I've been kicking this around for a little while and was wondering if anyone has tried this. I'm talking about a injected 3800, not a carbed 231. I'm thinking that with a T-5, this combo might just work as a daily driver and get some decent mileage figures as well. What's your thoughts?
I guess, the cars they powered were about the same weight, maybe minus a few hundred pounds than an A body. Definatley going to be down a bit on low end torque compared to a 350. Im not sure you'd see any improvement in gas mileage if thats what your after. The swap might be more aggrivating than its worth.
I can not see the swap being worth the effort.... It would be a lot of work, I would rather spend my time and effort on adding a turbocharger to the stock engine in the Skylark then using a 2004R trans and a 2.73 rear gear. I would imagine one could get 26 MPG with that combo and the torque would be a lot of fun. That being said I really like the 1998-2002 Supercharged 3800 engines, in fact my daily driver is a 99 Buick Park Ave Ultra with the Supercharged 3800. The car is about as heavy as my 70 Skylark and it is very fast when passing people, in the city or anywhere for that matter. I get 34 US MPG on the highway at 60 MPH and 29 MPG at 75 MPH so I am happy with that considering the car has heated leather interior, fully loaded, heck even the windshield wipers come on as needed when it rains. If you are looking for an old Buick economy car use a 78 Skyhawk like this one and swap a supercharged 3800 into it. My last Skyhawk was 2400 pounds and would FLY with the supercharged 3800 in it! I would not be surprised if my 3800 engine would get about 40 MPG on the highway with a car that light.
Sean, I think you just drove his point home. In a similar size and weight car, you have plenty of passing power, and get 34 MPG. Assuming he has all the running parts from a donor, I'm not seeing a lot of work to make the swap.
Sounds like a fun swap UNTIL----you get into it. I had about the same bright idea with my son's 81 Chevy X-11. It had a carburetor 2.8 V6 Chevy, I got the idea to install a 2.8 Fuel Injection engine from a 89 Regal that I got to build a NHRA Super Stocker. Well the engine is in but dealing with the fuel pump (tried to install stock GM pump in orginial tank-mistake should have went with aftermarket external) getting all wiring setup, then hoses and AC and P/S and etc. Time consuming, would have been smarter to got a car the engine would have dropped right in. Someday when I get time to get back on it I will get it, but with all the other projects I have, wished I had let this one go. Hope you have better luck. It's the small stuff that kills you on these things. Jim N.
Unless youre talking about the S/C-3800, I wouldnt go through the trouble. An S/C engine with a pulley swap would kick :moonu: though.
A single or twin turbo version of the SII 3800 in a 70 Skylark would be not only be fast, but should make for a nice daily driver - not just a race piece. Tim King's red Firebird was running high 8's in the 1/4 with such a setup before he sold it.:TU: Twin turbo would keep the turbo lag down....plus there are TT headers on the market for the SII 3800.
Thanks for your input guys. I'm just wondering if it has been done. I hadn't even thought about the Supercharged version. I'm after gas mileage. What's the best you'd say I'd get with a 350? What about a 300? I plan on running a T-5 as well.
You may be on the right track for MPG for the 3800 Supercharged engine, also a 86-87 Turbocharged 3.8L would work great too. I just got back from a drive with my 3800 powered Park Ave. Topped it up, drove 300 miles and the computer says I can go 329 more miles before empty. That works out to 34 MPG which I can hit regularly if I drive with a light foot. That is 629 miles to a 18.5L tank or over 1000 KMs... Or passing everything in sight I get about 28 MPG. I can not see getting more than 24 MPG with a heavy car and a Buick 350. The only way to do it would be with adding EFI, turbocharged, overdrive trans, 2.56 rear gear. The 350 is just too large of an engine to get any better fuel mileage than that in my opinion.
I have a 2002 Regal 3800 that I bought in 2002 with only a few miles on it but it was an Avis wreck. Fixed it and have driven it 230,000 miles. It will get 30+ at any reasonable speed (75) with A/C on and in town or highway. I have been extremely happy with it. It gets better miliage than some of these econo-boxes and has comfort and power. I guess some of the later GM V6s are susposed to be better but my daughter's G8 V6 won't get the miliage of my Buick. Jim N.
Back in '91, I drove my '70 Skylark with a later 70's Buick 350 engine down to Memphis, from NY. I averaged between 18.1mpg and 23.1mpg. Not terribly shabby with a th350 tranny. Although I never checked, I figure the stock gears must be about 2.73 in the rear. I'd like to think that adding a 200-4r tranny to that setup would easily pass 25mpg on the highway. On a similar trip thru OH, I got 25.5mpg with my Dad's '92 Roadmaster with the TBI 350 engine and 4L60 tranny. For comparison with the 2000 Firebird 3800/4L60e ..... it weighs about 3340lbs and was rated (back then) at 19mpg city and 29mpg highway w/22mpg combined. The 5 speed version was 30mpg highway and 23mpg combined. So you should be able to get one or two more mpg with the T5 tranny.
idk any other v6 that would my 3.6 in my saturn got about 24 on its best my 3.1 grand prix got about 26 at best. however on eastern ky roads the v8s actually do about the same due to the better bottom end.
