Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2.8 in '83 s-10 blazer...hop up's?...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: 2.8 in '83 s-10 blazer...hop up's?...

    Originally posted by Cliff8928
    Originally posted by betterthanyou

    If you want the best bang for the buck (not exactally legal but it WILL pass emissions) do a 3.4L swap. You cannot tell it was ever done unless they inspect the side of the engine or the casting numbers. If you dont want a swap than a Cam and Rocker change is a good option. The supercharger will yield the most ponies but it is getting harder to find them.

    Well, if you get the GM 3.4 kit, it is legal for the carb'd guys...



    Cliff Scott
    89 BerettaGT
    89 Volvo740
    Not in California. Do you really think California would agree?...

    The 3.4L Swap IS worth the money. I can outrun a 4.3L V6 (well not proven yet). I raced a 1999 4.3L Xtreme at the track he beat me off the line (better RT) got a much better launch thanks to his posi yet I was still only 1 tenth behind him at the end after playing catchup.

    This was all back when I had no limited slip and had my defective crane cam that was triggering my knock sensor. I bet now I can beat one. But I will have to wait till the summer to prove it.

    If you thinking about a 4.3L swap, forget it, you can LITTERALY do a V8 swap for the SAME amount of work.
    1993 EXT. CAB, 3.4L V6 TBI, 5spd manual. Sonoma
    1990 4Door, 3.2L V6 TBI, 5spd manual. 4X4. Trooper
    Because... I am, CANADIAN

    Comment


    • #17
      Tornado is shit on the port injected cars...but those air foil things that go under the carb are supposed to help. If it goes under the carb, then its possible (or under TBI) because it should help atomize the air/fuel mixture for its journey through the intake manifold. Maybe someone with experience can answer this for sure because I know it is junk on the port fuel injection setups.
      Ben
      60DegreeV6.com
      WOT-Tech.com

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by blazinlow83
        If I were to even bother with an engine swap I would go to a 4.3 v6 out of a newer s-10 or a 350 v8. I don't feel that the 3.4 swap is worth the effort. Specially considering that my 2.8 is a new motor. By the way it was mentioned that the supercharger was inexspensive....well how much is it? I'm glad that gears were mentioned also. I had just thought about that today and was going to mentions that as well. What gears do the tahoe edition 2wd blazers have stock, anyone know? Once again that Tornado intake piece, is it a "piece", or is it worth the 60 or 70 bucks they want?
        It is around $1250 -$1500
        1992 Chevrolet S10
        2.8 v6 tbi 5 speed

        Comment


        • #19
          2.8 mods

          This is a pretty good thread on the options for the 2.8, but the case for an '83, it's pretty poor. The original posting [I just can't win with my 2.8] is reality, you'll have to deal with it.

          Small crank journels, leaky main seal, low compression, marginal carb, and small valve heads, in my opinion, makes the prospect of improving the performance of this engine a money losing sinkhole.

          If you're a workin' stiff like me that pays taxes (my '84 has the same 2. you gotta wonder how much are you willing to invest in a vehicle this old to get more power in lieu of just buying a truck with the power you want?

          We all have our own reasons for keeping and driving 'em, so if you're really attached to it (I guess I am), this is what I'm planning on doing:

          1. Maintain it and drive the goody out of it until there ain't no more, saving your money so you can-
          2. Buy the GM crate 3.4 that corrects most of the problems that the 2.8 has (bigger valves, higher compression, bigger crank journels).

          Let's see, GM crate 3.4, 160 HP-110 HP=50 hp gain. Not bad. Now before I do the swap, port & polish the 3.4 heads, maybe invest in a Weber carb, gotta invest in a electric fuel pump, etc.

          So bottom line, I'll have a new engine, and a 160 HP platform to build performance mods onto, anda bolt-in swap that all my accessories like AC should fit ok with no funny business. It's still a pretty good chunk of change, but if you look at the cost of HP increase per dollar invested, including installation headaches the other options present, the 3.4 swap is the best bet.

          Comment


          • #20
            BubbaChevy thanx for the reply. What you say is exactly true, I am attached to the truck. The 2.8 in it was new 10k miles ago, so it's gunna stay for a while. I eventually wanna drop a 350 in it and just get it over with. I got stuck putting the 2.8 in it because my other car dumped out on me. I'm 18, so all the jobs I have had haven't really payed well. It's a slow agonizing process...but worth it in my eyes. I just want a trick ride...thats all I ask for...

            Comment


            • #21
              so does that mean you have the newer style block with the larger main bearings if it was new 10k ago?

              Cliff Scott
              89 BerettaGT
              89 Volvo740
              Cliff Scott
              89 BerettaGT
              04 AleroGX

              Comment


              • #22
                How can I tell?

                Comment


                • #23
                  IF you have a 1 piece rear main seal you have big bearings
                  1993 EXT. CAB, 3.4L V6 TBI, 5spd manual. Sonoma
                  1990 4Door, 3.2L V6 TBI, 5spd manual. 4X4. Trooper
                  Because... I am, CANADIAN

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    i know this thread is a little old but i had some questions about the fageol charger. Will it work with an aluminum headed tbi motor. I have a 92 and would rather not switch to the older style iron heads.
                    best run to date: 16.275@81.24mph
                    \'92 Std cab short bed 2.8 \'Noma
                    stock 3:73\'s, air filter, asp pulleys, chip, cleared & euro\'d, and front bagged with back still static dropped 5

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Nope. Port location between the iron heads and aluminum heads is much different.
                      -Brad-
                      89 Mustang : Future 60V6 Power
                      sigpic
                      Follow the build -> http://www.3x00swap.com/index.php?page=mustang-blog

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X