Isuzu SUV Forum banner

6VD1 and 6VE1 engine information and upgrade options.

94K views 54 replies 13 participants last post by  Goldwing1964 
#1 ·
Here is a compiled list of information gathered for the Isuzu v6 engines from '92-04. Various sources have been used but is correct to the best of my knowledge.

Aluminum open-deck v6 24v
Pentroof combustion chamber
9.1:1 CR (may vary through the years)
SOHC and DOHC ('92-95). SOHC only ('96-97). SOHC and DOHC ('98-04)
6VD1 and 6VE1 share the same short-deck block from '92-97, and tall-deck block from '98-04
6VE1 uses a stroked crank, different pistons, 8-deg longer cam duration (same lift as 6VD1). Same rods assuming same year.
4-bolt mains with 2 additional bolts per main through the sides of the block
Cast crank
Forged rods with squirters
Coil-over-plug ignition
Supercharger kit available (Alpine)
6VD1 Bore x Stroke: 93.4 mm x 77 mm
6VE1 Bore x Stroke: 93.4 mm x 85 mm
'92-97 uses shorter con rod. 146mm
'98+ uses longer con rod. 152mm
Pre-'97 crankshaft CAS rings different then '98+
Oil pressure 57-80psi @ 3000rpm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compression Ratios:
'92 3.2L 9.3:1 DOHC&SOHC
'93-'96 3.2L 9.8:1 DOHC, 9.3:1 SOHC
'97-2000 3.2L 9.0:1 DOHC, 3.5L 9.1:1 DOHC
2001-2003 3.5L 9.1:1 DOHC
2004 3.2L 9.1:1 DOHC, 3.5L(GDI) 10.3:1 DOHC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Block info:
'92-97
Shorter deck.
146mm rod.
Crank has 6.937" reluctor.

'98-04
Taller deck.
152mm rod.
Crank has 7.25" reluctor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecting rod info:
'92-97
Length 5.748" (146mm) length
BE 2.244" (57mm)
BE width 0.858 (21.8mm)
SE .866 (22mm)
SE width 0.858 (21.8mm)

'98-04
Length 5.984" (152mm)
BE 2.244" (57mm)
BE width 0.858 (21.8mm)
SE .866 (22mm)
SE width 0.858 (21.8mm)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piston info:
3.677" (93.4mm) bore
1.327" (33.7058mm) Compression Height 3.2L
1.169" (29.6926mm) Compression Height 3.5L
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crankshaft info:
'92-95
CAS forged into center of crank. 6-notch reluctor.

'96-97
CAS pressed onto center of crank. fully-notched 6.937" reluctor.

98-04
CAS pressed onto center of crank. fully-notched 7.250" reluctor.

Flywheel bolt pattern - 8 bolts. 74mm bolt circle. 50mm center bore.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Info:
92-95 SOHC and DOHC.
SOHC Rocker-arm w/ Hydraulic lash adj.
DOHC Cam over mechanical bucket.
DOHC - Single pully for drive belt. Internal chain to interconnect the cams.

'96-97 SOHC only
Rocker-arm w/ Hydraulic lash adj.
Belt drive cam.

'98-04 SOHC and DOHC
SOHC - Rocker-arm w/ Hydraulic lash adj.
DOHC - Cam over mechanical bucket.
DOHC - Single pully for drive belt. Gear driven to cams.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Performance:

For those using the '92-96 blocks, The Toyota/Lexus 1UZ-FE (4.0L v8) uses the same 146mm length rod with the same 22mm pin but the big end is 55mm vs. 57mm for the Isuzu v6. It shouldn't be that expensive to open the big end 2mm and now would be a good time to offset the hole (up to 1mm) to adjust your deck height. If you offset the BE towards the beam, you will drop your piston 1mm. This is true for both the 6VE1 and 6VD1 from '92-96 because they use the same rod.

This could be a great alternative to custom rods IF the widths are usable. I have not verified the width of either end of the Isuzu or Toyota rods. If someone could give me that information I will update the thread ASAP.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT - Here's a good find.

The Toyota 7M-GTE (Toyota Supra Turbo Inline 6) uses a 5.98" (151.892mm) rod. This amounts to a 0.004" shorter CC then the 152mm tall-deck Isuzu rod. Fairly insignificant change in length. As with the 1UZ rod, The 7M has the same 22mm pin as the Isuzu but still has the same 2.166" (55mm) big end as the 1UZ. This rod will also need it's big end opened by 2mm to fit an Isuzu v6 but, more importantly, this rod should fit the newer tall-deck Isuzu blocks AND came from an OEM boosted application with an aftermarket following.

