Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[2woody]

Just to get this right....

I've got a 52-plate 2.6 MV6 manual and an 03-plate 3.2 MV6 manual. Both facelift cars with the smaller-profile engine ECU.

if I wanted to put the 3.2 engine in the 2.6 car, I need to change the ECU and the immobiliser box hanging from the bottom of the ignition key housing, and then change the chips over in the keys.

is that it ? - will it run afterwards without Tech-2 intervention for example ?

[albitz]

Possibly alarm ecu as well, but afaik, thats about it.

[serek]

just swap engine and box dont need do any work on electrics. all will work fine

[2woody]

just swap engine and box dont need do any work on electrics. all will work fine

thought CU was different on facelift cars - the part munbers certainly are

[serek]

yes they are, but both cars are FL and run on same type ECU, so if you can use engine loom from 3.2 on 2.6 just unplug 2 socket next battery and job done

[Kevin Wood]

Not sure there's any difference between the maps anyway so I would try just swapping the donk at first, and see how it runs.

Otherwise, engine ECU, immobiliser by the ignition barrel and transponder chips.

Kevin

[Darth Loo-knee]

I would go with Serek here. I removed a 2.6 engine & gearbox as the engine had siezed. I fitted the gearbox to an excellent 3.0 engine then fitted it into my car. So a 3.0 engine using all the original 2.6 ECU etc. It goes a treat, had no fault codes up thats so ever. 

[TheBoy]

I have a feeling it has a different configuration on it, but it probably should run fine.

If ever you bring it down south, I'm sure either Kevin Wood or I could ensure it has all the right configs on


If you do have to swap, its Motronic ECU, Immobiliser ECU and the transponders in the keys.

[cem_devecioglu]

I would go with Serek here. I removed a 2.6 engine & gearbox as the engine had siezed. I fitted the gearbox to an excellent 3.0 engine then fitted it into my car. So a 3.0 engine using all the original 2.6 ECU etc. It goes a treat, had no fault codes up thats so ever. 

interesting 

fuel maps must a bit different at high end but if engine learns and changes ,there wont be any performance losses imo..

[2woody]

I might have a go without changing the ECU and see what happens. we have a local rolling road, so I'll get a feel for how far off the fuelling is afterwards - I expect quite a bit

[05omegav6]

FWIW

Have swapped the manual ecu with an auto one on my 3.2, with no apparant side effects.

Also, 2.6 and 3.2 air intake systems are identical.
Same manifolds, same inlet bridge, same injectors, same throttle bodies. currently running the 3.2 with a 2.6 throttle body and inlet assembly with no issues.

(That is there are issues, but they are either from a weak spark on pot 6, or valve issues, also on pot 6. But that's a different thread altogether... ).

HTH

[TheBoy]

I might have a go without changing the ECU and see what happens. we have a local rolling road, so I'll get a feel for how far off the fuelling is afterwards - I expect quite a bit

Might need a few miles to 'learn'

[Kevin Wood]

interesting 

fuel maps must a bit different at high end but if engine learns and changes ,there wont be any performance losses imo..

Not necessarily. Fuelling is based on measured air mass, obviously with some calibration specific to the engine, but fundamentally, if you measure more air, you inject more fuel.

IIRC Robsey did a 2.6 to 3.2 conversion and ran it, initially, at least, with the 2.6 config. IIRC it was OK but, as said, it's not an issue to reconfigure or swap the ECUs if required.

[cem_devecioglu]

interesting 

fuel maps must a bit different at high end but if engine learns and changes ,there wont be any performance losses imo..

Not necessarily. Fuelling is based on measured air mass, obviously with some calibration specific to the engine, but fundamentally, if you measure more air, you inject more fuel.

IIRC Robsey did a 2.6 to 3.2 conversion and ran it, initially, at least, with the 2.6 config. IIRC it was OK but, as said, it's not an issue to reconfigure or swap the ECUs if required.

Kevin, if we are talking about 3.2 engine,  2.6 ECU will meet high masses of air entering the system that it will never see with a 2.6.. And I dont think the technicians preparing the 2.6 ECU map think that , " hmm. someone may connect it to a 3.2 donk , let me prepare for more "

but apart from this a, lazy clever technician may prepare a very wide fuel map which can handle all volumes and use this single map for all, is another possibillity imo .. :-/

[aaronjb]

Worst case scenario you might fall off the top of the open loop fuel maps, but the closed loop learned fuel trims will almost certainly bring it back to 'roughly' right..

For example - the MR2 (and I think this is common to all OBD-II ECUs) will allow up to 40% additional or subtracted fuel before it lights the CEL with an 'adjustment out of range' error.. that's enough extra fuel for quite a bit of extra capacity before it runs out of room to adjust itself.