Is the 2.8l really what I want?

[Ghosteh]

Hey all!

New member here with absolutely no knowledge about the 60' V6s, other than I usually pass them up in favor of a v8. But in this case, I think the V6 would really work well.

My car is a 1955 Austin Healey 100/4 that's been built using quite a few late(r) components, including a rebuilt 2.8l v6 sitting in place of the original 4-cyl.. Construction of the car was started in 1999 (someone else started it), and I can only imagine that the 2.8l was picked because it was similar in dimensions and power of the highest performance Healey engine.

Anyway, there's been a lot of work done to get to this point, and I don't necessarily want to throw it all away and start over, especially since (almost) everything fits. The car has a T-5 transmission and headers have been made that fit neatly in the engine bay. My big problem is that the car currently has a Holly 4brl that, with any air cleaner setup I know of, sticks up too tall for hood clearance.

I was thinking of going with a stock fuel injection setup. Not sure, but I strongly suspect that the Fiero intake will sit a lot lower than a Holley. But I have NO idea what I need to use, or if that will even work on my 2.8l block.

I'm not totally opposed to using another engine also, although I'd like anything I use to bolt to the T-5 like this one does, and I'd rather not fabricate new headers if I didn't have to. Power wise, 150-200hp would be prefect for this car, considering the weight. I intend to drive the heck out of it, so reliability, smoothness, and even fuel economy are just as much of considerations as power.

(I'll post more photos in the future, as right now, we're moving to a new place with a garage where I can finally get some work done!)

[1988GTU]

Welcome!

My big problem is that the car currently has a Holly 4brl that, with any air cleaner setup I know of, sticks up too tall for hood clearance.

I was thinking of going with a stock fuel injection setup. Not sure, but I strongly suspect that the Fiero intake will sit a lot lower than a Holley. But I have NO idea what I need to use, or if that will even work on my 2.8l block.

I'm not totally opposed to using another engine also, although I'd like anything I use to bolt to the T-10 like this one does, and I'd rather not fabricate new headers if I didn't have to. Power wise, 150-200hp would be prefect for this car, considering the weight. I intend to drive the heck out of it, so reliability, smoothness, and even fuel economy are just as much of considerations as power.

(I'll post more photos in the future, as right now, we're moving to a new place with a garage where I can finally get some work done!)

With that assumption and requirement, I'd strongly consider the 3500 non VVT or at a min, the 3400.

[Ghosteh]

How would either of those engines compare to the 2.8 dimensions? Are they built off the same block? Would the engine height be lower?

(I really need to do a lot of reading about the different versions!)

[1988GTU]

Height is relatively the same when compared to the fuel injected setups (From valley to top of upper intake manifold) . However, the 3500 & 3400 would be lower overall height from valley to top of lower intake manifold.

They are all 60* based. The 3500 recommended is the later of them all that would net you prime driveability and reliability. In stock un modified form, the 3500 is starting you out in the lower HP spectrum of your wants with the options to grow (Cam, Headers, Port work, Intake, & Refined tuning) .

Has the oil pan been modified with your current 2.8?

Dig into the wiki on this site and you should be able to find most of the quick information to see about what your options are (roughly) .

[Ghosteh]

Height is relatively the same when compared to the fuel injected setups (From valley to top of upper intake manifold) . However, the 3500 & 3400 would be lower overall height from valley to top of lower intake manifold.

They are all 60* based. The 3500 recommended is the later of them all that would net you prime driveability and reliability. In stock un modified form, the 3500 is starting you out in the lower HP spectrum of your wants with the options to grow (Cam, Headers, Port work, Intake, & Refined tuning) .

Has the oil pan been modified with your current 2.8?

Dig into the wiki on this site and you should be able to find most of the quick information to see about what your options are (roughly) .

Oil pan has not been modified, and (lucky me!) doesn't need to be. Front crossmember is way up front. (You can kinda see where it is in the photo above. The engine sits back in the bay pretty nicely.) I'll post more photos later.

I'm going to check into this 3500.

[caffeine]

Is the 2.8l really what I want?



Just helped install one in an MG Midget recently.

If you turn the lower header bolts into slots you can still use them on the newer engines.
3400 is a bit easier of a swap and the UIM sits a bit lower than the 3500 UIM. You can also run a 3400 UIM on a 3500 however. There would be a performance difference though.

I just dynoed a cam-only 3500 at 256whp.

[Guest]

The 2.8 you have will be a decent and reliable engine, though it won't make the power you want. You can use the EFI intake from a 2.8 or 3.1 F-body (Firebird/Camaro), and would be very similar to the Fiero intake, but designed to sit with the TB forward, and doesn't have an offset throttle body neck, that the Fiero intake has. The heads are really the weak point of the gen 1 660s, unfortunately they just were not designed with performance in mind. The MOST I've seen out of an N/A gen1 660 with CONSIDERABLE work performed and not really streetable was in the 220 range.

