jmerber

Hey all! I'm sure I won't be the most popular guy on this site for saying this, but I'm considering dropping a 1990ish 6.2l Diesel engine into a third gen Camaro, and shooting for 35+ MPG.

Anyone have anything to say about how easy/difficult this is going to be? I am currently thinking of pulling the original engine and manual trans and swapping out with the 6.2l engine and manual trans. Anyone have any input on this? What am I up against?

Trying to do some research on this before jumping in head first. I haven't done an engine swap before, and since nobody else seems to have done this swap and written about it, I'm having a hard time finding any info on it.

Any input would be fantastic! Thanks!

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Pretty big project for a first swap. The diesel engine is very large (mostly tall). You don't have a chance that it will fit in the engine bay. This means a lot of custom work. You should also be forewarned that 3rd gens have the smallest tranny tunnel of any rear wheel drive V8 car that GM ever made. This means that most trannies that didn't come with your car won't fit in the factory tunnel. You would have to do a lot of body work on the floor of the car. And then there is the weight..... the 6.2L will crush the front suspension on your car.

And frankly, the 6.2L is a turd. It is a gutless wonder. If you really want big mileage and a diesel, then I would take a look at a Duramax. You'll get fuel economy and huge power potential. Again, there's going to be a lot of custom body work to get it to fit in the car. If you really want a diesel then I would trade off your 3rd gen for an early '70's Chevelle / El Camino, or something else with generous sized engine bay.

Atilla the Fun

I nearly did this swap. It's nearly as heavy as an all-iron 454, but not as big. It may require a cowl hood, but it'll fit. Your biggest 2 challenges are going to be the fuel system, and a custom exhaust system.
The DuraMax is what won't fit. nor will it get the MPG, and it is far heavier.
Now, the 6.2 makes 130 hp, so any 305 radiator is adequate. It makes 240 ft-lbs torque, so the 700R-4 is your best bet.
I have a 6.2 diesel with 700R-4 in my '83 C-10, right outside my window, and I have an '84 Trans Am in my garage, with no engine in it. So if you need any measurements, let me know.
I'd like to see you do this. I didn't because it's illegal. But think how people will look all around when they hear a diesel but only see a third gen. That'll be priceless!

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

I'm surprised the 6.2L is that light. I have a 7.3L PowerStroke and it is one heavy piece of iron.

AlkyIROC

Ever wonder why it's so light? Try finding a 6.2 without cracked heads.

jmerber

I've really not found many 6.2l's with cracked heads. Actually, I don't know if I've ever found one with cracked heads. The typical weak points seem to be the head gasket (probably due to warped heads from overheating). In general though, 6.2l's are great for what they were designed for: Fuel Efficiency. They'll never compete power wise with other higher tech diesels though... It's when people try to crank up the HP that problems start to show up.

So Atilla, will the 6.2l bolt in then? Do you know if it uses the same engine mounts as the 350 gas? If it'll bolt in, I'm not really concerned about the fuel system or exhaust work. I'll probably sub out the exhaust work, and I've done tons of fuel system work on my 1993 6.5l Diesel that I converted to WVO.

Also, what do you mean about it being illegal?

I really wanted to go manual for the sake of fuel efficiency, but automatics are way easier and cheaper to find... Can the 700R-4 be tightened up easily (adjusting shift points/TC lockup)?

