Chrysler 3.8L V6 in Daytona

[Daytana]

Hi, I just purchased a 1988 Tbi base Daytona. Hopefully not too far down the road a friend and I are going to swap in a 3.8 V6 out of a Imperial. I posted this here since the Imperial did come out during the "Turbo Mopar Era" so I thought it would fit, feel free to move it if need be. I would imagine that this swap cannot be too bad since the the Imperial is also an EE-K. Yes I know I cannot have a stick and that the 3.0 offers a stick and can be easily boosted etc. but that is not what I am looking for. Driving around here sucks with a stick due to the constant stop/go traffic with people cutting in front of you and throwing on brakes. Instead I am just looking for a car with decent low end, 4 speed automatic (I am actually a fan of the a604), and a smooth ride for commuting everyday to work or traveling out of town. I also driven an Imperial at work and was also fairly impressed with the power it had for being such a land Yacht so I think 162HP/192FT-LB tq would be fairly brutal in a lighter under-equipped base Daytona. So that brings me to this question can anyone give me some tips/advice? I am thinking: Harness, computer, mounts (perhaps fab a pass side mount?), a604 transmission + tcu etc. I remember there was a guy (maybe here?) that had swapped a 3.3 in a K wagon but never was really open about it, looked like a fairly straight forward swap though. Would my harness work with my existing cluster etc? Anyone have necessary pin-outs I might need? I would really appreciate the help. Thanks in advance.

[glhs0426]

As far as mounts go, I don't know why you couldn't use the existing Imperial mounts on the front and left. For the right side, can't you just modify the frame rail and use the existing 3.8L mount?

What year is the 3.8L computer? The pinouts change year to year.

[black86glhs]

As far as mounts go, I don't know why you couldn't use the existing Imperial mounts on the front and left. For the right side, can't you just modify the frame rail and use the existing 3.8L mount?

What year is the 3.8L computer? The pinouts change year to year.

The 88 will be a SMEC and the imperial is going to be a SBEC. I think there will be more than just a few simple pin changes. But it is very doable with the wiring diagrams.:thumb:

[ATaylorRacing]

Then it'd be sweet to swap a 3.5 rwd drivetrain into Matchbox!

[ljbprrfmof]

Why don't you look at a newer 3.8L? More horsepower and torque, probably not much more expensive. Isn't the 4.0L in the Pacifica the same block? That is one torque-y motor.

[Darkapollo]

I'd just get the full set up out of a caravan and swap that in.
The imperial 3.8 has less power than a t2..

[black86glhs]

Wow...your advice is so good it got posted twice!!!!:hail::hail:




:lol::lol:

[Darkapollo]

I love my phone:love::love::love:
If Im not paying attention it double posts.. I usually delete the second but I guess I missed it. :thumb:

[raccoon]

there was a "Shelby" Chrysler Dynasty for sale on the west coast of canada it claimed to have a 3.8 swap.


http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1372/7285fh220.jpg

[Daytana]

As far as mounts go, I don't know why you couldn't use the existing Imperial mounts on the front and left. For the right side, can't you just modify the frame rail and use the existing 3.8L mount?

What year is the 3.8L computer? The pinouts change year to year.

Probably the computer & harness from a 91 computer Fifth or Imperial and the engine from a 1994-1995 Caravan/Voyager (more torque due to revised intake plenum).


The 88 will be a SMEC and the imperial is going to be a SBEC. I think there will be more than just a few simple pin changes. But it is very doable with the wiring diagrams.

I thought the 87's was the changeover year and the 88's used SBECs (I could be wrong)?


I'd just get the full set up out of a caravan and swap that in.
The imperial 3.8 has less power than a t2..

Also sounds like a viable idea. I already have a t2 car (1990 Dodge Daytona VNT converted to t2) and this car (base daytona) will just be a daily driver. It makes 8 less hp than a stock t2 but still 13 more tq (213 ft-lb) plus it will be there on tap since it's n/a. Lots of 3.8 minivans at the junkyards I go to. :)


Why don't you look at a newer 3.8L? More horsepower and torque, probably not much more expensive. Isn't the 4.0L in the Pacifica the same block? That is one torque-y motor.

The electronics used on the new 3.8 are probably radically different. Same thing with the 4.0 (which is OHC btw). The 2.7, 3.5, 4.0, are all overhead cam but still derived from the good ol 3.3/3.8 engines. For difficulty I am prob going with a EE-K for a 3.8 since it would probably work the easiest. This won't be a race car anyways but more so of a work car with some decent torque and reliability.


there was a "Shelby" Chrysler Dynasty for sale on the west coast of canada it claimed to have a 3.8 swap.


That sounds believable, I am sure it was even a easier swap since the 3.3/3.8 are pretty close.

[Darkapollo]

The electronics used on the new 3.8 are probably radically different.
Im willing to bet that any OBD2 3.8 can be made to run with old electronics. We do that kinda stuff with the 2.4l now, so it shouldnt be much of a stretch to do.

[glhs0426]

The main difference from old to new 3.8L electronics is in the cam and crank tone wheel patterns. i.e. the cam sproket and flywheel. I'm not sure what the year split is on the parts, but I know there are three different flywheels and two different cam gears.

1999-00 3.8L had the most HP and torque of all 1st design 3.8L's (58mm throttle body engine) due to revised pistons, bigger throttle body, and supposedly a revised camshaft.

My wife's 1999 T&C has over 196,000mi, doesn't use any oil, and is still going strong.

[glhs0426]

I measured putting a 3.5L in a Spirit one time. It would fit, but everything would be CLOSE! That 3.5L is a wide engine.

As far as external differences between a 3.3/3.8 of the same year: the fuel injectors, the intake plenum, and throttle body.

2001 and newer 3.8L's had a 30ish HP increase and major upgrades: raised intake runner cylinder heads, exhaust port floors flat instead of round, revised valvetrain, double the amount of rocker stands cast into the cylinder head, revised camshaft, new intake design (similar to a 3.0L), large throttle body (?65mm?), four bolt mains, and block designed to help control windage.

[jory]

Use a 88-89 3.3/3.8 harness with matching computer for compatibility.

[ljbprrfmof]

2001 and newer 3.8L's had a 30ish HP increase and major upgrades: raised intake runner cylinder heads, exhaust port floors flat instead of round, revised valvetrain, double the amount of rocker stands cast into the cylinder head, revised camshaft, new intake design (similar to a 3.0L), large throttle body (?65mm?), four bolt mains, and block designed to help control windage.

So it sounds like you could use this engine with the older electronics and come up with a decent performer. Would you also think the top end from one of these engines transfer to an older block for improved performance?

[turbovanman²]

Sounds like a fun project, :thumb:




I thought the 87's was the changeover year and the 88's used SBECs (I could be wrong)?


87 are LM's, 88-89 are SMEC's, 90+ are SBEC's. I think VNT's could be 89 SBEC's.

[glhs0426]

So it sounds like you could use this engine with the older electronics and come up with a decent performer. Would you also think the top end from one of these engines transfer to an older block for improved performance?

Yes, I think it would be killer. The '01-'07 3.8L was rated at 245HP.

The top end will transfer. Make sure to use the late pushrods with the late cylinder heads. You have to use the late intake since the ports are raised so much. The only problem I would envision would be the IAC. The later used a two wire IAC. A work around would be an IAC block sold in the diy community for injection conversions, or maybe an early 3.5L IAC block modified for use.

Hmmm....I have to reseal the engine in the T&C later this year:rolleyes:

[j4278h]

87 are LM's, 88-89 are SMEC's, 90+ are SBEC's. I think VNT's could be 89 SBEC's.

87 was smec on 3.0 caravans

[black86glhs]

Yes, I think it would be killer. The '01-'07 3.8L was rated at 245HP.

The top end will transfer. Make sure to use the late pushrods with the late cylinder heads. You have to use the late intake since the ports are raised so much. The only problem I would envision would be the IAC. The later used a two wire IAC. A work around would be an IAC block sold in the diy community for injection conversions, or maybe an early 3.5L IAC block modified for use.

Hmmm....I have to reseal the engine in the T&C later this year:rolleyes:

No, they were rated at 215 HP and 245 lb/ft of torque. The 4.0 is just now rated at 255hp and 265 lb/ft of torque.

[glhs0426]

No, they were rated at 215 HP and 245 lb/ft of torque. The 4.0 is just now rated at 255hp and 265 lb/ft of torque.

Yeah, that's it. Thanks for the correction.

Still the whole idea of a 3.8L in a Daytona DD is a great idea. Good looks and anvil like reliability.

[Vigo]

Hmm so do you have the imperial already or not? The way everyone is suggesting different years and cars seems to suggest no..

But id go for the Imperial anyway, if you can. The engine harness will be the closest layout to the daytona engine bay.

The 3.3 came out in 90, which was also the first year for the 'big style' engine mounts. The older tbi daytona has the smaller style mounts. You will have to do some converting but i think that there will not be much fab work required. The front mount of the daytona should be fairly easily converted to the newer style, and i think it is possible to just put a smaller style passenger side mount on the motor as well. I will look later as i have 3.0, 3.3, 2.5 all sitting on the ground next to each other with different mounts.

The idea that a 3.8 makes the same torque as a stock 2.2 is ridiculous to me... having driven both, the t2 2.2 on stock boost makes half the torque half the time, and 3/4 of the torque half the time. Area under the curve, responsiveness, the 3.8 has it ALLLLL OVERR the 2.2L. It would take more than a 1/4 mile for the t2 daytona on stock boost to pass the 3.8 daytona. I wouldnt call that an advantage.


You'll be stuck using the 604, which is not a bad thing at all if you are reusing the entire imperial harness. Just so you know, the 604s that came bolted to 3.8s in imperials were geared very tall. I can tell you how to get lower gears if you are willing to do some trans work.


Ill be doing a 3.8 swap into my dynasty one of these days. I keep putting it off in favor of 8v 4cyl stuff, but i really should get around to it.. so i can line it up with some of my 8v cars and post enlightening videos on these forums :D

[black86glhs]

Yeah, that's it. Thanks for the correction.

Still the whole idea of a 3.8L in a Daytona DD is a great idea. Good looks and anvil like reliability.I was actually shocked that the 3.8 didn't make more than 180 hp until after 2000. :confused:
The torque is what it is all about, anyway.:thumb:

[ljbprrfmof]

there was a "Shelby" Chrysler Dynasty for sale on the west coast of canada it claimed to have a 3.8 swap.


http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1372/7285fh220.jpg

If I recall correctly, the steel top New Yorker had the 3.8 as an option that the Dynasty was not available in, at least in base trim. It was our selling advantage and was a fun car to drive. It would have been nice to have had a recaro type seat over a Shelby type suspension.

Has anyone put one together?

[Vigo]

Has anyone put one together?

Well, my dynasty still has the 3.3 in it but its got the 11" r/t brakes, welded rear axle, some kinda bigger front sway bar (forgot the size), and it DID have stock shelby springs in it at one time... Right now it has SRT-4 neon springs in the front and moog cargo-coils in the back. I also built a reinforced track bar for it. It has stock srt-4 struts in the front and our k-car Koni shocks in the back. Its riding on 17x8 +35mm wheels with 245/40r17 tires on it.

It needs front struts badly, and i would like to build a strut tower bar for it. I intend to stiffen up the cargo-coils in the back by isolating some of the coils to increase the spring rate further. I have one of the aftermarket rear sways sitting around i could put on it, and after that i will just focus on better bushings and a real alignment.


When i put the 3.8 in it i'll also be using a neon torque converter (smaller diameter, lighter, higher stall, cheap) and changing out the ring and pinion set to lower the gears. I already have the ring and pinion set out of a 2.0/604 97 avenger i parted years ago, and the converters are like $70 reman at shop cost.


I was actually shocked that the 3.8 didn't make more than 180 hp until after 2000.

You might also be shocked to know that until after 2000, stock electronics didnt let them upshift higher than 4800 rpm, which kinda puts a damper on HP numbers..

[Ondonti]

I would use the older 3.8 just so you don't spend a lot of money etc for something that might not work out.

You get the older one to work, then worry about what you need to make the higher power numbers.


It would be easier to just install a 3.8L MIVEC mitsu and megasquirt if we want to have annoying arguments about how to do it the bestestest :yuck::yuck::yuck::yuck:

But really, I think some of these projects are silly these days when you talk about using stock electronics and ignore all the better/cheaper/less annoying/less likely to part it out/etc options out there.

If you want to get the power out of the motor, the best thing will be aftermarket management.

[Vigo]

I agree with that. However, it seems likely that the early SBEC hardware is extremely similar between the 3.0 and 3.3, so it follows that one could do a piggyback controller like the E-Manage that Ed Kelly is running and get good control while using essentially a stock engine harness/controller.

If someone like Rob Lloyd or others could find and move the rev limiter and 604 upshift points, most everything else could be done the way Ed Kelly is doing it, i would think.

Megasquirt is also an option but i would not say it is easier. Swapping front-end lighting connectors and moving a few pins on the bulkhead connector is a lot easier than building or wiring a megasquirt. I think for someone who is not already an 'electronics person', wanting your project car to run on megasquirt from the get-go just raises the price of entry (in skill/effort) and might make it LESS likely that the project will ever get done at all.

Also, I wouldn't worry too much about getting different motors from the 90s to get more power. From the SAE papers i have read on the 3.3 and 3.8, MOST of the changes made were in the cam and the intake plenum, and those changes seemed primarily intended to lower engine noise at high throttle and rpm. The 96-up also had different exhaust manifolds which used a different flange on the outlet. They might get you a handful of hp or tq but you'll have to grab the flange for the downpipe as well and weld a flex pipe into your downpipe..

so what am i saying? Just get the early motor, and if you want to add a later intake plenum, go for it, it bolts on, and the exhaust manifolds arent worth it and if you're gonna swap cams do something interesting and get a regrind instead. :p

[Ondonti]

3.3 electronics would probably work great with just a change in fuel pressure. Plus, SBEC does a good job at correcting AFR so it probably would not be necessary

I was able to completely rewire the Junkyard without the stock ECU and the only function I have lost is the Tach because OEM tachs use some idiotic signal that does not follow the real RPM of the motor.

And I had never done anything like that before. Just required the FSM wiring diagrams so I could figure out all the OEM switches that I wanted to keep.
Plus piggyback installation is..incredibly easy. My previous piggyback installation used 1 OEM wire but didn't actually need it.

You can build a megasquirt harness that has everything needed to run the motor, then all you need is a source for crank/cam timing so it will run. No need to even touch the stock harness except when you unplug the stuff you want MS to control.

Also the original MS1 is 140 bucks unassembled and maybe 200 something put together :)

The biggest problem is that nobody knows or will share good information on the 4 wire idle control motor settings.

but I am just giving you crap vigo, I sat on my MS for 4 years and stuck with OEM.

[Daytana]

Wow, lots of good technical info in this thread, I really appreciate everyone's input.:clap:


Hmm so do you have the imperial already or not? The way everyone is suggesting different years and cars seems to suggest no..

But id go for the Imperial anyway, if you can. The engine harness will be the closest layout to the daytona engine bay.

The 3.3 came out in 90, which was also the first year for the 'big style' engine mounts. The older tbi daytona has the smaller style mounts. You will have to do some converting but i think that there will not be much fab work required. The front mount of the daytona should be fairly easily converted to the newer style, and i think it is possible to just put a smaller style passenger side mount on the motor as well. I will look later as i have 3.0, 3.3, 2.5 all sitting on the ground next to each other with different mounts.

The idea that a 3.8 makes the same torque as a stock 2.2 is ridiculous to me... having driven both, the t2 2.2 on stock boost makes half the torque half the time, and 3/4 of the torque half the time. Area under the curve, responsiveness, the 3.8 has it ALLLLL OVERR the 2.2L. It would take more than a 1/4 mile for the t2 daytona on stock boost to pass the 3.8 daytona. I wouldnt call that an advantage.


You'll be stuck using the 604, which is not a bad thing at all if you are reusing the entire imperial harness. Just so you know, the 604s that came bolted to 3.8s in imperials were geared very tall. I can tell you how to get lower gears if you are willing to do some trans work.


Ill be doing a 3.8 swap into my dynasty one of these days. I keep putting it off in favor of 8v 4cyl stuff, but i really should get around to it.. so i can line it up with some of my 8v cars and post enlightening videos on these forums :D

No I do not have a parts car. It will be one of my typical swaps and just "piece it together". Yeah I have came to a final decision to use a 1991-1993 Fifth/Imperial Engine/Harness/tranny for simplicity so I do not end up in a nightmare. I do not believe it is that bad converting to bigger mounts, my friend has got my back on any welding if need be and I have the bigger mounts on my EX-VNT to get an idea on the differences between the two. I plan to use the shifter and cables from a a604 3.0 powered spirit/acclaim since I will be going from a 413 to an a604 and my factory shifter will no longer work.

I do have a question though. Can you elaborate more on "entire harness"? I am sure I will need the complete engine harness, harness for the tcu (a604), relays, sensors, etc. Anything else I am missing? This is the area I am most concerned about since I would be having to figure out how to get my instrument cluster working and whatnot, I am probably just better off using the Imperial/Fifth cluster as well since I am using the complete harness. Feel free to correct me on anything here. :thumb:

The 604 is a transmission that takes care of you if you take care of it, run Chrysler's ATF+4 fluid and not dextron or anything oddball it will last forever. The Neon torque converter does not sound like a bad idea either. Are the lower final drive gears from a Stratus iirc?


I would use the older 3.8 just so you don't spend a lot of money etc for something that might not work out.

You get the older one to work, then worry about what you need to make the higher power numbers.


It would be easier to just install a 3.8L MIVEC mitsu and megasquirt if we want to have annoying arguments about how to do it the bestestest

But really, I think some of these projects are silly these days when you talk about using stock electronics and ignore all the better/cheaper/less annoying/less likely to part it out/etc options out there.

If you want to get the power out of the motor, the best thing will be aftermarket management.

I agree 100%. I definitely do not want to get to radical and try hack up electronics to get a newer engine to interface with an older electronics eventually ending up in a nightmare. My goal is to get the car looking factory as if Chrysler decided to put a pushrod 3.8 engine in a Daytona. It will not be for speed or anything, just a work car. If I was going for maximum power I definitely would be going for a turbocharged 6gxx w/ Megasquirt hands down, they are proven, better than the comparable Nissan Vg30e imo and our cars are lighter than anything than Mitsubishi ever used them in. Megasquirt would be a must, I have seen too many conversions get thrown out the window because of people never figuring out why they always have fuel issues etc. Megasquirt 3.0 looks even more tempting since it takes even more "guesswork" out.



Re: Chrysler 3.8L V6 in Daytona
I agree with that. However, it seems likely that the early SBEC hardware is extremely similar between the 3.0 and 3.3, so it follows that one could do a piggyback controller like the E-Manage that Ed Kelly is running and get good control while using essentially a stock engine harness/controller.

If someone like Rob Lloyd or others could find and move the rev limiter and 604 upshift points, most everything else could be done the way Ed Kelly is doing it, i would think.

Megasquirt is also an option but i would not say it is easier. Swapping front-end lighting connectors and moving a few pins on the bulkhead connector is a lot easier than building or wiring a megasquirt. I think for someone who is not already an 'electronics person', wanting your project car to run on megasquirt from the get-go just raises the price of entry (in skill/effort) and might make it LESS likely that the project will ever get done at all.

Also, I wouldn't worry too much about getting different motors from the 90s to get more power. From the SAE papers i have read on the 3.3 and 3.8, MOST of the changes made were in the cam and the intake plenum, and those changes seemed primarily intended to lower engine noise at high throttle and rpm. The 96-up also had different exhaust manifolds which used a different flange on the outlet. They might get you a handful of hp or tq but you'll have to grab the flange for the downpipe as well and weld a flex pipe into your downpipe..

so what am i saying? Just get the early motor, and if you want to add a later intake plenum, go for it, it bolts on, and the exhaust manifolds arent worth it and if you're gonna swap cams do something interesting and get a regrind instead.

Yeah definitely getting the 91-93 setup. I don't think a nightmare is worth it for a handful of hp that can probably be had from elsewhere.

[glhs0426]

All you need to change for the shifter/cable is the PRNDL display. Everything else is the same. I did the opposite swap on my 92 GTC and it still has the 41TE PRNDL display in the car with a 31TH under the hood.

I would not recommend the Neon converter. I put one in the T&C and it's coming back out when I reseal the engine later this year. Sure the 3K launch is nice sometimes, but the low end grunt is just wasted. The 3.8L's best moves are below 3K.

The reason I'd not put the converter in is because of shift schedule. If you slow down to about 10mph and then accelerate but not enough to kickdown a gear, the converter flashes but the trans doesn't kickdown. As soon as the converter flashes the trans controller wigs out decides to kickdown. As soon as the kickdown occurs the rpm is up to shift point for the throttle position and it upshifts. The rpm should drop but the converter keeps the rpm high and bang another downshift. It's weird. You get the point.

Keep the grunt converter with the grunt engine. My .02

[Vigo]

Sounds like you are on the right track.

On the passenger side engine mount.. all i can remember off memory is how the 'bigger style' 3.0 mount looks, and it is NOT directly interchangeable with the 4cyl mounts because the part of the mount bracket that bolts to the bracket on the motor is about twice the vertical depth of the 4cyl mounts. However, its possible you could swap the smaller 4cyl one into the stock 6cyl motor-side bracket. Also, since 3.0s DID come with the smaller style pre-90, there is a chance that a pre-90 3.0 passenger mount might be workable on the 3.8. As a said, i have the stuff to look at....... but i forgot today.. :(


As for the wiring harness, what i meant by the entire harness is simply everything under the hood, as in you do not try to dissect the 3.8 harness and start taking pieces out. Some people try to do that when swapping harnesses and imo unless you know what you are doing, it is better to have some stuff in there that you dont need, then to get snip-happy and cut up something you didnt know was important.

As long as you take the entire under-hood wiring harness with both computers from the imp/5th and simply make the necessary changes to the lighting connectors and the bulkhead connector (if it has one), the entire thing should work fine. Everything that runs the engine is contained within the engine compartment so there's nothing else you need to grab.

As far as gauges, it's easier to make the old gauges work with newer harness than it is to make the new gauges work with an older harness. You still have a cable driven speedo so you simply swap your existing speed sensor (and its gear) into the 604 extension housing. The temperature gauge is still run off the same style of sending unit, so it will work fine as long as you get its wiring correct at the bulkhead. The voltage gauge i would think would also work fine if you get the wiring right at the bulkhead junction.

The oil pressure gauge, i am not sure if the 3.8 uses the same style of sender as the tbi but i think this will be easy to figure out. As far as the tach, i dont know how they work. Others know more about that than i do.

[Vigo]

The reason I'd not put the converter in is because of shift schedule. If you slow down to about 10mph and then accelerate but not enough to kickdown a gear, the converter flashes but the trans doesn't kickdown. As soon as the converter flashes the trans controller wigs out decides to kickdown. As soon as the kickdown occurs the rpm is up to shift point for the throttle position and it upshifts. The rpm should drop but the converter keeps the rpm high and bang another downshift. It's weird. You get the point.

Ive run a 3300 stall converter in a 42le before (3.5L) and i loved the thing. the 3.5 is pretty similar torque-wise to the 3.8. It does have its peculiarities but i dont think i experienced anything like what you're describing. It could be a difference in the year of the TCM and how they handle the weird signals that result from a high-stall tc.

I acknowledge that the 3.8L in a daytona will be plenty strong at low rpm without the neon converter..but in my own case, i am also planning to eventually try a different cam and intake plenum on the motor which the neon converter would be more complimentary to.

Also, if you want better acceleration there is always the option of gearing down the 604 and keeping the stock converter stall to get a similar result.

To me, the main appeal of a high-stall converter is being able to have strong part throttle acceleration and never HAVING to fall out of that 3k rpm sweet spot that a stock 3.3 or 3.8 has. BUT, on my intrepid i also converted it to autostick which allowed me to control the shifts to take best advantage of the stall speed in part-throttle accel. The autostick came before the converter, and i admit i have NOT had the high stall converter on a 604 without the autostick or running on an early TCM like what you'll find in the imp/5th.

Oh, and just for the record the guy mentioned in the first post who claimed to swap a 3.3 into a k-wagon is full of ----. He also claimed to have done an AWD swap. He also says all sorts of things that dont make sense. He refuses to give specfics or even take pictures of the cars' engine bays. I have watched that guy's cardomain and his posts on TD and i can tell you from my years of watching and my professional opinion as an ASE master tech that he is unfortunately lying and just trying to get attention in a very silly way. :(

[black86glhs]

You might also be shocked to know that until after 2000, stock electronics didnt let them upshift higher than 4800 rpm, which kinda puts a damper on HP numbers..Was that to keep the 604 together? That sounds like a classic OEM way to keep something from 86ing itself, lol.:nod:

[glhs0426]

Was that to keep the 604 together? That sounds like a classic OEM way to keep something from 86ing itself, lol.:nod:

Maybe, but in 2001 when the 3.8L got the four bolt mains the upshift rpm went to 5600RPM.

John

[Vigo]

I think that it is the same year it got a variable intake and a bigger throttle body. That probably has something to do with it.

[glhs0426]

I think that it is the same year it got a variable intake and a bigger throttle body. That probably has something to do with it.

Show me one of those. I think you have the 3.8L confused with the 3.5L.

[glhs0426]

Ive run a 3300 stall converter in a 42le before (3.5L) and i loved the thing. the 3.5 is pretty similar torque-wise to the 3.8. It does have its peculiarities but i dont think i experienced anything like what you're describing. It could be a difference in the year of the TCM and how they handle the weird signals that result from a high-stall tc.


What converter is that?

[Vigo]

What converter is that?
It was a custom one from Precision. I liked the stall but felt like it gave up a lot at high rpm, which is where the 3.5 felt best after i opened it up. If i had to do it again i would spend time talking to an actual builder instead of just a sales guy, and make him convince me that he wasnt gonna send me a converter that felt like it was losing 600 rpm at redline. I also wanted them to build a 606 converter using the smaller diameter from the 3spds and 604, since i thought the only difference between a 606 converter and one of those was the longer pump drive hub thing, but they just refused. I enjoyed the 3300 stall but there were plenty of things about the whole experience that didnt go as well as i would have liked.


Show me one of those.
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/buyers_guide/chrysler/town_country/2008_chrysler_town_country_and_dodge_grand_caravan _first_drive_review/2008_chrysler_t_c_and_dodge_caravan_first_drive_ga llery/2008_chrysler_t_amp_c_and_dodge_caravan_first_driv e_gallery_2008_dodge_grand_caravan_3_8_liter_v6_en gine_image_001/379325-1-eng-US/2008_chrysler_t_amp_c_and_dodge_caravan_first_driv e_gallery_2008_dodge_grand_caravan_3_8_liter_v6_en gine_image_0011_cd_gallery.jpg

[ljbprrfmof]

I was just thinking... 3.8L AWD Daytona....

Is it an easy swap if you keep the automatic?

[Vigo]

Nobody on the forums that i know of has done the van AWD system in a k-based car. You can check out the AWD omni thread in the project log for some ideas.


Also, i looked at the 3.3 i have on the ground but it is already torn down to the block so i didnt get to compare passenger motor mount brackets. However, i found this pic on allpar and it looks like you could just use a 87-89 small mount from a 3.0 on it.
http://www.allpar.com/photos/bios/weertman/33-V6.jpg

[Matt86]

I always wanted to swap a 3.3/3.8 in to an AA body. They are such solid motors, unlike the transmissions they stuck behind them.

My 99 Grand Voyager has the 3.3, decent power but I've driven 3.8's and you can feel the additional torque.

[glhs0426]

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/buyers_guide/chrysler/town_country/2008_chrysler_town_country_and_dodge_grand_caravan _first_drive_review/2008_chrysler_t_c_and_dodge_caravan_first_drive_ga llery/2008_chrysler_t_amp_c_and_dodge_caravan_first_driv e_gallery_2008_dodge_grand_caravan_3_8_liter_v6_en gine_image_001/379325-1-eng-US/2008_chrysler_t_amp_c_and_dodge_caravan_first_driv e_gallery_2008_dodge_grand_caravan_3_8_liter_v6_en gine_image_0011_cd_gallery.jpg

Those intakes don't have any solenoids/valves/butterflies. They are shaped very much like the 3.0L.

[Vigo]

I have not looked at one very closely but that would make plenty of other people wrong as well if there were not a variable intake there. Allpar states that it is variable and if you google 'jeep 3.8 variable intake' the first 5 or so results seem to imply that it is variable in some way also. However, i admit i have not researched this much and i dont know what part of it is variable.

[glhs0426]

I have not looked at one very closely but that would make plenty of other people wrong as well if there were not a variable intake there. Allpar states that it is variable and if you google 'jeep 3.8 variable intake' the first 5 or so results seem to imply that it is variable in some way also. However, i admit i have not researched this much and i dont know what part of it is variable.

One must have perpetuated the other. I've taken plenty of them apart and there is nothing there that is variable. It was probably 2001 when the 3.5L was supposed to go in the minivan. I've seen some of those prototypes and they were variable.

John

[Vigo]

Thanks for the info John. I think the original poster is getting more information than they bargained for! I just hope to see such a project actually completed for once. All told i think it will be a pretty easy swap.

[thedon809]

I like the 3.8. Seems like a pretty solid motor. The 4.0 though, that thing is torquey. I drove a caravan with one and it was a tire spinning machine.

[Vigo]

It helps when you have a 4:1 first gear... id like to get my hands on a 61te to take apart and scheme over, but i think itll be a few years until they're free enough for me to buy one. lol

[thedon809]

I work on them all the time. They are the new 604. We actually have a journey outside the shop with 10k miles that blew the tranny. We had a journey with 104 miles and the tranny was slipping. I think that one was just a fluke though. They have 7 forward gears.

[TopDollar69]

Would the mounts from an early 3.3L Caravan work to mount a 3.8L with the stock 88 Daytona body mounts? I guess the real question is, do the early Minivans use different mounts than the K based cars.

[Vigo]

I already explained that. ALL oem 3.3/3.8's used different mounts than an 88 daytona. However, the early 3.3/3.8s in the dynasty, fifith avenue, and imperial used the same mounts as a 90-up daytona. My thought so far is that one could take a passenger-side mount from an 87-89 3.0 motor, a trans mount from an 89 604 car, and convert the daytona front mount to the 90-up style, and doing that, it would all bolt in. However, it's all theoretical until someone tries it.

[Daytana]

Sounds like you are on the right track.

On the passenger side engine mount.. all i can remember off memory is how the 'bigger style' 3.0 mount looks, and it is NOT directly interchangeable with the 4cyl mounts because the part of the mount bracket that bolts to the bracket on the motor is about twice the vertical depth of the 4cyl mounts. However, its possible you could swap the smaller 4cyl one into the stock 6cyl motor-side bracket. Also, since 3.0s DID come with the smaller style pre-90, there is a chance that a pre-90 3.0 passenger mount might be workable on the 3.8. As a said, i have the stuff to look at....... but i forgot today.. :(


As for the wiring harness, what i meant by the entire harness is simply everything under the hood, as in you do not try to dissect the 3.8 harness and start taking pieces out. Some people try to do that when swapping harnesses and imo unless you know what you are doing, it is better to have some stuff in there that you dont need, then to get snip-happy and cut up something you didnt know was important.

As long as you take the entire under-hood wiring harness with both computers from the imp/5th and simply make the necessary changes to the lighting connectors and the bulkhead connector (if it has one), the entire thing should work fine. Everything that runs the engine is contained within the engine compartment so there's nothing else you need to grab.

As far as gauges, it's easier to make the old gauges work with newer harness than it is to make the new gauges work with an older harness. You still have a cable driven speedo so you simply swap your existing speed sensor (and its gear) into the 604 extension housing. The temperature gauge is still run off the same style of sending unit, so it will work fine as long as you get its wiring correct at the bulkhead. The voltage gauge i would think would also work fine if you get the wiring right at the bulkhead junction.

The oil pressure gauge, i am not sure if the 3.8 uses the same style of sender as the tbi but i think this will be easy to figure out. As far as the tach, i dont know how they work. Others know more about that than i do.

Dude you have been nothing but a great help. This swap is sounding better already. I was afraid I was going to have to convert to a modern round dash from a newer Daytona to make things work but according to you the sensors are similar and would not be hard to adapt to the 88 stuff so I can keep my 88 flat dash. Oh yeah btw, my speedometer is not cable driven it is electrical, I have a digital instrument cluster (how cool is that?) from a Daytona Pacifica that my friend (username here is adrivinfool4u) wired up for me. That should make things easier since it is already electronic. So basically the bulkhead that runs into the car are for things like the ignition switch, instrument cluster, etc correct? And I still can keep my 88 flat dash? I will take some pictures of my digital dash conversion too, looks pretty surprising having a digital dash in a base tbi Daytona hehe. Yeah that guy who claimed to have a 3.3 wagon never answered any of my questions for pictures, if I did such a swap I would have tons of pictures, kinda figured he was just bs'ing.

[Vigo]

As far as i know over ALL these years chrysler built the vehicle speed sensors to give the same number of pulses per mile (~8000 iirc?) so regardless of which style of sensor you have in the engine compartment, once you splice the wires to get that signal up to your guage cluster, your digital speedo should be able to read it. I dont see any reason to have to change your dash or your instrument cluster

And yes the bulkhead connector is basically only for a few things (regarding running the motor) on an 88 daytona.. all the engine controls and stuff is under the hood so through the bulkhead connector you are sending stuff to the engine harness like ignition switch and brake switch, and you are getting stuff back from the engine harness like gauge signals, etc. Then you also have a bunch of other stuff that's not really engine related that goes through the bulkhead connector, like the wiper motor, the fuel pump, the front end lighting, power accessories, etc etc. So yeh, out of the 60 pin bulkhead connector only a portion of that is actually engine-related.

[Daytana]

My friend was telling me that the newer cars like the Imperial have a body control module. How tightly integrated is it with the car? Would it interfere in anyway? I was wondering this since I have an 88 which does not have a body control module. Thanks again.

[Vigo]

I dont know MUCH about the body control module stuff. ShelGame and Strax22 know more than i do, cant say exactly how much more.

I know that in the later vans 91-95 for example, the body control module gets all the information for the instrument cluster over the CCD bus, and then interprets that data and sends it to the instrument cluster. So, on those, you would not be able to make the newer gauges run straight off the older engine wiring without somehow feeding information to the BCM or finding out a way to bypass it. However... THAT is for making the NEWER stuff work on the OLDER engine controls. Your application is making the OLDER stuff work on the NEWER engine controls, which should be much easier!

However, just to simplify things, i would get the earliest 3.8 car that you can, which i think is a 91. Also, keep in mind that you can easily run the 3.8 off of any 3.3 harness, so if you find it easier to buy an early 3.3/604 car, then scrap it for $200 and turn around and buy a 3.8 from the yard for $200, that is also an option. But, that is less ideal because it's more work and you wont have the advantage of running the motor before buying it. So hopefully you can just find exactly what you're looking for, something like a 91-93 imperial or fifth avenue.

[Daytana]

UPDATE: My friend found me a parts car. It is either an Imperial or New Yorker for $300. The reason it is so cheap because it has a bad tie rod end and security system issues. The owner just wants it gone. We are not sure if it is a 3.3 or 3.8 but I will run whatever engine the parts car has for now. I should be picking it up this weekend if all goes well. This should make the swap cheaper and easier. :thumb:

[glhs0426]

"Security system issues" may mean it starts and dies. To fix that kind of problem, find another car that runs, install the computer with "issues", and disarm the alarm (cycle the key in the door, use the remote to disarm, etc.).

The hard part is finding another car with a factory alarm system that still runs.

[ljbprrfmof]

There is a company, I think in Florida that sells reman controllers. I have the link at work. If I remember tomorrow, I will post it up.

[Daytana]

"Security system issues" may mean it starts and dies. To fix that kind of problem, find another car that runs, install the computer with "issues", and disarm the alarm (cycle the key in the door, use the remote to disarm, etc.).

The hard part is finding another car with a factory alarm system that still runs.

If worse comes to worse I could just go to the yard and nab a 40 dollar computer with a 30 day warranty. I don't plan on making the security system from the Imperial work in my Daytona anyway.

[glhs0426]

Once disarmed just disconnect the computer. It should be fine.

[TopDollar69]

Yeah, it's easy enough to remove the security system module, it's not needed to run the car. I added one to my 93 Imperial, and it was just a plug and play deal.

[Vigo]

Good luck with the purchase, sounds like a good donor. Post pics when you get it.

[Daytana]

Update: Do not have the parts car yet, just got a hold of the person selling it yesterday. The car is a 1990 Chrysler New Yorker Mark Cross edition. It has a newly rebuilt a604, engine in great shape, etc. Unfortunately it is a 3.3L so I will be using a 3.3 for my swap for now. The good news is that will cure most of my parts issues such as the fuel pump, engine, trans, electronics, etc. I will be using the dual hinged K-frame from the New Yorker on my Base Daytona. We also examined the passenger side mount and it is exactly the same as the larger mount found on the 1990+ cars. We just realized from an old Chrysler tech that the 3.3/3.8 Carvans (from our cars generation) continued using the 15-pin bulkhead so we may go with that or just use the whole New Yorker harness including the interior harness and dash. We will see as the swap continues. The only holdup now is that the New Yorker is the guy's only transportation so we have to wait until he finds a new set of wheels. :( On the bright side that gives us time to get my 1990 Daytona T2 (EX-VNT) running so I will be using that as my DD while the base Daytona is down. Here is a couple of pictures of my base Daytona that the V6 will be going into. I will get some pictures of the parts car as soon as I get it. :nod: I am fairly excited about this swap, and hopefully can share some information for those who would like to take a different approach to these cars.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/20629257/391380682.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/20629257/391380683.jpg

[Vigo]

Wow, that exhaust tip is a little much for a tbi car. hehe.

The 3.3 will not be particularly impressive as delivered. If everything is working right you would probably get about a 16.0 out of it. I got my 3.3 Dynasty to run 16.2 with nothing but a cone filter and traction upgrade (195/75r14s would spin all the way through first), and it weighs at LEAST 200 lbs more than that Daytona.

However, having said that, you can still gear down the 604 and put a higher stall converter in it, such as the one from a lockup TBI auto trans.

[Daytana]

Wow, that exhaust tip is a little much for a tbi car. hehe.

The 3.3 will not be particularly impressive as delivered. If everything is working right you would probably get about a 16.0 out of it. I got my 3.3 Dynasty to run 16.2 with nothing but a cone filter and traction upgrade (195/75r14s would spin all the way through first), and it weighs at LEAST 200 lbs more than that Daytona.

However, having said that, you can still gear down the 604 and put a higher stall converter in it, such as the one from a lockup TBI auto trans.

Lol yeah it is a Corvette C6 tip with a Cadillac Resonator. Sounds alright I guess but would sound even better with a v6 connected to it. I am only starting out with the 3.3 for now. Get everything working as a stock 3.3 car and then swap in a 3.8 later down the road. The basis is what I am going for right now. 15.9-16xx is still quicker than a tbi hehe. So an a413 lockup tq converter works in an a604? Interesting.

[Vigo]

It should work yes. There were some 604s with different spline counts on the input shaft but im pretty sure it will work with the 604 you're buying.

[Daytana]

Well made some decent progress (more than I thought we would make actually). We got the dash apart (so we could know what we are looking at for wiring since we are using the entire New Yorker harness), engine harness legitimately unplugged, loosened some engine mounts, and about to pull some axles. We plan to make the whole 3.3L setup work with A/C just like it rolled out from the assembly line with a 3.3L and maybe even use that factory amp in the back just for kicks. :D I also noticed that the transmission control unit uses the same plug as a newer a604 unit I had in a Sebring Coupe, I may very well try that one out and see if the shift points improve. The a604 is also a MP reman that looks immaculate with no leaks. Oh yeah, we ended up getting the parts car for $200 since the security system pissed off the owner again hehe. $200 for a complete 3.3L parts car and reman MP a604 unit score! :evil:
http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/20629257/391569531.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/20629257/391569532.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/20629257/391569534.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/20629257/391569535.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/20629257/391569537.jpg

Also does anyone know if the dual-hinged K-frame from the New Yorker will go in the Daytona? Thanks in advance.

[TopDollar69]

Yes, it will bolt right in.

[Daytana]

Yes, it will bolt right in.

Sweet thanks, should be a fairly decent upgrade along with the bigger sway bar.:nod:

[Vigo]

Couldnt tell in the pictures but if that car has ABS it will also have rear disc brakes that you can swap. It will be best to swap the entire spindles with brakes when you swap the k-frame, otherwise your alignment WILL need to be adjusted before you can even leave the driveway. Besides, the newer spindles have a better (imo) caliper design and the wheel bearings are bolt-in instead of press-in.

On the TCM connectors.. they are the same physically but the pinout changed sometime around 96 or 97. I would compare the pinouts before actually plugging a newer one in. I do know that if the pins are rearranged on your existing connector, a newer TCM can be plugged into an older harness and work. This has been done to swap obd1 Intrepids (et al) to autostick using newer TCMs. I still have the 97 autostick tcm from my old intrepid that i intend to swap into my dynasty at some point.

Good luck and post more pics :)

[black86glhs]

There is a 92 Imperial with a 3.8/604 in the Akron p-a-p. Almost complete. :nod:

[TopDollar69]

If that imperial still as the eagle emblems on the rear doors I need one for my car.

[Daytana]

Couldnt tell in the pictures but if that car has ABS it will also have rear disc brakes that you can swap. It will be best to swap the entire spindles with brakes when you swap the k-frame, otherwise your alignment WILL need to be adjusted before you can even leave the driveway. Besides, the newer spindles have a better (imo) caliper design and the wheel bearings are bolt-in instead of press-in.

On the TCM connectors.. they are the same physically but the pinout changed sometime around 96 or 97. I would compare the pinouts before actually plugging a newer one in. I do know that if the pins are rearranged on your existing connector, a newer TCM can be plugged into an older harness and work. This has been done to swap obd1 Intrepids (et al) to autostick using newer TCMs. I still have the 97 autostick tcm from my old intrepid that i intend to swap into my dynasty at some point.

Good luck and post more pics :)

Ok will do on the front spindles. I guess we might as well swap the rear spindles with the larger rear drum setup in too. :nod: The New Yorker is not an abs car probably due to being a 1990.

Will double check the pinouts on the TCM. I don't think they upgraded the shift points until 98 or so anyways. Might look into it though, autostick conversions are not that bad to do which would be pretty badass in a 88 Base Daytona V6. :evil:

[TopDollar69]

I was rotating the tires on my Imperial last week, and I discovered it has a solid beam rear trailing axle. I'm not sure if that was standard on Imperials, or just rear disk brake cars.

[Daytana]

Update: The engine/trans is out of the New Yorker. The parts car is almost at the process where we can just scrap it, just need to get a few more misc items such as the fuel pump etc. out of it. After further inspection of the New Yorker harness we decided to run with a 1990 Caravan 3.3 harness for simplicity (does not have all the luxury accessories etc.). Next weekend the dual-hinged K-frame from the New Yorker goes into the Base Daytona. :evil: We decided just to use the Daytona rear drums for now since we are gonna swap to rear discs eventually. If I would have ordered my clutch for my 1990 Turbo Daytona we probably would have already been test fitting the 3.3 in the 88 Base Daytona.


I was rotating the tires on my Imperial last week, and I discovered it has a solid beam rear trailing axle. I'm not sure if that was standard on Imperials, or just rear disk brake cars.

Interesting, gonna have to double check that.

[ljbprrfmof]

I was rotating the tires on my Imperial last week, and I discovered it has a solid beam rear trailing axle. I'm not sure if that was standard on Imperials, or just rear disk brake cars.

I believe that was the standard rear axle on all K based vehicles.

[Daytana]

Since we're on the topic about 3.3/3.8 V6's. I heard the 2.7 DOHC manual transmission theoretically bolts up to the 3.3/3.8 since the 2.7 is a 3.3 Derivative. Anyone have further information on that? In reality I am going to use the 604 (and actually like the 604) but down the road if the 2.7 NVT-850 5 speed works why not give it a whirl? I remember also hearing that the automatic would be quicker since the 2.7 5 speed is geared for a high revving motor like the 2.7? Any thoughts?

[ljbprrfmof]

Wow, how many of those are out there? What all did it come in? I think the only Chrysler that might have had it is the Sebring convertible. What Dodges had it?

[Daytana]

Wow, how many of those are out there? What all did it come in? I think the only Chrysler that might have had it is the Sebring convertible. What Dodges had it?

Yeah while rare it was still used in a good number of cloud cars (Sebring 2.7 Conv. and Stratus R/T 4 door). It is the NVT-850, I believe it is similar (if not the same) transmission as the Neon SRT-4.

[glhs0426]

The 2.7L T850 will bolt up and work. There is one bolt at the top of the bellhousing that is in a slightly different position. It's a pretty rare, like finding a used VNT Shadow in 1991.

I drove a Stratus R/T sedan (2.7L/T850) for a while. Man that thing was an animal! A 3.5L hooked to a T850 in the Daytona would be plain nasty. Then there goes that cheap, reliable, easy DD you were looking for.

John

[glhs0426]

The NVT850 is the same unit the SRT4 used, but it has a different case for the V6.

[glhs0426]

The T850 was used as an option for 1 1/2 yrs on the Sebring GTC convertible and the Strats R/T sedan.

[Daytana]

The 2.7L T850 will bolt up and work. There is one bolt at the top of the bellhousing that is in a slightly different position. It's a pretty rare, like finding a used VNT Shadow in 1991.

I drove a Stratus R/T sedan (2.7L/T850) for a while. Man that thing was an animal! A 3.5L hooked to a T850 in the Daytona would be plain nasty. Then there goes that cheap, reliable, easy DD you were looking for.

John

Wow incredible. I found a low mileage one on car-part for $400. Out of curiosity, does the trans mount interchange too? I believe the T-850 used a hydraulic clutch setup rather than cable so that means I would probably need to use a cloud car/SRT-4 pedal, master cylinder, lines etc.. I am sure I would have to use Cloud/SRT-4 shifter and cables too which would definitely bring up the cost of the swap so I probably would not do it (at least not any time soon). Just thought I'd throw this out there hehe. I honestly believe the if the 3.3/3.8 was used in a sportier car (even if they would not have offered in a manual) like the Daytona it would get much more attention. It feels like I am creating the Daytona Chrysler should have made in the first place. :D

[ljbprrfmof]

Maybe you should start 'remanufacturing' these cars. You know, quit your day job. LOL

[Daytana]

Maybe you should start 'remanufacturing' these cars. You know, quit your day job. LOL

LOL, my day job is what's making me able to swap a 3.3L in here in the first place hehe. Initially I was going to swap a 3.0/5sp setup but my friend and I wanted to do something that never really hasn't been done previously thus a pushrod v6 swap. Next weekend will be K-frame, front spindles, and maybe 3.3L test fitting if I can get a clutch ordered for my other Daytona soon enough. I will keep you guys updated with pictures and all.:thumb:

[Vigo]

Glad to hear you're moving along so quickly on all this.

I talked to one guy via email who did the t850 on a 2.7. This was back before anybody knew about it, really. I think i was one of the first to figure out it was possible, and i was going to buy this guy's entire setup but he fell out of contact and i ended up not doing the swap at all. ANYWAY the point being this guy felt the gearing of the t850 was NOT complimentary to the 3.3 powerband. However, i think it really all depends on your expectations. I drove a 5spd hooked to a 2.5 tbi for many years. I shifted it at 4800rpm at WOT and my shift points ended up being 25,45,65 mph. To many people that's ridiculously low and it DID take a lot of shifting but it still felt good to me and i had no trouble with it. I have a feeling using a t850 on a 3.3 would be the same way. On a stockish motor you'd end up shifting somewhere around 5200-5500 rpm and the gears would be pretty short due to the low-geared final drive. If you can live with short gears i dont see it as a problem.

[Aries_Turbo]

After further inspection of the New Yorker harness we decided to run with a 1990 Caravan 3.3 harness for simplicity (does not have all the luxury accessories etc.).

double check the firewall connector pinouts. when i put a 90 caravan harness in my 88 reliant (should be the same pinout as the daytona) i had to move two pins in the connector for the windshield wiper motor.

Brian

[fleckster]

How would the gearing in the T-850 from a 2.7L application differ from the SRT-4 application? Not considering the cost, if there is a difference couldn't you swap the SRT-4 gears into the V6 Case? It's not like the SRT-4 is a high-revving engine either. I would think it would be comparable to the 3.3/3.8 in rev limit and power band location.

[Kreel]

Glad to hear you're moving along so quickly on all this.

I talked to one guy via email who did the t850 on a 2.7. This was back before anybody knew about it, really. I think i was one of the first to figure out it was possible, and i was going to buy this guy's entire setup but he fell out of contact and i ended up not doing the swap at all. ANYWAY the point being this guy felt the gearing of the t850 was NOT complimentary to the 3.3 powerband. However, i think it really all depends on your expectations. I drove a 5spd hooked to a 2.5 tbi for many years. I shifted it at 4800rpm at WOT and my shift points ended up being 25,45,65 mph. To many people that's ridiculously low and it DID take a lot of shifting but it still felt good to me and i had no trouble with it. I have a feeling using a t850 on a 3.3 would be the same way. On a stockish motor you'd end up shifting somewhere around 5200-5500 rpm and the gears would be pretty short due to the low-geared final drive. If you can live with short gears i dont see it as a problem.

Were there any pics of this swap or setup? Did the guy say if it was night/day in terms of putting power to the ground? I might stop knocking on the 3.3/3.8 if this was actually a feasible swap. I still won't give up my 3.0 though :evil:

[Vigo]

Well oddly enough he wasn't really a go-fast kinda guy, he said it was definitely faster but he felt it was less pleasant to commute in. He did have a cardomain up for a while, cant remember much about the pics.. i saved them on an old computer but they're long gone now.

[Daytana]

double check the firewall connector pinouts. when i put a 90 caravan harness in my 88 reliant (should be the same pinout as the daytona) i had to move two pins in the connector for the windshield wiper motor.

Brian

Double checked the pinouts, they are the same for the windshield wipers on the Caravan and Daytona. The Daytona even has two blank spots for the hot and cold wire on the later ccbus (or whatever it's called) ecus. I have been there before though, swapped in a caravan harness in my 88 Aries I used to have and the wiper pins were all wrong.

[Vigo]

swapped aries, you say? Got pics?

[Daytana]

swapped aries, you say? Got pics?

2.2 T2 Swapped Aries, not a 3.3 one lol. We used a harness from an 89 turbo Voyager. I had it in the for sale section not too long ago. Now my friend who is helping me out with the 3.3L swap has the K. I am more of a Daytona enthusiast anyway.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/22236060/374101246.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/22236060/374101252.jpg

[Vigo]

Ahh ok. I remember seeing pictures of that one before.

Funny, we are opposites.. I have parted every daytona ive come across and kept the only aries ive ever owned. :p

[Daytana]

Yeah the G-bodies look more like a personal sports car to me than the rest hehe. I just like their persona. Reminds me of an 80's date car or something lol. Anyways this weekend we changed gears and worked on wrapping up the "EX-VNT" T2 Daytona (so I can have a DD while my base Daytona is down for the 3.3L swap) and a fellow turbo Mopar'ers Spirit R/T. We are just a sway bar and a axle away from having the T2 Daytona back on the road again. As soon as that is completed it's 3.3L test fit time!:evil: Meanwhile here are some various pictures of our "natural habitat" with various projects we are working on. :nod:

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/391786108.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/391786110.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/391786111.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/391786116.jpg

G-bodies are fun. ;)
http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/391786117.jpg

Comparison on size/width between a fully dressed Turbo 2.5L and the 3.3L. The 3.3L is actually not a "huge boat anchor" it is fairly compact due to it being OHV design. Looks even smaller than a SOHC and DOHC V6.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/391786120.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/391786121.jpg

The K-Wag
http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/391786122.jpg

Even our go-karts use Cometic gaskets. :p

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/391786125.jpg

"The X"
http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/391786126.jpg

What's left of the New Yorker
http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/391786128.jpg

Another 3.3L view

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/391786129.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/391786132.jpg

[Vigo]

Lookin good. Yeh, the 3.3 is a very compact motor. It looks even smaller if you take the huge upper intake off. And to think the 3.8 is the same on the outside is pretty impressive to fit 3.8L into such a small package..

I happen to have 3.3, 3.0 sohc, 3.0 dohc, and 3.9L ohv (truck motor) all sitting on the ground next to each other and the 3.3/3.8 is the smallest/ most space efficient of them all by far.

Is the shadow convertible a turbo?
What's the deal with the wagon?

[Daytana]

Thanks. The Shadow vert is a 2.5 TI and the K wagon is just a plain jane 2.5 tbi. It might be getting a 3.3/3.8 as well after we finish up the r&d on the 3.3L Daytona swap.

[glhs0426]

That a/c compressor hanging off the 3.3 looks like a variable displacement compressor. I recommend not using it; they are known for failing. Get a standard compressor off another 3.3/3.8L

[Vigo]

AFAIK there were no variable displacement compressors back then on these cars........

[Dragula]

I have been following this thread and think this project is great! I have been thinking of swapping out my lebaron coupe's 2.5t1 with a 3.8. I wanted the 3.8 because of the additional torque. My greatest anxiety is the wiring harness.
How close are you too getting the engine installed and wired?
:thumb: Cool project!! :thumb:
Bill

[Daytana]

I have been following this thread and think this project is great! I have been thinking of swapping out my lebaron coupe's 2.5t1 with a 3.8. I wanted the 3.8 because of the additional torque. My greatest anxiety is the wiring harness.
How close are you too getting the engine installed and wired?
:thumb: Cool project!! :thumb:
Bill

We got the foundation built but until we get the ex-vnt registered the project is on a short pause. As soon as we get the tail lights and flashers on my 1990 T2 Daytona figured out I can leave my 88 at my friends house where we can continue with the V6 swap as I drive the 88 to work everyday. Sorry for the delay, I am going to use a 1990 Caravan Harness and ECU for the 3.3 swap. I hope to get all of that the following weekend after this one. Maybe Sunday we will install the New Yorker dual-hinged K-frame in the 88. Stay tuned.

[Dragula]

When u talk about the hinge k frame are u referring to the engine cradle? Or just the mounts for the engine itself? Sorry if this is an odd question.
Thanks
Bill

[Vigo]

These cars do not have an engine cradle or a subframe like many other FWDs. The 3 main motor mounts bolt directly to the body.

The front suspension crossmember is called the k-frame. The only things bolted to it are the steering rack, the control arms, and a 4th mount that is only used on manual transmission cars.

[Daytana]

Update. Found just the parts vehicle I needed at the junkyard. I acquired a 1990 Caravan 3.3L harness, I grabbed the entire engine harness/ecu (including the stuff that runs to the dash past the bulkhead). This now makes the swap way more feasible. We chose this harness do to simplicity, it does not have all of the unnecessary luxury items that the New Yorker has and the harness is more similar to a Daytona one vs the New Yorker's harness looks more like a modern Chrysler setup. This also means I can still run my 1988 flat digi dash and will not have to swap to a newer round dash. :thumb: Soon we will yank the 2.5 tbi out and begin test fitting the 3.3. :evil:

[Daytana]

More Updates: Got the 2.5 engine harness pulled, dash out, and interior harness out. We are now testing the 3.3 interior harness. So far a lot of things are plug and play, the only issues so far are small ones: The HVAC plugs are different and a few plugs are gonna have to be lengthened or spliced but nothing major. Tomorrow we are going to look in ALLDATA for more information about a group of plugs on the passenger side we believe are for power windows. If they are just for power windows omit them all together since the only power accessory my car has is power mirrors. We will know for sure soon. We plan to use a Caravan HVAC. It is amazing how close a 1990 Caravan 3.3 harness is very similar to the Daytona one. We are just an axle socket away from pulling the 2.5, test fitting the engine harness and hopefully test fitting the 3.3. Here are some more pictures of progress, sorry for the crappy phone pics, I did not think of even bring my digital camera. :yuck: Stay tuned. :thumb:

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/392533751.jpg

Test fitting the 3.3 Interior harness, going pretty smoothly. :nod:
http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/392533752.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/392533753.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/392533754.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/392533755.jpg

[Vigo]

Whatever happened to this?

[Force Fed Mopar]

I hate interior work.

[Daytana]

It's still going, I just have been doing a poor job logging it hehe. The motor is actually in the engine bay and will physically fit. I will take some pictures of it this weekend. The motor is just laying on the ground (though in the engine bay) as of now since we need the early 3.0 side motor mount and a mount for the a604. The fit is pretty tight but still very doable. During this time frame I purchased a Dynasty 3.3 liter for a test-bed just for a benchmark to see how well the 3.3 responds to n/a mods so I can then get an idea how would it feel in a lighter Daytona. I am very impressed, so far I have done the huge 58mm tb swap + tighter tension (for much quicker throttle response), swapped in the later "beer barrel" upper intake plenum (from a 3.8 Caravan, it is already ported for a 58mm tb!), full 2.25" motor-back exhaust with thrush muffler (sounds badass), gapped plugs 0.64 (factory calls for 0.53), open element style filter. This 2974lb car will literally blow the tires off like a t2 car lol and the power is instant! With these mods, I see less reason to use a 3.8 for right now. More people should really (especially those of you who do not want the hassle of a turbo but want similar to turbo performance) investigate/test the 3.3/3.8 out, it's dead-nuts reliable, takes well to mods, gets good gas mileage, really overbuilt for what it is. The a604 gear spread is perfect for the 3.3. There are also tons of variations from the later years that are quite substantial upgrades that are dime a dozen. In the Daytona I might attempt running the intrepid north/south configuration intake plenum (if it clears) and see how it affects the power-band. The later plastic intake plenums are very hard to find in the junkyards since they are fairly new (2010 was the last year of production). Those pack a 62mm tb. ;) Anyways here are pictures of my 3.3 powered Dynasty with bolt-on mods, pictures of the Daytona will definitely follow.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/20629257/393896497.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/20629257/393896501.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/20629257/393896498.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/20629257/393896500.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/20629257/393896503.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/20629257/393896738.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/20629257/393896739.jpg

[Vigo]

During this time frame I purchased a Dynasty 3.3 liter for a test-bed just for a benchmark to see how well the 3.3 responds to n/a mods so I can then get an idea how would it feel in a lighter Daytona. I am very impressed, so far I have done the huge 58mm tb swap + tighter tension (for much quicker throttle response), swapped in the later "beer barrel" upper intake plenum (from a 3.8 Caravan, it is already ported for a 58mm tb!), full 2.25" motor-back exhaust with thrush muffler (sounds badass), gapped plugs 0.64 (factory calls for 0.53), open element style filter. This 2974lb car will literally blow the tires off like a t2 car lol and the power is instant! With these mods, I see less reason to use a 3.8 for right now. More people should really (especially those of you who do not want the hassle of a turbo but want similar to turbo performance) investigate/test the 3.3/3.8 out, it's dead-nuts reliable, takes well to mods, gets good gas mileage, really overbuilt for what it is.

God damn it man you are blowing my cover! All this time ive been pimping the dynastys and the 3.3 and so far ive avoided anyone catching on to how cool they are.. except for you! :p


In the Daytona I might attempt running the intrepid north/south configuration intake plenum (if it clears)

It will work if you orient it like the intrepid has it (which will put the tb over the rear exhaust manifold), but if you want to run it the other way it needs modification. Im using it that way for a 3.3 turbo project, but havent done the work to mount it that way yet. Got a nice big turbo all sitting pretty on my floorboard waiting for install. :love:

What kind of muffler is on your dynasty there? I just put some kinda old flowmaster on my 90 3.0 dynasty (not in my sig yet) the other day. The tip is a modded stock 89 turbo caravan tip. lol.

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk124/Vigo327/DSC02628Large.jpg

[Force Fed Mopar]

You need to get it to a track and baseline it. Those cars always feel powerful due to gears and the big torque hit right when you step on it, but they generally run out of breath up top/higher mph.

[Dragula]

You need to get it to a track and baseline it. Those cars always feel powerful due to gears and the big torque hit right when you step on it, but they generally run out of breath up top/higher mph.

This is true but, by the time the competition spools-up, the race is over... Nice work! :thumb:

[vntned]

Cmon Ariel, quit driving Granny cars! :P

And dont be lying and saying that a 3.3 auto gets good gas mileage!

As soon as you wanna see what fast AND efficent is head up here to Btown and we'll take you on a ride in one of our turbo Lbodys or even my Neon! ;D

[Daytana]

God damn it man you are blowing my cover! All this time ive been pimping the dynastys and the 3.3 and so far ive avoided anyone catching on to how cool they are.. except for you!

These cars are really underrated, I found this car in the sticks for $300 and originally planned to sell it for more but now I think I would have a hard time parting with it. The back reminds me of a TC by Maserati. Nope sorry, you (or me for that matter lol) aren't the only enthusiast of these cars hehe, there was even a turbo 3.3L on Car-domain, it was a beast! I need to find me a big sway bar and get rid of that "Luxo" one that is in it. I plan to go with Daytona KYBs all around. The car does handle good for what it is even though it is limited by a longer wheelbase.


It will work if you orient it like the intrepid has it (which will put the tb over the rear exhaust manifold), but if you want to run it the other way it needs modification. Im using it that way for a 3.3 turbo project, but havent done the work to mount it that way yet. Got a nice big turbo all sitting pretty on my floorboard waiting for install.

Yeah I determined the 3.3 plenums are not reversible after flipping the upper intake gasket over. and seeing how things did not line up. I would not mind running the north/south plenum with the tb over the exhaust manifold as long as the neck clears the firewall. Researching some of the 3.3 changes on Allpar I see the 3.3 intake added some hp at the expense of some torque which would make sense on a sports car like the Daytona. Check out the turbo'ed one on Cardomain, it might give you some ideas. ;)


What kind of muffler is on your dynasty there? I just put some kinda old flowmaster on my 90 3.0 dynasty (not in my sig yet) the other day. The tip is a modded stock 89 turbo caravan tip. lol.


Dynomax Thrush w/ a black tinted Cherry Bomb tip. Has a mean growl to it.


You need to get it to a track and baseline it. Those cars always feel powerful due to gears and the big torque hit right when you step on it, but they generally run out of breath up top/higher mph.


I am curious to see what it would do at the track. I would be happy if it pulled a 15.9-16.1 (I am probably overshooting it though lol). Traction would definitely be an issue. The later style intake and larger tb has cured a lot of the "running out of breath in top end" sickness. With the old intake it fell off fairly quickly in top end. On the street I would feel extremely confident challenging a lot of today's peaky "paper hp" motors for a quick light to light race.


This is true but, by the time the competition spools-up, the race is over... Nice work!

Quoted for truth. While revving up to 6500rpm+ is awesome for a road course/drag car it is not practical on the streets, especially Fayetteville where you do not have much road to play on to begin with and you just want to get around traffic. Instantaneous power is fun.

[Force Fed Mopar]

FWIW though, Shelby built some 3.3's that put out 257ish hp for the South American Can-Am cars :)

[Daytana]

FWIW though, Shelby built some 3.3's that put out 257ish hp for the South American Can-Am cars :)

Indeed, 3.3s did have a racing heritage. Ironically it made a lot that 257ish hp on basic mods such as intake manifold, different spark curves, long tube headers, slightly different cam, higher compression pistons and prob most importantly a crankshaft that I hear is very similar to the Chrysler 3.5L SOHC crankshaft. There is really some untapped potential to be had in these motors but no one ever cared to look since it was never used in a sports car. Personally I believe if they were used in something like a Daytona even without the option of a manual transmission they would have got a lot more attention. Nobody would look at a Caravan engine as a performance engine so it somewhat stayed under the radar as a "work engine". Seeing as we have modern/affodable open source standalone systems like Megasquirt today accomplishing high powered naturally aspirated applications should be a lot easier, especially since the 3.3 uses a coil pack and not a distributor.

Quote from Allpar:
The engine itself was not that far from a standard-production 3.3. The Shelby engine was making about 75 hp more than 2005 and newer 3.3 factory engines from Chrysler. The Can-Am engine had a special Shelby Dodge upper intake manifold, a special Shelby Dodge throttle body with twin intakes (pictured), and a special version of the Mopar 3.3 PCM (which had this engine redlining at 6800 rpm).

Some aspects of the Shelby engine were later used in standard-production 3.3s. An example of this is the complex DIS ignition system used by the Shelby 3.3, which was later toned down for use in normal 3.3s. The Shelby DIS, like the current Chrysler version, uses 3 timing signals, one for each pair of cylinders. Unlike a normal 3.3, however, this computer system could fine tune the timing retard for each pair of cylinders individually. Thus a Shelby 3.3 could retard the timing for one pair of cylinders and not the others, where as a normal 3.3 will use the knock detector to change all 3 timing signals at the same time.

Internally, the engine uses forged pushrods, J&E Mayle pistons (which make 11:1 compression ratio), a forged crank, and a slightly different cam. The valves were slightly bigger, and the heads were ported and tuned by Shelby's shop. The exhaust system is pretty much just high diameter, low restriction tubing with larger exhaust valves. Fuel used is 100 octane (unleaded), however I have been told that some of these engines did run higher octane fuel at the track.

[Vigo]

Nope sorry, you (or me for that matter lol) aren't the only enthusiast of these cars hehe, there was even a turbo 3.3L on Car-domain, it was a beast!

Check out the turbo'ed one on Cardomain, it might give you some ideas.

Trust me, i know.;) Ive had my 3.3 dynasty for 10 years now.



Researching some of the 3.3 changes on Allpar I see the 3.3 intake added some hp at the expense of some torque

Well, the LH cars officially didnt have any more HP than the other 3.3s, but regardless of what the numbers say thats what the intake does. It basically cuts out 8 or 10" of intake runner and bolts an open plenum right to the lower intake. I think its going to work well for my turbo build.


I am curious to see what it would do at the track. I would be happy if it pulled a 15.9-16.1 (I am probably overshooting it though lol).

Thats not overshooting at all. I got mine to run 16.2 with heavier than stock wheels/tires, 100lb of subs, box, and amps, jack, spare, full weight etc plus some school books and junk i had in it.

Guess what my t2/555 spirit ran at stock boost (keeping in mind it took a motor and trans swap to even get it to stock t2)? 16.2. :)




And dont be lying and saying that a 3.3 auto gets good gas mileage!

What? Mine avg's 23-25 and has been up to 28. I checked the straight HWY mpg on my 2.2/5spd spirit once. Guess what it was. 28. :)

[Daytana]

Cmon Ariel, quit driving Granny cars! :P

And dont be lying and saying that a 3.3 auto gets good gas mileage!

As soon as you wanna see what fast AND efficent is head up here to Btown and we'll take you on a ride in one of our turbo Lbodys or even my Neon! ;D

3.3 paired up with the a604e gets phenomenal gas mileage. There must be something wrong with your buddy's Caravan. The Dynasty almost matches the mileage I got with my 2.0 Sebring (same engine as your Neon) since it is properly matched with a motor to move it's heavy self. I haven't calculated it yet but I do know for a fact that I have been spending less time at the pump than any of my 2.2/2.5 cars (turbo or n/a) driving to work everyday and sometimes to Parkton NC. These are not 413s or a670s. Lock-up torque converter and overdrive help tremendously. Been there/done that with the 2.0 + bolt ons thing and L-bodies are not efficient when they have a worse drag coefficient than a minivan. :p I know you love your weight arguments but as it still stands there are faster and heavier n/a Hondas out there than your unbeatable L-bodies because they spend less time on weight and more time focusing on putting power to the ground. And yes I would like to go to B-town again and hang with you guys, I miss that 80's feel and hometown feeling there hehe.

[Vigo]

Lock-up torque converter and overdrive help tremendously.

