fot
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 4.3 ltr. Triumph

To: "Jack W. Drews" <vinttr4@geneseo.net>
Subject: Re: 4.3 ltr. Triumph
From: Bob Lang <LANG@isis.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:26:45 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Jack W. Drews wrote:

> The popular conversion for more horsepower seems to be V6's or V8's. I wonder
> if anybody has tried a newer straight six - there are several around that
> have lots more hp than the Triumph, and it would seem that the steering
> column and other pieces wouldn't be disturbed so much.

I have not made any measurements, but many of the newer in-line sixes, 
like the BMW 2.5 and larger units seem to be longer packages. You could 
make them fit, but welding and grinding if the body would def. be required.

This, I believe is precisely why the V8's and V6's are so popular. You 
get a lot of ponies in a package that's pretty small. Less than two feet 
long, a little bigger than two feet wide and not too tall considering the 
oil pan etc.

As I said, I haven't measured the lengths of newer in-line sixes, but 
I'll bet they're significantly longer than the orignal power plants  like 
the TR four cyl. and the TR6 cyl. I'd attribute the longer length to 
bearing issues - a lot of the better six cylinder motors use 7 main 
bearings - the cranks are longer.

For a real sacrilege - how about a 240 Z motor in a TR6.

I'll go back to sleep now.

;-) 

> --
> 
> TR6 -- 29 and still running
> TR4 -- 39 and being rebuilt     <---- Glad to hear it!
> uncle jack -- down but not out

rml
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Lang                Room N42-140Q          | This space for rent.
Consultant              MIT Computer Services  |        
Voice: (617)253-7438    FAX: (617)258-9535     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>