peugeot bill
Well-known member
i know this is the wrong forum, but perhaps one of you gents could point me towards a solution. is anyone down under producing a carb manifold for the 4.0 v6 and is there any speed parts for said engine!
bill
bill
attn all aussies and kiwis
- Thread starter peugeot bill
- Start date
Sorry, no hope here or anywhere, Bill. Here's why!
The Exploder has been sold in 4.0 ohv and OHC from sine 96 in NZ and Aussie. They are still importing it, but the 4X4 Ford Territory is a much better ride for similar cash.
We find over here that the 4.0 engine is reliable, but if anything goes wrong its 2 grand to fix. EFI, 2k, Trans, 2k.
The NZ market got 2.3, 2.8 and 2.9 versions in Capris, Cortinas, the odd Euro Granada, but they are all short deck 8.08" blocks, not the taller 8.80" that the 4.0 ran.
The intake forms part of the rocker gaskets on all Cologne family engines, so there is no way to cut and shut like you can from, say a 289 to a 351W with alloy plates. All the US 2600/2800's were supported by the aftermarket Offy intakes but when the 4.0 came out in '85, that was all over.
The best option is laser cut the roof of the stock lower intake and make a crube 4-bbl Offy intake. Ford made bolts run through the centre, and these make it very hard to make easy 4-bbl carby versions.
If your really smart (and I know you a bit of a wizard), you could cut up the 2800 Holley 2150 carbed 79 version used on the last Euro Mercury Capris, Fox Stangs, and Pinto's, and sandwhich the two together.
The Exploder has been sold in 4.0 ohv and OHC from sine 96 in NZ and Aussie. They are still importing it, but the 4X4 Ford Territory is a much better ride for similar cash.
We find over here that the 4.0 engine is reliable, but if anything goes wrong its 2 grand to fix. EFI, 2k, Trans, 2k.
The NZ market got 2.3, 2.8 and 2.9 versions in Capris, Cortinas, the odd Euro Granada, but they are all short deck 8.08" blocks, not the taller 8.80" that the 4.0 ran.
The intake forms part of the rocker gaskets on all Cologne family engines, so there is no way to cut and shut like you can from, say a 289 to a 351W with alloy plates. All the US 2600/2800's were supported by the aftermarket Offy intakes but when the 4.0 came out in '85, that was all over.
The best option is laser cut the roof of the stock lower intake and make a crube 4-bbl Offy intake. Ford made bolts run through the centre, and these make it very hard to make easy 4-bbl carby versions.
If your really smart (and I know you a bit of a wizard), you could cut up the 2800 Holley 2150 carbed 79 version used on the last Euro Mercury Capris, Fox Stangs, and Pinto's, and sandwhich the two together.
peugeot bill
Well-known member
ok! we have been comissioned to install a ford v6 into a pv 544 and the cologne 6 looks like it would work, and 2.8 vs. 4.0 and a possible t5 trans.
bill
bill
Bought me one Bill. A SOHC 205 hp 1998 Exploder
The engine is pretty good, and 7.785" shorter than a 250 I6. Its got some tensioner issues though, and likely some of that is easily fixed with a US 900 dollar rebuild.
On our Aussie i6 engines, 4.0 SOHC's started at 199 hp, and ended up at 234 hp with variable cam and induction improvements. Afteramrket heads and intake blue rpints allow 300 hp easily, but its hooked into a rather akward brace of non EDIS and variable EEC 4 and EEC 5 non OBDII systems which are hard to co-ordinate with 9 varied head castings and 6 differnt factor cams, two differnt valve rocker ratios, different fixed and variable intake runner length intakes. 35 hp is not a significant bolt on power addition, but it is a strong base for 300 hp if the cam is optimised (custom designed to suit)
Best options are the last Mustang S197 4.0 Cologne engine intakes with fly by wire. Nothing else elevates the engine to above 280 hp from its stock 205/210 hp ratings. I'd say its limited only a little by its narrow 60 degree Vee, but more by its cam and eec constraints.
Swapping cams is a good option when fixing the timing chain issues. Its got great 9.7:1 compression, good exhasts, and although its rough like all big ass 60 degree V-6's are, its strong and has good rods, pistons, an almost 4" bore, short stroke and great ignition.
I'll use it as a bench mark for my 4.1 Engine kits, but its the same weight as a non EFI 302, and 4.0 SOHC i6, and heavier than a 4.1 with mikes Alloy head. 245 kilos vs 218. 540 pounds all up verses 481 pounds.