Crower part number is B93757B-6

If there's a direct bolt-in H-beam out there, I'll find it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 7M-GTE rod has a full floating pin. This will require cutting circlip grooves in the Isuzu pistons. I haven't started my piston search yet.

Attached is what a 7M-GTE rod looks like. Note the size compared to the piston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forgot to mention. Cheap 7M-GTE H-beams go for about $300 for 6. Here's a set for $250. http://www.ebay.com/itm/CXRacing-Toyota ... b1&vxp=mtr
 

Attachments

#3 · (Edited by Moderator)
Frankenstein interchange

The heads on the '92-95 v6 appear to have much larger intake ports then the '98-04. The cams are also driven differently. The '92-95 heads use a chain to interconnect the cams. The '98-04 use a gear. Both heads are belt driven from the crankshaft.

The '96-97 SOHC crankshaft uses a reluctor similar to the '98-04 (with teeth all the way around) but has the smaller 6.937" reluctor diameter to fit the short-deck block. I have to verify the tooth count between the '96-97 SOHC crank and the '98-04 crank. If they are the same, it may be possible to use a '96-97 SOHC crank in a '92-95 block and trigger '98-04 electronics. If not, the '98-04 reluctor could be resized to 6.937" and pressed onto a '96-97 SOHC crank. The '92-95 crank has a cast-in reluctor but it may be possable to maching it to accept a 6.937" reluctor. All cranks from '96-04 use a pressed on reluctor.

You can always copy the '98-04 reluctor and make a trigger wheel on the front crank pully.

'92-95 (note intake ports and chain drive cams)

atk110-5.jpg


'98-04 (note intake ports and gear drive cams)

atk110c-5.jpg
 

Attachments

#4 ·
This sounds like a lot of good info, looking forward to the monster motor you put together.
 
#6 ·
Not to nit pick the info because it is a great write up. But I'm pretty sure the '92-95 SHOC engines have hydraulic lash adjusters not mechanical buckets. The DOHC engines do have the mechanical buckets. The only reason I know this is my '94 has the noisey valve train issue and I found a tech report that blamed it on vanish build up on the hydraulic adjusters.

Nice having all this info in one place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quaddingo
#7 ·
if i remember correctly jerry and I a while back were talking putting the cam from a 98 (around that age ) rodeo into my 94 the cam would work and it would give you a small amout of low end grunt
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glitch
#8 ·
Ghost said:
if i remember correctly jerry and I a while back were talking putting the cam from a 98 (around that age ) rodeo into my 94 the cam would work and it would give you a small amout of low end grunt
Correct. The tall deck block (98+) 3.5L used an 8-deg longer duration on it's cams. Part of the reason had to do with the 6mm longer rod and longer 85mm stroke. This ment a slower moving piston near TDC and BDC. I'm unsure if the 3.2L from 98+ used a different cam or not. It may have (due to the longer rod) but the 3.2 maintains the shorter 77mm stroke of the '92-97 3.2s.

Kozak said:
Not to nit pick the info because it is a great write up. But I'm pretty sure the '92-95 SHOC engines have hydraulic lash adjusters not mechanical buckets. The DOHC engines do have the mechanical buckets. The only reason I know this is my '94 has the noisey valve train issue and I found a tech report that blamed it on vanish build up on the hydraulic adjusters.

Nice having all this info in one place.
No problem. You are correct. It was also my understanding the '98-04 we're DOHC only but when I check the online parts manuals for those years I have a SOHC/DOHC choice. Can anyone verify the existence of a production SOHC in '98-04?
 
#9 ·
kickerfox said:
Ghost said:
if i remember correctly jerry and I a while back were talking putting the cam from a 98 (around that age ) rodeo into my 94 the cam would work and it would give you a small amout of low end grunt
THAT WOULD AHVE TO BE THE 97 CAM FOR THE SOHC , THE 98 IS A DOHC ENG

Correct. The tall deck block (98+) 3.5L used an 8-deg longer duration on it's cams. Part of the reason had to do with the 6mm longer rod and longer 85mm stroke. This ment a slower moving piston near TDC and BDC. I'm unsure if the 3.2L from 98+ used a different cam or not. It may have (due to the longer rod) but the 3.2 maintains the shorter 77mm stroke of the '92-97 3.2s.

Kozak said:
Not to nit pick the info because it is a great write up. But I'm pretty sure the '92-95 SHOC engines have hydraulic lash adjusters not mechanical buckets. The DOHC engines do have the mechanical buckets. The only reason I know this is my '94 has the noisey valve train issue and I found a tech report that blamed it on vanish build up on the hydraulic adjusters.

THE DOHC ENGS FROM 92-95 USED HYDRAULIC LIFTERS ALL SO,

Nice having all this info in one place.
No problem. You are correct. It was also my understanding the '98-04 we're DOHC only but when I check the online parts manuals for those years I have a SOHC/DOHC choice. Can anyone verify the existence of a production SOHC in '98-04?
SOHC WAS USED ONLY UP THRU 97 IN THE U.S COULD HAVE BEEN USED IN OTHER COUNTRIES . 98 AND LATER WERE ALL DOHC ENGS,

THIS IS A VERY GOOD POST AND SOME ONE SPENT A LOT OF RESEARCH TIME GOOD JOB. JERRY
 
#10 ·
I feel a sticky coming
 
#14 ·
Even though the 3.2/3.5 is an open deck there doesn't seem to be a problem with head gaskets on these motors. I wouldn't sweat it. As you have found out the cranks will hold pretty impresive power.
I am thinking that the early dohc heads combined with the later tall deck block and long rods would be the ideal combo. I wonder as well if it wouldn't be better to stick with the 3.2 crank and pistons. I say this because the 3.2 pistons are what this motor was designed around, the 3.5 seems to be a bit of an after thought and comes with compromises. You will get slower piston speeds and the crank should be stronger with the shorter stroke. The slower piston speed should also put less stress on the crank/rod/piston combo. This should also give you a little more room to raise the redline of this motor. Throw a decent turbo into the mix and it should be a really nice motor. I don't see why 400 hp isn't out of reach. That in a 3000 pound rx8 should be pretty nice.
 
#16 ·
I have a set of T25s kicking around. They were from a 300z. Those guys can't get more then about 15psi out of them on a 3.0L so I'd be looking at a little less. Maybe 10-12 reliably. I'm getting nothing but crap from the RX-8 forum about that engine. I think this one will fit my engine bay just fine and with all the transmission options, I can dial it in just right. The R154 combined with my 4.44 gears and 225/60-18 tires calculated out to some nice numbers. I'd still much rather have about a 4.10 or even 3.90 though.
 
#17 ·
I read the whole thread on the rx forum and you are taking a beating. I must admit that it seems a bit unconventional even to me and I love Isuzu stuff. I can't argue with your logic though. These motors are fairly light and compact for what they are. Isuzu built them for low end power, but there is lots of potential in there waiting for you to get it out.
A dual t25 system would work and should come on early. I think I have one of those turbos as well, its .42 ar with oil and water. Looks like standard 5 bolt t3 waste gate. You could probably find a couple of Saab turbos for cheap and use them if the t25's won't work.
I think you will be looking at Mega squirt for engine management because the Isuzu ecm isn't easily reprogrammed.
 
#18 ·
Are there any ex. Manifolds made for turbos on these ?? If your going to push an engine that hard make sure and flow match the inside really well..
 
#20 ·
bradzuzu said:
Are there any ex. Manifolds made for turbos on these ?? If your going to push an engine that hard make sure and flow match the inside really well..
Nope. I haven't found any. I'll make my own. I'll be pushing it a little but really the turbos are more for fun then anything. If I got another 100hp using them it'll be fine. I'm not shooting for 500hp+.

bradzuzu said:
http://forum.planetisuzoo.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=66681

This is some comparison /upgrade / improvements to be made...
Lots of good photos. Thanks for the link.
 
#21 ·
chadzu said:
I read the whole thread on the rx forum and you are taking a beating. I must admit that it seems a bit unconventional even to me and I love Isuzu stuff.
Tell me about it. I think they expect to wake up the next day to view the finished pics. An Isuzu in an RX-8 may seem a little unconventional. Trust me. Isuzu wasn't my first, second, third, or even forth choice. I was after a Toyota 2.5L 1MZ-FE (Very close in design to the 6VE1 but closed deck and I think a forged crank) but it had ZERO RWD options. The Isuzu has dozens of transmission options to choose from. That's the single largest factor. Next is displacement and power ratings. Third is the 75deg V keeps the heads a little lower then a 60deg V. There are other things that are important such as the Isuzu 2000+ having a drive-by-wire throttle. I think it's a good engine (Honda built it) and imagine how long it'll last pushing a 3000lb car around vs. a 4x4 truck. :) As for boost. The stock ECU + larger injectors + AEM FIC solves that issue. I ran an FIC on my MX-3 with a BPT(1.8L) engine swap running on the B6(1.6L) ECU driving Toyota injectors. It ran great.
 
#23 ·
kickerfox said:
chadzu said:
I read the whole thread on the rx forum and you are taking a beating. I must admit that it seems a bit unconventional even to me and I love Isuzu stuff.
Tell me about it. I think they expect to wake up the next day to view the finished pics. An Isuzu in an RX-8 may seem a little unconventional. Trust me. Isuzu wasn't my first, second, third, or even forth choice. I was after a Toyota 2.5L 1MZ-FE (Very close in design to the 6VE1 but closed deck and I think a forged crank) but it had ZERO RWD options. The Isuzu has dozens of transmission options to choose from. That's the single largest factor. Next is displacement and power ratings. Third is the 75deg V keeps the heads a little lower then a 60deg V. There are other things that are important such as the Isuzu 2000+ having a drive-by-wire throttle. I think it's a good engine (Honda built it) and imagine how long it'll last pushing a 3000lb car around vs. a 4x4 truck. :) As for boost. The stock ECU + larger injectors + AEM FIC solves that issue. I ran an FIC on my MX-3 with a BPT(1.8L) engine swap running on the B6(1.6L) ECU driving Toyota injectors. It ran great.
YOU ARE PRETTY CORRECT ON YOUR SPECS EXCEPT ONE , HONDA DID NOT BUILD THAT ENG , NOR DID THEY BUILD THE PREVIOUS V6 THOSE ARE ALL ISUZU DESIGNED AND BUILT ENGS , NO WHERE WILL YOU INFO THAT SAY THOSE ENGS WERE BUILT BY HONDA , IT IS TRU THAT HONDA DOES BUILD 3.5 DOHC ENGS BUT THEY ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE ISUZU ENG
 
#24 ·
That was stated by an aircraft company (Supermarine) during their research into the Isuzu v6 for use in the Spitfire. I have no reason not to believe them. They have alot to loose with misinformation.

Foreign cars are like electronics. Alot of them roll off the same assembly lines even though they are different RETAIL brands. Foxcon (for example) makes Dell, HP, Apple, XBOX, Nintendo, Sony and many many others.

In the auto industry that company would be Aisin. http://www.aisin.com/profile/customer/index.html
 
#26 ·
kickerfox said:
Found it.

WELL THATS STRANGE , I HAVE SEEN THAT BEFORE , WHEN I MENTION NO OTHER INFO ,WHAT I WAS REFERING TO IS THE FACT THAT I NEVER RECEIVED ANY IN INFORMATION THAT THE ENGS WERE BEING BUILT BY HONDA , KINDA STRANGE SINCE I WAS SENIOR TRAINING INSTRUCTOR FOR ISUZU MOTORS IN ATLANTA FOR 21 YEARS AND MY BOSS WAS THE HEAD OF TH ENGINEERING DEPT IN CALIF, AT NO TIME WERE WE EVER INFORMED OF ANY COLLABIRATION BETWEEN THE TWO CO,S UN TILL 1994 WHEN ISUZU STARTED BUILDING THE RODEO WITH THE PASSPORT NAME ON IT , PRIOR TO THIS 21 YEAR STINT I SPENT 10 YEARS WITH HONDA MOTOR S IN THEIR ENGINEERING DEPT IN GARDENA CAL DOING SPECIAL PROJECTS AND NEVER SAW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT HONDA MIXING IT UP WITH ISUZU.

HONDA HAS ALL WAYS BEEN ONE TO DO THEIR OWN THING AT LEAST THEY WERE MANY YEARS AGO.

THINK MAYBE SOME WHERE WAY BACK THEY GOT SOME MISS INFORMATION AND THAT IS THE WAY IT WENT ,, TO SEE WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT ASK ANY HONDA DLR OR ACURA DLR WHO BUILT THE SLX TRUCK AND THE PASS PORT , YOU WILL GET ONE ANSWER WHY HONDA BUILT THEM, OF COURSE , AH RIGHT .
NOT TRYING TO BE HARD HEADED BUT IT SURE SEEM STRANGE THAT WE WOULD HAVE NEVER HEARD ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top