Don't laugh - Know of any Chevette mods?
J. Forbes
In article <scott.logsdon-ya0230...@snews2.zippo.com> scott....@mail.wvnet.edu (Poindexter) writes:
>From: scott....@mail.wvnet.edu (Poindexter)
>Subject: Don't laugh - Know of any Chevette mods?
>Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 05:20:38 -0400
>I've got an 87 Chevette and have been wondering what can be done to give it
>a little more zip.
>I know it sounds stupid, but consider this:
>It was factory rated at 65 hp. It's 1600cc (roughly 90 c.i.d.) Overhead
>cam, and 9.5:1 compression.
>Given hotrodders have been getting 1 hp/c.i. since the late 50's, I should
>be able to get .8 - .9 hp/c.i. out of a Chevette without too much effort,
>right?
>I'd like to get it up to 80+hp and help it get out of its own way.
>Suggestions? (please be serious)
Ok....
I thought 86 was the last year of the little throw away car. I guess not.
I put a Buick 3.8 v-6 in mine, back in 84. I left the engine stock, put a
TH200 behind it, and eventually put a Monza 2.92 ratio rearend in it, as the
3.70 gears and 13" tires kept making the rear seal in the engine disintegrate
from the rpm.
The car ran 17s after the swap, I think it ran 21s before.
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim and Janet Forbes jfo...@primenet.com
Sierra Vista, AZ URL= http://www.primenet.com/~jforbes
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Poindexter
I've got an 87 Chevette and have been wondering what can be done to give it
a little more zip.
I know it sounds stupid, but consider this:
It was factory rated at 65 hp. It's 1600cc (roughly 90 c.i.d.) Overhead
cam, and 9.5:1 compression.
Given hotrodders have been getting 1 hp/c.i. since the late 50's, I should
be able to get .8 - .9 hp/c.i. out of a Chevette without too much effort,
right?
I'd like to get it up to 80+hp and help it get out of its own way.
Suggestions? (please be serious)
Thanks,
Scott
@:{
--
http://members.aol.com/slogs - for the 10MB web space, OK?
htp://members.aol.com/slogs4/smurfs/ - definitely not for minors,
evangelicals religious wackos & those with humor deficiency disorder
GOLDEN MIKE A
: >I've got an 87 Chevette and have been wondering what can be done to give it
: >a little more zip.
:
: I put a Buick 3.8 v-6 in mine, back in 84. I left the engine stock, put a
: 3.70 gears and 13" tires kept making the rear seal in the engine disintegrate
: from the rpm.
:
: The car ran 17s after the swap, I think it ran 21s before.
Just as a point of reference, I was watching horse racing the other day
(like the Kentucky Derby, or some such) and the HORSES were turning 23
second 1/4 mile times. All this with just ONE horsepower! :-)
Mike Golden
'81 Buick Regal, Chevy 355, TH400, Holley 750DP, Paxton S/C, 9" Ford
Clarence Snyder
scott....@mail.wvnet.edu (Poindexter) wrote:
>I've got an 87 Chevette and have been wondering what can be done to give it
>a little more zip.
>I know it sounds stupid, but consider this:
>It was factory rated at 65 hp. It's 1600cc (roughly 90 c.i.d.) Overhead
>cam, and 9.5:1 compression.
>Given hotrodders have been getting 1 hp/c.i. since the late 50's, I should
>be able to get .8 - .9 hp/c.i. out of a Chevette without too much effort,
>right?
>I'd like to get it up to 80+hp and help it get out of its own way.
>Suggestions? (please be serious)
>Thanks,
>Scott
>@:{
>--
>http://members.aol.com/slogs - for the 10MB web space, OK?
>htp://members.aol.com/slogs4/smurfs/ - definitely not for minors,
>evangelicals religious wackos & those with humor deficiency disorder
I know you said be serious, but I just can't help myself.
We always called them Shove-its, and I said GM should have built them
with dual exhaust - because it's awful hard to push a wheelbarrow with
one handle!
Ok- enough abuse. I owned a Vauxhaul Firenze (Viva HC) you no - any
F'renz'a yours ain't friends o' mine - it was a great car for a $250
junker.
Put a set of headers and a good carb on it, and you will see a big
difference. The carb from a 3.3 Vega can be adapted, or even a Ford
Pinto. These are Weber designed carbs and are easy to re-jet -
although I doubt they will rquire much with headers and a free-flowing
exhaust. If you can sqeeze bigger valves into the head it might be
worth while as well.
At 1600 CC, 96 hp should not be terribly hard to find if you can hold
it together to about 5500 or 6000 RPMs.