Rangers and Explorers are now getting radiator modes to fit 4.9 I6 engines, so the option of slapping a 3.3 or 4.1 I6 with Mikes head and a supercharger or turbos or just a 4-bbl mean its cheaper to ditch the Cologne V6 than to prep it up. The weight and size of a 3.3 with an alloy head would be just 342 pounds, so loosing 200 pounds over the front axle and then going hard out on induction systems to suit would tend to make me punt for the 3.3. Especially so since the Five speed 5R55 gearboxes bolt right up to a high mount block 3.3 with just a C3 Bellhousing.
Lots to think over there Bill. Get a pencil and do a cost benifit, and the 3.3 wins hands down on any Cologne V6 of any size
The engine is pretty good, and 7.785" shorter than a 250 I6. Its got some tensioner issues though, and likely some of that is easily fixed with a US 900 dollar rebuild.
On our Aussie i6 engines, 4.0 SOHC's started at 199 hp, and ended up at 234 hp with variable cam and induction improvements. Afteramrket heads and intake blue rpints allow 300 hp easily, but its hooked into a rather akward brace of non EDIS and variable EEC 4 and EEC 5 non OBDII systems which are hard to co-ordinate with 9 varied head castings and 6 differnt factor cams, two differnt valve rocker ratios, different fixed and variable intake runner length intakes. 35 hp is not a significant bolt on power addition, but it is a strong base for 300 hp if the cam is optimised (custom designed to suit)
Best options are the last Mustang S197 4.0 Cologne engine intakes with fly by wire. Nothing else elevates the engine to above 280 hp from its stock 205/210 hp ratings. I'd say its limited only a little by its narrow 60 degree Vee, but more by its cam and eec constraints.
Swapping cams is a good option when fixing the timing chain issues. Its got great 9.7:1 compression, good exhasts, and although its rough like all big ass 60 degree V-6's are, its strong and has good rods, pistons, an almost 4" bore, short stroke and great ignition.
I'll use it as a bench mark for my 4.1 Engine kits, but its the same weight as a non EFI 302, and 4.0 SOHC i6, and heavier than a 4.1 with mikes Alloy head. 245 kilos vs 218. 540 pounds all up verses 481 pounds.
Rangers and Explorers are now getting radiator modes to fit 4.9 I6 engines, so the option of slapping a 3.3 or 4.1 I6 with Mikes head and a supercharger or turbos or just a 4-bbl mean its cheaper to ditch the Cologne V6 than to prep it up. The weight and size of a 3.3 with an alloy head would be just 342 pounds, so loosing 200 pounds over the front axle and then going hard out on induction systems to suit would tend to make me punt for the 3.3. Especially so since the Five speed 5R55 gearboxes bolt right up to a high mount block 3.3 with just a C3 Bellhousing.
Lots to think over there Bill. Get a pencil and do a cost benifit, and the 3.3 wins hands down on any Cologne V6 of any size
Lets see. Mr peugeot bill loves carbs and Exploders are the most junked SUV around.
See 8)
http://i608.photobucket.com/albums/tt16 ... ecar02.jpg
Pro's: A Cologne V6 has got a parts base from the first V4 1.7 liter engine in the 1963 German 17M to the last V6 in the 2010 S197 Mustang. 47 yrs of parts.
Cons: Given that post 1996 SOHC's have yukky thin castings, LDPE intakes with Torx bolts, and is still a German imigrant with Belgian transmission and has been in every specialty US Ford since 1972, why wouldn't you ditch the EFI and use something local.
Ideas: Three Rochester 2CG's like in a Pontiac GTO 389 would yield up to 300 hp with some aftermarket cams. With EFI, all one seams to do is throw 1000 bills at the ecu engine and trans computer to get even 280 hp with a intake kit and some 500 thou lift cams.
See 8)
http://i608.photobucket.com/albums/tt16 ... ecar02.jpg
Pro's: A Cologne V6 has got a parts base from the first V4 1.7 liter engine in the 1963 German 17M to the last V6 in the 2010 S197 Mustang. 47 yrs of parts.
Cons: Given that post 1996 SOHC's have yukky thin castings, LDPE intakes with Torx bolts, and is still a German imigrant with Belgian transmission and has been in every specialty US Ford since 1972, why wouldn't you ditch the EFI and use something local.
Ideas: Three Rochester 2CG's like in a Pontiac GTO 389 would yield up to 300 hp with some aftermarket cams. With EFI, all one seams to do is throw 1000 bills at the ecu engine and trans computer to get even 280 hp with a intake kit and some 500 thou lift cams.
On a six, where there is 12.24 inches between the centre of the carb and the outer cylinder intake ports, EFI makes a huge positive to low end tractability. A prime strength of the EFI Falcon is that a manual with a 2.77 diff can ride right down to 600 rpm, nad then take full throttle wthout stalling. 1 or 2-bbls Falcons aren't ike that.
On a 60 OR 90 degree V6, triple carbs eclipse EFI. Exapmples were Steve Knotts Karman Ghia race car with PRV Volvo 2.664 liter engine and triple IDA's Torque curve was the flatest Steve ever saw, yet it still made over 280 hp. Knotty refused to go to injection as he dobted there would be an improvement. Group A touring car builder rejects EFI.
If you can match the EFI's straight shot to the intake valve, you can then eclipse the EFI for power by pulse tuning. If you can match the intake, you can then improve low end response to suit. There is little or no gain for peak power with EFI verses an independent runner carb system. Mid range, low end and long term tune are inferior more often than not, and so is emmisions. But there is always a time cost for remapping efi to suit new strictures, so even EFI tuners often baseline engine development with a really good idependent runner carb system to find peak capabilites. Example would be COME racing and a few others.
On a 60 OR 90 degree V6, triple carbs eclipse EFI. Exapmples were Steve Knotts Karman Ghia race car with PRV Volvo 2.664 liter engine and triple IDA's Torque curve was the flatest Steve ever saw, yet it still made over 280 hp. Knotty refused to go to injection as he dobted there would be an improvement. Group A touring car builder rejects EFI.
If you can match the EFI's straight shot to the intake valve, you can then eclipse the EFI for power by pulse tuning. If you can match the intake, you can then improve low end response to suit. There is little or no gain for peak power with EFI verses an independent runner carb system. Mid range, low end and long term tune are inferior more often than not, and so is emmisions. But there is always a time cost for remapping efi to suit new strictures, so even EFI tuners often baseline engine development with a really good idependent runner carb system to find peak capabilites. Example would be COME racing and a few others.
You have to compare apples with apples.
If you fitted six throttle bodies and ran EFI it would still be better than the 'equivalent' carby-fed arrangement (eg. webers).
You cannot directly compare single throttlebody EFI with multicarbs but you can compare a 'single' carb with a single throttlebody EFI setup.
It's the low end where you gain ; nicely atomised fuel VS a highly variable mixture.
If all you want is outright power and you never use any part of the rev range apart from flat out then there isn't much gain with EFI; but if you want it to drive nicely everywhere else....
Not to mention fuel economy improvements too ; if you are just cruising you can run, say, 16:1 afr and under power 12.5:1 or whatever you tune it to. Can you do that with a carburettor?
If you fitted six throttle bodies and ran EFI it would still be better than the 'equivalent' carby-fed arrangement (eg. webers).
You cannot directly compare single throttlebody EFI with multicarbs but you can compare a 'single' carb with a single throttlebody EFI setup.
It's the low end where you gain ; nicely atomised fuel VS a highly variable mixture.
If all you want is outright power and you never use any part of the rev range apart from flat out then there isn't much gain with EFI; but if you want it to drive nicely everywhere else....
Not to mention fuel economy improvements too ; if you are just cruising you can run, say, 16:1 afr and under power 12.5:1 or whatever you tune it to. Can you do that with a carburettor?
True, only issue is mapping an EFI unit to suit. If development time was unlimited, EFI would be a lot more prevalent here.
The atomisation of the Bosch electronic injector is better, but it won't pulse tune like a carb will. To paraphrase what Dick Johnston said back in 1993 about a proposed 400 hp limit for AVESCO cars, it would be like drinking wine from a paper cup. A carb is like drinking wine from a paper cup...
I like a glass, I like a paper cup. I have both EFI and carb expertise, but both a just atomisers, and if you look at the development of, say, a Winston Cup carby NASCAR 5.8 verses an AVESCO 5.0, the specific power is not much different despite a 16% capacity difference. Or especially motorbike carbs verses EFI. Lots of non linear comparisons abound.
So you have carbs, you have injection. Either way, you can get the hp. These days, emmisions regs force people to yield to the EFI, but it comes at a technical cost which limits the free and easy fun you can have with carbs.
The atomisation of the Bosch electronic injector is better, but it won't pulse tune like a carb will. To paraphrase what Dick Johnston said back in 1993 about a proposed 400 hp limit for AVESCO cars, it would be like drinking wine from a paper cup. A carb is like drinking wine from a paper cup...
I like a glass, I like a paper cup. I have both EFI and carb expertise, but both a just atomisers, and if you look at the development of, say, a Winston Cup carby NASCAR 5.8 verses an AVESCO 5.0, the specific power is not much different despite a 16% capacity difference. Or especially motorbike carbs verses EFI. Lots of non linear comparisons abound.
So you have carbs, you have injection. Either way, you can get the hp. These days, emmisions regs force people to yield to the EFI, but it comes at a technical cost which limits the free and easy fun you can have with carbs.
