Triumph Sports Cars

Hi

This is my first post so please be gentle with me. This is an awesome website and I thought I would run this question by you guys because you are without a doubt the experts on this type of thing. Please forgive this rambling letter that follows :

I have a '72 GT-6 that I installed a ford 2.8l V-6 and Ranger 5 speed into about 8 years ago. I've driven it from the Detroit area down Route 66 to Santa Monica, turned around, driven to Boston and back to Detroit. I blew a turnsignal fuse in Oklahoma (pinched wire in the column) and averaged 29 M.P.G.. That engine and transmission is a perfect mild-upgrade to a GT-6. I even use the stock GT-6 rad.
25k miles later, I need to do serious work to the underbody and I figure if I'm going to redo the whole bottom of the car, it's time for a power upgrade.

Here the question :
Which power plant would you choose ?

1. I would like lightweight.
2. I would like 250 + horsepower up to a max of around 300. (I'm going to build a complete rear end / half shafts, disc brakes, etc... so I the car will be able to handle the power.)
3. It must be as cheap as possible because quite frankly, I am.
4. I'm just about open to anything - as long as it's not too expensive.

--I have access to a great running late 60's Ford 302 (probably around 250 horse and easy to get more out of it).
A T-5 should be easy enough to come by so the trans isn't an issue but it's kind of heavy...

--I can pick up a '95 SHO V-6 for around $1000 complete. (220 horse - close enough for my purpose)
I know that the rear-drive bell housing/transmission is the issue here. Just try finding a '97 Aerostar 3.0l V-6/5 speed bellhousing.
Also, I've read that the SHO V-6 is actually HEAVIER than the 302. Any input ?

--I always wanted an aluminum V-8 but finding them and finding them cheap has always been a problem.
A trans shouldn't be too hard to dig up for this engine either. I think even an 4.3l S-10 trans would handle 250 horse ?

--I met a guy who did a beautiful job of installing a Chevy 3.4l V-6 and T-5 so that's a possibility but can I get an honest 250 horse out of one without dumping a lot of work and money into it ? The on-line Camaro forums say that engine in stock configuration is only good for around 170 H.P. If that's true than building one to 250 horsepower will be costly. If I'm going to go through all this work, I might as well have the power I want, right ?

I'm not really crazy about fuel injection and all the wiring that comes along with it but I will deal with it if I have to. I'm the "buy the whole car and just transplant what's there" type of guy.

I would think that the weight issue would be best addressed with an aluminum V-8. The power issue would be best addressed with a 302. AH! I don't know what to do !!

Can anyone knowledgeable with this stuff please give me their 2 cents ?

Thank you very much in advance for your opinion.

Dave

P.S. Somewhere on this webforum I read that to install a 2.8 l Ford V-6 in a Spit/Gt-6 you have to modify the pan. This is not necessarily true. Just buy a Mercury Capri pan and oil pickup and drop it in. EASY fix.

Welcome Dave!

You have already tasted the fun and "drive-ability" of these modified British cars. Congrats on the "Power Tour" you undertook!

Based on your requirements, I would go with the Ford 5.0 HO, small block, EFI, very tunable, tons are out there, cheap, can turn out reasonable horse power, broad base user support via BV8 and Ford Mustang forums/local clubs and it would keep you in the Blue Oval Family. (I'm a little bias)

Go with the T5, almost abuse proof!

If I had mine to do over I would have kept the EFI and learned how to tune it to produce more cheap HP. I know carbs, so I went with my comfort zone. I may still change back. Maybe when I hit the lottery I'll go for 8 velocity stacks and EFI.

Hi Don

Thank you for your input. I wonder if an 80's-90's Mustang EFI on a 302 will fit under a GT-6 bonnet without cutting (the hood)? The 302 I have available is a more or less stock late 60's engine. I figured that if I used it, I would get new aluminum heads, intake and 4 barrel and just go with that. In time, maybe I would look into a rebuilt block with a hotter cam and just swap over the newer aluminum stuff. For now, though, it would be a pretty much stock 302 with aluminum go-fast stuff bolted on. Still, I think that would generate 250 or better horse ? But the weight...

How is your experience with the front-end weight of a 5 litre?

Thanks again for your opinion.

Dave

The weight is not an issue, even less so with the aluminum heads. My engine and trany was only 60 pounds more than the I-6 and trany with OD.

Someone posted here on BV8 a weight chart for a ton of motors......If I can find it I'll list the link.

I did install HD springs and shocks, but I wanted a firm ride as well. She does not drive at all.

The key is motor mount placement to allow for a low engine position, headers, oil pan clearance to road/cross member, and shifter position.

