Pondering LY7 3600 swap for 2.8l S10

[hefftone]

I've been giving a lot of thought to swapping a LY7 3600 DOHC (cts,G8, many others too) into my 93 S10, 5spd.
The main reason is that the bellhousing bolt pattern of the LY7 appears to be quite similar to the "metric" of the 2.8l. At approx 250 hp and 240+tq, would be a good match for the S10... Plus it should fit in there pretty well (for the most part, might be a bit wide at the top)

Look at the two bell housing pics in the links below

LY7 FWD Transaxle

GM Metric 60º bellhousing pattern

I welcome your thoughts!

[bszopi]

Be prepared to swap a lot more than just the motor... The PCM communicates with the BCM as well, and you will need to swap over the PCM in order for it to work properly and get the power out of it.

[hefftone]

I realize there will be a good bit of electronics associated with the swap. This is the first time I've heard the term"BCM" but it looks like that is most of the body or basic wiring for the rest of the car. Seems like that would mostly be related to the VATS stuff. If its similiar to the LSx stuff, it should be easily bypassed. Fortunately there are a lot of GM PCM gurus out there.

However, the electronics is really not the topic that I'm dwelling on right now. I'm more interested in the feasibility of installing the LY7, and the likelyhood of retaining the stock T-5 Transmission. The bellhousing appears similiar, but I'm wondering about the starter motor location. The LY7 FWD transaxle appears to show it on the opposite side,... I have'nt found any good pictures of the RWD LY7 to compare.

I'm investigating this swap as an alternative to 5.3 liter swaps. It would provide an worthwhile increase in power, and should increase fuel economy as well.

[WrathOfSocrus]

A search for CTS on the site here brings up some threads like this

http://60degreev6.com/forum/f101/2004-dohc-60-s-t43618

I just looked around again on ebay and the few pics that did show the back of the newer DOHC blocks all have the different bolt pattern. Also the transmission you have shown as the LY7 trans was never offered in the CTS as written on the wikipedia for the CTS, "The CTS was originally offered with either GM's in-house 5-speed 5L40-E automatic transmission or a 5-speed Getrag 260 manual transmission. For the 2005 model year, the Getrag was replaced with an Aisin AY-6 6-speed."

[hefftone]

Yes, the thread you linked is one I started, which I did check before posting this thread.

Obviously, the CTS did not use a FWD transaxle, but the LY7 was used in the CTS as well as many other FWD vehicles. Here is a pic of the CTS RWD 6 speed auto.
The FWD Transaxle is a little easier to see the bolt pattern.

Starter appears to have moved also.

[WrathOfSocrus]

While they do have similarities they are not the same. The obvious is the starter relocation but it also looks like one of the bolt holes is completely missing. I'm sure an adapter plate and custom clutch plate could remedy the problem but that could be said for nearly any engine.

[hefftone]

I'd love to get a photograph of the backside of both engines. The pattern looks close, but almost as if the pattern was rotated slightly counter-clockwise for the new motors.

[WrathOfSocrus]

The back of the engine is pictured in the other thread and I attached a pic of the trans here. The two bellhousings you have posted look different from each other and very different from the current GM High Feature engines. Believe me if it was as simple as dropping it in with minor modifications I am sure it would have been done by now. I know I would prefer using a newer DOHC as opposed to an old pushrod motor but they don't seem to be very cost effective for swaps at the moment.

[Rizzle]

If you do go the pushrod engine route, find yourself a 5 speed out of a 2nd gen 2.2 s-10. Not only is the bellhousing the small gm, but the starter location is on the driver side, AND, they are all w/c 5 speeds, and should hold up better then the old t-5's (my buddy busts up 1 or 2 a year off road racing with a stock ecotec)

[geoffinbc]

2.2L's did not use the T5. They used an NV 1500.

[CNCguy]

Two years only.... the '94~'95 S10s had a 2.2 with a T5.

[95 V6 J body]

I've looked into the new DOHC 60 degree engines, and AFAIK, they all have the newer bolt pattern that the Ecotec 4 bangers have, which is unique. I was checking into the newer Saab 9-3 engine (2800 Turbo) and it has that rounder pattern, rather than the classic metric pattern. I don't know if the bellhousing is different on the RWD block or not, though. How about a 3900? Probably easier to come by at this point, and it has the metric pattern.

[Joseph Upson]

The 3.6L has the same bolt pattern as the Saab 9-3 and 9-5 series. Although the 6 spd auto appears to have the same bolt pattern as the 60 degree V6 it's still a grey area. This swap was considered on the Fiero forum but never completed beyond an engine and 6 spd manual tranny from the Saab being acquired. GM's website is not accurate either, my mom has a 3.6L 6 spd Saturn Aura that has the new bolt pattern. From what I have gathered so far either her car has a variant of the 6 spd auto or GM used only one in the Saturn and is showing the incorrect model on their site. The 45 series has the rounded pattern and the 70 series has the traditional pattern. I do know they both exist because I recall seeing the 6 spd auto mated to a 3500 in one of the SUV series vehicles on the GM site. There is a difference between the early fwd 3.6L and the later, not sure what it is so maybe the first production run does have a traditional bolt pattern run in the Buick Rendezvous that was later changed to 100% global around 06 or 07, I know the Cadillac is the only model with direct injection at least around that time and that it makes up a 3rd application different from the other two in the fwd cars.

The LS4 FWD V8 has at least two installs in the Fiero which required quite a bit of the donor car electronics like the gauge cluster, radio, accelerator pedal and I believe part of the steering column for proper function so you can expect at least that much effort with the 3.6L. I like the 3.6L but dismissed it as a practical swap. I saw the commercial for the Ford DOHC V6 today laying down 365 hp turbocharged in a Taurus I believe and that got me wondering again. When all of the madness can be programmed out of it I'll give it more thought as the LS4 swaps had a struggle with torque management activating against wishes.