Atilla the Fun

6.2s generally don't crack the heads, even with turbocharging. Their main problem is with the main webs, and that's mostly due to the outer set of main cap bolts being too short. But the only solution to that is complete disassembly, ARP studs, and an align-hone.
As I understand it, it is federally illegal to put an '83 truck engine in an '84 car. And while slightly older cars did get the Olds-based 5.7L diesel that some c-10 pickups got, no car ever got the 6.2 diesel. so, if in your area they have emissions testing every year to renew your registration, you may hit problems.
The 6.2 mounting is similar, but you may have to drill new holes in the crossmember to accept the 6.2 mounts, IDK. You may get by just keeping the 305 frame pads with C-10 clamshells. Also, you may have to notch and box the crossmember to clear the oil pan.
Going automatic is better for in-town mpg, and on the open highway it's no real issue. I'd suggest not doing a shift kit. I tried it, it's not the same fun as doing it with a gas engine.
Assuming a tire if around 26" O.D., such as a 235/60R15, You'd want no more than a 3.08:1 rear gear. That would give you the same result as my C-10 running a 3.42:1 with it's 29" tires. You might try a 2.73:1, especially if you do a lot of highway driving.
Sonnax offers a diesel governor for the 700R-4, you can get it from about any local transmission shop.
If it was me doing it, I'd mount up the 700R-4 just as it would be if it was behind a 305, and then bolt the 6.2 to that first, letting that dictate the positioning of the engine.
Lastly, I was too tired to think of this last night, but plan on replacing your vacuum brake booster with the hydroboost.

3rdgenmaro

iTrader: (9)

five7kid educated me on the "illegal" part

It basically boils down to like Atilla mentioned, the 6.2 diesel was never emission stamped for use in a passenger car.

Neither was the vortec engines. But a lot of people run them.

I really hope you get this worked out and running. Id love to see this happen. Definately do your best at documenting everything here and keeping us updated with pics.

jmerber

Sweet! Thanks so much guys! I found some info on another site last night that says that both the 6.5l and the 6.2l diesel engines use standard SBC engine mounts! If whoever said that knows what they're talking about, I'm stoked.

I'm definitely thinking I'm going to give this a go... Have a lead on a 1990 donor truck for only $400 (might be able to talk him down). So this August I'm thinking of trying to find a Camaro. Excited cause from what I'm seeing I should be able to pick one up with a blown engine for under $300! I found one that looks really nice for $200, so hopefully I can find one like that in August when I'm ready to start the project... Also, I have a friend that used to weld Submarines in the Navy so he's got what it takes right there also. This is shaping up better than I thought! Next I need to research what it takes to convert to a hydroboost system... Yeah I'm a rookie at this, but excited.

If anyone has any more info/things to think about on this let me know! Once I start this, I will definitely keep a blog on the project!

Atilla the Fun

This is a bit off topic, but doing the vortec thing can get Air Resources Board approval in Cali. IF you do external EGR, because you're still making the burn more efficient, which satisfies the mandate of "nothing that increases emissions"
The 6.2 diesel certainly cannot run as clean as any third gen. is required to.
now I'll be happy to get back to the topic at hand

Atilla the Fun

If you get a complete 1990 truck, it should have the hydroboost. You'll need to keep your car's brake master cylinder, but use that hydraulic booster in place of the car's vacuum booster.
I'll try to measure the mounts as best I can without removing the engine from my truck, and I have some pics of a bare block, I'll post something tomorrow or this evening.

jmerber

What do you mean "The Vortec thing"? This swap is going to be all about efficiency meeting style (with some performance on the side of course). Just curious because it seems to me that a more efficient burn would increase efficiency. lol Duh...

jmerber

You are AWESOME! Thanks!

ghettocruiser

iTrader: (4)

A guy over on LS1tech put a duramax ( i think) into his 93-97 camaro. Had good success too. I think he is running a rear mount turbo also. If it fits in there...it'll fit in a thirdgen. Do a search over there to see his thread and pictures.

J.

Klortho

The 6.2 in my '85 truck uses the same clamshell mounts that the gas engines do, you might even be able to get away with using a set of BBC headers since the exhaust port design on the heads is setup like a BBC instead of a SBC. Fuel system shouldn't be bad since it has a lift pump on the block, in the same location as a gas motor, that goes to the injection pump (through a filter/water seperator). Atilla may be right on the hood, my breather sits rather high (I'm using the J-code non egr intake).

35mpg....may be pushing it a bit but maybe possible since the car weighs a litte less than a truck does. My '85 with the 6.2, 3-speed with OD transmission and 3.23 gears gets around 25 mpg, but the motor does have over 200k miles and is probably close to needing a rebuild.

