In reply to VictoryMike18 :
Audi was very proud of how compact and smooth the V6 was.
What is amusing is that it is literally just a V6 version of the same architecture as the watercooled four. Most hardparts interchange, and IIRC they had 7mm valve stems which are a flow upgrade for the older fours. (Also shared with the VR6)
The 2.8s were anvils. The 2.7t was a V6 version of the 1.8t and was great if a bit cramped to work on.
The 3.0l AVK can eat a bowl of phalli because of the cylinder head design, and the cam sprocket bolts that back off in service and take out the $1200 camshaft solenoid/cam seal bracket and then a lot tiny yet expensive sodium filled valves when they stop being dull flycutters and start being locking devices.
Not the bolts that hold the units to the cams, the ones that hold the sprockets to the hubs. There are five or six per sprocket on the inside face.
Volvo has three per sprocket, same size, on the outside where they are accessible, and they do not back off.
bentwrench said:
In reply to MadScientistMatt :
Is this the same motor as the Ford duratec v6?
No, it's the other 2.5 liter 60 degree V6 that showed up in early 1990s Ford products. Does seem like a strange amount of duplicated effort, but the Duratec V6 was from Ford of Europe. The Duratec four was a Mazda design. So, lots of potential for confusion.
In reply to MadScientistMatt :
They are all Duratec sixes. The old 2.5 from the Contour, the DOHC V6 from the Taurus...
Completely different engine family but they are called Duratecs.
Growl_R
New Reader
11/29/22 9:06 p.m.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
That was the whole point of VW's development of the narrow angle V - it fits transverse in the same space as an inline 4
VW received several engineering awards for its development (they also invented the dual clutch transmission, BTW)
In reply to Growl_R :
Knowing how the DSG works, I am curious what the control mechanism was like in the 80s.
Audi ran a DSG in a few events in the S1 E2 rally car. There's video of Röhrl at the 1985 RAC where you can tell he is in an "automatic" - he does not lift to shift to create that incredible K29 compressor surge, he just goes and goes. Apparently you used a foot clutch to move from a stop, and then a hand lever to shift the car.
Video should start at 3:36. Compare Mikkola (I think) in the traditional manual trans, then Röhrl in the DSG right after.
Röhrl didn't want to be there, he didn't like that the RAC was a "blind" rally, but he was there to test the new gearbox.
The prototype mid engined car had this transmission too. So did some Porsche 962s I guess.
te72
HalfDork
12/26/22 2:32 a.m.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In reply to Peabody :
Nissan RB26.
For whatever reason, there seems to be a cultural mental block against engine swaps in Japan, so when I learned of this I was really surprised.
For whatever reason in this case, it helps to have an understanding of Nagata-san, and the impact the original, old school GT-R had on him. It's actually a cool story. The engine swap wasn't done because they couldn't make the power with the 2jz, Nagata just really, really liked GT-R's, and doing unusual things in general with cars. =)
He also built a Mk4 with a 1GZ-FE later on, that is rather famous. If I recall, that very car ended up in Florida a few years back.
As to your comments about the 2jz design in general, having been around these things for years, you're partially correct. They do take to boost quite well, though modern quick spooling turbos did eventually find a weak point in the stock rods, when engines were pushed to 600+ ft-lbs before around 3500 rpm, stock rods have a tendency to bend... Doesn't seem to be an issue with 1jz's, which have a shorter rod. In fact, I can't say I've ever seen a bent 1jz rod, they're stout little things.
Now, in stock form, you're right, they're not too thrilled to rev, but that's basically a built head away from a 9k+ engine. Downside, at least to guys like me who favor throttle response, is that to carry an engine that far, the turbo has to be able to keep up without getting in the way. This is why you frequently see ridiculously large turbos on these engines. Not my style, but... there's a place for them, and they do make a good noise. =)
I often get a little emotionally erect when I see a Caddy 500. Good aftermarket performance stuff that isn't too expensive, only weighs a little more than a SBC, super easy to swap, and high nickel castings mean they last forever (but shouldn't really spend much time above 6000)
Most people assume they're heave and expensive, but they're no more expensive to build than a BBC, but they have 50 more cubes and weigh closer to a SBC.
