I'm thinking about putting a 2.8/T-5 in a 66 MGB and thought that with all the 2.8 V6 Camaros around some of you may have some info or know of some good performance related links.
I've found some stuff on the www, but was more interested in which heads to looks for, what's a good cam, etc. I'll probably use the Edelbrock 4V intake, definately going to have a carb.
I'd appreciate any suggestions.
Jul 25th, 03, 07:48 AM
Buy a GM Power Book and it should have info in it about the little motor that tells what GM has done to it to get it to go better! At least the earlier books do...
Personally I think you have a dandy idea b/c I figure the extra cubes would make the little car really go nice but yet not totally over-weight it on the frontend!!!
Good luck with your conversion and get back to us later and please fill us in on how everything fit... pdq67
Jul 25th, 03, 11:45 AM
From what I've read the 2.8/T-5 is a little lighter than the original 1800cc/OD manual trans (which is what it has). It's not my idea by any means, but I'll steal a good idea in a hurry.
Supposedly this swap doesn't take a lot of hatchet work. Right now I'm in the planning stages since I know nothing about the V6. I've also read that you can't just swap heads around from the 2.8, 3.1 and 3.4 because of different intake runners, CR factors and other stuff.
I'll try to find a GM Power Book. I'd never have thought of looking there for V6 info.
Jul 25th, 03, 05:46 PM
I would try to find one out of a Camaro or an S-10 b/c they are rear weheel drive so will be ready to go in your application... pdq67
PS., and don't forget to look under the hood of an old Citation X-11 hatchback coupe hi-po car b/c they had a 2.8 in them and it ran quite well even if it was a wrong end drive car...
He, He!! pdq67
Jul 26th, 03, 06:01 PM
the X11 Citations had the same cam that was used in the later fwd cars that got the revised heads- around 88 or so, i believe. definitely get a newer one- hell, why not just look for a 3.4 out of an early 90's Camaro that has a T5 already hooked up to it and all the "good" factory parts in it? not sure about putting the carb intake on those later heads tho. why not just steal all the electronics out of the donor Camaro and go efi? that would be a kind of wicked little car, and would be very reliable. or are you going for simplicity with this project?
Jul 27th, 03, 07:54 AM
How much bigger/taller/wider engine is the 3.4 vs the 2.8 is the only thing I can think of???
Or are they based on the same block like the SB's?? pdq67
Sep 6th, 03, 07:46 PM
I just found this post searching for 3.4 stuff - I think I learned a little since the last time. When I started this thread I thought I was limited to 82-92 engines.
Novaderrik, now I am leaning towards a 93-95 3.4 F-body engine - hope they have iron heads, pretty sure they do. I'll have to use a carb - if I tried to go the ECM/sfi route the car would never move again.
pdq67, it's my understanding that the 2.8, 3.1, and 3.4 RWD blocks are dimensionally the same. There may be some minor changes (internal ribs for strength), but none that effect the physical size (from what I've read so far). I also think that all the RWD FI 60* V6s use the 884 iron heads.
I'm also pretty sure that if you want a 3.4, you need a 3.4 block.
There is a possible snag:
"Beginning in 1993, there was no T-5 available with the GM V8. All 4th generation F-body T-5s have a Ford T-5 bellhousing bolt pattern (Figure 22-3). The 26-spline 1?-inch input shaft is similar to the earlier V8 input shaft, but the pilot is longer than that used in the earlier models (Figure 22-4). The front bearing retainer is the same as used on the 1983-1992 GM T-5."
Do you see any reason that the Camaro V8 T-5, S-10 V6 bellhousing, and 93-95 Camaro 3.4 won't work? Maybe not, since the 3.4 crank seems to have a deeper pilot, but I don't know anything about the diameters. It'll have to use a HTOB.
Check with somebody like Lakewood b/c they probably know what it takes to adapt what you are thinking of using. It may be as simple as just using a different custom pilot bushing???
I went through this when I thoufht about putting a MOPAR A833 O.D. four speed behind my 496 for gas mileage purposes but found out that the A833 O.D. tranny is kinda weak in O.D.!! pdq67
Sep 7th, 03, 06:55 PM
Thanks for suggesting contacting Lakewood.
I don't know why the 3.4 uses a different bellhousing and input shaft. Maybe the longer shaft is to compensate for a thinner (front to back) bell, and uses the same flywheel - I have no idea. The more I think I understand, the more confusing it gets.
Sep 9th, 03, 11:51 AM
Check out the tech section archives at this site.