Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

School me on the 2.6 LY9

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      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.
      sigpic New 2010 project (click image)
      1994 3100 BERETTA. 200,000+ miles
      16.0 1/4 mile when stock. Now ???
      Original L82 Longblock
      with LA1, LX9, LX5 parts
      Manifold-back 2.5" SS Mandrel Exhaust. Hardware is SS too.

      Comment


      • #18
        Yes, the 2.8/3.6 DOHC engines are the only 60V6 aluminum blocks besides the Bow-Tie block.
        -Brad-
        89 Mustang : Future 60V6 Power
        sigpic
        Follow the build -> http://www.3x00swap.com/index.php?page=mustang-blog

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by IsaacHayes View Post
          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.
          -60v6's 2nd Jon M.
          91 Black Lumina Z34-5 speed
          92 Black Lumina Z34 5 speed (getting there, slowly... follow the progress here)
          94 Red Ford Ranger 2WD-5 speed
          Originally posted by Jay Leno
          Tires are cheap clutches...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Joseph Upson View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              Positive confirmation that its the Catera motor here.

              I've seen a few in the junkyards. It's an Opel V6 IIRC. I haven't heard anything good about them.. haven't heard anything bad either. So who knows. Probably not worth dealing with, really.

              Comment

              Working...
              X