Out there idea - engine conv.

[B92 8NW]

Whilst personally I'm not the least bit interested in doing it and very happy not to have the money to try it... but how would a GM 3800 V6 and GM 4L80E 4 speed auto go in a Tdi Disco/Fender from a VP, VR or VT commodore?

Since I am Land Rover-less for a little while, I've been driving a few different commodores from a VP to a VY and must say I'm quite impressed with the good old common yobbo aussie car. Fun burning off the fully sick modded s*** in an essentially stock plain cheap car. I digress.

Marks adaptors make a 4L80E to LT230 kit and a GM 3800 V6 conversion kit so it must be feasible - would the combo be any good offroad, given that these beasts produce lovely torque down real low... and if I'm not mistaken more power than a 3.9? Would make for an interesting drive, provided the 3800 was up to the job of hauling a brick weighing another 600kg.

[Sprint]

dont know about landrovers, but my local mechanic has a 45 series cruiser ute with a VN vintage V6 and a supercharger, not massive boost, just one of those jap import type blowers, and it hammers..... usually doesnt switch the blower on though

[Slunnie]

I think they seem to get use quite successfully in Hiluxs etc. I reckon they'd be great, but the V6 noise would always get to me when it comes out of a place that used to house a V8. The V8 would be excellent though and through the Holden Auto and LT230 would be excellent.

[Dougal]

The old work commodore used to drink 16L/100km around town, tried driving it nicely, didn't make any difference according to the fuel computer.:eek:

[werdan]

Heh, that's funny. I was thinking the other day how the 4.2ltr 6cyl TD from a pov pack Ford F250 would go in a Defender. They put out to 600nm of torque unchipped. :D

[Bigbjorn]

Have had Buick V6 Commodores as renters. most impressed with the fuel economy, particularly getting over 30mpg on the highway. Excellent low speed torque and as said above, they realy dig out off the mark. Low weight and compact, no inbuilt problems, like the Falcon cylinder heads, that I have heard of. Plenty about, and the cheapest way would probably be to buy a write-off or a roughie at auction.

[Slunnie]

The old work commodore used to drink 16L/100km around town, tried driving it nicely, didn't make any difference according to the fuel computer.:eek:
Our VT Berlina did the same. Around town they'll drop to about 12.5l/100km if you lock them out of top gear. Not sure why though.

[RonMcGr]

Whilst personally I'm not the least bit interested in doing it and very happy not to have the money to try it... but how would a GM 3800 V6 and GM 4L80E 4 speed auto go in a Tdi Disco/Fender from a VP, VR or VT commodore?

Since I am Land Rover-less for a little while, I've been driving a few different commodores from a VP to a VY and must say I'm quite impressed with the good old common yobbo aussie car. Fun burning off the fully sick modded s*** in an essentially stock plain cheap car. I digress.

Marks adaptors make a 4L80E to LT230 kit and a GM 3800 V6 conversion kit so it must be feasible - would the combo be any good offroad, given that these beasts produce lovely torque down real low... and if I'm not mistaken more power than a 3.9? Would make for an interesting drive, provided the 3800 was up to the job of hauling a brick weighing another 600kg.

Joel,

Sorry about the "Heat Seeker" comment, I did not realise you were a youngun.

The commode V6 may seem gutsy in a commodore, but that is only due to the ratio of first gear. The only one that is feasible to transfer is the VN as it has a cable kickdown in the auto. The rest are electronic and are not a simple change over.
Next the engine.
A VN V6 puts out 127Kw @ 4,800rpm and 288Nm @ 3200rpm.
Lets compare that to my thirsty and not so powerfull Disco V8. 134kW @ 4750rpm and 304Nm @ 2600rpm.

In other words, you would have a very gutless and thirsty vehicle :)

The 5.0L V8 commode is slightly better, 165Kw and 385Nm @ 3,600rpm. The problem here is the full torque is achieved at 3,600rpm which is a little too high.

My suggestion is you go to a Land Rover wrecker and buy a good 2nd hand auto box to fit your diesel. There would be plenty around.

