I am doing a very unique swap from a 2.8 Multiport FI V6 to a 1988 Cadillac Eldorado 4.5L V8. I need to know what i need to make this happen.

ENGINE

90-degree, overhead valve, V-8, aluminum block and cast iron cylinder liners, cast iron cylinder heads
Displacement: 273 cu. in. (4.5 liters)
Bore & stroke: 3.62 in. x 3.31 in.
Compression ratio: 9.0:1
Brake horsepower: 155 @ 4000 rpm
Torque: 240 lb.-ft. @ 2800 rpm
Five main bearings
Roller hydraulic valve lifters
Digital electronic fuel injection

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Above are Statistics of the 4.5L V8

Info i already know:

Need new Engine mounts and different Sensors

Need New Computer but im not sure how to get one.

 

u will prolly have to fab engine mounts and u will a new transmission the 2.8 trans has a 60* bellhousing so it wont bolt up.

depnding on the wieght of the motor u may have to swap over to v8 front springs

depending on the size of the flexplate on the back of that 4.5 u may be able to use the speedway motors trans adapter plate to reuse the stock trans

in all honestly the 4.5 is a waste it makes only a tiny bit more power then a 3.4 that will be a direct boltin and get better milage then the 4.5

i love wierd swaps but this one is a waste, u would be much better off with a 3.4 or if u want to do an uncoomon swap a 4.3L motor would be much much better

 

Im low on money and i got this Cadillac sitting in my back yard and my V6 is down on its last leg. Im only doing this swap because im low on money at the moment but if whats being said is true maybe i should just find an old 350 to drop in it

 

You'll probably have a lot less money before the swap is completed. It will be cheaper to buy a V8.

 

thats still going to cost more then just replacing and or upgrading the 2.8
if u get a 305 or 350 u will need to change out the ecm transmission and front suspension parts

call up a few local junkyards and see if anyone has a 3.1 or 3.4 motor they should only cost about 200 bucks, hell they might even take a trade on ur 4.5

the 3.1 is a direct bolt in with the exception of having to resue ur 2.8 intake
the 3.4 u would have to reuse ur original 2.8 oil pan front timing cover and intake but use the injectors off the 3.4

in ur case just replacing the v6 will be ur cheapest and easiest option

 

I do believe the 4.5 uses the same bellhousing pattern as the 2.8

 

that would bring the cost down but the 3.4 makes 160hp and 200fltbs and is a direct bolt in. so 5 extra hp but 40fltbs less tq then the 4.5

i dont think its worth the hassel of trying to install that motor even being he has the engine already. id sell off the 4.5 or try to trade it for a 3.4 bolt it in and be done with it

 

Don't the 4.5's have a pretty bad reputation for blown headgaskets?


I was going to put a caddy 4.9 in my old Cavalier but after a lot of research i just stuck with a v6.


In your case a 3.4 would bolt right in and save you a boatload of time and money.

 

VERY bad plan.

Whatever you hallucinate that you will "save" by using that old turd, will EVAPORATE RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES when you try to hook an exhaust up to it.

The ABSOLUTE WORST reason to transplant a foreign motor into a car, is because the motor itself is "free". ALMOST EVERY SINGLE TIME this will cost more than just going out and buying a motor that fits without modification.

 

^Yup. If your only concern is money and to get it running, the 4.5 is a bad idea. You can find 2.8/3.1/3.4 on here and craigslist in good condition for $100. I saw one on CL for free, dude just wanted it gone. Spend $200 on misc stuff & tune up items, one weekend, and you've got a swapped engine.
A 4.5 from an entirely different car will bleed money on a ton of stupid little things.

 

As a third party in this.There are two schools of thought.

It's too hard if it doesn't bolt in and too costly.Seems there is more of that around lately.

Old school hot rodder who is confident in his mechanical skill level and fabrication abilities to get it done at all costs.

I do remember people telling Balwin Motion a BBC could never be put into a Camero..............................But!!!.

 

Gary,

The difference is this:

I wanna put this oddball motor in my car.

Why?

It'd be really cool .... OK.
I've got alot of money in this motor and I think it'll run great .... OK.
I know a whole lot about this kind of motor and I have lots of parts for it and alot of knowledge about how to get the most out of it .... OK.
I'm a professional car show entrant and I'm looking for something totally outrageous that nobody's ever seen before and I can win a "sq in of chrome" contest with .... OK.