Atilla the Fun

Notice a few posts back, 3rdgenmaro pointed out that lots of people get away with doing vortec heads, which aren't specifically legal. I was pointing out how they fit into a gray area, but this 6.2 diesel doesnt. Vortec heads burn the gasoline more efficiently than pre-Vortec heads. a 6.2 diesel getting more mpg is a whole different aspect of efficiency. It won't burn 100% of the diesel injected without a wee little bit of propane being added. and that's yet a third perspective of efficiency. So far, noone has gotten a 3rd gen much over 30 mpg with a Vortec 350, and told us about it. Diesel contains more BTUs per gallon. Lets stop with these side issues before we get lost and confused.

Atilla the Fun

When I bought my C-10, the overdrive wasn't working, I didn't have the front airdam on it, and it had a shell on it, it still got 24 mpg. I have a friend who has an '84 with a manual and 2.41:1 gears, but no overdrive. With an empty bed, we've seen 35 mpg from that truck several times. The 6.2 diesel can get well past 30 mpg. The EPA hwy rating for my truck was 31 mpg. I saw a fourth gen fitted with a 5.9L Cummins, but the car was so butchered it could never be street legal, even if the diesel conversion could be. It was dark green. If you want to try headers, I'd think of getting the Hookers, but the primaries are so huge for this app. Stans Headers makes headers for 6.2 diesels in pickups, but there's no chance of them helping you. But Stans could probably provide just the flanges. That might help you.

Atilla the Fun

If I attached it right, this pic shows the 6.2 mounting pads do look just like the SBC pads.
Tomorrow I'll post a measurement for the distance from the mount centerline to the rear face of the block, so we can compare it to the SBC measurement.

jmerber

I talked to a guy at a trans' shop today, and he doesn't think for my application I'd need to change anything on the transmission, I could just use the trans that comes with the gas 305. He seemed to think the 6.2l would control it's shift points and all just like the 305, and I wouldn't even need to change anything else. He was going to do some research on that though and get back to me in a week.

Yeah let me know what you find on those motor mounts. It'd be beyond fantastic if the distance from the engine mounts to the rear face of the block were the same! Haha... If it is, then my only concern is the oil pan. And I don't care about needing a cowl hood. That's way cool by my book.

Klortho

The oil pan could be the only problem since it holds 10 quarts of oil, and I wouldn't change it to carry any less than that.

ghettocruiser

iTrader: (4)

Anyone look up the fourth gen car? Thats an LT1 car... SBC mounts. LOTS of your questions will be answered if you look into his car. Here....Ill help.

Its a 6.5L...

This is NOT an easy swap, or a swap for the faint hearted. You'll be doing a lot of modifications to make things work. But its certainly doable. Also...you'll have more room to work with, because you wont be dealing with the forward cowl design of the 4th gen cars.

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/appear...el-camaro.html

Here's another thread over at a diesel site.

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=297673

You might have to sign up...but if you are serious about the swap, you'd probably want to post on a forum like that anyway for diesel info.

J.

jmerber

Yes I have read about that swap, although I don't think it'd be as difficult as it was for him. For one I wouldn't use the 6.5l turbo, so the turbo wouldn't be a problem, plus I'd be using a v8 car to begin with instead of a v6 car, and I would have to think the third gen camaro has got to have more space under the hood. So I didn't really take as much more than a really interesting read.

The oil pan is what I'm guessing will be the main headache. Looking forward to hearing from Atilla about his measurements on the engine mounts, and praying they match the 350!

Atilla the Fun

Hey folks, something came up today, so no measurement until tomorrow. But I will get it. And not just to protect my good name. Anyway, there have been at least 2 dramatically different oil pans used on the 6.2s, I'll also get some measurements of that tomorrow. Mine is the style that looks like it could work. I'll get a pic. I'm pretty sure mine doesn't take 10 quarts. But it's last oil change was nearly 2 years ago, so my memory isn't exact on something I barely cared about. It wasn't mine then, and it was parked a month after that oil change.

jmerber

Oh don't worry about it, I'm really grateful for someone who has ready access to a 6.2 and trans am frame who's willing to do the measurements for me! I should read up on oil pans and why different ones were different. I wonder if they're interchangeable... Hmm...

