"Scott Buchanan" <t120rv (AT) pacifier (DOT) com> wrote

The 3800 was used in the last few years of Camaro/
firebird.

Scott Buchanan wrote:

What vintage engine/trans are you considering? Modern
distributorless/EFI/fully electronic, or older distributor ignition
and/or carbureted?

If you're going for an older simpler approach, then since *EVERYONE* is
going to recommend a Chevy 350 I'll be contrarian and recommend either
an older Buick v6 or v8 and associated trans, OR a Ford 5.0 and
associated trans. A turbo 3.8L out of an 80s Regal would be a very cool
swap in a Benz. Both Buicks and Fords have front-mount distributors and
will likely have less firewall clearance issues than a Chevy. If it were
*me* doing this swap it would be Mopar all the way. :-)

Scott Buchanan wrote:


The Buick 3800 has gone in rear-drives from its inception in the 70s
(Regal, Grand National, etc.) to the last of the v6 F-bodies (Firebirds
and Camaros), so there are RWD transmission choices factory paired with
both Gen-1 and Gen-II 3800s.

You might take a look at the marine 3.0 4 cyl that OMC and
Mercruiser use.Same bell pattern as a 350 chev and make 120-140 hp
even with the marine intake-exhaust manifold.
Will


Scott Buchanan wrote:

Scott Buchanan wrote:

Makes you think, doesn't it? :-)
Well, not knowing too much about the engine bay of that particular car,
its hard to say. And in general Mopar swaps aren't always "easy" because
of the rear distributor on the LA smallblocks, the size of the
big-blocks, and the overall size of most of the v8-capable automatic
trannies. Both the TH200r4 or 700R4 are quite a bit smaller than the
A-500 and A-518 Mopar 4-speed ODs. For those reasons I'd probably
abandon my "roots" and not even consider a B/RB big-block (383, 440) or
an LA smallblock (318/340/360).

Without knowing too many details, here's what I would probably dig
deeper into:

1) a turbo 4-cylinder Mopar from a FWD 80s Mopar, coupled to a RWD
transmission from a late 80s Dakota (when the Dakota also used the 2.5
common-block engine that the FWDs used). The FWD Mopar guys get
stupid-huge horsepower out of 2.2/2.5 turbo engines by putting on big
intercoolers, big injectors, aftermarket turbos, etc. and the engines
take the pounding very well (same bearing sizes as a 426 Hemi or 440).
And they aggravate the bloody heck out of us muscle-car guys by getting
25+ mpg when they're not spooled up and running 12-second quarter miles.
I never know whether to consider them buzzing little pests, or amazingly
cool! :-p


2) A modern Hemi (5.7) which is sold as a crate engine complete with
engine control computer (or carburetor and simplistic distributorless
ignition controller if you go low-tech). Its nice and compact without a
distributor sticking out anywhere, and narrower/lower (for the most
part) than OHC v8s like the Ford Modular and Mopar 4.7. Actually
size-wise its pretty similar to a GM Gen-III v8. It will mate up to any
smallblock Mopar transmission bellhousing, so you can go
old-school/bulletproof with an A-727, or you can go with a 90's A-518 OD
transmission from a Ram, if it would fit under the floorpan. Or get
creative and use a stick.

Either option would require a lot of fabrication, but the turbo
4-cylinder would almost certainly fit with room to spare. Something
really out there like a fuel-injected slant-6 would be beyond cool, but
I wonder whether there's enough room for a long American inline-6, and
it certainly would be a DIY fuel injection setup and nothing that's OBD
compliant.

A Jeep 4.0-liter straight out of a circa-2000 Cherokee would be a
contender in the "low bucks/ use it exactly as it comes out of the
donor" category if there is room. Those are extremely torquey and would
make for a peppy driver.

I was thinking about an OBD II engine for fuel efficiently and cleaner
emissions. I can handle the electronics. I had a '82 Cutlass with the 3.8
and thought it was a great motor. Turbo? Humm....

I am not a Morpar guy, but what would you recommend?


"Steve" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote

What are we talking about: 200 HP? The original engine is about 140 HP.

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlow (AT) alltel (DOT) net> wrote

No burnouts here. The only doughnuts will be inside the car.


"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Scott Buchanan wrote:
Since you want a newer engine and I expect you would like decent mileage
I would probably look into using an adapter plate with the factory trans
and use a 3800. The 4.3 is a great engine but gas mileage is not it's
strong suit. Get a 3800 from a later vehicle and use an adapter plate to
bolt it in. Just find a machine shop to make one.

--
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York

Scott Buchanan wrote:
Conversions, especially ones where there isn't prior development work
already done for you, can be very costly and problematic. I don't know
what the weight of the original engine is, but you would want to make
sure that any replacement isn't significantly heavier or the handling
and braking can be severely compromised.

If you really must do this, by all means I would stay away from the
2.9/3.1/3.4l family of engines. I don't know if they were ever made for
rear wheel drive or not, so it might be a moot point. Packaging
efficiency is very good, but problems like leaking intake manifold
gaskets and other make for a less than ultra-long-life design.

The 3800 from a later model Camaro or Firebird donor would be the first
thing I would look at if I just had to make the conversion. Other
possibilities might be the V-6 Mustang motor and transmission from 1990s
vintage stangs. Lots of fabrication and making do would be involved in
such a swap.

Lots of folks have done GM swaps into Volvos, Jaguars and Jeeps, but I
haven't seen much written about doing so into an MB product.

Personally I would tear down the original MB motor and make it right.
The cost and headache will probably be lower in the end than using low
cost GM parts as the basis for a swap.

John