2.5 liter gm transplant....into a series 2a 109 for my business

[northshorelocal]

Looking to possibly transplant and 2.5 liter gm engine like what was in the Chevy s-10's from 90-97. Anyone have an idea of anyone who has done this before and the up and downsides of this possible transplant? I can't seem to find exactly what horse power this engine has.Ideas?

thanks

[sayers]

Why not just get a factoryengine from rovers north. this way you will know that it is the proper engine and that it will fit and hook up to all of the fittings under the hood.

[northshorelocal]

well....

A friend of mine has a roversnorth 2.25 engine and to be honest iisn't strong enough for the landscaping we do on the North Shore in Vancouver. Imagine San Francisco's streets and you then know what our streets are like. I have had 3 rovers before and know well what 2.25 L engines are like. But for real world applications I feel 2.25 just don't cut it,especilally with a loaded rear of soil or rocks on these streets here.
Besides better highway speeds would be nice too. I appreciate your feedback. To each their own...2.25 for traditionalists and other engines for realists I guess eh.

[Leslie]

http://www.lrfaq.org/Series/FAQ.S.options.RDconversion.html

One gas option...

[Leslie]

http://www.seriestrek.com/

A diesel option....

[Leslie]

Good shop in the Pac-NW...

http://www.pangolin4x4.com/

[yorker]

I think those engines have the 60 degre or 2.8l type GM bolt pattern, different thatn the earlier 2.5l GM engines. Davis was making a run of those adapters-

Original Message -----
From: Davis Robert
To: scottys-conversion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: [scottys-conversion] Digest Number 69


Hey guys:
I just got word that my new generation of adapters are
"in the oven". These new adapters along with a
ductile flywheel are being cast and will fit the later
GM 4 cylinder engines from 1983 10 1999 both FWD and
RWD. They also can have the starter boss on the right
or left side so those of you with a IIA can have the
starter opposite the drive shaft (on the left). This
won't work for the series III and the starter has to
remain on the right. I will still offer these in a
3.0 liter stroked out version like the earlier GM
counterparts. Those that have been holding out on a
conversion because of the cost, can now buy all the
parts from me to convert a Fiero or S-10 junkyard
engine to the series and not destroy the drive train
with too much torque, but still get our brick shaped
rides up to 70+ on the interstate with modern
performance. As always will drop in without and frame
or radiator mods and offer a Weber 2 barrel adapter
and GM non FI distributor.
More to come...

--- scottys-conversion@yahoogroups.com wrote:

and:

Original Message -----
From: "Davis Robert" <rdavisinva@yahoo.com>
To: "Matt Nelson" <>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: 2.8 adapter to LR series tranny


> Matt:
> I plan to stop building complete engine conversions at
> the end of this year and sell a complete kit that
> someone can build themselves. The kit will be based
> on the later GM 4 cylinders (s10 and Fiero, etc).
> The are everywhere for $100 at a junkyard - that the
> Scotty's adapter won't fit, but my adapter will. Then
> I don't have to spend 24 - 40 hours building an engine
> that I make anout $10 or less an hour doing. I am now
> producing an Isuzu 2.8 or 3.1 turbo diesel conversion
> for Range Rover and Disco V8s that will be available
> as soon as I can finish the kick down linkage. I am
> also converting an 88" to a Perking Prema 2.0 liter
> TDI from an MG Miestro and putting the same engine
> into our MGB. Both run fine on used cooking oil...
> Do you still want to buy an adapter? Batch is due out
> soon.

And another possibility the 2.8l, this email from a fellow in Canada who made adapters for his series for the 2.8l:

----- Original Message -----
From: Marsha Schofield
To: Matt Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: 2.8 in LR


Hi Matt,So your looking at doing an engine swap. I can't remember if you have a lhd or rhd if you have a left hooker then sorry, without chopping the bulkhead then you have realistically two choices, the first being a 2.8 Chevy or any of it's later successors or perhaps the ford equivalent. The reason being they are both 60 degree blocks rather than the more standard 90 degree which is considerably wider and thus fouls the pitman arm on the side of the steering box. If you have a right hooker then the choice really opens up. The next issue to ponder would be gas or diesel and why. I'm sure you've already considered the obvious size, weight , power, rpm and water issues so I won't bore you with the details although I will say that the starter off the 2.8 gm engine is naff .( crapp, no good, a waste of space and above all bloody annoying!!!) In fact just one muddy hole and you'll never get that useless piece of crapp to turn over again unless you remove it, blast the moving parts with a garden hose, dry it then oil all the necessary parts before you reinstall. Since then I've changed the conversion to accept the 2.25 LR starter. So that leaves just one thing, have you any idea how much power and speed I am getting with this 2.8 ? Maybe you could hold off until we get together some time and I'll take you for a spin, I'm sure you'll be surprised, anyway I'll talk to you soon . Simon.
----- Original Message -----

[northshorelocal]

2.5's...

Yeah I am talking to Robert now about these adapter kits for the 2.5. That is why I am curious if anyone knows much of these engines and if there are any mods ie. cams reground etc that can get a little more out of them than the stock 100-120 hp. Nothing crazy,just a little more hp. gain I appreciate all you have written,informative forsure.

