GM 60-degree V6 experts wanted

That looks sick

I've never had a 60 deg GM V6 out of a car. only did one head gasket (2000 Grand Am) suprisingly easy.

I AM a huge fan of the Buick 231 / 3.8 / 3800 / Series 11, and have read a LOT about the differences.  The F-Body used it RWD, with a 60 deg Trans.

I have a 96 3800 5 speed pulled from a running firebird with full harness; the did not cut anything, but they unpluged from both computers, and scrapped them with the body! I do have some various computers that might work. Got for a project i will NOT be doing, and have never tested, but stored indoors. I ya want to start in a 3800 direction, it is available

Jimmddaniel said:

Does anyone know if a 2.8 3.1 3.4 flywheel can bolt to a 3.5 or be modified to work?

You use a 2.2 cavalier flywheel.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

Funny enough, I recently found a Camaro WC T5 with a fresh clutch and flywheel- but I have no engine to bolt to it. Is it just Gen 3 3800s and up? Are there other choices?

Any gm engine with fwd bolt pattern.  All of the 60 degree engines and all of the fwd 90 degree engines. 

With a change of bell housing, it might bolt to mustang 5.0.

In reply to wvumtnbkr :

The 2.2 flywheel will fit the 3.5. Also will the 2.2 flywheel work with the t5

In reply to Jimmddaniel :

I have a 2.2 cavalier flywheel on my 3400 la1 swapped rx7 with a t5wc trans from a 4th gen 3800 powered fbody.

Then, you can use the stock fbody hydraulic throwout bearing as well.

I believe all of this works on the 3500 lx9 engine as well.

The 3400 starter is used in its stock location.

Going to do a luke warm zombie revival here, because I have a dumb question that I can't seem to find the answer for.

Does the Series 1 carburetor intake fit on all cast iron headed Series 1's or no?  IE, Edelbrock lower designed to fit early 80's 2.8 LR2, fitted to an L32 Series 1 found in 93-95 F-Body 3.4.

In reply to JesseWolfe :

IIRC it should.  GM used to sell the F-body 3.4 as a bolt in engine upgrade for old 2.8 powered trucks.

Yes, it will.  I stuck an early 2.8 carb manifold on an F-body 3.4 when i 3.4-swapped a GMC Jimmy Woody for a friend.

This one: 

http://www.rockauto.com/Newsletter/archives/11-5-15.html  Is there a Rockauto magnet of a classic car i fixed? I have a whole fridge full but I haven't seen this!

Here is a pic of my 1966 Chevelle with a 2013 LFX V6/6 speed auto. I put this together to try to get 35 mpg. I'm getting 32 so not bad so far.

In reply to 67LS1 :

That is not a 60 Degree, that is a High Feature.  (We have another thread about those, although it's more Miata-centric)

Still, that's a pretty wild swap.  Not many people would think to go in that direction, although IMO it makes the most sense.

Yeah, I like that Chevelle a LOT.

For a DOHC V6, that thing is quite compact.

I never warmed up to the 60 deg. GM v6’s. I like the 4.3’s, but fell n love with the 3800’s. Have not been around the High Feature's but that Chevelle  is sweet!

Sorry I posted about my a LFX here. I was reading up on the LV3 because we are just starting a swap of one into a 71 CJ. It will be manual trans with transfer case for 4WD.

You can tell I like V6s.

If the choice was post that car or not post that car, im glad  you posted it! Cool swap!!

In reply to 67LS1 :

Awesome car!

03Panther said:

I never warmed up to the 60 deg. GM v6’s. Like the 4.3’s, but fel n love with the 3800’s. Have not been around the High Feature ‘s but that Chevelle  is sweet!

The 4.3 is a 90 degree and not related to the Buick v6 (3800, 3300, etc...).  It is also not related to the 60 degree 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3400, 3500, 3900 engines.

Just an fyi.

Edit:  I think I misread your comment.  When I saw "like the 4.3", I read that as similar to, not "I like the 4.3".

So in a weird turn of timing I am actually starting some work on an '89 RWD 2.8L and could use some advice. 

I have the Edelbrock 4-bbl intake for it and am planning on probably a split profile RV style cam and headers to wake up low rpm performance. (In my application the rear end gearing is relatively tall so it's not going to be spinning high rpms much.)

In my application the 2bbl single plenum intake I don't have and a Weber progressive carb probably makes more sense than the split plenum and Holley Economaster 4-bbl I have and was planning on running.  I also have a couple of new 40mm Weber IDFs and could run one of them on the split manifold I have with an easy adapter plate instead.

Which is better for low end torque and ultimately highway economy, single plenum progressive 32/36 weber, dual 40mm weber on split manifold, or 390cfl Holley Economaster 4-bbl? I'm stuck with too many options, and I don't really have a good feeling for the performance difference between the split and open manifold. 

Huh.  I say go spend $200.00 on a camaro 3.4 and put whichever intake and carb that you have on it.  

More power and torque and should bolt right in.

In reply to oldopelguy :

Find a 3.4 and do the 4bbl, if you have a 390 sitting around.  I just cannot accept driving anything with the 2.8, even though many people have told me they happily drive along in top gear.  Maybe I was always driving uphill or against the wind in the ones I was driving.

wvumtnbkr said:

03Panther said:

I never warmed up to the 60 deg. GM v6’s. Like the 4.3’s, but fel n love with the 3800’s. Have not been around the High Feature ‘s but that Chevelle  is sweet!

The 4.3 is a 90 degree and not related to the Buick v6 (3800, 3300, etc...).  It is also not related to the 60 degree 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3400, 3500, 3900 engines.

 

Just an fyi.

 

Edit:  I think I misread your comment.  When I saw "like the 4.3", I read that as similar to, not "I like the 4.3".

I went back and fixed. Typing on a I phone and fat fingers don't mix!  Thanks. 

In reply to 67LS1 :

That is a MAD swap, but with the advancement's we've made in engines and the light weight and tunability of the A-body it makes tons of sense. I'm kinda surprised other people didn't think of it.

Thanks for posting it!

GIRTHQUAKE said:

In reply to 67LS1 :

That is a MAD swap, but with the advancement's we've made in engines and the light weight and tunability of the A-body it makes tons of sense. I'm kinda surprised other people didn't think of it.

Thanks for posting it!

Thanks. It did come out pretty light. 
This is with a full fuel tank. I was trying to get under 3000 lbs. Take off the 120 lbs for the weight of the fuel and I'm at 3140 lbs. 

What cars can one look for to get that engine that's in that Chevelle?