I had a 170 valiant, 1963, pulling 201HP ON THE DYNO with virtually
all factory parts - just recurved distributor, planed head, modified
valve adjustments, etc - all this at 6000 RPM - and I got over 114,000
miles on it without blowing it up!
James Ballenger
I have a problem. I have a 86 Ford Escort Wagon that puts out 86 hp at
4800 and 100 lb torque at 3000. This Just isnt enough. I have thought
about putting in a 2.5L Ford Probe Gt engine in it. I figure that with
all things considered this will not hurt the fuel economy at all, will
not put too much of a strain on the frame, will not rip the carn apart,
and will fit into the cramped engine compartment of my car. In addition
I have calculated that the new engine alone will nearly have the 0-60
time from 13.3 to 7.1 seconds and reduce 1/4 mile by at least 5
seconds. I especially like the small size, high revs, and high power
output of this engine (167 hp, 156 lb/ft) and flat curve on
acceleration.
Tell me what you think and exactly what other components and work I will
need to do to make this project work. Any and All Details are
appreciated.
J. Forbes
In article <326588...@Sprynet.com> James Ballenger <balle...@Sprynet.com> writes:
>From: James Ballenger <balle...@Sprynet.com>
>Subject: More power, new engine, how to
>Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 20:16:21 -0500
As far as I know, the Probe is a Japanese car (at least the drivetrain is),
and the Escort is an American car. This means the drivetrains are not the
same size, nor are they mounted the same. I really doubt that it would be
easy to swap the probe drivetrain into the escort.
It will also have very low resale value, even if you do manage to complete the
swap.
My advice is to save your pennies and buy the type of car you want....engine
swaps worked fine in the old days when cars were made with big engine
compartments, and didnt have computers and stuff. Things are different today.
Steven J Orlin
In article <326588...@Sprynet.com>,
James Ballenger <balle...@Sprynet.com> wrote:
>I have a problem. I have a 86 Ford Escort Wagon that puts out 86 hp at
>4800 and 100 lb torque at 3000. This Just isnt enough. I have thought
>about putting in a 2.5L Ford Probe Gt engine in it. I figure that with
>all things considered this will not hurt the fuel economy at all, will
>not put too much of a strain on the frame, will not rip the carn apart,
>and will fit into the cramped engine compartment of my car. In addition
>I have calculated that the new engine alone will nearly have the 0-60
>time from 13.3 to 7.1 seconds and reduce 1/4 mile by at least 5
>seconds. I especially like the small size, high revs, and high power
>output of this engine (167 hp, 156 lb/ft) and flat curve on
>acceleration.
Geez. And people thought I was crazy for wanting to drop a built
383 small block into a mid 80's 4 door Cutlass with wire hubcaps.
Well, if you're really serious, I would suggest considering a
Taurus SHO engine (3.0l) rather than the Probe GT 2.5L. --If space
constraints allow. It will provide MUCH more grunt and turn
your Escort Wagon into a rice burnin screamer. The taurus SHO
(3.0l) puts out roughly 215 ft lbs of torque. Plenty for the
get go in your little wagon. (has excellent top end too)
As far as worrying about the frame/unibody... If you have those
worries, you shouldn't even be thinking about this project in
the first place. Just change the filters and plugs on the engine
you have and be happy. If you're going to go through the trouble
of replacing an entire fuel injected engine with a different one,
then obviously you want to beat on the car, and don't care if the
doors don't fit properly after 40000 miles of abusive driving.
Steve
James Ballenger
I have a problem. I have a 86 Ford Escort Wagon that puts out 86 hp at
4800 and 100 lb torque at 3000. This Just isnt enough. I have thought
about putting in a 2.5L Ford Probe Gt engine in it. I figure that with
all things considered this will not hurt the fuel economy at all, will
not put too much of a strain on the frame, will not rip the carn apart,
and will fit into the cramped engine compartment of my car. In addition
I have calculated that the new engine alone will nearly have the 0-60
time from 13.3 to 7.1 seconds and reduce 1/4 mile by at least 5
seconds. I especially like the small size, high revs, and high power
output of this engine (167 hp, 156 lb/ft) and flat curve on
acceleration.
