Conference terri::cars_uk

    You might care to check with either the Mk I Granada Owner's Club or
    the Granada Mk II Register. You can get to the latter via the former.
    The Sierra box has been used on Mk I's and II's and even a Mk I with a
    Rover V8 ..........you can find the address of the Mk i GOC in the note
    that deals with car clubs.
    
    Are you sure that just changing the 'box will solve the real problem
    which is that for a relatively heavy car (let alone a car with a 'van
    on the end of the hook) the 2L motor is a bit gut-less.......what is
    really needed is a lot more torque lower down.

RE:                    <<< Note 1596.1 by LARVAE::CLEMENTS_D >>>
�                 -< Possible, but will it solve the problem? >-

�    Rover V8 ..........you can find the address of the Mk i GOC in the note
�    that deals with car clubs.
    
    Thanks, I'll try that. I was hoping someone might already be a member!
    I know it's possible, because I've seen a couple of "conversions".

�    Are you sure that just changing the 'box will solve the real problem
�    which is that for a relatively heavy car (let alone a car with a 'van
�    on the end of the hook) the 2L motor is a bit gut-less.......what is
�    really needed is a lot more torque lower down.
    
    Of course, you're right, but it must help. As some of you know, I live
    in Brussels, and driving here is well.... different! The auto poses two
    problems. Firstly, it's very slow off the mark unless you "floor it".
    This involves revving the thing up to around 5K between gear changes.
    Being slow off the mark in Brussels can be dangerous, life threatening
    even, and I'm not joking....
    
    Secondly, I do a lot of motorway driving here, and the traffic moves
    much faster than in the UK. Here it's not at all uncommon to see cars
    travelling at 120MPH+, something I notice is much rarer at home since
    they started banning for 100+. I like to run at about 90ish MPH and the
    Granny is really revving at this speed, over the 5.5K mark. Aside from
    the strain on the engine, it's noisy too.
    
    Lastly, I can't afford a new car (what I really need) until the end of
    next summer at the very earliest. As my wife (main user) does more than
    50 miles a day just dropping the children off at school, even a 15%
    saving would be a help!
    
    Laurie.

    	Have you considered a 2.8 l engine? It sounds like the poor 2 l
    pinto is really a bit stressed moving the Grandad around. Latter
    versions were fitted with this engine, don't know about the Mark 1.
    You might be able to pick up a 2.8 l and auto, or manual box fairly 
    cheaply. If the bodyshell is designed to take this, then the conversion
    shouldn't be too difficult, especially with an auto box. Fuel
    consumption would still be pretty bad, but the engine wouldn't be
    working so hard and you'd be able to get it moving a bit quicker.

    I had thought about it, but it's the more expensive option, and
    consumption is worse (according to the book) by a significant degree.
    
    It's a MK II Estate BTW, 1985
    
    Laurie.

    MK I's came (at various times) with the 3.0 Essex, the 2.0 Pinto and a
    German built 2.5. They all came in manual or auto form. Conversions
    that have been done are insertion of the 2.8, 2.3 and 2.5 lumps and also the
    2.1 diesel. "Non-standard" conversions recorded are 3.1 out of the
    Capri, the Rover V8 mentioned and the Ford 302ci V8. This latter was a
    commercial version available in South Africa called the "Perana".
    
    I rather fear that the answer to the question that you are asking as
    rather of the variety "I wouldn't start from here, mate"......
    
    The problem isn't so much in the box as in the amount of mass that you
    are trying to move. Even with the 3.0l in the Mk I or the 2.8l in the
    Mk II and the auto box the Granny was a very smooth mover but no one
    would eever accuse them of being quick off the mark (my Mk I 3.0 saloon
    does 0-60 in about 12 secs and it's a race to see whether I can get to
    the end of the speedo before the petrol guage gets from Full to Empty). The Mk II was a
    better bet in that area than the Mk I, but still no greyhound. Add that
    to a desire for better economy and you are on to a hiding for nothing.
    Either you get tyhe performance that you need out of a smaller can
    (which will probably be more economical) or, if you really need the
    size of car the Granny affords, pays the price in terms of fuel
    consumption, or get poor performance with poor consumption...... 
    