Cheers

[B92 8NW]

Joel,

Sorry about the "Heat Seeker" comment, I did not realise you were a youngun.

The commode V6 may seem gutsy in a commodore, but that is only due to the ratio of first gear. The only one that is feasible to transfer is the VN as it has a cable kickdown in the auto. The rest are electronic and are not a simple change over.
Next the engine.
A VN V6 puts out 127Kw @ 4,800rpm and 288Nm @ 3200rpm.
Lets compare that to my thirsty and not so powerfull Disco V8. 134kW @ 4750rpm and 304Nm @ 2600rpm.

In other words, you would have a very gutless and thirsty vehicle :)

The 5.0L V8 commode is slightly better, 165Kw and 385Nm @ 3,600rpm. The problem here is the full torque is achieved at 3,600rpm which is a little too high.

My suggestion is you go to a Land Rover wrecker and buy a good 2nd hand auto box to fit your diesel. There would be plenty around.

Cheers

No probs:D

Interesting to read that it has been done, "successfully" depending on interpretation!

They do get appalling fuel economy around town when driven in "D". Our '04 VY had this problem, I spoke to South City Holden and they strongly assured me to drive the thing in "D" under normal use. FWIW I always use "3" around town and "D" at freeway speeds and it gets 450-550 kms per tank, not 350-450. The problem seems, is that it picks up 4th gear whilst on the overrun but tends to hold it when you resume accelerating, even at only 55 or so km/h. Its then very reluctant to drop out of 4th unless you sink the boot or manually shift back.

Ron - the Disco gets herself an auto very soon (woohoo) - place hasn't reopened yet:D

[Dougal]

Have had Buick V6 Commodores as renters. most impressed with the fuel economy, particularly getting over 30mpg on the highway.

Since when was 30mpg on the highway impressive for a car?
My diesel rangerover does that, but is almost twice the weight, pushes about twice the air and drives 3 times as many diffs.

[Bigbjorn]

Since when was 30mpg on the highway impressive for a car?
My diesel rangerover does that, but is almost twice the weight, pushes about twice the air and drives 3 times as many diffs.

Well, seeing that I have not had a petrol engined car since the EH Holden that would achieve that sort of economy, I think it is pretty damn good, particularly driving air conditioning and power steering, and going Brisbane to Melbourne in 17 1/2 hours. There are plenty of little buzz boxes that won't fit a full grown northern european descent male that don't achieve that economy.

[mcrover]

I have seen a White Classic RR in Packanham about 2 years ago with the Comodore 3.8V6 badges on the side and he was pulling away from me in my AU ute up the first big hill on Gembrook rd.

I also have a Mate that had a 92 Hilux that had a VP manual 3.8 put in it after the 2.8 N/A diesel blew up and was cheaper to do the conversion than to replace the diesel.

It went really well with the low diesel gearing but constantly had over heating but he ended up sorting it out with a comodore 5.0ltr radiator and a reverse direction fan off a fork lift and a spacer that he turned up to mount it off one of the idler pulleys.

It was quite cheap to run and Cam used to thrash the crap out of it and it seemed to love it.

I'd imagine that if you fitted 4.11:1 diff gears it would be fine but with 3.54's I think it would be a bit sluggish.

[RonMcGr]

Since when was 30mpg on the highway impressive for a car?
My diesel rangerover does that, but is almost twice the weight, pushes about twice the air and drives 3 times as many diffs.

Our AUIII Falcon gets 33mpg at 108 to 118 kph WITH!! air con on!
Believe me, I am impressed. Never had a ford do that before.

[RonMcGr]

I have seen a White Classic RR in Packanham about 2 years ago with the Comodore 3.8V6 badges on the side and he was pulling away from me in my AU ute up the first big hill on Gembrook rd.



The gearing must have been altered.
Given the power of a commode V6, it should be a slug.
Maybe he had a ten speed gearbox in it :D

[mcrover]

The gearing must have been altered.
Given the power of a commode V6, it should be a slug.
Maybe he had a ten speed gearbox in it :D

Are you taking the **** or having an atemt of humor Ron?

