Motor Swap

What would be the best motor to replace a locked up 2.8L?

3.1,depending on what year cavi,should be easy drop-in

3.1,depending on what year cavi,should be easy drop-in

It's an 88 Z24 with a 5 spd tranny

yeah,should be an easy drop in,bolt up &drive,you may have to get a ecu for a 3.1 5-speed too (you can usually get them w/engine)

yeah,should be an easy drop in,bolt up &drive,you may have to get a ecu for a 3.1 5-speed too (you can usually get them w/engine)

Both the 2.8 and 3.1 use the same ecu, manifolds, and numerous other parts. The only real difference in the 2.8 and 3.1 is the 3.1 has a little longer stroke, and the main differences in the 3.1 and 3.4 are the 3.4 uses seperate injectors in the manifold while the 3.1 is still a throttlebody type of injection and the 3.4 has a 10 thousandths larger bore which also means diff heads, valves, lifter, ect.

I'm the only one that voted?

i would stay away from the 3.1 not a really good choice if u ask me - i would either rebuild/another 2.8 or get a 3.4 ecu ect... the 3.1's are usually what they put in base beretta's an the shitty corsica's lol not bashin the engine but they are not really that powerful kinda dog compared to the 2.8 - the only thing about the 3.1's is they are very easy an require little taking car for them to run - i know 3 people with them one in a 89 cav on an 2 in corsica's they basically beat the shit outa the cars an like never do basic repairs an the damn cars still run ... lol i would take a cowl induc. 2.8 over both or them anyday --- even tho the 3.4 in the lumina's are pretty peppy

2.8 Strong Strong Motor. My dad has an 88 Z24 2.8 junker and everything else has fallen off of this thing and the latest problem is that the drivers door latch is rotting out where it's attached but it still pulls like a charm and still embarrasses people at the lights in all kinds of cars even with the engine mounts creaking! This car is f**ked but the engine top notch, oh it also had it's first oil change in 4 years 3 weeks ago!! It's value was Doubled!!!!!

oh hell,get a supercharged 3800 drop it in & start hunting v8 mustangs,haha :lol::lol:

Or squeeze a small block V8 under there with some inner wheel well work run it with say a camaro rear axle, add a blower and then go vette/viper hunting that'll give the old guys in them something to think about

:lol: :lol:

Or squeeze a small block V8 under there with some inner wheel well work run it with say a camaro rear axle, add a blower and then go vette/viper hunting that'll give the old guys in them something to think about

Sounds nice but.... mine is front wheel drive.

oh hell,get a supercharged 3800 drop it in & start hunting v8 mustangs,haha :lol::lol:

Thats an exellent idea. Other then the engine, ecu, engine mounts, exhaust, wiring harness and possably tranny... what all would I have to do to the car in order to make it work?

Sounds nice but.... mine is front wheel drive.

It was actually a joke. I know the car is FWD that's why I suggested the Camaro axle as there isn't a Cavalier rear axle for RWD and it would have good availability. To be honest 2.8 would be my recommendation but it's your call.

Thats an exellent idea. Other then the engine, ecu, engine mounts, exhaust, wiring harness and possably tranny... what all would I have to do to the car in order to make it work?
this motor swap has actually been done.im not exactly sure what all needs to be done,but i know you have to reinforce the frame in the front,change a lot of wireing,& fabricate mounts.i also know that its not really easy to find one of these 3800 s.c. engines. there is a guy at car domain that has all the pics & directions on how he did this i will see if i can find it for you.

I wanted to know is there any diference in RWD than in FWD. Does it do any thing or is it just front tires going than rear one's. Thanks

what do you mean is there a differance

is there a power or Torque difrence or anything

There is a weight difference, due to RWD having a rear differential and drive shaft, I would say RWD also has a little more loss of power through the drivetrain. FWD are lighter b/c there are not as many moving parts, and more power gets to the ground. That's why most 4-cylinders are FWD, and most V6 & V8 are RWD.

The biggest difference is how they handle!

The front tires on a FWD car have to take care of the power, 80-90% of the braking, AND turning, of course the back wheels just roll, and help 10-20% braking, and the park brake, so they tend to understeer, or keep going straight through a fast corner.

