V6 powered E30 (Finished!)

[x-works]

Just wondering if anybody had tried fitting an Alfa 75 3litre V6 to an E30. Tried searching on the issue but drew a blank. About to have a go at it shortly and would greatly appreciate any info or links to posts on the subject.
cheers.

[chu346]

why this engine?

[fuzzy]

Just wondering if anybody had tried fitting an Alfa 75 3litre V6 to an E30. Tried searching on the issue but drew a blank. About to have a go at it shortly and would greatly appreciate any info or links to posts on the subject.
cheers.

i havent heard of anyone else that has done this conversion. you could be the pioneer.

[maxfield]

there are much better engines out there and also arent they fwd

that would mean causing problems mating it with rwd

[adr14n]

Why an Alfa V6 though??

[fuzzy]

Why an Alfa V6 though??

people said that to me...maybe its what he has easily available or just a desire to be different

[gcorky]

there are much better engines out there and also arent they fwd

that would mean causing problems mating it with rwd

soon adapt some kinda bellhouse..if needed

[chu346]

Cossie engine is something special and turbo'd with lots of potential and alfa 3.0 v6 engine isn't anything like that.

M30 3.5 is alot cheaper and is a proper BMW engine.

[k10]

The alpha 30 lite V6 is a great engine, it's like 211 bhp stock. THe old Alfa 75 had it in (some) RWD with better weight distribution than the E30.

Would make an intersting conversion. Seen an Alfa 75 at the nerburg ring with this engine and we had difficulty keeping up with the guy in my mayes TVR chimera 4.0.

Let me know how you get on.

K

[Toby_Unna]

there are much better engines out there and also arent they fwd

that would mean causing problems mating it with rwd

there are much worse engines too

and no an alfa 75 is not FWD

that's definately a new idea on me, it'll certainly sound nice

what box though? i'd guess trying to fit the transaxle would be less than fun

[Ritchie]

I think this would be worth the effort for the sound alone! They sound fantasic on full chat

[daimlerman]

The true petrolhead says how,others say why...good luck and keep us all posted.

[BreadBin]

Alfa 75s have a transaxle and a rear-mounted gearbox to help the weight distribution. Good luck with it

[Gravy]

Good choice, the old alfa gtv6 sounds utterly stunning, and its also one of the nicest looking engines with those fantastic inlet manifolds. I imagine that a tasty custom exhaust would allow that little puppy to sing! Go for it!

[maxfield]

and no an alfa 75 is not FWD

I thought they were.

My mistake

[Bob_S]

nope, apparently though the 1.8ts? is a better drive than the V6?

I looked into buying one but couldnt find any...

[x-works]

Thanks for the replys,
First up why?
Car belongs to a customer who wants it prepared for track days, he has the engine sitting in his
garage costing him nothing and it will give a nice power increase over the car's 1.8 engine. Engine is also
lighter than an equivalent cc bmw 6 cylinder and shorter, keeping all of it's weight behind the front subframe.
But all this is only secondary, the main reason for fitting it is the sound. Anyone who has heard a V6 on full
chat will understand why the extra effort should be worth it.
How?
We've yet to start taking measurements from the engine and box but the plan at the outset would
be to try and mate the bmw's gearbox to the V6 with a custom bellhousing. Make some mounts to sit the
engine on the bmw's subframe. Make a custom clutch disc. Wire in the Alfa's Ecu to run the engine. Shorten
or lengthen the prop as required. Make a twin side exit exhaust.

I started this post to see if anybody else could spot difficulties as I'm sure there'll be plenty of problems
ahead, but sure if it was simple where'd be the fun in that.

[ed325i]

and no an alfa 75 is not FWD

I thought they were.

My mistake

The 164 is FWD

[327]

Sounds like a great project. I have a mate back in South Africa who had a 3.0 GTV6 twin turbo engine dropped into an e30. Used for track days, was awesome sounding and lightning quick. The car had a copper clutch, a dry sump and had twin brake boosters in his glovebox. He is an Alfa specialist and I can put you in touch with him if you need any info.

[x-works]

He is an Alfa specialist and I can put you in touch with him if you need any info.

If you had an e-mail address for him that would be great (if your sure he wouldn't mind giving advice).

[munky30]

But all this is only secondary, the main reason for fitting it is the sound. Anyone who has heard a V6 on full
chat will understand why the extra effort should be worth it.

Dunno if it would work, or be easy, or possible...

