zhandfull
Well-Known Member
Wondering if anyone has done the full on 3.8 V6 swap including the fuel injection, A.C., and power steering in to the A body. Is there a kit?
Later model 3.8 swap in an "A" body
- Thread starter zhandfull
- Start date
-
MopaR&D
Nerd Member
I have wondered this myself, a modern V6 in an old A-body would be very economical and fun to drive... I would imagine the one for Jeeps (north-south) would be the way to go.
zhandfull
Well-Known Member
Yea I had a 2007 jeep and it ran pretty good. Guess I was thinking the same thing. But I know it was all ran off the computer everything from throttle to starting. That may be the hardest part to adapt over all those little computer controlled items that you normally don't think about.
jtolbert
Well-Known Member
As far as throttle-by-wire and stuff, don't the modern hemi swap guys have that stuff sorted out? Seems like that would be your only real hurdle. Actually getting everything to fit in the engine bay should be a lot easier than a modern hemi.
dodge freak
Well-Known Member
Why limit yourself just to the 3.8 Chrysler engines ? GM has some decent V6 as wel and prices seem cheap on ebay, like $750 for a 3.5 V6 200 hp with under 30,000 miles--these were out of a front wheel drive car but there migth well be rear wheel trans that fit .
Then there is the 3.6 V6 the caddy's and other cars used, those put out over 250 hp--if you believe what they say/Aren't they rear wheel drive ?
A little welding should be all thats needed to bolt it in.
With $5 a gallon gas coming I do see it happening.......and then it be like the late 70's again, once most everybody gets a car with decent mpg, gas will become cheap again--like it did around 1990. Did you know many people thought in the late 70's V8 engines were going to be gone forever in a few years, ha ha
Then there is the 3.6 V6 the caddy's and other cars used, those put out over 250 hp--if you believe what they say/Aren't they rear wheel drive ?
A little welding should be all thats needed to bolt it in.
With $5 a gallon gas coming I do see it happening.......and then it be like the late 70's again, once most everybody gets a car with decent mpg, gas will become cheap again--like it did around 1990. Did you know many people thought in the late 70's V8 engines were going to be gone forever in a few years, ha ha
Do you mean the 3.8 as in the Wrangler engine? They are dogs.
jaimus
Old School ASE Gold
Do you mean the 3.3/3.5/3.8 family?...Firstly,.....Why,.....Secondly,Detroit just needed a slap ina back of the head to make em spend a little money on R and D to make our beloved V8's more efficient.
Arco440
Well-Known Member
I always liked the way the 3.7l ran in my 04 Liberty.I know it liked to rev and always wondered how it would work with a 5 speed and a nice set if headers and even a power programmer.
dusted72
Thanks Hemiroid!!!!
The 3.7 L was a 90° v-6 where the 3.3 L/3.8 L were 60° v-6's. The 60° engines have better/less harmonics.
The 3.8 L and 3.3 L are one family. They are a pushrod v-6.
The 3.5 was a dual overhead cam engine and later they made the 3.2 L and a 4.0 L off of it because customers were not happy with the power of the 3.5 L.
Keep in mind, whatever engine you try to use, all of the production engines dyno'ed 20 - 30 HP LESS THAN ADVERTISED! I used to see/review the weekly dyno pulls for these engines.
I ponder these same possibilities sometimes. I could buy a 93 Dakota pickup ( for example ) and transplant that V6 / overdrive drive train into my classic car but... the car isn't my daily driver so it doesn't burn a lot of fuel at any price.
Neither does my daily driver ( POS 91 Geo Prism ).
I wont say I enjoy driving the Geo but the 5 bucks per gallon is constant no matter what its pumped into or rate its burned out. So I drive for cheap when I need to and splurge to drive and enjoy the classic when I want to.
Friends and neighbors who fish, golf, or whatever, spend a lot more on their hobby than I spend on mine.
One my factor that sways me from doing anything different, The more time my classic spends in the streets and public parking lots the more likely it will be beat on by John Q. Public.