So.. If you put one of the SC'd 3800s in, how many of the sensors would have to be installed in order fro the ECM to work correctly.. There are two O2 sensors, a speed sensor in the trans, and the coolant sensor tells the fans when to turn on and off.. IAT, MAF.. I realize you can buy a tumer to change all of theese settings and that's another hurdle. Guess all th info is on the Fiero site since this is a popular swap.. I loved my 01 SC'd Park Avenue..
You have to blend the two wiring harnesses together. It's a time waster for sure, but I've got a friend who's done it a couple of times with very good results. He's put a injected 2.5 into a 83 K-car wagon, and has a 73 Vega with a injected 2.8 from a 87 Camaro. It's different for sure. I can't help but wonder what kind of mileage a 300 would get vs a 3800?
I had a carbed 77 odd fire V6 in my 70 GS. Probaly the only GS driven to the 83 GSCA nationals that got over 15mpg. LOL Tim
You guys are missing the important point when comparing the two engines. The power doesn't matter as much as the trans does. Bolt a sc3800 to a 3 speed, or try driving one on the highway with the shifter in 3rd and watch what happens to the mileage.
EXACTLY, the newer cars have that GEARING thing going for them to compliment the more effecient engine that TOGETHER,gives better performance,and mileage. With the right GEARING,and fuel air spark delivery,and a docile driving style,better mileage can be optained with this setup,BUT will be much much easier with more cubes. If mileage is what you're after,then a sbb 350 with a modern cam profile(perferably a roller cam) that is like the one in this thread; http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?252771-New-Buildup!-448ci-STG-2-SE-Hyd-roller-an-MPG-motor but ground for a sbb 350. So in conclusion,a N/A 3800,in a 70' Skylark would be more effort than its worth.
OK so any guesses as to what mileage a 300 T-5 combo would get? ---------- Post added at 01:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 AM ---------- What was that like?
David If you are looking for gas mileage, one of the keys is to waste as little of the energy that is being produced by the engine as possible. The manual T5 tranny with OD is a good start. It is more efficient than even a 200R4 automatic. The 1986 and later V6 engines went to roller cams to reduce friction from the valve train. That is the very same reason that JW went to a roller cam and roller rockers in Edouard's 448 BBB fuel economy engine. If a person wanted to build a 300/340/350 for fuel economy, it can be done but it will cost more than a 3800 V6 transplant. It would require a custom piston with a small dome that created an .040" quench area in the open chamber part of the 350 head. The TA heads solve this problem if it can be used on a 300. Roller cam and rockers. Low tension gapless rings from BWE (Not Total Seal) Sequential port EFI with coil on ignition. An EZ-EFI is a good alternative and is a lot less work. Electric radiator fan. It would be fun to do for the sake of seeing how much gas mileage you can get out of a SBB V8 but the V6 swap would be cheaper? Paul
What paul wrote. But it still could be done on a lesser budget than the way Paul wrote,by getting a flat tappit cam that the power comes on right off of idle,lots of low end torque(the less RPM,the less fuel is used). Possibly a RV cam,not sure whats available,although TA has cam blanks,so a custom wouldn't be much more $ because it needs to be ground anyway. A finely tuned carb can also be used,tuned with an O2 sensor to get the optimum A/F ratios thoughout the throttle band. A HEI or equivalent spark,and an MSD box would aid to a fuller burn at lower RPMs. Standard pistons can be used with ring spacers,and more modern thinner rings. Dynamic compression should be the highest for pump gas,at 8:1,should be close to a zero deck hieght with the pistons.To be able to not have the deck machined,or just minimum square cut,small journal sbc 6" rods can be used with stock replacement pistons.(the big end of the rod would have to be narrowed and re-champered,and the pin bore would have to be made slightly bigger,not a real big deal for a quality machine shop) Or,if there's a little more $$ in the budget, a set of 6.2" used ebay nascar rods,a 350 crank offset ground to 3.990 stroke,1.850" rod journal size,and a set of these pistons; http://www.summitracing.com/parts/slp-h1127ct/overview/ Of coarse good flowing heads would help fill the cylinder efficiantly to make the good low rpm torque,with the gearing to keeps the Rs down at cruise. I will be building a 300 stroker this year,starting when the weather gets warmer,and will be posting it here if you can wait. You might think that more cubes will use more gas,not nessesarily,more cubes are capable of more low end torque,and the lower the RPM the less fuel you'll burn,unless you start revving the larger cube engine,then it will burn more. An engine with less cubes that doesn't make as much low end torque may not be able to handle the load at lower RPMs,so the gearing would have to be setup different,and have to rev higher to make the power to move the vehicle. I could go on and on,but without knowing what kind of a budget your working with??????????? What would be your budget IF you did the 300 and T-5 setup?
