RustBucket

iTrader: (1)

No... actually, exponentially IS the word I want. However, I just noticed I did misspell lose as "loose."

Kiwipushrod

Hey Guys,
Well I guess I did not know who I was dealing with, but I do NOW. I,m going to work ,then getting a spell checker. Till next time, Thanks Kiwi

theeacoustics

depending on the size of plate that your differential is, say 8", all you need to do is find an 8" differential with the gears you need. your probably going to need to change the carrier though.

RustBucket

iTrader: (1)

Kiwi,

The YT guys (including myself) tend to be pretty nerdy. I think you'll find most people are really concerned with having something *right* even at the expense of people feeling good about themselves. This culture helps YT keep from spreading misinformation.

So all that to say, sorry if anything came across as insulting, it was certainly not the intention. We just want to help you think about the project you're working on and give you the info you need to make stuff work!

elripster

Just curious, are sure that engine will have enough torque and that RPM? Keep in mind the decrease in mechanical advantage will require an increase in torque from the engine to compensate.

If the engine makes X% more torque across the band and you decrease the mechanical advantage (and RPM) by that same amount then you should see an increase in MPG. An example of his is the typical diesel vehicle gearing as opposed to say a Civic.

Honestly, and nerdily, engines producing power with more pedal at lower RPM use less fuel than those at higher RPM because there are less pumping and friction losses all other interactions (like a knock sensor retarding the timing to prevent pinging or the likes). More fuel is moving the vehicle as opposed to spinning the engine. There are exceptions.

Frank

element

I’ll be following this thread to see how it turns out. I think these cross-manufacturer swaps are pretty cool (yes another nerdy YTer) and I think the 3.8L GM v6 is one of the best engines ever built (my humble opinion ). The theory discussion is good and I don’t have anything to ad. I did want to bring up a point about the original post, though.

The 3.8 was offered in a ton of GM cars from the 80’s (maybe 70’s too, I wasn’t paying attention) until 2005(?). If memory serves, they had an engine for front wheel drive (stamped FWD on the back of the block) and one for rear wheel drive (stamped RWD on the block). My research is on the Buick Park Avenues and Regals from 1990 - 2000. I’m not certain what the breakdown is on which of these cars were FWD and which were RWD.

The Regal and the PA are rated at the following MPG by year according to fueleconomy.gov:

Year
Model - City/Highway
1990
Regal - 16/25
PA - 16/25
1995
Regal - 17/26
PA - 17/26
2000
Regal - 16/25
PA - 17/27

These cars use an average 26.5”ish diameter wheel/tire setup (225/60-16 in 2000 and 205/70-15 in 1995)

To the OP:
Do you think this MPG estimate is realistic considering what the engines were able to do in cars that were more aerodynamic (I have not done any research on weight) with skinnier tires?

Gearing would be a factor and so would efficiency of the transmission. It just seems like if you could get that type of fuel economy, GM would be bringing the 3.8L back in 2019 to meet the 2020 café standards that congress passed!

Kiwipushrod

Hi,

The 3.8 is rated 197hp @5200 rpm, 227 ft. lbs. @3800 rpm

The 22re is rated 105 hp @4800 rpm, 142 ft. lbs @ 3400 rpm

I am going to guess the 3.8 is about 150# heavier. I will keep the 3.8 injected and will also have the choice of supercharging for little or no cost ,if needed. I like these motors alot, and consider them almost as reliable as the Yota motor. Thanks Kiwi.

Kiwipushrod

Hey,

The 00' and later block castings, do not have a right side motor mount bosses cast into them. Thanks Kiwi

element

Couldn’t agree more! Plus GM put them in cars for over 20 years (lots of parts, low price, used parts everywhere, etc.). I was thinking about the SC potential too, but didn’t want to mention it because I have no idea how easy the computer control would be.

As far as the weight, I was thinking about the weight of the vehicle not that of the block. I think this would be a good, reliable engine for the swap and that you will be happy with its performance. I’m just curious if 26/29 MPG is possible. It will be nice if it is!

Good info on the ‘00 block. I’ll store that away some where. Good luck with the swap

Kiwipushrod

Hey element,

The only way I'll ever know is to do it, I'm actually pretty excited about this swap. This would give the truck something it needs badly, power and economy.

If anyone has done this swap, Your input would be welcome.

Thanks Kiwi

Greg_Canada

I know the 96+ 4runners you can get a 3.90 gear (or maybe lower) but the front gear will not work (it's reverse rotation)
just stick with 4.10 and get some 265/75r16's.....

element

True. And the only way we'll ever know is if you post lots of pictures!

Good luck and keep us updated.

JD

Kiwi

Our local GM 3800 swap is the most popular swap done in Oz.

Your “gallon” volume is 3.785 liters whereas our “gallon is 4.54 liters. Most here would be able to get around 20-25mpg with gentle cruising at 65mph with rpm’s around 2300-2500 so you might be a bit under .

But it is a great swap as these engines make a significant overall difference.

I have no idea what some are basing their comments on as basically it all comes down to what elripster mentioned, although I don’t understand his other comments It’s all to do with its ideal rpm torque range etc otherwise you can go backwards with mpg as many have found out.

Do the swap and test with your current gearing and tyres and then use the various formulae available to determine the gear ratio or tyre size for the ideal rpm etc etc.

If an engine is very efficient and makes good torque and hp at low rpm’s it will always give a good mpg. For instance, I have a Cobra 5.0 V8 in my 4Runner and although it has many performance parts etc the object was to make it very efficient and consequently even though it has around 350rwhp (currently building a better 347 ) it easily returns 25mpg cruising at 65mph. My OD is 37% so it will also cruise all day at just 3000rpm

http://members.iinet.net.au/~ozrunne...s/Cruising.jpg

Again I don’t understand some comments made as ratios such as 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, 4.8 etc are all readily available for the Toy.

JD

Kiwipushrod

Hey JD,

From the land that gave us AC/DC and Mad Max, (one of My favorites) comes more cool stuff, information.

Thank You for Your time!

I have a few questions, maybe You can help. Have You seen supercharged versions? Or do You install carb and intake? I would prefer injection.

Do You guys use bell housing adaptors w/Toy running gear? Or tranfer case adaptors w/ GM trans? I can get a bell housing adaptor for $485 U.S. with fork, and leave Toy running gear in place. Sorry for the grilling.

Thanks Kiwi

p.s. A picture is worth a thousand words

nate V

can you repeat the question????

JD

Kiwi

Yep, guys use a bellhousing kit designed to mate this engine to the stock Toy running gear. It's available for either the G52 or R150/151 trans but most go for the R series as the G52 is not very strong. For those that want an auto a kit is available to use the GM auto with an adapter for the Toy transfer.

http://www.marks4wd.com/products/eng...lux-index.html

This V6 was only EFI and the initial version had a efi manifold virtually the same as the Buick V6 with the throttle body at the rear. In 1997 it was changed to a box type manifold with the throttle body centered. Also in 1997a factory supercharged version was released.

This engine has now been superseded by a newer generation V6 but it is still sought after and used in a host of conversions because of its simplicity, good hp and torque etc. There is also a good selection of performance aftermarket bits.

I'm a Ford man so I don't keep specific pics of GM engines so these links may help. Otherwise google Commodore V6, Commodore ecotec V6, Commodore supercharged V6

http://www.users.on.net/~nweber/comm...cs.html#ecotec

http://v6supercharged.com.au/fame.asp

JD

Kiwipushrod

Hey Guys,

Im getting closer with this swap, and have a question.

I've found out I have the weak trans, g52?, My truck is a 90' w/22re, 5sp, 4x4. I've found the stronger trans, out of a 91 forerunner, v6, w/70k for $400.

My Question is: Will the 22re drive shafts bolt up to the V6 trans/transfer case? Do I need the transfer case from the V6, or is the 22re transfer case the same. I would have to buy the V6 trans inorder to do a side by side comparision.

Thanks Kiwi

babyfood1217

Of course you are. You're from Wisconsin. That's all we are good for

tc

It's hard to tell ... Toyota has used several bolt patterns on the flanges, but you can drill out the holes and make them work. As for the length, they will likely be different as the V6 tranny is longer IIRC.

You can use the 4cyl transfer case, but you would need to convert it to 23 spline and need the V6 adapter plate, so you may be better off getting the V6 chain drive tcase with the tranny.

Kiwipushrod

Hey tc,

Thank You, maybe I should buy the whole 91' forerunner V6, 5sp.,(there goes the swap budget).

Should this truck have a front or rear locker, or were they optional? That would be a bonus.

This is were I'm at on the motor swap: I'm going to use a an L36 series II 3800, out of a 99' firebird 5sp RWD, this is not the same motor as the older 3.8 with the b.o.p. (Buick,Oldsmobile,Pontiac) bell housing pattern. The 3800 has factory roller cam, alum heads, is much more efficient, and weighs only 50# more then the 22re.


The 3800 has a smaller, metric bell housing pattern, (a.k.a. small corporate pattern) and I cannot seem to find, a 3800 engine to Toy trans adapter. I have looked pretty hard. I have even checked the "Aussie" sites and have also been told is dose not exist.

I think My next move is to fabricate My own 3800 engine to Toy trans adapter. If anyone can stop Me from having all of this fun, please reply promptly. lol

Thanks Kiwi