Neither does my daily driver ( POS 91 Geo Prism ).
I wont say I enjoy driving the Geo but the 5 bucks per gallon is constant no matter what its pumped into or rate its burned out. So I drive for cheap when I need to and splurge to drive and enjoy the classic when I want to.
Friends and neighbors who fish, golf, or whatever, spend a lot more on their hobby than I spend on mine.
One my factor that sways me from doing anything different, The more time my classic spends in the streets and public parking lots the more likely it will be beat on by John Q. Public.
My brother had a 97 dakota with the 3.9 L v-6. I got better mileage with a 318 4bbl in my 68 Cuda and 2.76 axle (17.75 MPG vs his 16 MPG). :sad5:
Who would have thunk it??? :sign7:
b5demon
Well-Known Member
If i was going to do it i would go with the 3.5L they are used in the chargers and 300 in a rear wheel drive configuration so you may be able to find a wrecked one and get the engine and trans assembly as a good starting point. Secondly the 3.5L run very well with a few cheap mods and some open exhaust.
What about doing it with the 5.7 L Hemi that has cylinder reduction? Maybe a little less mileage, but alot more fun. If you compare the mileage ratings on the new Challenger with the 3.5 L vs the 5.7 L, there is not that much difference. Go look at them at the dealer.
I'm not surprised by that. Lots of factors play into MPG. Not only gear ratio. Accesory drive loads like power steering, alternator usage, engine wear. If you can reach into and old 318 and turn the engine by hand with the drive belts you can bet its using less fuel idling in traffic than a tight new 4 cyl that wont turn by hand.
dodge freak
Well-Known Member
Don't forget about the imports, a BMW engine and trans might be pretty cool, like from a M car
But yeah, put in a small cam, some 2.73 gears and a 500 cfm Eddy carb on a 318 with high compression pistons, you might get 20 mpg.
Seems like alot of work putting in any make V6, by the time its done you might regret not just buy the whole car, lol
But yeah, put in a small cam, some 2.73 gears and a 500 cfm Eddy carb on a 318 with high compression pistons, you might get 20 mpg.
Seems like alot of work putting in any make V6, by the time its done you might regret not just buy the whole car, lol
The only way I'd do a more modern V6 swap would be if it was on hand to replace the destroyed engine and it was that late 90's, early 2000 series V6 (Like in my 2003 Dakota) which would simply bolt in since it is basically a 318 minus 2 cylinders.
This engine in my quad cab Dakota get 20 mpg Hwy at best. Not much of a gain would be seen in a A body even though it would be nearly 2000 lighter.
This engine in my quad cab Dakota get 20 mpg Hwy at best. Not much of a gain would be seen in a A body even though it would be nearly 2000 lighter.
74Dusted
Stock Piler of 340's
My bone stock Dakota gets 15mpg at its best, 5.2L Mag / A518 Overdrive. Good torque down low, totally gutless at highway speeds.
My '74 Duster managed to pull in 16 - 17mpg with a hot 340 / 727 and constantly wailing on the throttle. Good torque off the line, downright scary as it winds up.
The sad thing is, my '92 Dakota weighed in at 4,250 when it was stock, and gets 13 - 15mpg on the highway (empty)
My dad's '75 D300 Dumptruck weighs in at 8,500 (empty) with a 318/435 and it gets 14 - 16 mpg (doesn't matter if it's empty or fully loaded, same mileage)
My '74 Duster managed to pull in 16 - 17mpg with a hot 340 / 727 and constantly wailing on the throttle. Good torque off the line, downright scary as it winds up.
The sad thing is, my '92 Dakota weighed in at 4,250 when it was stock, and gets 13 - 15mpg on the highway (empty)
My dad's '75 D300 Dumptruck weighs in at 8,500 (empty) with a 318/435 and it gets 14 - 16 mpg (doesn't matter if it's empty or fully loaded, same mileage)
I am getting 20mpg hwy beating the crap out of a '71 318 with 110xxxmi, '71 2bbl cam, 302 heads, a holly 4150 650DP, edelbrock performer, hooker long tube headers, upgraded to stock orange box, OD4spd, 3.55SG 8 3/4, '71 swinger.
