the car is a 83 olds cutlass.

its a sbc 305, im gonna get a tpi setup off of a third gen f body.

my main concern is the bracketry, can i use the stock ones on there now? any other suggestions or anything i should remember before doing the swap?

i was planning on just swapping the top end: intake, fuel rail, injectors, harness, pcm, heads, and hydrualic cam, lifters, pushrods.

will this be a bolt on?


can i use the th350 tranny thats in there?

thanks


__________________

 

What's in the car now?

My biggest piece of advice is:

Buy a TPI donor car. You will need the harness, ecm, and all the stuff you listed. You will also need all the sensors like the knock, TPS, CTS, and all those goodies.

Assuming the car is carb'd now, you will also need to change out the fuel pump in favor of a high pressure pump for EFI.

Depending on what is on the car now, ther will probably be more.

 

Probably will want to find a TBI 4.3 Monte to get the tank and sending unit from, as well as at least part of the fuel lines.

The Monte tank isn't an exact fit in the Cutlass (fill neck is slightly longer/different angle) but that can be pretty much solved simply by bending the fill neck downwards.

The 4.3 (fuel injected) tanks are "heavily" baffled with a sump integrated, compared to the carbed ones that have one plate welded in to prevent fuel slosh front to rear.

I guess a GN tank would work too, but I suspect the same fill neck issues, and the rarity of them will make them less likely to be found than the Monte.

 

Is it even possible to put a higher pressure fuel pump in the TBI tank? I like the idea that it is baffled, but would a TPI pump fit in a TBI pick up?

 

Exactly the same size pumps.

There are different pumps out there, but I put a later cadillac one in my '87 truck (TBI) and it fit fine.

 

thanks for your advice guys, the car currently has a 305 carb motor in it now.

i never thought of the other tanks, ill deffinatly grab one of those, thanks for the tip.

a buddy has a very low mileage 305 TBI motor with accesories and harness and pcm out of a 91 rs. can i swap the intake out for a tpi and use the motor? im assuming ill have to swap out the pcm with a tpi one and possibly the harness. but is the rest of the motor the same?

for fueling i will use new lines and a efi pump for sure.

im not looking for insane power or anything i just want to get better fuel mileage out of it by going to efi.

appreciate your help

 

Yeah... both intakes are off of a small chevy motor so it will fit, possibly with a little work. The difference is in the center bolts on the intake manifold. Older motors have bolts that are threaded perpendicular to the gasket surface. The newer versions have the bolts angled upward more. All you will have to do is have the holes in the intake opened up a little to compensate. I'm not sure of the cut off date for the bolt angle (around '87 or '88 I think), if you get lucky there wont be a difference. You will have to swap to the TPI harness and computer.

 

While the motor is out, yank the cam. The 305 TBI cam is dinky. Try to find an LT1 cam. It is a roller, so it is a direct fit after you grind down the front dowel pin a tad (but that isn't hard).

Also, TBI heads aren't the best. I say use them for a short while. Keep the heads off of the 305 carb'd you have now. They are most likely 416's or 601's. Both of which are far more desirable than the TBI swirlies. Run the swirl ports while you port and polish the carb'd 305 heads up. Or, you can just do a direct swap, without working the carb heads.

The intake, like mentioned earlier will possibly have the angled center bolts. (Just for mention, the angle is 72°, versus the 90°). I wouldn't worry about that, though. An electric drill and a bit of massaging can elongate those center bolts to work on the carb heads.

 

wow, thank you guys soooooo much.:hail:


lt1 cam eh....hmmmm may as well throw in a lt4 hot cam naw that would be too much, or would it?



another question i had was, will i be able to run the tpi top end on the 83 305 thats in the car now? i was planning on using the 305 tbi block but now im worried about the ac compressor thats on the car now. so basically can i put a tpi onto a 83 block? i know i will have to swap out all the sensors, and cam to the tpi.

or can the accesories off the carb block fit the newer tbi block?

im normally a lt1 guy so i have no clue when it comes to the older blocks.

hope im not running around in circles or pissing anyone off

 

you're not pissing me off, naaah.

The HOT cam would be a bit much for an 305. I know a few people personally that have installed the LT1 cam in a 305 and gotten a bit more performance but not having to go through any crazy PROM setups.

Yup, the top end will bolt right up, with the exception possibly of the intake bolts, like i mentioned. The only thing that you will have to change is the distributor. The 305 carb setup you have now as a large coil-in-cap design. It's maybe 4" or so in diameter. This distributor won't fit behind the TPI setup (it should fit, however, behind the TBI). For TPI you need a smaller remote mount coil design. These are much skinnier and locate the coil elsewhere, where the size does not impede the mounting of the distributor.


Both blocks are Gen. I design. Meaning, anything off of your 305 you have now will bolt up just fine to the new engine, whatever it may be. Same thing with the heads. Your accessories, the heads (either your carb, the TPI or TBI heads), and the block are all interchangable amongst eachother and can be used without any modifications needed. The only thing to worry about would be the water pump. If the future engine is serpentine, you will need to swap to a standard rotation pump like you have on the carb 305. Serpentines use reverse rotation pumps. Again, the pump will bolt up just fine.

 

now that was what i was looking to get answered, thank you sooooooo much man. im looking forward to the swap and im sure everything will go well. thanks once again:hail: :hail: :hail:


thanks to all on the board that took the time to answer some of my questions. :hail:



as for the distrubutor, i was told it would fit, but i wouldnt be able to use the back plate, is this true? the back plate isnt a issue, its using the ditrubutor, its a new mallory hei unit thats only a few months old.

 

its this unit here:

http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerc...39&prmenbr=361

 

Well, my gf has a slight allergy fever, so I will be awake for a while. So i typed

When you get this new engine, despite the fact that it may have "low milage" it would probably be a good idea to break it down completely and give it new bearings and re-ring it. Give it new gaskets, all that good stuff. If everything looks good, there would be no need to have it balanced or what not. Assuming it's still a "good" block (no tapered cylinderes or what not), machine work may be avoided. Though, check it.

is what i would do, like above, just toss it on an engine stand and rip it apart. CAREFULLY remove the cam. The cam bearings can be reused if you get the cam out nicely. Pick up a set of rod and main bearings as well as a new set of piston rings. Some new freeze plugs never hurt, either. Inspect the balancer, make sure the elastomer ring hasn't slipped (the little ring that seperates the inner hub and the outer ring). A new oil pump and pickup would be good, too. The Melling M-55 is a great pump. Get the recommended pickup. A good fel-pro gasket set to top this off would be a wise choice.

As for the heads, new valve seals would be a good idea. Fel-Pro offers Viton valve seals that are the positive type that do not require machining to the guide boss. I have the part numbers around here somewhere i can dig up if you want. new springs, retainers (especially if thay have rotators, yuck), and new locks wouldn't hurt either.

Summit offers re-ring kits that would be ideal here. They include: Fel-Pro gasket kit, rod bearings, rings (either regular or moly). You can get the other stuff i listed, but thats optional. Depending on miles, you may not even have to re-ring it. At the very least, though, give it new gaskets all around (that includes the valve seals).

The basic idea here is to "freshen up" the engine. Note, if you do get new piston rings, you will have have to break them in. Not that that is a big deal.

 

Haha, that type of fitment. Oops, i was thinking vertical fitment.

Should fit. Granted, as you said, probably wont be able to use the extension.

Have you run the Mallory yet? I have one sitting next to me (that exact model) waiting to go in my car.

Do you have a messenger service (AIM, Y!, or MSN)?

 

wow man thanks a lot, yeah i was gonna refresh it for sure, i may as well while its out right

someone suggested corvette aluminum l98 heads for the 305, would you recomend that as well?

would you recomend a re ring? now heres something in not sure of, can i reuse the rings if i take the piston out? or can i leave em in there while i redo the main and rod bearings?

if i do new rings ill have to hone the walls right?

what compression would i be at with the l98 heads and can i get away with 89 octane?

the mallory came from a buddy, he really loved it but is in the process of swapping in one of my lt1s into his thid gen so i got his mallory as partial trade, the thing is brand spanking new. he had it on a carbed 350 and it made about 350hp.


my msn is homedepotsux@hotmail.com

 

how many miles are on this block?

If the pistons come out, i would run a hone up and down each cylinder. just enough to re-establish that beautiful cross hatch (the new rings get a "new" surface to seat to).

As cheap as piston rings are, i would just get new ones. Even the good ones are fairly cheap.

The 113 heads are nice, yes. if you can find a pair for a price, by all means, go ahead and get them. The compression won't be too different from what you have now, actually. Right now, assuming you have the LG4, youve got roughly 9.5:1 compression, more or less. The heads you have now are ~58cc chambers. The 113 heads are also 58cc chambers. however, they have larger valves (1.94"/1.5" compared to your 1.84"/1.5").

 

the blocks got about 120kms on it, so about 65-70k miles

 

I'd say hone and re-ring.

 

"sassyherbbassi" wrote;

I may be wrong, but I think that if you use the OEM third gen hydraulic roller cam in a 1st gen block, you'll need to buy retro-fit hydraulic roller lifters ($320 for the set @ JEG's,) because the 1st gen block doesn't have the valley bosses (it does, but they're not as tall as 3rd gen, and you'd have to drill and tap them) for mounting the roller lifter spider retaining system, of course you could fabricate some spacers to solve that problem.

The lifter bosses would have to be machined flat to accomodate the OEM figure 8 roller lifter retainers, this may cut into the cylinder wall which isn't a good idea, and there's also a possibility that because the roller lifter is longer you may not have the required depth after the bosses are machined flat.

 

i totally forgot about that, i remember there being a kit at jegs. wil those retro fit lifters be all that i need?

 

He will be fine for lifters. All blocks from the pre-LT1 (LT1 with reverse cooling) are interchangable. If he uses the 91 block, it will have roller hardware installed, no need for new retro-fit stuff.

If you re-use the carb 305 you have now, yes, you will need retro roller stuff.

Both the 305 he has now and the 91 block are "Gen. I". There are 3 generations for these types. Gen I is the common one as we mostly know. Gen. II is the reverse cooling LTx. Gen III being the LSx block. Its not a matter of this gen. x part fitting into that block. Like i said, they are both gen I. What matters is whether or not the block is machined for factory roller hardware. All passenger vehicles from post-87 got factory roller blocks.

I'm on MSN again if you want to run anything by me.

 

well ive just been notified that the distributor listed in my post wont work, because its vacuum advanced controlled distributor, is this true?

 

The Electronic Spack Control Module must be disconnected (brown wire quick disconnect near A/C) to set base timing. This is the same as disconnecting the vacuum line to a vacuum-advanced distributor. RPM will drop when the wire is disconnected.

 

so i can use it then? but i have to do a bit of cutting?

 

I don't see why you can't use the Mallory HEI. However, you will probably get the code 42 (EST or Electronic Spark Timing). If you can live with the SES being on all the time, then I don't see why not. As long as you find a vacuum source to run it off of and you plug it in correctly, the dizzy will function. As long as it gets the 12v power pretty much. After that, it's all in the springs and weights. Basically, you can set your own timing curve to suit your needs. But, again, you will get the EST code more than likely.

Unless there's some strange function that I don't know of....

 

Your distributor will function on your TPI engine but performance will suffer bad.

I'll tell you more why you CAN'T use a vacuum controlled distributor on a fuel injected car.

The ECM controls spark and fuel in a TPI car. If the ECM can't control the spark because you have the wrong distributor installed then it can't control the fuel either beacuse the spark and fuel calibration tables are matched together. Your new engine will be running lean at times and rich at times. You will not have good power either.

As mentioned before, you will also get a steady SES light.

 

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but a switch to an overdrive transmission would not only be a cheaper swap, you would get MORE MPG's as well. A 200R4 should be a virtual bolt in for that car.

 

Yeah, but TPI, different gears, AND the 2004R would be excellent

Another point that may be a huge issue are the gears in the car.

If this is anything other than an H/O (wouldn't be with a 3 speed thats for sure) the gears are going to be something ridiculous like 2.29 or 2.56.

 

doesn't the 2004r have the buick bellhousing, pretty sure it wont bolt to a sbc. besides that, a 2004r isnt half as strong as a 700. it probably wouldn't stand a tpi's torque for long even if it did bolt up

 

Nope, the 200r4 is very similar in dimensions to the th350.

 

as far as i know the 200r4 is a very strong transmission, thats what the buick GNs ran. and i was told the dimensions are the same as a th350.

the car currently has a th350, gears i do not know what.


if i do the overdrive transmisson then i would deffinatley have to redo the gearing as well.

thanks for the info about the disrtubutor guys, i guess ill have to get a normal one for the tpi. no big deal.

ill definatley have to think about the overdrive transmission part, thanks for the input.

