While researching my choice for best lineup of cars, I was going through Ford Australia for Falcon and Ute info. They use modular v8's, but it seems the common engine is a 24 valve 4.0 liter inline 6, some turbocharged. Any idea if this is the bastard lovechild of the old American sixes, or a complete different design? Sounds cool, anyway.
http://www.cityford.com.au/new_vehicles/falcon/
I don't know for sure, but I don't think it has anything in common with the old lumps.
Actually, it has a similar block/crank to the 200ci I-6 available in the fox-body Ford's of the 80's. Apparently the Ozzies developed a crossflow head and turbo'd it. I don't think the 4.0 shares anything, but it's predecessor did.
I think the 4.0 DOHC Turbo 6 would be a wicked swap into the P71.
That engine is not directly the same. It will bolt in where a pedestrian US six will, but it's quite a bit different with mostly unique parts. One of the GRM message board guys had put one in his vintage mustang. There's a web site out there describing it but I'll be darned if I can come up with it right now. The bottom line was it was quite expensive and there were better ways to get more power. The only reason to do it would be for exotica bragging rights.
ddavidv wrote: The only reason to do it would be for exotica bragging rights.
Thats actually one of the best reasons out there. Performance is king, but uber-cool comes a close second.
I have a soft spot for OZ Ford I6. So much so I was looking at the old 'Mericun inline sixes and the 6=8 website...
Oz has had a BUNCH of crazies putting stuff where it doesn't belong per 'the Factory'.
One of the coolest I can think of is a crossflow head for the late (194-292) Chevy inline 6. It's the Duggan, and Kaye Sissell brought them to the US. Imagine...aluminum, no welding and AND, mind you, exotic, I've-got-one-you-don't, bragging rights.
And then there's the Oz Chrysler 'Hemi' inline 6...man, just lots of stuff the roo-boys got/have that we here in our 'enlightened' society can't find.
I have always wanted a twin turbo Ford 300 in an early mustang.
Well, why not?? It just makes sense. 
Decent engine for strength, has separate ports, 7 mains...should be able to get 18-20# boost. And then there's the idea that you could drive a collector crazy if you did it with a rare version.
That would be priceless.
Inline 6's are a tough packaging nut due to their length, but I love their smoothness and ease of access. Chevy has a wonderfull all-alluminum DOHC 4.2 I6, but they've had a hell of a time finding the right home for it. IMO it should have been used as the base Camaro motor, but noooooooooooo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Atlas_engine
kreb wrote: Inline 6's are a tough packaging nut due to their length, but I love their smoothness and ease of access. Chevy has a wonderfull all-alluminum DOHC 4.2 I6, but they've had a hell of a time finding the right home for it. IMO it should have been used as the base Camaro motor, but noooooooooooo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Atlas_engine
Dude, it's damn tall, that's why they can't. It can't fit under the sloping hood of a car. They were trying to do an Atlas swap over on HybridZ, and seemed to find that the height of the block plus head/valve cover is roughly 24". Top to bottom of the sump was 30".
Worse yet, it the placement of the height:
Which, as you can see, it right at the front of the engine, where the hood slopes down the most.
You have a point, although I wonder how much you could shave off with an intake manifold that didn't cross over the valve cover, and getting rid of that reservoir on the front. Then you'd want to pull off that butt ugly vave cover. There's something pretty under that sea of black....
In reply to ScottRA21:
So... what you're saying is, it should be mid-mounted...
ScottRA21 wrote: ... it's damn tall, that's why they can't. It can't fit under the sloping hood of a car.
That's why you design it to mount at an angle, and call it a slant six..
kreb wrote: You have a point, although I wonder how much you could shave off with an intake manifold that didn't cross over the valve cover, and getting rid of that reservoir on the front. Then you'd want to pull off that butt ugly vave cover. There's something pretty under that sea of black....
Looks like it just has big a** cam gears, not a reservoir, just an oil fill port.
NYG95GA wrote:ScottRA21 wrote: ... it's damn tall, that's why they can't. It can't fit under the sloping hood of a car.That's why you design it to mount at an angle, and call it a slant six..
I am glad I am not the only person to think of this.
that gm six would make a great engine for a jeep.
SupraWes wrote:kreb wrote: You have a point, although I wonder how much you could shave off with an intake manifold that didn't cross over the valve cover, and getting rid of that reservoir on the front. Then you'd want to pull off that butt ugly vave cover. There's something pretty under that sea of black....Looks like it just has big a** cam gears, not a reservoir, just an oil fill port.
It seems too high for cam gears. Perhaps something to do with the variable valve timing?
ignorant wrote: that gm six would make a great engine for a jeep.
The Trailblazer guys complain that while it's powerful, it makes it at too high revs, so maybie not so perfect...
kreb wrote:ignorant wrote: that gm six would make a great engine for a jeep.The Trailblazer guys complain that while it's powerful, it makes it at too high revs, so maybie not so perfect...
thats what gears and an autotrans are for.
You'll need to log in to post.
