Slant 6 in 'van via offset custom bellhousing. But I'm dreaming. I heard of a person who managed to fit v8 into old type mini using princess manual transmission. That princess transmission is offset tranmission with clutch offset from transmission via 3 gears in order to fit typical 4 cyl into limited space of that mini at that time.

Chrysler had to do similar trick on PT cruiser to cram 2.4L & transmission into trimble-sized engine bay. VW bus & vanagon owners are no stranger to different engine swaps.

Wonder what is actual length of this /6 from front of damper to back where bellhousing mounts to?

Other than another injected 2.5L, or turbo 2.2 or 2.5 what other nice engine to have to "drop" into 'van? Using adapters or different transmissions is just a "idea".

If you're wondering what is going on with this outworldly thoughts, I have 1987 2.2L 'van nursing it back to health. Body is PERFECT, engine is good but carb is messed up, vac stuff ditto. No idea on overall health of airpump. Having heck of time getting few carbs (5220) to rob parts off to rebuild good one.

Cheers,

Wizard

A slant six is 28.0" from the front of the fan belt to the bellhousing face, and 32.30" from the production fan to the bellhousing face. It sounds like way too much work to mate one to a FWD transaxle. The 2.5 Turbo in a minivan can produce some pretty crazy results - check out TurboMinivan.com!

_________________
"Mad Scientist" Matt Cramer
'66 Dart - turbocharged 225
My blog - Mad Scientist Matt's Lair

The stock 3.3 or 3.8 from the later Caravans would be the best choice because all the parts are there for you in the junkyards. I had a 1994 with the 3.3 and it was a great engine. Tranny wasn't so hot, failed at 75K but the engine was really good. The newer 3.8 makes something like 210HP. I wish my 225 made 150

thats a great site, i knew of a guy who had a chevy small block in an astrovan, i dont think that was a factory option, but i could be wrong....

The 2.2 (135) develops 96HP @ 5200 RPM 119lb-ft @ 3200 rpm.
Also 2.5 (153) is basically stoked 2.2 and generates 100HP @ 4800 RPM 135lb-ft @ 2800 RPM. Turbo 2.2 & 2.5 is appox 140HP & 150HP respectively and more than 160 lb-ft at impressively low rpm 2,000rpm. N/A awful mitsubishi 2.6L is only 104HP 4800rpm, 142lb-ft 2800rpm.

I suspect even /6 170 still is 100hp but has very high torque, anybody care to supply specs on this?

N/A 2.4 matches the former 3.0L specs but heavily computerized. Let alone trying to move all the electricals that computer requires (engine, transmission, interior & cluster to 'van from a 2.4L vehicle where 2.2 & 2.5 is simpler computer design and conductive to engine swaps.

3.3L is GOOD but very thirsty on ill-matched gearings. (appox 18mpg or so on gen 2 'vans.) 4 speed auto had poor gearings for gas mileage because design team thought had insufficient budget to optimize gearings for best gas mileage. Second the mechanical auto 3 speed gearings are too far apart makes rpms go all over big time across different gears, hurts mileages too.

My basic wishlist: good MPG, high torque at low rpm (just off idle to 2000 rpm), HP appox 100 or so, even 150. Chain like slant 6, 3.3 instead of timing belt (Mitsubishi 3.0 is nasty), using computer just for engine itself.
Yeah, wild turbo mods is admirably stunning. I agree 2.2 & 2.5 are amazing engines and kid you not, it was designed by one member of team who did the /6 too. /6 mains should had gotten 7 bearings instead of four for even wilder specs.

I'm stumped that others have yet to do a 2.4, even turbo 2.4 into gen 1 caravans.

170 is appox 2.8L, 198 is appox 3.3L and 225 is about 3.8L.

/6 needs to bring up to 9:x compression ratio & better breathing for N/A applications and flip the head wrong way around especially for caravan applications if required. Mitsubishi 2.6 had less compression than both 2.2 & 2.5 even turbo engines were bit higher than 2.6, I could be wrong.

Cheers,

Wizard