School me on the 2.6 LY9 - Page 2

IsaacHayes · 09-05-2008, 06:39 PM

They are physically smaller b/c they are ohv.

Frizzle Fry · 09-05-2008, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IsaacHayes

They are physically smaller b/c they are ohv.

I see. SOHC I'm assuming. So are the exhaust ports physically farther apart from the outside of one bank to the other? Or are the heads/valve-covers just bigger? Room for the exhaust is my concern. Also, is the 3.6 the only aluminum block besides the bowtie block? Sorry for all the newb questions. I'm a long time SBC/BBC/LSX builder, but this will be my first delve into the V6 world.

IsaacHayes · 09-05-2008, 08:17 PM

Over Head Valve. Not OHC. Pushrod motor. 1 cam in the V of the block. Valves are above the cam, hence OHV. Think SBC for the 3900 and 3500's.

BTW 3900 has same bore as LS1. There is a thread about that on here recently.

I don't know much about the DOHC's other than they are bigger :P Huge heads.

pocket-rocket · 09-06-2008, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IsaacHayes

I don't know much about the DOHC's other than they are bigger :P Huge heads.

That flow a ton of air.

And that be from the old school DOHC, the LQ1. Look at all of that beautiful valve area

Joseph Upson · 09-06-2008, 10:05 AM

The 2.6L in the picture appears to be the Cadillac Catera motor or the European version unless it started out as a 2.6L in the Cadi and then was increased to the 3.0L I'm familiar with. It also appears to have the Australian bolt pattern on it which should be the same as that found on the turbo Sunbird motors.

Not sure how much if any real difference in design there is between the two as a result, but the 2.8L DOHC from the Saab and early Cadi CTS has VVT on intake valves only as opposed to intake and exhaust on the 3.6L.

Frizzle Fry · 09-07-2008, 05:53 AM

Ah, OHV. Not sure why I read OHC. I guess I figured OHV was implied these days, unless that's just used as a term to imply non-OHC. Thanks for the input. I think I've been swayed to go with the 3.6 as I had initially thought. I'm sure the milage will be just fine

Still curous about the aluminum block usage if anyone knows.

IsaacHayes · 09-07-2008, 02:54 PM

Mileage with DOHC always seems to be little lower than pushrod. I'm not sure if that's due to extra weight with the valve train, or that they make torque higher up in the RPM range so you are turning higher RPM or both. But as far as having a more powerful motor, as long as the car is lightweight you sometimes GAIN mpg.

**bszopi** · 09-07-2008, 05:07 PM

Yes, the 2.8/3.6 DOHC engines are the only 60V6 aluminum blocks besides the Bow-Tie block.

pocket-rocket · 09-07-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IsaacHayes

Mileage with DOHC always seems to be little lower than pushrod. I'm not sure if that's due to extra weight with the valve train, or that they make torque higher up in the RPM range so you are turning higher RPM or both. But as far as having a more powerful motor, as long as the car is lightweight you sometimes GAIN mpg.

I have a hard time keeping my foot off of it when I drive the 92, so I know exactly why I don't get that good of mpg in it.

evilmiata · 09-09-2008, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Upson

The 2.6L in the picture appears to be the Cadillac Catera motor or the European version unless it started out as a 2.6L in the Cadi and then was increased to the 3.0L I'm familiar with. It also appears to have the Australian bolt pattern on it which should be the same as that found on the turbo Sunbird motors.

Not sure how much if any real difference in design there is between the two as a result, but the 2.8L DOHC from the Saab and early Cadi CTS has VVT on intake valves only as opposed to intake and exhaust on the 3.6L.

Definitely looks like a Catera motor. It's a 54degreeV6; I saw one in the junkyard this weekend and thought "Wow, this would be a cool swap!"...until I did the research. I don't know what kind of bell housing bolt pattern it uses.