jimoshel Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Got a '86 MJ with a busted 2.8.,,,, Waiting for the gasps of surprise to die down,,,,,,. In looking for an engine to swap I found there is oodles of swaps and info for the 3.4. I also noticed there is a 3.1 which seems to be a much better engine and should be easier to find as there were more of them made. But there is almost nothing on it about swapping or anything else. I am looking for any oplnlons any one may have on these ,3.1, engines before I spring a couple bucks and get one. I am planning on getting a complete donor so I can swap everything over and have multi port injection. Any thoughts, hints, opinions greatly appreciated. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogmorgo Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 GM did a lot of screwing around with the 60° v6. There are a bunch of 3.1's and a bunch of 3.4's. Apart from the F-body versions, they were mostly fwd engines, so there may be some obstacles in using them in a rwd setup. The 3.1 which was in the Camaro from '90-'92 is a gen-II engine, but the 3.4 (1993-1995 f-bods) is based off the gen-I engine for whatever reason, and so is more similar to the 2.8's. The 3.4 makes slightly more power, I think. A lot of the complaints about the 3.4 actually come from the overhead-cam version, where changing the rear spark plugs is impossible without taking off the intake manifold, and the timing belt was a bit of a b*@$£, too. The ohc made for a really poor fit in the engine bays designed for pushrod engines. Also, the gen-III 3.4's weren't exactly well known for their intake gaskets not leaking coolant into the engine. Neither of those issues has anythign to do really with the F-body's 3.4. In all honestly, the Buick 3.8 is a better engine than either, and was used in the Fbodies from 96 until their demise. I don't know that it uses the same bellhousing pattern though... If adapting a fwd engine isn't an issue, I'd go for the LQ1 from a Lumina or Monte Carlo Z34. Yes, it's the dohc engine mentioned above, but I think the biggest issue with it was that the back half of it simply wasn't accessible in the fwd cars, which would go away in a rear-drive situation. But it's the only version of the 60° V6 that makes over 200hp. Someone else brought up a similar subject a while back. I'll see if I can find the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogmorgo Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Found it: http://comancheclub.com/topic/35694-drivetrain-suggestions-please/ I guess it is mostly 3.4 stuff. I don't know that I said it, but the 3.1 is mostly more readily available because a variation with that displacement was used in just about every fwd platform from GM, whereas the ones that displaced 3.4 litres had a much more limited run until later in fwd. In terms of RWD engines, though, I don't know that there's all that much difference between in terms of production numbers. Bother were in production for three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGHEEP Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 GM did a lot of screwing around with the 60° v6. There are a bunch of 3.1's and a bunch of 3.4's. Apart from the F-body versions, they were mostly fwd engines, so there may be some obstacles in using them in a rwd setup. The 3.1 which was in the Camaro from '90-'92 is a gen-II engine, but the 3.4 (1993-1995 f-bods) is based off the gen-I engine for whatever reason, and so is more similar to the 2.8's. The 3.4 makes slightly more power, I think. A lot of the complaints about the 3.4 actually come from the overhead-cam version, where changing the rear spark plugs is impossible without taking off the intake manifold, and the timing belt was a bit of a b*@$£, too. The ohc made for a really poor fit in the engine bays designed for pushrod engines. Also, the gen-III 3.4's weren't exactly well known for their intake gaskets not leaking coolant into the engine. Neither of those issues has anythign to do really with the F-body's 3.4. In all honestly, the Buick 3.8 is a better engine than either, and was used in the Fbodies from 96 until their demise. I don't know that it uses the same bellhousing pattern though... If adapting a fwd engine isn't an issue, I'd go for the LQ1 from a Lumina or Monte Carlo Z34. Yes, it's the dohc engine mentioned above, but I think the biggest issue with it was that the back half of it simply wasn't accessible in the fwd cars, which would go away in a rear-drive situation. But it's the only version of the 60° V6 that makes over 200hp. Someone else brought up a similar subject a while back. I'll see if I can find the thread. The Buick 3.8 FWD and the Chevy 2.8 share the same bolt pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Pat's got a 3800 in an MJ. The bellhousing bolt pattern's the same(90 deg V6, but still uses the 60 deg pattern), but he had to modify a bellhousing for the starter. He's also toasted a couple transmissions and D35s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimoshel Posted February 17, 2013 Author Share Posted February 17, 2013 I had thought about the Buick 3.8. got some experience with them and think they're good engines, Only reason I didn't really consider one is I thought the bell housing bolt pattern was different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reece146 Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 If you are going to bother put in a real engine. LS4 should bolt up but verify. It has the 60º bell pattern but I'm not sure of the starter location since it is a FWD V8 engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 If you are going to bother put in a real engine. LS4 should bolt up but verify. It has the 60º bell pattern but I'm not sure of the starter location since it is a FWD V8 engine. And it would demolish that poor AX-4/5 in about 10 seconds. He'd need a new trans anyway, so that would negate the bolt pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86FUBAR Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Well I swapped in a 3.4 and even with the stock fuel system it performs very well over the stock 2.8 . It was a complete night and day difference and best of all it was all a direct bolt on with no hacking of the electrical sys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Both the 3.1L and the 3.4L are excellent swaps. Both are a huge improvement over the 2.8L, and they are the same block so it's an easy replacement. Just be sure to get one from a rear wheel drive donor. And, unlike the Buick, they aren't so much more powerful that they'll destroy the rest of the drive train immediately after installation. The 2.8L has an externally balanced flywheel. The 3.1L and 3.4L are neutral balanced. You'll need to take your 2.8L flywheel to a shop and have it neutral balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reece146 Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 And it would demolish that poor AX-4/5 in about 10 seconds. He'd need a new trans anyway, so that would negate the bolt pattern. Sounds like a win-win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkenvol Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 In looking for an engine to swap I found there is oodles of swaps and info for the 3.4. What happened to the diesel swap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimoshel Posted February 20, 2013 Author Share Posted February 20, 2013 What happened to the diesel swap? One needs a diesel for a diesel swap. Seems the only ones available around here are Dura maxes and cummins, way to much engine for a compact truck. Found one Mercedes but the owner thought he had gold. not a busted auto. Haven't gave up on the project. Just put it on a back burner until something shows up I can use. Got a rust free stripped MJ bod sitting in back just waiting. Until then my immediate goal is finding a GM donor with a suitable 3.1, 3.2, 3 anything for the '86 conversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimoshel Posted February 20, 2013 Author Share Posted February 20, 2013 I did find a 3.4 but I was afraid the engine, wiring may have suffered irrepairable damage making it unsuitable for my requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkenvol Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 One needs a diesel for a diesel swap. They can be hard to locate. Have you considered a Kubota also? http://www.dieselbombers.com/diesel-engine-conversions/78776-s-10-kubota-diesel-conversion.html The site might block a link to another message board, but there's some interesting results from repurposing the motors from refridgerant truck units which might expand your possible donors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onlyinajeep726 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Dodge Cummins 4bt... :drool: http://www.4btswaps.com/forum/showthread.php?585-4BTA-powered-92-Comanche-build-specs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogmorgo Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I did find a 3.4 but I was afraid the engine, wiring may have suffered irrepairable damage making it unsuitable for my requirements. That's a 4.3 anyway. The later Blazers didn't get the 60° v6. Unless it was a custom job, in which case the wiring is all hacked to $#!& anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now