Swapping backward (newer body, older driveline).

[Tony Hanna]

I am so sick of driving junk. Now before anybody gets excited thinking I'm bashing the original TM's, let me clarify. All of the original TM's I've seen around here over the past few years (including the two I own) have been beat to death with no maintenence, winter driven and rusty from the road salt, or just plain worn out from excessive milage. I absolutely love these cars, and can't think of anything I'd rather have as a daily driver but just can't find one that's not some sort of rolling restoration project. Even if I could find some prestine low milage example, I'd feel really guilty about racking the miles up on it.

With that in mind, would it be reasonable to try to swap an original TM driveline (2.5 TI/520 running SMEC electronics for the sake of discussion) into a newer body? I was thinking of something in the way of a Neon made in this decade, or an Avenger, or possibly a cloud car. I know it's possible to swap the 2.4 into the original TM's, so it stands to reason the opposite would be true.

What I'd like to do is find the absolute lowest milage car I can with a bad engine, trans, or both but perfect body and interior, and swap the driveline out of the Sundance into it.
I know I'd have to fabricate mounts, exhaust, swap in the older shifter/cables, turbo fuel pump, and spend quite a bit of time getting the wiring to play nice, but I feel like I can handle all of that. I'm just curious to hear any thoughts or suggestions on anything I may be overlooking.
Thanks,
Tony

[turbovanman²]

Your post makes sense and your right, alot, if not most TM's are beat to hell as they were just used as commuter cars. I'd be interested in watching your progress.
I know a 1st gen Neon had a TIII motor put in and it was a royal PITA for the guy.

[GLH-T]

Why would you want to put a motor designed in the early 80s into a car that came stock with a much improved version designed in the mid 90s? Makes no sense at all to me.

[TurboGLH]

Why would you want to put a motor designed in the early 80s into a car that came stock with a much improved version designed in the mid 90s? Makes no sense at all to me.

Agreed.

I think a mildly built 2.0 or 2.4 in a neon or avenger would be a much better path. All the benefits of a hybrid without the extra fab work and no need to mix and match motor mounts to get 2.2 in there.

Look at it like this, a 2.0 dohc makes as much hp as a 2.2 or 2.5 T1. Not nearly as much torque, but you can use a 2.4 if that matters to you. Now add a set of forged pistons and some better rods and you've got a motor producing much more power than your T1 and it's a direct fit.

[Tony Hanna]

Your post makes sense and your right, alot, if not most TM's are beat to hell as they were just used as commuter cars. I'd be interested in watching your progress.
I know a 1st gen Neon had a TIII motor put in and it was a royal PITA for the guy.

Thanks Simon. That's why I was thinking of going with an 8 valve swap. Parts are super easy to find, and I'm looking to put together a nice clean daily driver, not a race car. I'm thinking a '00+ Neon body would be perfect. I'm not too worried about it being OBDII since I'd be converting it to SMEC electronics anyway. I feel pretty confident I could get it in and running, it's just the little details like dash wiring, cruise, ac, etc. that might prove to be a challange. I really hope some of the guys that have done 2.4 swaps into the older cars can offer some idea of what I might be getting into since the mechanical end of things would basically be the reverse of what they've done.

[contraption22]

Swapping an 8v motor into a later car that originally came with a 16v engine to me is like finding a really nice 98-up Camaro or Firebird, taking out the LS1 and swapping in an old TPI engine.

Parts for the next gens are just as easy and cheap to come by as our old 2.2 stuff... if not easier... as I hear of fewer and fewer 2.2 cars showing up in yards, or staying there long.

[Tony Hanna]

Why would you want to put a motor designed in the early 80s into a car that came stock with a much improved version designed in the mid 90s? Makes no sense at all to me.

Agreed.

I think a mildly built 2.0 or 2.4 in a neon or avenger would be a much better path. All the benefits of a hybrid without the extra fab work and no need to mix and match motor mounts to get 2.2 in there.

Look at it like this, a 2.0 dohc makes as much hp as a 2.2 or 2.5 T1. Not nearly as much torque, but you can use a 2.4 if that matters to you. Now add a set of forged pistons and some better rods and you've got a motor producing much more power than your T1 and it's a direct fit.

I understand what you guys are getting at, but I have my reasons. First off, I have most of the parts (with the exception of a rolling chassis) to do the swap, second I really don't feel like learning the in's and out's of another engine. The 2.2's and 2.5's have served me really well in the past, and I think I'll stick with them. 3rd, I'm just now starting to get a pretty decent understanding of the SMEC electronics and what's involved in doing my own cals. That's definately something I'm not interested in relearning for the OBDII systems.
Finally, I'm not trying to build a race car (or even a fast street car for that matter), just a fun daily driver. Something that runs like a mildly modified original TM would be fine. I'd just like to get away from the rust, bad paint, stained carpet, squeaks and rattles, noisy wheel bearings, etc. and start with something relatively new. For power, a 2.5/S60/520 making somewhere in the neighborhood of 250whp would be perfect. I've got the Spirit for a fun/race/weekend car.
Thanks,
Tony

[Tony Hanna]

Swapping an 8v motor into a later car that originally came with a 16v engine to me is like finding a really nice 98-up Camaro or Firebird, taking out the LS1 and swapping in an old TPI engine.

Parts for the next gens are just as easy and cheap to come by as our old 2.2 stuff... if not easier... as I hear of fewer and fewer 2.2 cars showing up in yards, or staying there long.

It seems to me a better analogy would be taking a car with a TBI engine and swapping in a mildly modified carb engine because the person doing the swap has all the parts to modify/tune the carb setup and understands them better.

I really appreciate all the input on why not to do the swap, but if I could, I'd really like to shift the discussion away from that for the moment and focus on what would be involved in making it work.
Thanks,
Tony

[Turbodave]

I can understand what your thinking. I can work on 2.2's in my sleep now, I know the size of every bolt on the engine/trans and have all the tools I need to do anything I want on them.

A few years back I picked up a 95 neon, I wanted a daily driver that wasn't rotting away or that I didn't have to worry about driving in the IL winters. It took a lot of web searches, referring to the FSM etc to fix all it's problems, and even after learning about the car I would still take a simple easy to work on TI car any day over the Neon when it comes to underhood work.

Swapping in an older drivetrain can certainly be done, but it's going to take some work. Getting the engine to run shouldn't be too bad, but I'm not sure what it would need electronics wise since a lot of the new cars run a seperate body computer/bus system. Hard to say if it would be worth all the effort.

It would be much easier to find a low mileage TBI K-car of some type out in AZ or CA, buy it drive it home and swap in a turbo drivetrain. I've seen some really clean non-turbo cars pop up for sale online and they usually go pretty cheap.

[Tony Hanna]

I can understand what your thinking. I can work on 2.2's in my sleep now, I know the size of every bolt on the engine/trans and have all the tools I need to do anything I want on them.

A few years back I picked up a 95 neon, I wanted a daily driver that wasn't rotting away or that I didn't have to worry about driving in the IL winters. It took a lot of web searches, referring to the FSM etc to fix all it's problems, and even after learning about the car I would still take a simple easy to work on TI car any day over the Neon when it comes to underhood work.

It sounds like you know exactly what's going through my mind then. I really like the simplicity of the older cars, and I'm confident in my ability to work on them. I'm just sick of dealing with the constant age related minor repairs necessary to keep one on the road as a driver. I've got a really good driveline in the Sundance to start with and if I could find a nice low milage body to swap it into, then I'd end up with a nice looking, nice driving car that should be relatively hassle free with nothing but routine maintenence.

Swapping in an older drivetrain can certainly be done, but it's going to take some work. Getting the engine to run shouldn't be too bad, but I'm not sure what it would need electronics wise since a lot of the new cars run a seperate body computer/bus system. Hard to say if it would be worth all the effort.

That's what I'm wanting to get some information on. If I end up doing this, getting the engine running and all the gauges working would be priority #1. The only other things I'd be worried about would be cruise and (more importantly) AC. ABS and airbags I could care less about.

It would be much easier to find a low mileage TBI K-car of some type out in AZ or CA, buy it drive it home and swap in a turbo drivetrain. I've seen some really clean non-turbo cars pop up for sale online and they usually go pretty cheap.

I'm sure it would be easier, but I'm fairly confident I can find a nice low milage Neon locally for next to nothing with no engine or trans (or even sell the engine and trans to recover some of the cost of the body), and it would be a one of a kind when it was done.

