Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-23-2017, 10:55 AM   #1 (permalink)
CruzeMTgrind
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 123

BlueBawls - '14 Chevrolet Cruze Eco
90 day: 47.71 mpg (US)

Eddie - '02 Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer
90 day: 25.53 mpg (US)
Thanks: 52
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Engine swap questions possibilities.

This is all hypothetical just curious of possible results. I have an 02 explorer 4x4 and was curious how difficult it would be to put that v6 into some sort of economy size car. How hard would it be to switch to standard trans and front wheel drive.
Reason I'm curious is due to the efficiency of this engine. 22-23 mpg with a brick that weighs around 4200 lbs. Dropping this motor into a car like a Saturn which is around 3000. Assume the larger motor weighs a tick more so around 31-3200 lbs. With the drastically improved aero and 1000 lb weight reduction and most likely 6 speed manual what would anyone's fair guestimate be for fuel milage? I feel it wouldn't be too difficult to push 40+ but I may be delusional. Obvious upgrades like extra aero spats grill block and partial underbody panels. My dreaming may turn into a reality if there is any positive concensus to my ideas.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 06-23-2017, 11:03 AM   #2 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 5,620
Thanks: 0
Thanked 537 Times in 482 Posts
Is that a Cologne V6, right? Have you already compared its bellhousing pattern to the Essex V6 which had been used in the Windstar/Freestar? Though I can't remember any FWD application for them to be fitted with a manual transmission, doesn't seem to be unachievable.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2017, 11:21 AM   #3 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 11,990

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,368
Thanked 2,896 Times in 1,847 Posts
I vote delusional. 40+ is hard enough for a four cylinder to achieve.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2017, 11:21 AM   #4 (permalink)
CruzeMTgrind
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 123

BlueBawls - '14 Chevrolet Cruze Eco
90 day: 47.71 mpg (US)

Eddie - '02 Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer
90 day: 25.53 mpg (US)
Thanks: 52
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Nope haven't compared to anything yet. It is the Cologne v6 though. I feel if done with taller geared M6 trans the milage goals would be achievable. It's just the how difficult will it be to make it happen that shys me away. I'm sure plenty transmissions have a better set of ratios than my Cruze eco lol.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2017, 11:28 AM   #5 (permalink)
Lurking Eco-wall-o-texter
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: MPLS, MN area
Posts: 73
Thanks: 0
Thanked 44 Times in 31 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14'ecocruze View Post
This is all hypothetical just curious of possible results. I have an 02 explorer 4x4 and was curious how difficult it would be to put that v6 into some sort of economy size car. How hard would it be to switch to standard trans and front wheel drive.
Reason I'm curious is due to the efficiency of this engine. 22-23 mpg with a brick that weighs around 4200 lbs. Dropping this motor into a car like a Saturn which is around 3000. Assume the larger motor weighs a tick more so around 31-3200 lbs. With the drastically improved aero and 1000 lb weight reduction and most likely 6 speed manual what would anyone's fair guestimate be for fuel milage? I feel it wouldn't be too difficult to push 40+ but I may be delusional. Obvious upgrades like extra aero spats grill block and partial underbody panels. My dreaming may turn into a reality if there is any positive concensus to my ideas.
Hello 14'ecocruze,

That's the SOHC 4.0 derivative of the venerable Cologne V6 as cRiPpLe_rOoStEr points out. I've got it's previous incarnation, the OHV (pushrod) 4.0 V6 in my 2000 Ford Explorer manual trans. Do you have the manual trans in your '02? 2002 was the last year for the manual trans in 4-door, the 2-door kept it available for another year or few until or right before it was dropped from production. IIRC. If you do have the manual trans, I'm very jealous.

What are your goals for the swap? If it is just efficiency, you're going the wrong way - most mid-size to economy cars have sub 3.0liter engines already, so you can run them at higher overall load to get better average BSFC out of them. Putting in a larger engine that won't work as hard would be a backwards step in efficiency. Generally, folks have found that by the time they've done a bunch of aero work, load reduction, etc. they are no longer operating the engine in an efficient regime - time to swap a smaller one in.

As for the practicalities, I can't find any Cologne V6 engines in a transverse application at all. The Aerostars that had them were front engine rear drive. So you'd need a transmission/engine adapter, clutch/flywheel adapter, custom oil pan, custom motor mounts, and the fun wiring stuff. Your engine is PATS (Passive Anti-Theft System) so you'll need a custom tune to delete that, else you need to keep a chunk of the dash and steering column from the Explorer plus a key from it to make it run in the new chassis.

Saturns were available with 4-cyl engines and manual trans from the factory, though you may need to look around to find one.

If you want an immediate upgrade with zero labor to ~30+mpg (completely stock, aside from worsened aero due to front end damage, and lighter weight due to rust), I've got a 1999 Chevy Prizm 1.8L 4-cyl manual trans I'll trade you straight up for your 2002 Explorer 4.0L V6 manual trans. :-)
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to cajunfj40 For This Useful Post:
14'ecocruze (06-23-2017)
Old 06-23-2017, 11:28 AM   #6 (permalink)
CruzeMTgrind
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 123

BlueBawls - '14 Chevrolet Cruze Eco
90 day: 47.71 mpg (US)

Eddie - '02 Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer
90 day: 25.53 mpg (US)
Thanks: 52
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Thanks Frank Lee lol with the right transmission I know it's possible. Transmission is the key for the idea to work. Last trip I took the explorer on over 30 miles was 46 miles if I remember right and average pesomistic torque setting mpg and DIC slightly ..5-1 mpg optimistic was 28 mpg. I've done some math and 1000 lbs alone will bump that number up significantly. Cut aerodynamic drag in half and higher should be attainable.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2017, 11:40 AM   #7 (permalink)
CruzeMTgrind
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 123

BlueBawls - '14 Chevrolet Cruze Eco
90 day: 47.71 mpg (US)

Eddie - '02 Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer
90 day: 25.53 mpg (US)
Thanks: 52
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cajunfj40 View Post
Hello 14'ecocruze,

That's the SOHC 4.0 derivative of the venerable Cologne V6 as cRiPpLe_rOoStEr points out. I've got it's previous incarnation, the OHV (pushrod) 4.0 V6 in my 2000 Ford Explorer manual trans. Do you have the manual trans in your '02? 2002 was the last year for the manual trans in 4-door, the 2-door kept it available for another year or few until or right before it was dropped from production. IIRC. If you do have the manual trans, I'm very jealous.

What are your goals for the swap? If it is just efficiency, you're going the wrong way - most mid-size to economy cars have sub 3.0liter engines already, so you can run them at higher overall load to get better average BSFC out of them. Putting in a larger engine that won't work as hard would be a backwards step in efficiency. Generally, folks have found that by the time they've done a bunch of aero work, load reduction, etc. they are no longer operating the engine in an efficient regime - time to swap a smaller one in.

As for the practicalities, I can't find any Cologne V6 engines in a transverse application at all. The Aerostars that had them were front engine rear drive. So you'd need a transmission/engine adapter, clutch/flywheel adapter, custom oil pan, custom motor mounts, and the fun wiring stuff. Your engine is PATS (Passive Anti-Theft System) so you'll need a custom tune to delete that, else you need to keep a chunk of the dash and steering column from the Explorer plus a key from it to make it run in the new chassis.

Saturns were available with 4-cyl engines and manual trans from the factory, though you may need to look around to find one.