But well worth a try, v6's are without doubt the nicest sounding engines out there. My last car was a lowly 2.0v6 mazda but by god did it sound good with a custom exhaust on it.

Go for it, good luck.

[Turbo-Brown]

But V6 engines are just SO inferior to I6 engines!

They're inherently rough running whereas I6 engines are inherently well balanced which is why BMW still use them.

About the only advantage I can think of with the V6 is moving the weight further back.....and that's about it.

[Ziggy]

Soooo worth it! Lovely engine, but I have to confess, I'd just leave it in the Alfa & enjoy it there...

[suzie650]

It would be well worth keeping the transaxle for weight distribution, but don't forget the two issues the system comes with: Annoying gear change (long way to the box) and inboard brakes (not ideal for track use from stock)
But nothing that can't be modified to the purposes.

Now even if your customer has got the engine lying about, costing him nothing, it will cost him at least £400 in parts to do a timing belt change (which you must do before dropping the engine if track use and should do anyway, as you certainly know)... (4 tensioners, water pump, all specific alfa items)
They're nice engines, but *** expensive to run!

[munky30]

But V6 engines are just SO inferior to I6 engines!

They're inherently rough running whereas I6 engines are inherently well balanced which is why BMW still use them.

About the only advantage I can think of with the V6 is moving the weight further back.....and that's about it.

4 letters for you.... V R I S.

V configurations have torque all through the rev range. I6's dont. My old v6 would pull off in 4th gear and cruise at 15mph in 5th gear without even hinting at stalling.

Rough running? explain?

[suzie650]

The crank of an I6 is naturally balanced, while a V6 isn't.
Which is why many V6's run balance shafts.

The old trick to show that is to put a 50p coin on an I6 rocker cover while the engine is running. If well set up, the coin won't move. Do it on a V6 (without balance shafts), and your coin will soon be under the car.

[Morat]

I'm sure this would be a great conversion, that engine is a real classic according to petrolheads everywhere. I don't think its ever had the chassis it deserved, most of the alfas it was fitted too were compromised towards the 2.0 twin spark for weight distribution. Fair enough, the 2.0 was always going to be the most common variant, but it was a shame that the reviews of v6 models always ended with "fabulous engine, shame about the extra weight up front".

To give that engine the chassis it deserves sounds like a true pilgrimage to driving nirvana And seeing as it can be turbo'd... I reckon with all that extra space up front you could fit something really tasty!

[Turbo-Brown]

But V6 engines are just SO inferior to I6 engines!

They're inherently rough running whereas I6 engines are inherently well balanced which is why BMW still use them.

About the only advantage I can think of with the V6 is moving the weight further back.....and that's about it.

4 letters for you.... V R I S.

V configurations have torque all through the rev range. I6's dont. My old v6 would pull off in 4th gear and cruise at 15mph in 5th gear without even hinting at stalling.

Rough running? explain?

I'm interested to know why you think a V6 of X capacity (with Y stroke)would generate more torque than an I6 of the same capacity and stroke given that they both have the same capacity cylinders and both have a firing event every 120degrees of crank rotation (unless you've got one of the god awful 90degree V6 engines which PRV and Maserati among others have produced over the years.

And what on Earth does VRIS mean?

Re balance: Whilst when looking end of either a V6 or I6 engine's crank the throws are evenly spaced giving the impression that the crank should be balanced, when looking side on both cranks, you see that the crank of the I6 has a corresponding throw at each end and working towards the centre which will balance each other out, whereas the V6 doesn't have these corrsponding throws which causes the engine to rock end to end.

This is an inherent flaw in the design of the V6 which is either ignored by the manufacturer (but the end user sure gets to know about it!) or is adressed with balancer shafts as suzie650 says which prevent the engine rocking from the perspective of the user at the expense of economy and available power as the shafts take considerable energy to run.

To the best of my knowledge, the I6 engine is the smallest perfectly balanceable configuration. V6 engines rock end to end, I4 engines whilst appearing to be similar to I6 engines in regard of the crank throws infact wobble up and down due to the pistons at TDC experiencing different acceleration to those at BDC causing COG of the pistons to move vertically. The COG of the pistons in an I6 remains constant so they don't have that problem.

I3 engines rock like V6 engine, Flat plane crank V8s jiggle about like I4 engines only in two directions instead of one, X-plane crank V8s can be perfectly balanced but the masses required to do so are quite considerable which can make them a little lethargic on the throttle.

