Here is a partial list of SBB cams. http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?122431-340-build&p=942563#post942563 I like your combination. Nice find on the piston and rod combination! I fully understand the budget consideration. If I were doing an economy engine with a budget that would allow, it would be a 300 with something like this. It is important to extract as much energy from the fuel as possible. The TA rover heads have a closed chamber for quench which is important for more complete combustion. I would use a reversed dome piston that matched the combustion chamber exactly. A longer connecting rod reduces piston side loading for less friction. A roller cam and roller rockers reduce engine friction by a lot. It doesn't take much power to keep a car rolling on a level during cruise so every bit of power wasted has a measurable effect on gas mileage. One approach is as you said: Build low rpm torque with a short duration cam and gear the car for low rpm. This usually limits the compression ratio to 9.5:1 in order to keep the DCR around 8:1 A second approach is to use a later closing intake valve by spreading the LSA out. This allows a higher Static compression ratio which increases the engines thermal efficiency and the later closing intake valve also decreases pumping loses. The decrease in valve overlap decreases the amount of unburned gas going out the exhaust during low rpm cruising for less waste again. You give away some low end torque but pick up gas mileage Long small diameter tube headers are needed to complete either of the above combinations. On the second combination, a set of twin scroll turbos at the rear of the car (like the Squires setup) would further increase overall efficiency by recouping some of the wasted exhaust energy. Since the turbos are at the rear of the car the tube headers can be used and there can be enough intercooling to keep the higher compression ratio. With an easy 6 lbs of boost the low end power would be restored and you would gain a lot of mid and upper end power. Just listing some of the possibilities to give some ideas. Paul
Wow there's a lot of great advice here. As for my budget, well lets just say I'm very poor and call it good there. Most people wouldn't even try and build a car on my budget, but I have found that The Good Lord provides. I have the tranny, but no engine yet. I do have a Chevy 305 that I have been collecting parts for. I had thought of using it to get the car up and going till I can find/come up with the funds for a buick engine, then the 305 would go into my 77' Skylark to replace the very tired 305 that's in it. The 3800 is at my in-laws and we haven't talked about it too much. It's a 94' and is just a NA version, not a SC version. The car was in a wreck that creamed the car but didn't hurt the engine, it has around 95,000 miles and was maintained really well. I'm just not sure it would have enough torque to move a A-body without working the motor too much to get good mileage. That be said it's in a big old Le Sabre that weights 3300/3400 pounds. I'm thinking that with a SBB the Skylark would weight around 3500? The 3800 in the same car would drop that even closer to 3400 would it not? I can pay payments on the 3800 but I haven't a cue as to what it's worth. Any idea's here?
yes a sbb skylark would be right around 3500lbs and most mid 90s and up v6 buicks were also 3400/3600 lbs so you wouldnt be lacking performance form the lil v6 I say if you can get your bro-inlaws for next to nothing get it, can always swap in the S/c version another time as work will essentially be already done and figured out. and save your 305 for when your other car with 305 croaks. This sounds like the most logical to me. or get 3800 engine sell it and have that start the fund for the lc2 or s/c engine also thinking..if its a 94..its probably the boxy looking buicks so i guess that car would be around 3300 curbweight
What do you know about the trans that you have,as in what are the gear ratios of 1-5? Maybe that 3800 might work with some creative gearing.
not sure what factory gearing would be for a 70 lark, but typically you'd have a 2.56 pegleg in 71-72 350-2bbl mocdels with a th350.. with a tire that'll equal a 245-60-15 or possible even a 255-60-15. 94 buick would have a 4T60-E http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_4T60-E_transmission 1 2 3 4 R 2.92 1.56 1.00 0.70 2.38 performance from engine should be about 170HP with 220 ft lbs im sure gearing wouldnt be too different then if you geared the car with a v8. no more then 1 step difference in gear selection
Cool,great info,but I was asking if he knows what the gearing for the T-5 5speed manual trans that he said he already has,that he wanted to use. I think there are 4 or 5 different gear set ratios for those transmissions,thats why I asked. And,if he has the one with a 3.23:1 1st gear,then it might work with the combo he originally mentioned. Chevy Astro vans came with a 4.3L V-6,and a 700R4 with a 3.73:1 rear gear to get that 3800lb pig moving with a V-6. The 3.06:1 1st gear of the 700 with the 3.73 got it moving out of the hole. 3.06 X 3.73 = 11.4138 first gear multiplication ratio! Thats race car gearing,and a final drive ratio of 2.611:1,still good enough to get half way decent mileage for a brick cutting through the air. If he has the 3.23:1 first gear trans,then with 3400lbs,a 3.23(or possibly a 3.08) rear gear just might do the trick,would be a 10.4329:1 first gear multiplication ratio with the 3.23 rear gear,which should get the weight moving just fine.(not race car good,but good enough to pull out in traffic). Driving this on the highway is where the MPG would shine the most,If I recall correctly,I think that trans had a .75:1 O/D gear,which would be a final drive ratio of 2.4225:1 with the 3.23 rear gear,and a 3.08 rear gear would be a final drive ratio of 2.31:1. Usually these transmissions with this 1st gear were used in front of a 3.55:1 rear gear,which might even be needed if the power band on that engine is higher than the RPMs would be while driving the car.(in other words,you don't want the engine to lug.Perhaps a lower RPM cam for the 3800?) Its all up to the original poster if he wants to do all the work to do this swap,I'm kinda curious now to here if it is worth doing. What do you say,do you want to pioneer this swap? (theres always NOS if you want to race it LOL)
I'll see what I can find out as for the tranny gearing. You raise a very good point that I hadn't even considered. I'll get under the car and see what gears it has. I might swap the rear out with a friends which has 3.23's if mine has a 2.73's. I'll keep you posted. I once had a 70 Barracuda that had a slant 6 and 3.23's. I swapped in a 8 3/4 rear with borrowed 3.91's and it was fun unti you hit 50 mph! When my buddy needed his 3.91's back, we swapped in some 2.76's and turned it into a dead dog! You had to slip the holy livin' *#@* out of the clutch just to get it going! So I know what your talking about. I'll keep you posted.... ---------- Post added at 10:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ---------- OK here's what I have: [TABLE="class: body-estext"] <tbody>[TR] [TD]1352-192[/TD] [TD]GM 1989 S-Truck 2.8L V6 Only [/TD] [TD]R[/TD] [TD]3.70[/TD] [TD]3.97[/TD] [TD]2.34[/TD] [TD]1.48[/TD] [TD]1.00[/TD] [TD]0.79[/TD] [/TR] </tbody>[/TABLE] The 3.70 is rev, with 3.97 being first gear. It's not "World Class" but I think it will hold up to a 3800 as long as I don't beat it to death! ---------- Post added 02-01-2013 at 12:24 AM ---------- Previous post was 01-31-2013 at 10:27 PM ---------- Some websites are saying the the S-10 T-5 with the 192 tag has a 3.76 first gear and a .78 5th.
WOW!! Thats one hell of a 1st gear,I know the 3.23 first gear trans was rated for 350 ft lbs of torque,so that one should handle 220 ft lbs that Nothingface posted?(you might want to find out for sure what gears your trans has,because the 3.76 1st gear might not be enough with a 2.56 rear gear) Yeah,if you have a 2.73 gear in your car,it should be good to go with that trans,with a 10.8381:1 first gear multiplication ratio,and a 2.1274 final drive ratio,hopefully that engine has the power in the lower RPM range and you should be good to go. If the gearing ratios are correct that Nothingface posted,then the final drive ratio would be 1.666:1 in O/D from the original car it came out of,so even if you have a 2.56 rear gear,that combo should work,you would get a final drive ratio of 1.9968:1,and a 1st gear M/R of 10.1632:1,with the 3.97 1st gear. It should work. Keep us posted if you decide to do this,the more I think about it the more curious I am to see how this works out. It definitly won't have impressive performance,but it should be a good driver. The engine,looking at the original final drive ratio from the car it came out of,looks like the engine IS setup for the power to be in the lower RPM range.
Years ago a guy showed up at the track with a 70 GS350. I went right over as I was usually the only Buick racing. It had an odd-fire V6 out of a 1977 LeSabre. He said he wanted better MPG and the motor was given to him free. I asked what happened to the orig 70 350...he said he junked it. All I can say is that there was lots of room in the engine compartment! Easy to work on! He went down the track with a blazing ET of somewhere in the 19sec range. I bet the mpg wasn't much better than the high comp 350.
Yeah,if he used the gearing for the 350,then yes,that thing must of been a turd,with crappy mileage. The trans he has,has a tractor 1st gear in it,and an O/D gear. The 70' GS had a 2.73 rear gear with a 2.52 1st gear,which would of gave him a animic 6.8796:1 1st gear multiplication ratio,without the torque of the 350,that thing probably couldn't get out of its own way.
Well I made the father in law an offer and well see what he says. The big thing in going this route is I can pay in payments.ray: There's a Fresh Buick 350 on Craigslist nearby for only $350, but I just don't have it right now. Looks like a long block with no tinwork or manifolds.
When you said 3800, I was sure you were talking about the 80's regal 3.8 V6 turbo motor. Which makes great sense, they were excellent for fuel mileage. If I was going for a 3800, I would also consider the 3400 (they were basically the same engine right?, maybe im wrong). In any case, I would buy a car instead of the engine alone. A yard would sell you the engine probably with a 1yr warranty. But you can likely get a used car for the same price, and have a complete harness. Not to mention, you could test drive it and do all kinds of tests on it to your satisfaction. My 3400 in a van went to 240,000 miles before it started eating oil. The engine was still strong when it was scrapped, but the body was weak. 140hp, and it moved that van around just fine. Mileage was decent at 22 to 25MPG.
