The overall length is pretty much the same than for the TR6 engine/gearbox.
You need to change the gearbox mountings and use some custom made engine
mountings. The gear shift lever needs some modification as well (angle). The
propshaft needs to be slightly shorter.
My preference is the older 2.8L (170 Hp) with the fuel injection system. The
effort of the BMW engine swap is not that huge.
If you use the 4-banger (1.9L from a 318is at 140Hp) you do not need a
different oil pan and you have plenty of space in the TR6 engine
compartment. But it's a different sound ...
Jochen
Munich/Germany
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: erl@unix.mail.virginia.edu <erl@unix.mail.virginia.edu>
An: Jochen Saal <Jochen.Saal@t-online.de>
Datum: Mittwoch, 30. August 2000 15:17
Betreff: Re: 4.3 ltr. Triumph
I too have measured for a BMW "baby six (2.5l)," as we call them here, for
use in my TR-6. A few questions that I have yet to answer are overall
length of engine plus transmission, rear mounts, and possible use of the
Triumph transmission with the BMW engine. Also have considered going to
the Bosch fuel injection also.
Any data that you have developed, I would be interested in your results.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Jochen Saal wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I also did some investigations on a BMW inline six, however the size is
not
> the problem. It's the design of the oil pan that doesn't fit. I recently
had
> the new 3.0 Z3 for a weekend and of cause, I checked the engine. BMW use a
> different oil pan, similar to our TR6. I think, from what I see, this
engine
> should fit. I am currently in contact with BMW to figure out whether the
Z3
> oil pan can be used on a older 2.5l engine block (easy to get from a scrap
> yard).
> Unfortunately, I do not have a response yet. But I am pretty sure that
they
> didn't change the bolt pattern on the six cylinder blocks. The 5 speed
> gearbox would be perfect for the car!
>
> Jochen Saal
> Munich (Octoberfest Town in 2 weeks!)
> Germany
> 74 TR6
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Bob Lang <LANG@ISIS.MIT.EDU>
> An: Jack W. Drews <vinttr4@geneseo.net>
> Cc: triumphs@autox.team.net <triumphs@autox.team.net>; fot@autox.team.net
> <fot@autox.team.net>
> Datum: Montag, 28. August 2000 15:31
> Betreff: Re: 4.3 ltr. Triumph
>
>
> >
> >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 |
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> >
>
>
James A. Ruffner
|