Engine options for 1966

[B92 8NW]

Was the 2.6 6-cyl ever fitted to 88" models?

[isuzurover]

Was the 2.6 6-cyl ever fitted to 88" models?

Never to production 88" vehicles, only prototypes AFAIK. 1967 was when it was first introduced in 109s.

[JDNSW]

I agree with what isuzurover said. The six was never fitted to a production 88, although it almost certainly was tried in prototype form. The only engines fitted to production 88s (S2-S3) were the 2.25 petrol and (from 1961) diesel, the petrol in either 7:1 or 8:1 compression, and, in 1958 the 2 litre petrol and 1958-61 the 2 litre diesel.

John

[Rangier Rover]

Was the 2.6 6-cyl ever fitted to 88" models? Don't even think about it;) If you do use a 3Ltr (RoverP5). They are rare but getable.

[Bigbjorn]

If you are planning to repower a Series, use a Chrysler Hemi 6 265. The block casting is only 1/4" longer than a Holden. Commercial conversion kits used to be available.

[Rangier Rover]

If you are planning to repower a Series, use a Chrysler Hemi 6 265. The block casting is only 1/4" longer than a Holden. Commercial conversion kits used to be available.
Hemi 265 :D. Awsome engine. God help the series box:eek: As we have proven here ... just dont flog 1st 3rd or Rev and they will take a fair bit.

[Fusion]

Hemi 265 ????? Might as well bolt it up to a Nissan 5 speed and whack a ford 9" in it if you want it to last . Even the Holden motor is a little to powerful for the standard drive train . ;)

[Rangier Rover]

Hemi 265 ????? Might as well bolt it up to a Nissan 5 speed and whack a ford 9" in it if you want it to last . Even the Holden motor is a little to powerful for the standard drive train . ;)

Depends how you treat them;) I don't like GMH as torque curve is wrong in stock form. The hemi has low end and love to rev:twisted:. If you dont bash them in 1st gear they can take a bit.
I learnt this years ago when I put a Turboed 202 in a 109:eek:

[Lotz-A-Landies]

If you are planning to repower a Series, use a Chrysler Hemi 6 265. The block casting is only 1/4" longer than a Holden. Commercial conversion kits used to be available.
Brian

Are you sure about the length of the Chrysler being 1/4" longer than a Holden 6?

I know we have a SIII ex-6cyl Rover which at one time had a Chrysler 245 hemi and it needed the radiator cut-out the same as the 4 cyl need for the Holden in-line 6.

If you are wanting to do an engine transplant today why not consider the ex-Commodore V6 Holden. You can get them with the ECU for next to nothing (even if you have to buy the whole car) and parts are everywhere. More than that you don't need to do any cutting of the chassis for the extra length.

[Bigbjorn]

Brian

Are you sure about the length of the Chrysler being 1/4" longer than a Holden 6?

I know we have a SIII ex-6cyl Rover which at one time had a Chrysler 245 hemi and it needed the radiator cut-out the same as the 4 cyl need for the Holden in-line 6.

If you are wanting to do an engine transplant today why not consider the ex-Commodore V6 Holden. You can get them with the ECU for next to nothing (even if you have to buy the whole car) and parts are everywhere. More than that you don't need to do any cutting of the chassis for the extra length.


Yes, I am sure. I have measured them. I said the block casting not the overall length of an accessorised engine. Fan, water pump, and alternator drives can be shortened up but the basic block can not. I have fitted Hemi 6's into Land Rovers, Holdens, and Toranas, even an XJ6 Jaguar. The last was a very good conversion as an alternative to fitting a V8. This avoids the cost of V8 registration in Qld. where registration is charged on number of cylinders. The Hemi is much lighter and more compact than the Jaguar lump and fitted with a Rochester 4 barrell and CM split headers with twin 2 1/4" exhaust and appropriate cylinder head cleanup was more powerful than the Jaguar. 300 streetable, tractable horsepower is easily achieved with a Hemi 6. The Torana conversion was not a good idea for a street car but was good for the dragstrip.

[B92 8NW]

Whoops - forgot that I posted in this section:eek:. Thanks for the replies.

I ask only because I already have a GM 161 in there, and was wondering how careful I need to be based on whether the drivetrain was developed to handle the 2.6 6 cyl. I found these figures, so I don't think its as much as a risk as a 186 or 202.

Rover 2.6 - 67kW @ 4500 , 178Nm @ 1500
GM 161 - 81kW @ 4400 , 198Nm @ 2000

[isuzurover]

Whoops - forgot that I posted in this section:eek:. Thanks for the replies.

I ask only because I already have a GM 161 in there, and was wondering how careful I need to be based on whether the drivetrain was developed to handle the 2.6 6 cyl. I found these figures, so I don't think its as much as a risk as a 186 or 202.

Rover 2.6 - 67kW @ 4500 , 178Nm @ 1500
GM 161 - 81kW @ 4400 , 198Nm @ 2000

The gearbox is the weakest link. 6cyl and 4cyl are the same where it counts (layshaft, gears, etc...) - so strength is the same.

The 161 in stock form is not hugely powerful, so it will probably be OK, however there is a chance of breaking the layshaft or stripping a few teeth from 1st.

[Jeff]

AFAIK the earlier boxes were weaker, with the last 2A, the F suffix being the strongest. I broke an early box's layshaft, the one with the dipstick, with a 202 engine. I replaced it with a 1969 F suffix box and dealt it a suitable thrashing with said 202 and 35 inch BFGs with no problems.

Jeff

:rocket: