Remembering why I
dislike working on
AO Silver Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Re: 155 3.0v6??
The 155 has an overall higher gearing (more revs per MPH) than a 164, so while it might not have as high a theoretical top speed as it did in the 164, it'll certainly be quicker getting there. Can't see it being that big a problem to be honest and the extra torque of the 3l over the 2.5 is well worth having. As long as the conversion is done properly, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be quicker than a 2.5 either. More torque, more power, same redline, same weight. I get typically better MPG out of my 3l 12V in my kit than I do out of the 2.5l in the 155. I can see issues with trying to use the 2.5 engine management components with the 3l motor though. I suspect most people would just 'plug in' the 3L and expect it to work with the 2.5 ECU and associated electronics.
...but it's definately not a standard car. I very much doubt you could get a 24V motor into the 155, but always happy to be proved wrong!
If the motor in this car really is a 3l (capacity is marked on the castings), check where the water rail comes out. If it's been moved to the flywheel end (like a standard 155 V6) then it would probably be simpler to install in a project car. The 164 12V & 24V setup means more space needed round the crank pulley end than later engines like the 156.
Just my 2€