Topic: 2.8l , 3.1l and 3.4l engine swap

[casco]

I read a post online about how a Chevy 60 degree engine (the 2.8 , 3.1 and the 3.4l v6 family of engines will bolt rite up to an ax5 bell house , has any one heard of this  or know any thing about this.Thanks

[sharpxmen]

I read a post online about how a Chevy 60 degree engine (the 2.8 , 3.1 and the 3.4l v6 family of engines will bolt rite up to an ax5 bell house , has any one heard of this  or know any thing about this.Thanks

they fit on the bellhousing of the AX5, you're right. I did see a CJ with a chevy v6 in it. I don't have the details what's needed but most likely you'll need a clutch disk to mate and not sure about the pressure plate. Also, should check the pilot bearing/bushing size and the length of the input shaft. I would think of a 4.3L if you spend the money though, 2.8 and 3.1 not really worth the effort imo.

[JFortner5]

I have thought about this too.  The only engines I can think of are the 2.8, 3.1, and the 3.4 like you said. The 3.8 and the 4.3 are 90* v6's so they won't work. I do know the 3.4 put out around 160hp and 200 ft lbs so it would be a decent upgrade from the 2.5l. They should be plentiful in junkyards since they came in several GM vans and cars including camaros and firebirds. Might be an interesting swap that wouldn't require too much work to the rest of the drivetrain.

[sharpxmen]

I have thought about this too.  The only engines I can think of are the 2.8, 3.1, and the 3.4 like you said. The 3.8 and the 4.3 are 90* v6's so they won't work. I do know the 3.4 put out around 160hp and 200 ft lbs so it would be a decent upgrade from the 2.5l. They should be plentiful in junkyards since they came in several GM vans and cars including camaros and firebirds. Might be an interesting swap that wouldn't require too much work to the rest of the drivetrain.

you're right, the 4.3 is not the 60 deg v6, i was thinking of the 3.9L (230-240HP / 240ftlb)

[JFortner5]

After this post I started looking into it a bit. I think it would be a nice swap.  If I were to do it I'd go with a 3.4L but that would be a nice step up from a 2.5L. Sure it wouldn't be a monster or compete with all of the LSx swaps, etc but it would make getting on the interstate a little more tolerable.

The beauty of it is you don't have to change anything behind the engine. Keep your stock driveshafts and all. The only concern I would have is how much would it hurt the lifespan of the AX5?

[RT]

After this post I started looking into it a bit. I think it would be a nice swap.  If I were to do it I'd go with a 3.4L but that would be a nice step up from a 2.5L. Sure it wouldn't be a monster or compete with all of the LSx swaps, etc but it would make getting on the interstate a little more tolerable.

The beauty of it is you don't have to change anything behind the engine. Keep your stock driveshafts and all. The only concern I would have is how much would it hurt the lifespan of the AX5?

You won't break any gears, and unless you really suck at shifting your syncros won't die any faster than normal. So I'm guessing you'd be ok if you babied the clutch.

[chrisfranklin]

That is a pretty interesting find.  You could probably get some headers on there before you drop it in and with a few other mods get the hp a little closer to 200. 

[neale_rs]

Some early Cherokees came with the 2.8 and IIRC it is considered to be a pretty bad engine, not even as good as the 2.5.  The 3.4 does sound interesting though.

[RT]

The 2.8 liter's a pretty sorry engine, it produces similar power to the 2.5 liter and has more parts because of the DOHC. You'd be better off doing fuel, air, and exhaust on the 2.5. But I agree, the 3.4 would be an interesting conversion. Does anyone know if any of the GM 4 cylinders bolt up to the ax-5. Because a lot of people run the Cavilier 4 cylinders in rock crawlers. The twin cam one's that is.

[neale_rs]

Here is some info:

http://www.lunghd.com/Tech_Articles/Project_XJ/Project_XJ.htm

[Jeffy]

Some early Cherokees came with the 2.8 and IIRC it is considered to be a pretty bad engine, not even as good as the 2.5.  The 3.4 does sound interesting though.

1984-1986 in the XJ.  It was your standard push-rod OHV V8 from GM.  Commonly found in most small and mid-size cars and trucks in the 80's.  S-10, Citation, Camaro, Fiero, Century, Cutlass, etc...

[JFortner5]

The 2.8 liter's a pretty sorry engine, it produces similar power to the 2.5 liter and has more parts because of the DOHC. You'd be better off doing fuel, air, and exhaust on the 2.5. But I agree, the 3.4 would be an interesting conversion. Does anyone know if any of the GM 4 cylinders bolt up to the ax-5. Because a lot of people run the Cavilier 4 cylinders in rock crawlers. The twin cam one's that is.

The 2.8L, 3.1L, and 3.4L's are OHV pushrod engines, with the exception of a few "HO" engines that were put into a few cars over the years.  The only DOHC ones I know of were the 3.1L and 3.4L, but I believe all of the 2.8L's were OHV.  I do know for sure that the Camaro/Firebird 3.4L is a pushrod OHV engine.  It seems like that would be the most desirable one to have.  For one it has the most displacement of the group, its already setup for longitudinal mounting, and there are plenty of wrecked F-bodies in junkyards.

[RT]

2.3 L Quad 4 W41 engine This thing cranked 190 hp.....i wonder if anyone has a conversion kit available.

[sharpxmen]

The 2.8L, 3.1L, and 3.4L's are OHV pushrod engines, with the exception of a few "HO" engines that were put into a few cars over the years.  The only DOHC ones I know of were the 3.1L and 3.4L, but I believe all of the 2.8L's were OHV.  I do know for sure that the Camaro/Firebird 3.4L is a pushrod OHV engine.  It seems like that would be the most desirable one to have.  For one it has the most displacement of the group, its already setup for longitudinal mounting, and there are plenty of wrecked F-bodies in junkyards.

i have a camaro '86 with the 2.8L - not that big on power but very reliable engine so far, close to 200k miles on it.

would  be nice if you can get the fuel injection with a 3.4L and get it to work, carb not so much, might as well get a 4.0L i6 Jeep engine and transmission.

[RT]

i have a camaro '86 with the 2.8L - not that big on power but very reliable engine so far, close to 200k miles on it.

would  be nice if you can get the fuel injection with a 3.4L and get it to work, carb not so much, might as well get a 4.0L i6 Jeep engine and transmission.

I wasn't kidding about the 2.3L lots of crawlers in this area are running them with boost, their savage motors and light as ****. I'll do more research on the conversion.....