I have an old chevy 3.5 V-6 I wantm to use in a T frame. I know this engine is a 305 with two cylinders removed. Question is...did they take the cylinders off the front or back... are the motor mount castings in the same location as on a
If this is the 60 degree engine...pass it by. Cute, light, but that's about it. If it's the 4.1 out of a Blaser or similar, yes, that's a very good engine. Why do you question where the cylinders were removed from ? Means nothing. They were basically removed from the middle of the engine if it really matters. I put one into a 67 Chevy II. Ported heads, Edelbrock manifold, Holley (sometimes an Edelbrock) carburetor, hot rod camshaft. Fun engine. Well suited to the same performance upgrades as the small block. If you know the things to do, 300hp is easy to get. Mike
I am no expert, but isnt the 3.8 v6 the one that shares the bore and stroke with the 305, and likewise a 4.3 shares the 350 bore and stroke?
One of the beautiful things about GM is that is seems damn near every engine has the same mounts as a smallblock...a 283 will bolt in where a stovebolt sat...I put a 327 in a 75 monza where a 4cyl was. But as Dana said...just put a v8 in it Chappy
the v6 will fit nicely into the T, I just never liked the sound of one of the v6 engines, they sound like a wet fart blown through vuvuzela.
Dang, guys, there are more engines out there than a v8! One of the MAIN reasons we hot rodded stuff in the '50s was to be different. Go for it easyrider. Ben
The Chevy 229 (3.8 l) V6 has the motor mounts the same distance from the front as the V8. So they are closer to the bellhousing by that 4.4" he mentioned.
If it is the 90 Degree V6 it is probably a 3.3 or 3,8 forerunners of the 4.3. It would probably work pretty good in a T bucket if you didn't plan on having the hottest T in town. The big rub is that there aren't going to be inexpensive goodies to go on it like you would find for a small block. Any performance intake or trick valve covers are going to cost full bore as you won't be able to see what the Cheap craigslist offerings are today like you can for SBC trinkets. If that isn't an issue you should end up with an inexpensive little T that pulls pretty decent gas mileage with a lot of ear to ear grins to boot.
There's also a 4300 Chevy small block with a 3.00" stroke large journal crank... Not sure on the bore size..... That motor was out in the early 90s.....
There was a 305 HO from the mid 80s that was a one or two year only deal, that had a little higher compression ratio, and replacement flat top pistons were available for it in standard and .030 over. I had an employee in the late 80s who had a 3.8 in an 81 Monte Carlo, that our local engine builder put together a .030 over 3.8 for, using those pistons. He also did some port work on it and installed 1.94/1.50's the heads, and using the Edelbrock manifold du jour, had this combo running fairly well. This was around the same time USAC was giving a pretty good weight break in sprinters that were using the V6, and our engine building friend was trying to get some experience with the V6. Good times
My 2c. I put a 4.3 in a 69 pickup and used the V-8 motor mounts from the 69 in the stock V-8 position. There is a larger gap between the rear of the engine and the firewall than you would have with a V-8, but the serpentine belt and fan assembly match up with the stock radiator and shroud.
I had a 78 Malibu wagon with that V-6 in it. It was a 3.8 and not a Buick 3.8. It was a turd with a 2.29 gear in the back. Much better after I changed to a 2.73. Actually got better mileage after the gear change. The motor was lugging with the ultra tall gear. Ran it over 110k before swapping in a 350 Target Master. Used all of the front acc. Moved the frame mounts forward to the holes already in the crossmember.
J A PAN! Biggest department store in the world. If they don't have it they ill make it. Sorry recently surpassed by China, now they are number 1.
A 3.5 V6 is a 60 degree engine used in front wheel drive applications. I don't believe it uses anything in common with the 90 degree engines. Makes decent power and is fuel efficient in its natural habitat.
That would be a 3.4 (207), first used in Camaros. A better version was used in 2000 + Monte's and Impalas. Wouldn't fit under the hood of a Camaro. (FWD only)
Actually, there was in fact a 3.5 (213) Chevy as I said. I have owned two cars powered by them. I believe it was introduced in 2004.
How did this "larger gap in the rear" effect the shifter linkage, etc.? If you personally didn't have a manual floor shifter, do you think there may be some issues beyond a bolt-on-and-go floor shifter??
The Jalopy Journal
