My Jolus has that spring at the front, with a leaf or two removed...
It was built entirely out of a 1949 model 203.
PRV V6 Dyno Shootout Charts and Facts
- Thread starter OddFireV6
- Start date
My Jolus has that spring at the front, with a leaf or two removed...
It was built entirely out of a 1949 model 203.
I had a good look at the Pinkerton 403 when they were over this way in 94, wonderfull job.
Graham Lewis
Graham Lewis
Well done guys "150kw, 178kw"!!! - good numbers. The reason I went with the SR20 were LIGHTNESS (130kg motor) which would help the car's handling, the terrific gearbox available to match and the huge scope for increasing power - 280kw at the wheels on std internals has been done many times. With a moderately larger turbo upgrade, bigger injectors and a remap of the ECU 240kw at the wheels is easily achieved. Now if I could only work out why I'm not getting oil pressure...#@#$%&^*^& jap engines!!! It would be interesting to compare all the 505's when finished. 
the PRV is pretty close to the same weight 
PRV6 Shootout etc etc.
The "Pinko Mono" will be a fresh project but built in the spirit of a '40'-'50's special. Bob is aware of the regs so will only be running it in regularity runs.
There are a number of non log booked specials over here, simple animals built along the lines of the Clem Dwyer Plymouth. Regularity runs? Oh yeah, there's more "red mist" on the track during these events than the others!
Bob will be using a tubular ladder chassis. The front end design will be Pug transverse leaf with a much lighter X member. Rear will be coils, the worm drive will be retained,[lower seating pos?]. Shortened torque tube, early gearbox with modified 403 engine. I haven't seen this yet but the inlet has been filled, with 4 alloy tubes pressed into the manifold. Bob was hoping to use 40 mm dcoe Webers but may settle for Dellorto. He said that the bloke who ground his cam wants to be around when he tries to start up!
I could go on but it's not fair to the original postee.
There you go Ray a golden opportunity for a new thread. "Aussie French Engined Racers".
Ray Bell said:Is this a fresh project or a rebuild?
If it's a rebuild, what car was it?
As nice as this one?
Whoops... with its clothes on...
The "Pinko Mono" will be a fresh project but built in the spirit of a '40'-'50's special. Bob is aware of the regs so will only be running it in regularity runs.
There are a number of non log booked specials over here, simple animals built along the lines of the Clem Dwyer Plymouth. Regularity runs? Oh yeah, there's more "red mist" on the track during these events than the others!
Bob will be using a tubular ladder chassis. The front end design will be Pug transverse leaf with a much lighter X member. Rear will be coils, the worm drive will be retained,[lower seating pos?]. Shortened torque tube, early gearbox with modified 403 engine. I haven't seen this yet but the inlet has been filled, with 4 alloy tubes pressed into the manifold. Bob was hoping to use 40 mm dcoe Webers but may settle for Dellorto. He said that the bloke who ground his cam wants to be around when he tries to start up!
I could go on but it's not fair to the original postee.
There you go Ray a golden opportunity for a new thread. "Aussie French Engined Racers".
Great info!
I love hearing all the different ways people are doing to get more out of these old Peugeot's... I love all the versions and think the diversity in how we all strive for ultimate power in our own ways.
I personally want to stay with Peugeot bits in my modification plans - so for me the ultimate power combo is going to be a built N9TE running up to 22 psi. The ultimate driver engine will be a supercharged PRV V6.
I'm blown away with the guys running TT V6 PRV's on LPG... (Wow that's a a hell of an engine designation...TTLPGPRVV6!) Awesome. Very impressive indeed.
Nisspug - I really hope you get your car sorted as it would be AMAZING if all you guys with modified Peugeot's could do a good natured shoot out... Unlikely I can attend - but it would still be cool to get some baseline numbers to do some comparisons with.
Not sure what an international comparison would be... 0-60 time? 1/4 mile?
Curious who the "benchmark" would be... :wink2:
I love hearing all the different ways people are doing to get more out of these old Peugeot's... I love all the versions and think the diversity in how we all strive for ultimate power in our own ways.
I personally want to stay with Peugeot bits in my modification plans - so for me the ultimate power combo is going to be a built N9TE running up to 22 psi. The ultimate driver engine will be a supercharged PRV V6.
I'm blown away with the guys running TT V6 PRV's on LPG... (Wow that's a a hell of an engine designation...TTLPGPRVV6!) Awesome. Very impressive indeed.
Nisspug - I really hope you get your car sorted as it would be AMAZING if all you guys with modified Peugeot's could do a good natured shoot out... Unlikely I can attend - but it would still be cool to get some baseline numbers to do some comparisons with.
Not sure what an international comparison would be... 0-60 time? 1/4 mile?
Curious who the "benchmark" would be... :wink2:
the 604 here wouldn't be much of a comparison as the car still weighs in at close to 1500kg but still it should power along fairly well and better than in standard trim
I once postulated that the CAMS should allow cars 'built in the likeness of' (and not necessarily to the thought processes that recently prohibited the use of SU carbies on a pre-war Buick Special!) through to about 1955. I would prefer to see it widened out to allow scratch-built frames as well, but to some kind of limited extent.
Additionally, I believe it should be allowed that a person who can prove that an actual Historic car has been totally destroyed and is completely unavailable, and who can prove exactly what that car was, can build an exact replica of that car. The Ranford Chrysler would be my pick... I've been collecting the necessary bits for many years. Well, at least I have the hardest part to get in stock...
Except for the central seating and my spaceframe and the lightened crossmember... that's my Jolus' build.
Dellortos and Webers are a bit out of synch... but it sounds nice!
Ah, the Mountain car is nearly enough... and this one:
Im doing something similar, but in an Alpine GTA. Its only 1080Kgs, and ive taken out the old 2.5 evenfire 8.6:1 turbo block, and replaced it with the 2.8 even fire 9.5:1 Renault block, but still using the turbo setup and ancillaries. The bigger engine has larger valves and far better cam profiles than the turbo (turbo 8-40-40-8) (2.8L 14-57-50-19) so more overlap, but im only going to be running around 6-8 pounds on a .63/AR EX / 57trim T4 turbo.
Im going to be trying to improve on the standard management, or switch to something like the Wolf 3d system.
Manifold wise, may do a bit of a change around, and move the turbo down low in front of the crank pulley using off the shelf equal length manifolds for a normally aspirated Alpine and link the two together to a common turbo flange. This will bring the turbo as low as the bottom of the engine, reducing heat, massively shortening the exhaust system (remember the engine is at the back) and increase flow through the larger bore manifolds, as exhaust gas speed wont really be a problem due to the high compression ratio.
BTW, I have a pair of V6 turbo manifolds, link pipes and turbo flange spare for sale £100 for the lot. I can arrange international shipping if any body is interested. The design brings the turbo up over the top rear of the engine.
Im going to be trying to improve on the standard management, or switch to something like the Wolf 3d system.
Manifold wise, may do a bit of a change around, and move the turbo down low in front of the crank pulley using off the shelf equal length manifolds for a normally aspirated Alpine and link the two together to a common turbo flange. This will bring the turbo as low as the bottom of the engine, reducing heat, massively shortening the exhaust system (remember the engine is at the back) and increase flow through the larger bore manifolds, as exhaust gas speed wont really be a problem due to the high compression ratio.
BTW, I have a pair of V6 turbo manifolds, link pipes and turbo flange spare for sale £100 for the lot. I can arrange international shipping if any body is interested. The design brings the turbo up over the top rear of the engine.
My daily driver, if the weathers resonable is a 504 powered clubman, 76kW at the wheels and weighing in at 640 kg, fairly conventional sort of thing with wishbone front end, Escort rear axle and a Toyota t50 gear box.
I have another under construction with IRS and inboard brakes (modified 504 rear discs) the front has 205 stub shafts and bearings mounted in a fabricated upright with 205 brakes and inboard suspension, haven't decided on an engine as yet, it is still a long way from completion.
Graham Lewis
I have another under construction with IRS and inboard brakes (modified 504 rear discs) the front has 205 stub shafts and bearings mounted in a fabricated upright with 205 brakes and inboard suspension, haven't decided on an engine as yet, it is still a long way from completion.
Graham Lewis
PRV6 Dyno. etc etc.
Ray,
Don't stop! Tell us more about the Jolus. Don't stop postulating with CAMS on your "built in the likeness" idea. Athough WA's regularity runners would fit this category. They all use SU's that are much younger than the cars.
Bob has asked me to find something on the history of Dellorto,ie the twin choke side draught type. I haven't found anything yet. He's hoping that it goes back beyond 1948 in order to loosely stay within the spirit of things. By the way I have dubbed his car the "Mono Pinko" just to stir him up.
The "Mountain" car, was the Peugeot engine mounted on an angle going to an offset rear axle,[a la Stanguelini]? :wink2:
Ray Bell said:I once postulated that the CAMS should allow cars 'built in the likeness of' (and not necessarily to the thought processes that recently prohibited the use of SU carbies on a pre-war Buick Special!) through to about 1955. I would prefer to see it widened out to allow scratch-built frames as well, but to some kind of limited extent.
Additionally, I believe it should be allowed that a person who can prove that an actual Historic car has been totally destroyed and is completely unavailable, and who can prove exactly what that car was, can build an exact replica of that car. The Ranford Chrysler would be my pick... I've been collecting the necessary bits for many years. Well, at least I have the hardest part to get in stock...
Except for the central seating and my spaceframe and the lightened crossmember... that's my Jolus' build.
Dellortos and Webers are a bit out of synch... but it sounds nice!
Ah, the Mountain car is nearly enough... and this one:
Ray,
Don't stop! Tell us more about the Jolus. Don't stop postulating with CAMS on your "built in the likeness" idea. Athough WA's regularity runners would fit this category. They all use SU's that are much younger than the cars.
Bob has asked me to find something on the history of Dellorto,ie the twin choke side draught type. I haven't found anything yet. He's hoping that it goes back beyond 1948 in order to loosely stay within the spirit of things. By the way I have dubbed his car the "Mono Pinko" just to stir him up.
The "Mountain" car, was the Peugeot engine mounted on an angle going to an offset rear axle,[a la Stanguelini]? :wink2:
Yes, but probably predating the Stanguellini...
note the Ford diff...
As you can probably see, the angle was only slight. The car was tiny, though... beautiful. And the man pedantic to the end:
As for the Dellorto side draughts... I think you'll find that they only came out (in that similar style to Weber DCOEs anyway... that's the DHLAs, right?) in about 1970. They were pretty new when I got mine in 1973.
Lynx Engineering were the agents at the time.
Noboby complains about later model SUs do they?
And by the way, I don't want to see a whole grid full of Bondlee Vanguards!
note the Ford diff...
As you can probably see, the angle was only slight. The car was tiny, though... beautiful. And the man pedantic to the end:
As for the Dellorto side draughts... I think you'll find that they only came out (in that similar style to Weber DCOEs anyway... that's the DHLAs, right?) in about 1970. They were pretty new when I got mine in 1973.
Lynx Engineering were the agents at the time.
Noboby complains about later model SUs do they?
And by the way, I don't want to see a whole grid full of Bondlee Vanguards!
Wildebeest said:Graham,
Never one to let a good story get in the way of fact,[so you have noticed?]
I have consulted my oracle Alan, former apprentice now with own Volvo shop
He sides with me in that the B27-28 cams are not interchangeable with the B280. He also reminded me that the distributor is driven off the nose of the Left cam, so the dist drive bevel on the R cam would be deleted? :wink2:
PS I believe you've had some tech input into Bob Pinkerton's 403 based "raisin" engine, to be used in a '50's style front eng. monoposto. Pinko's previous work over here will mean that it will be a top project.
The facts of camshaft interchangeability are as follows, I know I have done this, the above statements are not correct. The evenfire/oddfire variation is of itself no block to interchanging camshafts, as Graham said the engine can be viewed as two 3 cylinder engines. The oddfire camshafts will fit straight into an even fire and run this is simple. As hinted above the evenfire motors, B280 Volvos and factory V6s for 505s and 605s do not have a gear on their camshafts for a distributor drive and so to fit evenfire cams to an oddfire would require alternate ignition arrangements.
As a matter of interest the new motor in my 505 twin turbo evenfire has oddfire cams fitted and the head was bored to take a conventional distributor that I use solely as a trigger so I still use the HT distributor on the front left bank
PRV V6 cams.
Thus the valve openings would need to be altered to follow this, meaning the camshafts would need earlier or later opening profiles.
I humbly defer to your comments re the odd and even fire cams. Your practical work with the V6 is legendary. Practical experience far outweighs theory any day.
I was on the scene when the 280e were released in the Volvo. Literature that I have squirreled away somewhere explained simply why the "staggered" crankshaft was adopted. The main problem with the earlier V6 were the uneven intake pulsing resulting in the cams being designed with differing profiles to even things out.
Legend has it that originally the V6 was meant to be a V8, hence the 90 degree layout, not a good idea with a V6, most other makers went for 60 degrees.
My simple thinking was that the staggered pin crank was adopted to confuse the 90 degree V6 into thinking it was a 60 degree. This meant that the piston movement followed a more even path. Thus the valve openings would need to be altered to follow this, meaning the camshafts would need earlier or later opening profiles.
But, if fitting the even to oddfire cams has been successful, it has meant a great triumph for practice over theory!
A great story doing the rounds before most of you were born concerned the early days of Lotus. They had sent out a camshaft to be modified. After fitting it to the engine it was reputed to go like stink! Later on examining the cam it was found that the camshaft people had ground the inlet lobes to the exhaust profile and vice versa !
