Outer Limits 4x4 Board

Hi guys

my brother in law has a shorty 40 with a 2F petrol that is sending him broke. We were considering lobbing a crumbydore v6 into it to save him some fuel dollars. When he enquired about it with a fourby shop around brisbane, they told him that it won't have enough torque and he won't be happy with it.

Now i was under the impression that these motors were a common placement in rockcrawling buggies etc? And while it probably won't get the torque of a 2F or a straight six, surely in a car that's lighter than a commodore (which they manage to punt about easily enough) it won't be noticable.

what are your thoughts? We're mainly trying to get better economy for the beast as she's pretty thirsty. The same shop suggested a v8 conversion, but that's going to blow the budget to do and defeats the purpose of getting better economy. particularly when the v8 starts breaking other parts in the drivetrain.

Are you sure a 40 is lighter than a commodore?

Commodore V6's run about 300Nm in early trim. It might do, but I don't really think it's going to feel that good. I'd seriously doubt you'll get much better economy, and certainly not enough of a change to make the conversion worth while.

Steve.

We were looking at late model motors from VS-VT onwards.

I was going off quoted figures for a late model commodore (1400KG-ish) compared to stock as a rock shorty, which should be marginally lighter. not by much i admit though.

bogged off the net power figures for a 2F
2F
inline-6
4230 (4.2ltr)
PETROL
96@3600kw
274@1800Nm

VT 3.8 LTR
V6
3791
PETROL EFI
147@5200
304@3600

so while the torque is comparable (admittedly further up the rev range)
the overall power is better

So lets compare the V8 from a VN - higher torque yes (at the same higher rpm) but only a few more Kw for a bigger motor, higher rego costs, higher insurance costs, tighter engine bay, higher wear and strain of driveline.

VN 5.0
V8
4983
PETROL EFI
165@4400
385@3600

All true, but I don't believe you'll achieve a meaningful economy improvement. there's a lot more to it than weight - a 40 will have more driveline loss, much higher rolling resistanace, shorter gearing and much much worse aerodynamics than that engine in a commodore.

Ultimately, engines consume about 5g of fuel per KW per minute, and the amount of power you need to maintain a given speed is determined by the issues I have outlined above at least as much as weight.

Steve.

fair enough. You're right it's more about efficiency for fuel economy than anything else.

so would it be fair to say then that everything else being equal, his car is still going to use the same fuel with a V8 than a V6 of the same vintage/technology levels due to the mentioned losses of power and drag? Because at the end of the day, a V8 will have higher costs to do the swap, initial purchase, and abovementioned running costs.

What are his other options? He's also looking at putting gas on the 2F which will cost him around 2 grand, but i'm not sure that will really give him the economy he's after either.

Have you considered a Falcon 4.0 straight six out of an EL or BA?
Kits are available to bolt them into cruisers.

EL base model: 157kW @ 4900 rpm. 357Nm @ 3000 rpm.

AU 'S': 4.0 litre inline six cylinder. 157kW @ 4900 rpm. 357Nm @ 3000 rpm.

BA: 'XR6' : 182kW @ 5000rpm. 380Nm @ 3250rpm

Here's the best one.
BA 'XR6 Turbo' : 240kW @ 5250rpm. 450Nm @ 2000rpm.

450Nm @ 2000rpm

Jas

rockcrawler31 wrote:bogged off the net power figures for a 2F
2F
inline-6
4230 (4.2ltr)
PETROL
96@3600kw
274@1800Nm

VT 3.8 LTR
V6
3791
PETROL EFI
147@5200
304@3600

so while the torque is comparable (admittedly further up the rev range)
the overall power is better

Those numbers don't tell you that overall power is better, just peak power. Power is basically torque times rpm. So if you had a theoretical engine that had uniform torque across the rev range, it would automatically have twice the power at 6000 rpm as it had at 3000rpm. So by tuning the motor to give peak power way up the rev band Holden make their engines look more grunty than they really are.

Plus there is no way your bro can be looking for economy and then look at power figures at 5200rpm.

Straight off those numbers you would say that the 2F is the more driveable engine.

I would look at EFI and/or gas if you want to save money on fuel.

Also, from direct personal experience - tyre size makes a huge difference to fuel economy. If he is turning big rubber, it is costing him a lot of fuel. There's no way around that except to run smaller tyres around town.

It is sometimes true that a car with a more powerful engine will consume less fuel overall than a car with a less powerful engine generally because smaller throttle openings can be used and the car is held at full throttle for less time to achieve acceptable performance.

