How do I change the password?
GM 2800, 3400, 3500, 3800 interchangability
Hello Guest
  
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog
  • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels
  • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests
  • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search
  • Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru
  • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Register!

CarGuru > Technology > GM 2800, 3400, 3500, 3800 interchangability 20 May 2006 06:01:11

  Recent blog posts: 
  They have birthday today: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Ìîäåðàòîð:

GM 2800, 3400, 3500, 3800 interchangability

Masospaghetti 28 April 2005 21:50:54
 Just wanted to know if the 2800 / 3400 / 3500 / 3800 were all
interchangable with each other, or if any of them are. Specifically, was
wondering if any of the latter would swap into 1988 Beretta with the 2800.
Add comment
Steve 28 April 2005 22:55:18 permanent link ]
 Masospaghetti wrote:
Just wanted to know if the 2800 / 3400 / 3500 / 3800 were all > interchangable with each other, or if any of them are. Specifically, was > wondering if any of the latter would swap into 1988 Beretta with the 2800.

I know for sure that the 3800 is completely unrelated to the others,
being a Buick design whereas the 2.8 and descendants are Chevrolets.

The 2.8, 3.1, and 3.4 (non-OHC) are all closely related, but not sure
how easily they'll swap. I think it varies from "drop in" to "start over
with a different car" depending on year model. I don't know anything
about a GM 3500.

Add comment
Masospaghetti 29 April 2005 00:34:28 permanent link ]
 Steve wrote:> Masospaghetti wrote:>
Just wanted to know if the 2800 / 3400 / 3500 / 3800 were all >> interchangable with each other, or if any of them are. Specifically, >> was wondering if any of the latter would swap into 1988 Beretta with >> the 2800.>
I know for sure that the 3800 is completely unrelated to the others, > being a Buick design whereas the 2.8 and descendants are Chevrolets.>
The 2.8, 3.1, and 3.4 (non-OHC) are all closely related, but not sure > how easily they'll swap. I think it varies from "drop in" to "start over > with a different car" depending on year model. I don't know anything > about a GM 3500.>

Thanx for response.

The only reason I had the impression they were somewhat interchangable
was because some of the models (Impala, Monte Carlo, Camaro) could be
ordered with both the 3400 and 3800.
Add comment
Nate Nagel 29 April 2005 02:16:07 permanent link ]
 Steve wrote:
Masospaghetti wrote:>
Just wanted to know if the 2800 / 3400 / 3500 / 3800 were all >> interchangable with each other, or if any of them are. Specifically, >> was wondering if any of the latter would swap into 1988 Beretta with >> the 2800.>
I know for sure that the 3800 is completely unrelated to the others, > being a Buick design whereas the 2.8 and descendants are Chevrolets.>
The 2.8, 3.1, and 3.4 (non-OHC) are all closely related, but not sure > how easily they'll swap. I think it varies from "drop in" to "start over > with a different car" depending on year model. I don't know anything > about a GM 3500.>

*does* anyone? I'd like to know for completely different reasons
(trying to decide between an Impala and a Malibu for a possible company
car; the Impala is available with the 3800, the Malibu is not.)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
Daniel J. Stern 29 April 2005 06:22:51 permanent link ]
 On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
*does* anyone? I'd like to know for completely different reasons> (trying to decide between an Impala and a Malibu for a possible company> car; the Impala is available with the 3800, the Malibu is not.)

Try
http://en.wikipedia­.org/wiki/List_of_GM­_engines
Add comment
Steve B . 29 April 2005 06:36:02 permanent link ]
 On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:16:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t>
wrote:
*does* anyone? I'd like to know for completely different reasons >(trying to decide between an Impala and a Malibu for a possible company >car; the Impala is available with the 3800, the Malibu is not.)



I have owned several cars with the 3800. They went to a plastic
intake around 96 that had problems with warping around an egr tube and
allowing water in to the engine wiping out the bearings. They claim
its a non-issue now but who knows....

Overall the engine is very peppy and other than the intake problem it
is rock solid. I don't have any experience with the other engines but
I would pick the 3800 if it were me.

Steve B.


nate

Add comment
Shiden_kai 29 April 2005 06:41:38 permanent link ]
 Nate Nagel wrote:
*does* anyone? I'd like to know for completely different reasons> (trying to decide between an Impala and a Malibu for a possible> company car; the Impala is available with the 3800, the Malibu is> not.)

It's pretty much the same engine as the 3400. It has another
intake gasket improvement, and they have gone back to using
an actual gasket at the intake manifold front and rear sealing
ends...as opposed to just using RTV. Externally, it looks slightly
different, but that's mainly just a different looking upper plenum
and of course, the lack of a power steering pump is quite obvious
when you look at it.

Goes pretty good when you step on it.

Ian


Add comment
Nate Nagel 29 April 2005 07:01:40 permanent link ]
 shiden_kai wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:>
*does* anyone? I'd like to know for completely different reasons>>(trying to decide between an Impala and a Malibu for a possible>>company car; the Impala is available with the 3800, the Malibu is>>not.)>
It's pretty much the same engine as the 3400. It has another> intake gasket improvement, and they have gone back to using> an actual gasket at the intake manifold front and rear sealing> ends...as opposed to just using RTV. Externally, it looks slightly> different, but that's mainly just a different looking upper plenum> and of course, the lack of a power steering pump is quite obvious> when you look at it.>
Goes pretty good when you step on it.>
Ian >

I guess I've always considered the 3800 to be a much superior engine
than the 2.8/3.1/3.4 family, is that your opinion now that you've
seen/driven the 3500?

thanks again,

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
Guest 29 April 2005 17:49:59 permanent link ]
 
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1>­ wrote in message
news:P­ine.GSO.4.58.­0504282217270.20823@­alumni.engin.umich.e­du...> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:>
*does* anyone? I'd like to know for completely different reasons> > (trying to decide between an Impala and a Malibu for a possible company> > car; the Impala is available with the 3800, the Malibu is not.)>

Thanks for the link. This is an interesting resource.


