V6 for p5?!?!?!?

Lord_Zath said:
Perhaps the added weight to the front would be a good thing? Easier to get the rear end to swing?
Click to expand...

An adjustable sway bar does that for alot cheaper, and it's a hell of alot easier to install!
 
No, but I was repling to the swinging the rear end comments.

I'd like to see someone do the swap...
 
just make it a mid engined car. take out the back seats and put the engine there. 50-50 weight dist. or put a wankle in it! lol
 
chaosProtege said:
just make it a mid engined car. take out the back seats and put the engine there. 50-50 weight dist. or put a wankle in it! lol
Click to expand...

like when ford took the fiesta and dumped the 3.0 SHO yamaha engine where the rear seats were; the Shogun!
 
The V6 actually doesn't weigh that much more than the I4, from what I gather. The issue with the ECU would be that our factory ECU controls a lot of the dash and auxilary functions, yet the KL-ZE ECU was designed for a whole different harness style, and accordingly, would probably not be tied into the dash properly. I can't confirm this, and perhaps it'll work just fine, which would rock, but not being sure and jumping the gun would... Well... Suck. =)
 
much of the reason people have not tried it is the nay-sayers here that say "it will not work, just buy a turbo!"
 
It's a doable swap but yes the ECU will have to be changed. Best bet would be to go stand alone engine management and interface it to the ECU. There are a few people who have cracked the ECU coding for the KL series ECU so it is possible to get the coding and modify it. As for mounting you would need all the V6 motor mounts adn would possibly have to fab up some perches for one or two of them. Weight wise both engines are very close so you'll only be a little heavier in the front, but the engine compartment will be really tight. If you think getting acces to the enigne bay sucks on your Protege right now wait until you have to deal with a variable intake V6 in there, it's not fun. As for engine you are better of doing a built KL-03 rather than a KL-ZE as that 200 hp spec is only with the Japanese ECU and running 102 octance gas. Just not something you can get hold of every day. Thankfully there are both turbo and supercharger options for the KL series engine so added power is easy to make. The bottom half of the KL is built like a Chevy 350, 4 bolt mains and cross braced, the top end can really net some nice gains from port and polish work, knife edging everything and doing a 3-5 angle valve job. The internals on the other hand can handle nothing past 9 PSI max, so you would need to replace the rods and pistons if you were to go force induction with anything over that.
There is a lot of informantion out there for building up the KL series motors but there are not a lot of parts for it, all in all you are goingt o spenda fair amount of money getting power out of it. I would only do the swap if I had a pare motor or could get one for almost nothing as the 30 horsepower you would get with just a straight swap wouldn't be worth the money of having to buy the enigne. If you decided to build it up the only advantage it would have over the 2.0 4 is that it is a non-interference engine so if you slip the timing belt you don't destroy the internals like the 4 bagner would.
One last note if anyone does do this the best year engine to get is the 94-95 ones as the 93 was a first production year and they have some issues and the 96-up has OBD-II with the twin cats and all the extra enigne management associated with OBD-II.
 
Actually, the four cylinder FS-DE is non-interference. If you push out the valves even as far as you can to bind them up, they won't contact the pistons. The only way I can see the two colliding is with a) rod stretch or b) blowing a rod. Detonation seems to like to take it's toll on the valves, though, too, as more than one or three bent valves have resulted from premature detonation.
 
flat_black said:
Actually, the four cylinder FS-DE is non-interference. If you push out the valves even as far as you can to bind them up, they won't contact the pistons. The only way I can see the two colliding is with a) rod stretch or b) blowing a rod. Detonation seems to like to take it's toll on the valves, though, too, as more than one or three bent valves have resulted from premature detonation.
Click to expand...

My bad, Mazda must have changed this from the mid 90s FS engines. They were interference, had a few friend play let's implode the engine.:'(
 
Mid-nineties had different castings all around, basically, but I'm not sure how they would have made it non interference, aside from modifying the valve angle, possibly, or the deck height, but I don't doubt it, for sure.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads and Articles

M
2008 CX-9 V6 Water pump failure question
Replies
4
Views
979
mike63334
M
C
Small wraps for paint chips
Replies
1
Views
375
youri
Y

New Posts and Comments

S
2011 Mazda2 Aux jack giving up - repair or replace?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Sublimer677
S
C
2.5L NA Cracked Cylinder Head with Oil Leaking
29 30 31
Replies
600
Views
196K
sm1ke
sm1ke
R
    • Like
2018 CX-9 GT AWD, tires needed at 25K (replaced w/ Michelin Defender LTX M/S)
2
Replies
22
Views
9K
sm1ke
sm1ke
S
  • Question Question
2017~2025 LED brake light strip with turn signal help.
Replies
4
Views
116
Spizzy
S
D
2019 CX-5: When replacing battery, how do I not lose data, settings etc?
Replies
6
Views
3K
CycleChris
CycleChris
M
    • Wow
  • Question Question
CX-5 Battery Replacement recommendation?
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Slickracer
S
View more…

New Threads and Articles

Back