[yogurt_slinger]

I've done some work to my srt-4 and I tell yah, I absolutey HATE working on the drivetrain.... If someone made a conversion kit to drop a 2.2 TIII drivetrain in it, I'd be the first to buy it. Plus the sound of a 2.2 is SOOO much smoother sounding than the 2.4 diesel-ish sounding srt-4 motor(which sounds exactly like a 2.5 TI with open downpipe). maybe I'm spoiled by the simplicity of the older cars too.

[Tony Hanna]

Well, I can't say for sure if I'll ever end up taking on this project, but I'm definately going to look into the fabrication and electrical work involved a little more closely. Unless something turns up that I don't think I can handle (not likely) then I'll begin the search for a newer Neon rolling chassis once I get back to work.
Out of curiosity, when did they quit making the 2 door Neon?

[Ondonti]

There is a 95 2 door rolling chassis here that sort of tempted me.

[contraption22]

Out of curiosity, when did they quit making the 2 door Neon?

1st generations were available as 2 door coupes, that would be 1995-1999 model years.

[turboshad]

I'm kind of with the other guys of wondering why you would want to go through the work but since you really want to try it here is what I think it would take.

First and formost is mounts. When doing my 2.4 mounts I found that using the 568 with the stock mount helped a ton in getting the engine into position. It gave me a reference point and made the rest real easy. You could in reverse consider using a stock neon tranny to do the same but I think you would have troubles fitting the starter in. My guess is it would run into the turbo oil feed and possibly the dipstick. If you could find other spots for these or modify them to fit the later tranny that would be your best bet. One bolt wouldn't line up just like the old tranny on the newer engine but that could fixed. As far as the other two mount I think it would be easiest to take a stock neon or what ever chassis you use (I'll assume neon from here in to make typing easier) and look at adapting it to the 2.2 mounting points. Morphing a shadow mount into a 2.4 was easy b/c of the handy pass mounting points on the 2.4 but I think the other way around would be harder just becuase of how the old 2.2/2.5 pass mount connected to the engine. Maybe look at taking the engine side of the 2.2 and morphing it with the factory neon mount. The front mount will be a similar process.

On the electrical side your best bet may be to leave in all the neon computers and only remove the wiring related to the enigne. This way all the other neon functions will reamain there. You will have to do lots of research to see if there are signals that must be there but my assumption is most of the body stuff won't be relying on the engine. Then I would wire the engine up for your SMEC. You may find issues with the inst. cluster. Hard to say without looking into it. May be easier to make a new one with autometer guages or other gauges of your choice so they aren't dependant on the computer but just on the sensors being used.

One big problem I could see first off would be the space in most of the later bodies between the engine and the firewall. Ever try to take the valve cover off a breeze? You can barely get all the bolts because of part of the firewall. The neons are definately way tighter engine bays then the older cars too. Might want to take some rough measurements from infront and behind the engine to see if things will physically fit.

And likidy split you have a 2.2 in a neon. No problem...........sort of........well maybe a few headaches..............but only a few............I think.........



DJ

[Tony Hanna]

Thanks DJ!
That's exactly the kind of information I was looking for. I guess before I devote any time and money, I had better measure for firewall clearance. That's one thing I hadn't been thinking about that might shut this project down before it even gets a start.
The rest of it sounds like about what I had in mind. Keep enough of the Neon harness to run the lights, gauges (use the Neon senders in the 2.5 bolck if necessary), etc, and work enough of the SMEC harness into it to run the engine properly. For that matter if the Neon computer is necessary to run the gauges, I could leave it in place in a limited capacity to handle those tasks.
As for the mounts, I'm just going to have to look at one in person. I'm sure I'll get some ideas.

[Tony Hanna]

1st generations were available as 2 door coupes, that would be 1995-1999 model years.

Thanks Mike!
'99 it is then. I wonder what the chances are of finding one with fairly low miles?

[contraption22]

Thanks Mike!
'99 it is then. I wonder what the chances are of finding one with fairly low miles?

Chances aren't too bad. I see quite a few old-lady neons around.

[Tony Hanna]

Chances aren't too bad. I see quite a few old-lady neons around.

Probably not too many old-lady cars in 5spd though...
Guess I could convert an auto car.

[turboshad]

Converting an auto to manual will be peanuts compared to the swap you are going to take on. Just find a body you like. Don't worry about stuff like that


DJ