So....I I'm thinking about a engine swap here is my thoughts...what are your's (Page 1/1)
donj AUG 14, 07:50 PM
After poking around the forum it's been said that " with a 3.4 swap all you need to do is relocate the starter." Is this a correct statement? Will everything (intake, exaust, electrical components, flywheel, and my 5 speed ) fit/ transfer or is there components that I will have to find?

I looked up the factory specs for the recommended engines ie 93 firebird, well I am not impressed with the whopping 160 hp. rating.
2.8 is rated at 135 hp. for the cost of a 3.4 I think that w/porting, headers,1.6 roller tips a person could get pretty close.

any other swap (3.8) is well beyond my finances.

What say you all?
Raydar AUG 14, 08:59 PM
The 3.4 is the engine the Fiero should have had.
The 140 vs 160 HP disparity is deceiving. The 3.4 has a bunch more torque than the 2.8. Even with the stock Fiero pieces.
You will have to move the starter, and will need a small adapter bushing for the oil pressure sender. Maybe a mounting bracket, but it's not a big deal.
If your 2.8 is earlier than an 88, you will need to buy a neutrally balanced flywheel. ~$30, last I heard. (Get one for a FWD 3.1. Common as dirt.)

https://fiero34swap.eleventenths.org/

If you've got to rebuild your 2.8 anyway, it's much better to start with a 3.4. If you feel so inclined, do all the porting and cam and such to the 3.4, and you're way ahead of the game.
I got probably close to 200 out of mine, but I had a bunch of head work done, and also installed an aftermarket cam, headers, and intake. THAT stuff gets expensive.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 08-14-2018).]

cvxjet AUG 14, 09:55 PM
That 160 vs 140 hp comparison is really deceiving; The power comes on much lower in the rev band, so it like installing better gears at the same time. Compare the torque instead....170 vs 200.....But the 170 is at 3600 rpm and the 200 is at 2600 rpm = 99 hp, while at 2600 your 2.8 actually has approx' 60 hp...The actual powerband is almost flat from 2600 up to 5000. I have only used a G-meter on my car and I am not a good manual-trany launcher, but I was able to get a 14.8 quarter....I have surprised a number of people who have ridden with me......"160 hp.......I guess it's pretty quick" >Lite turns green; Run thru 1st & 2nd< "Holy crap!"

I would believe that my 160 hp/2600 lb Fiero would beat a 2nd gen turbo MR2 (Stock)...There are other engines that are more complicated to install- My Chevy minivan has the ultimate 60* V6 engine; The 3900 with 240 hp and 240 Lb/Ft of torque- And it's slightly lighter......But it has all kinds of electronic crap to deal with- Among others, the Engine computer wants to talk to the "Body control module"....Which the Fiero does not have....So then you have to screw with reprograming and fooling that stupid compuker.....In CA this is almost impossible...May be easier in a no-smog-check state.......
BillS AUG 15, 11:02 AM
The other posters are correct - the performance of the 3.4 is greatly superior to the 2.8. I run a 200 bhp 3.4 in qa 2000 lb. British sports car and the performance is excellent. I intentionally went for that engine rather than the more common V8 swap as I had 20 years of experience with a turboed Fiero engine and liked the platform.

If you do it, make sure to use the upper plenum from the 3.4 and delete the distributor - better flow.
Blitz54 AUG 15, 02:09 PM
Not to hijack the thread, but there's one camaro within three hours of me with the 3.4. They aren't very common here, but he wants 900 Canadian for the whole thing. Is 900 itself a decent price for the engine? I could try to haggle a bit but all I really need is the engine, the rest I'd probably part out.