Forget 88 MPH: Supercharge the DeLorean!

Without changing the body significantly (ideally, not at all), how far could the speed and horsepower on a DeLorean DMC-12 be advanced using different engines? First could it be done with engines available at the time, second what could you do with more modern ones?
 
Without changing the body significantly (ideally, not at all), how far could the speed and horsepower on a DeLorean DMC-12 be advanced using different engines? First could it be done with engines available at the time, second what could you do with more modern ones?

Rover V8.
Thats an aluminum block V8 that started life as a Buick powerplant in 1961, the sold to Leyland.

Stroker cranks get you up to 300 cubic inches, but stock was 215 ci, at 148hp for Bosch fuel injection. 120mph should be doable with overdrive.

In race trim, with dual turbos, you can get in the 500HP territory.
 
If I could I'd stick a Judd engine in it just to see what it could do I remember seeing something in a timeline here on the site that had something similar but I can't remember which.
 
the PRV engine (and transmission) were financed by Renault so it was integral part of the project, Delorean could not just pick any engine.

and it wasn't a BAD engine, Venturi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_Automobiles built a version with over 400hp.

one viable path would have been to use same tiny IH turbocharger Daihatsu used on its minicar Charade, good for IIRC about 25hp boost? so small it didn't require intercooler or other mods.

if they survived they could have then dialed up the twin-turbo versions into supercar levels.
 
When I worked on this car in my TL, I developed a V8 for the car, developed by John Judd for the purpose. The engine is V8 based on two sets of Vega cylinder banks attached to a common crankshaft, using steel cylinder liners, aluminum-alloy crank with seven main bearings and aluminum heads to avoid the engine wear problems the Vega had. The engine's head a double overhead cam, four valve per cylinder designs with internal agitators before the combustion chamber to improve the air/fuel mixing. The engine used Bosch electronic fuel injection, a high-pressure cooling system and dry-sump high-capacity oiling to improve the cooling of the car and improve its reliability. The end result with a conservative tune was 320 horsepower and 310 ft-lbs of torque from a 4.6-liter engine, pretty wicked numbers for 1981. The DMC-12 of my world turns the engine around and mounts with the back two cylinders over the rear axle (which is why it uses dry-sump oiling, to lower the center of gravity) and puts the gearbox in the middle of the chassis backbone (which helps stiffen it, among other benefits), resulting in the driveshaft going back the other way alongside the engine and gearbox in a similar arrangement to the Lamborghini Countach and Diablo.

The result is a VERY quick car for the 1980s - 0-60 for early DMC-12s with this engine were about six seconds flat, with later cars making the sprint is as little as 5.6 seconds.
 
Originally the Capri 2.8 V6 was to be used, Cosworth twin-cam, twin turbo's get 311bhp. 341 lb/ft at only 7psi. When the pressure is increased to 14psi over 460bhp and there are versions reportedly producing a huge 520BHP.
Also at the time was the Rover V8 which was producing 260BHP in the TRV8. Versions are quoted at 460BHP mated to a rover 5-speed box, but had one of these fitted to my Lister in 1990 which was 420 horse and the box couldn't cope with the power.
There was also the 3.0 Triumph V8 which under private mechanics are tweaked to produces 260bhp and 270llbs of torque. Theoretically a tuning company like Cosworth should be able to produce a supercharges version of 350+BHP.
There are plenty of light powerful engines available at the time that could've/should've fitted this iconic car.
 
the fact remains that Renault was willing to finance the engines (and transmissions in package deal)

Venturi and Alpine were able to coax pretty impressive (for the time) horsepower out of the PRV engine.

the Alpine A310 used the same V-6 but weighed about 600 lbs. less.

probably the car Delorean should have just adapted and sold in the U.S., he himself stated later he should have had someone else build the car for him.
 
IMO if I had to re-engine one today I would use a Chrysler 3.5/4.0 liter V-6 and Select Shift transaxle as used in the Intrepid/Eagle/Concorde. The 3.3 and the 2.7 would both be a little weak.

As to the original power plant the idea of mounting it rear engine style was stupid. Go mid engined or go home. Power plant choice, SBC/SBF or the Rover/Buick. One problem at the time is you need an automatic transmission. I do not know of any other engine/transaxle options at the time.

As to the Triumph V8. Seriously, you are joking. Aren't you. I mean I hope you are.

The Delorean IMO was dead on arrival. Quality issues, under powered, and as far as I am concerned ugly. Plus the stainless steel body is way to labor intensive for the average owner.
 