Add comment
Guest 29 April 2005 18:25:55 permanent link ]
 I know (or think I know) that the transmission options with the 2.8 and the
3800 suggest compatibility. Many of both were delivered with the damnable
440T4 Metric, which, in some versions, was not too durable.

Note that with upgrades, the 440T4 (later revamped and renamed) was much
improved.

The Turbohydramatic TH-125 could be used with an adaptor in many cases. (But
not in mine...would have required engineering a new motor mount
system..possible,
but not practical within my project)

None of the above speaks to manual transmissions nor to
electrical modifications.



Add comment
Steve 29 April 2005 21:10:32 permanent link ]
 Daniel J. Stern wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:>
*does* anyone? I'd like to know for completely different reasons>>(trying to decide between an Impala and a Malibu for a possible company>>car; the Impala is available with the 3800, the Malibu is not.)>

So in a Malibu its a Chevy (Tonawanda) engine, possibly built in China
if not Tonawanda. Whoop.

Add comment
Steve 29 April 2005 21:12:45 permanent link ]
 HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
I know (or think I know) that the transmission options with the 2.8 and the> 3800 suggest compatibility. Many of both were delivered with the damnable> 440T4 Metric, which, in some versions, was not too durable.>


Hmmm... I always thought that the 3800 was a B-O-P bellhousing pattern
while the 2.8 was standard shove-a-lot. Was the damnable 440T4
available in both bellhousing patterns like the TH350 and TH400 always were?


Add comment
Guest 29 April 2005 21:43:24 permanent link ]
 
"Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:OeqdnYC-D7uQ9u­_fRVn-qQ@texas.net..­.> HLS@nospam.nix wrote:>
I know (or think I know) that the transmission options with the 2.8 and
3800 suggest compatibility. Many of both were delivered with the
damnable> > 440T4 Metric, which, in some versions, was not too durable.> >
Hmmm... I always thought that the 3800 was a B-O-P bellhousing pattern> while the 2.8 was standard shove-a-lot. Was the damnable 440T4> available in both bellhousing patterns like the TH350 and TH400 always
were?

Perhaps. I don't remember everything I went through on that problem, but
will see what I can reconstruct.


Add comment
Guest 29 April 2005 23:06:00 permanent link ]
 
Hmmm... I always thought that the 3800 was a B-O-P bellhousing pattern> while the 2.8 was standard shove-a-lot. Was the damnable 440T4> available in both bellhousing patterns like the TH350 and TH400 always
were?

Must have been something like that, since the 2.8 litre V6
and the 3.8 litre apparently do not share bolt patterns.

The 440T4 was a four speed version of the TH-125(c).

The (E) version was electronic and could not be used
without all the electronics that made it work.

The 125C also fit on the 2.5 litre Iron Dukey version.

The link below may help.


http://www.advancea­dapters.com/acrobat/­enginfo.pdf#search=interchangeabilit
y%20of%20GM%20trans­missions'


Add comment
Guest 30 April 2005 21:48:04 permanent link ]
 How do you feel about the little 4 cylinder engine that is pretty much
standard on the Cavalier, Ian?

I think it is a 2.2 litre, but I don't know which one. They
claim 25/36 mpg for this setup.



Add comment
Shiden_kai 1 May 2005 04:01:44 permanent link ]
 HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
How do you feel about the little 4 cylinder engine that is pretty much> standard on the Cavalier, Ian?>
I think it is a 2.2 litre, but I don't know which one. They> claim 25/36 mpg for this setup.

Are you talking about the late models that come with the
Ecotec 2.0 liter engine? So far, they appear to be a great
little engine. Even the old pushrod engine was pretty decent.
It had it's little problems with the head gaskets, but other
then that, very reliable.

The Ecotec will probably be around for quite a while. I
believe that we are getting a supercharged Cobalt within
a couple of weeks. Should be interesting to see how that
goes.

GM has released tool kits so that we can remove and
install the sleeves in these (and the bigger inline engines
in the trucks) engines. Not that I particularly want to
do it, but it should make repairs to this engine cheaper
in the long run. Cylinder and ring problems are very
rare these days. All anyone really needs to do is the
basic oil changes, and engines seem to go forever
internally.

Ian


Add comment
Guest 1 May 2005 22:50:32 permanent link ]
 Yes, this is the Ecotec engine, Ian. Although it has nice specifications,
it is always better to have someone who works with them and knows them give
an opinion.

Are these wet sleeves or dry? If wet, has corrosion been an issue at all?


Add comment
Shiden_kai 1 May 2005 22:53:52 permanent link ]
 HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
Yes, this is the Ecotec engine, Ian. Although it has nice> specifications, it is always better to have someone who works with> them and knows them give an opinion.>
Are these wet sleeves or dry? If wet, has corrosion been an issue at> all?

All of the sleeved engines at this point are dry.

Ian


Add comment
Guest 20 May 2006 06:01:11 permanent link ]
 will the 3.1 swap with the 3.8
Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..


CarGuru > Technology > GM 2800, 3400, 3500, 3800 interchangability 20 May 2006 06:01:11

see also:
Approx MPG of 6-year old Mondeo/Vectra
SCCA-RACE: 2007 National, Regional…
GRANDAM: Daytona 24: Lexus hour 3 notes
pass tests:
see also:
cam belt tension
Please visit our Corporate website ...
OIL LIGHT

  Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .