164/156

[stratos928]

When anybody thinks about an upgrade it is the 164 that is mentioned is there any reason for this as opposed to the 156. Does the 156 fit and are there complications involved. The engine looks very similar? Martin

[Chris J]

Martin

A 156 engine actually fits easier (into a Hawk at least) than a 164 engine.
Most people are looking to fit a 3.0 rather than a 2.5. There are no 3.0 156 version, that's probably the biggest reason the 156 engine is over looked. Because of its lack of capacity. The only 156 to look out for is the 3.2 GTA.

166 3.0 24v is a good donor. Manuals are not the most common 166 examples, but they do turn up.

[mudhut]

Not forgetting the GTV and Spider 3.0 V6. :)

Just bought a 147 GTA today, BTW. No it's not a donor unless I get rear-ended or something.

[rutthenut]

I had a 2.5-litre 156 as a road car (24v) and to me, it felt pretty gutless :-o

Six-speed gearbox means a different mount and different gear linkage. Plus a fly-by-wire throttle.

I'm surprised that it would fit easier than the 164 unit, but the plumbing for cooling pipes at least should be easier, as they come out above the gearbox. Is that the main benefit Chris?

[Chris J]

[QUOTE=rutthenut]Six-speed gearbox means a different mount and different gear linkage. Plus a fly-by-wire throttle.
QUOTE]

Those are fair points John. I suppose I'm thinking of the plumbing and the alternator mount more than anything.

[strat6v]

As Peter said, the gtv/spyder and 166 are the ones to look for. Lightly damaged cars appear for around 1k.