I know there were comparison pics around, that had just the top ends of the gen1 and gen 3 660s sitting side by side. The gen3 engines (3100/3400/non-VVT 3500) were shorter.

The (large port) gen3 engines, especially the 3400 and 3500 can and do make over 200 HP without breaking a sweat and are very nice to drive. You'll need to make some small modifications to the headers, for the wider bolt pattern and slight difference in port shape, but easy to do without much effort. The starter location is a bit of an issue, and depending on which T5 bellhousing you have now may be a large issue or not so large. The RWD (longitudinal) 2.8 has the starter on the passenger side, the FWD variants all have the starter on what would be the driver side, if placed longitudinally. The bellhousing will need to be clearenced for the starter nose, and may need to look at the clutch fork to make sure it also clears. Changing to a hydraulic throw out bearing might solve a lot of these issues.

[caffeine]

If the T5 bellhousing came from a 2.8 F-body there's a good chance it has a starter pocket on both sides

[Guest]

If the T5 bellhousing came from a 2.8 F-body there's a good chance it has a starter pocket on both sides

Only if it was a '83. IIRC it was a one year only deal and are very rare. I had one once, the other starter pocket wasn't a perfect line up with the FWD starter, but close enough.

[caffeine]

Not true. I just pulled one a few months ago from an 87 or 88. I'm pretty sure most 2.8s with hydraulic clutch systems had them. You're right the starter doesn't line up 100% but take a mm or two off the bellhousing in the area and it fits fine.

[Ghosteh]

The 2.8 you have will be a decent and reliable engine, though it won't make the power you want. You can use the EFI intake from a 2.8 or 3.1 F-body (Firebird/Camaro), and would be very similar to the Fiero intake, but designed to sit with the TB forward, and doesn't have an offset throttle body neck, that the Fiero intake has. The heads are really the weak point of the gen 1 660s, unfortunately they just were not designed with performance in mind. The MOST I've seen out of an N/A gen1 660 with CONSIDERABLE work performed and not really streetable was in the 220 range.

I know there were comparison pics around, that had just the top ends of the gen1 and gen 3 660s sitting side by side. The gen3 engines (3100/3400/non-VVT 3500) were shorter.

The (large port) gen3 engines, especially the 3400 and 3500 can and do make over 200 HP without breaking a sweat and are very nice to drive. You'll need to make some small modifications to the headers, for the wider bolt pattern and slight difference in port shape, but easy to do without much effort. The starter location is a bit of an issue, and depending on which T5 bellhousing you have now may be a large issue or not so large. The RWD (longitudinal) 2.8 has the starter on the passenger side, the FWD variants all have the starter on what would be the driver side, if placed longitudinally. The bellhousing will need to be clearenced for the starter nose, and may need to look at the clutch fork to make sure it also clears. Changing to a hydraulic throw out bearing might solve a lot of these issues.

It seems a shame to not use the gen1 motor that I have now, since it's a complete rebuild (I have receipts for more than 1K of work on it), but I'd much rather have a dependable 200hp, along with the lower profile and lighter weight. That's bad news about the headers, since I just had those made to fit. Hopefully I can still use them.

I very much like the fact that if the 3500 intake is too tall, it can be swapped out for the 3400 (although I suspect that I'd be ok with the height of the 3500). Hood clearance is a big concern, and I'd rather not cut up a new aluminum hood or add a bump or blister to it just so that it will close. Trying to keep the car looking 100% stock from the outside.

[caffeine]

Here's a pic of 2.8 headers on aluminum heads. As you can see all that's needed is to slot the lower holes.



And if your bellhousing only has one starter pocket here's a pic of a 2.5 S10 bellhousing modified for a drivers side starter.

[Ghosteh]

You guys are awesome!

Thanks for providing the photos. I can see what you mean now. It really shouldn't be that difficult to switch what I have for the 3500 (electronics aside).

I'll have to start a build thread when I get started on this project again. Critiques and criticisms are encouraged (hopefully BEFORE I spend the $ and effort).

[caffeine]

And here's a dual pocket bellhousing that's had the external slave mount removed and the T5 front bearing retainer modified to use a 96+ T5 HTOB.

[neophile_17]

Hello,

Starting with a 2.8L and going to a stock 3400 I can say there is a huge difference. However for me driving the car is key to my motivation. I would get the 2.8L in there and put a couple miles on it this summer/fall. When winter rolls around you can plan the next stage of your project with fond memories. YMMV

Sam