Impressive spec.  Courtney claim that their 3.0L V6 transplant produces 220bhp - 50bhp up on the original - with a smoother torque curve, although I'm not exactly sure what they claim for the max torque.  Anyway, very impressive for a normally aspirated engine.  Have you had yours tested on a rolling road yet?  If so, is that about what it produces? 

Nice car MarkV6 , and damn impressive spec. can I ask, is that engine something you buy compete off the company or do they "bore" out the exisiting 2.5 engine in the car to 3 litres..?? Just wondering if the lamp is heavier, or the same..??

It just strikes me that if the car looked standard it would be a real "sleeper" with a 3.0litre V6 under the hood. But that me..

And the great thing about your car is: it's yours so make it as you want it.. It's a nice job and please post more pics as the future upgrades you mentioned get done.

PS: can you post some pics of your engine..??

Very smart!! I want 3.0 litres!!!

you can soon order your ClubCalibra.com window stickers for that extra bit of class!

Yeah but .net stickers do look good 

Superb looking V6. Nice engine spec

"I bought an X30XE out of an Omega.  Externally the 3.0 is the same size as the old 2.5 it replaced, probably weighs a bit less as it has a larger bore and stroke than a 2.5.  The only way to tell its a 3.0 is to look at the engine code."

Thanks for the answer MarkV6, but I'm a tad confused: isn't the Omega block longitudinal while the calibra one is transverse..?? Does everything match up..??  If so, just suprised that lots of people haven't done the conversion if it's doable.

(I thinik clubcalibra member "dicky" has done the conversion as well.)

Thanks for the answer MarkV6, but I'm a tad confused: isn't the Omega block longitudinal while the calibra one is transverse..?? Does everything match up..??  If so, just suprised that lots of people haven't done the conversion if it's doable.

(I thinik clubcalibra member "dicky" has done the conversion as well.)

The Omega engine is indeed mounted longitudinally and the Calibra one is transverse.  But the engine still spins the same way.  Mount this to a Calibra gearbox and 'hey presto'.  All engine mounts on the 3.0 block are in the same place as the 2.5 as are all the sensor points.

As I said in a previous post, externally the 3.0 block is the same as the 2.5 just bored and stroked to give a 3.0 capacity.  Can't see GM making two different block designs just because they're mounted differently.  Think economics......

Dicky has also done the conversion, (after asking me for the information) but his engine has spun a big end bearing shell.  I think he may rebuild it but cannot confirm ATM.

I must say that I was surprised by this too.  Whilst I can see that it doesn't matter which way round the engine is mounted, I would expect the mounting points to be different, to cope with the different stresses on a longitudinal engine compared to a transverse one.

More significantly, in one the crankshaft will be running fore-and-aft, in the other across the car.  In the former case the gearbox must be behind the engine, near the centreline of the car and the gear-change linkage; in the transverse layout it must be at the end of the engine, but on one side of the car & at right angles.  Is the Omega rwd, or fwd?

The engine still spins the same way so the stresses will be the same.  Plus you're only using the engine and keeping the Calibra gearbox and linkage, so that will not cause any problems.  The Omega is RWD by the way.....

At work at the moment but will dig out some of my posts from .net with all the info on the conversion job

HTH you guys....

Can't see GM making two different block designs just because they're mounted differently.  Think economics......

The engine still spins the same way so the stresses will be the same.  Plus you're only using the engine and keeping the Calibra gearbox and linkage, so that will not cause any problems.  The Omega is RWD by the way.....

I understand about GM not developing two completely different blocks for similar sized engines.  I was thinking more about the external engine mountings.  i.e.  I was thinking less about the stresses arising from the torque of the engine and more about the stresses caused by rapid acceleration and decceleration (i.e. fore & aft movement) and hard cornering (side to side movement).

Under hard acceleration & braking the longitudinally mounted engine will be pivoting along its long axis, so it should resist rotation better, it will also be supported more by the prop shaft going to the rear diff; but under hard cornering it will rotate about its long axis, across its shorter axis.

Under hard acceleration & braking the transversely mounted engine will tend to rotate more, but in cornering there should be more resistance to rotation, because the engine & gearbox are rotating along their long axis.

That is why I am surprised that the mountings are the same in such different configurations... although I understand that they are.

what is the estimated hp of this monster?

I was hoping for about 230 - 240 bhp, but, had a .net RR session back in april which featured in Total Vauxhall magazine and only pulled 206 bhp  on the rollers.

I have an excuse though 

The cams have a letter stamped on them for which side they're meant to go (inlet 'G' or exhaust 'A' )  I had the 'G' cams in the rear bank and the 'A' cams in the front bank    I have now put them in the right place.  Still running the 2.5 injectors at 4 bar pressure so they will be a limiting factor and had a wierd fuelling problem from 4600 rpm (see picture)


Want to get the 3.0 injectors cleaned/checked/fitted, and a new lambda sensor fitted.  May RR it again to see if I still have the fuelling 'squiggle'

Took a trek down to Longbridge Mill today, mostly to re-bed in the cams and the new front brakes which I fitted the day before.

