-
Welcome to the new SAOCA website. Already a member? Simply click Log In/Sign Up up and to the right and use your same username and password from the old site. If you've forgotten your password, please send an email to membership@sunbeamalpine.org for assistance.
If you're new here, click Log In/Sign Up and enter your information. We'll approve your account as quickly as possible, typically in about 24 hours. If it takes longer, you were probably caught in our spam/scam filter.
Enjoy.
v6 conversion?
- Thread starter bbonner
- Start date
Mike,
Are you talking about the Dana 44 rear end? I thought that was stock in Tigers not Alpines.
Another question, how far off were you from using the stock Alpine steering? Was it even close? Maybe with a modified center link like Jose's kit uses? Just curious.
V_Mad
Donation Time
He does not have the stock Alpine rear end, he has a Dana 44 with ratio 4.11:1. Also I cant see how he claims stock front suspension with all the weight of a big block he woulb be down on bump stops!
And how do you get 15x8 rear wheels onto a stock rear suspension without flaring the arches?
Ken Ellis
Donation Time
I've seen David's car in person. The "stock" part of the rear suspension is springs, hangers. He lists a Dana rear end. If I recall correctly, it's from a postal jeep. (And I may not recall correctly.) Gas pedal is pretty high, though. Definitely some front-end frame creativity, as well. Front springs may be beefier than standard Alpine -- like the Tiger uses. It's nice-looking car close-up. He has many more Sunbeams, including a solo racer.
Ken
Ken
Bev, in an attempt to add some background info about the 3.4 GM V6, I would like to add this.
I was in almost daily communication with Barry Knight when he was doing his work on using this engine in the Alpine. As I remember, he was able to make a nice installation using stock GM cast iron exhaust manifolds and stock Alpine steering. He felt stock manifolds would limit the engines output to about 200 horsepower, which is the stock hp rating in some applications. He was looking for an installation that would allow 225-250 horsepower, so shifted his attention to using headers and rack and pinion steering.
In my opinion, using a stock 3.4 engine with the cast iron manifolds is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if one is looking for a good car to drive on the highways at legal speeds. The engine is 20% larger (displacement) than the Ford 2.8. That means that in the natural way an engine operates, the GM engine will have 20% more torque, especially in the off idle to say, 4,000 rpm range. At that point, the free breathing modified Ford (or 3.4 using headers) will come alive and produce more hp, perhaps even besting the stock 3.4 in a drag race. Unless your son is interested in building a high performance engine, I think he would be happy with 200 hp and the low speed torque. This is probably close to three times the hp Hyacinth produces.
Bill
I was in almost daily communication with Barry Knight when he was doing his work on using this engine in the Alpine. As I remember, he was able to make a nice installation using stock GM cast iron exhaust manifolds and stock Alpine steering. He felt stock manifolds would limit the engines output to about 200 horsepower, which is the stock hp rating in some applications. He was looking for an installation that would allow 225-250 horsepower, so shifted his attention to using headers and rack and pinion steering.
In my opinion, using a stock 3.4 engine with the cast iron manifolds is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if one is looking for a good car to drive on the highways at legal speeds. The engine is 20% larger (displacement) than the Ford 2.8. That means that in the natural way an engine operates, the GM engine will have 20% more torque, especially in the off idle to say, 4,000 rpm range. At that point, the free breathing modified Ford (or 3.4 using headers) will come alive and produce more hp, perhaps even besting the stock 3.4 in a drag race. Unless your son is interested in building a high performance engine, I think he would be happy with 200 hp and the low speed torque. This is probably close to three times the hp Hyacinth produces.
Bill
puff4
Platinum Level Sponsor
Hokiesmokes Bullwinkle!
Rob Wiseman's beautiful Alpine V6 is on it but make sure you see the TR3 with the 427 Ford. Yikes!
This one is sickeningly cool. Blown 487 Pontiac Firebird engine with a T400 and Detroit Locker... check out all the work that went into it. Geez!
http://www.britishv8.org/Triumph/EdOlson.htm
Chuck Ingram
Donation Time
Maybe an aluminum block
I have made the aftermarket Mustang II front end for the Lister a few years back.I will be building one for the 62 this winter.The A arms are custom made for the Sunbeam crossmember.Macyvers does all this.Basically it is now a custom kit.It includes A arms.Shock towers.Springs.spindles.5 bolt rotors.calipers.new rack and all the little parts.They are easy to work withThere is cutting away some of the crossmember for the Mustang II shock towers.More mods to the crossmember for the rack and pinion.Benifets are easy to align.Bigger braking with vented rotors.Almost eliminates ackerman problems.Ackerman problems will be one part of this 2nd conversion we will be working on.
Email me and I can send you information regarding the front end on the Lister
Bill,
I think that Barry Knight is one of the more knowledgeble sources for engine data on these sites. And in fact he had sent me photos of his engine setup, which I copied.
But I don't thing that the stock 3.4 delivers 200 HP. I have read that it has 200 ft pounds of torque. Perhaps a new crate engine will deliver the higher numbers
A very good source for data on these engines is http://www.60degreev6.com/content/60ºV6_Family_Tree
This site and others read 160 BHP. But 200 or 160, I was driving around again to day (probably only the 6th time I've driven it) and it kicks. Even in 3rd gear, you feel the car pushing you back in your seat.
I think that Barry Knight is one of the more knowledgeble sources for engine data on these sites. And in fact he had sent me photos of his engine setup, which I copied.
But I don't thing that the stock 3.4 delivers 200 HP. I have read that it has 200 ft pounds of torque. Perhaps a new crate engine will deliver the higher numbers
A very good source for data on these engines is http://www.60degreev6.com/content/60ºV6_Family_Tree
This site and others read 160 BHP. But 200 or 160, I was driving around again to day (probably only the 6th time I've driven it) and it kicks. Even in 3rd gear, you feel the car pushing you back in your seat.
Mike, I had no "official" source for the number. It was from memory of one of Barry's email's to me two years ago. Was able to dig it up, he stated the Gen III aluminum headed engines developed nearly 200 hp. Sorry for the inaccuracy.
His email is a thumbnail of the possibilities of using the 2.8 family of engines and all the mixing and matching that can be done to produce the best results, as well as what must be done to run various ancillaries and transmissions. If anyone is interested, I can forward it (and maybe a couple more) to you. A real gold mine of technical info and a great way to learn about the swap.
I am no longer able to communicate with Barry, has he got his car on the road?
Bill
His email is a thumbnail of the possibilities of using the 2.8 family of engines and all the mixing and matching that can be done to produce the best results, as well as what must be done to run various ancillaries and transmissions. If anyone is interested, I can forward it (and maybe a couple more) to you. A real gold mine of technical info and a great way to learn about the swap.
I am no longer able to communicate with Barry, has he got his car on the road?
Bill
Hi Bill,
Actually that number is correct. The reason for the confusion is that there are two engines. The aluminum heads are on the FWD cars. And they develop more HP. The "Iron Head" engines are on the RWD cars. Camaro, S10's and Blazer.
If anyone is interested. The both FWD and RWD engines share the same basic block, therefore it is quite easy to convert and engine from FWD to RWD. The major difference is the position of the starter, but an S10 bell housing has both pockets.
Bill, we're on the same page now. Thanks for the post.
By the way, Barry did post on the MG Experience this summer, but it seems he is less active on these forums. To bad, he's a great contributor.
Mike
Actually that number is correct. The reason for the confusion is that there are two engines. The aluminum heads are on the FWD cars. And they develop more HP. The "Iron Head" engines are on the RWD cars. Camaro, S10's and Blazer.
If anyone is interested. The both FWD and RWD engines share the same basic block, therefore it is quite easy to convert and engine from FWD to RWD. The major difference is the position of the starter, but an S10 bell housing has both pockets.
Bill, we're on the same page now. Thanks for the post.
By the way, Barry did post on the MG Experience this summer, but it seems he is less active on these forums. To bad, he's a great contributor.
Mike