I5 engine rock a bit but not enough to warrant balancer shafts I think, V12 engines can be perfectly balanced just like the two I6 engines they're made from.

V10 should need balance shafts like the I5 but again get away without.

Then we get onto the utter shite that VAG offer in the way of their VR and W engines which appear to lose energy all over the place as evidenced by their low specific outputs and poor fuel economy.

[munky30]

I'm interested to know why you think a V6 of X capacity (with Y stroke)would generate more torque than an I6 of the same capacity and stroke given that they both have the same capacity cylinders and both have a firing event every 120degrees of crank rotation (unless you've got one of the god awful 90degree V6 engines which PRV and Maserati among others have produced over the years.

Because my last v6 had nice evn torque and power from 1000rpm up to its 7k redline. No peaks or need to get into higher 'power bands' to find useable power. Nothing more, nothing less than experience.

And what on Earth does VRIS mean?

Imagine a turning fork and a speaker, side by side. Connect the speaker to a audio signal generator that sweeps from 20Hz to 20000Hz. Turn on the generator and crank the volume up, pointing the speaker at the tuning fork. Slowly wind the generator from 20Hz up...

When the frequency of the signal generator gets close to the frequency written on the side of the fork, it will start to vibrate. When the frequency of the generator matches that of the fork, it will vibrate alot and the system is said to be in "resonance". As the frequency moves on past the resonance frequency, the fork will stop vibrating again.

Now consider a flute: a hollow tube of specific length with holes placed strategically along it's side. If you blow across the end, you hear a note. If you change which holes are covered, you change the note that's played. What's happening is that the effective length of the flute is being altered by covering/uncovering the holes. This changes the natural frequency of the flute and thus the note you hear.

In the engine's intake manifold, you've got a similar setup. The engine changing speed is equvalent to the change in frequency in the speaker example. The pulses of the speaker are similar to the pulses produced by the action of each cylinder's intake valves (and chamber pressures when the valve open etc...) The tuning fork might be considered to by the medium - the air in the runners in this case. As the engine runs through the RPM range, the intake valves open and close faster and faster as engine RPM increases, just like the speaker pulses faster and faster as the frequency dial is turned. The length of the runners, their volume, manifold pressure and temperature etc all determine at what frequency the air in the runners & surge tanks will resonate -- that is, vibrate just like that tuning fork.

During times of resonance, the vibrating columns of air (which, though moving, still can support a standing wave) can actually help charge the cylinders. A vibrating column of air has dense sections and rarefied (low pressure) sections. If the standing wave is just right, a dense section of air meets the valve just as it opens. The denser air pours into the port, moreso than if resonance (and thus this standing wave) wasn't happening. The effect is a very mild "supercharging".

But the engine RPM is always changing. If there was only one runner length, there would only be one resonance point. Mazda makes the manifold like a flute that can resonate at several wavelengths by making the runners have variable effective lengths. They do this by using butterfly valves in the manifold to direct air a "long way" or a "short way" (#2 is primarly responsible for this). Closed, the path is "long" and the primary resonance frequency is low. Open, the path is short and the primary resonance frequency is higher. By further changing the frequency in each surge tank (by opening or closing #1 valve, which exposes the each bank to the others' intake pulses, effectively doubling the frequency each surge tank sees), they manage to get several points at which good standing waves are set-up through the RPM band.

In the KL03, the VRIS (variable resonance intake system) plates are controlled by the PCM, which is looking at engine RPM and loading (throttle angle) to know when to open the valves. #1 opens at 3250, which doubles each surge-tanks' frequency. #2 opens at 4250 which then shortens the average path length by 1/2.

Its a mazda thang.

This is an inherent flaw in the design of the V6 which is either ignored by the manufacturer (but the end user sure gets to know about it!) or is adressed with balancer shafts as suzie650 says which prevent the engine rocking from the perspective of the user at the expense of economy and available power as the shafts take considerable energy to run.

So its a flaw that over time and development has been eliminated? With the use of balancer shafts...... Not really a flaw anymore then is it?

