3.0 Jaguar V6 Duratec in S3

[wayneb911]

Well as everyone knows i have been having my arres slapped for chopping and changing my project when it comes to an engine conversion. The RV8 idea has been completly scraped and im now going for the 3.0 Duratec as fitted to Punky's car.

The Rover engine, adapter and old clutch has sold on ebay for

[Simon350S]

You not using Punkys adapter plate?

[wayneb911]

I have spoken to Punky and unfortunatelly he no longer has a copy as it was done some time ago. Would love to get a copy otherwise. Would save a lot of work. He has contacted the machine shop who made the one on his car and they are able to do another though so i guess i will just have to make one. Unless your doing any engine out work soon Punky?

Could someone confirm anyway if it would fit the Citeron box? Im sure it would. I wouldnt need the extra bit for the slave cylinder thats added as using my old location anyway.

[punky]

Congratulations on the engine purchase,I hope its a good un.

Unfortunately the mdf prototypes I made have long since turned to mush and the only plate that exists is on the car.

The machine shop can do more, and the last quote off them was £200.The original one cost me £250 as he charged me £50 for the CAD work.

I am pretty confident that the engine/bell housing bolt pattern would be the same throughout the 900 series Lotus engines,but the length of the gearbox clutch shaft and your final choice of flywheel and clutch would go someway in determining the final thickness of the machined plate.

I am also not familiar with the slave cylinder position on your gearbox, but another option I looked into was possibly fitting a concentric clutch slave cylinder inside the bell housing. The tricky bit is finding the one most suited for the application and maybe having to match master and slave cylinder fluid capacities.

Along with the mondeo sump you will need the oil pickup pipe as well.It would also be interesting to take a look at an X-TYPE 3.0 sump It should be a similar shape and maybe a little bigger and better suited than the mondeo one. Apparently The X-TYPE and Mondeo share very similar chassis, both being of Ford origin and transverse mounted so both having the front of the sump cut away which is needed to clear the Esprit chassis cross member.I just think if the Jag sump holds a larger capacity of oil and is designed for a 3.0L, providing it fits in the engine bay It may be a better alternative.

I believe the dual mass flywheel is the standard flywheel for the S-TYPE.It does have it's benefits I guess, although possibly more suited to a large saloon car than a lightweight sports car.It was also the cheaper option at the time and I was able to get all the bits of Ebay and delivered to my door.

If I did my current flywheel/clutch setup again I would have the lotus friction plate I used beefed up a bit and fitted with some thicker and better friction material. My clutch doesn't have a problem slipping even when constantly giving it full beans up steep hills in hot weather,but If you try and light the back wheels up from a standing start the clutch will slip first unless the road is wet.

If or when I do it again however I think I would look into getting a professional clutch and flywheel company to design and build one for the job.I think Hilly could educate us a little better on this subject.

The Mondeo alternator and bracket won't fit as the engine front plate is different and this houses some of the bolt holes for the bracket.(I know because I tried it)

Again, when I do a mark II version I would probably look into using a small and lightweight Denso racing alternator.

Punky.

Edited January 8, 2010 by punky

[wayneb911]

Punky,

Sorry i must have missunderstood your last comments about the adapter. So does the company still have the CAD details then? If so then i will be best off getting one made on that as we know yours works. I have already obtained part numbers for the Mondeo sump and pick up so i can get them shortly. I will look at the Jaguar one befor i do so. Regarding flywheel i will do some research and see if the Mondeo standard flywheel will fit, if this is the case then i can also use the pressure plate from a mondeo with the Lotus disc. Release bearing i will have to look into. Alternator will be back to the drawing board then. What model Saab was yours from? The clutch slave cylinder is mounted at the top of my gearbox as pictured below.

I dont think there will be any issues with keeping this as it is but then i wont know till i try.

Also below is a picture of the standard Jaguar engine so hopefully there wont be an issue with the manifold staying the same for now.

Edited January 8, 2010 by wayneb911

[hilly]

If or when I do it again however I think I would look into getting a professional clutch and flywheel company to design and build one for the job.I think Hilly could educate us a little better on this subject.

Punky.

Unfortunately no he won't, as I just used a standard Audi 2.5 V6 Diesel clutch assembly and the flywheel as an off the self item.