Last edited:
One option would be to go down the Alpine and Venturi Turbo/Bi-Turbo route in increasing the power of the existing PRV engines, another involves an earlier POD where the 3552cc V8 version of the PRV is produced (growing into a 3.9-4.0 V8).
 

Archibald

Banned
The V6 PRV (Peugeot, Renault and Volvo) certainly had a huge margin of progress. In Le Mans and on the Venturis it went up to 600 horse power.

It is a PRV-powered car that still hold Le Mans absolute speed record, a good 407 km per hour (250 mph) achieved in 1988.
 
IMO if I had to re-engine one today I would use a Chrysler 3.5/4.0 liter V-6 and Select Shift transaxle as used in the Intrepid/Eagle/Concorde. The 3.3 and the 2.7 would both be a little weak.

As to the original power plant the idea of mounting it rear engine style was stupid. Go mid engined or go home. Power plant choice, SBC/SBF or the Rover/Buick. One problem at the time is you need an automatic transmission. I do not know of any other engine/transaxle options at the time.

As to the Triumph V8. Seriously, you are joking. Aren't you. I mean I hope you are.

The Delorean IMO was dead on arrival. Quality issues, under powered, and as far as I am concerned ugly. Plus the stainless steel body is way to labor intensive for the average owner.

Why not the 3.6 if you're going with modern engines?
 

Delta Force

Banned
The Delorean was originally designed to use a Wankel engine, but the planned unit was unavailable. What about adopting a Mazda rotary design, either the stock two-rotor 12A design (including the 12A turbo for 1982 and 1983) or a three or four-rotor unit derived from the Mazda racing program?

If a three-rotor 12A turbo design were used, it would be able to achieve 240 horsepower and 251 pound feet of torque with a displacement of 1671 cubic centimeters, meaning it could be sold as a rather sporty car in countries with displacement taxes. In terms of power, it would be in the territory of the 8 cylinder Ferrari cars.
 
Why not the 3.6 if you're going with modern engines?

I was thinking because the 3.5 was setup as a longitudinally mounted engine and transmission. The whole power train looks like something that is similiar to a midengined car. If a PRV engined car holds the top speed achieved at Le Mans it must only be because Audi placed different performance criteria on their current cars. The 3.6 I will admit has some serious snort for a people mover. I've got one my van and it has way more per than I need. Yet still gets around 30 on the interstate at 70 to 75. I can live with that in a vehicle that hauls gardening supplies, yard waste, construction material, compost or the grand kids.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I was thinking because the 3.5 was setup as a longitudinally mounted engine and transmission. The whole power train looks like something that is similiar to a midengined car. If a PRV engined car holds the top speed achieved at Le Mans it must only be because Audi placed different performance criteria on their current cars. The 3.6 I will admit has some serious snort for a people mover. I've got one my van and it has way more per than I need. Yet still gets around 30 on the interstate at 70 to 75. I can live with that in a vehicle that hauls gardening supplies, yard waste, construction material, compost or the grand kids.

The PRV engined vehicle also had its intake ports taped over to minimize drag, and I think as a result the engine failed shortly after setting the record
 
The Delorean was originally designed to use a Wankel engine, but the planned unit was unavailable. What about adopting a Mazda rotary

that was attempted but they could not strike a deal and, as previously posted, Renault was financing the PRV engine.
 
the PRV engine (and transmission) were financed by Renault so it was integral part of the project, Delorean could not just pick any engine.
I always thought it was a Volvo engine. If it must be Renault powered, what about the 160hp motor in the Renault 5 Turbo?

What about Renault's partnership with American Motor Corporation starting in 1980, a year or more before Delorean production began? AMC was making a 200 hp straight six in this period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_straight-6_engine and 300+ hp v-8s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_V8_engine

Too bad the Lotus Esprit Turbo's 4cyl couldn't be considered.
 
Last edited:
that was attempted but they could not strike a deal and, as previously posted, Renault was financing the PRV engine.

The planned Wankel would have come from Comotor. Did DeLorean also contact Mazda?

yes, they attempted to strike a deal with Mazda after Comotor bankruptcy, now how seriously that was pursued? have never seen a mention of that.

but Mazda almost certainly was in no position to finance any engine sales like Renault did (Mazda sold shares to Ford in 1979 IIRC as they were in financial trouble)

plus Renault engine plant was (relatively) near the plant in N. Ireland.
 
Top