MadScientistMatt said:
bentwrench said:
In reply to MadScientistMatt :
Is this the same motor as the Ford duratec v6?
No, it's the other 2.5 liter 60 degree V6 that showed up in early 1990s Ford products. Does seem like a strange amount of duplicated effort, but the Duratec V6 was from Ford of Europe. The Duratec four was a Mazda design. So, lots of potential for confusion.
Really late to this party, but there may have been a lot of "duplicated" engines, but that's because the older one had some issues.... (edit) just thought of another thing- Ford may have seen that Mazda could not make enough V6's for their plans- so we developed our own.
The "early" 90's 2.5l V6 was the one that powered the second gen Probe, which was the Mazda V6- same family that was the 1.8l V6. As that one was going into the Ford production line, the 2.5l "modular" or "duratec" was being developed- which was originally a contract job with Porsche Engineering. Pretty clever engine, and much of the design carried over into the 3.0lV6. Those two engines were in the Contour/Mystique/Mondeo for the 2.5 and the Taurus (mostly) and first gen Escape for the v6. (edit)- I have no idea why Porsche was part of the original V6 design- that was just before I started when they were done.
But I've posted many times that the next Duratec, which was also the MZR, I4 was NOT a Mazda design, it was very much a co-design. I'd have to look back, but I seem to remember the first US application of that motor was the Ranger pick up. That family was a 1.8/2.0/ and 2.3 originally, later expanded to 2.5. And was made all over the world- Spain, Mexico, and Japan mostly. And in far more Ford products than Mazda.
Not sure which one of those started the "horrible but good" family. I thought all of them were good engines- although the Duratec V6 had a flaw that made it hard to be really clean. The Duratec/MZR engine was pretty awesome- powerful, light, and clean.
In reply to alfadriver :
The only horrible thing about the V6 Duratec was that the alternator only lasted 2 to 3 years, at least in the Cougars, which were missing some shielding compared to the Contours, and changing the alternator required taking apart the passenger side suspension to remove it, but to remove the bolts on the alternator you had to go in from the driver's side wheelwell with several feet of extensions and multiple swivel joints. If the car saw any road salt at all, the job became an even bigger PITA. Other than that, I loved that engine.
Also, Porsche Engineering Services (a wholly owned subsidiary of Porsche AG) was involved in the original design of the V6, Ford used them instead of using someone like Roush or one of the other contract engineering services. It was simply a manpower issue at the time, at least that's the story I got from a former coworker who was involved with the original design. He also said that a big reason why Ford developed the Duratec V6 was because the Mazda V6 block was limited to 2.5L and they wanted 3L for the Taurus.
In reply to alfadriver :
The 2.5s run dry in sustained right (or is left hand) turns. At least in Contours.
triumph7 said:
Nobody mentioned the 2.0 from the TR7? Up to the point where the corrosion simulates a failed head gasket and ultimately welds the head to the block they aren't horrid... much.
Yea, and the Stag engine is two siamesed TR7 engines. Well, I guess they deserve their bad reputation.
Appleseed said:
In reply to alfadriver :
The 2.5s run dry in sustained right (or is left hand) turns. At least in Contours.
So like a 944 or 928 then?
Appleseed said:
In reply to alfadriver :
The 2.5s run dry in sustained right (or is left hand) turns. At least in Contours.
Vehicle dynamics testing has changed a lot since that would have happened....
In reply to Schmidlap :
So the alternator problem isn't an engine problem, but a crappy design of an alternator by what would end up being a crappy Visteon design.
As for Porsche's involvement- that makes sense- when I was hired, there were some pretty large incoming classes of engineers. And many of the teams that were on the 3.0l V6 development were pretty darned young (more than one of those small teams ended up in VP positions, which is interesting to me).
In reply to alfadriver :
In fairness, the engine is fine, the oil pick up is what's bad in that particular case. I tried in vain to get my brother to do the 3.0 big block swap after he nuked his 2.5, but to no avail .