Release bearing I will have to look into

You will need to use an OEM Lotus/Citroen release bearing as it supports the input shaft on the SM gearbox.

Hilly

[punky]

You might find the Mondeo flywheel has different ring gear spacing then the Jag one which will then give you issues with your choice and placement of starter motor.

Another option is if your engine is from an automatic vehicle it may come fitted with something that looks like a flywheel but is infact i thin plate that houses the jaguar ring gear for the starter.If so you could leave this on and use it for the starter and then maybe bolt the mondeo flywheel over the top using a spacer in between if they all have the correct bolt pattern.You would then need a thicker adaptor plate to make up the space needed in the bell housing.

I'm not sure what Saab the alternator came from but I got one rated at the same output as the lotus one (90 amp) I think. but mainly because it had the extended pulley wheel,enabling me to tuck it in tight to the engine and still be able to reach the belt.

Sorry Hilly for the misinformation,for some reason I thought you had one made.

[wayneb911]

Hilly

I guessed that was the case with the clutch release bearing. Will see how it fits on the jaguar pressure plate, may have to make something like Punky did.

Punky

I think i will just try and locate a jaguar flywheel then to save compliaction. Will let you know what i find out about the Mondeo one though. Ideally i dont want to make the adapteranythicker than i really have to. Alternator i will address when i get to that point but will search ebay and see what i can find like yours. One question i forgot to ask was about the belt used. The engine has aircon pump and i think power steering as well so if this is ditched then i take it i will need a much shorter belt?

[saggitarius]

Wayne

It's of course a question of personal taste, but in my opinion the 3.0 Duratec is an engine more fitting a sports car than the RV8 :-) And I love the sound of that when revving.

I've seen that there has been discussions going on the Forum about the strengths and weaknesses of the Citroen gear box, but if it's in good shape it should be able to connect the Duratec to the road. In addition to the Citroen SM it was also used int the Maserati Merak that had a 3 litre engine with 190 bhp and 188 lb ft of torque, while the Jaguar Duratec seems to have a torque figure of between 210 and 220 lb ft. These earlier versions of the Merak are heavier than the later ones and such a car weighs in at around 1400 kg.

So if you don't go overboard with tuning you should be OK with the Citroen box.

Good luck - looking forward to follow your build here...

[Simon350S]

Your clutch slave cylinder is in a completely different position by the looks of it, it shouldnt cause any issues though as yours bolts to the bellhousing itself.

[910Esprit]

The input shaft is a clearance fit within the release bearing sleeve - no support is provided. The release bearing sleeve is supported by a bush fitted into the bellhousing. At first I thought it may be required to provide an oil seak, but I also suspect that is not the case. (I've just had a look at the one I currently have dismantled).

cheers Steve

[cobraesprit]

Have you considerd using the Boxster gearbox ( that is the one I went for). Hilly's car uses a similar box (i think). They do come along on ebay fairly often. If you want to do a bit of checking they are called G96 transaxles, are 6 Speed and as the Boxster is mid engined no need to invert them ( like you have to do with the 911 boxes ).

In terms of physical size they are no larger than the Esprit box and the driveshafts are the same distance from the bell-housing mounting.

The way I sorted the fly wheel on mine was to turn the original down to fit inside the bell-housing and used a starter and ring gear from a capri 2.8i.

For the clutch I am using a Sierra Cosworth cover and plate and the standard hydrulic Poschce bearing/slave cylinder.

Hope this may help

[silverfrost]

Hi Paul,

Think Wayne is trying to keep things simple, using the boxster g box in your car was fairly straightforward as your rear brakes are outboard, if wayne changes the gearbox he has to move the brakes out on to the wheels costing him more money and hassle!

Regards danny

[wayneb911]

Paul

As per Dannys comments i am sticking with the standard transmission for reduced costs and being that there is plenty of people on here that think the strength of the Citreon box is undermimed im hoping that they are right. Thats not to say i wont change the transmission at a latter date. Maybe once the car is on the road and i have had some time to enjoy it i will start gathering parts to take the brakes outboard with a UN1 tranmission set up.

Time will tell. Also at present i have no idea as to the reliability of the transmission as the car had sat for 17 years! Once its running if i find the box to be faulty then i will upgrade and do the brakes etc straight away rather than rebuild the Citreon box.

[mangel]

Good decision wayne, reckon you'll have a corker once this is finished!!

[nigel cowell]

The clutch slave will not give you a problem as i left it in the same position on my old s3 zetec conversion.

As for the clutch and flywheel i used mondeo with lotus friction plate and have had no trouble in over two years.The only thing that i had to do

was space the flywheel out by about 20mm so that it was in the right position for the input shaft and friction plat splines. I also mounted a bearing

in the spacer for the shaft to run in.

In a crazy move to use what i had got and save money i mounted the mondeo starter on the gearbox as a mondeo would, it was lineup hell but got there in the end.

The conversion plat i made myself from 10mm steel for strength as i was trying to keep it as thin as possible.

hope that helps Nigel

[wayneb911]

Thanks Nigel

I will have a go at the adapter soon as the engien arrives next week. Hopefully it all goes to plan and i can trial fit it within the week as well. Will see what i comeup against with the input shaft. DS Vittess has some longer shafts so i may get away with purchasing one and then just having the flywheel machined for a bigger bearing as Punky did. Or i could have the input shaft machined down to fit the HJaguar spigot bearing.

[lotusross]

I haven't seen it - so maybe I don't know what I am talking about - but if the end of the input shaft of the Lotus gearbox is too big, you might want to have the spigot bearing machined to be larger to fit the Lotus shaft.

I always knew this as a "pilot" bearing as it lined the shaft and engine up together. They usually come out of the end of the flywheel and it would be much easier to machine that (just use a brass bushing and liberal amounts of grease) - like Chev's and BMW engines do.

Just a thought.

[wayneb911]

Had a look into the Flywheels. As thought the ST220 and the Jaguar engine share the same dual mass flywheel. The standard flywheel from a 2.5 has the same bolt patterns and same crankshaft centre bore. The only difference i can see is that the earlier 2.5 flywheel has 2 dowel locating points which are in a different position to the 3.0. Does anyone know if this is essential or if it would be safe to use the bolt points only and not the dowel locations? Most older engines ie the rover V8 did not have locating dowels only the bolts so not sure they would be to essential. Are they simply for location or extra stiffness.

If i am able to use a standard 2.5 flywheel then i will also be able to use the pressure plate from a 2.5. Not sure how the starter will position against the new flywheel yet so still need to look at that. The Jaguar engine has a dust cover that goes behind the flywheel, a thin steel plate so least this will give me the basic location anyway.

My plan for the input shaft if i can do it would be to machine the shaft down slightly to fit the standard spigott unless its better to go for a larger one to fit the shaft?

[Guest surferphil]

Is this the same engine block as the Noble? That's mid engined has anyone thought of looking to see what gear box is in there?

[wayneb911]

Hi Phil this is pretty much the same engine except that noble take the ST220 engine varient and not Jaguar, also a lot more engineering work went into the noble engine for the turbo conversion. From what i remember the engine is fitted transverse in the Noble. Will ahve to double check that

[Guest surferphil]

Hi Phil this is pretty much the same engine except that noble take the ST220 engine varient and not Jaguar, also a lot more engineering work went into the noble engine for the turbo conversion. From what i remember the engine is fitted transverse in the Noble. Will ahve to double check that

Yes I think it is, I didn't think of that.

[hilly]

Wayne

The dowels are only there for alignment, the flywheel on my Audi V8 doesn't have any dowels, just 10 bolts.

Remember once the flywheel bolts are done up tight it is the friction between the end of the crank and the flwheel (due to the compressive force of the bolts) that locks the 2 together.

If the flywheel is transmitting force via the bolts then it means that the 2 are moving and the bolts aren't tight enough !!!!

Hilly

[wayneb911]

Thanks Hilly

So im guessing that i will be able to get away with a standard 2.5 flywheel which will reduce the cost alot more also. I will update everyone on that once i have trial fitted one to confirm this is the case.

Im deffinately researching all my aspects a lot better on this engine and ensuring that i get everything right.

[nigel cowell]

The reason i used a thin conversion plate and spaced the flywheel out 20mm was because the input shaft was to short to reach. This may

not be the case with the jag flywheel. Just something to bear in mind when you do your initial lineup.

Nigel