On a RWD car the turning and power are on independent tires, so the fronts are just going to handle all the turning and braking, the rears give the power to the ground, so RWD tends to oversteer, or slide sideways through a fast corner.

Another major difference is the weight on the drive wheels, with a FWD having the motor on top of the drive wheels it's easier to put more power to the wheels without burning out, but not on a RWD 'cause there is less weight on the rear tires.

I like that Sig. LOL! Ain't that the truth!

Another major difference is the weight on the drive wheels, with a FWD having the motor on top of the drive wheels it's easier to put more power to the wheels without burning out, but not on a RWD 'cause there is less weight on the rear tires.

This is untrue. A RWD car will pull away better off of the line regardless of where the engine is sited. This is all due to weight transferrence. When you accelerate the front end of you car will lift and the rear will lower. This is known as squat or pulling out of the water. This is weight tranferrence. Upon pulling away the majority of a cars weight is shifted to the rear (obviously except in reverse). Under this situation the front end will go 'light' meaning less traction at the front end so you are more likely to wheelspin. Adversley with RWD the weight is transferred to the drive end of the vehicle giving the car much better traction and therefore more power can be fed to a car. So 2 cars with identical power to weight ratio (whp) and with drivers of the same competence the RWD car will beat the FWD one. This is shown in Drag racing. Ever wondered why FWD drag cars have wheelie bars? And ever noticed how there are very tightly sprung and very close to the ground? The reason is due to weight transfer, the bars stop too much weight being 'robbed' from the front wheels by proving a reactive force in the opposite direction.
The reason cars were made as FWD goes back to 1959 and the unveiling of the original mini. Sir Alec Issigonis (English despite the name) created this car as thew first FWD car. The mini also featured the first transversely mounted engine (copied by Lamborghini engineers for use in the rear of the Miura thus starting the MR layout) vs the traditional longitudinal with RWD layout. The reason for this was simply packaging. This allowed a vehicle with around only 10 feet in length to be as spacious inside as car up to 5 feet longer (I'm not saying it was spacious). This is mainly due to the position in which the motor was mounted. As you know an engine (in a car) is a lot longer than it is wide. Therefore by turning the engine through 90 degrees counterclockwise (from above) the hood only needed to be half the length than for a longitudal engine. This was also helped by the single port face head of the A-series Austin-Morris engine. The engine was still the same size as those going into the larger Morris vehicles of the time. Such as the Minor. Also as there was no need to power the rear wheels the bed pan did not need to make room for the prop and rear diff that encroached on the interior space. Another reason than that of packaging nowadays is production. The fact that the complete driveline is located at the front of the car, means that the motor transmission, front struts hubs etc can all be assembled as a unit while the body is being readied for this to be installed and as a result is just bolted inplace in about 1/2 the time it takes to place the motor in and then attach a prop for the rear diff. Therefore lowering production costs. A great example of this is the Nissan Micra (the new one). In the factory at Longbridge in England these cars go from sheet metal and shipped-in items to a road ready car in just 6 hours!! Although this car is VERY ugly. A great example of the RWD layout encroaching on cabin space is the New BMW 1-series. This vehicle is only currently on sale in Europe and starting at about $30,000 for the 116i (1.6 115 brake horse power [if you ever wanted to know what the brake in BHP stands for, it means power at the brake, this means that amount of power to stop the engine dead at it's output, so essentially, power at the flywheel]) This car is a BMW and BMW's slogan, "The Ultimate Driving Machine" therefore they were no-way going to produce it as a FWD so RWD it is. The only problem with this is, as it is the size of a Ford Focus on the outside and RWD, the interior is a little cramped. It only really will seat four as the rear occupant room is greatly decreased by the prop and diff being mounted under and in this space. Also the transmission is between the front passengers and as a result the pedals are kind of off to one side and the front footwells quite tight! Ultimately RWD is better but FWD more 'practical' (who wants to be practical). FWD cars do experience understeer due to the front wheels being driven and the wheels just wanting to go straight ahead when fed power, but this is not limited to FWD'ers. A lot of Grand Tourers, such as the Aston Martin DB7 are front engine RWD but can suffer understeer this is all down to the huse mass of engine (V12) in the front trying to push the nose wide. If however you do experience understeer, on the 'Street' just ease off of the throttle and the front wheels will regain traction. Under 'race' circumstances a completely different technique is used. This requires a fair amount of skill. I use it fairly regularly even on the street and is a means of not losing too much speed/time. The technique is called 'left-foot-braking' and while most car people have heard of this they have no clue why it's done. It's all about weight tranfer when it comes to understeer. What you do is while still regulating the throttle with your right foot, you 'dab' the brake with your left. Obviously the amount of brake you provide depends on how badly you are understeering and weight is shifted to the front wheels helping them to regain traction. This technique can also be used to evoke oversteer. This is done by hitting the brake harder than needed and tranferring more weight to the front as needed thus leaving less at the back and therefore less traction which can be broken and then you will expericence oversteer. Yes, even in FWD. This isn't however the only way to evoke oversteer in a FWD. The other way is lift-off oversteer. This is done by getting to the limit of your tires adhesion on a corner and then lifting from the throttle and at the same time, providing a sharp turn-in. This should bring the back end out. The easiest way to do it is with a scandinavian flick which entails, steering left before right into a right handed corner and this unsettles the cars weight distribution as you enter a bend with the weight on the inside wheels due to turning the wheels the opposite way first and then back before the weight can shift back completely, this coupled with lifting off the throttle can get the back end to come around very quickly meaning that you need to correct it with steering and throttle quickly to avoid a spin. Obviously there is also the e-brake but you'll flat-spot your tires. Not Good!!!

I was thinking about that yesterday on the way home, I thought, wait a minute, as soon as you apply power most of the weight goes to the rear, regardless.

Know all about the e-brake technique, flat spots are dangerous! The e-brake should only be used for what is was designed for, EMERGENCY, or to park.

.

Know all about the e-brake technique, flat spots are dangerous! The e-brake should only be used for what is was designed for, EMERGENCY, or to park.
unless you're on a low traction surface, then it's just great fun!!!!

TRUE! I love the snow! My dad and I went out for some "donuts" a few years ago, there was about two inches of the fun stuff, he had his Blazer (w/350 small block!) and I had my Cav. We found a small parking lot that was more like a small oval track. I had a blast! FWD is so easy to enjoy in the snow, my dad couldn't get the blazer sideways but my Cav was everywhere! I miss those days...

TRUE! I love the snow! My dad and I went out for some "donuts" a few years ago, there was about two inches of the fun stuff, he had his Blazer (w/350 small block!) and I had my Cav. We found a small parking lot that was more like a small oval track. I had a blast! FWD is so easy to enjoy in the snow, my dad couldn't get the blazer sideways but my Cav was everywhere! I miss those days...

Teh best thing to do is when you have pulled the e-brake and turned in and the car has started to slide. Release the e-brake. and as you always want to dip the clutch when you pull the e-brake wether FWD or RWD (RWD will stall otherwise as you are locking the wheels the engine is trying to drive) Then you want to lift the clutch in say 2nd gear and feed in some opposite lock ond then you cankeep the car sliding and after some time you will be able to do perfect 180 degree turns around things like rally drivers on very tight hairpins.

Or squeeze a small block V8 under there with some inner wheel well work run it with say a camaro rear axle, add a blower and then go vette/viper hunting that'll give the old guys in them something to think about



i had a similar idea..but to take a northstar motor out of the Caddys and put it in my cavy and have some fun...


and no 3.1 arent a slow motor for who ever said that...i have had nothing but good luck with mine and its quite quick...running at about higher 15s with nothing done to it... pretty sad when u can take 2002 mustangs.

i had a similar idea..but to take a northstar motor out of the Caddys and put it in my cavy and have some fun...

Fair amount of work there. It was intended originally as a joke as the guy didn't want to do too much for the motor swap but on top of the work needed to install a longitudinal V8 you have the whole injection and ignition system to worry about. A carb'd motor with distributor would be a lot easier and although it may not be as efficient it can be tuned to the same horsey numbers! Also would have to cut the bulkhead about a lot and make room for the trans, meaning cutting the front central part of the floorpan about and then possibly the floorpan all the way through the centre of the car to make room for the prop and you'd probably have to fabricate an entire rear suspension that would obvioulsy have to be 'true' with the car. It would be some great fun no doubt but would cost some green!!!! I'd like to see the car that was supposedly done it would be a great thing to see. IU would also want to stiffen up the entire body, probably something like an 11-pt welded roll-cage and some bracing (more than just strut braces) between the strut/shock towers. A lot of torque would twist a unibody up nicely!!!!