As stated, I was driving behind him at the time so I dont know anything about the drive line, he had stopped next to me at the set of lights near BP on the way into Packy and thats how I saw the badges and It deffinatly wasnt a rover V8 in it by the sound of the exaust note.

[Bigbjorn]

Joel,

A VN V6 puts out 127Kw @ 4,800rpm and 288Nm @ 3200rpm.
Lets compare that to my thirsty and not so powerfull Disco V8. 134kW @ 4750rpm and 304Nm @ 2600rpm.

Cheers

Max. torque at 2600 & 3200 rpm has little to do with getting off the mark. Check the torque curve for output from 800rpm to 1500-2000rpm. This is what you are using off the mark and accelerating to cruising speed.

[loanrangie]

Joel, what will they be using to mate a ZF with a 200TDI since the parts arent available here ? can the 300 flexplate etc be used ?

[Bigbjorn]

Our AUIII Falcon gets 33mpg at 108 to 118 kph WITH!! air con on!
Believe me, I am impressed. Never had a ford do that before.

My late model Falcon ute does 18-19mpg around town, and never better than 24mpg on highway light laden, and 21 fully laden. Waste of time and breath complaining to the Ford dealer. They plug their computer into the diagnostic socket and say it has been averaging 11l./100ks, and my log book says 14+l./100ks. There are no leaks. I once told the service manager that if 11l./100ks was true then I would not be in his office chewing his ear. Other Falcon owners tell me much the same figures. When their sales dept. 'phone me to ask if I am interested in updating, I tell them I own two Falcons, the first and the last. Then wait for the reaction.

[graceysdad]

I had an old VN for years, mine ran gas, its was the most abused car I ever had, It had 1 service in 6 years, She was straight gas and the oil just never seem to get dirty, would take a liter every 1000 km, that was her service!, the autos are far better then anything Ford has on offer, and they certianly do go like cat shot in the bum from the mark, is it worth the hassle at the end of the day to mess with tried and proven rover components that are designed for there intended job, only thing that scares me is wieght of the Fender, the little v6s struggle under load and thats were the Ford inline always had it.
But one further testament to the strenght of the set up, we had to drive all the way out in the back of woop woop past West Wyalong to pick up my old Clydesdale horse, now he tipped the scales at 900 kilo, the float is 800 kilo, we did the hole trip using the old VN which I thought would leave its guts all over the road somewhere but she bloody well did it, never missed a beat, never got hot, the auto survived, was sad to pension her off but the body couldnt keep up. Its all personal preferance, you will do what you think is right

[Jeff]

I can only compare my dad's VT when we towed my race trailer to Phillip Island, the fuel range dropped from 800 per tank to about 350. With the Defender is goes from 800 per tank to about 550.

A friend's brother put a 3.8 V6 in a Series 3 with a Nissan 5 speed many years ago and he was quite happy with it but I don't know how long he kept it. I didn't like the vibration of the early VN motors.

Jeff

:rocket:

[B92 8NW]

Joel, what will they be using to mate a ZF with a 200TDI since the parts arent available here ? can the 300 flexplate etc be used ?

I believe, or I'm led to believe that they will use a 300Tdi flexplate and bell housing which goes straight onto the 200Tdi engine. I won't know full details until next monday though

**UPDATE** Nope I'm wrong the whole thing is wrong and it wont work.

[VladTepes]

Pointless argument. Just own a diesel !

[RonMcGr]

My late model Falcon ute does 18-19mpg around town, and never better than 24mpg on highway light laden, and 21 fully laden. Waste of time and breath complaining to the Ford dealer. They plug their computer into the diagnostic socket and say it has been averaging 11l./100ks, and my log book says 14+l./100ks. There are no leaks. I once told the service manager that if 11l./100ks was true then I would not be in his office chewing his ear. Other Falcon owners tell me much the same figures. When their sales dept. 'phone me to ask if I am interested in updating, I tell them I own two Falcons, the first and the last. Then wait for the reaction.