> Taurus SHO engine (3.0l) rather than the Probe GT 2.5L. --If space
> constraints allow. It will provide MUCH more grunt and turn
> your Escort Wagon into a rice burnin screamer. The taurus SHO
> (3.0l) puts out roughly 215 ft lbs of torque. Plenty for the
> get go in your little wagon. (has excellent top end too)
>
> As far as worrying about the frame/unibody... If you have those
> worries, you shouldn't even be thinking about this project in
> the first place. Just change the filters and plugs on the engine
> you have and be happy. If you're going to go through the trouble
> of replacing an entire fuel injected engine with a different one,
> then obviously you want to beat on the car, and don't care if the
> doors don't fit properly after 40000 miles of abusive driving.
I do routine maintenance and have adjusted the timing & changed the air
filter assembly to a less restricting system as well as upgrading
mufflers, although the real restriction in the exhaust is the catalytic
coverter. This engine simply doesnt put out.
Thanks for the advice, but I have pretty much ruled out an engine that
large. The weight of the 2.5 L Ford would not really be pushing the
frame too much because the Escort was made with heavy 2.o L Diesels as
well. The 3.0 L SHO Ford would definetely be pushing it though. I am
not certain how much stress the fram can take but even with the 2.5 I
will have to reinforce the entire assembly. The 215 lb/ft of torque and
220hp of the Taurus engine I'm afraid would rip the car in two as soon
as I floored it. The Taurus SHO 3.0L engine also costs significantly
more than the 2.5L Ford. The 3.0L would not fit in the compartment
without serious mods either.
Anyway how do I accomplish this task? Or what can I do to rip out over
110 hp out of an 86 2bbl carb 4 cyl 1.9L Engine? Headers, new cat, new
exhaust pipping, new carb, new throttle body (are this made for lil ol 4
bangers?)?
TRAVIS ANDERSON
In article <54gvki$2...@happy.firstnethou.com>, e...@firstnethou.com (esc) writes:
>>
> When a friend of mine asked me what he should do to make his chevette faster
> I welded up a pair of bold on motor mounts and a tranny mount, got a local
> shop to make a drive shaft and dropped in the 2.8 liter 173 cid that I had
Actually, a 3.8 liter Buick will fit right in a Chevette as well,
with a few modifications. It actually looks right at home in the Chevette.
There is a Chevrolet "Eurovette" running around here with just this combo. The
owner put in a 3.8 Buick engine and a TH2004R tranny in his Chevette. He also
shaved the door handles and added a custom turbo hood.
This car is a real sleeper...
J. Forbes
In article <1996Oct21...@viper.uni.edu> ander...@viper.uni.edu (TRAVIS ANDERSON) writes:
>From: ander...@viper.uni.edu (TRAVIS ANDERSON)
>Subject: Re: Don't laugh - Know of any Chevette mods?
>Date: 21 Oct 96 21:28:14 -0500
I sure didnt have an easy time of putting a buick v-6 in a chevette-it was a
real pain! Now, a big block into an old truck is an easy swap, and just as
good a sleeper, and faster to boot.
esc
In article <DzCJI...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>, csn...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Clarence Snyder) says:
>
>scott....@mail.wvnet.edu (Poindexter) wrote:
>
>>I've got an 87 Chevette and have been wondering what can be done to give it
>>a little more zip.
>>I know it sounds stupid, but consider this:
>>It was factory rated at 65 hp. It's 1600cc (roughly 90 c.i.d.) Overhead
>>cam, and 9.5:1 compression.
>
>>Given hotrodders have been getting 1 hp/c.i. since the late 50's, I should
>>be able to get .8 - .9 hp/c.i. out of a Chevette without too much effort,
>>right?
>
>>I'd like to get it up to 80+hp and help it get out of its own way.
>
>>Suggestions? (please be serious)
>
>>Thanks,
>>Scott
>>@:{
>
>>--
>>http://members.aol.com/slogs - for the 10MB web space, OK?
>
>>htp://members.aol.com/slogs4/smurfs/ - definitely not for minors,
>>evangelicals religious wackos & those with humor deficiency disorder
>
I welded up a pair of bold on motor mounts and a tranny mount, got a local
shop to make a drive shaft and dropped in the 2.8 liter 173 cid that I had
packs cot a hole in the hood and proceeded to do the biggest burnout I
have ever seen a chevete do. The whole project only took 3 days.
ter...@foothill.net
tire "auto-loader"!
Unknown
Hey, what about the 3.8 turbo intercooled 86-87 engine? My god,
how quick would this thing be?
Easy 11's in a Regal, easy 10's in a Chevette? Hmmmm.....
==========TRAVIS ANDERSON, 10/21/96==========
In article <54gvki$2...@happy.firstnethou.com>,
e...@firstnethou.com (esc) writes:
>>
> When a friend of mine asked me what he should do to make his
chevette faster
> I welded up a pair of bold on motor mounts and a tranny mount,
got a local
> shop to make a drive shaft and dropped in the 2.8 liter 173
cid that I had
Actually, a 3.8 liter Buick will fit right in a Chevette as well,
with a few modifications. It actually looks right at home in
the Chevette.
There is a Chevrolet "Eurovette" running around here with just
this combo. The
owner put in a 3.8 Buick engine and a TH2004R tranny in his
Chevette. He also
shaved the door handles and added a custom turbo hood.
This car is a real sleeper...
Poindexter
Gee guys,
I really appreciate these ideas, but after all, it is only a $500 Chevette.
How's about some cheap bolt-on suggestions. Parts sources? Little hop-up
techniques? Carb rejetting/distributor recurving? I just want to get the
thing to take big hills at 65-70 instead of 45.
The intercooled turbo is intriguing though... I can already feel my
insurance rates going back through the roof.
The emissions computer died awhile back and it sure runs rich. How can I
bypass the whole EMC system and get the thing to run leaner?
Scott
--
http://members.aol.com/slogs - for the 10MB web space, OK?
htp://members.aol.com/slogs4/smurfs/ - definitely not for minors,
evangelicals, religious wackos & those with humor deficiency disorder
ter...@foothill.net
than the car is worth.
Terry Kelley
Although a Gen V 502 with 440HP and 512ft-lbs sounds mighty dangerous.
Rev. Poindexter
This is starting to sound like a 90's Anglia. Ungodly powerful, and for the
first 100 feet or so you just don't know where it's going to go...
Scott
--
The Church: http://members.aol.com/rvpoindxtr/subgenius/church.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Human alter-ego: http://members.aol.com/slogs/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Smurfs in Hell: http://members.aol.com/slogs4/smurfs/
definitely not for minors, evangelicals, religious wackos or those with
humor deficiency disorder...
David J Phillips
Ok. Enough is enough. If you really want a "bolt on" H.P. modification,
then stop screwing around with the smog, distributor or even a piston
driven engine. Get down to the nearest Air Force base and bribe one of
the flight line crew to snatch you up a couple of J.A.T.O. bottles.
These do bolt on, and will launch you into near warp factor speed and
give that little Chevette the proper death it deserves. Hopefully you
will be driving with a remote setup simular to the missile drones the
armed services use for anti-aircraft training.
*seriously, have you considered the amount of cash it would take to
just make that thing run like the big dogs? After all that cash was
WASTED on that thing, you could have bought yourself a real car to mess
around with.
Still can't stop laughing...
Dave
P. J. Remner
In a previous article, atl...@DavidP.reno.nv.us (David J Phillips) says:
>
>*seriously, have you considered the amount of cash it would take to
>just make that thing run like the big dogs? After all that cash was
>WASTED on that thing, you could have bought yourself a real car to mess
>around with.
>
Do not laugh. Those little f*ckers can MOVE when properly equipped!
I was driving on I-90, testing out my new tires and poly swaybar bushings
(they make a HUGE difference! By all means, upgrade to them!) and I
was getting off at some exit and the car in front of me was a blue Chevette
with two white "skunk stripes" down the middle. It had big-ass tires on
Camaro 16" rims, and hand-lettered on the back was "T & A Racing". It
sounded like a stocker, but when he turned off of the exit, he must've
heard my motor thumpin', because he hit the gas and he was gone faster
than you could blink, a really cool tire-smoking broadsliding launch!
He had that thing cranked around 130 degrees when he only needed 90,
and he kept it sideways *while* *accelerating* *like* *a* *bastard*!
I've heard that a V8 swap is a pain in the ass, a Buick 3.8 is hard to
do, but a stock 2.8 out of a Camaro is pretty easy to wedge in.
A mildly breathed-on 3.4 should be just as easy. Wow...
--
The "." in addresses is a delimiter just like a decimal. It's a POINT!
"Divine intervention is... unlikely." Worf sez:
- the Doctor of the Voyager "Assimilate *THIS*!"
Guy Anderson
P. J. Remner wrote:
>
> In a previous article, atl...@DavidP.reno.nv.us (David J Phillips) says:
>
> >
> >*seriously, have you considered the amount of cash it would take to
> >just make that thing run like the big dogs? After all that cash was
> >WASTED on that thing, you could have bought yourself a real car to mess
> >around with.
> >
>
> Do not laugh. Those little f*ckers can MOVE when properly equipped!
Agreed! Years ago, I think it was Motor Trend (possibly Hot Rod
Magazine, memory fails me...) that did an article on several different
Chevy factory engineering test vehicles that their development maniacs
built. One was a Chevette that had a fairly stock 305 wedged into it.