I've got a dying car and no money and this some other random motor laying around that doesn't fit the car .... NOT OK.

Didn't know Baldwin Motion ever built any "Camero" cars. Never even heard of that. All I know of that they ever built, being a Chevy dealer, was Chevy products such as Chevelles and Camaros. What's a "Camero"? Got any pics?

 

First let's not let this get down to the petty high school yard non-sense over a typo.Fact is it reflects on your creditability and not mine.

The comment is it seems we all have slipped into if it don't bolt up,it's too hard.

My race operation benefits from Big Daddy figuring out the steering in a RED.His innovations is still used in part today.But people told him no way.The core of hot rodding has a history of "odd ball" swaps.

If this O/P wants to work out ways to make this swap work with his own innovations and save money,in the true spirit of hot rodding,I am going to be setting in the cheap seats cheering him on.If you choose not to,that's your choice.It isn't who I am.

 

the first gen Camaro was designed specifically to have the 396 big block installed as an option from day one.. some dealers would swap in 427's since they were a direct bolt in deal. then in 1969 some savvy dealers figured out that you could get 427's installed at the factory with a Central Office Production Order number- or COPO for short. this is where most of the "tuner" 69 Camaros came from- up to and including the mighty all aluminum ZL1 427...

 

We had a 69 from them

 

REALLY!!!!!??????!?!????!????!????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Suddenly I'm overcome with shame on your behalf that you can't read the label on the side of the car that's been around for 45 years now.

But that's trivial. The real issue here is, WHY the OP is proposing to do this. His "plan" doesn't align with his "goal" and therefore does not lead to success. The "goal" is, spend the least amount of money possible to revive his dying car. The "plan" should support that. The "plan" that most nearly does, is to get another one of the same motor that's in it now, such that it bolts in with a minimum of fuss and effort and changing ANYTHING ELSE. Furthermore, it's not like the motor he needs to put THAT plan into effect, is expensive or hard to come up with; he can probably watch the classifieds and find people throwing away perfectly good those, that they're just sick of. At worst he can buy one at a junkyard.

Now if the OP had come in here and said "I want to hone my fabricating skills"; sure, the Caddy turd might be a good exercise for that. Or, "I'm an old-school hot-rodder from way back and I think it's just cool to put together random car parts that aren't related and make them into a functional car"; then OK, this proposal fits that goal too.

But the goal of "My car is dying and I want to get it back on the road as cheeeeeep as possible"; NO. His proposal DOES NOT support that goal. That "plan" leads to HARD FAILURE of the "goal" of getting his car back working again for as little $$$ as practical. There's NO TELLING how many twists and turns that project will take, all while HIS TRANSPORTATION is DISABLED and money is flowing OUT.

"Cheering on" somebody that's shooting themselves in the shorts using their own limited money as the weapon and the ammunition, isn't who I am. "Hey y'all, that's NOTHIN! Hold mah beer and watch THIS!!"

 

Well,just another case of you taking a partial quote out of context adds to the creditability question..................and then the rambling about how you want to get back to the O/P's question is further proof you post for you OWN sake not EVER having any O/P's interests in mind.

Note to management.14,000 posts??.How many are of any real value for a archive and how many are just more of the same ruining yet another thread??.

 

When someone misspellls "Camaro" it doesnt exactly inspire confidence in the substance of their argument. Especially here.

Besides that, sofa is right. The minute you start trying to shoehorn an already bad engine into a car it didn't come in you iwll start hemorrhaging money immediately and it's just not going to stop. I would find a replacement v6 and call it a day. Will be MUCH cheaper.

 

Typo-typo-typo,typo,typo!!!!.Yeah-that's the part of the quote he kind of left out.Really petty and disrespectful,but as I said,just more of the same.

 

OK Gary, I'm all ears... explain to us in terms besides attacking me, why the OP's proposal is a good idea, given HIS goals, HIS situation, and HIS constraints. That means, not stuff like

or when the "I" is someone OTHER THAN THE OP.

Tell us why disabling his ride, taking on all kinds of unknown and unforeseeable mysteries, and spending unknown and unpredictable amounts of money on who knows how much "custom" stuff ranging from mounts to exhaust to wiring, is going to cost less and/or otherwise be a superior option to replacing his existing motor IN LIKE KIND.