It's not the fastest car but it gets out of it's own way nicely.
I am going to do a mileage build 318 and shoot for 25-30mpg
Think higher comp + same small cam and spread bore carb; and 8 1/4 instead of 8 3/4.
Never been a big fan of the edelbrock carbs, lots swear by them I personally have never been able to get a proper tune, that being said I have one to try on my mileage build and I have a spread bore 650DP Holley to try too.
It's not the fastest car but it gets out of it's own way nicely.
I am going to do a mileage build 318 and shoot for 25-30mpg
Think higher comp + same small cam and spread bore carb; and 8 1/4 instead of 8 3/4.
Never been a big fan of the edelbrock carbs, lots swear by them I personally have never been able to get a proper tune, that being said I have one to try on my mileage build and I have a spread bore 650DP Holley to try too.
I am getting 20mpg hwy beating the crap out of a '71 318 with 110xxxmi, '71 2bbl cam, 302 heads, a holly 4150 650DP, edelbrock performer, hooker long tube headers, upgraded to stock orange box, OD4spd, 3.55SG 8 3/4, '71 swinger.
It's not the fastest car but it gets out of it's own way nicely.
I am going to do a mileage build 318 and shoot for 25-30mpg
Think higher comp + same small cam and spread bore carb; and 8 1/4 instead of 8 3/4.
Never been a big fan of the edelbrock carbs, lots swear by them I personally have never been able to get a proper tune, that being said I have one to try on my mileage build and I have a spread bore 650DP Holley to try too.
According to Larry Shephard, the stock 360 cam was the best to use for fuel economy (252 dur and .410 lift I believe). throw in a set of Rhoades lifters and a good dual plane intake and 600 -625 cfm vacuum secondary carb. Keep in mind if you switch to 340/360 heads you will lower compression. I used a set of 10.5 compression forged pistons with 360 heads and got final compression of 9.2 in my 17.75 econo engine. also go for a low gear like 2.76. also try lock up trans/converter.
My dad had a 76 Charger back in the day and It got 20 MPG stock! I've never been able to break 20 MPG yet. If a stock 360 Charger can do it, it is possible. One of these days...
My setup was idling at 24" mercury with stock 318 heads, and would overheat over 80° outside. Problem was too much compression. Put on 360 heads and got 22.5" mercury at idle. Was able to use a 20.5 power valve and vacuum guage to keep power valve from opening whenever possible. Could still accelerate well at 12" mercury to stay "econo".
Just a few tips to help you.
dodge freak
Well-Known Member
Over 20 mpg is going to be tough to pull off and still drive quickly. Got a 2008 Gm car with the 3.5 and I get only 21 mpg on it. Now I got a lead foot around town and go 80 to 90 on the highway if traffic is light.
If you were to do 55 mph all day, sure the mpg would improve.
I would get a custom grind cam if your going for mileage on a V8, the stock cam might be the cheapest but it can't be the best.
If you were to do 55 mph all day, sure the mpg would improve.
I would get a custom grind cam if your going for mileage on a V8, the stock cam might be the cheapest but it can't be the best.
dart64gt
Well-Known Member
I did the 3.9 V6 in my 66 dart wagon and it is a lot harder to do then the 5.2 the v6 eng mount in the center of the eng and 5.2 are in the same location as the rest of the v8 motors and with the the overdrives you still have to cut the floor for the o/d and the v6 with 3.23 don't work worth a **** I had to go with the 3.55 and with I got abot 22 mpg and in my 64 Dart with the 5.2 i get 23 to 24 mpg with 3.91 in it and I think both cars weigh about the same both cars had a/c. I did all the wiring my self and if I had to do another one I would do the V8.
It would be cool to use the new pentastar v6, in the bigger cars they claim close to 30mpg!
-