They still turn 3000 rpm on the highway... at 92 mph. :p

[the muffler man]

this is a great swap for people that love tds and need them to be stone axe reliable this is why i became a hot rodder put the biggest motor in a smaller car close mindedness kills the car hobby for me

[GLHSHELBY]

this is a great swap for people that love tds and need them to be stone axe reliable this is why i became a hot rodder put the biggest motor in a smaller car close mindedness kills the car hobby for me

I`m wondering how long it will take to start seeing the new 3.6`s swapped into these cars:D

[vntned]

Ariel Ariel Ariel. Money says my crappy peon can out run, out handle, getter better mileage, out stop and has better aero dynamics than the 'nasty, and its got stock brakes and suspension, not to mention 1.3l less displacement!

As far as the Lbody having crappy aerodynamics goes, youre right. The stock omni has a cd of only .44, but I doubt the 'nasty is much if any better.

When it comes down to performance lighter is ALWAYS better! And aerodynamics wont come into play in a race until WAY after the winner has shown himself!

And the whole crap about "by the time the competition spools-up, the race is over...", thats nonsense! What are you doin? Racing for the first 30ft then claiming "Victory!"?

If you size the turbo to the engine right, boost will come on before the torque converter in Driving Miss Daisys chrome clad, crushed velour sporting hooptie even knows what happened! ;P

Get that 3.3 Tona goin and I'll put the BOOSTBOX back together and we can meet up at the Fville dragway this Spring! Freaky Friday stylez! I'll get Tabo to bring his SC then too! It might be S60 by then though. :D

[Vigo]

Money says my crappy peon can out run, out handle, getter better mileage, out stop and has better aero dynamics than the 'nasty, and its got stock brakes and suspension, not to mention 1.3l less displacement!

Old ladies dont want to be scared everytime they try to drive their cars, so thats why they didnt build dynastys to have stock performance, although anything that can be bolted into any other turbo mopar can bolt into a dynasty. lets see.. 2.0, 2.2,2.4 2.5, 2.6, 3.0, 3.3, 3.8, etc. If you cant build a dynasty to do what you want it to do, you cant build any other k-car to do it either. They're all the same.

What's heavy to you? The dynasty is the same weight as a spirit or 2g daytona, or really MOST of the cars built past 87 with the notable exceptions of shadows, aries, and L-bodies. Its still under 3000 lbs empty.


"by the time the competition spools-up, the race is over...", thats nonsense! What are you doin? Racing for the first 30ft then claiming "Victory!"?

Well, unless you race on the highway a lot of street races are like that. On stock boost my t2 spirit wouldnt pass a stock 3.3 dynasty until 50+mph. This is the same reason i was able to smack around a lot of suckas in my tbi/523 caravan. It only ran low 18s but 0-50 was as fast as a lot of 16 second cars, and i used that to full advantage. :p

[Aries_Turbo]

my 3.0l k car was like that.

i was driving it and my friend brian was driving my turbo k car on 18psi. i didnt get walked till i hit 4th gear.

Brian

[Force Fed Mopar]

There's this little problem called wheelspin...

[Vigo]

There's this little problem called wheelspin...

Its easy to tire upgrade your way out of wheelspin on a stock 3.3. I did it. Keep in mind that though its a bigger motor it has a very tight converter from the factory.

[Daytana]

Old ladies dont want to be scared everytime they try to drive their cars, so thats why they didnt build dynastys to have stock performance, although anything that can be bolted into any other turbo mopar can bolt into a dynasty. lets see.. 2.0, 2.2,2.4 2.5, 2.6, 3.0, 3.3, 3.8, etc. If you cant build a dynasty to do what you want it to do, you cant build any other k-car to do it either. They're all the same.

What's heavy to you? The dynasty is the same weight as a spirit or 2g daytona, or really MOST of the cars built past 87 with the notable exceptions of shadows, aries, and L-bodies. Its still under 3000 lbs empty.



Well, unless you race on the highway a lot of street races are like that. On stock boost my t2 spirit wouldnt pass a stock 3.3 dynasty until 50+mph. This is the same reason i was able to smack around a lot of suckas in my tbi/523 caravan. It only ran low 18s but 0-50 was as fast as a lot of 16 second cars, and i used that to full advantage. :p

Lol don't try to even reason with Neddy poo. In his mind anything that is not an L-body or a Neon is "heavy" or a "waste of time". Still good people though. He'll learn one day, G-bodies are taking over Fayetteville with Redrocket's 3rd gen 92 Iroc Daytona. :p But yeah Vigo I could not have said it any better, my Dynasty is still lighter than today's "sport compacts" and actually packs a motor to move a car it's size unlike today's cars even though it's far from a some super duper race car. And my Daytona with a hole cut where the spare tire well in the back and all of the interior ripped out still has better ride quality than his ex- Chrysler Europe/Peugeot machine with everything still attached LOL. There are pro's to having larger vehicles.


my 3.0l k car was like that.

i was driving it and my friend brian was driving my turbo k car on 18psi. i didnt get walked till i hit 4th gear.

Brian

That and the 3.0 just flows 11tybillion times better than any 2.2/2.5. @ 5 pounds of boost/250hp without touching the head says enough. The turbo on the 2.2/2.5 is making up for a lot of inefficiency. There is a bracket racing a604/3.0 Shadow around here that runs 14.7 consistently with bolt on mods. A604 is a transmission that takes care of you if you take care of it.

[vntned]

"Lol don't try to even reason with Neddy poo. In his mind anything that is not an L-body or a Neon is "heavy" or a "waste of time"."
Heavy? Yes. Waste of time? NO(old people need cars too)!

"Still good people though."
Likewise.

"He'll learn one day,"
Doubt it. :P

"And my Daytona with a hole cut where the spare tire well in the back and all of the interior ripped out still has better ride quality than his ex- Chrysler Europe/Peugeot machine with everything still attached LOL."
Hey there! Chrysler/Talbot machine with ALMOST everything still attached! And Carroll still has one Turbo Mopar he drives. AND ITS A FKING OMNI! I know this because I asked him in person last year. The same time he signed my Omnis original option sheet "I LOVE OMNI!"! Dont make me get the pics out!

"There are pro's to having larger vehicles."
Yeah, you can date fat chicks!

[Daytana]

"Lol don't try to even reason with Neddy poo. In his mind anything that is not an L-body or a Neon is "heavy" or a "waste of time"."
Heavy? Yes. Waste of time? NO(old people need cars too)!

"Still good people though."
Likewise.

"He'll learn one day,"
Doubt it. :P

"And my Daytona with a hole cut where the spare tire well in the back and all of the interior ripped out still has better ride quality than his ex- Chrysler Europe/Peugeot machine with everything still attached LOL."
Hey there! Chrysler/Talbot machine with ALMOST everything still attached! And Carroll still has one Turbo Mopar he drives. AND ITS A FKING OMNI! I know this because I asked him in person last year. The same time he signed my Omnis original option sheet "I LOVE OMNI!"! Dont make me get the pics out!

"There are pro's to having larger vehicles."
Yeah, you can date fat chicks!

I still don't see how 2600-2974 is heavy? Do explain. An L body with big brakes and heavy duty suspension upgrades is 2700lbs. So the difference is 200-300 lbs? A difference of a very overweight passenger. :p There was a thread here with a guy with a rampage not too long ago who experienced this after swapping all of that stuff in. L bodies are not 1800 lb cars (more close to 2400ish), you are high. And Marty? You're talking about the same guy who said removing/cutting real metal/weight out of my Daytona was useless but him removing some plastic panels would help him because he has an L body... Total insanity. I honestly would have kept it they way it was if the interior was not infested with who knows what lol and the wheel well was badly damaged. They are preferred more probably due to that unusual rear suspension but evidence has shown the K-car rear trailing arm cars can handle it out too. I think you are just disappointed you had to part out your t2 stuff and go back log and nearly almost considering going back to the carb setup talk about going a few steps back. I would suggest a 3.3/3.8 to any variant of our cars even an L-body if you are willing to cut the radiator supports and figure out how to incorporate the provisions for the later transmission mounts that the K-based cars already have . Now the Neon is another story and a better built car but at the same time there is an all motor 2nd gen Talon (Chrysler 2.0 powered) out there in the low 13's (prob almost high 12's last I heard) which is a substantially heavier car because he did his homework and figured out how to put every ounce of power to the pavement and not just throw go fast goodies on the car. It takes more than poly bushings, outdated mp computers, super 60 turbos to hit low times (especially when traction becomes an issue). If you would have read the beginning of my thread doing this for reliability and a pretty quick car that would hang with most of today's average sport compacts without spending big bucks or costly turbo builds/swaps (especially when 2.2s/2.5s are becoming extinct while the 3.3/3.8 just now got discontinued as of 2010 and are literally everywhere) not a track car. To me it breathes new life into our platform of cars. A V6 makes a way better driver than a 4 banger due to less harshness and the perfect balance of 60*. (which is why I ran with it). I could care less if my Daytona is slower than boostbox because the 3.3 already wins the race of reliability/availability. To be honest if I wanted to a track winner I would just go with a boosted 3.0 or 16v and not even consider outdated super 60 set-ups and 2.2s. Research and development has to start somewhere, that's why you see a trend of everyone going over to 3.0 turbo thanks to a few people's hard work and them figuring out it was just way easier power than a 2.2 and more practical than finding expensive TIIIs. I believe they started out with basic bolt on mods and eventually worked their way up to turbo charging.

[Kreel]

Nice to see this is up and running. Don't you just love the low-end torque of a V6? I prefer the 3.0L...but that's just because I love to row my own gears; and I've grown a severe dislike for the A-604 :p I've owned many 3.3/3.8L's and for normal city driving they are very effective. Get past 60mph though and they're dead in the water ;)

[Daytana]

Nice to see this is up and running. Don't you just love the low-end torque of a V6? I prefer the 3.0L...but that's just because I love to row my own gears; and I've grown a severe dislike for the A-604 :p I've owned many 3.3/3.8L's and for normal city driving they are very effective. Get past 60mph though and they're dead in the water ;)

I love 3.0s/3.3s/3.8s. They are all good motors and both overbuilt. I used to hate the a604 until I seen what they can do after they are built. I like your 3.0 5 speed van btw.

[Ondonti]

I think the a604 does lie to you with the mountain of torque it seems to have.

But I also think you should keep the trans bone stock until it dies. Everyone I have seen putting "built" 4 speeds into bolt on v6's has run like crap. Putting a loose as a goose transmission into a car running high 15's won't make you run faster.

[glhs0075]

200-300 lbs? A difference of a very overweight passenger.

^ Hey, leave me out of this!!!
:D

[Force Fed Mopar]

I dunno, Shadow's SC is 2500 race weight, w/ him in it IIRC. And I think he has a full interior minus the back seat (rollcage). I have a feeling the Dynasty and similar bodies are over 3k w/0 a driver in them.

http://carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=5676

http://carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=38632

http://carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=38599

[martabo]

L bodies are not 1800 lb cars (more close to 2400ish), you are high. And Marty? You're talking about the same guy who said removing/cutting real metal/weight out of my Daytona was useless but him removing some plastic panels would help him because he has an L body... Total insanity.They are preferred more probably due to that unusual rear suspension but evidence has shown the K-car rear trailing arm cars can handle it out too. Now the Neon is another story and a better built car but at the same time there is an all motor 2nd gen Talon (Chrysler 2.0 powered) out there in the low 13's (prob almost high 12's last I heard) which is a substantially heavier car because he did his homework and figured out how to put every ounce of power to the pavement and not just throw go fast goodies on the car.

It takes more than poly bushings, outdated mp computers, super 60 turbos to hit low times (especially when traction becomes an issue). If you would have read the beginning of my thread doing this for reliability and a pretty quick car that would hang with most of today's average sport compacts without spending big bucks or costly turbo builds/swaps (especially when 2.2s/2.5s are becoming extinct while the 3.3/3.8 just now got discontinued as of 2010 and are literally everywhere) not a track car. To me it breathes new life into our platform of cars. A V6 makes a way better driver than a 4 banger due to less harshness and the perfect balance of 60*. (which is why I ran with it).

To be honest if I wanted to a track winner I would just go with a boosted 3.0 or 16v and not even consider outdated super 60 set-ups and 2.2s. Research and development has to start somewhere, that's why you see a trend of everyone going over to 3.0 turbo thanks to a few people's hard work and them figuring out it was just way easier power than a 2.2 and more practical than finding expensive TIIIs. I believe they started out with basic bolt on mods and eventually worked their way up to turbo charging.


Alright, first off - Mopar 10 pt cage ftw

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m203/_martabo/07100637.jpg

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m203/_martabo/0711101207a.jpg

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m203/_martabo/0711101207b.jpg

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m203/_martabo/0711101206a.jpg


SECOND - ill put money on my retrimmed s60 setup, with nice suspension and adequate tires is more than capable of "putting all of its power to the ground".....even if it does dig into the pavement a little first - not only that, but i bet i get higher to the gallon (not to your 6,000 gallon tank in the 'nasty), but to the gallon staying out of the boost by at LEAST 5mpg.

As for "current" engines - why would we waste our time chopping rad supports and banging firewalls to make an engine that our springs wont support fit in an L body when we can put a JUST as current 2.0 dohc or 2.4 doch in place with less mods, still get better mileage, and then make them go fast?

I applaud your tenacity in making v6s work.


But just out of curiosity, did you know that the factory rated hp on your 'nasty was only 1 hp higher than a stock omni T1 car? granted, it has 20 ft lbs more torque, for being a 3200 lb car, 150 hp just doesnt go as far as it does in a 2500lb L body.

dont let that 18 gallon gas tank fool you for too long. you mightve spent more time at the gas station in your 2.2L, but that was prolly because you were having WAY more fun driving it than you do your grandaddy mobile.

[Vigo]

But just out of curiosity, did you know that the factory rated hp on your 'nasty was only 1 hp higher than a stock omni T1 car?

all the calcs i did on my stock 3.3 (a 93) trap speed to weight came out to 162 hp. in 94 they updated the ratings.. to 162hp iirc.

The 147-150hp ones were underrated from the factory. Not that 10hp means much.

Also, the dynasty has the same gas tank as all the other k-based cars... 14.5 gallons.

Also, 2.2s dont put all their power to the ground in 1st gear. They put about half of it down until the turbo spools up, at which point a 3.3 in the same weight of car is a good car length or two ahead. lol.

Since ive owned them all at the same time, ive raced stock 2.5/auto t1s against a stock 3.3 car. The 3.3 wins, by more and more the higher you go. Basically its about a car off the start, and then slowly pulling away from 60-up.

[Muertoloco]

is this doable in a 85'??

[Vigo]

Yeh, the 3.3 will fit in any of them. You have to modify the harness to fit your front end lighting and your bulkhead connector and all that, but you have to do that for pretty much every platform anyway.

[Force Fed Mopar]

I think most of your start line advantage comes from the auto ;) I agree, they are cheap fun though. Get it to a track, then we'll see. Numbers don't lie :) And tell your L-body buddies to go with you so we can have some good grudge racing vids :D I need more vids for my next video compilation.

[Daytana]

I think the a604 does lie to you with the mountain of torque it seems to have.

But I also think you should keep the trans bone stock until it dies. Everyone I have seen putting "built" 4 speeds into bolt on v6's has run like crap. Putting a loose as a goose transmission into a car running high 15's won't make you run faster.

Indeed, I don't plan to put much of any money in this car let alone a built transmission.


I dunno, Shadow's SC is 2500 race weight, w/ him in it IIRC. And I think he has a full interior minus the back seat (rollcage). I have a feeling the Dynasty and similar bodies are over 3k w/0 a driver in them.

http://carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=5676

http://carfolio.com/specifications/m...car/?car=38632

http://carfolio.com/specifications/m...car/?car=38599

2974 dry and probably 3000 something with a driver I don't know if I can trust a site that uses "kerb" weight as a measurement :p j/k. I am not building an all out drag car so weight is little of no concern to me. Most of today's "compacts" are edging close to those numbers fast anyways thanks to safety regulations. These cars (Dynasty/Daytona) have already won me over. Bigger car also makes a better highway car. Beats driving a modern mid-size car with a gutless 4 cylinder.



is this doable in a 85'??
Yes, use an 89 3.3 Caravan harness + ecu.



Quote:

But just out of curiosity, did you know that the factory rated hp on your 'nasty was only 1 hp higher than a stock omni T1 car?
all the calcs i did on my stock 3.3 (a 93) trap speed to weight came out to 162 hp. in 94 they updated the ratings.. to 162hp iirc.

The 147-150hp ones were underrated from the factory. Not that 10hp means much.

Also, the dynasty has the same gas tank as all the other k-based cars... 14.5 gallons.

Also, 2.2s dont put all their power to the ground in 1st gear. They put about half of it down until the turbo spools up, at which point a 3.3 in the same weight of car is a good car length or two ahead. lol.

Since ive owned them all at the same time, ive raced stock 2.5/auto t1s against a stock 3.3 car. The 3.3 wins, by more and more the higher you go. Basically its about a car off the start, and then slowly pulling away from 60-up.