I'd agree that the falcon 6 would be a good candidate (better than the commodore V6) and might be easier to fit too.

However, do you need economy for range or economy for $$, because pretty much no engine swap stacks up if you're doing the swap to save money on fuel, gas on the 2F might be the best option, If it's for range, then look at a diesel.

Steve.

thanks guys.

i appreciate all the input. I'll pass it on to him.

in hindsight, it makes sense that you would be wringing the V6's neck all the time to get to the peak torque range.

I think he's mainly after reducing the sheer amount of fuel that this thing uses. As a side benefit he'll get better range anyway.

I suppose in the end it'll cost him a bit less to put the gas on (about 2k)

Am i right in thinking it will cost about double that to put the ford 6 in? by the time you buy the conversion kit, the motor, and pay for any small fabrication jobs.

Yeah, there'd have to be $5K in it, mostly in trying to get the right gearbox behind it to keep the revs down when cruising.

I'm sure you can go falcon 6 to C4 to Cruiser case, but that's never going to give decent economy. I don't think there's any adapters for the BW ford auto to cruiser case (A shame though for sure)

Sounds like it needs gas on the 2F

Steve.

Many years ago I put a 400 small block into my 40 and it used HEAPS less fuel (or HEAPS more fuel depending on how I drove) than the standard 6, however, for the cost of the conversion you could buy a lot of fuel.
Peter.

put the 2f on gas

you can get the 2 grand back from the rebate

then spend some money on things that will make the 2f more powewful and more economical on gas.

like
pertronix ignition+ dizzy regraph.
extractors
holley 2 barrel ( this will give you more flow on gas)
shave the head

It will go much better than it ever did on petrol, and be much more economical.

Jes

jessie928 wrote:put the 2f on gas

you can get the 2 grand back from the rebate

the two grand figure is after the rebate

then spend some money on things that will make the 2f more powewful and more economical on gas.

like
pertronix ignition+ dizzy regraph.
Ig -- ni -- tion???? Di --- zzy?? i drive a diesel. i'll have to pass these on to him and let him research em

extractors
got em

holley 2 barrel ( this will give you more flow on gas)
He's got a holly of some description. which is a pain in the ass on hills. although i'm told this isn't a drama with gas - is that right?
shave the head

It will go much better than it ever did on petrol, and be much more economical.

Jes

Thanks heaps though. I'll send him a link to this thread

i just google the ignition system and seems like good bang for buck. At least from my noob perspective.

rockcrawler31 wrote:

jessie928 wrote:put the 2f on gas

you can get the 2 grand back from the rebate

the two grand figure is after the rebate

then spend some money on things that will make the 2f more powewful and more economical on gas.

like
pertronix ignition+ dizzy regraph.
Ig -- ni -- tion???? Di --- zzy?? i drive a diesel. i'll have to pass these on to him and let him research em

extractors
got em

holley 2 barrel ( this will give you more flow on gas)
He's got a holly of some description. which is a pain in the ass on hills. although i'm told this isn't a drama with gas - is that right?
shave the head

It will go much better than it ever did on petrol, and be much more economical.

Jes

Thanks heaps though. I'll send him a link to this thread

hi mate

because the 40 series has the fuel tank under the seat, you dont need a sub tank. SO the LPG conversion is very cheap and easy. Should not cost more than 2500$.

yeah teh holley has no problems when on gas.

Jes

just throwing another option at you
try costing a turbo kit
when driven right it will return better fuel economy
when driven wrong it will return more fun
just a thought
also i think snowy from landcruiser club runs/ran a 3.8ltr in his comp car
and a mate of mine 3.8BUNDY on this forum runs a vp v6 in his bundera with great success although he is still having trouble keeping ot on his wheels (hahahahaha)

pffffttt dont waste ya time it would be shithouse with a commodore v6 and i love me commodores!!
just got a 308 or 350 got a 350 in me dads 45 same thing really and it hammers and its duel fuel only cause cant get gas in remote areas but could run straight gas and itd be fine and very cheap and reliable!!!

hey guys this my my cruiser we have been talking about and just so u know its running extracors a 350 holly petronix elec. iginition kit, 33" tyres..... gas is going to cost 2500-3000 for the initial cost plus 200 for the upper cylinder lube kit.....so yeah get 2000 back so thats looking like the best idea..... oh and in mine the fule take is inder the car. 70liter or something.

im thinking that its always going to be thirsty but if i can cut it back a bit and make it run on hills then ill be happyer

My EF 4.0 Falcon motor swap cost me around the 2.5K mark (incuding motor), admittedly that was doing the conversion myself so it would be alot more if you paid someone to do it. Its great on fuel and has plenty of power to turn 35s. If you can't do it yourself and paying someone to do it is beyond your budget, LPG is a very worthwile option. Going on your figures it is going to cost you $1200 after the rebate and you will never have any issues running hills/sideslopes. Your only worry is where to put a tank big enough to get a good range out of.

one of the blokes that used to be on here had a GQ shorty with a V6 commdore donk.. he spun a main bearing on his 308, and had the 6 layin round.
threw it in and loved it. rebuilt the 8 but left the V6 in there for 18mths he as that happy with it.

I've had no worries with the VX (2002 model) ecotec V6 and auto in the Hummer replica, goes hard, with the 4.6 diff and 35's it spins 2100rpm at 110km/h, but uses about 16lt per 100

Hoppy

Found this on search

v8zuki wrote:i have an mq wagon with adivorced transfer i fitted a v6 auto to it using std length 2.8 driveshafts including the one from the transfer to g/box just used an adaptor uni joint to mate holden to nissan works well
how well you ask??
hows 11l/100km hwy , 13l/100km town for fuel economy ,very similar acceleration to a std commodore wont drag off a modded one but will dust most stockers
wheel spin easy be carefull in the wet ,sand on fraser island towing a camper no sweat towing car trailer loaded still slight struggle on hills but not that bad
all up it goes that well i cant get the missus out of it as she claimed it for hersif you need any more info pm me as i dont get on here much or call mick 0415156693
cheers

If you want to save fuel, then a 1.3 litre suzuki engine would be the best petrol swap.

Swapping the 2F for a commodore or falcon petrol engine is just pointless. Go diesel or forget about it.

KiwiBacon wrote: Swapping the 2F for a commodore or falcon petrol engine is just pointless. Go diesel or forget about it.

Care to share why you think its pointless? Have you driven one with either engine? I hate diesels but I'm interested to hear why you think they are the only option.

RAY185 wrote:

KiwiBacon wrote: Swapping the 2F for a commodore or falcon petrol engine is just pointless. Go diesel or forget about it.

Care to share why you think its pointless? Have you driven one with either engine? I hate diesels but I'm interested to hear why you think they are the only option.

It's pointless because there is no "magic bullet" in either engine that is going to save fuel.

I've driven commodore work cars plenty, their fuel consumption was appalling. 15 litres per 100km when being driven nicely.

I'm curious as to why you hate diesels. They can provide far more torque and up to double the fuel economy of those engines.

KiwiBacon wrote:If you want to save fuel, then a 1.3 litre suzuki engine would be the best petrol swap.

Swapping the 2F for a commodore or falcon petrol engine is just pointless. Go diesel or forget about it.

pointless? its a far from pointless excersize,
swapping in a diesel that is less powerful and 2.00$ a litre to fil is pointless

Jes

jessie928 wrote:

KiwiBacon wrote:If you want to save fuel, then a 1.3 litre suzuki engine would be the best petrol swap.

Swapping the 2F for a commodore or falcon petrol engine is just pointless. Go diesel or forget about it.

pointless? its a far from pointless excersize,
swapping in a diesel that is less powerful and 2.00$ a litre to fil is pointless

Jes

Not when it gets up to twice as far on the same fuel and has a lot more torque.

KiwiBacon wrote:

RAY185 wrote:

KiwiBacon wrote: Swapping the 2F for a commodore or falcon petrol engine is just pointless. Go diesel or forget about it.

Care to share why you think its pointless? Have you driven one with either engine? I hate diesels but I'm interested to hear why you think they are the only option.

It's pointless because there is no "magic bullet" in either engine that is going to save fuel.

I've driven commodore work cars plenty, their fuel consumption was appalling. 15 litres per 100km when being driven nicely.

I'm curious as to why you hate diesels. They can provide far more torque and up to double the fuel economy of those engines.

No one claims there is a "magic bullet" in any petrol engine that saves fuel. The point is that the 2F is a particularly thirsty animal and that by replacing it with either the commodore or falcon motor means an engine more efficient in its design, is fuel injected, runs on unleaded and makes more power and torque. You can't honestly say that either of these engines will not give better economy than a 2F.

