2.8/3.1l !!!! difference??

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • BigZ24
    • Jan 2004
    • 22

    #1

    2.8/3.1l !!!! difference??

    somebody told me that the difference between the 2.8 and the 3.1 is the stroke...the bore is the same! so...i am asking myself aboutthis...can i put the 3.1 cranckshaft. connecting rod and piston on my 2.8???? somebody can answer me and explain please why or why not is possible!!!!
  • Guest

    #2
    Yes, that is how you stroke a 2.8 to a 3.1. The difference is the crank and pistons, rods are the same.

    Comment

    • BigZ24
      • Jan 2004
      • 22

      #3
      ok! now my question is ... if i put the 3.1 crank and piston in my 2.8..i will probably keep approximaly the same HP than an 3.1 ..yes or no ???? and if yes...the computer will accept this or its going to bug ????

      Comment

      • geoffinbc
        Iron Head Enthusiast
        • Oct 2003
        • 5831

        #4
        Yes and Yes. Going from 2.8L to 3.1L is no big deal. Infact if you swapped chips and injectors to 3.1L stuff your car would never know.
        1993 EXT. CAB, 3.4L V6 TBI, 5spd manual. Sonoma
        1990 4Door, 3.2L V6 TBI, 5spd manual. 4X4. Trooper
        Because... I am, CANADIAN

        Comment

        • GordSipko
          • Jan 2004
          • 11

          #5
          The 2.8 and 3.1 injectors are the same @ 15 #/hr. You might want to search out for differences in the ECU/memcal!
          \'83 S10, 3.4 SFI, 4L60E

          Comment

          • BigZ24
            • Jan 2004
            • 22

            #6
            ok but Im going to put an aftermarket chip on my computer like superchip or something like that! do i have to put an 2.8 or 3.1... and why put the 3.1 injector its not the same like 2.8 ????? im busy whit this ???

            so now! i have a 2.8l. i put the 3.1 crank and piston, i put the 3.1 chip and injector... i put some 2.8l performance camshaft whit an port and polish heads whit a 3 angles valves job, whit a port match intake! AND all this things will works togeter perfectly ????? All right

            Comment

            • robby1870
              Squaddoosh
              • Oct 2003
              • 584

              #7
              Originally posted by GordSipko
              The 2.8 and 3.1 injectors are the same @ 15 #/hr. You might want to search out for differences in the ECU/memcal!
              19#/hr
              Robby Whitesell
              2006 Pontiac G6 GT
              1985 Toyota Pickup DLX

              Comment

              • eurolumina92
                • Nov 2003
                • 17

                #8
                is the same true with 3.13.4 crankes can you switch those to???????????

                Comment

                • robby1870
                  Squaddoosh
                  • Oct 2003
                  • 584

                  #9
                  Originally posted by eurolumina92
                  is the same true with 3.13.4 crankes can you switch those to???????????
                  why would you want to? They are the same stroke
                  Robby Whitesell
                  2006 Pontiac G6 GT
                  1985 Toyota Pickup DLX

                  Comment

                  • Guest

                    #10
                    Originally posted by robby1870
                    Originally posted by GordSipko
                    The 2.8 and 3.1 injectors are the same @ 15 #/hr. You might want to search out for differences in the ECU/memcal!
                    19#/hr
                    Umm since when? Research tells me they are between 15 and 17 lbs/hr.

                    Comment

                    • Norm '88 GT
                      • Nov 2003
                      • 134

                      #11
                      BigZ24, I went from a 2.8 with Superchips, Inc., chip to 3.1 bored .030" over and had no problems running on stock fueling. Updated injectors or ECU to 3.1 maps will help fueling if your going to run in the 14's at the strip.
                      Norm - \'88 GT - soon to be V8.
                      http://www.beretta.net/board/ib3/iko...t=ST;f=9;t=261

                      Comment

                      • BigZ24
                        • Jan 2004
                        • 22

                        #12
                        re:

                        i dont really understand what you meen!! what im better to do...put an 2.8 chip on the ecu and modified for the crank and piston of 3.1 OR just put an 3.1 chip on the ecu ????

                        Comment

                        • johnc
                          • Jan 2004
                          • 79

                          #13
                          One thing to check on is the main journal diameter. It has to be a larger diameter 2.8 crank engine if you want to use the 3.1 engine. Your main dia. s/b 67mm. If the engine is 1986 or newer, you should be fine. Some 1985 engines had the larger journal, but you will have to measure to be sure.

                          Comment

                          • BigZ24
                            • Jan 2004
                            • 22

                            #14
                            ok i make some search and i found this! the main bearing journal diameter for the 2.8 is 2.4397-2.4946 inches and the 3.1 is 2.6473-2.6483 inches . So what can i do for this ....if its like i thing the 3.1 cranck shaft will not fit on the 2.8 block ???? what do you meens????

                            Comment

                            • geoffinbc
                              Iron Head Enthusiast
                              • Oct 2003
                              • 5831

                              #15
                              No only really early (pre 1985/86) had the small main journals. After that all 2.8L 3.1L and 3.4L's had the same main journal size.
                              1993 EXT. CAB, 3.4L V6 TBI, 5spd manual. Sonoma
                              1990 4Door, 3.2L V6 TBI, 5spd manual. 4X4. Trooper
                              Because... I am, CANADIAN

                              Comment

                              Working...