What Motor For My Rodeo?

[matsfgxr6turbo]

don't knock the 1uz toyota v8 they sound great and rev hard much better than boat anchor bosses that ford were running until recently I'd wack in one of those then bolt up a turbo or sc conversion and the old rodeo would fly

[Panda Eyes]

supercharged v6 makes 30kw more than n/a- not worth it. do osme research on 1uz motors and they are closely designed on race engines used in u.s.

very well engineered- very understressed. proven to go and go and go. 6 bolt mains- hypereutectic pistons- steel rods etc.

quad cam makes them very economical and efficient. respond well to free flowing exhaust too.

[Panda Eyes]

found this on the transport sa website:

___________________________________________________________________________________

EXEMPTION FOR ENGINE CHANGES TO CARS, CAR TYPE UTILITIES AND CAR TYPE PANEL VANS

South Australian Government Gazette, 12 October 2000 Page 1 of 2

EXEMPTION FOR ENGINE CHANGES TO CARS, CAR TYPE UTILITIES AND CAR TYPE PANEL VANS

S.A Government Gazette, 12 October 2000

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961

Exemption for Engine Changes to Cars, Car Type Utilities and Car Type Panel Vans

PURSUANT to the provisions of section 163AA of the Road Traffic Act, I, T. N. Argent, Executive Director, Transport

SA, as authorised delegate of the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning, hereby exempt cars, car type utilities and car

type panel vans:

From the following provisions of the Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Rules 1999:

• Rule 19 – Compliance with second edition Australian Design Rules;

• Rule 20 – Compliance with third edition Australian Design Rules; and

From the following provisions of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 1999:

• Regulation 25(3) (b) – Modification of motor vehicles:

For:

1. The fitting of a replacement petrol engine to vehicles manufactured to comply with Australian Design Rules 26, 27,

27A, 27B and 27C – Vehicle Emission Control, subject to the following conditions:

1.1. That the engine does not have a greater displacement volume than an engine available as an option for the

vehicle and that the braking system is the same as that fitted by the vehicle manufacturer for the engine

concerned.

1.2. That the engines fitted to vehicles manufactured on or after 1 January 1972, incorporate a positive crankcase

ventilation system.

1.3. That the engine fitted to passenger cars manufactured on or after 1 January 1972, but prior to 1 January 1974,

does not have a carbon monoxide exhaust emission output which exceeds 4.5 percent, at the vehicle

manufacturer’s recommended engine idle speed.

1.4. That the engine fitted to passenger cars manufactured on or after 1 January 1974 but prior to 1 July 1976 does

not have a carbon monoxide emission output which exceeds 4.5 percent and a hydrocarbon exhaust emission

output which exceeds 250 parts per million at the vehicle manufacturer’s recommended engine idle speed.

1.5. That the engine fitted to vehicles manufactured on or after 1 July 1976, incorporates a system which does not

permit crankcase gases to escape directly into the atmosphere.

1.6. That the engine fitted to vehicles manufactured on or after 1 July 1976, but prior to 1 January 1986, does not

have a carbon monoxide exhaust emission output which exceeds 2.5 percent and a hydrocarbon exhaust emission

output which exceeds 250 parts per million, at vehicle manufacturer’s recommended engine idle speed.

1.7. That the engine fitted to cars manufactured on or after 1 January 1974, car type utilities manufactured on or after

1 July 1976 and car type panel vans manufactured on or after 1 July 1976, the engine camshaft, inlet manifold,

air cleaner, air intake system or internal engine components (apart from the normal reconditioning process) are

not altered from the original manufacturer’s specifications. A carburettor which was not supplied as original

equipment by the vehicle manufacturer may be fitted provided that the carburettor is equipped with the same

number of venturis, it has an air flow rating that is within 5 percent of the manufacturer’s original carburettor

specifications and all emission control features fitted to the original carburettor are able to be reconnected and

operate effectively.

1.8. That all original equipment emission control features applicable to the engine are fitted and operate effectively.

1.9. That if the engine has been reconditioned to a later Australian Design Rule specification all emission control

features applicable to the later Australian Design Rule engine are fitted and operate effectively.

1.10. That vehicles manufactured on or after 1 July 1976 are fitted with an effective evaporative emission control

system.

2. Notwithstanding Clause 1, the fitting of a larger capacity engine to vehicles tabled in the Category 1 Approved Engine

Change List issued by Transport SA, varied or substituted from time to time is permitted and subject to the following:

2.1. That the engine fitted meets the requirements of Clause 1, Conditions 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9.

[ratter]

don't knock the 1uz toyota v8 they sound great and rev hard much better than boat anchor bosses that ford were running until recently I'd wack in one of those then bolt up a turbo or sc conversion and the old rodeo would fly

Yeah seen heaps of them run 11's and rev to 7000 rpm

[Panda Eyes]

I dont want the fastest car on the road guys. I just cant see the point of spending 6k on a new oem spec motor when a good conversion can be done for similar $$$.

195kw and a heap more torqu3 is better than 153.......

[Panda Eyes]

contacted my engineer and got a reply tonight:

Dear Scott,

It is good to hear from you again.

An issue at stake is whether or not the emissions standard of the replacement engine matches the date of build of the vehicle.

In 2004 the Rodeo had to comply with ADR 79/00, a European regulation. The 1997 specification engines in Australia were required to meet ADR37/01, a rule based upon the US Federal Test Procedure.

In reality, the world would is not worse for the use of an ADR 37/01 engine. However, the test procedure is different and the newer rule was sufficiently elaborated to preclude an engine designed for ADR 37/01 from passing ADR 79/00 on procedural grounds rather than a risk to the world basis. Such is the politics of environmental protection and the contrivance of bureaucracy.

On the basis of track record, there would be some in the Department of Transport who would understand and accept your proposal but others who would not.

If you wished to continue with the idea, I would be happy to support it in principle.

I will forward copies of this to David Gunner (8348 9623) and Rickman Smith of the Department who may be able to give you the official position and may also be prepared to support an application for exemption from the detail of the regulations pursuant to the Road Traffic Act in order to allow you to do it.

So debauched is reason at present that many in authority would prefer that you scrapped your seven year old vehicle and arranged to dig up 3 tonnes of iron ore and 500 kg of bauxite and have it smelted and add $40000 of labour to make a new vehicle to the later emission standard.

Not in 200 years or ever could the world be any better than your current proposal. Neither would reversion to a horse and cart.

I think your idea is sound, supportive others are needed.

Yours sincerely,

DP

[sexual harrassment panda]

I had a 3.5 rodeo, I chose it over the 3.8 one ton commodore, both were meant to have 147kw

3.5 was the jackeroo engine which had 171kw.

Take out your Y pipe after the cat converters and bin it and get another one made up. Expensive Daewoo had welded in washers to restrict the flow and cut power so the work ute wouldn't be more powerful then the commodore.

Also get rid of the pesky speed limiter and 6500rpm rev limiter if you are going to play with the computer. they are a better engine then the pushrod 3.8

[Panda Eyes]

has a 2.5 all the way through and a truck muffler, as for them being better than this or that- try telling mine (and many others when you start researching them) and maybe it will pull its big end back together!

im not spending 4.5k on a recon short motor, that's for sure!

[car 4]

I bet your engineer is doug potts by the sound of his reply he done the engineering on my ac cobra replica a few yrs ago . if no joy with doug try rory thompson I think his name his .

[Dagabond]

Does running straight gas still circumvent the emissions issue?

....although it'll cost you for the conversion for that as well....but it'll be cheaper to fill...