First one there....



Something I'm keeping an eye on though, wasn't giving it full beans on the way down, because she's not really been run since I put the cams in the right place, but she 'felt' a little flat on performance.

Maybe on my old champiro GT tyres, they gave less grip and caused the LSD to lock more often. On the way back off a couple of roundabouts I planted it and got nowhere near as much 'fight' back through the steering. Maybe the bridgestones are soooo much better.

Perhaps I ought to take the stuff out of the boot (two 3 ton trolley jacks, two full toolboxes, spare parts, junk and scrap, etc etc)

On the plus side.......the new brakes already feel loads better, even though they are still bedding in....

A fully 'tweaked' 3.0 should be good for about 230-40 bhp excluding any exhaust modifications, but it isn't cheap.

I just hand over the credit card now, spend too much to even bother looking at the bill anymore 

Mantzel do an inlet/plenum chamber for 676.50 euros

I'll be looking to get one soon next year.

TBH I knew it would be cheaper and easier to get more power out of a turbo, but people have already done that.  Aside from Frank D's monster how many sixers do you know of over 200 bhp.

A fully 'tweaked' 3.0 should be good for about 230-40 bhp excluding any exhaust modifications, but it isn't cheap.

Aside from Frank D's monster how many sixers do you know of over 200 bhp.

There are a few with between 220-240bhp, but not many much over that.  In any case, once you go much over that you start reaching the limits of fwd - that's one reason the Turbo had 4x4, to cope with the slightly higher power.  If you want a 300bhp monster, you'd be better off starting with a rwd or 4x4 car.

What are you people on about, limits of FWD.  I've seen and driven plenty of FWD cars with over 300.  Traction was only an issue if you really jumped on it, as it is with a RWD also.  4x4 I'll give ya.  I'm just tired of all this sh*t about too much mpower for a front drive, BULL sh*t, just learn how to drive one.

It's not a 'matter of opinion' - mine or anyone else's - it's a simple matter of physics:

When you brake hard load is transferred forwards onto the front axle, which increases the load on the front wheels.  Up to the point of skidding, this increases the braking effect on the front wheels; once the wheels have lost grip the extra load causes skidding, until the cause (excessive braking &/or cornering) is removed.  Meanwhile the back end goes light, which is why, in a corner the car can go into oversteer.

The opposite is true when you accelerate hard, load is transferred backwards onto the rear axle, which increases traction, so the rear wheels have more traction, up to the point that they skid.  In a straight line, with rwd, this may just cause 'snaking'; on a corner, especially in slippery conditions, it causes oversteer.  Meanwhile, the front end goes light, so the front wheels have less grip.

If you don't believe this, you only have to watch a drag car - or any car for that matter - accelerating away from the line on a drag strip!

As a result of this immutable fact, if the front wheels are the driven wheels they lose grip much more quickly than driven rear wheels - so fwd cars start spinning their front wheels (i.e. losing traction) under hard acceleration far sooner than rwd cars do.  Once they have lost traction, the coefficient of sliding friction being far lower than the coefficient of static friction, it much more difficult to regain grip.

Of course, a 4x4 transfers drive from wheels that are begining to slip, to wheels that still have traction, so despite greater friction losses in the drive train they can use more of their power to accelerate.

The limits traction are affected by a whole range of variables: the power reaching the wheels; the weight of the vehicle; the size & adhesion of the tyres; the grip of the road surface; the suspension set-up (which was why the rwd Capri, with it's beam rear axle & leaf spring suspension couldn't make the most of its rwd) etc.

If fwd was as effective at getting power onto the road as rwd, F1 cars would use it.  The fact is that it isn't.  You also need to take into consideration the fact that it is easier to have larger tyres to handle enormous power, if you don't have to steer the wheels - which is why dragsters have huge rear tyres and tiny little ones - and why some powerful sports cars & some Calibras have fatter wheels on the back, but never more than 8-8 1/2" wheels on the front.

What the 'limit' is will vary according to the combination of variables, but fwd will invariably reach these limits under acceleration before rwd.  I don't know exactly what the 'sensible' limit for fwd is, but I reckon that Vx didn't get it far wrong when they realised that the over 200bhp of the Turbo needed 4x4.

From my experience in Kingsley's Courtney 3.0L conversion Calibra I guess that 240-250bhp is probably about the 'sensible' limit for fwd in the Calibra.  However, even I acknowledge that 'probably the best Calibra in the world' (Frank's 3.2L supercharged 'Beast') produced well over 300bhp (& at the end, with nitrous, around 500bhp) & still was a fabulous car.  Despite that, the simple fact was that fwd limited the extent to which Frank could realistically use all that power & made driving it a much more skilled exercise.

Now, now, play nice in my thread you two 

I hope that I wasn't rude in my response - I certainly didn't accuse anyone of talking 'bullsh*t' - just stated the facts.

TBH I'm not too bothered about traffic light starts, more the overtake capability of slower traffic from 50 mph onwards where traction shouldn't be so much of an issue.  Granted if I start to get wheelspin in third that may be a problem 

I agree, there are very few occasions when the 'traffic light grand prix' is worth the cost of fuel & rubber, or embarrassment of trying to out drag some other car!  'Rev. Rev. Rev. Drop the clutch. Squeal the tyres.  Lay down black lines on the road. Beat some other punter off the lights by fractions of a second - who might not even have been trying (the number of times I let lesser cars go, even when I know that what I'm driving could eat them alive, because I can't be bothered to prove that my 'pr*ck' is bigger than theirs).  What's the point?  It's different if you're on a race track, or drag strip.

You'd be hard pushed to spin the wheels of a V6, even in third, at much above 50mph (unless you're also trying to corner at the same time - in which case you'll get understeer).  You already have a fair amount of momentum at those speeds, especially with the weight of the V6 lump, so you have less inertia to overcome.  The extra weight on the front wheels also helps to maintain traction.

With a normally aspirated V6 - even a 3.0L one - you're not likely to be getting much above 220bhp, so still below the limit that I was suggesting is sensible for fwd.  I believe that it is possible to push that up to around 240bhp, but beyond that you really need forced air (super or turbo-charger) to increase the bhp significantly.  It may be possible to do it with normal aspiration - as on an F1 engine - but only by narrowing the power band at the top end of the rev range.

I like to think I drive with a bit of mechanical sympathy (TC light not flashed on for months  ) and at the end of the day be it FWD, RWD, of 4x4, the tyres are what get the power down.

(Also I'm bit of a tightwad and don't like to see my expensive tyres wafting past the window in a cloud of smoke  )

Quite right - when I see drivers laying rubber down unnecessarily, I just think 'dickhead' - they may impress their mates, but not many other people.  I occasionally get the TC light flickering, even on my rwd BMW, but not for long and usually only when conditions are slippery, or very occasionally if I'm accelerating hard off a roundabout.

I hope that I wasn't rude in my response - I certainly didn't accuse anyone of talking 'bullsh*t' - just stated the facts.

Sorry, didn't mean to accuse any one person of talking bullsh*t.  I understand what you're on about, but what you are talking about has to do with racing, hard accel from a stop.  If it's too much for you (I mean the average person there), then let off the gas a bit, that's all.  I preffer RWD cars, but the cally just doesn't come that way, and the turbos are just too hard to find in good condition.  I have found a few, but the ignorant people wanted upwards of 7,000 for them (The cheaper of the ones I found was 7,000 and a 92 with 60,000KM on the dial). 

Again, sorry about coming off as an asswhole who doesn't know anything, or that it seemed directed at one person in particular (It wasn't), and I do know a thing or two about cars and racing.

+++1

I agree too!
The Front wheel drive cars, during on hard acceleration, start loosing traction while the weigh transfers to the back...
Just like the guys before me said, it's not bad at all owning e.g. a 400bhp FWD Calibra , but it's a car that won't be drivable and safe.. by the way (i would say a good point of it) this power might be useful while overtaking at high speed roads 

Agreed.  The only real use a FWD car has with a lot of power, is for accelerating at higher speeds.  Corners and such, much rather do it with rear drive, or AWD, but would preffer RWD in cornering.  FWD will loose traction quick in a corner and send you in an understeer straight for the ditch/tree/wall, if the pedal isn't worked right.  Witnessed this one happen at about 110MPH to a buddy of mine, luckily he was ok (But he entered the corner much to quick)

Depends on what cars they have!

i'm asking if its a worthwhile mod to improve acceleration or if i will spend more time changing gear than accelerating....? ie would it improve the 1/4 mile time/0-60 time etc.
i think the f23 has really really long gearing and if i remember correctly the f28 has the same 5 ratios as the f20cr but with another on top. dunno about the final drive if its the same etc?
basically anyone done it and what do u reckon?
what ricers my mates drive is pretty irrelevant, gonna get humped by a integra dc5 no matter what!

ive been considering that f28 swap too just havent heard of any benifits yet

with regaurds to this fwd buisness surely if we wanted it to be quick at the lights we'd buy the 8v or summit simply because the v6 weight is against it all the time so take off will be crap anyway, or it could work in its favour because of the wieght either way what difference does it really make all have pros and cons just thank full they did make the callys with different engines to suit all, i dont believe there is the best engine of all (rant over)

You know, back in the 80's Chrysler build some racing cars based on their fwd coupe at the time. The cars were doing well against rwd v8 machines and even took the iroc sponsorship away grom the z28 to the dodge daytona cars.

The racing cars had bigger / wider wheels and tyres on the fronts than the rears as well as differnt suspension settings. Would that make  a difference on road cars..??

(mind you, it was the early experimental days)