|
Re: Dakota V6 or 4 Cyl Into A Body Swap
[Re: demon]
#909160
01/20/11 11:46 AM
01/20/11 11:46 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
Fury Fan
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
|
Quote:
Why not try the V6 or even the 4 cyl for something different and economical?
Back on track, people.  
An A-body should be a lot lighter than a 4x4 Dakota, so the V6 MPG comparisons to the 5.2 aren't the same. A 3.9 should do pretty well in an A, I'd think. Gearing would make-or-break the MPG result.
I wouldn't try the 4cyl in anything other than a super-light 66-older model, though. A 2.2 turbo/5-speed 65 BCuda sounds really neat to me! A 253hp 3.5 out of a 300M would be pretty neat, too. 
For V-6, the 3.9 should be easiest to swap, then the 3.7, then the 3.5. 3.7s take the A904 adaptation, I believe, but they are all DBW according to what I've read, so the EFI would be a nightmare (lots of OBD2 engine-vehicle stuff). The 3.5 was used in teh Prowler but that had a rear transaxle. I haven't heard of anyone adapting the 3.5 to a RWD trans (not that I know everything, but I read and netsurf a lot on these types of things).
Last edited by Fury Fan; 01/20/11 11:49 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Dakota V6 or 4 Cyl Into A Body Swap
[Re: Kern Dog]
#909163
01/20/11 06:39 PM
01/20/11 06:39 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
Supercuda
About to go away
|
About to go away
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
|
Nice thing about the 3.9 swap is that it puts the back of the engine about 4 inches closer to the radiator, putting most of the fat part of the trans tail shaft in an area of the trans tunnel that has more room.
I suspect the lesser weight and better aerodynamics will allow an A body to get better mileage than a truck. Don't forget, in stock form, the 3.9 is tuned to run richer than optimal for emissions reasons, the cats need fuel to work. If you kept it EFI but used Megasquirt to run it you could tune for better mileage.
They say there are no such thing as a stupid question.
They say there is always the exception that proves the rule.
Don't be the exception.
|
|
|
Re: Dakota V6 or 4 Cyl Into A Body Swap
[Re: Fab64]
#909165
01/20/11 09:00 PM
01/20/11 09:00 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,482
Lake Orion, MI
goldduster318
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,482
Lake Orion, MI
|
The 3.7 should be almost as easy as the 3.9, with better results. The 3.7, being based on the 4.7, already has the same bellhousing pattern as the "A" engines, so it would bolt right up to a 727/904 or any other "A" engine backed trans. The deck height and width should not be an issue either.
If you went 4cyl, you'd want to go with the 2.4/2.4 turbo. You could also use a 2.2/2.5 turbo. None of the rest of them are worth swapping. They did make 2.4L 4cyl 2wd libertys, so a trans and oil pan should be able to be found.
If I were you, I'd do some reading on quench, and learn how to install/tune megasquirt. A high compression, good quench, small cammed, fuel injected 318 magnum with an OD trans behind it would get seriously good mileage.
Realistically, the aerodynamics aren't great on A-bodies...so getting over 30mpg at any real speed would be very difficult. I believe the aforementioned 318/OD trans combo would provide good performance (275-300hp) and could get very high 20's for mpg.
'70 Duster 470hp 340/T56 Magnum/8 3/4 3.23 Sure-Grip
|
|
|
Re: Dakota V6 or 4 Cyl Into A Body Swap
[Re: goldduster318]
#909166
01/20/11 10:28 PM
01/20/11 10:28 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 609
a cornfield near you
BlakDak
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 609
a cornfield near you
|
There would be a ton of fab work to turbo the Mopar 2.5 in a car, or even the Dakota, because all the factory turbo stuff would face the wrong way for RWD. Then from like 94 or so, the Daks got the jeep 2.5 3.9 is garbage! My 2wd RC short bed Dak with a 5.9 Magnum, AT, 3.55 sure grip gets better mileage than my friends 3.9, and his dads 2.5 Daks, and they both have 5 speeds. How about this? put a t56, with double OD behind a /6 or a v8. With a .5 OD most engines would be at idle on the highway. But hey, if you like being slow, getting poor mileage, and have money to burn. I can hook you up with either of the above mentioned trucks. They both want V8 Daks now
|
|
|
Re: Dakota V6 or 4 Cyl Into A Body Swap
[Re: 446acuda]
#909167
01/20/11 11:14 PM
01/20/11 11:14 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,487
Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,487
Kalispell Mt.
