First mass-produced domestic DOHC 24V V-6?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: artificialist
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
The DeLorean had an OHC V6.
21.gif


I don't think it counts as a domestic though....it was made in Ireland and had mostly the same engine as the Volvo 260 series(pretty sure it's a 12valve)


It was an SOHC 12V as you said. It was called the "PRV" engine because Peugot, Renault, and Volvo built it.
I heard that engine was terrible.


We had a Dodge Monaco at the lot I worked at with that V6

The V6 sounded great, but it was a complete piece of junk...not just the engine. The whole car.

Volvo 240s last forever. I can't remember seeing a 260 last that long so it probably wasn't a very good engine.
 
Originally Posted By: Spazdog


'86 had a Carter feedback 1bbl IIRC. Up to around '83 they had 2bbls that looked like they were double the size of the 1bbl Carter.


Yup. Carter YFA 1bbl feedback was the model. (Got rid of the car in 2005). One of the things I did was replace that with a non feedback Carter (YF! IIRC).

But I think the 88hp it made as well as the torque was the same from the Pinto up to 87 when they fuel injected the 2.3. It got a tad peppier then and when they went to dual spark. It got even a little more power when they bored (or stroked, forget which) to 2.5l in the late 90s.

I guess you could call me a connoisseur of the 2.3 OHC.
 
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: itguy08
The V6 SHO was a Yamaha engine.


Not exactly, it was a Yamaha-ized Vulcan V6.



Years, please. Sounds like a sleeper Ford!

I also thought SHOs were V-8. Need info on the V6 SHOs!
 
The hot Volvo from that era was a 262 Bertone Coup'e...

There was also a diesel 6 that was pretty reliable as well.

Those were at the end of the good ol' days for Volvo, IMHO.

Had a 122S, then a 145E...

Cheers!
 
Actually, I have owned a few GM products and a Dodge as well. Just stating the truth, mid 90's GM cars were junk.



Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^We know the next line!

"Fords are so much better"

Nice contribution.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
If 140 mph and a 15 second quarter mile with FWD dynamics excites you then here's some info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Taurus_SHO

An interesting car in its day but in no way a very bright performer. But at least Ford was trying. Very cool engine in search of a smaller car!!!


I did kinda' wonder why they used the Vulcan 3.0 in the first generation of the Probe LX

Probably because the SHO 3.0 would have squashed the Mazda F-series 12 valve turbo 4 cylinder in the Probe GT. As much torque and 70 hp more than the turbo.

I'm assuming that they didn't go with the SHO 3.0 in the Mustang because of what happened with the SVO. It was more expensive than an LX 5.0 and the performance difference was negligible. (mildly in favor of the 5.0 in acceleration/mildly in favor of the 2.3 in balance and handling)
 
WOW...what a thread I started.....

For the purposes of what I asked, the GM 3.4 DOHC would be it.

What got me thinking about this is that all manufacturers now basically rely on a 3.0-3.6L, DOHC V-6 as their main or uplevel engine, and some are having worrying 'issues' - the GM version stretching chains due to long OCI's, and not the Chryco one developing head issues, but in reality, these engines haven't been 'in development' for long - less that 20 years.

Not a lot of time to perfect the design...no wonder their are issues!
 
To go back to the question of the mid-70's Mustang/Capri V-6....

The Capri was imported from Europe, and used the European-built 2.6L V-6.

Ford took this engine, bored/stroked it to 2.8L, and used it in the Mustang II. I'm pretty sure THIS version of the engine was built in the US, as it was only used here in the Mustang and Pinto.
 
The 2.8 and later 2.9 variants were used in European Fords like the European Granada and Scorpio.

It was used in the Bronco II and Aerostar too.

I still haven't found a definitive source but consensus is that the Cologne V6 was always made at Ford Koln, Germany. From the 2.6 in the Capri to the 4.0 in the Mustang
 
Originally Posted By: addyguy

Ford took this engine, bored/stroked it to 2.8L, and used it in the Mustang II. I'm pretty sure THIS version of the engine was built in the US, as it was only used here in the Mustang and Pinto.


I believe it was also used in the 80s Rangers as well. I know there are quite a few of them with 2.8 v6's so I would think it is the same engine.
 
Originally Posted By: addyguy

What got me thinking about this is that all manufacturers now basically rely on a 3.0-3.6L, DOHC V-6 as their main or uplevel engine, and some are having worrying 'issues' - the GM version stretching chains due to long OCI's, and not the Chryco one developing head issues, but in reality, these engines haven't been 'in development' for long - less that 20 years.

Not a lot of time to perfect the design...no wonder their are issues!



I think it's more a reflection on design and engineering at GM and Chrysler. The Ford Duratec 2.5/3.0 is very durable and has been around for a while. As has the Ford 3.5/3.7. The Nissan VQ has been around for what seems like forever and no major issues. As has Toyota's 3.0/3.5.

My guess would be sloppy engineering or parts specs on those engines.
 
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: addyguy

What got me thinking about this is that all manufacturers now basically rely on a 3.0-3.6L, DOHC V-6 as their main or uplevel engine, and some are having worrying 'issues' - the GM version stretching chains due to long OCI's, and not the Chryco one developing head issues, but in reality, these engines haven't been 'in development' for long - less that 20 years.

Not a lot of time to perfect the design...no wonder their are issues!



I think it's more a reflection on design and engineering at GM and Chrysler. The Ford Duratec 2.5/3.0 is very durable and has been around for a while. As has the Ford 3.5/3.7. The Nissan VQ has been around for what seems like forever and no major issues. As has Toyota's 3.0/3.5.