If you want an immediate upgrade with zero labor to ~30+mpg (completely stock, aside from worsened aero due to front end damage, and lighter weight due to rust), I've got a 1999 Chevy Prizm 1.8L 4-cyl manual trans I'll trade you straight up for your 2002 Explorer 4.0L V6 manual trans. :-)
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the input seems it would be an expensive task if I wanted to experiment with it. Sorry not a manual transmission. If it were I guarantee I would be breaking 30 mpg mark. Drive like a grandpa to get 60+ mpg in the cruze. Takes dedication to do it for a whole tank.
So the antitheft throws a massive monkey wrench and the dream along with additional parts if I wanted front wheel drive.
Loving the engine in it. Well maintained except spark plugs until I got my hands on it. 260k miles runs like a top and still seems to have plenty of life in it. Maybe my dream should switch to just putting a manual transmission into it. Sounds cheaper and Probably get 4+ mpg gain just due to my driving with a manual. The torque converter lockup thread I was thinking on maybe my best bet to get 30 mpg for cheap but shifting on your own is sooooo much better than dinking around with a throw switch.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2017, 12:04 PM   #8 (permalink)
Focused on MPG
 
ECO-AKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Uphill from the river!
Posts: 323

White Lightning - '05 FORD FOCUS SE ZX4
Team Ford
90 day: 31.88 mpg (US)

Wife's Speedy - '06 Mercury Mariner Premier V6
90 day: 21.61 mpg (US)
Thanks: 69
Thanked 70 Times in 58 Posts
Get the mounts and trans from a 2005-10 mustang, then drop into a fox body, some the problems you will encounter will be that the 60-degree v6 is taller than the old 90-degree 5.0 v8
__________________





Staying Focus'd on MPG
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2017, 01:01 PM   #9 (permalink)
Lurking Eco-wall-o-texter
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: MPLS, MN area
Posts: 73
Thanks: 0
Thanked 44 Times in 31 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14'ecocruze View Post
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the input seems it would be an expensive task if I wanted to experiment with it. Sorry not a manual transmission. If it were I guarantee I would be breaking 30 mpg mark. Drive like a grandpa to get 60+ mpg in the cruze. Takes dedication to do it for a whole tank.
So the antitheft throws a massive monkey wrench and the dream along with additional parts if I wanted front wheel drive.
Loving the engine in it. Well maintained except spark plugs until I got my hands on it. 260k miles runs like a top and still seems to have plenty of life in it. Maybe my dream should switch to just putting a manual transmission into it. Sounds cheaper and Probably get 4+ mpg gain just due to my driving with a manual. The torque converter lockup thread I was thinking on maybe my best bet to get 30 mpg for cheap but shifting on your own is sooooo much better than dinking around with a throw switch.
Hello again 14'ecocruze,

Apparently the tune to remove or reprogram the PATS is ~$250 or less, depending on where you go - not insurmountable, and it is likely included "free" if you're already paying about the same amount for a performance/economy tune.

Putting a manual trans into an Explorer has been done (the factory did it, so you can use all factory parts) - poke around on the web, you'll likely find a decent writeup or few. Note that most swaps were with V8 Explorers, so the transmission, driveshaft and transfercase info are different, but the wiring changes and overall scope of what parts must change/be added are the same.

260k miles? Have the timing chains been changed? They are a weak spot still on that year 4.0 SOHC, and you have to pull the engine to get to the rear one.

You're doing better than I am MPG-wise so far - the SOHC is a more efficient engine than the OHV, and the lockup 5-speed auto isn't bad for highway mileage.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to cajunfj40 For This Useful Post:
14'ecocruze (06-23-2017)
Old 06-23-2017, 01:25 PM   #10 (permalink)
CruzeMTgrind
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 123

BlueBawls - '14 Chevrolet Cruze Eco
90 day: 47.71 mpg (US)

Eddie - '02 Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer
90 day: 25.53 mpg (US)
Thanks: 52
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Yeah it's great from 50-70 mph. For a v6 and the weight of the vehicle it has plenty of power. Hauled a 17' boat 150 miles too and from our yearly camping location. If the suspension wasn't worn out so bad it would have been hardly noticeable. Torque wise it pulled no problem even in its old age lol
Highway milage has improved about 1.5-2 mpg with roof rack xbar removed and about 70% upper grille block. Looking into a few other things before drastic. Body seems to be going before motor. I'm also under the impression that the timing chain was replaced by the original owner. Was the wife's vehicle long before we got together so not really sure on details. Can't hear anything to indicate problems with it.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com