And don't forget, tell us FROM THE OP'S POINT OF VIEW (fix the dying car as cheeeeep as practical), NOT YOURS. (or mine, or whatever words you wish you could put into my mouth and call mine instead of whatever it was I ACTUALLY said this time, the way you always seem to enjoy doing) And I'll go you one further: you can make as much of an idiot out of yourself misspelling the name of YOUR car as you want; but I ask that if you talk about MY car, that you please spell it like it's written on the side of the car.

 

You will probably abandon this project, part way through. Sell this motor to someone who wants a transverse V8 swap for their Fiero or Citation X-11.

As has been mentioned, this swap will cost you a whole bunch more than you think. If you are bucks down, maybe you can try to get that Eldo running. It'll probably be WAY cheaper than swapping it's transverse motor into your longitudinal Camaro.

 

Has the OP even said how many miles are on the 4.5? If it's less than 50k, I'd say it's a bad idea. If it's more than 50k, I'd say it's a VERY bad idea. I think evey 3rd gen should either have a SBC or an LSX. Putting a nice Pontiac V8 in a Firebird would also be acceptable.

 

Hot rodding to me is a life style.Nothing too hard to swap,nothing to costly because of a continuous developing engine swapping skills,nothing impossible.If the question is about trans adapters there are untold number of companies like this one out there:

http://www.transmissionadapters.com/index.htm

Costs are somewhat related to what you can fab yourself.

I've had guys make things look easy and cheaply.

 

There is WAY more involved than simply a trans adapter. This swap would require significant re-engineering. All fine, but the OP wants to do it in order to save money.

Here is the engine he is referring to:



As you can see it is transversely mounted in a FWD car. It's not going to just "drop into" a Camaro with an adapter and new motor mounts. What is he going to do with the accessories? Will the water pump fit? Exhaust manifolds? There is a buttload of work and money on something like this. All while various drop in V6 and V8 engines are available everywhere for comparative peanuts.

 

now i rember that engine, back when i was younger and i lived in va working in a regular auto shop we used to have those things come in all the time for headgaskets. that engine is a bigger pos then the ,crappy carbed 2.8 that was in the early v6 f-bodys

to the op even if u have the money tools and know how to do this swap for cheap , i highly suggest u dont do it

 

Yeah,I knew it was a FWD.I've seen some conversions on them before.

After the posts that have happened on this thread,my best guess is this O/P is long gone.

So my point is hot rodding isn't always what bolts together easily.In fact it is the opposite of that.

 

gary i think everyone knows what ur point was, it just really wasnt in the best interest of what the OP wanted or needed.

and hell most of u guys know im the first in in line saying hell yeah go for that oddball swap, its ust in this case it wasnt the best way for the op to go about it

 

I put a FWD engine in my '89.. the motor mounts weren't bad but in this case the accessory drive and all the small details would be the hard part.


at least i had compatibility with the older 60v6's for the timing cover and small stuff though.

 

Yeah I had one of those myself.... mine was a 4.9, but all the 4.x motors are the same on the outside, like SBCs... my wife bought it in about 96 or so, a 91 DeVille, we just got rid of it about 2 years ago. Had about 120k miles on it when she got it and over 300k when we sent it down the road for toasting the transmission (stripped the reaction shell or whatever it is they call it in the 4T60E). So I'm somewhat familiar with it.

Which is why I feel completely confident in predicting that it's NOT going to be a "money saving" idea.

For example, I don't recall there being a motor mount AT ALL on the side that would end up on the pass side.

I seem to remember the alt being down way low on the right.... such that it probably won't clear the steering gear.

The oil pan is shaped COMPLETELY wrong for going into a RWD car.

All the accessories are on what will become the driver's side of the front of it.

And then of course, there's always exhaust....

All in all, ALOT of obstacles to overcome, most of which will take either a great deal of ingenuity, or a pile of money, OR BOTH, to surmount; all of this WHILE THE CAR IS DISABLED.

For somebody with a play-toy project that doesn't have a deadline, AND ANOTHER CAR TO DRIVE IN THE MEANTIME, that might not matter; however that doesn't match the OP's description of his situation.

In general, this makes a pretty good example of something that might be "possible", might even be "interesting", but fails altogether to meet the threshold of common-sense logic for being A Good Idea.