I dunno mate... I like the fact I can sit on my seat in the car and put fuel in, take fuel out, fiddle with enrichments, timing, etc. without having to get my hands dirty ; once you have the basics done you often don't need to lift the bonnet to do anything but oil changes, etc. Carbs? Good luck with that. 
Update. XPLODE changes form to cover off the desire for triple carbed Cologne Vee-Sixes
As part of my Indpendent runner carb work for 200 and 250 cubic inch in-line sixes, I've got a wicked CVHO6 adaptor which takes out the EFI system for three 500 CFM Holley 2-bbls but still uses the o2 sensor and EEC V program diagnostics.
Contact me on Morning.Star@xtra.co.nz and quote CVHO6 if you are interested.
In addition, here in New Zeland I'm busy working on an XEC modifcation of stock 3-door Sport Explorers and 2-door Rangers and 5 door ones as Explorer GT5. Its based on post 1995 with ODB2. Its sort of a Saleen XP8/XP6 vehicle enhancement project.
I can create rebuilds of US maket Sports to become Explorer GT3 and the Rangers GT2 ( which I term as 5-door, 3 door, 2 door even though it could be argure that a Sport is really a 2-door). The rare 2001 Ranger lwb 4-door would be GT4. Basically, I want the later Fox /SN 95 Mustang or 2002 Explorer IRS unit so I can pump up the hp to 300 ponies without murdering the driver in a roll over.
Getting back to the carb mod on an existing EEC V EFI vehicle.
As most know, the SOHC is faster and quicker than a stock GT 40 headed 5.0 Exploder V8 because it has a 5-stage auto, revs to 6200 rpm, and is lighter. It is though, in stock form, a heap more fragile. Most problems are the service issues of 21 to 64 hours to replace the nerked plastic timing chain guides, and all the drama that goes with ripping an engine trans and heads off a German V6 in the 4 x4 machines. Once the labour is done on a 500 ping timing chain and a better cam profile and valves added, you've got an easy 300 hp with an specific intake mod. The existing EECV parts allow diagnosis to engine and trans to be doen even if the intake is changed to a carb item. In this aspact, its not unlike an LPGas conversion.
Over here, we have a stock conversion NZ/Oz firewall to make them right hand drive, air plenumb and ventillation a/c parts similar to TF Cortina Six a/c knock offs, rack and pinion steering is off the shelf, and once they get a proper IRS suspension system and a Bronco II reserve tank to expand on the too small 16.6 us gallon tank they ran on the Sports, it should be a great combination.
I'm selling my Right Hand Drive Explorer, and looking at importing a US Sport to try these modifications.
As part of my Indpendent runner carb work for 200 and 250 cubic inch in-line sixes, I've got a wicked CVHO6 adaptor which takes out the EFI system for three 500 CFM Holley 2-bbls but still uses the o2 sensor and EEC V program diagnostics.
Contact me on Morning.Star@xtra.co.nz and quote CVHO6 if you are interested.
In addition, here in New Zeland I'm busy working on an XEC modifcation of stock 3-door Sport Explorers and 2-door Rangers and 5 door ones as Explorer GT5. Its based on post 1995 with ODB2. Its sort of a Saleen XP8/XP6 vehicle enhancement project.
I can create rebuilds of US maket Sports to become Explorer GT3 and the Rangers GT2 ( which I term as 5-door, 3 door, 2 door even though it could be argure that a Sport is really a 2-door). The rare 2001 Ranger lwb 4-door would be GT4. Basically, I want the later Fox /SN 95 Mustang or 2002 Explorer IRS unit so I can pump up the hp to 300 ponies without murdering the driver in a roll over.
Getting back to the carb mod on an existing EEC V EFI vehicle.
As most know, the SOHC is faster and quicker than a stock GT 40 headed 5.0 Exploder V8 because it has a 5-stage auto, revs to 6200 rpm, and is lighter. It is though, in stock form, a heap more fragile. Most problems are the service issues of 21 to 64 hours to replace the nerked plastic timing chain guides, and all the drama that goes with ripping an engine trans and heads off a German V6 in the 4 x4 machines. Once the labour is done on a 500 ping timing chain and a better cam profile and valves added, you've got an easy 300 hp with an specific intake mod. The existing EECV parts allow diagnosis to engine and trans to be doen even if the intake is changed to a carb item. In this aspact, its not unlike an LPGas conversion.
Over here, we have a stock conversion NZ/Oz firewall to make them right hand drive, air plenumb and ventillation a/c parts similar to TF Cortina Six a/c knock offs, rack and pinion steering is off the shelf, and once they get a proper IRS suspension system and a Bronco II reserve tank to expand on the too small 16.6 us gallon tank they ran on the Sports, it should be a great combination.
I'm selling my Right Hand Drive Explorer, and looking at importing a US Sport to try these modifications.