 

MOST, 200R4's have a UNIVERSAL bellhousing. That is to say, they will bolt up to BOP and Chevy for sure, and possibly Cadillac (not sure about the Caddys however).

Cut and paste from Chevy High Performance Tech Articles:

http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/94038/

TH200-4R vs. TH700-R4

Those of you familiar with the TH200-4R may be asking what's the big difference? The obvious is the steeper First gear in the TH700-R4's 3.06:1 ratio versus the TH200-4R's 2.74:1 and a slight difference on the final drive with the TH700-R4 using a 0.70:1 gear over the TH200-R4's 0.67:1 gear. Other than that, many will argue that the TH200-4R is stronger and more than capable of withstanding a decent dose of horsepower, citing as proof its use in the Buick Grand Nationals and T-Types. However, most neglect to mention that while TH200-4Rs are still plenty abundant, the more desirable and stronger TH200-4Rs were only in production from '86 through '88. Then there are those who praise the TH700-R4s and proclaim that the internals are larger and added strength goes along with its size.

Who's right or who's wrong is entirely debatable. Both transmissions are strong and only limited by the amount of resources that go into them. Is it better to use one over the other? That's ultimately up to you. What we can tell you is that there are several manufacturers who specialize in either one or both. What we do appreciate about the TH200-R4 is the fact that it uses the same standard flexplate, the same 27-spline slip-yoke, and virtually identical dimensions as the Powerglide and TH350. The difference lies in the location of the trans mount. The TH200-R4 sits about 6 inches farther back than a TH350 would, but there are options to fix this. You can either use a TH400 crossmember that's relatively close to fitting, or you can use the TH350 crossmember by cutting off the mount and welding it to the opposite side of the crossmember.


More.......

http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/46278/


Strengths And Weaknesses

If you are searching for a 700-R4 transmission core to rebuild and install in your car, the best cores to look for are from ’88-’93. The first 700-R4s produced in 1982 were equipped with a weak 26-element sprag, an essential item that directly affects transmission operation; all 700-R4s were upgraded to a stronger 28-element sprag in 1988.

The main weak spot in all 700-R4s—even those built after 1988—has always been the factory Third-to-Fourth clutch pack. The factory pack contains only six clutch discs but, fortunately for us high-power hot rodders, a company called Altco offers an upgraded clutch pack that can go up to nine discs. Altco Products are available at most major transmission shops. By increasing the number of discs, slippage during shifts is decreased, creating less heat and extending the life of the clutches and trans. Due to the 700-R4’s heavier internal mass, it weighs more overall than the smaller 200-4R and takes more horsepower to turn.

The 200-4R has long been thought of as the performance underdog, although it’s not entirely deserving of such a title. All 200-4Rs feature a smaller input shaft and planetary gears than the 700-R4. The weak link in a stock 200-4R is definitely the small factory input drum. Both ACT Performance Products and TCI offer improved input drums that increase the transmission’s power-handling potential. While most 200-4R transmissions feature a dual bolt pattern bellhousing and will bolt behind any GM V-8, as well as some V-6s, there is one particular 200-4R that features a single POB (Pontiac, Olds, Buick) bolt pattern that won’t work behind a Chevy. They are easy to spot because they have only six bolt holes, while the dual-pattern bellhousings have 12. It’s relatively easy to swap in a 200-4R, and due to the fact that they have been overlooked as a performance transmission and cost less because of that, the 200-4R wins the sleeper’s choice award for automatic overdrives.

 

I don't see why you would need to address this unless the gears were giving you trouble. The 200R4 has pretty good gearing (OK, the 700's aren't bad either, but that 3.06 first is a bit much IMO), improving on what you already have via a deeper first gear and a better gear spread, so I would think you would be OK.

Trust me, you can find a lot of guys out there running a well tuned q-jet carb and an overdrive transmission, getting almost the same mileage as those with EFI. EFI's real charm is in driveability and versatility.

 

okay thanks for the input, so would you suggest going with the 2004r first, then seeing how i like it, then switching to tpi later?

one thing i do not like about carb is the early morning start up.

would you suggest the 200r4 as an easier mod to do then a whole tpi swap? if i dont have to swap gears then im thinking so.

but id like to swap to tpi nonetheless

my 79 TA even has a lt1 in it

 

If you have stock gears in it, there are HUGE gains to be had.