Thank you Vigo somebody knows what they are talking about. 18 gallon gas tank LOL? You can't explain nothing to these guys lol, the only races they can beat one in is parting out their cars and building up broken dreams. I would not even dare to compete in that area. Having practical power on tap is a good thing. I do not even know how this came to be a super 60 L body with a roll cage vs a close to stock 3.3 swapped Daytona built for dependability/driveability with close to t2 speed thread in the first place lol. I guess when you have a car with a huge turbo, massive boost, light weight and expect to turn 12s (granted you get traction) while a Honda can do the same on less boost/displacement and turn 10's/11's you kind of have to use that as your benchmark. :nod: Talk about comparing apples to oranges. Our community is far too minuscule to be this ignorant/closeminded. If you don't like it who cares and don't post, it's not your car. :thumb:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYS-UBpoCm4

Here are the long awaited pictures. I apologise it took so long. Next time I will use my actual camera. Stated earlier, I need to hit up the boneyard for some mounts then the real fun will begin. ;)

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/393957077.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/393957076.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/393957075.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/393957074.jpg

[Daytana]

I think most of your start line advantage comes from the auto ;) I agree, they are cheap fun though. Get it to a track, then we'll see. Numbers don't lie :) And tell your L-body buddies to go with you so we can have some good grudge racing vids :D I need more vids for my next video compilation.


Will do, I am not afraid to loose I just like to have fun. I am curious to see how will it do against any turbo Mopar. I think they will have fun battling the piss poor conditions of the Fayetteville drag strip hehe. The only good things about the Fayetteville Dragstrip Freak Friday Events are the clad women.:eyebrows:

[Force Fed Mopar]

Damn, I didn't even notice you were in Fayetteville NC lol. Not all that far away from me, I might even ride up and hang out sometime w/ the ol' Shelby Z. Maybe even run ya :p Although I don't currently have a very good track record, fastest I've ever got any of mine down the track is about 10 flat in the 8th lol. I don't launch very well :( What day does the drag strip up there run on?

[Daytana]

Damn, I didn't even notice you were in Fayetteville NC lol. Not all that far away from me, I might even ride up and hang out sometime w/ the ol' Shelby Z. Maybe even run ya :p Although I don't currently have a very good track record, fastest I've ever got any of mine down the track is about 10 flat in the 8th lol. I don't launch very well :( What day does the drag strip up there run on?

No idea. I know Freaky Friday's won't open up until it gets warm again. Sounds like a plan. PM me if you want to swap info so I can keep you updated about track times.

[ShadowFromHell]

I have a friend planning this same swap into a 90 lebaron. He is a wiring guru when it comes to factory stuff, once he starts I doubt it will take him long to get it on the street. After reading this, I am looking forward to a ride!

Any idea how hard a 3.8 would be in a rampage? lol.

[Force Fed Mopar]

About the same probably, just tighter :p

[Ondonti]

I don't know how much the 3.3 or 3.8L weighs but being contentious regarding what fits in what and what weighs what without knowing the facts is not something needed here.

V6's came in Daytonas, Daytonas are heavy even with a 4 cylinder.
The weight of a 3.0 is almost the same as a 2.5L 4 cylinder. Is it that hard to comprehend that a .5L difference does not equal a large weight difference?
A 3.0 shortblock weighs 150 pounds. Almost exactly the same as a 2.5. The only difference is the 1 extra cylinder head, but each cylinder head is smaller!

I can't see the 3.3 being super heavy. Talk of this sort is fallacy and 2.5L fantasy. I don't support 3.3L use but I can't make ridiculous arguments against them either. Vigo already wants to prove me wrong (and right) with a project so I have to do all i can to make legitimate digs at him ;)

[Vigo]

the 3.3/3.8 is a tiny little motor once you get the giant intake off and look at it. Its kind of crazy to look at a 3.8 shortblock and think there's 3.8L of motor in there when you think about how big most other motors in that displacement range are.

[vntned]

"Our community is far too minuscule to be this ignorant/closeminded. If you don't like it who cares and don't post, it's not your car."

Jeez Ariel, I was just joking around with you! I didnt mean nothing by it. You know Im always talkin crap. Dont let it get to you.

[Muertoloco]

so, the weak point in this swap is the transmission?

[Force Fed Mopar]

I don't remember saying it was a heavier engine. I was just poking fun at him about holeshots :) They are a very compact engine. I did say that the big body cars are a lot heavier than most L-bodies.

[thummmper]

I don't know if this helps at all--but my 94 eagle vision e/t weighs 691 lbs
http://images.thesamba.com/vw/gallery/pix/698200.jpg

[Muertoloco]

now there is a motor beging for twin turbos.

[Daytana]

I have a friend planning this same swap into a 90 lebaron. He is a wiring guru when it comes to factory stuff, once he starts I doubt it will take him long to get it on the street. After reading this, I am looking forward to a ride!

Any idea how hard a 3.8 would be in a rampage? lol.

Tight, you would probably have to cut up the front radiator supports and figure out how to incorporate a late model trans. K based cars might not be as light but they excel in motor/trans swap expandability by far compared to an L. Do it up and let us know! I'd love to see a v6 in a L. ;) 1 person has swapped a 3.0 in a Omni and the fit was scary tight but he made it work.


I don't know how much the 3.3 or 3.8L weighs but being contentious regarding what fits in what and what weighs what without knowing the facts is not something needed here.

V6's came in Daytonas, Daytonas are heavy even with a 4 cylinder.
The weight of a 3.0 is almost the same as a 2.5L 4 cylinder. Is it that hard to comprehend that a .5L difference does not equal a large weight difference?
A 3.0 shortblock weighs 150 pounds. Almost exactly the same as a 2.5. The only difference is the 1 extra cylinder head, but each cylinder head is smaller!

I can't see the 3.3 being super heavy. Talk of this sort is fallacy and 2.5L fantasy. I don't support 3.3L use but I can't make ridiculous arguments against them either. Vigo already wants to prove me wrong (and right) with a project so I have to do all i can to make legitimate digs at him

+1. The 2.2/2.5 is a good motor but I swear some people are just too ashamed to admit their obvious flaws.


the 3.3/3.8 is a tiny little motor once you get the giant intake off and look at it. Its kind of crazy to look at a 3.8 shortblock and think there's 3.8L of motor in there when you think about how big most other motors in that displacement range are.

That is the beauty of the OHV configuration, compactness. People like to call it "old school" because of the 60's/70's muscle car era but in reality OHC and OHV are very close in age. Neither are "modern" technologies.


"Our community is far too minuscule to be this ignorant/closeminded. If you don't like it who cares and don't post, it's not your car."

Jeez Ariel, I was just joking around with you! I didnt mean nothing by it. You know Im always talkin crap. Dont let it get to you.

You're good bud, no hard feelings at all. You know I had to twist the knife in ya when you were putting out disinformation about the v6/K-cars. I just believe all of our cars can be potent + handle (even a Dynasty) and not just L-bodies. I know you are a minimalist and that's cool I am too I just like some (not a lot) creature comforts along with it. I would love an L body but they just do not meet my needs of driveability, availability, comfort, serviceability, posture, and expandability (as far as using 3.0s, 3.3s, 3.8s and later transmissions) that the larger K-based cars have. Unless I was building an all out drag machine I just do not see the whole "weight advantage" thing especially when there are some badass heavy cars out there that give any of our cars (yes even L bodies) a run for their money. You and I both know the 2.2 can be a hassle sometimes to maintain and not while not in boost is a gutless dog. That is why you enjoy your Neon and forgetting about the Omni lately (along with no worries about breaking down on the side of the road that a 20yr old turbo car gives) and beat/trashed/hung with a turbo car while still being n/a with it :thumb:, it is a much more modern setup than a 2.2/2.5. The same applies to the 3.3/3.8. It is light-years ahead of the 2.2/2.5 mechanically and even smoother ignition systems despite it being OHV. I like having an engine with real intake runners and plenums not tiny straw tubes and I am sure you do too. I just chose using a v6 instead of going 16v DOHC. The 2.2/2.5 dreams it could do the things any of the v6's used in our cars could do n/a and probably even turbo (3.0 v6). Whenever I get some time off I might visit again.


so, the weak point in this swap is the transmission?

Not really, the a604/ultradrive gets a bad rap because it was one of the first electronically controlled transmissions and as with the first of anything they usually aren't the best. In reality if you run the correct fluid, stay on top of the fluid changes, and run a tranny cooler the trans is just as good as anything else. There have been guys who ran boosted applications on stock 604s (Chrysler 420a powered Talons/Eclipses) with no problems. Another thing that caused issues for the average person is the fact that the instruction manuals for Chryslers in the 90's had a misprint and told people to use Dexron instead of Atf+3 which destroyed many transmissions during that time frame. Chrysler later corrected it and stated the right fluid and a lot of problems went away. Another weak point is the differential pin but that applies to any other Chrysler transmission LOL so nothing new there. You can get it welded for greater strength. The a604 also has a huge upgrade aftermarket if you are afraid of it grenading. So granted your a604 is not in sick condition, you will have a transmission with a much better gear spread than any of our 5 speeds which will make for good highway and city car.

According to Vigo, there IS a 5 speed that can be bolted to the 3.3/3.8. It is the NVT-850 (same transmission as the SRT-4 Neon with a different bellhousing iirc) used in a 5 speed Stratus/Sebring 2.7 Sedan/Convertable (not to be confused the Mitsubishi Eclipse based Stratus/Sebring coupes). I am guessing you would have to use the whole hydraulic clutch setup, shifter, cables, pedal from the Stratus/Sebring 2.7. Definitely worth a try for someone who just does not prefer an automatic.


I don't remember saying it was a heavier engine. I was just poking fun at him about holeshots They are a very compact engine. I did say that the big body cars are a lot heavier than most L-bodies.

Lol it's cool. I don't think he meant that to you. Another poster mentioned that "our springs our not strong enough to support a 3.3L" therefore implying it was heavy which is a total fallacy. Side by side to a 2.2/2.5 the sizes are not too far off and I'd be willing to bet the 3.3 is probably lighter if it wasn't hooked up to a 4 speed auto. But that pays for itself compared to a 413 yuck. :yuck:


I don't know if this helps at all--but my 94 eagle vision e/t weighs 691 lbs

Probably not. Even though the 3.5 was derived from the 3.3 it uses a heavier crankshaft not to mention is physically larger due to it being OHC.


now there is a motor beging for twin turbos.

The 3.3/3.8 uses a very similar crossover pipe to a 3.0. That setup makes it easy to incorporate a turbo, I would not be surprised if Ed's crossover pipes could be modified to work. Since there is only 1 documented turbo 3.3 out there (and it is a Dynasty :hail:) nobody really knows the limits of the 3.3. I have read that the piston rings are the weak point when it comes to turbocharging. I would suggest using a 3.3 for a boosted application since there is more "meat" than a 3.8 but hey with the right a/f ratio they both should be fine with 5-10psi. :p We actually have been talking about throwing a Garret t2 on one just for sh*ts and grins since it is slightly "undersized" for a 3.3 v6 which would mean fairly quick spool. Who knows. :bowl:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdz_8easQHM

Here are documented pictures of that Dynasty. This is NOT my car. http://www.cardomain.com/ride/256392/1991-dodge-dynasty

[thummmper]

is the crankshaft different really? one of the father-son benefits of the 3.3 as a base design was the sharing of bottom ends. 3.8 as well. all three were made at the trenton plant. the top end was redesigned in 92-93 for the LH sedans.
the 3.3 has iron heads too. well, okay- the intake manifold is 30 lbs by itsself. it wouldve been better if I had a engine only weight.

By the way--are sensor signals normal electrical values? do they change to that 1010011100101 when the cm's send them to other cm's? If the sensor signals are normal on the engine, I might be able to tap into, say my oil pressure sender for my 1989 dash light, with maybe a resistor or diode? the microprocessor language is encrypted [10011101011] to earlier guages and clusters, so I might need to beat it to the cm before it gets encrypted. [ccd bus]
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=412486&highlight=middie

[Daytana]

is the crankshaft different really? one of the father-son benefits of the 3.3 as a base design was the sharing of bottom ends. 3.8 as well. all three were made at the trenton plant. the top end was redesigned in 92-93 for the LH sedans.
the 3.3 has iron heads too. is iron heavier than aluminum now? well, okay- the intake manifold is 30 lbs by itsself. it wouldve been better if I had a engine only weight.

By the way--are sensor signals normal electrical values? do they change to that 1010011100101 when the cm's send them to other cm's? If the sensor signals are normal on the engine, I might be able to tap into, say my oil pressure sender for my 1989 dash light, with maybe a resistor or diode? the microprocessor language is encrypted [10011101011] to earlier guages and clusters, so I might need to beat it to the cm before it gets encrypted. [ccd bus]
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=412486&highlight=middie

I believe the 3.5 crankshaft is stronger and similar to the one used in the Shelby Can Am 3.3L. I'd imagine it would be heavier since it is stronger but I could be wrong. A 3.5 crankshaft would probably be a great upgrade in a 3.3.
The heads are iron but also a great deal smaller lol. Not sure which one is really heavier. 3.5 is a well built motor though, like the 3.3/3.8 was never used in nothing sporty besides the Prowler so it it too has untapped potential.
On the sensor signal ? I have no idea lol. I never liked stock oil pressure sending units and just used mechanical gauges for maximum accuracy. Maybe someone more inclined on that me can chime in. Oh you're that guy with that badass 3.5 swapped VW van. Cool.

[black86glhs]

The biggest problem with most mopar trans has been either the wrong fluid or heat.
The 413 with a lock up converter is not bad with mileage or engine RPM on the highway. Not as good as the 604, but it is much better than anything in an L-body.....lol.
I disagree with the drivability statement about the 2.2/2.5. Believe me, there is a big difference between a turbo and an N/A engines characteristics. I know this first hand. No, it is not like the 3.8 in my Olds, but it is not like the early 2.2.
I do agree with your idea of having some creature comforts in a car. That is why I own a Delta 88, Intrigue, and fully loaded Chevy Caprice for daily drivers. :thumb:

[Force Fed Mopar]

Yeah I like rolling out in my Diplomat SE. If only it had EFI...

[black86glhs]

Yeah I like rolling out in my Diplomat SE. If only it had EFI...

I'de love to see a magnum 318 from a ram or dakota in one. That would run nice!!!:thumb:

[Vigo]

There has been more than one turbo'd 3.3. There was a page floating around for a while with one in a 2g minivan that was a MUUUUUCH better setup than that guy Nenad's setup.

To be realistic, that thing was turbo'd in a really half---- way as far as exhaust flow and turbo selection, and imo it had the performance to match. The only thing that video really shows is that it has a functioning BOV. lol.:o


Yeh the t-850, i figured out it was possible many many moons ago, and at one point talked to a guy who did it but only through email. Id be interested in doing it if i could do it for $250 (like the rest of the k-car trans swaps) but those 2.7L t-850 trans are worth a lot more than that, more than itd be worth to me personally. Id rather finish one of my other crazy projects than drop $1k JUST on adding a gear to my 3.3 dynasty.

[Aries_Turbo]

do any of the holes line up for a 543?

like if the crank centerline dowels line up, cutting and welding some blocks of aluminum in there and drilling for a new bolt location or two wouldnt be bad.

Brian

[Vigo]

I have a 3.3 and a 543 on the ground, and i tried seeing what it would take to bolt them together.

I remember that at first glance i saw something on the block i had to cut off. Then after i cut that off i saw something else that made it look like it was completely not feasible. BUT i dont remember the specifics of what i found, other than that even cutting chunks off the 3.3 block, it still wouldnt work. :p

[ShadowFromHell]

Could a adaptor plate be built? They are quite common on other cars. I know you can buy/build one that will go from chevy to BOP, or BOP to chevy, and its simply a plate with holes in it. Maybe that would be a better option?

[glhs0426]

I believe the 3.5 crankshaft is stronger and similar to the one used in the Shelby Can Am 3.3L. I'd imagine it would be heavier since it is stronger but I could be wrong. A 3.5 crankshaft would probably be a great upgrade in a 3.3.
The heads are iron but also a great deal smaller lol. Not sure which one is really heavier. 3.5 is a well built motor though, like the 3.3/3.8 was never used in nothing sporty besides the Prowler so it it too has untapped potential.
On the sensor signal ? I have no idea lol. I never liked stock oil pressure sending units and just used mechanical gauges for maximum accuracy. Maybe someone more inclined on that me can chime in. Oh you're that guy with that badass 3.5 swapped VW van. Cool.

The snout of the crankshaft on a 3.3/3.8 is different than a 3.5 where the crank gear installs. I looked at it a long time ago in regards to stroking a 3.5 to 3.8 and it would not work since there was material missing needed for the 3.5 crank gear. The 3.5L crank could be put in a 3.3/3.8, but it would require machine work.

If I'm reading this right two people think the 3.3/3.8 cylinder heads are iron. NOT!

[Vigo]

I know you can buy/build one that will go from chevy to BOP, or BOP to chevy, and its simply a plate with holes in it. Maybe that would be a better option?