[BadDave]

people said that to me...maybe its what he has easily available or just a desire to be different

Why follow the trend when you can possibly do something different
I know this MIGHT/WILL upset the purists but people have been doing it for centuries

X-works
First up why?
Car belongs to a customer who wants it prepared for track days, he has the engine sitting in his
garage costing him nothing and it will give a nice power increase over the car's 1.8 engine. Engine is also
lighter than an equivalent cc bmw 6 cylinder and shorter, keeping all of it's weight behind the front subframe.
But all this is only secondary, the main reason for fitting it is the sound. Anyone who has heard a V6 on full
chat will understand why the extra effort should be worth it.
How?
We've yet to start taking measurements from the engine and box but the plan at the outset would
be to try and mate the bmw's gearbox to the V6 with a custom bellhousing. Make some mounts to sit the
engine on the bmw's subframe. Make a custom clutch disc. Wire in the Alfa's Ecu to run the engine. Shorten
or lengthen the prop as required. Make a twin side exit exhaust.

I started this post to see if anybody else could spot difficulties as I'm sure there'll be plenty of problems
ahead, but sure if it was simple where'd be the fun in that.

Using an engine you've already got ,which is lighter and more powerful is the "essence" of "tuning" so to speak
Naturally there's going to be some issues that need working out
That's the fun part in doing a conversion that isn't,what some would call, "normal"
And V6's normally sound pretty good at high RPM
I know from experience from high power,dare i say it,FORD V'6s (3.3 litre/high comp/ triple carb/wild cam/etc )from my wild mispent youth.
Even tried 500BHP 4 pot Cossy motors
Not saying that the BMW straight 6 doesn't good
My own chipped 2.5 sounds fantastic from 4k right to the 6800rpm rev limit
By doing something different .It increases the options available to others.


All I'd like to say is.
Good Luck
Keep us posted(when the twin T25/T3 tubo's are fitted)or Holset eqivalents.
Dont' forget to take plenty of photo's along the way
and post them on th zone when you're finished.
P.S
Hope the customer is happy with the end result
Give me a shout if you need some assistance with the brakes
can
Pm me if'you're willing to do some aluminium fabrication.
Got a project in mind


Throttle bodies and Garrett T04E to fit at some point

[Turbo-Brown]

I'm not sure you could argue that because Mazda came up with a variable resonance intake system for a V6 that ALL V6 engines will have the same spread of torque.

Out of interest, what was the stroke of the V6 you drove, and the I6 you compare it to?

I'd still argue that the V6 is a flawed design. The out of balance forces are still there, just being masked from the user in much the same way as a lump of concrete in the bottom of a washing machine masks the horrendous vibrations caused by your pants being all stuck to one side of the drum....but doesn't actually get into the machine and sort out the problem.

[yamoda]

Nice project to try, although a bit pricey in the long run due to dear service parts. Should mate up to a Ford 5 speed gearbox without too many problems (Adaptor plate and flywheel bearing should be all thats needed to mate it to the engine)
As for torque, the configuration is irrelevant, more important would be the stroke and cam/intake/exhaust system.

[munky30]

I'm not sure you could argue that because Mazda came up with a variable resonance intake system for a V6 that ALL V6 engines will have the same spread of torque.

I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but not all v6's would have the same spread of torque as one with a vris. Mazda claim it was used to add power/torque when in reality it was used to even out the peaks and troughs that the engine had inherently because of the V configuration's flaws.

Out of interest, what was the stroke of the V6 you drove, and the I6 you compare it to?

I havent the faintest idea what an engines stroke is... I know they have one, I hear the term all the time... but no clue what it means.

I'd still argue that the V6 is a flawed design. The out of balance forces are still there, just being masked from the user in much the same way as a lump of concrete in the bottom of a washing machine masks the horrendous vibrations caused by your pants being all stuck to one side of the drum....but doesn't actually get into the machine and sort out the problem.

Nice comparison. As far as I know it was developed by mazda and ford during their platform and engine sharing days (xedos 6/mx6/probe) and has gone onto become (ithe basis for) whats now known as eco-tec and dura-tec.

But, and I am amazed you haven't rumbled me so far... I actually dont really know what I'm talking about, apart from owning a v6 once, and finding it very smooth and torquey. I haven't the faintest Idea if or why its better than an I6.

[Turbo-Brown]

fair enough

[yamoda]

VRIS is a clever way of varying the inlet tract length of each cylinder to increase low down torque, the longer the inlet path, the higher the torque at low revs (Up to a point) hence the convoluted shapes of inlet manifolds. It would have the same effect on any engine from a single cylinder to a W16 so to say a V6 has more torque than an inline 6 is not quite correct. you can increase torque by either increasing the cc, the stroke, the number of cyinders or using a cam/inlet/exhaust system tuned for low end torque rather than top end power.