Must be a ute thing.
Most people who have a AUIII Car, get the same as I do.

[RonMcGr]

I had an old VN for years, mine ran gas, its was the most abused car I ever had, It had 1 service in 6 years, She was straight gas and the oil just never seem to get dirty, would take a liter every 1000 km, that was her service!, the autos are far better then anything Ford has on offer, and they certianly do go like cat shot in the bum from the mark, is it worth the hassle at the end of the day to mess with tried and proven rover components that are designed for there intended job, only thing that scares me is wieght of the Fender, the little v6s struggle under load and thats were the Ford inline always had it.
But one further testament to the strenght of the set up, we had to drive all the way out in the back of woop woop past West Wyalong to pick up my old Clydesdale horse, now he tipped the scales at 900 kilo, the float is 800 kilo, we did the hole trip using the old VN which I thought would leave its guts all over the road somewhere but she bloody well did it, never missed a beat, never got hot, the auto survived, was sad to pension her off but the body couldnt keep up. Its all personal preferance, you will do what you think is right

Many years ago, we had a new EBII Falcon and the Army Unit I was in, had a VP Commy wagon. Took the VP on a trip from Sydney to Dubbo once and I was surprised at the lack of power at speed, compared to our Ford.

[RonMcGr]

Max. torque at 2600 & 3200 rpm has little to do with getting off the mark. Check the torque curve for output from 800rpm to 1500-2000rpm. This is what you are using off the mark and accelerating to cruising speed.

In the case of a Commodore, torque is not the issue.
Do a google and have a look at the first gear ratio!
That is why they get off the mark so quick.

[Bigbjorn]

Must be a ute thing.
Most people who have a AUIII Car, get the same as I do.

The Ford (not the dealership) service rep. told me my vehicles fuel consumption is typical and within the acceptable range. Being a ute makes not the slightest difference as the powertrain is exactly the same. The other Falcon owners I have spoken to have sedans or wagons and are getting similar fuel consumption figures. I will not have another one as, besides the gas guzzling, the electrical unreliability, the brake rotor wear, the inbuilt cylinder head and head gasket fault, and the hair-raising spare parts prices have soured me on Ford product for ever.

[HAK]

Hi all after our little trip to Zig Zag my Map sensor packed in must of been when we attempted that bog hole further to that my front crank seal I think it is, is leaking like a sive

any idea what a map sensor is worth luckily this time the stealer is a relo and a great mechanic

oh well not to bad for my first LR fault but boy did I get teased speacialy knowing that the boys at the work shop are toyo fans :(

[mcrover]

My late model Falcon ute does 18-19mpg around town, and never better than 24mpg on highway light laden, and 21 fully laden. Waste of time and breath complaining to the Ford dealer. They plug their computer into the diagnostic socket and say it has been averaging 11l./100ks, and my log book says 14+l./100ks. There are no leaks. I once told the service manager that if 11l./100ks was true then I would not be in his office chewing his ear. Other Falcon owners tell me much the same figures. When their sales dept. 'phone me to ask if I am interested in updating, I tell them I own two Falcons, the first and the last. Then wait for the reaction.

My AUIII Tray with tool boxes was meant to be tested at the dealer and had a sticker saying on dedicated LPG that it got 16l/100kms.

I used to get roughly around the 300km mark out of the 80 ltr useable tanks which works out closer to 26ltrs/100kms by my calculations.

I tried getting the dealer to tune it to get better economy but ended up just getting the boss to get me a fuel card as I was spending most of my wage on fuel everyweek and then having to get refunded by work the next week.

I did normally carry around 750kgs of tools and parts and quite often I was towing a trailer with a machine on it but an extra 10l/100kms is I think a bit much.

I dont think they ever really tested them to what fuel they actually put in the tank and the kms they did, I think they drive them and then plug them into the computer and it uses it's fuel calculations to give a read out that I dont think is all that acurate.