It is possible but you must remember that in a transverse application to add an adapter plate is essentially moving the trans farther to the driver's side which affects the axles. The trans mount itself could certainly stand to move over a bit, and maybe you could use an L-body driver's axle and a van passenger axle if the lengths matched the shift, but you would definitely have to take the axles into consideration.

[Muertoloco]

would the 3.5 h.o. bolt up to the 3.3 transmission? If so, would it handle the power?

[ShadowFromHell]

It is possible but you must remember that in a transverse application to add an adapter plate is essentially moving the trans farther to the driver's side which affects the axles. The trans mount itself could certainly stand to move over a bit, and maybe you could use an L-body driver's axle and a van passenger axle if the lengths matched the shift, but you would definitely have to take the axles into consideration.

The BOP/chevy plate I saw was no more then a 1/4" thick. My thought (if there is room) was that you would move the motor over that 1/4 and not mess with the tranny/axles. Gets way to complicated at that point.

[Aries_Turbo]

would the 3.5 h.o. bolt up to the 3.3 transmission? If so, would it handle the power?

internally they should be just about the same trans strength wise.

the longitudinal mounting of the 42le makes it have a different diff and a transfer chain rather than gears like the 41te but the clutches and stuff like that should be the same.

Brian

[glhs0426]

would the 3.5 h.o. bolt up to the 3.3 transmission? If so, would it handle the power?

Yes. The top left hole is different between a 3.3/3.8 and a 3.5. No big deal.

[Muertoloco]

cool, although its a wide engine.

[Vigo]

If i had an empty k-car right now id hoist up that 3.5 i got into it and tell yall if it fit. No such empty engine bays right now.. oddly enough!

[Muertoloco]

my daytona has an empty engine bay, if you could give me the gross measurements of that motor i could make a mock up outa a box and see, ever since i've had this car my friends dad has been telling me to get rid of the 4 banger. If that 3.5 can push a concord, it'd make a rocket outa my daytona.

[Dragula]

Now you're talkin'!

[Daytana]

The snout of the crankshaft on a 3.3/3.8 is different than a 3.5 where the crank gear installs. I looked at it a long time ago in regards to stroking a 3.5 to 3.8 and it would not work since there was material missing needed for the 3.5 crank gear. The 3.5L crank could be put in a 3.3/3.8, but it would require machine work.

If I'm reading this right two people think the 3.3/3.8 cylinder heads are iron. NOT!

Interesting observation. I did not know if it would work or not, just read that the design of the Can Am crankshaft was similar to the 3.5 design.

Cast iron block/aluminium heads. I don't know why I went along with the other poster mentioning them having an iron head especially after doing intake gaskets a few weeks ago. :confused2: Guess it was late, doh!

[thummmper]

the 3.5 dimensions- 32" across from ac pulley to alt. case.
21" across at the motor mounts
21" long from bell seam to crank pulley
28" across at the collectors
26" high
the ac compressor could be left off for a dimensional advantage.

[the muffler man]

worked on this car today really just need mounts to cold to go to junkyardin

[Daytana]

Back to 5 speed curiosity again... I know this was a while back but what did the person who did the swap do electronics wise to get it all to work? I am guessing he used a shifter from a Strat/Bring 2.7, Pedal, shifter from the Strat/Bring 2.7, Hydraulic assembly, lines etc from the Strat/Bring 2.7.

[Vigo]

Dont remember much, but remember it's the same as an srt-4 trans for the most part so any neon shifter will work. Neons use similar/same style shifter as later k-cars (523/568) so you might be able to use k-car shifter and cables entirely.

As for the clutch, i dont know if its hydraulic or not. Need to know that to say how hard it would be.

[Force Fed Mopar]

They are hydraulic clutch.

[Daytana]

The hydraulic clutch system, finding shifter, and pedals do not scare me. The question is how did this guy make the crank sensor stuff work since the trigger windows are different from the 2.7 to the 3.3. That would be the huge deciding factor on whether I should swap in a 5 speed or not.

[glhs0426]

I will verify tomorrow. I think the non NGC car V6's (2.7,3.3,3.5,3.8) all used the same trigger pattern. From 2001-2003 the V6's migrated to the NGC computer and picked up the 36-2 crank pattern common to all engines running this computer.

For that matter the pattern should not slow you down one bit. The clutch used on this transmission used the automatic trans flexplate and the clutch bolted to it. It's called a modular clutch.

The modular clutch is on the left.

http://www.modernperformance.com/blog/srt4modularvsnonmodular.JPG

[Daytana]

I will verify tomorrow. I think the non NGC car V6's (2.7,3.3,3.5,3.8) all used the same trigger pattern. From 2001-2003 the V6's migrated to the NGC computer and picked up the 36-2 crank pattern common to all engines running this computer.

For that matter the pattern should not slow you down one bit. The clutch used on this transmission used the automatic trans flexplate and the clutch bolted to it. It's called a modular clutch.

The modular clutch is on the left.

http://www.modernperformance.com/blog/srt4modularvsnonmodular.JPG

Definitely let me know. The T-850 is very similar to the T-350 trans I had in my 96 420a powered Sebring coupe I had a few years back. It pretty much used a similar modular clutch setup which makes sense since the T-350 is the T-850's predecessor. How will I know which cars are non NGC? Does it matter what year Stratus/Sebring 2.7 the T-850 comes from? If this is the case I will start hunting for Neon shifters, hydraulic assemblies, pedals etc.

[glhs0426]

Definitely let me know. The T-850 is very similar to the T-350 trans I had in my 96 420a powered Sebring coupe I had a few years back. It pretty much used a similar modular clutch setup which makes sense since the T-350 is the T-850's predecessor. How will I know which cars are non NGC? Does it matter what year Stratus/Sebring 2.7 the T-850 comes from? If this is the case I will start hunting for Neon shifters, hydraulic assemblies, pedals etc.

It should not matter what year the 2.7L T850 comes from since you are going to use your current 3.3/3.8L flexplate. The crank position sensor location did not change when they swapped over to the NGC computer.

[Daytana]

Well then, this is starting to sound more doable. This weekend I might pick me up some pieces for this conversion. It may be expensive initially but at the same time I will have a backup a604 for my Dynasty and a 3.3 5 speed Daytona at the same time if it really works this way. Prior to t-ms I used to be into the 80's (naturally aspirated) Nissan Z cars. While they weren't brutally fast they were more than enough to put a surprised look on peoples face and very fun to as well. After doing some bolt on mods to the Dynasty it kind of reminded me of my friend's old 1985 300zx n/a with bolt-ons (the thing screamed) except it is driving the wrong wheels plus the lack of a stick. I guess I just prefer the smoothness of a v6 in a sports car rather than a 4 cylinder. Having the availability of a 5 speed would take me right back to those times and at the same time do something that has never been really been done.

[Daytana]

After some research I found this thread. Now instead of old stories that happened a long time ago we now really have proof that the T-850 does in fact bolt up to the 3.3/3.8. :evil: http://forums.neons.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=362166&start=160

[Vigo]

will verify tomorrow. I think the non NGC car V6's (2.7,3.3,3.5,3.8) all used the same trigger pattern.

Yep, im pretty sure that's true. This is bringing up a lot of stuff i had learned and then forgotten after i decided not to do it. Hehe.

[bakes]

After some research I found this thread. Now instead of old stories that happened a long time ago we now really have proof that the T-850 does in fact bolt up to the 3.3/3.8. :evil: http://forums.neons.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=362166&start=160

so what year ,car , motor are this t850 found behind that direct swap in???? are we talking 2.4l??

can we use a TIII flywheel adn clutch set up

[black86glhs]

so what year ,car , motor are this t850 found behind that direct swap in???? are we talking 2.4l??

can we use a TIII flywheel adn clutch set up

I believe it was just the 2.7V6 cars(sebring or stratus) with a manual. The neon and pt cruiser should only fit the 2.4 and not the V6. IIRC.

[Force Fed Mopar]

Yeah it was like 1-year only in Sebring convertibles.

[Daytana]

Stratus R/T 2.7 5 speed and Sebring GTC convertable 2.7 5 speeds. They use a modular clutch.

[glhs0426]

2002 and 1/2 year of 2003, or maybe 2001 and 1/2 year of 2002. I can't remember right now, but I know it was 18months. The only U.S. vehicles to have the 2.7L T850 combination were the Stratus R/T sedan and Sebring GTC convertible. Chrysler still has new transmissions in stock for only 1800ish each.

[black86glhs]

what a bargain

[Force Fed Mopar]

For a brand new trans, it's not really that bad. :)

[black86glhs]

I didn't really go one way or the other in my reply. I left it neutral to cover those with $$$$$ and those without.:eyebrows:

[Force Fed Mopar]

Lolz, gotcha.

[Daytana]

Update: Went to the yard today. Scored big time, everything was 50% off so I got almost everything needed for my 5 speed T-850 conversion except the transmission and pedals: Neon shifter, Neon shift cables, a clutch master cylinder from a 1996 Dodge Avenger 420a (used the t-350 which is the predecessor of the t-850) which will fit nicely for my project. I also grabbed a transmission mount from a 3.0 Lebaron. I will run the traditional daytona clutch/brake pedal setup but convert the clutch pedal into hydraulic by making it have a push motion instead of a pull. I even grabbed a couple of upgrades for my Dynasty, digital dash from a late model Imperial and late model Lebaron GTC sway bar (not shown in picture). In case you are wondering about the transmission, I have sourced one from a Stratus R/T 2.7L for $550 which is pretty acceptable for a low mileage transmission so I will probably run with that one. We'll see what shows up in due time.:D

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/394373953.jpg

[Vigo]

For a brand new trans, it's not really that bad.

When i worked in a trans shop rebuilding auto trannies we'd charge that much to rebuild a trans and really, only like 20% of the parts ever got replaced. So id agree for a new trans its pretty fair!

[Muertoloco]

depends on the dealer you get it from too, the dealer by me wanted $50 for the mopar .005 headgasket.

[Daytana]

Update: The motor and trans are bolted in for the most part. I just need an early model 3.0 passenger side mount and I should be in business. A few solid weekends of tinkering and it might just run :p. I am doing the NVT-850 5 speed manual but initially use the a604 while ironing possible bugs. Just to recap the mounts used: We used a Lebaron a604 trans mount but stuck the inner part (through-bolt part I guess is what it's called) from the 413 mount in thus making sort of a hybrid mount, a 1990 Caravan front mount bracket with the 2.2/2.5 inner mount actually making a solid front mount believe it or not hehe. The motor/trans fit just like the car rolled off the assembly line with a 3.3L/a604. I will follow up with pictures soon...

[homeboysduster]

this will be my first time posting in this thread. and i must say i'm impressed! i love the idea of the 3.8 in a daytona. my work on my daytona has been a fight just working with the 3.0. i love your vision and hope your able to finish this! i would love to see more pics!

[Daytana]

this will be my first time posting in this thread. and i must say i'm impressed! i love the idea of the 3.8 in a daytona. my work on my daytona has been a fight just working with the 3.0. i love your vision and hope your able to finish this! i would love to see more pics!

Appreciate it, whether it's a 3.0/3.3/3.8 the idea of a V6 in a Daytona is awesome. Your hard work on your 3.0 Daytona is definitely showing. I will take some photos of the car with my 14.2 MP camera whenever I make it to Spring Lake again. :thumb:

[Daytana]

Picture Update: Here are clearer images of the 3.3 in the Daytona. You can get a good idea how well the a604 mounts up. I plan to run the a604 until I iron the bugs out and then swap the NVT-850. :thumb: I will post some more pictures when I get the passenger side mount from an early 3.0 car. Stay tuned...

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/395019706.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/395019703.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/395019696.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/395019694.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL294/1893736/23485827/395019689.jpg

[Vigo]

I did that mix and match solid motor mount thing once, but the vibes annoyed me so much that i took it back out.

Keep up the good work.

[neonturbo]

Looking good.

That is my 3.3 5 speed Neon, by the way. http://forums.neons.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=362166

I think that some of the Minivan mounts also are very similar, if not the same as what you want. That is what I used. I think I used a 1995 van for my swap.

[ShadowFromHell]

Looking good.

That is my 3.3 5 speed Neon, by the way. http://forums.neons.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=362166

I think that some of the Minivan mounts also are very similar, if not the same as what you want. That is what I used. I think I used a 1995 van for my swap.

Its different so I like it, but since it isnt a belly button 2.4, the guys on the .org are against it (BIG surprise). I know you currently have a pushrod 3.3, but there is a couple guys that have done amazing stuff with a mitsu 3.0. Id like to put a 3.0 into a neon just to post on the org and watch the flaming. Then post some slips :p

[neonturbo]

Its different so I like it, but since it isnt a belly button 2.4, the guys on the .org are against it (BIG surprise). I know you currently have a pushrod 3.3, but there is a couple guys that have done amazing stuff with a mitsu 3.0. Id like to put a 3.0 into a neon just to post on the org and watch the flaming. Then post some slips :p

I don't want to hijack this thread, but the 3.0 Neon has been done before.

Daytana, you can also cut those ears off the frame rail and use the later style mount that bolts flat to the rail. I had to drill out rusted/broken bolts in my Neon, and I ended up cutting a hole in the rail, insert a bolt (like a stud) into the old drilled out hole, and tack welding it so I could tighten everything up. The newer mounts are larger and heavier and might be better than the early ones.

(Top view from fender)

____________ rail
* 000 * stud hole stud
-------------- rail

(view from side)

____ I__---- ___I_____
rail stud hole stud rail

[Vigo]

Then post some slips

They's been posted. Whopping 15.8@84.

Of course, that was a stock 3.0 and a 3spd auto. 3spd is a major ET killer in low-power cars (i.e. stock 3.0).

Anyway, a 3.3/5spd daytona should be able to do mid 15s right out of the gate.

[Aries_Turbo]

i did a 15.7 @ 87 with a plenum gutted 3.0L attached to a 604 in a reliant.

left it in drive and it shifted early into 4th.

Brian

[Force Fed Mopar]

I do remember seeing a Neon w/ a 3.0 swap, w/ a supercharger bolted to the top of the plenum. It had like a 12" cowl hood to clear it :) Never did see what it ran though.

[Vigo]

i did a 15.7 @ 87 with a plenum gutted 3.0L attached to a 604 in a reliant.

left it in drive and it shifted early into 4th.

Brian

Yeh, the aries weighs a bit more but the extra gearing more than overcame it.. getting through 1st gear in a 3spd is a ----- without BOOOSTS.

[Daytana]

Looking good.

That is my 3.3 5 speed Neon, by the way. http://forums.neons.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=362166

I think that some of the Minivan mounts also are very similar, if not the same as what you want. That is what I used. I think I used a 1995 van for my swap.

Thanks, you're that guy from the Neons.org forum who I pm'ed after they deleted my posts even though our cars are the forefathers of the Neon. I really appreciate your help on the NVT-850 tech. Did you ever get your axle issues straight? Hope all is going well. :) I will look into that 1995 MInivan mount, thanks again.

[neonturbo]

Thanks, you're that guy from the Neons.org forum who I pm'ed after they deleted my posts even though our cars are the forefathers of the Neon.
I wasn't aware they deleted anything. The Mods do not like off topic at all. That is OK in a way though, it prevents a bunch of problems.


I really appreciate your help on the NVT-850 tech. Did you ever get your axle issues straight?
No, I have not had time (or good enough weather) to deal with it. Maybe someone here can help. I need an axle either shortened or lengthened (depending upon what I use to begin with). If it is not 4WD, they are not able or willing to do that around here. We are suck in the mid 20th century. I Googled places that could make an axle shaft bar, and I found a couple places in California or maybe it was Nevada that would do it for only $1000. I thought that was a bargain! Make me 2 or 3 at that price! That was not a complete axle, just the axle bar itself with no CV's.


I will look into that 1995 MInivan mount, thanks again.

You will have to look around because I am not certain of what year will directly fit. I do like the later larger mounts and I would strongly suggest thinking about changing yours over. I will try to take pics of my mount setup, but the car is under a foot or so of snow. I know the ASCII art above is not really that terrific but I hope you got the idea.

[Vigo]

No, I have not had time (or good enough weather) to deal with it. Maybe someone here can help. I need an axle either shortened or lengthened (depending upon what I use to begin with). If it is not 4WD, they are not able or willing to do that around here. We are suck in the mid 20th century. I Googled places that could make an axle shaft bar, and I found a couple places in California or maybe it was Nevada that would do it for only $1000. I thought that was a bargain! Make me 2 or 3 at that price! That was not a complete axle, just the axle bar itself with no CV's.

All you need is someone that is good at welding and isnt afraid of getting sued (as in, good luck doing this across a retail counter.. you'll have to know somebody).. there are plenty of pictures on the internet of people matching dissimilar cv axle ends by cutting them in the middle, making a sleeve, and welding it together.

[neonturbo]

All you need is someone that is good at welding and isnt afraid of getting sued (as in, good luck doing this across a retail counter.. you'll have to know somebody).. there are plenty of pictures on the internet of people matching dissimilar cv axle ends by cutting them in the middle, making a sleeve, and welding it together.

Nobody professional is willing to take that "risk" for a "dangerous" thing like an axle. I heard every excuse from heat treat issues to liability to just not being able or having the right equipment to do it. I am in the car manufacturing capitol for goodness sakes.

