2.2 Ecotec in a Corsa C ?

I know someone who put a 351 V-8 into a mini. The only two barriers between the conversion were a. Time and b. Money.

If you have plenty of both and a good dose of insanity you can put anything in anything.

Fraser

Reply to
Fraser Johnston
Loading thread data ...

The one I did with my series 1 RX-7 was. Especially in the wet. : )

Fraser

Reply to
Fraser Johnston

Been done IIRC. Definately a V6 anyhow.

Mason

Reply to
Mason

That'll normally give you either a rear engine, or a mid engined car with 5 reverse and one forward gear.

Probably better to just shorten the propshaft of a rear wheel drivetrain...

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Ditto my 3.0 406 ! Infact, it's nearer 300Kg than 400Kg.

Do Corsas have lead components ?

Reply to
Nom

in news: snipped-for-privacy@pipex.net, "Vamp" slurred :

My 405 diesel estate is less than 40kg heavier than a corsa? They really are little porkers. Er. Of the oinking variety.

Reply to
Albert T Cone

My 405 petrol weighed less than th 1.8 and about the same as the 1.4 :D

Reply to
DanTXD

Nahhh...

Most transverse FWDers have most if not all of the motor ahead of the final drive.

Gear linkage is going to be non-trivial tho'

Not a lot of length for even a short thing in a Corsa.

A
Reply to
Alistair J Murray

I think it would fit and it makes more sense than putting a C20XE/LET in as the wiring in the Corsa C makes the engine swap that was so easy in the Corsa B much more difficult.

Probably much easier to put the Z22SE in.

The air intake on this engine goes in at the front of this engine and not the rear of the engine as shown in the 1.6 Corsa Sport. This may or may not have an impact and I may be talking rubbish. Here's some photos though:

Astra:

formatting link
Corsa:

formatting link
LL

Reply to
LiviLion

Yes, indeedy. Part of me subscribes to this point of view. The suspension upgrade makes so little difference to the Ka (with the exception that it looks a bit lower) until you find a curve. :)

Heh. I find myself somewhere between the two... most of what we've done to the Ka has been functional or has had another reason behind other than "we like the look of it." Wheels (wider track, not too wide a wheel, lower unspring weight), suspension and strut brace, lights (better illumination, especially on main beam), spoiler (reduces crap being sucked back up), OBD-II Scanner (I'm a nerd)...

Erm, add to that the exhaust (because we could), smoked side repeaters, stickers, that's it I think...

To be fair if I cared all that much about the looks I'd have some custom made 13" superlight wheels made up... but with these rims I'll hoon about in the snow and not worry about kerbing, heh.

Reply to
DervMan

You and I could probably lift your 405! ;)

Modern stuff's just too heavy...

Reply to
DervMan

Glad too start such a long thread, was curious if anyone had done it, have seen a few Corsa B 2.0 conversions, the 2.2 ecotec idea came from the fact I owned a old style Vectra with this engine and it was quite fast for a big car about 8.5 to 60 (unmodified). Shove it in a Corsa and I reckon 7.0 to 60 easy.....

Could be wrong though....

Reply to
Clever Trevor

if you cared that much about looks surely you wouldn't be driving the bad looking ford manafactured cut and shut KA :)

Reply to
Vamp

And you drive a...?

But that's kinda the point. I have a personal nightmare - that is, going to one of these dinner do jobbies at a funky posh hotel, going out to leave, then not being able to find the car because the car park is full of similar German stuff.

There's no mistaking my choice of transportation!

Reply to
DervMan

Perhaps. Going on the cars in the database, you'd need optimal gearing and around 150 PS / ton. You might do it if you stripped the Corsa down...

Reply to
DervMan

Except that it's not, cos modern stuff makes much more power.

Current Clio may well be masses heavier than the Renault 5. But who cares, when it makes 182bhp.

Current Civic may well be masses heavier than the shitty old Civic. But who cares, when it makes 200bhp.

etc. etc.

As long as power and torque increase in conjunction with weight, then that's just fine by me. Losing toys and safety, is *far* too high a price to pay for less weight.

Reply to
Nom

Naturally I take your point. And modern suspension and tyre technology is much more sophisticated so as to be able to cope with the extra weight. So why do some manufacturers produce some potentially great little cars are little in size and weight... with a low powered engine? The Smart Roadster would be great with 150 PS rather than its current output. :)

Reply to
DervMan

Becuase NO ONE that buys a Smart roadster is male or not gay, and as such, they would all crash :)

I wouldn't mind losing all the safety pap, but i do like the A/C and gadgetry :)

Reply to
DanTXD
[snip]

Airbags should be replaced with six inch steel spikes.

Reply to
DervMan
[...]

You may lose some secondary, passive safety with weight but you gain primary, active safety.

High power and low weight beat cupholders any day of the week.

A
Reply to
Alistair J Murray

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.