I bet a few pints were downed at "The Green Man" re-telling that story" :wink2:
Thus the valve openings would need to be altered to follow this, meaning the camshafts would need earlier or later opening profiles.
OddFireV6 said:
I humbly defer to your comments re the odd and even fire cams. Your practical work with the V6 is legendary. Practical experience far outweighs theory any day.
I was on the scene when the 280e were released in the Volvo. Literature that I have squirreled away somewhere explained simply why the "staggered" crankshaft was adopted. The main problem with the earlier V6 were the uneven intake pulsing resulting in the cams being designed with differing profiles to even things out.
Legend has it that originally the V6 was meant to be a V8, hence the 90 degree layout, not a good idea with a V6, most other makers went for 60 degrees.
My simple thinking was that the staggered pin crank was adopted to confuse the 90 degree V6 into thinking it was a 60 degree. This meant that the piston movement followed a more even path. Thus the valve openings would need to be altered to follow this, meaning the camshafts would need earlier or later opening profiles.
But, if fitting the even to oddfire cams has been successful, it has meant a great triumph for practice over theory!
A great story doing the rounds before most of you were born concerned the early days of Lotus. They had sent out a camshaft to be modified. After fitting it to the engine it was reputed to go like stink! Later on examining the cam it was found that the camshaft people had ground the inlet lobes to the exhaust profile and vice versa !
I bet a few pints were downed at "The Green Man" re-telling that story" :wink2:
Last edited:
What's not being said here, regarding the cams for the oddfire and even fire engines, is that the timing of the cams is different in each of them, it's related to the altered crankpin positions.
Yes, Wildebeest, the engines were originally conceived with a view to expanding them to V8s... and hence the 90-degree layout. But they're not alone as 90-degree V6s... there are millions of Holdens around storming through life with the, and they date back to about 1963 in Buicks.
Of course, they were originally a V8 turned into a V6, with soft engine mounts to soak up the vibes.
Yes, Wildebeest, the engines were originally conceived with a view to expanding them to V8s... and hence the 90-degree layout. But they're not alone as 90-degree V6s... there are millions of Holdens around storming through life with the, and they date back to about 1963 in Buicks.
Of course, they were originally a V8 turned into a V6, with soft engine mounts to soak up the vibes.
PRV camshafts etc.
Ray, I believe, in my childlike simplicity I may have touched lightly on the cam timing differences in my earlier post.
I wasn't aware that the Holden etc V6 was a 90 degree layout. Thanks.
Is it possible that their crankshaft design had a different setup to overcome ballance etc. Perhaps a "flat plane"?
There's one for a full bottle engineer?
Ray, I believe, in my childlike simplicity I may have touched lightly on the cam timing differences in my earlier post.
I wasn't aware that the Holden etc V6 was a 90 degree layout. Thanks.
Is it possible that their crankshaft design had a different setup to overcome ballance etc. Perhaps a "flat plane"?
There's one for a full bottle engineer?
Ray Bell said:
Robert already mentioned that in relation to the PRV that you are looking at 2 3 cylinder engines
Strangely enough, I knew this...
What I sought to do was explain the point that was missed out, as it seemed to me that Wildebeest was struggling over that matter.
PRV camshafts
OK we are looking at a V6 engine. Gee it looks like two 3 cylinder engines.
Can someone clear up, for "MrThicky" here, what this has got to do with the camshaft differences between the two engine types apart from what has already been posted ad infinitum?
Be gentle with me. :wink2: :wink2:
pugrambo said:
OK we are looking at a V6 engine. Gee it looks like two 3 cylinder engines.
Can someone clear up, for "MrThicky" here, what this has got to do with the camshaft differences between the two engine types apart from what has already been posted ad infinitum?
Be gentle with me. :wink2: :wink2:
Wildebeest said:
The PRV V6 was an engine that had basically 2 series.
the original PRV6 had different ignition timing for each cylinder bank.
This was because the block was set at 90 degrees and to try and get it to run smoothly
the 2nd series came in around 1986 and we got it in the volvo here and the renaults got it but we didn't get it in the pugs here, well not in RWD format anyway. the 605 got the even fire but they aren't a common car. anyway that's getting off track
these engines had the 30 degrees offset journals making them a 6 journal crankshaft instead of the 3 journal 120 degree crank in the odd fire and this was to give the even firing intervals of a 60 degree V6.
now then seeing as the PRV is OHC the LH is different from the RH that we all know and hence why when looking at the engine it makes sense to look at them as 2, 3 cylinder engines
makes sense to me as it always has done