I do have it sleeved, my neighbor welded it, but I am not confidant in his work. I really want a one piece axle that will not crack if I launch it at 4000 RPM or something equally stupid.

Caravan is 1" too short and Stratus is 1.25" too long on the axle bar. 1st gen Neon MTX are the correct length, but the t-850 has a unique transmission CV spline count compared to any Chrysler product ever built, 27 spline. If I could use a first gen bar with the t-850 CV's that would be fine, but they are different size and spline count inside the CV too.

The axle shaft bar I need is a common GM/Chrysler Saginaw 32 spline. The later model Chrysler product as you know mostly use Saginaw axles, but the length is too short on all of them. The Neon is a wide car.

And no, I cannot use a SRT-4 equal length setup, it will not bolt to the V-6, and it is the wrong length. It has the longer stub like an ATX axle, where my trans has two short axle stubs, the LH and RH inner CV are identical.

I spent 3 weeks putting the whole engine in, wiring, plumbing and everything but nearly a year later I cannot drive the car due to a stupid axle. :mad:

[Daytana]

I wasn't aware they deleted anything. The Mods do not like off topic at all. That is OK in a way though, it prevents a bunch of problems.

That's cool, their place their rules. I did feel like I was singled out as other people were bringing up everything from 2.7 DOHC, 3.5 SOHC swaps,3.2L supercharged Crossfire swaps to Ford swaps in a Neon which was way more off topic than me asking about essentially the same swap you are doing just in a different shell which helped bring out the Neon and their posts still remained. Those "hey do this swap instead" posts also polluted your thread hiding a lot of the good 3.3 swap tech you posted in it. Anyways welcome to T-M we are way more laid back here and your posts won't get deleted for being slightly off topic (infact it's a common practice here hehe :p) so make yourself at home. :thumb:


o, I have not had time (or good enough weather) to deal with it. Maybe someone here can help. I need an axle either shortened or lengthened (depending upon what I use to begin with). If it is not 4WD, they are not able or willing to do that around here. We are suck in the mid 20th century. I Googled places that could make an axle shaft bar, and I found a couple places in California or maybe it was Nevada that would do it for only $1000. I thought that was a bargain! Make me 2 or 3 at that price! That was not a complete axle, just the axle bar itself with no CV's.


Here is a number to a local place around here called "Absolute Drive Axle Inc". Try giving them a call and explain what you want, I heard they will create custom axles for you with no problems. http://fayettevillenc.usl.myareaguide.com/ypcyellowdetail/Absolute_Drive_Axle_15661702.html?what=Diners

Hope that helps.

I found some Stratus R/T 2.7L 5-Speed axles here for 100 each. To make those work all I would have to do is get the outers re-splined and measure the lengths? Thanks again.


You will have to look around because I am not certain of what year will directly fit. I do like the later larger mounts and I would strongly suggest thinking about changing yours over. I will try to take pics of my mount setup, but the car is under a foot or so of snow. I know the ASCII art above is not really that terrific but I hope you got the idea.

The smaller mounts in our cars are more than acceptable, there are guys making fairly large numbers on them with no issues. I do agree the later mounts are more beefier ( my Dynasty has the larger mounts iirc) but don't really see the incentive to upgrade (at least just yet). I'll look into it though.

[Daytana]

I did that mix and match solid motor mount thing once, but the vibes annoyed me so much that i took it back out.

Keep up the good work.

I am used to driving loud/ shaky automobiles so I think I can live with it. I have my Dynasty for my nice smooth ride.:thumb:

[Ondonti]

Mix and match solid and stock mounts tends to destroy the soft mounts over time.

[Vigo]

I have my Dynasty for my nice smooth ride.

----, my 93 dynasty is the worst-riding car i own with srt-4 front springs and blown struts!! My 90 dynasty is pretty slammed but still rides ok though. Love my dynastys hehe.

[glhs0426]

Caravan is 1" too short and Stratus is 1.25" too long on the axle bar. 1st gen Neon MTX are the correct length, but the t-850 has a unique transmission CV spline count compared to any Chrysler product ever built, 27 spline. If I could use a first gen bar with the t-850 CV's that would be fine, but they are different size and spline count inside the CV too.

The Stratus axle is the T850?



And no, I cannot use a SRT-4 equal length setup, it will not bolt to the V-6, and it is the wrong length. It has the longer stub like an ATX axle, where my trans has two short axle stubs, the LH and RH inner CV are identical.


I originally purchased what I thought was a 62TE equal length stub for a T850 swap. Now I don't know what it is. I thought the 62TE used the same transmission spline count as the T850. When I get to work tomorrow I'll check. This stub might be a 41TE equal length piece for a 3.8L minivan. Anyway, this is the bracket you need to go with the SRT4 bearing cap so you can run a speed sensor and make your speedo work since the SRT4 T850 has a speed sensor provision.

28814

I'm set to pull a 62TE next week, so, I'll compare lengths, spline count, etc to the T850 parts. You'll be needed for T850 axle measurements.

[neonturbo]

My trans does NOT have any provision for speed sensor on the RH axle stub. The Stratus use the ABS brakes and send the vehicle speed over the communication bus. I had to get creative to make the speedo work. I wish I could find a cheap SRT-4 RH output bearing retainer, it may simplify things tremendously. I have not been able to find an inexpensive one, new ones are $$$$.

It would be great if the 62TE half shaft matched, but I bet it will be the same as the TD stuff, 25 spline. I would appreciate the information if you can get it for us.

[ShadowFromHell]

Couldn't you just use rear brakes from a ABS neon? Also, you going to the wrong shops if no one will do the axles for you. Id look for places that do mostly farm work, not a high end machine shop or a drive line shop. I know one in my area that would do something like that for me, probably pretty cheap but I have dealt with them for years. I would also maybe stay away from telling them what it is for when you go in, and maybe tell them it is for a circle track car that wont see any on road use.

[black86glhs]

Have you tried any of the FWD GM cars axle shafts?

[glhs0426]

My trans does NOT have any provision for speed sensor on the RH axle stub. The Stratus use the ABS brakes and send the vehicle speed over the communication bus. I had to get creative to make the speedo work. I wish I could find a cheap SRT-4 RH output bearing retainer, it may simplify things tremendously. I have not been able to find an inexpensive one, new ones are $$$$.

It would be great if the 62TE half shaft matched, but I bet it will be the same as the TD stuff, 25 spline. I would appreciate the information if you can get it for us.

I will check on getting an SRT4 output bearing retainer for cheap. What I meant earlier is the stub axle pictured bolts to a Chrysler derived FWD V6, so, if you can find a correct stub shaft for the bracket your in fat city.

You know this stub axle I have is solid. Surely a machine shop will cut your CV and sleeve/weld it to the stub shaft (making the correct length so the bracket will work). You've been looking for welders, maybe a machine shop is the place to seek.

[spyder]

I spent 3 weeks putting the whole engine in, wiring, plumbing and everything but nearly a year later I cannot drive the car due to a stupid axle. :mad:

I grind & EDM splines......

[neonturbo]

Have you tried any of the FWD GM cars axle shafts?

GM effectively has equal length shafts because the trans output is so long. Most of the GM's are about 20 something inches in length, I need a 37" (overall) length axle. I think my axle shaft bar needs to be nearly 30" long.

Ford also uses Saginaw, they are similar to GM in length.

[neonturbo]

Here is a number to a local place around here called "Absolute Drive Axle Inc". Try giving them a call and explain what you want, I heard they will create custom axles for you with no problems. http://fayettevillenc.usl.myareaguide.com/ypcyellowdetail/Absolute_Drive_Axle_15661702.html?what=Diners

Hope that helps.

Thanks, will give them a call.


I found some Stratus R/T 2.7L 5-Speed axles here for 100 each. To make those work all I would have to do is get the outers re-splined and measure the lengths? Thanks again.

Yes, short answer is measure what you existing axle is end to end. Do the same on the Stratus axles. You basically have to make the overall length match. The CV joint itself may be in a different spot due to the inner CV being different shape, size, length. You will see once you try to put the Stratus axle in and check the endplay of the axles what you have to do.

You know how to center a TD drivetrain, right? That is how I checked endplay in my axles. Loosen the axle nut, car on the ground, and push and pull the outer CV and measure the play in and out. If I remember right you want about 1/2" to 3/4" or so.


The smaller mounts in our cars are more than acceptable, there are guys making fairly large numbers on them with no issues. I do agree the later mounts are more beefier ( my Dynasty has the larger mounts iirc) but don't really see the incentive to upgrade (at least just yet). I'll look into it though.

I would use whatever mount came with that motor, that way there is less guesswork when it comes to parts. I also would just use what I had on hand and make it work, if possible. You are right though, it would be easiest to find a mount that just works without lots of dinking around.

[black86glhs]

GM effectively has equal length shafts because the trans output is so long. Most of the GM's are about 20 something inches in length, I need a 37" (overall) length axle. I think my axle shaft bar needs to be nearly 30" long.

Ford also uses Saginaw, they are similar to GM in length.I understand now. I was thinking of the driver's side and not the passenger side. Sorry for the mix up.

[neonturbo]

I found some Stratus R/T 2.7L 5-Speed axles here for 100 each. To make those work all I would have to do is get the outers re-splined and measure the lengths?

Here is a typical TD right inner CV:

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll254/neonturbo/Swap/TDCV.jpg

Here is what the 2.7L T850 takes for an inner on both L and R:

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll254/neonturbo/Swap/SRTCV.jpg

You need to adjust for the difference in CV length, and of course for your car being narrower. I said above measure end to end of the axle, and that will work, but be careful because the outers may be different length on the threaded end. I should have said to measure from here to most accurate:

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll254/neonturbo/Swap/outerCVmeasure.jpg

Wheel bearing flange to the end of the outer CV. Be sure to compress the axles fully so you are getting accurate measurements. I think the Stratus will be 1.25" too long overall.

[Daytana]

Here is a typical TD right inner CV:

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll254/neonturbo/Swap/TDCV.jpg

Here is what the 2.7L T850 takes for an inner on both L and R:

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll254/neonturbo/Swap/SRTCV.jpg

You need to adjust for the difference in CV length, and of course for your car being narrower. I said above measure end to end of the axle, and that will work, but be careful because the outers may be different length on the threaded end. I should have said to measure from here to most accurate:

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll254/neonturbo/Swap/outerCVmeasure.jpg

Wheel bearing flange to the end of the outer CV. Be sure to compress the axles fully so you are getting accurate measurements. I think the Stratus will be 1.25" too long overall.

That is some excellent tech you have there. Yes we know how to center the TD drivetrain/check for play. I guess I will start out by measuring Strat R/T 5-Speed (2.7L) axles and go from there. I will definitely get the car running with the a604 first to get things going smoothly and then experiment with the T-850 stuff.

[black86glhs]

The 2.7 T850 inners are just GM style inners. The way they have been doing it for decades.

[neonturbo]

Bump for an update?

[Daytana]

This project is far from dead. Just coming out of hibernation/tiredness. I got my motor mounts and will be getting my Intrepid 3.3 plenum and this party will be started up once again. I decided to ditch the idea of using a 5 speed due to time constraint and the fact that the a604 is not the preconceived "evil transmission" of the dark days. Not to mention it has a pretty good aftermarket these days and it is geared really well for a "punchy feel" on the 3.3. I am also in the process of helping my friends get their t-ms running so that also has been keeping me occupied hehe. Stay tuned for more updates.

[Vigo]

I am also in the process of helping my friends get their t-ms running so that also has been keeping me occupied hehe.

Heh, i know how that goes.

[Daytana]

Finally another update! Went to the LKQ today and got an early 3.0 Passenger side motor mount (body portion only) from an 87ish Caravan and got the ends (two brackets that bolt to the heads) from a 3.3 Caravan. So for anyone planning to do this in a "pre large mount" car the 3.0 passenger side (body) mount does accept the later 3.3 brackets and lower passenger side mount. I also got a throttle cable and a 3.3L Intrepid intake plenum ready as well. Next Sunday I am going back to LKQ for a shift cable and idler pulley/lower pass side motor mount assembly since I misplaced the one I had lol. :eek: I cannot wait to complete this project. As much of a tire fryer the big Dynasty is the fun will only get better in a base Daytona!

[Vigo]

True dat. My 3.3 dynasty would burn through first and a foot or two into second with the 195s that it came with. It wont really spin my 245s now, though. haha. A neon converter and gearing it down will change that..

[V6 aries wagon]

Dude you have been nothing but a great help. This swap is sounding better already. I was afraid I was going to have to convert to a modern round dash from a newer Daytona to make things work but according to you the sensors are similar and would not be hard to adapt to the 88 stuff so I can keep my 88 flat dash. Oh yeah btw, my speedometer is not cable driven it is electrical, I have a digital instrument cluster (how cool is that?) from a Daytona Pacifica that my friend (username here is adrivinfool4u) wired up for me. That should make things easier since it is already electronic. So basically the bulkhead that runs into the car are for things like the ignition switch, instrument cluster, etc correct? And I still can keep my 88 flat dash? I will take some pictures of my digital dash conversion too, looks pretty surprising having a digital dash in a base tbi Daytona hehe. Yeah that guy who claimed to have a 3.3 wagon never answered any of my questions for pictures, if I did such a swap I would have tons of pictures, kinda figured he was just bs'ing.

Yeah i lost my password i was in the middle of putting an 02 3.8 in the blue bomber. In the 88 wago a 92 dynasty motor was put in. You were correct the mounts arent the same a call was made to jon spiva and Polybushings were installed in lieu of the big 3.0/3.3/3.8.mounts. there were over 50 photos and videos on youtube of the D.A. under the moniker yunzax and on cardomain and on "the other turbo site". So if ya got questions ask me... i might be nice and show you the turbo setup i used

[Daytana]

Yeah i lost my password i was in the middle of putting an 02 3.8 in the blue bomber. In the 88 wago a 92 dynasty motor was put in. You were correct the mounts arent the same a call was made to jon spiva and Polybushings were installed in lieu of the big 3.0/3.3/3.8.mounts. there were over 50 photos and videos on youtube of the D.A. under the moniker yunzax and on cardomain and on "the other turbo site". So if ya got questions ask me... i might be nice and show you the turbo setup i used

Just to wrap this up; thanks for the offer on help but I had to drop this project a few years ago due to life getting in the way etc. I am still in the FWD EE-K world in a bolt-on 3.0 Lebaron convertable. I might post that in the project log sometime perhaps. I got pretty far on this but just did not have time to completely figure out the passenger mount and front mount, however if I had to do it again I would just use the later cars with the larger mounts as that would make the 3.3/3.8 swap a lot easier. I would probably go as far to say I would rather use the last gen 3.8 and complete harness from a donor as it was rated at 215HP. But I digress, I will probably stick with the 3.0 for a long time as it is a very capable engine and I can easily have a 5 speed; plus I am in the market for a Dart GT or Challenger R/T (used) once I complete school and start working full time.

[Vigo]

Yeah that guy who claimed to have a 3.3 wagon never answered any of my questions for pictures, if I did such a swap I would have tons of pictures, kinda figured he was just bs'ing.

Yeah, for most people on the forums coming up with a few pictures is a lot easier than doing an actual motor swap, makes you wonder.
Here's my 3.8 after i put it in my Dynasty. You can also see the Neon strut mounts poking through modified strut towers.
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk124/Vigo327/DSC04295Medium_zps7bfe8756.jpg
Did the neon strut conversion so i could run 2g neon struts with neon SRT4 springs to get a firm riding spring and a bunch of lowering and still have strut travel.
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk124/Vigo327/DSC04293Medium_zps46b51d94.jpg


there were over 50 photos and videos on youtube of the D.A. under the moniker yunzax
And i just checked youtube and there's nothing showing a running car or a turbo setup there so dont waste your time, Daytana. ;)

[Daytana]

Yeah, for most people on the forums coming up with a few pictures is a lot easier than doing an actual motor swap, makes you wonder.
Here's my 3.8 after i put it in my Dynasty. You can also see the Neon strut mounts poking through modified strut towers.
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk124/Vigo327/DSC04295Medium_zps7bfe8756.jpg
Did the neon strut conversion so i could run 2g neon struts with neon SRT4 springs to get a firm riding spring and a bunch of lowering and still have strut travel.
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk124/Vigo327/DSC04293Medium_zps46b51d94.jpg


And i just checked youtube and there's nothing showing a running car or a turbo setup there so dont waste your time, Daytana. ;)

Lol, don't worry I won't. That is one slammed Dynasty there. How do the Neon Struts feel in comparison to our stock offerings?

[Vigo]

I have stock SRT4 springs on generic parts-store struts and i think it rides pretty well. Better than i expected really, because when i first did the conversion i had worn out struts and it rode like ----! Replacing with new struts, even the cheapest ones, put it back to 'pretty good'. I also have neon struts with non-SRT springs in my 89 spirit and my 82 lebaron and they ride pretty much the same as stock, just with a lower ride height.

Also, Koni makes a (non-adjustable) sport strut for both 1g and 2g neons so you can actually get a decent damper under them for pretty cheap if you do the conversion.