Anyone interested in the GM E-Turbo engine for a swap? Anyone know how much it weighs, it's physical size and if the CV transmission would be a reasonable choice? The thing can't weigh much. And puts out more power than the 2.8.
IMO this eTurbo engine swap would be a poor choice. For the cost and work that it would take to install this engine, the result would be just little bit more power (156 HP) than the stock 2.8L (140 HP).
------------------ " THE BLACK PARALYZER" -87GT 3800SC Series III engine, custom ZZP /Frozen Boost Intercooler setup, 3.4" Pulley, Northstar TB, LS1 MAF, 3" Spintech/Hedman Exhaust, P-log Manifold, Autolite 104's, MSD wires, Custom CAI, 4T65eHD w. custom axles, Champion Radiator, S10 Brake Booster, HP Tuners VCM Suite. "THE COLUSSUS" 87GT - ALL OUT 3.4L Turbocharged engine, Garrett Hybrid Turbo, MSD ign., modified TH125H " ON THE LOOSE WITHOUT THE JUICE "
Not just concerned about the power, but I was intrigued by the idea af a car with better performance (though not a lot more) with a motor that is significantly lighter and capable of much better gas mileage.
Wonder what mpg would be for that engine(in a Fiero)? Is 50 about the highest so far, with the VW TDI swap? The proposal isn't sexy, but fuel economy and similar performance isn't 'nothing'. I'll play along for a minute.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 09-07-2020).]
Wonder what mpg would be for that engine(in a Fiero)? Is 50 about the highest so far, with the VW TDI swap? The proposal isn't sexy, but fuel economy and similar performance isn't 'nothing'. I'll play along for a minute.
They put the motor in the new Malibu. It makes 156hp and 173ftlbs of torque. Not a big increase, but significantly more than the stock 2.8. I can't get weight numbers on this 3 cyl, but the 4 cyl version is 135 pounds lighter than the 2.8. I'm also having trouble getting mileage numbers on any car with this engine.
I had similar thoughts with the Ford 1.0L triple. If someone was doing a challenge to do a sub 2000 pound Fiero it might be cool, but like others have said, that's a lot of R&D time and money that could be spent elsewhere making a more fun one.
Why not an Ecotec? tons of power, aftermarket support, and proven to work in a Fiero?
I have no problem with the Ecotec. Just looking at newer options that may offer advantages that the Ecotec does not. Got to keep up with technology you know.
You mean L3T/L3Z engine? And has CV Trans too? You'll likely Never get them to work in anything came w/o this.
Many to Most New vehicles like John Deer Tractors use encryption on many things to keep you out of PCM and other parts. Not ever Dealers have "permission" to program most things in the car using "Factory Authorize" scanners. Often can't use Used parts either because many parts are "smart" w/ built-in Digital Serial Numbers etc and tied to or part of DRM. Bad or Worse then "VIN Locked" sound for 2000 and later GM cars that even Dealers can't upgrade the radio.
And Before you buy a new car w/ engine w/ "start-stop technology" know that many times you Cannot shut off this "feature." Few may turn off "permanently." Some only Temporary only till you park. Others Never. Most are moving to the Never column. This "Tech" is BS and Won't save you much if any. Not money, Not Fuel, and even Not Emissions too. This crap is only to push fake numbers to pass US EPA, Euro 6 and related rules.
CVT have a lot of problems. Nissan has been pushing this for ~ 10 years and sued for it. CVT barely work in Snow Mobiles etc and many owners carry a spare belt. Car makers have tried to push them for car for 3+ Decades that I know of and have Many problems. The Rubber belt CVT for off road use is cheap and DIY fixable... CVT in cars wears out often faster then any other trans then you're very screwed and often can't get parts except maybe at Dealers w/ sky high prices.
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
CVT s work great in snowmobiles. Nothing like pinning it watching the revs hit 8000 and the skis pull off the snow. Every machine comes with a spare belt. They are a wear part .
After a few months and 8000 miles of driving a 3200 pound vehicle with this engine, here is what I can tell you. This engine makes a bunch of torque over a broad rpm range. It hits max torque at 1600 rpm and continues to 4000 rpm. Talk all you want about HP, but this much torque starting this low and carrying to 4000 rpm is impressive for an engine this size. GM claims that this engine has better power density than the engine they put in the C8. As for fuel economy, I get 34-36 mpg combined in a Buick SUV. Sure makes the most out of a small fuel tank. By my calculations that would be about 350 miles per tank in a fiero. Anyway, I just wanted to report back with some real world info about this engine. Oh, I almost forgot, it weighs 20 pounds less than the 1.4liter Ecotec and makes more power.
If you are going to do a swap there is substitute for displacement even on small turbo engines.
It would take the same amount of work for a LNF Turbo 4 and you can be open for more engine tunes and parts for that engine vs the Turbo 3 no one makes performance parts for.
It then it would be even easier to do a LS engine.
Yes the 3 will be lighter but then again about anything else’s is lighter than the 2.8.
Just to do it to be different is still not a good reason more is the sound of the 3.
There are better engines, depending on what you are after......
I saw a 3 cylinder mid-engine car at a Cars & Coffee up near Sacto.....It was an Autozam AZ-1 manufactured by Mazda and only sold in Japan. It is what is called a Kei-car. It has a 657 cc 3-cyl turbo engine with 63 hp...But it only weighs 1600 lbs....
What's the engine/tranny weight compared to the V6?
I have been unable to get that info. The closest I could come was an engine comparison reference that said it was 20 pounds lighter than the 1.4l small GM engine.
If you are going to do a swap there is substitute for displacement even on small turbo engines.
It would take the same amount of work for a LNF Turbo 4 and you can be open for more engine tunes and parts for that engine vs the Turbo 3 no one makes performance parts for.
It then it would be even easier to do a LS engine.
Yes the 3 will be lighter but then again about anything else’s is lighter than the 2.8.
Just to do it to be different is still not a good reason more is the sound of the 3.
The weight difference should be significant. And by the way, the 2.8 is not that heavy. Compared to other V6 engines, it does pretty good in the weight category because it only has one cam and not much hardware to make it work. Compare that to the typical overhead cam engine with 4 cams , chains and gears and the rest. Anyway, if all you want is brute horse power, go with a big block v8 at 650 pounds or even a Northstar at nearly 500. Then you have to add for a big tranny to handle all of that power. A light weight 3 cylinder is just one more option.
There are better engines, depending on what you are after......
I saw a 3 cylinder mid-engine car at a Cars & Coffee up near Sacto.....It was an Autozam AZ-1 manufactured by Mazda and only sold in Japan. It is what is called a Kei-car. It has a 657 cc 3-cyl turbo engine with 63 hp...But it only weighs 1600 lbs....
These are cute and probably a kick to drive. Imagine it with twice the power. Kind of a home built Lotus Elise.
Can’t find 1.3 but it has to be between 320 to 360 pounds.
The weight may vary a little per application but the numbers are a good representation.
The 1.3 was built for mpg and really has no performance application or parts. The Variable transmission is very non performance.
Now if you do a turbo the LNF is one you can juice up to 400 HP before you need to upgrade the rods. The head and block are good to over 1,000 hp with a new crank and pistons. GM ran one in a Solstice a whole drifting season. They won the championship and was pegged at 500 hp.
There also has been a ton of performance parts for these engines. The negative is heat.
To be honest right now the LS is best for performance and cost. The LNF if you have more money to spend if weight is that big of a deal.
I would say any of these are good choices but the 1.3 or Cast Iron Small Block.
Note do not under estimate the DOHC engines as they are all aluminum and very strong engines. An all aluminum V8 is a prime choice for any car.
The Fiero is not heavybyo start so you are already ahead of most modern cars.
If that is not enough I have a local guy who installs a jet engine in the back. He keeps the gas motor so it is still street legal. His father was Art Arfons the first guy to 500 mph.
Can’t find 1.3 but it has to be between 320 to 360 pounds.
