mass estimated)
H25A: 8.19kg per kW (Mass estimated)
H27A: 7.04kg per kW (Mass estimated)
GM Motors:
Alloytec: 5.7kg per kW
Ecotec: 6.9kg per kW (Mass estimated)
So what does this mean? not much really. But to get a comparable power to weight ratio from a N/A Zook motor, a H27A would be suitable. Yes the 3.8 is allot cheaper, so that makes it attractive to some.
Does anybody have the actual mass of the 3.8 V6? or the mass of the H series zook motors?
I found the weight of the "alloytec" 3.6L V6, it is apparently 168kg!
Gearboxs are different again.
For the point of this post I will neglect the mass of 60series diffs.
Anyway have fun peoples
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 11:19 am
by sheps
GRPABT1 wrote:edited out by mods .
edited out by mods
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 11:24 am
by lay80n
Highway-Star wrote:This post is for the people still bound up with the engine suitability debate, here is some extra info for your own interpretation:
so ok working with the 175kW 168kg alloytec (more favourable then said 3.8), compared to 47kW and about 70kg G13A. I'll assume about a 900kg Sierra.
Now for the vaunted power to weight ratio (from my various possibly dodgy sources):
Suzuki Motors:
G13A: 19.15kg per kW
G16B: 13.85kg per kW
H20A: 9.5kg per kW (Mass estimated)
H25A: 8.19kg per kW (Mass estimated)
H27A: 7.04kg per kW (Mass estimated)
GM Motors:
Alloytec: 5.7kg per kW
Ecotec: 6.9kg per kW (Mass estimated)
So what does this mean? not much really. But to get a comparable power to weight ratio from a N/A Zook motor, a H27A would be suitable. Yes the 3.8 is allot cheaper, so that makes it attractive to some.
Does anybody have the actual mass of the 3.8 V6? or the mass of the H series zook motors?
I found the weight of the "alloytec" 3.6L V6, it is apparently 168kg!
Gearboxs are different again.
For the point of this post I will neglect the mass of 60series diffs.
Anyway have fun peoples
VP era v6 sturggle to get 125kw (approx factory output when new). A well used one would be around 110kw or so.
Layto....
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 11:49 am
by sierrajim
No need for name calling guys. This is a forum full of opinions and ideas please be respectful.
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 11:53 am
by lay80n
sierrajim wrote:Why not a Toyota 3RZ? They're only 10 or so KW's less than a Commodore motor, they bolt up to a Hilux gearbox which then bolts up to a Hilux transfer with available gears and disconnect.
if you really want to do an engine and drive line swap, this is the option to be looking at.
Layto....