    In order of preference (and assuming that you want to keep the estate:
    
    1	replace 2.0 with 2.8. You might be a ble to keep to the current
    auto box and just replace the bell housing
    2	replace 2.8 with 2.8 + auto box
    3	replace 2.0 with 2.8 + manual box
    4	replace 2.0 with 2.3 + auto box
    5	replace 2.0 with 2.3 + manual box
    6	replace auto box with manual
    7	sell car
    
    There's not much difference between the 2.3 and 2.0 in terms of
    consumption (I had a 2.3L saloon for 2 yrs) but the difference is
    masses more torque lower down.
    

    About performance; I've seen in a US magazine about Mustangs etc (the name
    of the magazine just does not occur into my mind) an article of Aussie
    Granadas. They equipped them with 351 cid clevelands that gave 250-300
    hp as standard. 
    
    - Jyri -
    

    Just spotted this note so I hope my reply is not too late.
    
    As a former Granada owner (2.0L MkI, 2.5L MkI, 2.3L MkII all maual and
    a 2.8L auto) they are heavy bodies that drink fuel at speed.  Avarage
    for the Pinto engined version was 25 mpg in mixed (including motorways)
    driving.  If driven hard at speed this could get down to 22mpg! The
    problem with yours is that it is auto.  The Ford C3 and C4 three speed
    boxes are very poor at speed at transmitting all the available power to
    the back wheels.  The latest Granadas with the four speed lock up auto
    is a much better proposition but I am not sure about interchangability.
    
    A conversion to a manual gearbox from memory will require a new
    flywheel and clutch (obviously) but I think you will find subtle
    differences in the exhaust system and the carburettor area as the
    controls will be different (no kick down cable or vacuum sensor).  If
    the engine has done a big mileage it may be worth considering a
    complete engine and gearbox transplant from a wreck.
    
    On the suggestion of putting in the 2.8 V6 - don't!  The 2.8L uses so
    many different drive train components.  The drive shafts and propshafts
    are different as is the entire braking system.  If something on a
    conversion failed your insurence company could dishonour any claim that
    may arise.
    
    On a final note, have you had the engine checked to ensure that it is
    in the best state of tune?  Maybe the answer is to drive slower  :-(

    RE: -1. Many thanks.
    
    Food for thought certainly. An engine/gearbox swap sounds a good idea,
    especially if I rebuild the engine first. Hmmm......
    
    I'll check up on the exhaust problems. 
    
    Does anyone know if the wheelbase on the estate is the same as the
    saloon? I was thinking of the propshaft...
    
    Laurie.

    Laurie, if you are getting heavily into this engine/transmission
    change/swap project..... most if not all the questions that you'll need
    answers to are available from the gurus in the Granada Owners Club
    which incorporates a Mk 2n Register. Address is given elsewhere in this
    conference in the appropriate note.
    
    Re last but two..... agreed that if you try to stuff the 2.8 into a car
    currently carrying a 2.0 then there will be problems with things like
    manifolds and exhaust pipes and the likes. I agree that the brakes will
    need to be upgraded, but this can be simply done by replacing the
    current discs and calipers with those from a 2.8. I think that they
    were ventilated on the 2.8 as standard, but the estates might have got
    ventilated rotors as a matter of course.
    
    There really isn't a problem with putting the 2.8 into a 2.0: the
    easiest way is to get a junked 2.8 saloon or estate and use that as a
    spares ship so you have access to all the odds and sods that you'll need
    to make the exchange.......

    RE: -1
    
    Thanks, I've actually written to the Granada  Owners' Club on this very
    matter. It seems the obvious place to go really.
    
    I don't really want to put a bigger engine in, I think that a manual
    2.0 will fulfill my needs. All I want is better fuel consumption at
    high speed and around town, and better acceleration from rest to 30
    mph. I realise that I'd get the speed from a bigger engine, but the
    fuel consumption would plummet from its current, already low enough,
    20mpg. No, I'm convinced that a manual 5-speed will sort things out
    nicely, for the minimum of work.
    
    Laurie.
    I'm more than prepared to live with it's shortcomings because it's
    a superb family car in most respects.