I recently dredged up a memory of the '90-ish Chrysler New Yorker that a high-school friend's mother drove. Part of the memory was the fact that it had a V6. So I looked up what kinda V6 those came with and I see it was from Mitsubishi.
So my question is, does that V6 go into an Omni/Horizon, like, easily? Do people do that?
Paging Vigo to the white courtesy phone...
I would think that with the availability of turbo Mopars from that era, and the extremely well-documented ways to make insane power with them, swapping in a lukewarm V6 is not going to be the real hot ticket.
The 6G72 V6 likes boost, fitment to a omni engine bay, and whether or not such a small, light, FWD chassis can handle the power in any menaingful way is another question.
That mitsu engine was turd-o-licious from all my experience.
Wait. Never mind. I think I was thinking of the mitsu 4-bangers.
they ate head gaskets and dropped valve guides with boring regularity
Actually the 90s eek new yorker/dynasty was a 3.3 Chrysler v6. But yes the Chrysler/mitsu 6g has been swapped into an lbody me than once.
There's some parts-swapping that can be done with a 3.3 family motor to make some decent power. Remember the Shelby Can-Am?
According to a few Mopar freaks I know, the Rods and Pistons share dimensions with the LSx, so that should not be an issue.
Only thing I am unsure of is cams. I don't know if anyone actually produces blanks, or you need to go to Web for a re-grind.
The one thing you cannot get it a decent Intake Manifold, that would have to be fabricated. Not too hard in the grand scheme of things. There's even a one year only T-850 manual transaxle (like SRT-4) that came in a stratus R/T and will work with this trans.
A guy has this exact same setup in a Neon.
In reply to Mazda787b:
your talking about the 3.3 Chrysler. It shares nothing with the 6g.
Also, no-one remembers the Shelby Can-Am.
I think the motor mounts on the frame are different between the V6 and 4-cyl cars, so you'd have to cut and weld to fit the smaller Omni engine bay.
The later 3.8L DOHC engines used in the trucks are the same basic block, FYI. The DOHC heads don't fit in the EEK engine bays though, more cutting/welding needed.
Of course a mid-engined mounting solution would solve a lot of those space issues ;)
Finally, the Shelby Can-Am cars were understeering pigs and are spec-racers, so while fun to drive compared to a street car, I wouldn't bother trying to use the engines in a street car.
why bother with a transverse mounted V6 when Mopar used to have a part number for mounts for a longitudinally mounted LA series V8?
of course, everything from the firewall back was up to you, but they had the motor mounts..
novaderrik wrote: why bother with a transverse mounted V6 when Mopar used to have a part number for mounts for a longitudinally mounted LA series V8? of course, everything from the firewall back was up to you, but they had the motor mounts..
The kit included a reversed K-member, uprights, manual rack and control arms. You had to sort out the tunnel and rear axle bits on your own.
Good luck finding the kit anymore though :(
novaderrik wrote: why bother with a transverse mounted V6 when Mopar used to have a part number for mounts for a longitudinally mounted LA series V8? of course, everything from the firewall back was up to you, but they had the motor mounts..
Why bother with either when dollar for dollar you can crush either the Mitsubishi v6 or longitudinally mounted LA with a bolt in turbo 2.2. 
In reply to Pat:
....because this is GRM and many of us find it fun to be stupid and avoid the obvious?
I had a buddy in college that put the V-6 from a caravan into his TC-3. I don't remember how difficult the swap was, but he wasn't a rocket scientist.
I was definitely talking about the 3.3. The K-cars are like legos, there should be a way to make it all work with some pre-planning.
No clue on the Mitsu stuff, that's completely out of my league.
Go to turbododge.com there is a V6 section. ALOT of gurus and info there. I used to be a 6g73 turbo guy, I still have the car and it runs fine. I just have been busy autocrossing my miata. ;)
Mazda787b wrote: I was definitely talking about the 3.3. The K-cars are like legos, there should be a way to make it all work with some pre-planning. No clue on the Mitsu stuff, that's completely out of my league.
They are very much like legos, but the L bodies are slightly different. Mounts, some bracketry, axles, etc are not the same as the k car stuff. It can be made to work, but since there was no v6 l body, some creativity would be required.
Pat hit it right on the head. It's been done, and it's not TERRIBLY hard, but it is slightly harder in an omni/horizon/charger ( L-body) than in one of the k-based cars.
In my opinion the only reason people are so drawn to the omni/horizon/charger et al is because of light weight, but you can easily get a k-car down into the same weight range as an l-body. Pat's Aries is ~2100lbs and i suspect mine to be ~2250 or so (and these are relatively huge cars with beefy driveline and suspension compared to other 2200lb cars), and these k-based cars take a v6 swap a lot easier.
The mitsu 3.0 and the dodge 3.3/3.8 are all good motors. They all have decent flowing heads (180+cfm intake) but terrible cams. The mitsu 3.0 in particular is known for having a very strong bottom end under it as well, although i suspect the 3.3/3.8 could make at least 400hp reliably without worrying about rods and crank.
None of them have 'good' drop in cam options, but a 3.3/3.8 is a little cheaper to get a regrind on because it has less cams 
. The 3.3/3.8 also has a higher-rpm valvetrain on it from the factory via better valvesprings (can am ran to 6800 on stock springs iirc). The 3.0 sohc valvetrain has been proven to be reliable to at least 7500 rpm with different springs and probably higher although noone has made power up there to bother verifying..
If you were to turbo a mitsu 3.0 i can tell you it seems like 99% of anyone who ever turbos one on a k-car seems to trap 100mph on 5psi with no intercooler and almost no tuning control so they are pretty fast right out of the box with boost. Ive seen or heard of dynos at ~240whp@5-7psi, 300whp@9-10psi, a guy just dyno'd ~320whp@14psi with a fairly tiny turbo, and ive seen dynos as high as 515whp in the turbo mopar community on that motor. Ive even seen one dyno that made 440whp on 4 cylinders with a strong jet of coolant shooting out of the overflow...that pull was destined for ~600 without head seal issues which do become a problem in the 450+ area it seems.
The 3.3/3.8 have only been boosted a few times and not really documented, mostly because of the granny cars they came in and the lack of an easy/cheap manual trans option. Due to the similar headflow numbers i feel their power potential is pretty similar to the 3.0 until you find the point where their skinnier factory rods come into play and have to upgrade those.
You'll need to log in to post.