3800 is Buick....3400 is Chevy. The 3400 60* V6 doesn't hold a candle to the Series II 3800 V6 (90*). The Chevy V6 is well know for blowing headgaskets and/or cracking heads. Power is much better for the SII 3800 as well. ---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ---------- I believe this is the fastest 3800 powered car in the world...runs 7's at over 171mph. http://youtu.be/HlGVsziCA0A
Okay, so here is the info I have so far from this thread: 1. You do not really have any money for this project 2. You want to make a 70 Skylark REALLY good on fuel 3. You have access to BUYING on payments a 94 model 3.8L engine that made about 170 HP and 225 ft-lbs. @ 3200 rpm I am sorry your budget is non existent, this really changes the advice we have been giving. If I were you I would try to find a fuel efficient vehicle and buy that instead of transplanting a low HP, low TQ engine into your Skylark. If you are going to buy an engine to swap in the Skylark then go with something that will make some low RPM torque, like the supercharged 3800 II or a Buick 350. I think it would be a waste of time and effort to swap in a regular 3800 engine. As most of us are stating above it makes low RPMs to get fuel economy and if you use an engine that lacks low RPM torque it will need to rev higher to get closer to it's peak torque curve where the best fuel mileage will be... Lower torque equals more revs needed and lower fuel mileage results. Another thing to keep in mind is that the 70 Skylark is going to have a lot more drivetrain HP loss compared to a newer front wheel drive car so a given MPG in a new car that weighs the same as teh Skylark will not give the same fuel mileage or power to the wheels. Use a powerfull engine and this is not an issue. Use a weak engine this will be a huge effect. Gsxmen has great points about the 3800 with a turbo being a potent engine package, I would love to use one. The problem is on your budget turbochargers or any other engine mods are out of question by the sounds of it.
Why does everyone disreguard,and dismiss the performance benifits of gearing? ou: The factory doesn't disreguard gearing with the new cars that are coming off of the assembly lines today. The manual trans "muscle" cars of today have double overdrive gears,if you get the 6 speed manual,just one example. :Brow: Even with the driveline power loss of this combo,don't forget about the transmission he wants to use,with the tractor like gearing to get the weight moving,and O/D. And the engine has fuel injection for efficiency. If he didn't mention using a T-5 manual trans with O/D,it would totally NOT be viable. :shock: Yeah,its kind of sad that someone wants to put a V-6 in a 70s muscle car,but if that is the only choice he has to be able to get it back on the road,thats a better option than letting it sit,and rot. I'm sure when things get better for the guy,he may want to swap back in a V-8,and sell the V-6?o No: You know,all the debating about sbb in another thread,I was the only one that mentioned gearing. People whinning about the sbb 350 that won't go faster than 13 seconds in the Q mile,well when the engine is upgraded without upgrading the antique gearing,then it won't run to its potential. :Smarty: Come on Sean,I know your smart enough to know this will work,probably work well,not street/strip well,but be able to pull out into traffic without getting smoked,and drive down the road no problem(just a lot of shifting). I think you just don't want this to catch on as the new swap.(LOL) An N/A 4 cylinder would work with the right gearing,but don't worry I doubt anyone will do that. :laugh:
That should be the Series I L27 engine with port injection. Used with the V6 (wide ratio) version of the T-5 and about a 3.31 axle ratio and 15" tires it should do pretty well on mileage while still stepping out reasonably well for a daily driver. Lower ratios may like a shorter tire. It will be a bit of a job to wire it up, I hope you have the controller and harness. Jim
Hi guys, I would be getting the whole wiring, sensors, computer, etc along with the engine. This was my daughter in laws car, so I know the history of the car. Yes, it will be alot of work. Lots more work that just bolting in a sbb. I want this car to be my driver. As such, when I drive 80 miles round trip for my chemo treatment, I need it to sip gas. Yes I could go out and trade, or sell (My 77') and get a modern flyweight deathtrap, but thats just not me. I'm not going to do something to the car that can't get undone. Being that I don't yet have a wiring harness for the engine bay, it won't be like I'm killing the car. For those who don't know, here's a brief history of the car as I've had it: http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.p...-a-few-needs&p=2141321&highlight=#post2141321 I hope this clears things up as to my situation and what I'm trying to do. And who knows I might be able to upgrade one day with either a turbo or a sbb.
Hey David,I just read the thread in the link you posted,I'm sorry to hear about your health problems,I hope you recover. Anyway,that thread explains a lot!! It clears everything up,so yeah I hope you recover to put at least a sbb back in the car some day,but for now the V-6 should be fine. Make sure that your state doesn't have any stupid laws about transplanting engines in cars that didn't come with that engine. Some states will allow a newer engine in an older car BUT all the emission crap from that year engine has to be installed on the car the engine is going in,and stupid crap like that. It probably won't matter if your state doesn't do vehicle inspections,but if they do,I don't think that car will pass that way unless you know someone.
No inspections where I live. There is emission testing 35 miles north of me, but it's for 75' and newer, so I'm good. Under the emission testing you can stall a newer engine, but not the other way around. I'm glad I don't have to mess with them as my 77' Skylark would fail in many ways! Thanks for your support!:TU:
