[DML] Re: Delorean Choice of PRV
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DML] Re: Delorean Choice of PRV



I agree that the PRV is a good choice as an engine. I have to find out what my mechanic 
adjusted the timing for, but my old engine always had great pick up and go after the first 
time he worked on it. No, I wasn't going to win any major drag races per se, but the thing 
had endless torque. Whenever I'd be in traffic and would hit a steep hill, other cars would 
slow and become bogged down. Whereas in the DeLorean would just keep gaining speed 
without having to press down on the gas pedal much. Driving through the mountains was 
never a problem either.

Now here is something DeLorean related too about the AMC 2.5 engines that some here 
may be interested in. Yep, the AMC 2.5 & 4.0 are essentially the same engine with just 2 
cylinders lopped off (I had the Dakota and a Wrangler I-6 at the same time and got to 
compare them). Water pumps, pulleys, oil filters, you name it, they all fit. However, there is 
one major difference and that is the bellhousing bolt pattern. AMC at the time was still 
using GM engines in their Jeeps, and didn't want to interrupt parts supplies with retooling. 
The bolt pattern of the AMC 2.5 is shared with the "Iron Duke" I-4, the Buick 2.8 60° V6, 
and the Buick 3.8L TRANSVERSE engine.

How does this tie in with the DeLorean? In my quest for an engine swap I started gathering 
documentation on the Eagle Premier. What I found is that the Eagle Premier/Dodge 
Monaco came with an Stick Shift option for the 2.5, and they used a UN1 transmission. I've 
checked around and most websites all show that the car was never equiped with the 5-
speed, but the Sales booklet I have for the premier actually does in fact show the UN1 as 
an option. Now it has been said that the option of a 5-speed was dropped VERY early on in 
1987 or so. And what's odd is that a couple of years ago, www.car-part.com was listing 
the M/T as an option that you could search for, and even the EPA lists this supposedly 
non-existant configuation on their website for fuel economy:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/4650.shtml

So the question is if the option was ever dropped, was any tooling made for this engine 
option? Especailly if it appears to have been submitted for fuel economy testing. If so, and 
you could get your hands onto one of those bell houses, you might just have a factory 
made adaptor to mount the DeLorean 369 trans up to the Buick engines.

-Robert
vin 6585 "X"



--- In dmcnews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "content22207" <brobertson@...> wrote:
>
> Regarding DMC's decision of the PRV as the best engine choice at the time:
> 
> The PRV catches a lot of flak in the Delo community, but it really
> isn't a bad little engine, even in the low compression normally
> aspirated form we all know and love. DMC's stock exhaust setup does
> hobble it tremendously. I also think that Lambda runs it too lean, and
> DMC definitely uses too much spark advance (am I the only one to
> notice that DMC advises 13 degrees at idle, which BTW is set 125 RPM
> lower than Volvo F series, yet Page C:05:03 of the Workshop Manual
> clearly shows Volvo's 10 degree timing mark?). My vehicle is hardly
> tuned for performance -- it is tuned to get to Pigeon Forge after a
> catastrophic engine failure less than two weeks before showtime -- yet
> it still outperforms stock DMC's. A few simple modifications can open
> a whole new world of driving fun.
> 
> Since you mentioned the AMC 2.5, here's a bit of trivia: The 2.5 is
> fundamentally nothing more than a 258 with two cylinders cut off --
> further evidence of that venerable engine's good design. Chrysler had
> to use it because Lee Iacoca, in his infinite wisdom, had thrown away
> all of Chrysler's cast iron blocks. The LH platform (designed by AMC
> engineers while Chrysler's people tinkered with what was left of the K
> platform) also used the PRV, although I think it was even fire by that
> point.
> 
> Bill Robertson
> #5939
> 
> >--- In dmcnews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "therealdmcvegas" <dmcvegas@> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, that still only half-true.
> > 
> > An engine does have to be certified on it's own as an engine. That
> in itself IS a lengthy 
> > process. Next it must be tested in an individual vehicle platform,
> which is a far less 
> > lengthy process comparatively. This proves that under load of a
> particular vehicle 
> > platform, it still stays withing emissions standards.
> > 
> > http://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm
<SNIP>



To address comments privately to the moderating team, please address:
moderators@xxxxxxxxxxx

For more info on the list, tech articles, cars for sale see www.dmcnews.com

To search the archives or view files, log in at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dmcnews 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dmcnews/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dmcnews/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:dmcnews-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    mailto:dmcnews-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    dmcnews-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Home Back to the Home of PROJECT VIXEN


Copyright 2006 ProjectVixen.com.  All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in posts reflect the views of their respective authors.
DMCForum Mailing List Archive  DMCNews Mailing List Archive  DMC-UK Mailing List Archive