[yorker]

I've never seen much for them that made any significant difference, a few HP here and there and a lot of $. If you are going to push a laden 109 around for business use I think I'd look into something different. Those GM 4cyls are great engines stock, the ones I've used have lasted forever but high performance wasn't their strong point.

http://www.s10forum.com/forum/f104/2...grades-267483/ otoh:

http://forums.s-series.org/viewtopic.php?t=6001&sid=6a77ca068257eee74e8ae7f735118e41

The 2.8l swap that simon did with efi is really nice, I can give you his contact info off list if you want. There is also a performance of the 2.8l available-3.4l http://www.s-series.org/htm/tech/GMP...ts/144-148.pdf

Quick History and Information about the GM 60&#176; V6
Disclaimer: This information is from GM resources. It is presented here for informative purposes only. GM and all related product identities, etc. are property of GM. If you find an error in this information, or have comments, please contact us.

The 2.8L 60&#176; V-6 Engine was designed by Chevrolet and introduced in 1980 in the X-car platforms. These included the front-wheel-drive (FWD) Buick Skylark, Chevrolet Citation, Oldsmobile Omega, and Pontiac Phoenix. It was designed to meet federal fuel economy standards, new emmisions laws, and to provide a suitable powerplant for smaller vehicles. Eventually, this engine found homes in Camaros, S-10 Blazers, S-15's, Fieros, Cimmarons, Centurys, Firebirds, Jeeps, Isuzus, and even Mercury Marine.
The 60&#176; V-6 engine's cylinders were offset 60&#176; from one another due to space limitations. Over the years, the 60&#176; V-6 engine has proven to be a reliable engine in many applications. It began as a 2.8L, then was changed to a 3.1L, and finally to the 3.4L displacement. Throughout the years, there have been a variety of motor mount , fuel pump location, ignition system, transmission mount, balance, fuel delivery system, oiling system, and other changes.
The evolution of the 60&#176; V-6 brought larger displacement and more sophisticated engineering. The engine was so extensively changed in 1987, that the new model was referred to as the "Generation II" engine. Improvements included aluminum cylinder heads with splayed intake and exhaust valves, improved intake porting, tighter operating clearances, distributorless ignition, a single serpentine belt drive system for accessories, and numerous engine appearance improvements. The Generation II Engine was only available in FWD vehicles.
In 1991, the 3.4 dual overhead cam (DOHC) with four valves per cylinder version was introduced. This engine design included major improvements, with a base horsepower rating of around 210.
There are many differences between the FWD, Mid-Mount, and RWD engines, besides the different mounting locations. The cooling systems, water pump location, cylinder heads, and intake manifolds are some of the major items that need to be taken into account if you are intending doing a direct swap.

A GM straight six might be a better route to take. But then you really get into exceeding the capabilities of the Series tranny.

[Leslie]

I have to admit, once upon a time, I had a Jeep Cherokee w/ the 2.8 V6. I managed to get 110k out of it before it cracked out the sidewall... the guys at the local shops were all surprised I'd gotten it that far, that they would only see them make it to 80k before they died.... it's really not a good engine, Jeep did a good thing when they tossed it and went w/ the 4.2 I6.

Instead of the 2.8, if you had your heart set on a V6, I'd go w/ the 4.3.... it's more like a 350 w/ two cylinders cut out.

But, you'll still be getting beyond the happy zone for the stock transmission.

[yorker]

My experience with the 2.8 was pretty much exactly the opposite, I had several with over 200,000 on the clock and no great difficulties. I've seen quite a few others that had similar lifetimes. I still think it is on the small side for a 109 but so is the 2.5. An I6 like the Slant Six, 292 Chevy or 300 ford would be nice in a work truck 109.

[CliftonRover]

An inline six would be really nice. I had a 85' F 150 with the 4.9L (300) I6 and it would idle over just about anything. The torque from any I6 is going to be good at low revs but the engine would be very hard to fit in a series engine bay, you would definatly have to cut the front crossmember out and move it forward.

[yorker]

The torque curve on the 4.9l is really nice- Somewhere I had a graph of it. Peaks really low and stays fairly flat. It definitely would take work to install, I've only seen one in a Rover before. If fitted to the series T case via a NP435 and an adapter it would be awesome.

[o2batsea]

Go big or go home

If you put in a 4 cylinder, you'll just be hating yourself after it's all done and you find the truck is still gutless. Put in a V8. Really. Don't listen to what anyone else says cause I've been down those roads and I ended up pulling it all out and putting in a real engine. I put an IH 345 in along with a warner box and dana tcase. It's not a great engine; too bulky. The power steering is awesome though. Now that I've had mine for 3 years, it's time to reconfigure. I'm putting the Series 5 door Wagon body on my '93 LWB chassis. My recommendations are: RR 4.6 and ZF autobox along with RR axles and disc brakes. 'Effin smoothest gearbox on the planet, and it's still all Rover.
OR, Ford 5.0 HO EFI with warner t-18/19 with Dana 300 t case. Recommend 4.10 gears in the axles. OR 4.3 V6 and Scottys adapter to standard Rover gearbox.
You will likely have to widen slightly the bulkhead, but that's not too much work.

[yorker]

Ford 5.0 HO EFI with warner t-18/19 with Dana 300 t case.

Dana 300 is central output, how will you accomidate that with passengerr offset diffs? it probably would be ok I guess-there are plenty of TLC's out there with np205's.