After a lot of measuring and research i'm now sharing my V6 project.
Long time ago i got this idea, and i started to investigate if this was feasible.
My main goal is that i don't have to change the chassis, and that it is reversible.
Due to its compact dimensions the choice fell on the Ford 2.4 EFI V6, coupled to an MT-75 5 speed gearbox.
I did the final measurements using the front section of my old chassis, and this showed the engine was sort of made for the Peerless.
The only thing that doesn't fit is the left rear exhaust bend, there i will have to cut and change a small piece of the left footwell.
Now, last Saturday i took out the TR engine and put in the V6.
It really fits so nice, also the gearbox fits great.
I hear you think, Why??
Well i think the sound of a V6 will suit the Peerless great, and i really like the idea of a clean fuel injected engine in a classic car. It has some 30 extra bhp, and also some 30 Nm, nothing crazy but nice to have.
It will be hooked up to a modern programmable ECU.
The V6 engine/box combination is about 25kg lighter than the TR engine/box when i do a 1 to 1 comparison.
Here are some pictures, please comment on this.
- Original engine and box
- Ford V6 fitment in the old chassis section
TR and V6 engine side by side for comparison, note that the crankshafts are at the same height
- V6 gearbox is much shorter
- temporary adjustable V6 engine mount, supporting on the chassis rails. This way i can very easily adjust the height and level of the engine.
- In goes the V6
- Some 20mm of clearance to the bonnet
- I had to make a new turret support bar because the waterpump sticks out further.
- plenty of space around the engine except for the left rear exhaust pipe, there i need to make some room in the top part of the footwell
-- Edited by Erik V on Wednesday 1st of January 2020 08:44:42 PM
-- Edited by Erik V on Wednesday 1st of January 2020 08:46:18 PM
Good luck with the conversion Eric. It looks like it fits really well.
What plans do you have for the transmission? The Peerless diff and halfshafts will struggle with any increase in power.
If you decide not to use the TR block, I could give those Webers a good home. It's the only way I'd be able to keep up.
The propshaft will have a CV connection to the gearbox, these have a nice built-in feature that it can compensate for any difference in driveline length.
Unlike a UJ which is rigid in that direction. I don't have plans to change the diff, but I would like some CV jointed driveshafts, also because of the length compensation. That way the splined shafts will be gone.
You say the Peerless diff and halfshafts will struggle with any increase in power. How did this work out in the Warwick V8 cars with the extra Hp? Did these have an uprated driveline?
For the TR engine and box, I will conserve it and put it in storage just in case of putting the car back to original somewere in the future if needed.
For the Webers, I have an extra set of Weber carbs if you want them, but you'll struggle to fit them as your car is RHD. When I bought my Peerless it was also RHD and they had butchered the pedalbox and cut one of the intake trumpets to make it fit. Even then there was no room for any decent air filter. According to some information that came with the car it had been raced this way.
Last week I've been busy with the gear shift lever. The nice thing of the MT75 gearbox is that it has an add-on gear shift lever bracket.
One of my main goals was to have the new shift lever in exactly the same original position as the TR lever.
I only re-used the MT75 lever and ball joint, and made the rest of simple steel flat.
The position of the shift lever is now at the original position, but the throw of the lever was to big. I solved this by enlarging the distance between the ball joint and the lower pivot point by 8mm.
I've always thought the off set of the V6 cylinders looks so much more apparent than the V8 or is that just Fords? still gives the required wriggle room but would like to see your development on the rear exhaust mods soon..
I have a contact for bespoke CV driveshafts as I'm running them now and also have info on de dion mods if you want it.
The Ford V6 engines have a 60 degree block angle, that makes it a quite narrow engine.
The older 2.3 V6 carbureted engines have siamesed exhaust ports, so only two exhaust ports for three exhaust valves. This would be excellent because then there is no need for the footwell modification.
But the siamesed ports don't perform well, and have some trouble with overheating.
And I don't want carbs on my car anymore so the 2.4 EFI was the best choice for me.
Siamesed port on the 2.3
2.4 three exhaust ports
I designed some LEGO like exhaust modeling parts (flanges and bends) that I have 3D printed to see what the footwell mod would look like. (this is not my own invention) This way its really easy to model an exhaust bend as you can add or remove bend sections, also choose what diameter and bend radius would be best. The sections can also rotate relative to each other.
Then I cut the old footwell and made some cardboard fill pieces to have an idea how it would look like. Seems like the needed mod is quite small, but close to my foot.
Therefore i'm thinking of having the exhaust manifold Zirkotec coated, this will lower the heat radiation a lot.
Very interested in the de dion mods Nigel!
-- Edited by Erik V on Wednesday 8th of January 2020 12:06:18 PM
Interesting to see your handbrake mounting bracket, Erik. Mine has a small plate from the leading edge of the bracket to the upright side of the chassis rail which I assumed was to avoid flex in the lower part of the mounting when pulling hard on the handbrake.
The handbrake bracket is just tack welded in right now only for fitment reasons. Below pictures show the same bracket and lever as found on my old chassis. Seems like the original design isn't strong enough as it's partially torn out of the chassis tube.
So this can do with some extra reinforcement I think.
I agree, Erik. Mine was the same and I too am reinforcing the handbrake mount. There was a fair bit of flex in mine when the original reinforcing part I described above had cracked away from the chassis rail.