I can just imagine that the car was a handfull, even with just a 305.
I work for a pretty large computing operation, and we've always
maintained that some of the most frightening people in the world are
engineers with too much time on their hands...
--
Guy Anderson, Jr. | '89 Suburban 4x4 "National Vehicle of Texas"
Sr. Database Analyst | '78 Camaro "In progress... bye-bye old 305 -
CLR/Fasttax | - hello small block 400!"
"Opinions expressed here do not represent CLR..."
Bill Jenkins
In article <594klo$o...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aj...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
says...
>
>
>In a previous article, atl...@DavidP.reno.nv.us (David J Phillips) says:
>
>>
>>*seriously, have you considered the amount of cash it would take to
>>just make that thing run like the big dogs? After all that cash was
>>WASTED on that thing, you could have bought yourself a real car to mess
>>around with.
>>
>
>Do not laugh. Those little f*ckers can MOVE when properly equipped!
>
>(they make a HUGE difference! By all means, upgrade to them!) and I
>was getting off at some exit and the car in front of me was a blue Chevette
>with two white "skunk stripes" down the middle. It had big-ass tires on
>Camaro 16" rims, and hand-lettered on the back was "T & A Racing". It
>sounded like a stocker, but when he turned off of the exit, he must've
>heard my motor thumpin', because he hit the gas and he was gone faster
>than you could blink, a really cool tire-smoking broadsliding launch!
>He had that thing cranked around 130 degrees when he only needed 90,
>and he kept it sideways *while* *accelerating* *like* *a* *bastard*!
>
>I've heard that a V8 swap is a pain in the ass, a Buick 3.8 is hard to
>do, but a stock 2.8 out of a Camaro is pretty easy to wedge in.
>A mildly breathed-on 3.4 should be just as easy. Wow...
>
>
little bugger in the low 13's! Doesn't say a thing about hand-grenade-itis,
though.
P. J. Remner
In a previous article, Guy_An...@CLR.com (Guy Anderson) says:
>
>Agreed! Years ago, I think it was Motor Trend (possibly Hot Rod
>Magazine, memory fails me...) that did an article on several different
>Chevy factory engineering test vehicles that their development maniacs
>built. One was a Chevette that had a fairly stock 305 wedged into it.
>I can just imagine that the car was a handfull, even with just a 305.
>
>I work for a pretty large computing operation, and we've always
>maintained that some of the most frightening people in the world are
>engineers with too much time on their hands...
>
I recall reading from someone who was an engineer/test driver for GM
in 1986, driving a highly street-illegal four-barrel 350 *Lumina*.
Front-drive. Seems that the torque steer was beyond scary and bordering
on the ridiculously absurd.
I want one!
As for the "most frightening people" remark... well, take a lot at
many older Chrysler products!
--
The "." in addresses is a delimiter just like a decimal. It's a POINT!
"Assimilate *THIS*!"
Irrational is in the mind of the observer. - Worf
Jeffrey E. Benedict
In article <32B6FC...@CLR.com>, Guy_An...@CLR.com wrote:
> P. J. Remner wrote:
> >
> > In a previous article, atl...@DavidP.reno.nv.us (David J Phillips) says:
> >
> > >
> > >*seriously, have you considered the amount of cash it would take to
> > >just make that thing run like the big dogs? After all that cash was
> > >WASTED on that thing, you could have bought yourself a real car to mess
> > >around with.
> > >
> >
> > Do not laugh. Those little f*ckers can MOVE when properly equipped!
>
> Agreed! Years ago, I think it was Motor Trend (possibly Hot Rod
> Magazine, memory fails me...) that did an article on several different
> Chevy factory engineering test vehicles that their development maniacs
> built. One was a Chevette that had a fairly stock 305 wedged into it.
> I can just imagine that the car was a handfull, even with just a 305.
>
I once read of a conversion kit that Hooker made that allowed a V-6
Chevrolet to fit right in. I guess it went like a bandit and was a much
more reasonable than the V-8 solutions.
The kit came with headers, a trans mount and it could be used with the
stock rear end if an automatic trans was used. As I remember, it was
about 600-700 for the kit, but it had everything you needed except for the
motor and trans.
Jeff
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Benedict "And on the eighth day,
Box 277 Ansel said, 'Let there be zones',
Chimacum, WA. and there were ten zones.
98325 And Ansel said, 'They are good...'"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
- Large Format Photography - ra...@olympus.net -
--------------------------------------------------------------------