ALFAGTV6.COM

We know the 2.8 conversions mixing 2.5 and 3.0 v6 engine parts.

But, what about mixing 2.0 v6 turbo and 3.0 v6 engine parts?

3.0 is 93mm * 72.60

2.0 is 80mm * 66.20

So 2.7 must be 93 * 66.20

I have to search for 2.0 v6 turbo at junkyards....

There is a guy parting one out just over the border in Portugal! See www.alfanord.pt

It is listed on the homepage.

Why do you want to make the extremely short stroke 3.0 even shorter in strroke? The limiting factor is the exhaust rocker in the head so there is no use giving up 10% displacement IMO.

To stirr the soup I'd continue on Mats' mumbling and tell you to put 24V heads on it. 10 krpm rules

I bet the 24v can rev 10k with stock geomery, just buy expensive parts and it will work.
Then you also need to update the whole driveline, perfect.

do you think wasting the time to go from a 2.5 to a 2.7 when you are talking turbos is really worth it in price? im sure a few extra psi and the rigth comp will be alot easier.

I agree. It's a lot easier and less expensive to get more power via more boost, cooler intake air temps etc.

I got this very same crazy 2.7 idea! My 164 Super 2.0 V6 TB threw a rod. Throwing rods should be expected when you let a teen drive a high mileage turbo car and they opt for 6500+ rpm on a long straight highway.

The damage included a horse shoe like rod, one fully destroyed piston and broken skirts on a second piston. For the price of a new rod and two pistons/liners, I could have purchased a very nice used 2.0 V6 replacement engine.

At some point it struck me that I could merge the broken 2.0 turbo V6 with my 40k mile 3.0 block with pistons. The build objective was simply to test this low budget modification. The 2.7 build substituted the 2.0 crank into the 3.0 block. The 3.0 block was dated 1992 and had all surfaces for mounting the turbo bracket and knock sensors, oil filter housing. Drill, tap and mount. Engine simulation software suggested that using the 2.0 heads would not be a huge disadvantage. I rolled the dice by choosing not to have the engine balanced. The 2.0 and 3.0 flywheels weigh the same. Yet, visually the hollowed balance section is much different. I opted for the 3.0 flywheel.

2.7 V6 turbo details:
Squadra Tuning 2.0 chip set
uprated injectors
Heads refreshed with new guides, seals and springs
3.0 flywheel

The car has been on the road for about a month with very good results. The car was expected to be rather rough running due to the chance merge of Squadra Tuning 2.0 maps and larger injectors. However, driving is quite smooth and very enjoyable. Unfortunately, the large increase in power is matched by fuel consumption. Previously the fuel consumption of 21 MPG is now about 16 MPG US, about 15L/100km.

Ken

Unless Squadra specifically mapped that ecu for your unique engine, the high fuel consumption is probably because of the larger injectors you installed.

The narrowband o2 sensor can only pull so much fuel at cruise and around town..

Some calculations I did show a hybrid built from a 9.5:1 3l with a 2.5l crank drops the compression off to 8:5 compression...

Squadra build a 2.8 Tb Spider 916.

It has the Spider 3.0 12v engine with a 2.5 crank. compression drops from 10:1 to 7.7:1.

330bhp and 420+ Nm is not too bad for a 12v i guess.

In the link above you can read more about it in Dutch... Google translate is your friend.