Got to love electronics and the service guru's who think they dont stuff up.

[BigJon]

I dont think they ever really tested them to what fuel they actually put in the tank and the kms they did, I think they drive them and then plug them into the computer and it uses it's fuel calculations to give a read out that I dont think is all that acurate.

.

If you are refering to how they calculate fuel useage to put on the sticker on the windscreen, there is an Australian Standard test which is performed on a rolling road (dyno). The figure on the windscreen will often have little to do with what is realistically achievable in the real world (particularly towing or heavily laden).

[RonMcGr]

My AUIII Tray with tool boxes was meant to be tested at the dealer and had a sticker saying on dedicated LPG that it got 16l/100kms.

I used to get roughly around the 300km mark out of the 80 ltr useable tanks which works out closer to 26ltrs/100kms by my calculations.

I tried getting the dealer to tune it to get better economy but ended up just getting the boss to get me a fuel card as I was spending most of my wage on fuel everyweek and then having to get refunded by work the next week.

I did normally carry around 750kgs of tools and parts and quite often I was towing a trailer with a machine on it but an extra 10l/100kms is I think a bit much.

I dont think they ever really tested them to what fuel they actually put in the tank and the kms they did, I think they drive them and then plug them into the computer and it uses it's fuel calculations to give a read out that I dont think is all that acurate.

Got to love electronics and the service guru's who think they dont stuff up.

For a AUIII, there must be something wrong with it!
A tray back should do far better than a ute with no cover!

Maybe you should take it to a LPG guru for a tune up?

We had the EBII on LPG and the consupmtion was far better than that. However, on petrol it could do 28mpg on a trip, 25mpg on LPG.

However, overall it was not as good as the AUIII.
Those with the BA and BF do not get as good an economy as the old AU :)

[BigJon]

A tray back should do far better than a ute with no cover!



Not really. Mythbusters have done tests on utes with no cover, hard covers and no tailgate. No cover actually gave better aerodynamics than no tailgate. It is all in the swirl of the air. Plus a tray top will have extra width hanging in the breeze, rope rails, etc all adding to drag.

[VladTepes]

The Ford (not the dealership) service rep. told me my vehicles fuel consumption is typical and within the acceptable range. Being a ute makes not the slightest difference as the powertrain is exactly the same. The other Falcon owners I have spoken to have sedans or wagons and are getting similar fuel consumption figures. I will not have another one as, besides the gas guzzling, the electrical unreliability, the brake rotor wear, the inbuilt cylinder head and head gasket fault, and the hair-raising spare parts prices have soured me on Ford product for ever.

This is getting like the Tdi vs TD5 thread ! SOme of like Falcons, some like commodores. Let's ALL get over it shall we.


For a AUIII, there must be something wrong with it!
A tray back should do far better than a ute with no cover!



Perhaps not.. As I understand it, an empty ute will form a 'bubble of air' behind the cab (circulating in the tray if you like) so that oncoming air hits the screen - goes over the roff and flows across the top of the vehicle - cleanly (ish). A tray back on the other hand will have air flowing across the roof then directly down behind the cab which increases drag, apparently. Certainly tests of a ute with tailgate closed and tailgate open have demonstrated that the tailgate open had higher fuel consumption. Where did I see this ? MYTHBUSTERS.

[VladTepes]

Ha ! Beat me to it Jon - just while I was typing so were you - your message was shorter so you hit the go button earlier !!!!


Plus a tray top will have extra width hanging in the breeze, rope rails, etc all adding to drag.


This being the reason my 200Tdi Defender can't match it down the quarter mile against my old Falcon. Perhaps I shopuld put a tub on it after all ! :D

[mcrover]

If you are refering to how they calculate fuel useage to put on the sticker on the windscreen, there is an Australian Standard test which is performed on a rolling road (dyno). The figure on the windscreen will often have little to do with what is realistically achievable in the real world (particularly towing or heavily laden).

