Am I reading that correctly? Is there really a 5.2l v6 out there? Or is that a misprint and you mean the 90* v6 231?
If you are talking about the 231, I think I've heard of someone doing it before, but I believe it needs an adapter plate or something. I can't recall off the top of my head right now, but I think that is what I remember.
IP: Logged
04:21 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 25194 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
The 231 is actually a 3.8. The original 231 (prior to GM selling it to AMC, and then buying it back), could be had in all aluminum. This motor was used by Rover, and found it's way into many small British sports cars. I think they even used the motor in the older Indy Cars... back when Offenhauser used to produce racing parts for Indy.
But, in 1979, the 231 was nothing more than just a smogged out 3.8 liter. I didn't know they were still available in aluminum back then. They were PRETTY low on power. Stock the motor doesn't put out much more than a stock Fiero 2.8 motor does. For the time and effort you'll put into it, you might just be better off dropping in a newer transverse version of that motor. (the Series-II 3800 SC)
Still though, if you have it... it would be a pretty cool motor to build up on an engine stand...
depends if its odd fire or even fire but the over all answer is NO because it would use a BOPC transmission bolt pattern and you would have to get an adapter though see if you could get a Tornado trans to bolt up to it. The old 3.8's stock vs stock don't stand much chance but if you equal them out in spec they will be as good if not better and a GN 3.8 will spank the SC versions all day with less boost.
IP: Logged
09:01 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 25194 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
depends if its odd fire or even fire but the over all answer is NO because it would use a BOPC transmission bolt pattern and you would have to get an adapter though see if you could get a Tornado trans to bolt up to it. The old 3.8's stock vs stock don't stand much chance but if you equal them out in spec they will be as good if not better and a GN 3.8 will spank the SC versions all day with less boost.
Just to add to this, he means the NON Th-425 Toronado transmission.
The GM 231 started out as a 1961 225 CI V-6 cast iron version of the Buick/Olds 215 CI all aluminum V-8. for the new at the time Pontiac Tempest, Olds F-85 and Buick Skylark, GM's very first unibody/smaller cars. ( I wont go into the history of the Buick V-8 as we're talking about the V-6, but suffice it to say that Rover only recenty discontinued them ) I don't remember exactly when the 225 V-6 became a 231, but it was probably in the early 70's, as I do remember that the Olds Starfire, Pontiac Sunbird and Buick Skyhawk ( all monza-ized versions of the Chevy Vega.) could be had with a a 231/5 speed combo. In the 80's the 231 was build as large as 250 CI ( 4.1 L ), and raced at Indy. In 84 Buick turbo'ed the motor and ended with the 87 Buick Grand national, the last of the old style RWD muscle cars. As you know, the venerable old motor is still being produced.
Various versions have been called in no particular order, the 231, the 3.8, the 4.1, the 3800, 3800SC and various series like series I series II and series III.
As far I know, there have been some aluminum headed versions, but the only aluminum block versions of this motor were built for racing only. Are you sure it has an aluminum block?
IP: Logged
09:13 PM
Will Member
Posts: 14284 From: Where you least expect me Registered: Jun 2000
I don't think the V6 is related to the 215. After all, how would they have lopped off two cylinders and gained 10 ci? I was pretty sure that the engine came from the existing Buick iron V8 (of about 300 ci) and had no relation to the 215.
I don't think it was ever offered in production with aluminum heads (could be wrong), although there were some "stage I" and "stage II" blocks and heads cast purely for racing (real racing, like Indy...). Those parts can take a lot of power, but these days almost all of them have been through hell and back.
Anyway, the GM FWD pattern that the 2.8's use didn't come out until the early '80's, so NOTHING from the '70's will bolt to a Fiero transmission without an adapter plate. That being said, BOP-Chevy adapter plates can be down around .100" thick, so if you use a Chevy-FWD adapter plate, then a BOP-Chevy adapter plate to make a combined BOP-FWD adapter plate, you could do the job.
IP: Logged
11:20 PM
Oct 8th, 2007
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 25194 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
I don't think the V6 is related to the 215. After all, how would they have lopped off two cylinders and gained 10 ci? I was pretty sure that the engine came from the existing Buick iron V8 (of about 300 ci) and had no relation to the 215.
I don't think it was ever offered in production with aluminum heads (could be wrong), although there were some "stage I" and "stage II" blocks and heads cast purely for racing (real racing, like Indy...). Those parts can take a lot of power, but these days almost all of them have been through hell and back.
Anyway, the GM FWD pattern that the 2.8's use didn't come out until the early '80's, so NOTHING from the '70's will bolt to a Fiero transmission without an adapter plate. That being said, BOP-Chevy adapter plates can be down around .100" thick, so if you use a Chevy-FWD adapter plate, then a BOP-Chevy adapter plate to make a combined BOP-FWD adapter plate, you could do the job.
I've heard several times before that the Buick 231 was really an Oldsmobile derived block. Although I never knew in what way.
