Peter Mchugh wrote:
>
> Martin's last question seems to beg yet another... why
> take a perfectly good, faster revving, little coupe
> with known handling problems and trouble it with
> additional torque???? There are more than enough
> performance options on the 2.0 liter to satisfy most of
> our desires (and driving abilities)...
>
> Martin, unless something has happened recently (besides
> turning the distributor) that makes your existing
> engine unserviceable, don't screw with that nice little
> white GT... if you do... I have an extra 2.5 liter
> engine to trade for your 2.0.
>
> Cheers!
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
>_________________________________
> Subject: Re: GT-250?
> Author: mdporter@rt66.com at Internet
> Date: 2/26/98 2:09 AM
>
> msecres@ibm.net wrote:
> >
> > Some idle questions.
> >
> > 1) A GT6-3 weighs 1,936 lbs. What's a TR6 weigh?
>
> Ummm, about 2300-2400, maybe.
>
> > 2) It's my understanding that a GT6 Mark 3 engine can easily be stroked
> > to 2.5 liters by installing a TR6 crankshaft and pistons, and modifying
> > the oil pan so that pistons 1 & 2 clear it on the downstroke. Anyone
> > done this for themselves?
>
> NickBk has, I believe. I bought my Mk III with a TR6 engine in it.
> Despite someone here mentioning that the rods are different, the early
> TR6 rods are the same size and casting number as those in the GT6. About
> block clearance, I'm not sure--don't know if a little grinding here and
> there is necessary for rod clearance. There's also a problem with carb
> clearance--the stock 175s are taller and bang on the bonnet. That means
> finding a late head and putting a GT6 manifold and 150s on it, or
> putting on a mid-late GT6 head and manifold.
>
> > 3) Can you do it with the engine in the car?
>
> You might be able to do it in the car, but why? If one's a natural
> masochist, it might be fun. For the rest of us, it's a pain in the butt
> to get the crank out in the car, and if there were any clearancing
> required internally, you'd go nuts trying to do it, test fit the crank,
> take it out, check again, etc. I definitely wouldn't attempt to remove
> the pan, beat clearance dimples in it, fit it again and find out the rods
> still hit it. By the way, this little trick is absolutely necessary to
> put the longer stroke engine in a GT6. The stock TR6 pan rests very
> nicely on the rack tube, and they wear together, along with creating
> _lots_ of vibration.
>
>
> > 4) Can someone please get me a new skull? Mine's got too many gears in
> > it lately.
>
> There's a couple of other considerations, as well--the extra torque of
> the larger engine is particularly hard on the gearbox and third member.
> Gotta find a way to beef those up, or you'll have more gears in your
> head than your gearbox, after a while.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> My other Triumph runs, but....
Gee, Pete I DON'T KNOW. Why would someone do that? I'd ask Dan Masters
(if he were still on the list), but I don't think I can catch him in his
TR6, you know, the one with the Ford 5.0 liter engine in it.
I didn't say I was gonna do it. I was just free associating while
sitting in the lotus position in front of my keyboard ...
-MS
|