newbie ?

[Hank Hunter]

Sorry if this has been asked. I have an 84 S15 2WD with a blown 2.8 carbureted motor. What would the best fairly straight swap be for this truck.
Thanks

[Ortie666]

V8 or 4.3... I know a guy who put a 305 into his s-10 and got the same milage as his 2.8L just because the engine doesnt have to work that hard to move it the same speed..

[Guest]

3.4 from and F-body or crate engine is an easy drop in.

[geoffinbc]

V8 or 4.3... I know a guy who put a 305 into his s-10 and got the same milage as his 2.8L just because the engine doesnt have to work that hard to move it the same speed..

Yea but neither of those are a straight swap. Only a 3.1L or 3.4L is a straight swap. 4.3L is a junk swap. My 3.4L beats any new stock 4.3L vortec S-10 on the track. Thats saying alot for 93 TBI technology versus 2002 SFI and an engine that is larger with better flowing heads.

A V8 swap is nice but way more expensive and requires a different transmission along with more parts than it would take to do a 4.3L swap.

[forcecop]

I've been looking at replacing my 2.8 with a crate 3.4 in my 86 Jeep Cherokee. The only thing that concerns me is that some sites say that the engine is only used for carb, and automatic tranny applications...

I am using a carb now, but I have a manual tranny. Is this still a direct swap?

[85_305]

I know a guy who put a 305 into his s-10 and got the same milage as his 2.8L just because the engine doesnt have to work that hard to move it the same speed..

Should have been even better. I got 30mpg w/ my 305 in my stock 3300lb '85 Z28

[geoffinbc]

I've been looking at replacing my 2.8 with a crate 3.4 in my 86 Jeep Cherokee. The only thing that concerns me is that some sites say that the engine is only used for carb, and automatic tranny applications...

I am using a carb now, but I have a manual tranny. Is this still a direct swap?

It is a direct swap. Either way. The warning you are reading is an emissions warning. The engine is only emission improved for Carbureted automatic trucks.

I have a Fuel injected manual transmission and I pass emissions just as easily as the 2.8L did.

[forcecop]

Cool. Is the improvement of the 3.4 much more noticable than the 2.8?

I'm going to be building my Jeep off for offroading, need the power for bigger tires and such.

[85_305]

Cool. Is the improvement of the 3.4 much more noticable than the 2.8?

That's a silly question. The 3.4 will be WORLDS improvement in every way over that 2.8

[forcecop]

That's a silly question. The 3.4 will be WORLDS improvement in every way over that 2.8

Not so silly. My use for the new engine is to power a 4x4 vehicle, with larger than stock tires, and various items that are going to add wieght to the vehicle. I KNOW that the 2.8 isn't really suited for the plans I have. A 3.4 isn't that huge of a leap in horsepower, so I thought it was a valid question.

I'm not really interested in swapping a V8 (don't want to put THAT much money into the Jeep), so I just wanted an opinion about the 3.4. (hense my second line after the comment you posted.) :P

I'll take your second sentence as validation for sticking with the 3.4.

Thanks.

[85_305]

Not so silly. My use for the new engine is to power a 4x4 vehicle, with larger than stock tires, and various items that are going to add wieght to the vehicle. I KNOW that the 2.8 isn't really suited for the plans I have. A 3.4 isn't that huge of a leap in horsepower, so I thought it was a valid question.

I'm not really interested in swapping a V8 (don't want to put THAT much money into the Jeep), so I just wanted an opinion about the 3.4. (hense my second line after the comment you posted.) :P

I'll take your second sentence as validation for sticking with the 3.4.

Thanks.

The 3.4 has 220hp.. a 2.8 has at most 140hp.. that's just about doubled the HP man I'd think you'd be straight w/ the 3.4, but it's all in your personal wants I guess

[forcecop]

Hmmm... I thought it was 160-180 hp, are we talking about the carb. one?

Geez, if we are, then I will be golden for my plans, who needs a V8?

[Guest]

The 3.4 has 220hp.. a 2.8 has at most 140hp.. that's just about doubled the HP man I'd think you'd be straight w/ the 3.4, but it's all in your personal wants I guess

The SFI genI 3.4 is rated at 160 HP. Even the genIII 3400 is not rated at 220 HP, most I've seen is 200 HP, though in stock form I have seen dynos tests show 200ish HP at the wheels in J-Bodies (obviously a custom swap) using the 5-speed tranaxle.

[85_305]

The SFI genI 3.4 is rated at 160 HP. Even the genIII 3400 is not rated at 220 HP, most I've seen is 200 HP, though in stock form I have seen dynos tests show 200ish HP at the wheels in J-Bodies (obviously a custom swap) using the 5-speed tranaxle.

Whaaaat??? I just looked into this.. how are our fwd 3400's more powerfull than a damn pushrod v6 Camaro's motor???? What gives??
And btw.. the 3400's are rated from 215-220hp, depending if they have a 5spd or auto

[sharkey]

a 3.4l tdc (twin dual cam) is rated at 205-210 depending on year and tranny. there never was a factory 3400 that came with 215hp, they were between 180-185 depending on the vehicle they came in (only difference is pcm programing).

the camaro is 160hp. yes, a mini van had more power than a v6 camaro in the same year. reason being the v6 camaro was old technology, not a whole lot changed between the first efi 2.8 and the 3.4l (aside from bore/stroke). it made 160hp, enough to move it around for people that didnt want a v8. a 3400 needed the power, it was the biggest motor put into things like mini vans, grand ams, ect.