Also no one said that commodores don't use alot of fuel, the point is they use less fuel than a 40 with a 2F

My reasoning for using the falcon motor apart from the above is the ease of replacement parts in remote places, the simplicity of working on the engine and the low cost of replacing it should it fail. How many of those points can you associate with a diesel. Definately not all 3.

My reasons for hating diesels are many and vairied, but I'll throw a couple at you since you're interesed. I hate working on them, diesel oil stinks and stains your hands. The smoke is offensive to my sense of smell. Rebuilds are ridiculously expensive. While they have lots of torque, thats great if you're pulling stumps out all day with your rig but if you actually drive on road their lack of power is annoying. You can't overtake and merging into traffic on the highway on-ramp is scary. The only way you can get them to accelerate remotely similarly to a petrol is by turbocharging, which in most cases means lots of $$$ again.

I'm sure there are lots of postive sides to diesels but they really don't appeal to me. Putting a diesel into a 40 is definately an option to the right person, but to say its the only option is in my opinion far from the case.

For what its worth, as I said above, I did the EF falcon conversion and couldn't be happier with it. Plenty of power, great economy and a cheap, easy swap.

RAY185 wrote: No one claims there is a "magic bullet" in any petrol engine that saves fuel. The point is that the 2F is a particularly thirsty animal and that by replacing it with either the commodore or falcon motor means an engine more efficient in its design, is fuel injected, runs on unleaded and makes more power and torque. You can't honestly say that either of these engines will not give better economy than a 2F.

Why do you think the commodore or falcon motor are going to be more economical? Besides the EFI (which could probably be fitted) there is nothing in either engine which makes it more efficient. None of those three engines are high compression, lean burn or atkinson cycle.
A later model toyota petrol makes more sense in every way if you want to swap in another petrol engine.

RAY185 wrote: Also no one said that commodores don't use alot of fuel, the point is they use less fuel than a 40 with a 2F

A commodore may use less fuel than a 40 with a 2F. But a 40 with a commodore engine will use far more fuel than a commodore. The combination of fat feet, more driveline losses and the aerodynamics of a lumpy brick do not make for economical travel.

When was the last time you needed spare engine parts in a remote place? Are you not maintaining your vehicle properly to need such repairs? Do you have significant reliability issues?

Aside from a few well known lemons, diesels are far more reliable than petrol engines.
The good diesels are all turbocharged and diesel exhaust won't kill you like petrol exhaust does.
Rebuilds are up to 500,000km apart and overtaking isn't an issue.

It does sound like you haven't driven a decent diesel.

What sort of economy are you getting from the falcon powered 40?

KiwiBacon wrote:

RAY185 wrote: No one claims there is a "magic bullet" in any petrol engine that saves fuel. The point is that the 2F is a particularly thirsty animal and that by replacing it with either the commodore or falcon motor means an engine more efficient in its design, is fuel injected, runs on unleaded and makes more power and torque. You can't honestly say that either of these engines will not give better economy than a 2F.

Why do you think the commodore or falcon motor are going to be more economical? Besides the EFI (which could probably be fitted) there is nothing in either engine which makes it more efficient. None of those three engines are high compression, lean burn or atkinson cycle.
A later model toyota petrol makes more sense in every way if you want to swap in another petrol engine.

RAY185 wrote: Also no one said that commodores don't use alot of fuel, the point is they use less fuel than a 40 with a 2F

A commodore may use less fuel than a 40 with a 2F. But a 40 with a commodore engine will use far more fuel than a commodore. The combination of fat feet, more driveline losses and the aerodynamics of a lumpy brick do not make for economical travel.

When was the last time you needed spare engine parts in a remote place? Are you not maintaining your vehicle properly to need such repairs? Do you have significant reliability issues?

Aside from a few well known lemons, diesels are far more reliable than petrol engines.
The good diesels are all turbocharged and diesel exhaust won't kill you like petrol exhaust does.
Rebuilds are up to 500,000km apart and overtaking isn't an issue.

It does sound like you haven't driven a decent diesel.

What sort of economy are you getting from the falcon powered 40?

I have to agree with Ray here.
So what would you pay for one of these fantastic turbo diesels in OZ 8k plus seems to be the starting rate for a good quality 2nd hand TD. So already you are so far behind the 8 ball it isnt funny. Unlike NZ here is not the home of imports and these diesel motors you carry on about cost a lot more than a locally available petrol engine.

As for rebuilds they cost 3-4 times more to rebuild and get twice the ks as a petrol sounds like a false economy to me. I have driven plenty of diesels both new and old and have hated them all.