|
1st gen Dakotas with V8s weight about 1000lbs more than a 318 2bbl a-body. The 3.9 V6 is for MPG than the 318 but not much in a dakota, my 2000 4x4 ex cab gets 18-21 on the highway and tows just fine as long as you don't expect it to pull a car over a pass @ 75 mph. A 3.9 magnum would move an a-body handily, a 4cyl a-body will get better MPG than a 4cyl dakota because it is still around 1000 lbs lighter. Do not be afraid to try it, I would run a 3.23 gear and an a-500 and I would bet you could get 30 mpg and handily kill an average slant six in a drag race.
Now if you want to really go all out on it, get a 5 speed to swap in and install a set of 6 KB167 pistons and get the cam reground with slightly more lift or install some 1.7 roller rockers for nearly the same effect. Put a V8 throttle body on it and fill in some of the plenum area in the beer barrel intake. You will probably need some custom headers for the best MPG.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: Dakota V6 or 4 Cyl Into A Body Swap
[Re: 446acuda]
#909169
01/21/11 04:18 PM
01/21/11 04:18 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,487
Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,487
Kalispell Mt.
|
I had a short bed short cab 91 2wd 318 auto and it weighed 4000 lbs empty of cargo 1/2 tank gas. My 318 68 cuda weighs 3070 and has an 8.75 rear.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: Dakota V6 or 4 Cyl Into A Body Swap
[Re: HotRodDave]
#909170
01/21/11 05:14 PM
01/21/11 05:14 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
Quote:
1st gen Dakotas with V8s weight about 1000lbs more than a 318 2bbl a-body. The 3.9 V6 is for MPG than the 318 but not much in a dakota, my 2000 4x4 ex cab gets 18-21 on the highway and tows just fine as long as you don't expect it to pull a car over a pass @ 75 mph. A 3.9 magnum would move an a-body handily, a 4cyl a-body will get better MPG than a 4cyl dakota because it is still around 1000 lbs lighter. Do not be afraid to try it, I would run a 3.23 gear and an a-500 and I would bet you could get 30 mpg and handily kill an average slant six in a drag race.
Now if you want to really go all out on it, get a 5 speed to swap in and install a set of 6 KB167 pistons and get the cam reground with slightly more lift or install some 1.7 roller rockers for nearly the same effect. Put a V8 throttle body on it and fill in some of the plenum area in the beer barrel intake. You will probably need some custom headers for the best MPG.
great minds think alike. if I were to use a 3.9, I'd use KB167's at 0 deck, and have the cam reground by bullit with the same lobes I'm using in my 318 (HR259/316) and toss a V8 TB on it.
one downer, IIRC, the 3.9 only has the newer truck mounts, not the old LA ears on it, so you'd still have to get creative on fabbing motor mounts.
I'd probably look at a 3.5L out of an LX. heck, even a 3.8L out of a wrangler in a light A body would be decent--our 4400 lb caravan gets pulled around by one just fine, would be downright peppy in a 1300 lb lighter car....toss it in front of an A833OD or AX15 and 3.21's
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: Dakota V6 or 4 Cyl Into A Body Swap
[Re: patrick]
#909171
01/22/11 07:57 AM
01/22/11 07:57 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Quote:
1st gen Dakotas with V8s weight about 1000lbs more than a 318 2bbl a-body. The 3.9 V6 is for MPG than the 318 but not much in a dakota, my 2000 4x4 ex cab gets 18-21 on the highway and tows just fine as long as you don't expect it to pull a car over a pass @ 75 mph. A 3.9 magnum would move an a-body handily, a 4cyl a-body will get better MPG than a 4cyl dakota because it is still around 1000 lbs lighter. Do not be afraid to try it, I would run a 3.23 gear and an a-500 and I would bet you could get 30 mpg and handily kill an average slant six in a drag race.
Now if you want to really go all out on it, get a 5 speed to swap in and install a set of 6 KB167 pistons and get the cam reground with slightly more lift or install some 1.7 roller rockers for nearly the same effect. Put a V8 throttle body on it and fill in some of the plenum area in the beer barrel intake. You will probably need some custom headers for the best MPG.
great minds think alike. if I were to use a 3.9, I'd use KB167's at 0 deck, and have the cam reground by bullit with the same lobes I'm using in my 318 (HR259/316) and toss a V8 TB on it.
one downer, IIRC, the 3.9 only has the newer truck mounts, not the old LA ears on it, so you'd still have to get creative on fabbing motor mounts.