Getting hold of 2 2.8 would be fun. Use all of the front running gear from another z24 and then put the second motor in the back powering the rear wheels. That would make it some kind of 5.6 double-Vee 12. You wouldn't even need to tune the motors. Would be 4Wd (not to be confused with AWD, no link between the tow so no torque balance/tranfer via a centre diff) so traction would be great. There's defintely a lot of room back there for it all!! Hmmm sound like a fun winter project for next year. I'm gonna go balance my check book!

THanks for the input on that frw and rwd stuff. and one day me and my buddy where in a parking lot one day when it was raining and i did a full 360 in my 1990 cavi i dahm near shit my pants after the fact but it was cool. in fact now i can do a 180 with out even thinking about it

LOL @ the sig. "NOS is like a hot girl with aids you wanna hit it but are affraid of the consequences" - thats funny stuff - it is unless ya bore an sleeve/new pist./ring ect.... on it to forcome the stress thats gonna be put on it - lol very good quote though - props dude :1:
you guys did alot of postin in this thread i posted in the begin. but then couldnt log on for some reason - i missed alot

ya i was thinkin about rebuilding my 2.2l sometime next summer and when i do im going to get it set up to beable to handle nitro and im going to get complete rebuild from oilpan bolts to valve cover i wan see if there is any way without a turbo or nos or any add ons that give major gains just the engine and bor and stroke im going to try to get 300 hp out of it if i can or as close as posible

ya i was thinkin about rebuilding my 2.2l sometime next summer and when i do im going to get it set up to beable to handle nitro and im going to get complete rebuild from oilpan bolts to valve cover i wan see if there is any way without a turbo or nos or any add ons that give major gains just the engine and bor and stroke im going to try to get 300 hp out of it if i can or as close as posible

You'll need to get the reciprocating mass down as much as possible, have the crank balanced, high-compression pistons, and roads, Use ARP fasteners everywhere. You'll need about a 270-280 approx cam and see if you can get some rollertip lifters, port the head maybe polished too, new intake plenum and manifold, air feed about 6' from the ground, where the air is at it's coldest and therefore densest point. You'll need high flow injectors and fuel rail an uprated fuel pump, a good fuel pressure ragulator, headers, and a dump pipe (very short exhaust with no boxes that exits at one side just behind a front wheel and bends will have to be as smooth as possible, as big of an air filter as you can get to increase the surface area attached to an intake that it as straight as possible, lightened flywheel and uprated clutch or torque converter, you will need some engine management changes in this case the stock system WILL lean out. You won't get much more torque as you will has no exhaust back pressure but you will make quite a few horses. Wont get that close to 300 though but let us know how you get on. Will be very interesting to find out what it can do!!!! And for how much!! ;)

at first i was going to do it myself but then i thought i couldent be as acurate as a pro. so i started looking around and i can probably get 300hp if i let them do it and tune it for peak performance and then after that is biult i will add a supercharger if i have enough money left over but this wont happen till the summer bt thanks alot on you advice. and the intake i have overhead throttlebody so im going to just stick a k&n cone filter over it and cut a hole in ther hood and stick it out then just put a scoop over that have direct airflow

What year 2.2 lexxxx? I'd be happy to get my 92 2.2 to 150hp, LMAO! It sucks because the stock hp is about 110, at ~5800rpm (close) so at all the lower rpms I've got less than 100hp. If the bottom line was 100hp and max was 150hp, I'd be happy.

its a 90 2.2L 5 speed its not the labor thats goingto kill me its the performance parts that will kill me

its a 90 2.2L 5 speed its not the labor thats goingto kill me its the performance parts that will kill me

Waht will make power for NA will not work for boost. You woont want an increased compression ratio for boost otherwise detonation is iminent. Also most higher boost applications need to have the compression lowered and in cases they may benefit from being de-stroked. If you get 300hp N/A tuned you will have to change things to add boost. If you are ultimately going for a s/charger, you should build it for boost.