Also keep in mind that the lower you keep the center rotating mass, the better drive balance you will be. (roll)

Give Matt Kline a contact for more insight. [www.britishv8.org]

I'm running a EB low profile intake, 650 carb, and thin air cleaner. I had to cut about 1/2 inch off the air cleaner housing base to keep the retaining nut from rubbing the inside of the hood.


Have you thought about a turbo on the V6? But the SHO would look real sweet under the hood!
I have seen 5.0 in TR3,4,6, and Stags, but I think your big challenge is going to be engine/trany combo based on the frame on the GT6.

Hi Don

Thanks for the excellent info. I've found some engine weight data on-line. God only knows how accurate it is but at least it gives a general base line :

Triumph 2.0/2.5 litre 403 lbs Is this true ?! Are they that heavy ?
Ford 2.8 l V-6 305
Ford SHO V-6 465
Ford 2.3l Turbo (T-Bird) 380
Ford 289/302 460

Chevy 3.1/3.4 V-6 350
Chevy 350 575 or 535 with aluminum heads

Olds/Rover 3.5 V-8 318
and just for giggles, the stock 394 V-8 I had in my '61 Oldsmobile bubble top coupe was 700 lbs. Ouch. However, it was in the 485 torque range....with a 2 barrel carb!

I've quoted other people's numbers here so who knows how accurate they are ?

I have debated a turbo on the existing 2.8 and it's still up for debate but for me, torque is king. I rarely hit 4000 R.P.M. and all the old school turbos I've driven (I have an '84 T-Bird turbo and 5 speed in my hot rod) don't really do anything below 2000 or 2500 R.P.M.. At 3000 the turbos I've had kick in and it's a hoot but for me, low and mid range torque is where I want to be.
A turbo on the 2.8 would certainly help but for the cost of a turbo 'kit' or the frustration of fabbing a generic turbo into the existing system I could put my 302 in, buy a used T-5 and have way more torque and horsepower right out of the box. I would think my 2.8 has around 120 horse with my dual exhausts and headers -120 at best. With a turbo, I would think maybe 140, 160 ? Tops. It would be a nice upgrade but a v-8's an easier answer.

Thanks again for your input and especially for your first hand experience with this type of thing, I do appreciate it very much!

Dave

Welcome to the board, Dave!

You're teasing us. I want to see pictures of your GT6 V6 as it stands now!

How about a How It Was Done article?

I've never turned wrenches on a Triumph, so I'm not qualified to give real specific advice. Particularly in that light, please forgive me for stating a couple personal opinions. In terms of styling, GT6 is my favorite Triumph, but by design its frame is weaker than a TR6 frame by a lot. In terms of beam strength or torsional rigidity, a stock GT6 frame can hardly be compared to an MGB-GT chassis. I fall in the Colin Chapman camp when it comes to weight. "Ground hugging weight" is a myth - you can't improve a sports car with ballast. Lighter is always preferable. In the case of a GT6, Spitfire, or Spridget, I think being concerned about weight makes particular sense. A bigger, heavier, or more powerful engine doesn't pay if the chassis flexes all over the place (or breaks). If I were building a GT6 for myself, I'd be trying to lighten the car substantially from stock. The stock engine was way too heavy! I'd also be looking for weight-efficient ways to add rigidity.

The SHO V6 is an exceptional engine. It would look great in your car. You'd earn lots of bonus points for the novelty of installing it. It's not light enough.

That late 60's Ford 302 gets bonus points for being a "period modification". Cool! As you know, with aluminum heads and intake manifold, gear reduction starter, etc., it could be lightened-up BUT my best guess it that you'd have to spend a lot of money on a 302 to get it within 80 pounds of any Buick/Rover aluminum V8. I think this problem tends to be compounded: after people yield to the temptation of installing an iron V8, they're more tempted to beef up other parts to match it. Bigger radiator, bigger driveshaft, bigger wheels, etc., etc., etc.

T5 weighs about 75#. Flywheel weight could be anywhere between ~16# and ~32#, and there should be many to choose between.

Fuel injection is righteous. One of these days I'm gonna upgrade to fuel injection.

If you're patient and you really want it, an inexpensive aluminum V8 will find you. I've let lots of great offers pass by, but they seem to keep coming. Last year my local "U-Pull-&-Pay" junkyard had a complete 4.0L with 80K miles for ~$450. I could have put parts I didn't want on eBay (e.g. exhaust manifolds) and gotten that engine for really low net cost, but I had a herniated disc slowing me down and also a BritishV8 meet to get to. If you decide to go that way, patience is a big help. The engines are out there, and more are becoming available every day.

Just for the record, a Ford 302 with aluminum heads and intake weighs 35 pounds LESS than a GT6 or TR6 engine.

It does have a bit more horsepower, though, so frame flex probably should be considered.

Colon Chapman said "light weight is next to godliness."