I'd probably look at a 3.5L out of an LX. heck, even a 3.8L out of a wrangler in a light A body would be decent--our 4400 lb caravan gets pulled around by one just fine, would be downright peppy in a 1300 lb lighter car....toss it in front of an A833OD or AX15 and 3.21's
Well, if you're already talking about building an engine then you have some money to blow. That gives you more options.
The 3.9 just doesn't sound like an efficient engine. 3800lb truck, 2800lb car, an inefficient 3.9 is an inefficient 3.9. Why not look for a different plant? The 4.7L DOHC V8 will probably get similar mpg, make way more power and sound better than a 318 ever could. Dont even unbolt the OD tranny from the back if you can get away with it.
A N/A 4cyl engine in a 2800-3000lb car would probably suck. Thing is, stuff a 4cyl engine into an A-body and you'd have to seriously do something wrong to have it weigh that much. If a slant 6 weighs 425-475lbs (??? they are NOT light...) and likely comes with a heavy trans too, then what could a modern all alum 4cyl weigh with a modern 5spd? People have had 67-up A-bodies done out with 225's and weigh 2600lbs easy. 4cyl? how about 2500lbs? 2400lbs...??? NOW you might have something... You can now get away with flimsy cooling, driveshaft, diff, all kinda ov stuff. 2400 could get liberal...
Read up on the 4cyl Fox body Mustang guys... Some ov those guys are doing basic, non-invasive mods on their cars... again, already light cars before they start weight-reduction, and are keeping up with stock 5.0L Foxes with these 2.3/T5 cars. My brother had a 2700-2800lb 69 Valiant Signet with a bunch ov heavy stuff in it, and a hot-rodded 225/A833OD/8 1/4" set up. That car could have been 2600lbs easy. Convert to 4cyl and it could have been 2400. And THEN you could get into fiberglass and really serious weight-loss measures... Now, start with an earlier, lighter body style...
Hmmm...
One thing though... i will never understand the draw ov turbo'd 4cyl engines. Sure... you can make V8 power. So... why not use a V8...??? Far less BS to deal with at that power level, the same bloody gas-mileage, and it doesn't sound like smashed ass. Cars with no engine bay? sure. The pinto guys have a point. But if you've got room...
|
|
|
Re: Dakota V6 or 4 Cyl Into A Body Swap
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#909172
01/22/11 08:14 AM
01/22/11 08:14 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
On an odd/strange/queer/bizarre but related note...
Me and an import buddy were bench racing a while back. We got to talking about the Honda s2000 when i started talking about Ford 2.3L's. Here you have a 2800lb car with a N/A 2L 4cyl engine, that makes 240HP, mated to what is an apparently amazing 6spd transmission, and RWD. I thought hey, lets put one in my Pinto. He joked and said lets put one in your Challenger...
Much demented math later...
70 6cyl/3spd stick/7 1/4" Challenger... NO options. 3006lb curb weight, less the rust mine now has. Ditch the six, all the old powertrain and anything else we could think ov, drop in a 2L Honda 4/6spd, small alum shaft, keep the 7 1/4"... and then go to town on the usual ('tasteful') Jenny Craig treatment. At VERY minimum... we were looking at the s2000 powertrain in an old car that weighed the same or less. If you kept the rolling stock within reason you could theoretically expect to replicate the Honda performance...???
13 second 1/4's, 150+ top speed, 30 mpg...??? Well, not quite. The sheer aerodynamics would prevent that, but you might get close. Maybe a 14 second 1/4, 120mpg top speed, 25mpg...??? That pretty much exceeds most Challengers if we're being honest. Now, ov course you'd have a better exhaust doing a custom swap... other mods, more weight reduction, aero mods would help especially in a low-torque combo... Things could get interesting. Not to mention the mindblown looks you'd get at a Mopar show with the sound ov a 9000rpm buzzbomb coming from under the hood ov a badass looking car...
Bet with an all aluminum ricer powertrain you could get that sucker down to 2500lbs with a LOT ov steel left in the car. Anyone want to donate a car for the experiment...??? I'll send it to my buddy. I'm not touching this one... . . .
|
|
|
|
|