Are you sure the 2.8 uses strictly a FWD bolt pattern? I mean, the 93-95 Camaro / Firebird uses the exact same Gen-1 block, and it's RWD. It mates up to the same 700R4 that the LT1 bolted up to. Plus, the 2.8 is also a fairly old motor, and it's been used as a staple in a number of Chevy vehicles including the S-10 for many years in the 80s (all RWD).
As far as I know, the 2.8 has just the standard Chevy bolt pattern, which is the same as the small block chevy all the way back from 1955.
The GM 231 started out as a 1961 225 CI V-6 cast iron version of the Buick/Olds 215 CI all aluminum V-8. for the new at the time Pontiac Tempest, Olds F-85 and Buick Skylark, GM's very first unibody/smaller cars. ( I wont go into the history of the Buick V-8 as we're talking about the V-6, but suffice it to say that Rover only recenty discontinued them ) I don't remember exactly when the 225 V-6 became a 231, but it was probably in the early 70's, as I do remember that the Olds Starfire, Pontiac Sunbird and Buick Skyhawk ( all monza-ized versions of the Chevy Vega.) could be had with a a 231/5 speed combo. In the 80's the 231 was build as large as 250 CI ( 4.1 L ), and raced at Indy. In 84 Buick turbo'ed the motor and ended with the 87 Buick Grand national, the last of the old style RWD muscle cars. As you know, the venerable old motor is still being produced.
Various versions have been called in no particular order, the 231, the 3.8, the 4.1, the 3800, 3800SC and various series like series I series II and series III.
As far I know, there have been some aluminum headed versions, but the only aluminum block versions of this motor were built for racing only. Are you sure it has an aluminum block?
It's sad to say, but... Rover doesn't actually exist anymore. The Chinese bought the intellectual property, but the name stayed with Ford. Ford bought the name so they could ensure that they could continue to build the Land Rover. So... Ford owns MG and Rover and Land Rover now.
Sounds to me like Ford should come out with some competition to the Pontiac Solstice and the Mazda Miata with their MG brand name.
I've heard several times before that the Buick 231 was really an Oldsmobile derived block. Although I never knew in what way.
Are you sure the 2.8 uses strictly a FWD bolt pattern? I mean, the 93-95 Camaro / Firebird uses the exact same Gen-1 block, and it's RWD. It mates up to the same 700R4 that the LT1 bolted up to. Plus, the 2.8 is also a fairly old motor, and it's been used as a staple in a number of Chevy vehicles including the S-10 for many years in the 80s (all RWD).
As far as I know, the 2.8 has just the standard Chevy bolt pattern, which is the same as the small block chevy all the way back from 1955.
Quite sure. The 60 degree V6 has always and only had the FWD bolt pattern. When used in RWD applications, special bellhousings were used. The 4L60 used in a 3.4 Camaro will not bolt to an LT1 because it has the FWD bellhousing pattern. You can use the stickshift bellhousing from a V6/60 powered S10 or F-body with a Cadillac 4.9 or Northstar. The same is true of the 3800 in the final years of the F-body... it used the FWD bolt pattern.
IP: Logged
09:48 AM
Oreif Member
Posts: 16460 From: Schaumburg, IL Registered: Jan 2000
As far as I know, the 2.8 has just the standard Chevy bolt pattern, which is the same as the small block chevy all the way back from 1955.
If this was the case, You would not need an adapter plate from Archie to install a SBC into a Fiero. However, Will is correct that the vehicles using a 60* V-6 in the RWD set-up use a different bellhousing. Look at the pic below (4L60) and you can see the bellhousing is seperate from the trans body. You can bolt on other bellhousings as well for FORD and Mopar (aftermarket) None of the GM transaxles use a seperate bellhousing (that I know of)
IP: Logged
10:05 AM
PFF
System Bot
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 25194 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
If this was the case, You would not need an adapter plate from Archie to install a SBC into a Fiero. However, Will is correct that the vehicles using a 60* V-6 in the RWD set-up use a different bellhousing. Look at the pic below (4L60) and you can see the bellhousing is seperate from the trans body. You can bolt on other bellhousings as well for FORD and Mopar (aftermarket) None of the GM transaxles use a seperate bellhousing (that I know of)
i have come across a 331ci all aluminum v6 out of a 79 buick...will it bolt up to my trans like the other v6's or is the battern diffrent?
There has been alot of discussion about various engines, but, this one is all aluminum? If it is, then it could be a high performance engine. I'd see if you can find a serial number on the block and phone the 800* for GM and get the info on it. They will also know what cars it went in and likely be able to tell you what trannies went with it. Just a suggestion
Arn
I think it is one of these two numbers
The Vintage line 1-800-263-3777 or 1-888-467-6853 from my scratch notes. Hope this helps
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 10-08-2007).]
IP: Logged
11:36 AM
Will Member
Posts: 14284 From: Where you least expect me Registered: Jun 2000
If this was the case, You would not need an adapter plate from Archie to install a SBC into a Fiero. However, Will is correct that the vehicles using a 60* V-6 in the RWD set-up use a different bellhousing. Look at the pic below (4L60) and you can see the bellhousing is seperate from the trans body. You can bolt on other bellhousings as well for FORD and Mopar (aftermarket) None of the GM transaxles use a seperate bellhousing (that I know of)
This is a relatively recent development. LT1 era transmissions had integral bellhousings and used different cases for V6 and V8.
IP: Logged
12:08 PM
Firefox Member
Posts: 4307 From: New Berlin, Wisconsin Registered: Feb 2003
I don't think the V6 is related to the 215. After all, how would they have lopped off two cylinders and gained 10 ci? I was pretty sure that the engine came from the existing Buick iron V8 (of about 300 ci) and had no relation to the 215.
I don't think it was ever offered in production with aluminum heads (could be wrong), although there were some "stage I" and "stage II" blocks and heads cast purely for racing (real racing, like Indy...). Those parts can take a lot of power, but these days almost all of them have been through hell and back.
Anyway, the GM FWD pattern that the 2.8's use didn't come out until the early '80's, so NOTHING from the '70's will bolt to a Fiero transmission without an adapter plate. That being said, BOP-Chevy adapter plates can be down around .100" thick, so if you use a Chevy-FWD adapter plate, then a BOP-Chevy adapter plate to make a combined BOP-FWD adapter plate, you could do the job.
Don't mean to rain on your parade, the v-6 was introduced at the same time as the aluminum V-8, but had the BOP bell housing pattern, it was produced on a different line ( because the AL engine was die cast ) so it shared only a few outside dimensions, starter, brackets and accesssories with the AL V-8, inside the engine was comepletely different. The Buick 300 wasn't introduced until 1964, initially with aluminum heads, but later went to cast iron heads. Wikipedia says the Buick V-6 and Aluminum V-8 had the same bellhousing pattern. Wrong, I used to swap the Buick/Olds Aluminum V-8's into Vegas, the aluminum v-8 had a unique bellhousing bolt pattern. I used to buy my adapters from D& D fabrications. Amazingly enough, they are still in business! >> http://www.aluminumv8.com << The cool thing about the Buick/Olds aluminum V-8 was that it weighed only 318 lbs! I could pick up a block with one hand. I forgot about the 198, they are so rare I think it was a one year only thing, as I remember driving a 1962 Skylark with a 225. There sure is a lot of misinformation around, even from supposedly reliable sources. A few other posters here are correct that there were no production aluminum heads for this motor, ( funny, but I seem to remember some aluminum ones on Ebay that looked like production heads ) but are some stage I and stage II heads still floating around the racing circuits.
I don't recall ANY all aluminum Buick V6 production engines in the late 70's era.
Once, a long time ago, I researched for a hot rod project (got nixed because of dificulty) the '70s era V6s. I seem to recall there were factory aluminium blocks w/ iron heads, and iron blocks w/ aluminium heads but not aluminium blocks w/aluminium heads . . . unless you mated them yourself, I think someone did it, but it called for more interest than I had, and more commitment than I was willing to give.
Norm
IP: Logged
10:23 PM
Oct 13th, 2007
hatchetrider84 Member
Posts: 222 From: Orangevale, CA, USA Registered: Jun 2005
it is a very high performance...engine dynoed at around 400HP. im positive it is an all aluminum engine...i was asking cause my friend has one and we were not sure what trans to get for it...preferably a rwd trans to mount it lenghth ways(thought id look better)
if it's a 79 Buick motor then it has the BOP bolt pattern....you need to get a RWD Buick Olds Pontiac trany, some tranys have both Chevy and BOP bolt patterns
[This message has been edited by jweisman (edited 10-13-2007).]
IP: Logged
04:58 AM
PFF
System Bot
darkhorizon Member
Posts: 12279 From: Flint Michigan Registered: Jan 2006
AFAIK, there were no production aluminum v6's in the late 70's timeframe. I also did alot of 231 work, they are very potent motors. the early/mid 60's did have all aluminum 225's out is certain cars, but they are the older common journal cranks, not the offset journals they started in late 77 early 78. the 70's versions were all bop bolt patterns, all of that era were in rwd applications, as there were no transmissions for fwd drive that will handle it at that time. they were low hp stock, but had alot of torque. The turbo versions used differrent blocks with webbing on the lower half, and an overall much beefier casting. they also had different heads. I would suspect that was a custom motor someone had built, there were a few places around that time that were producing all aluminum versions of the 231, or someone got their hands on a gm race motor. I think there are a couple threads on putting a 231 in a fiero in the archives. with that hp rating tho, I don;t think any stock tranny would last long, and would think that one of the newer 4t6xeHD's used on the 3800sc motors would be a better choice, tho I believe you still need to use an adapter plate. (rwd vs fwd bolt patterns)