Check this out. It's a crazy s/charged 95-99 er but this is very well documented!

http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/526752/19

thats a pretty pimp cavy - the GM 3.8 is a really strong engine an for it to be in a cavy an to be S/C, the car has got to whip pretty good - the s/c 3.8 puts out 240 hp stock, that would be very nice in a cav. considering they are half the weight than the cars they usually put the 3.8 sc engine in -Pont.(GTP)...
he did a real nice job on that swap

thats a pretty pimp cavy - the GM 3.8 is a really strong engine an for it to be in a cavy an to be S/C, the car has got to whip pretty good - the s/c 3.8 puts out 240 hp stock, that would be very nice in a cav. considering they are half the weight than the cars they usually put the 3.8 sc engine in -Pont.(GTP)...
he did a real nice job on that swap

New S/C pulley and nitrous. Street tires he gets nines!!!!

I was just wondering how much of a hassle would it be for me to swap my 3.1 with a 3.4 in a 1993 cavalier Z ? Is it pretty much plug and play or am I gonna have to modify fuel lines, motor mounts, exhaust Etc... ?

I was just wondering how much of a hassle would it be for me to swap my 3.1 with a 3.4 in a 1993 cavalier Z ? Is it pretty much plug and play or am I gonna have to modify fuel lines, motor mounts, exhaust Etc... ?

anything newer than 95 will be more hassle as in 96 it would be OBDII instead of your OBDI, before you go putting anything bigger in it though make sure the body is in good shape or it'll last even less time. You could go with a 3.8 or you could get some 3400 head and put them on the 3.1. Which ever route you take there will be a lot more work than plug and play. mainly motor mounts and exhaust, if you go bigger motor then exhaust is a good idea as you're doing it for performance

which would be easier to swap my 93 3.1 with, a 3.4 or a 3.8 and do you possibly know where i can find dimensions of the motor mounts others have created to swap the motors ? thanks:frown:

I also have another 3.1 in a 93 z and it has a weird problem, when i come to a stop with it in gear like at a light it idles a bit rough and the tach jumps a little and when i have a turn signal on the idle jumps to the beat of the turn signal. it runs great throught the rest of the driving range and has had a tune up and new fuel filter/pump also. any ideas ?:banghead:

anything newer than 95 will be more hassle as in 96 it would be OBDII instead of your OBDI, before you go putting anything bigger in it though make sure the body is in good shape or it'll last even less time. You could go with a 3.8 or you could get some 3400 head and put them on the 3.1. Which ever route you take there will be a lot more work than plug and play. mainly motor mounts and exhaust, if you go bigger motor then exhaust is a good idea as you're doing it for performance
the current 3.1 i have runs like a top but has high miles, it does have a weird problem maybey u can help me. when im at an idle at a stop light or stop sign my car starts to idle erratically and i can watch my tach jump a little. its not real bad, just annoying. also when i have the turn signal on the idle goes with the turn signal and i hear the fuel pump go with the turn signal also, any ideas ? thanks for all the help.... Diesel

bad ground maybe, do your lights seem to pulse, you could have a dying alternator, but hearig the fuel pump with the turn signal is just weird. I'd say it would have to be wiring really but can't see how!! Sure it's the fule pump you can hear and the erratic idle, can you feel the motor or just see the tach bouncing around. If it's jumping about it may be in idea to clean the IAC valve as a start (plenty of threads on that in this forum) With regards to the fuel pump, i might have to check the wiring diagrams.

thanks, i can feel the engine idle erratically, the lights dont really seem to surge much, as far as the fuel pump im hearing, i thought it was bad because it was whining so i replaced everything, tank and all and it still makes some noise. ill have to look up cleanin my iac sensor. if its not a ground or my iac or fuel/air dilevery could it be a intake manifold gasket by chance or would it idle erratically all the time if it was that ? and as far as the altenator dying i think it wouldve died allready because its been doing this for over a year.

also do you know where i can buy some direct fit headers for a 93 3.1 ?