Atilla the Fun

I have pics. But first, the measurements. The pan probably does hold 10 quarts after all. and you probably will need to notch, box and weld the crossmember under the engine, to clear the sump of this pan. From the rear of the pan, to the point where it's high enough to go over the crossmember, is about 13". And from the rear face of the block, to the center of the bottom bolt for the mounts, is about 16". The oil pan sump is about 10" deep.
Now, on to the pics. The first was shot from behind the driver side front wheel.

Atilla the Fun

Atilla the Fun

Atilla the Fun

Atilla the Fun

Those last 2 pics would be more helpful if we had some identical pics of a SBC C-10 to compare them against. Fortunately, I can do that, maybe even today.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

While you're at it, why settle for a 6.2? The 6.5 is a much better engine. I've got the 6.5 turbo in a '95 Silverado 2500HD, love the thing. Had 284k miles on it when I got it a couple of years ago, over 300k now. Weighs 5600 lb empty, mileage isn't like some are claiming above, but I haven't done anything to try to improve it, either. It'll pull away from a stoplight with authority, and the acceleration when the speed limit goes from 65 to 75 MPH is like nothing else I've ever driven.

Oh, the pan on my 6.5 TD holds 7 quarts, plus the filter.

Atilla the Fun

Okay, how about some measurements of your pan?
And the 6.5 would be better if it wasn't so crack prone, especially the blocks and heads, and if it could equal the 6.2 for MPG.
BTW, if you're geared for less than 65 mph at 1800 rpm, you're geared wrong. And if you're exceeding 65 mph, you're killing your mileage.
And if you're impressed by how the 6.5TD gets from 65 to 75, go get a ride in a 2.73:1-geared '95 Z28 convertible automatic with a Hypertech flash in it, and a B&M TorkMaster 2400. I humiliated DuraMax, PowerJoke and Cummins pickups all the time.

Atilla the Fun

Okay, C-10 exhaust manifolds are different than third gen versions, but this comparison will let you compare engine widths in a more visual way than just numbers.

Atilla the Fun

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I'll try to get a shot of the pan with measurements.

Cracked heads are always the result of overheating. Keep it below 210 degrees, you won't have any problems. If you have problems keeping it below 210 degrees, the later water pump and thermostat arrangement cure that.

Mine has 4.56 gears, so it's well above 1800 at 65 MPH. I only go above 65 when time constraints dictate.

Atilla the Fun

I thought you had to order a gas engine to get the 4.56:1 option, and 4.10:1 was the maximum option for diesel. Anyway, I got bored, and spent 10 seconds on my calculator. Let's assume you have a 4L80E, and that you're running either 235/85R16 or 265/75R16 tires. Now, if you were doing enough travelling to justify the cost, and if you fitted a Gear Vendors, you could be cruising at 1830 rpm at 65 mph.
Diesel engines inherently do best mpg at 1800 rpm. If not, there's a gross mismatch in the vehicle. 1800 at 70 is good for most pickups that run empty alot. Stock DuraMaxes do 72-73 at 1800, but they spool up alot, so that's not ideal. I've done too much seat time in those.
In a third gen 6.2, 1800 at 70 is where I'd start, gearing and tire size permitting, and I'd try 1800 at 75 before calling it finalized.

Klortho

Now mine has the New Process A833 with a .73 OD in it, with 3.08 gears and 255/70/15's on it, what would that equal out to be Atilla? That may get him closer to what gear to run

jmerber

Yeah the 6.2l Diesel has a higher compression ratio, and I don't want to bother with trying to shoehorn a turbo under the hood also. I think I'll have enough trouble just fitting the plain 6.2l Diesel in there.

Today I found an '83 T-Top Berlinetta for $250 with the 700r4 Trans and no engine, but it's a good 130 miles away. Too far for me to justify picking it up this far in advance. I think I'll continue to wait until August unless anyone out there is driving from Odessa, WA to Moscow, ID and would be willing to haul it for cheap??

I'm going to do some measurements on my 6.5l tomorrow if I get the time, since that's the same size as the 6.2l.

I figure people fit the 454 in camaro's, so the 6.2l's gotta fit!

Atilla the Fun

Are you kidding? $250 is a steal! By August, the same car will be bringing $750, plus gas prices will be even higher. How can you even think of passing on this one?

Klortho, Your combo is 1803 at 69, but 255/70s don't belong under a third gen.
If we use a 235/60R15 on stock 15x7" wheels, 3.08:1 axle with a 700R-4 gives 1792 at 65, or 2.73:1 gives 1788 at 73. If that '83 Berlinetta has the rare 2.93:1 gears, that'd be 1784 at 68.
Redoing it for 245/50 tires on '85-92 16x8" wheels, 3.08:1 gives 1792 at 64, and 2.73:1 gives 1791 at 72, while 2.93:1 would be 1786 at 67.

Klortho

Yeah, 255/60s are what is on my truck, it's a 1/2 ton, not a 3/4 ton truck, so it would be close to the 1800 rpm that the motor likes if he puts a 700r4 behind it with 3.08s.

jmerber

Well part of the problem would be that I'm in school so finding a place to store it over the summer could potentially pose a problem... And I'd need to find a car trailer to go pick it up. :/

Atilla the Fun

You can rent a car dolly from u-haul. Even figuring renting that, plus fuel there and back, it's still an excellent deal. Best to not get the dolly until you get there. Rental one way is usually more than round trip, but if you end up not taking the car, you wasted more money dragging the dolly for nothing.
Then you just need to figure out parking.

jmerber

IDK, for $750 I'm seeing stuff like this:

http://seattle.craigslist.org/sno/cto/1683332637.html

Is there a reason these prices would go up in the fall?

Atilla the Fun

Can't see it, it already sold. Prices are going to start back up now that the recession is ending and the economy is recovering. People will be less desperate to sell cheap. Besides, Berlinettas were luxury versions, and usually don't see as much abuse. Think of it as a $200 car with a $50 core charge on another 700R-4. Now it should sound like a better deal. Besides, for that other one to sell so fast, it must've been an absolute steal.
Get what you can, when you can, rather than be regretting it when you can't find anything reasonable. Down economies are always the best time to buy.

HF_monster

I think this would be an intresting swap. As far as the trans goes youd have to modifiy the T.V. cable to hook to the injection pump; which cam be a slight pain. You would also need to get a lockup kit that is switch operated (all this is assuming its a 700R4). Ive worked on tons of these motors if you can get the 6.5L same on the outside as the 6.2L but it has 20 more horse and a good bit more torque. the Hydroboost just runs off your power steering pump so thats easy with out the Dis in the way you can use that space to mount your fuel filter and water seperator. the only problem is you might need to replace the fuel lines with larger ones

Atilla the Fun

I don't see why there's any hassle connecting the TV cable to the injection pump. Just use the same stuff that GM built my '83 with. It uses a TV cable stock. Even the 6.5TDs used Stanadyne injection pumps, so nothing really different there. And the linkage goes under the intake manifold, so no issue there.

duckmanquacker

hows this build going? I've got some interest as well. also would a tubular k member help to clear the oilpans ?

jmerber

Well, I'm not going to start the project until atleast August, mostly working on the plans right now. I'm wondering if a dry-sump oil pan might be the easier route to go? I want to keep this project as dirt cheap as possible since it's my first swap and it's being done while at school.

Atilla the Fun

Dry sump and dirt cheap do not go together. If you have a pan-crossmember interference, just notch, box and weld the crossmember like everyone else does.

jmerber

Yeah. I guess my fear was that the engine would interfere with more than just the frame. Like steering and all. I really need to find a Camaro somewhere that I can look at and do measurements!

Atilla the Fun

I'd bet serious money that the steering won't pose any issue at all. The heater box thing could be a tight fit.