Outer Limits 4x4 Board

mines shit itself, just putting the question out there.
Does any one know whether engines other than the original can be fitted to the jackaroo, se 98, 3.5 ltr auto.

if so what, and whats involved? costs etc

Or... my option try to find same but from wreckers. was quoted $7000 reco surely i have more options.

im in victoria, any advice will be very appreciated.

cheers

sfinish wrote:mines shit itself, just putting the question out there.
Does any one know whether engines other than the original can be fitted to the jackaroo, se 98, 3.5 ltr auto.

if so what, and whats involved? costs etc

Or... my option try to find same but from wreckers. was quoted $7000 reco surely i have more options.

im in victoria, any advice will be very appreciated.

cheers

What about a 2.8 or 3ltr diesel ?

Loanrangie wrote:
What about a 2.8 or 3ltr diesel ?

how much does that cost roughly. is it complicated changing over?

try festa on here. he runs a 4x4 wreckers in qld and surprising knows a fair bit of stuff for a special type of guy. hi fest. if you have no luck i may be able to help from up here on a same replacement engine.

Looked at this a few times for customers. Unfortunately you most cost effective option is to get a good second hand (if one exists) enigine or maybe an import engine. By the time you buy a Diesel engine, management system, and many other required parts it's well over replacing the V6.

just buy the engine, if you are willing to wait, they come up occasionally on ebay

were parking it in the garage, sit on the decision, hope a second hand will surface. Otherwise were selling it.

I can't believe I am saying this, but what about a commo 3.8?

Bellhousing is in the Dellow catalogue, not sure what jackaroo models it covers.

I am not really recommending it because personally I don't like that motor too much, and I agree with those saying to wait for a second hand stock motor, but the option might be there if you want to look into it.

Aren't there any jap import motors around? And why is yours beyond repair?

chimpboy wrote:I can't believe I am saying this, but what about a commo 3.8?

Bellhousing is in the Dellow catalogue, not sure what jackaroo models it covers.

I am not really recommending it because personally I don't like that motor too much, and I agree with those saying to wait for a second hand stock motor, but the option might be there if you want to look into it.

Aren't there any jap import motors around? And why is yours beyond repair?

Not a bad idea if the bellhousing etc can be sought. I have seen 3.8 in Volvo's to replace the 2.7 V6, and they have found their way into Mitsubishi Pajeros when the early 3 litres crapped themselves.

V6 Commy engines are cheap, powerfull and economical.

Talk to Pat Gardner
http://www.v6conversions.com.au
He has done Rodeo/Jackaroo conversions.

chimpboy wrote:I can't believe I am saying this, but what about a commo 3.8?

Bellhousing is in the Dellow catalogue, not sure what jackaroo models it covers.

I am not really recommending it because personally I don't like that motor too much, and I agree with those saying to wait for a second hand stock motor, but the option might be there if you want to look into it.

Aren't there any jap import motors around? And why is yours beyond repair?

the commodore 3.8L is weaker than the Jackaroo 3.5L (torque, power, rev lines)....why would you want to do that?

you won't buy a new import engine, Isuzu has stopped production of the Isuzu Trooper

btw, how many K's did you get out of your engine? (very few reported cases of the 3.5's end of life)

how was it driven?
how did it die?
are you sure it is the engine and not something else?
how often was it driven?


cheers

What about a Chev 4.3 v6
can it be done

Ruffy wrote:Looked at this a few times for customers. Unfortunately you most cost effective option is to get a good second hand (if one exists) enigine or maybe an import engine. By the time you buy a Diesel engine, management system, and many other required parts it's well over replacing the V6.

The 2.8 diesel is mechanical, I'm sure the 3.1 diesel can be made mechanical as well.

First time I've heard a commodore V6 called economical too.

Its left field... and probably out of the budget and skills... how about a 1UZFE toyota V8

KiwiBacon wrote:

Ruffy wrote:Looked at this a few times for customers. Unfortunately you most cost effective option is to get a good second hand (if one exists) enigine or maybe an import engine. By the time you buy a Diesel engine, management system, and many other required parts it's well over replacing the V6.

The 2.8 diesel is mechanical, I'm sure the 3.1 diesel can be made mechanical as well.

First time I've heard a commodore V6 called economical too.

Drove a V6 Commodore on a country trip and it was getting 8 litres per 100 km. That is economical.

KiwiBacon wrote:

Ruffy wrote:Looked at this a few times for customers. Unfortunately you most cost effective option is to get a good second hand (if one exists) enigine or maybe an import engine. By the time you buy a Diesel engine, management system, and many other required parts it's well over replacing the V6.

The 2.8 diesel is mechanical, I'm sure the 3.1 diesel can be made mechanical as well.

First time I've heard a commodore V6 called economical too.

keep the lead foot off them and they can get really good milage for a 6 (my VS got 550 to a 60 litre tank

they are not a V6 they are straight 6

chikoroll_ wrote:keep the lead foot off them and they can get really good milage for a 6 (my VS got 550 to a 60 litre tank

they are not a V6 they are straight 6

The 3.8 litre buick motor in a commodore is a V6.

You may be thinking of the superior falcon inline 6? Or the nissan engines holden used for a little while?

I had VR, VS & VT wagons as company cars. The VT was definitely more economical on the highway. Better than 10km/l was achievable, and I didn't cruise below the speed limit.

And Commodores haven't had a straight 6 since the VL.

The commy V6 can be easliy mated to a Jackeroo or Rodeo trans.
I think the block bolt patterns are even the same.

chimpboy wrote:

chikoroll_ wrote:keep the lead foot off them and they can get really good milage for a 6 (my VS got 550 to a 60 litre tank

they are not a V6 they are straight 6

The 3.8 litre buick motor in a commodore is a V6.

You may be thinking of the superior falcon inline 6? Or the nissan engines holden used for a little while?

...hmm...strange....
i remember my old VS (toyota lexcen by badge) as a straight 6

RoadNazi wrote: Drove a V6 Commodore on a country trip and it was getting 8 litres per 100 km. That is economical.

A place I used to work for had two as work cars. The lowest I could their fuel consumption was 12L/100km. Their long term average was 15L/100km.

chimpboy wrote:
You may be thinking of the superior falcon inline 6?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA your funny Chimpboy, that cracks me up.

The last time that Falcon 6 was any good was when it was in the XB, pre crossflow.

mkpatrol wrote:

chimpboy wrote:
You may be thinking of the superior falcon inline 6?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA your funny Chimpboy, that cracks me up.

The last time that Falcon 6 was any good was when it was in the XB, pre crossflow.

Yes, I'm a barrel of laughs

Seriously though, why is it wrong to say that the 157kW inline six from, say a 1994 EF Falcon is superior to the 130kW V6 in a 1994 Commodore? Not only does it have more peak power it's got more torque and is smoother.

Unfortunately I doubt you could fit a ford inline six into a jackaroo engine bay.

Anyway, why would you laugh at me when you could be laughing at the guy who said commodores have a straight six in them?

ps looking at the numbers, it really looks like repairing or replacing the stock 3.5 is the only sensible way to go here, unless there's room for a small V8 or something.

chikoroll_ wrote:

chimpboy wrote:

chikoroll_ wrote:keep the lead foot off them and they can get really good milage for a 6 (my VS got 550 to a 60 litre tank

they are not a V6 they are straight 6

The 3.8 litre buick motor in a commodore is a V6.

You may be thinking of the superior falcon inline 6? Or the nissan engines holden used for a little while?

...hmm...strange....
i remember my old VS (toyota lexcen by badge) as a straight 6

Any of your advice on this topic, or board, is null and void after that

chimpboy wrote:

mkpatrol wrote:

chimpboy wrote:
You may be thinking of the superior falcon inline 6?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA your funny Chimpboy, that cracks me up.

The last time that Falcon 6 was any good was when it was in the XB, pre crossflow.

Yes, I'm a barrel of laughs

Seriously though, why is it wrong to say that the 157kW inline six from, say a 1994 EF Falcon is superior to the 130kW V6 in a 1994 Commodore? Not only does it have more peak power it's got more torque and is smoother.

Unfortunately I doubt you could fit a ford inline six into a jackaroo engine bay.

Anyway, why would you laugh at me when you could be laughing at the guy who said commodores have a straight six in them?

ps looking at the numbers, it really looks like repairing or replacing the stock 3.5 is the only sensible way to go here, unless there's room for a small V8 or something.

4.0l>3.8l

chikoroll<smart

chimpboy wrote:

mkpatrol wrote:

chimpboy wrote:
You may be thinking of the superior falcon inline 6?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA your funny Chimpboy, that cracks me up.

The last time that Falcon 6 was any good was when it was in the XB, pre crossflow.

Yes, I'm a barrel of laughs

Seriously though, why is it wrong to say that the 157kW inline six from, say a 1994 EF Falcon is superior to the 130kW V6 in a 1994 Commodore? Not only does it have more peak power it's got more torque and is smoother.

Unfortunately I doubt you could fit a ford inline six into a jackaroo engine bay.

Anyway, why would you laugh at me when you could be laughing at the guy who said commodores have a straight six in them?

ps looking at the numbers, it really looks like repairing or replacing the stock 3.5 is the only sensible way to go here, unless there's room for a small V8 or something.

I just cannot belive just on power specs you believe the Falcon engine is far superior than the Holden engine. The old 4AFE that was introduced in the AE90 Corolla is far more technologivally advanced the either engine & gives a far better service life & value for money per capita.

They both (F&H) have issues with reliabilty, they are both mass produced and fairly cheap, the Ford cannot get within a bulls roar of the Holden as far as fuel consumption goes.

Just because something has more power doesnt mean it is superior. If the falcon engine had been a perfect performar as well as had more power & better fual econimy then I would give you your due but in the world of motor vehicles it is all about cost & marketing. The only manufacturers that actually come up with anything innovative is the top end of town like Mercedes & such, the rest are really just there to make money.

Recently both manufacturers have picked up their game with their engines but only because they are now building them for the world market (Holden V6's in Alfa Romeo's, Isuzu's, Daewoos & such).

Its horses for courses as no engine is completely superior in any one way.

mkpatrol wrote:Its horses for courses as no engine is completely superior in any one way.

Hrmm, no doubt both those engines are old tech compared to what Europe and Japan are producing, absolutely. All I said was that the ford i6 is better than the commo v6 and I don't think that's really all that debatable.

There is no planet where a V6 is smoother or torquier than a straight six unless they are at least a decade apart in technology, and that is not the case with the ford and holden engines.

You can point to fuel economy for the commo motor and that's it... Power? Ford 6. Torque? Ford 6. Smoothness? Ford 6.

If fuel economy is all you've got then a daihatsu 3-cyl is a superior motor to a BMW V12.

chimpboy wrote:

mkpatrol wrote:Its horses for courses as no engine is completely superior in any one way.

Hrmm, no doubt both those engines are old tech compared to what Europe and Japan are producing, absolutely. All I said was that the ford i6 is better than the commo v6 and I don't think that's really all that debatable.

There is no planet where a V6 is smoother or torquier than a straight six unless they are at least a decade apart in technology, and that is not the case with the ford and holden engines.

You can point to fuel economy for the commo motor and that's it... Power? Ford 6. Torque? Ford 6. Smoothness? Ford 6.

If fuel economy is all you've got then a daihatsu 3-cyl is a superior motor to a BMW V12.

Its not all I have but having worked on both since their inception I know which one gave their customers the best value for money (excluding taxi's as the V6 doesnt do well on gas).

I dont want to get into a relaibility pi##ing contest but saying that one is superior than the other is not really correct. Maybe you could say the design is more superior but that is it as what is desinged superior is not necessarily built more superior.

mkpatrol wrote:I dont want to get into a relaibility pi##ing contest but saying that one is superior than the other is not really correct. Maybe you could say the design is more superior but that is it as what is desinged superior is not necessarily built more superior.

We can probably both agree that neither is a good choice for a 98 Jackaroo with a dead Isuzu V6