Trying to put a 84 2.8L into a 92 3.1L (engine wiring?)
#1
Trying to put a 84 2.8L into a 92 3.1L (engine wiring?)
Everything is going accoring to plan but as I'm looking at the wiring in the engine of my 1992 Camaro RS 3.1L I see that I can try and leave the engine wiring in my purple 92 3.1L strip the 84 2.8L of all the pulleys, wires, sensors, etc. and put all the sensors, pulleys, wires, etc off the 3.1 onto the 2.8 Will this work? Don't know much about cars just a 20 year old kid trying to fix his camaro.
Last edited by cplthomas; 10-28-2009 at 01:21 AM. Reason: fixed the link... or did I remove it...
#4
the engine isn't going to change its displacement from 2.8 to 3.1 just by hooking it back up to the factory harness. you'll still have a 2.8L engine.
what i meant by the stroking is that the 3.1 has a longer throw on the crankshaft (longer stroke) than the 2.8L does.
basically, the longer the stroke of the crankshaft, the larger displacement. now you can have two engines that have the same displacement, but have different length crankshafts and different sized bores (one engine has larger cylinder bores, one has smaller. same for the crankshaft throw).
that's the formula for figuring out your engines displacement. though if i remember right, the 3.1L was 191ci (3.5" bore, 3.3" stroke). the 2.8L is 173ci (3.5" bore, 3.0" stroke).
what i meant by the stroking is that the 3.1 has a longer throw on the crankshaft (longer stroke) than the 2.8L does.
basically, the longer the stroke of the crankshaft, the larger displacement. now you can have two engines that have the same displacement, but have different length crankshafts and different sized bores (one engine has larger cylinder bores, one has smaller. same for the crankshaft throw).
that's the formula for figuring out your engines displacement. though if i remember right, the 3.1L was 191ci (3.5" bore, 3.3" stroke). the 2.8L is 173ci (3.5" bore, 3.0" stroke).
#6
It's got a rod knocking is what I've been told...I don't know i was driving up a hill in 3rd when i should've been in 2nd and itust started knocking hella loud. Also about 3 days before it happened I gave it an oil change cuz it's been having a slow oil leak out of the valve covers is where my friend said it was coming from. But when I got under the car the oil pan screw & oil pan where a little dinged up and it didn't look like so much of a SLOW oil leak. Also I read that in 87 they changed it to the serpentine belt thus causing the water pump pulley to turn in the opposite direction of the crankshaft. So the 2.8L crankshaft turns in same direction as water pump and 3.1L crankshaft turns in the opposite direction of the water pump...I want to keep the serpentine setup, can I??? What if I just switch water pumps???
#8
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eastern PA,
Posts: 10,351
84 motor is not MPFI. It was a Carb. 86 was the first MPFI. If I remember right you will be droping about 35 HP. The 84 was a real pig. I would look around for a 3.1. You should be able to find one from someone that is doing a swap.
84 2.8 is famous for a weak bottom end and bad seals. 86 saw a nice upgrade and 3.1 was a nice upgrade to the 86 2.8.
84 2.8 is famous for a weak bottom end and bad seals. 86 saw a nice upgrade and 3.1 was a nice upgrade to the 86 2.8.
#9
here ya go, a 3.1 out of a '92 Firebird, with another trans too.
http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/en...-v6-700r4.html
http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/en...-v6-700r4.html
#10
I'm almost 99 % sure I'm correct on this because I'm running an 85 block with the 88s serp belt. The later serpentine waterpump will not bolt to the older style timing cover unless you swap both the timing cover and oil pan from your 3.1 to match up with the reverse-rotation waterpump. Also make sure you use the matching flywheel or flexplate to your donor engine. The balances are different..... Gorn, can you confirm this for me? I would search for another 3.1. too.
Last edited by sewerrat; 10-29-2009 at 01:38 AM.