Adapater Exist: 60V6 Engine to Small Block tranny

[85_Olds_Ciera]

Is there an adapter available for mating a 60V6 Engine to Small Block V-8 Chevy tranny...any URLs...

thx

[sharkey]

im sure there is something out there. what are you wanting to adapt to what??? there are plenty of good transmission choices, both automatic and standard, with the small gm bolt pattern.

[CNCguy]

Try this out.

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/p/4010,,_1927-Track-T-Roadster-Kit.html?itemNo=97318927

[ForcedFirebird]

Try this out.


http://www.speedwaymotors.com/p/4010...temNo=97318927

Nice find! The price is right, too.

[85_Olds_Ciera]

what are you wanting to adapt to what?

My relative has a low mile 2.8L engine (rebuilt) from a rust bucket 1987 Jimmy 4x4 sitting in his garage...I have a 1982 Chevy Impala with 200,000 plus miles that has a 267 (Vin J) hooked to THM 200C automatic.

Hence, an adapter that would mate a GM 2.8L to a THM 200C on small block V8 design.

I don't think I'll have any problems with mating electronics here...I'll just use the Jimmy's wiring loom/computer.

[ForcedFirebird]

I'm only aware of three common GM bolt patterns: BOP, V8, and small corperate available in '87. So if you had an adapter to mate from the small corperate pattern (60*) to a V8 pattern (90*), then it should work...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...using_patterns

[85_Olds_Ciera]

So if you had an adapter to mate from the small corperate pattern (60*) to a V8 pattern (90*), then it should work

Yes...that's what I want, but here is what I hear...so far:

Chevy 60 degree V6: This is the 2.8L V6 used in S10s and Jeep Cherokees. This bellhousing bolt pattern is completely different than the 90 degree Chevy bolt pattern. GM automatics that have this bolt pattern will not bolt to the 90 degree blocks.

Hence, a dead end...so far...Yes, I could install a RWD 700R4...but then, I would have to change rear end gears since my tranny final now is 1:1 to engine, and 4 Speed Auto would be 1:0.73 or so...a big difference.

[85_Olds_Ciera]

an adapter to mate

Btw, the THM 200C is a rock solid transmission for low horsepower motors (100 HP range): see A little history on the THM 200 and 200C

Plus, its much easier to overhaul...a big plus...this one has 200,000 plus miles on it, and last time I checked oil pan it was clean...shifts smooth...good tranny.

[sharkey]

they did use the 200c behind the 2.8l in the early s10 blazers, you could grab one and it would bolt right up. the 700r4 isnt to bad of an option, sure it would pull the motor down a bit more on the highway, however it wouldnt be to much of a difference if you just left lockup unhooked. the only issue i see is the crossmember and the driveshaft.

[85_Olds_Ciera]

is the crossmember and the driveshaft.

I would rather make front motor mounts than deal with stuff from transmission onward.

There are other engines that would mate...like RWD Iron Duke motors around 1980-83 era...and 3.8 (229) or 4.3 V6 motors.

But, my relative, who is a mechanic with his shop...had a customer that wanted his 87 Jimmy fixed...time went by, then my relative found a good (dyno'ed) motor and bought it...and then customer didn't want it fixed, so he gave the Jimmy to him.

I may just rebuild my 267-V8, but I thought with a smaller V6/4, one might get a pinch better fuel economy.

I'm going to look at backside of 60degree block and see if a plate of steel could be drilled; if bolt pattern for V8 tranny stick out farther than V6-60degree engine, then something could be fabricated...with spacers at crank also.

thanks,

[geoffinbc]

A rebuild on the V8 is a better idea IMO. Parts are SO CHEEP for a small block, especially the generation I engines. The price of the swap you have in mind would cost more than a small block rebuild. If you take your motor and freshen it up you would probably get allot of your economy back. There are also allot of things you could do to the old engine to make it more efficient and more powerful at the same time. I would bore it out and make it a 350 and get the compression up. You would get allot more low end torque and would hardly be on the throttle when cruising. The more efficient an engine is the better its economy regardless of its size. And also remember small engines have to work very hard to keep up with big cars and you may actually loose mileage forcing a 2.8L to spin like mad just to make you big car move. Plus could imaging a 2.8L trying to pass on the freeway in your car?

[85_Olds_Ciera]

...A rebuild on the V8 is a better idea
...would bore it out and make it a 350 and get the compression up...

At 200,000 plus, it still runs decent and hits on all cyclinders...it could use intake/exhaust value stem seals...but it would be better to yank the motor out and re-ring it///etc.

The computer system was an earlier GM design...it wasn't until 1986 Chevy (Vin H) that there was a wider dynamic timing range...and a better computer....with roller lifters.

Generally, when you bore out, and increase compression, you may not get better fuel economy....I think the knock sensor/computer has a limited timing advance range on this 82 Chevy

The 4 Cylinder iron duke motor (2.500L or 151cu) has similiar HP to this 267cu motor (Vin J), but one would have to find an earlier Iron Duke that was used in a rear wheel drive vehicle for it to mate correctly to transmission.

82 Chevy currently gets around 18-20mpg...but with a 4 banger, I would not be surprised if this increased several mpg....since your parasitic losses from those extra 4 cylinders would be gone.

thanks for the thought.

[85_Olds_Ciera]

And also remember small engines have to work very hard to keep up with big cars and you may actually loose mileage forcing a 2.8L to spin like mad just to make you big car move.

I think horsepower is horsepower....for instance,

"An average Monaco coach towing a car requires 91 horsepower
to travel down the road at 54.8 mph. Driving 59.0 mph requires
109 horsepower. To add just 2 mph and drive 61 mph takes 118
horsepower. Add 10 mph to that, and to cruise at 71, takes 172
horsepower. To drive fast, 75 mph takes 197 horsepower."

Now, if I wanted to put the peddle to the metal...I'd get 375 ponies...but if I'm driving for fuel efficiency, I'd follow grandpa down the road.

Consequently, with light foot acceleration at the helm, only wind loading affect would be the factor that loads the motor. Most smaller/newer vehicles would have less, but this only comes into play with winds...for instance,

Here's some big trucks tidbits: 18 Wheelers:

a. Above 55 mph, each 1 mph increase in vehicle speed decreases fuel economy by 0.1 mpg.

b. The most efficient drivers get about 30% better fuel economy than
the least efficient drivers.

c. Tires make biggest difference in mpg below around 50 mph; aerodynamics is the most important factor over around 50 mph.

Thus, if driving below 50 mph...mox nix if one has a light right foot.

[geoffinbc]

I agree completely when you have to accelerate (hills, wind, passing and leaving from a stop) is the time the engine has to work. This is why everyones in town economy is always worse.

[ForcedFirebird]

I would bore it out and make it a 350 and get the compression up.

Are you sure you can overbore it by 3/4"? I would think the walls aren't much more than 3/8". A 305 can't be bored to a 350, and the 267 has an even smaller bore (same stroke as a 350/305). If anything you could stroke it by adding a 400 crank (don't know if the journals are the same, though).