It was hand written on the sticker in black texta and there was another sticker on there with something like 14l/100kms which was printed which I thought must be a standard cab chassis.

If it's tested on a rolling road then aero wouldnt come into it at all so the figures will be significantly lower which would explain it pretty well I would think.


For a AUIII, there must be something wrong with it!
A tray back should do far better than a ute with no cover!

Maybe you should take it to a LPG guru for a tune up?

We had the EBII on LPG and the consupmtion was far better than that. However, on petrol it could do 28mpg on a trip, 25mpg on LPG.

However, overall it was not as good as the AUIII.
Those with the BA and BF do not get as good an economy as the old AU :)

As I said, It had TOOL BOXES as in a work body with tool boxes roof hight from the head board to the back on either side of the tray with the middle open and I had them generally full of tools and parts most of the time which on the weigh bridge was around 750kg mark.

Most of the usage was around Melbourne as well so that would make it a bit worse.

The problem I had was with the stealer who wouldnt even consider that there was anything wrong with it or even consider doing anything more than plugging it into their computer and looking at a read out.

Regardless of what my fuel card read out said, they still argued that there was nothing wrong with it and that it wasnt using that much fuel.

By the way, it is 2008, Mpg is used in the US and UK not Australia, makes it hard to work out what people are talking about when 1 blokes talking ltrs/100kms and another goes to great lengths to convert kms to miles and ltrs to gallons.

[BigJon]

This being the reason my 200Tdi Defender can't match it down the quarter mile against my old Falcon. :D


Yep, that would be the only reason...:p:p

[RonMcGr]

By the way, it is 2008, Mpg is used in the US and UK not Australia, makes it hard to work out what people are talking about when 1 blokes talking ltrs/100kms and another goes to great lengths to convert kms to miles and ltrs to gallons.

Only if you are young!
For some of us who learnt imperial at school, filled our cars with gallons, find it easier to equate with distance versus volume. Lires per 100 km means absolutely nothing to me.

It won't be long and us old School will be dead and you will have your way!
So, in 2008, I will do it my way and you can do it yours.
If it's too hard, don't bother..

[VladTepes]

Only if you are young!
For some of us who learnt imperial at school, filled our cars with gallons, find it easier to equate with distance versus volume. Lires per 100 km means absolutely nothing to me.

It won't be long and us old School will be dead and you will have your way!
So, in 2008, I will do it my way and you can do it yours.
If it's too hard, don't bother..

I think his point is that converting litres to gallons, then miles to kms seems overly complex just to arrive at a figure you can;t compare readily to any understood by someone under about 45 years of age !

As you say though, each to his won !

[BigJon]

. Lires per 100 km means absolutely nothing to me.

..

I think only the Italians use that measurement...:D:p

[rovercare]

I think only the Italians use that measurement...:D:p

:D:D:D

[RonMcGr]

I think only the Italians use that measurement...:D:p

Missed the TEE He, he,he..;)

[RonMcGr]

I think his point is that converting litres to gallons, then miles to kms seems overly complex just to arrive at a figure you can;t compare readily to any understood by someone under about 45 years of age !

As you say though, each to his won !

You got it :)
I wonder how the "Younger" generation, who have a thing for those EJ/EH Holdens get on?

60 on the dial, Policeman pulls them over, "But Officer, it said 60??":confused:

[rovercare]

You got it :)
I wonder how the "Younger" generation, who have a thing for those EJ/EH Holdens get on?

60 on the dial, Policeman pulls them over, "But Officer, it said 60??":confused:

You certainly show your lack of respect for the "younger" generation:mad:

[Dougal]

Only if you are young!
For some of us who learnt imperial at school, filled our cars with gallons, find it easier to equate with distance versus volume. Lires per 100 km means absolutely nothing to me.

Here ya go then.
Multiply by 2.8.
i.e. 10km/l = 28mpg.
:)

[RonMcGr]

Here ya go then.
Multiply by 2.8.
i.e. 10km/l = 28mpg.
:)

Thank you :)
Did not know that one.