Carrol Shelby said "power IS godliness."

Dave, if you Google 'engine weights' that brings up several posts with articles about engine weights. The webpage you are looking for is by Dave Willinams. His page lists engine weights in addition to some transmission info. This site also lists his email address. Google is your friend!!!! Hope this helps. I can't post the link to his site because the address has a tilde in it and I don't know key strokes to enter a tilde. the latest engine weight table is dated 2006 I think. If you can make to his main page there are loads of info on many subjects automotive and otherwise. His site is one of those pearls one stumbles upon occasionally.

Cliff



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2009 05:53PM by cliff.

Hi Cliff

Yes, thank you. I found that address:

fixrambler.com/engineweightchart.txt

I just wonder how accurate it is ? Regardless of its accuracy I'm sure it's a good baseline for estimating. Thanks again.


Dan, please don't take offense to this but how did you come by the 35 pound weight difference ? Is that from personal experience ?
I like those quotes from Chapman and Shelby. I agree with both but I lean more to light weight than raw power. Both would probably be best !

Curtis, from the way this is looking, the 302 would probably be my best dollar-for-results here. I still love the idea of an aluminum V-8 but I know right off the bat that building one to 250 horse or more is going to be more money, work and hassle than I can justify. The 302 is easy, cheap power in comparison and apparently not that much heavier. Compromise is the word.

I had been debating building a custom frame (I'm good at stuff like that) since I was already going to build an entire rear end in a rear sub-frame. It'd actually be easier to run new frame rails and tie the rear in without having to build a rear end and then trying to make it work with the existing, weak Triumph frame. It wouldn't be anything to cut the GT-6 front suspension out and weld it to the new frame rails.

After the research I've done with the SHO engine, I can certainly say it isn't for me. It's too heavy, doesn't put out enough power and like I said before, I don't want to get into all that wiring. There's a lot to be said for a couple wires to a Pertronix ignition and a new electric fuel pump. Between those two things, you should be ready to roll. I know fuel injection is better but it's also no fun to diagnose and fix when it decides it doesn't want to run.

I would LOVE to lighten the GT-6 but with the exception of gutting the interior, I don't know what else I could do ? Fiberglass doors and bonnet would be great but where do you get that stuff ? Besides, if you are going to take the car across America, sound deadener and a good stereo can be your dearest friend....

Well, thanks a lot for everybody's input on this. I really appreciate your knowledge and advice.
If someone really is interested in it, I will write a post about the 2.8 and 5 speed in the Triumph. If you want pictures, I'll post them too but I have no idea how to do that or where to put them.
I can say that my trip down Route 66 was incredible and crappy at the same time. Still, 6000 miles in a 30 year-old Triumph with not one problem (except for the fuse) is enough bragging rights for me. (Even though it's FAR from a stock GT-6!)

Thanks again guys,

Dave

"Dan, please don't take offense to this but how did you come by the 35 pound weight difference ? Is that from personal experience ? "

Dave,

Yes, it is. I weighed both engines myself. No offense taken.

Dan,

Awesome !!!
I couldn't have asked for a better answer. Thank you very,very much !

Hello, I have a 1970 gt6 and want to know how hard was it to place your v6 in the gt? I want to convert over to v6 automatic.
did you change rearend? I don't really care about the power, just want to have a car that is easy to drive with parts easy to find.
I drive my stock gt every couple of weeks and it runs great, but i prefer automatics. Any advice from you on your conversion would be appreciated.

I dont think this was answered but I too would like to know if you changed the rear end out. If not and your about to place a 302 in there, forget cheap.You will have to do quite a bit to hold that one together and by the time your done, you'll have thousands back there.

Also, I dont know if you mentioned how much of a scoop you pan to use or not.

You mention the Camaro forums. Sorry, bad place for info. Since they have large engines that just fall into their engine bays for less $perBHP, they do not try very often. There are remote turbo powered 3.4L V6, there are supercharged versions and so on. Since the stock PCM is not tunable cheaply, you need to convert to a different tunable ECU. I have 140 RWBHP in my 3.4L V6 and it is soo Stock its not funny. Unknown but should be high mileage and nothing done to it. Drove it for a year before testing it. RWBHP: 140 and 186 Tq. Thats about 168 BHP and 223 Lbs Tq t the flywheel. Untuned. Place a cam or 1.6 ratio rockers, maybe do some headwork and a few other items and start gaining power. In order to go too far, eventually we would require computer tuning.

For 250 BHP+, the 302 is cheap but potentially far more cost.

For the power your asking and since you are already mostly there, I would think turbo or supercharging what you already have would be a decent next step.

-BMC.

For curiosity sake, how would you go about strengthening the chassis on one of these?

Also have you considered a 4.3 V6?