The weight may vary a little per application but the numbers are a good representation.
The 1.3 was built for mpg and really has no performance application or parts. The Variable transmission is very non performance.
Now if you do a turbo the LNF is one you can juice up to 400 HP before you need to upgrade the rods. The head and block are good to over 1,000 hp with a new crank and pistons. GM ran one in a Solstice a whole drifting season. They won the championship and was pegged at 500 hp.
There also has been a ton of performance parts for these engines. The negative is heat.
To be honest right now the LS is best for performance and cost. The LNF if you have more money to spend if weight is that big of a deal.
I would say any of these are good choices but the 1.3 or Cast Iron Small Block.
Note do not under estimate the DOHC engines as they are all aluminum and very strong engines. An all aluminum V8 is a prime choice for any car.
The Fiero is not heavybyo start so you are already ahead of most modern cars.
Don't know where you get your numbers, but from Wikipedia the 3.6l at 370 only pretains to the LLT and earlier. The LFX reduced that weight by 20 pounds which makes it 350. As for the 1.3, I think you are way off. The only reference I could find shows that it is about 20 pounds lighter than the 1.4l microtec which is claimed by Wikipedia to be 216 pounds. If that is accurate, the 1.3 is just under 200 pounds. If the goal is a more modern, more fuel efficient, light weight engine that just happens to make about 20-25% more power than the stock V6, this could be the one.
Don't know where you get your numbers, but from Wikipedia the 3.6l at 370 only pretains to the LLT and earlier. The LFX reduced that weight by 20 pounds which makes it 350. As for the 1.3, I think you are way off. The only reference I could find shows that it is about 20 pounds lighter than the 1.4l microtec which is claimed by Wikipedia to be 216 pounds. If that is accurate, the 1.3 is just under 200 pounds. If the goal is a more modern, more fuel efficient, light weight engine that just happens to make about 20-25% more power than the stock V6, this could be the one.
You can go six places and get six weights due to the variables in engine dress. These are approx numbers from shipping accept the 1.3 which is my estimate.
The point is this the numbers are all pretty close and the best bang for the buck is the LS. You can get all sort of parts and it is no where as heavy as the old cast iron V8.
The 1.3 is not a big power engine. It is not feather light and there are no real performance parts for it. This would make it a conversion with few updates sides.
You can do snd think as you like but I have see people step out side the lines a number of times and end up with an expensive disappointment.
215 may be an engine with nothing on it. By the time you add most of the accessories and the turbo it will be more than that.
You can go six places and get six weights due to the variables in engine dress. These are approx numbers from shipping accept the 1.3 which is my estimate.
The point is this the numbers are all pretty close and the best bang for the buck is the LS. You can get all sort of parts and it is no where as heavy as the old cast iron V8.
The 1.3 is not a big power engine. It is not feather light and there are no real performance parts for it. This would make it a conversion with few updates sides.
You can do snd think as you like but I have see people step out side the lines a number of times and end up with an expensive disappointment.
215 may be an engine with nothing on it. By the time you add most of the accessories and the turbo it will be more than that.
Have you ever seen a 1.3 in person? They are about the size of the engine in my garden tractor.
Plus the intercooler and all the needed plumbing. Add in the waste-gate, pop off and oil lines.
I was including all that. Carried around a turbo with all the hookups and everything attached for a 2.0 K car and it was about 20 pounds max. Even with the cast iron exhaust manifold attached to the turbo still it was all about 30 pounds with all pipes and hoses, wastegate etc.
As time progresses engine swaps will continue to get more difficult. The modern PCM that uses a CAN bus is looking to read the unique signature of every item that works on it. This can include the engine, transmission, AFM. radio, climate controls, AL Brake system, instruments, BCM , etc. The PCM will search for those unique signatures or serial numbers and if they are missing the PCM may not turn on. The work around seems to be an aftermarket ECU but most if not all of them cannot shift the automatic transmission. A separate transmission controller is required and even that sometimes must be custom made. Point is that if you want and engine swap its best to go with something where the swap formula has already been developed
------------------ " THE BLACK PARALYZER" -87GT 3800SC Series III engine, custom ZZP /Frozen Boost Intercooler setup, 3.4" Pulley, Northstar TB, LS1 MAF, 3" Spintech/Hedman Exhaust, P-log Manifold, Autolite 104's, MSD wires, Custom CAI, 4T65eHD w. custom axles, Champion Radiator, S10 Brake Booster, HP Tuners VCM Suite. "THE COLUSSUS" 87GT - ALL OUT 3.4L Turbocharged engine, Garrett Hybrid Turbo, MSD ign., modified TH125H " ON THE LOOSE WITHOUT THE JUICE "
As time progresses engine swaps will continue to get more difficult. The modern PCM that uses a CAN bus is looking to read the unique signature of every item that works on it. This can include the engine, transmission, AFM. radio, climate controls, AL Brake system, instruments, BCM , etc. The PCM will search for those unique signatures or serial numbers and if they are missing the PCM may not turn on. The work around seems to be an aftermarket ECU but most if not all of them cannot shift the automatic transmission. A separate transmission controller is required and even that sometimes must be custom made. Point is that if you want and engine swap its best to go with something where the swap formula has already been developed
I wonder if they said the same things back before all of the swaps commonly done now were done? Someone has to be the one to try it first. If a computer can be programmed, it can be reprogrammed. Work around are what hackers live for.
Originally posted by Daryl M:If a computer can be programmed, it can be reprogrammed.
I cannot fully agree with this statement, in the sense that encryption is easy to do in one direction, but it is not as easy to go in the reverse (i.e. decryption) direction. The effort to "crack" an existing ECU is not comparable with the effort needed to create it in the first place.
Some processes approach irreversibility. For instance, a man can burn a log of wood, but it is difficult for another man to capture the smoke and make it back into a piece of wood.
Where I work, our stuff is locked down, but I don't see how an outsider can get in with reasonable effort, without access to the keys. I suspect that nowadays, many instances of cracked ECUs originate from tuners bribing employees (or ex-employees) to share the keys with them. Of course, no tuner will admit to this, so it's a hard hypothesis to prove.
It is often possible to create an executable from scratch, which completely replaces the OEM's executable, but is executed by factory hardware. However, this is not "cracking" in the traditional sense of the term. This was the approach taken by Hondata. The effort needed to do this is similar to the effort required to create the executable in the first place, and does not need to involve "ethical concerns".
The human element in a security system is usually the weakest.
In general though, it seems like the aftermarket/hacker community is losing the ability to keep up with OEMs.
When swapping the latest engines here on PFF, people are failing to tweak/adjust the computer. Instead, they have to take the computer, and all the wiring and associated modules from the donor car to make the engine computer believe it's still in the original donor. Comparing with the tried-and-true 3800 swap, the ECU can be tuned; it's not necessary to transplant the kitchen sink with it.
As far as I know, even the Corvette C8 hasn't been cracked by the aftermarket, and that's the kind of trophy that any aftermarket tuner would like to win. Start of production of the C8 was almost 2 years ago.
It doesn't feel like a good era to be an auto enthusiast... Sometimes, I wonder... if I was an adult at the time of Fiero production, would I have regarded the Fiero as a modern nightmare of technological complexity?
[This message has been edited by pmbrunelle (edited 01-19-2022).]
Originally posted by Daryl M: I have no problem with the Ecotec. Just looking at newer options that may offer advantages that the Ecotec does not. Got to keep up with technology you know.
If you do that, you're on a technology treadmill... and what's new today is out of date tomorrow, constantly having to play catch-up.
Old vintage stuff like Fiero hardware never goes out of style.
If you do that, you're on a technology treadmill... and what's new today is out of date tomorrow, constantly having to play catch-up.
Old vintage stuff like Fiero hardware never goes out of style.
The fact is that we are all, in most areas of life, on a technology treadmill. Unless you do a 100% authentic restoration, your car uses more modern technology than when it was made.