My guess would be sloppy engineering or parts specs on those engines.


I'd hardly consider a head problem reported on .005x production of the Pentastar, in its first year, as exactly making it a "problematic" engine. Other than that there've been no V6 issues at Chrysler since the original 3.3 had a habit of cracking rocker shaft pedestals- solved circa 1994. I personally put 250,000 miles on a 93 Chrysler 3.5 with nothing beyond routine maintenance except fuel rails (TSB) and intake gaskets (another TSB for non-catastrophic coolant weepage- no path for the coolant to get in the oil on that engine, unlike GM v6 engines).

The VQ, on the other hand, is pretty notorious for tearing up its oil in short order and generally being incapable of extended OCIs. And yet it always pops up on somebody's "great engines" list. Nothing against it, its a great performer, but its not exactly a standout anymore.

As for Ford- I love the 3.7 and 3.5 too. But for the life of me I can't explain why they kept that utter junk 3.8 used in the Windstar in production when it had such an astronomical failure rate.
frown.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
The 2.8 and later 2.9 variants were used in European Fords like the European Granada and Scorpio.

It was used in the Bronco II and Aerostar too.

I still haven't found a definitive source but consensus is that the Cologne V6 was always made at Ford Koln, Germany. From the 2.6 in the Capri to the 4.0 in the Mustang


Looks like that is correct(at least the Germany part)

From Wikipedia...

Quote:
The 4.0 L pushrod (245 CID; 4009 cc) version, although produced in Cologne, Germany, was only fitted to American vehicles.[1] The OHV engine was produced until 2000 and was used in the Ford Explorer, Ford Aerostar, Mazda B4000 and Ford Ranger. Output was 160 hp (119 kW) and 225 lb·ft (305 N·m). Though there is some variation, typically 155 hp (116 kW) is quoted as horsepower for 1990-92 applications.[citation needed]

This evolutionary redesign of the American 2.9 solved many of the reliability issues that plagued its predecessor. A stronger cylinder head design eliminated the 2.9's common failure of cracked heads. Hydraulic roller lifters replaced the simple hydraulic lifters used in the 2.9, which were sometimes overly sensitive to oil contamination, often requiring the lifters to be replaced prematurely. However, one major design fault was not completely eliminated: Valve rockers and upper pushrod tips still received poor oil supply, resulting in eventual wear to these areas, and consequential valvetrain noise as a result of the increased clearance. Required replacement of these parts is common in older engines.[citation needed]


Originally Posted By: addyguy
To go back to the question of the mid-70's Mustang/Capri V-6....

The Capri was imported from Europe, and used the European-built 2.6L V-6.

Ford took this engine, bored/stroked it to 2.8L, and used it in the Mustang II. I'm pretty sure THIS version of the engine was built in the US, as it was only used here in the Mustang and Pinto.


The Capri-II that debuted in the mid 70s used the 2.8, so was increased in size approx same time as when the Mustang-II came on line...
 
Really?

I thought Yamaha designed the whole thing.

Hmmmm. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying this is the first I'd heard this take on the engine and am now curious if there are other sources that back this up.

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: itguy08
The V6 SHO was a Yamaha engine.


Not exactly, it was a Yamaha-ized Vulcan V6.
 
It might be BASED on the vulcan block and crank, as it's the same bore, same stroke, but since the vulcan is an OHV engine and the SHO engine is DOHC, I suspect they are different blocks.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
It might be BASED on the vulcan block and crank, as it's the same bore, same stroke, but since the vulcan is an OHV engine and the SHO engine is DOHC, I suspect they are different blocks.


I don't know about the Vulcan and SHO but the 3.4 DOHC GM used the same block as the OHV variants. So it is plausible.

The GM's timing belt isn't driven off the crankshaft. It's driven off a jackshaft that placed where the OHV camshaft usually resides. A chain drives the bottom crank pulley.
 
When you are asking about DOHC V6, do you really mean actually four camshafts? I believe that is the right terminology. I do not remember if the original SHO actually had four camshafts or two camshafts.
 
Originally Posted By: Vikas
When you are asking about DOHC V6, do you really mean actually four camshafts? I believe that is the right terminology. I do not remember if the original SHO actually had four camshafts or two camshafts.


I do not consider a V engine with one camshaft per cylinder bank a DOHC.

In the '80s, a Honda Shadow V-twin was SOHC and a Honda Magna V-4 was DOHC. Never mind the fact that the Magna actually has 4 cams. The cylinder heads are DOHC.

Now that I think about it. The GM 3.4 DOHC wasn't really a mainstream engine. The Ford/Yamaha SHO certainly wasn't. The Duratec was sourced from Europe initially.

Which means, the first US sourced, mainstream DOHC domestic V6 is:

The Sludgemaster Chrysler 2.7

crackmeup2.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wwillson
  • Locked
Pennzoil GF-6 and Low Viscosity Engine Oil Q&A - Answers
Replies
15
Views
21K
4WD
wwillson
  • Locked
Answers - Pennzoil Technology behind "Made From Natural Gas" and Vehicle maintenance while driving less Q&A
Replies
5
Views
38K
RateNate
OVERKILL
  • Locked
Post your engine development history
2
Replies
24
Views
11K
2EHA
D
  • Locked
Capacity / Film Strength Oil Test 48 Oils.
Replies
18
Views
27K
yvon_la
T
  • Locked
NEW ECOBOOST V-6 ENDURES ENGINE BOOT CAMP
2
Replies
36
Views
13K
Minou
Back
Top Bottom