As I said, 2.29's or 2.56's are the norm. Even 3.08's are a step up.

A 3.42 or 3.73 axle out of an H/O, 442, or Monte SS coupled with the 2004R is going to make more of a difference in how the car performs than a TPI swap IMO.

Before anything I'd swap gears. A 2004R with 2.56 gears is a worthless swap.

Of course, your '83 is lacking the frame support for the 2004R crossmember, so you'd have to get around that, typically by cutting it off of a later car, and welding it into yours.

 

Although I would agree gears would be a must have EVENTUALLY, they can be costly as a good performance rearend is expensive to set up. There is nothing to lose and EVERYTHING TO GAIN by going to a good 200R4 from a TH350. The deeper first gear in the 200R4 will amplify your effective gearing with the deeper first gear. BOTTOM LINE: With a properly setup 200R4 and no other changes, YOU WILL launch better and pick up MPG's.

Quote:

Of course, your '83 is lacking the frame support for the 2004R crossmember, so you'd have to get around that, typically by cutting it off of a later car, and welding it into yours.

I am guessing you are referring to the crossmember? Its a full frame car equipped with a TH350. Guidelines to doing this swap are everywhere, including the links I have enclosed.

FWIW, I am swapping from a 3 speed manual on my Chevelle to a 200R4 for the simple fact that I see it as one of the best upgrades to start with. Front brakes are a VERY close second.


Dyeager, please keep in mind he is starting with a TH350 and NOT a 700R4. If he was starting with a 700R4, we would not be having this debate. I would stick with the 700R4.

 

So if you are going to find a 2004R (and a "good" 2004R is an H/O/442/SS/GN one) aren't you likely to find a performance rear already? Monte SS's are a dime a dozen, and IMO the SS 3.73 7.5" is about worthless to most people, since everyone wants the much rarer 8.5". Obviously people want 3.73's, but people that are serious about going fast in these cars (and I mean racing, not just a fun street car) use 8.5's or 12 bolts etc.

On top of that, I'd like to know how well someone can expect a 2.29 geared auto car with OD to fare? Maybe you have never driven a 2.29 geared car, but I have. It had a carbed 403 in front of a TH400, (1986 Cutlass as a matter of fact) and that thing was a DOG off the line. (was still a dog with 2.56's) I could hit 110 without breaking a sweat, and OD in that car would have been entirely worthless.

Besides, the 1st gear ratio is better in the 200 by .22, (compared to .54 TH350 vs. 700) while 2 and 3 are almost identical...somehow I doubt that will make a huge difference in a daily driver that doesn't see much track time. Of course, one of the "good" 2004R converters will stall in the range of 24-2800, which is much higher than those used in less performance oriented applications.

Well, while it may theoretically be a full framed car, it is nothing like previous "full frame" cars or trucks. However, that really doesn't matter, I *was* talking about welding the mount to the frame, which essentially lengthens the boxed front frame stub. Modifying a TH350 or 200C x-member sounds good, and would certainly be easier to do than weld the frame, but I find it VERY hard to believe that the mount on the tranny (using specs from one of the articles you posted) is 6" back from the pan.

It could be, but it's not, I just went and measured. It's about 4" before you would hit the pan, so I suspect you'd have to screw up pinion angle by shimming the mount to get the crossmember to clear the pan, and even then, it would make pulling the pan a joy to behold. Maybe someone has actually done the x-member mod, and can comment, but it sounds too easy to be true.

 

wow a lot of good info, and a lot of info to take in then i was expecting.

as for finding a HO 200r4, since this car isnt really a pavement pounder would a regular 200r4 suffice?

right now its just a carbed 305, and if i got to tpi the most id like to get out of it would be 270-300rwhp. nothing to crazy.

the car will never see the track and most likely never be raced on the street either, its a daily driver that goes to and from work and maybe lined up once in a while but not very often.


but are what you guys saying that going to the 200r4 with the stock gears will make the car a dog?

 

I have yet to find ONE for my Chevelle, though I was under the imression that all the performance G bodies got 8.5's. I know the 442's and the Turbo Regals/Grand Nationals did, butI am not sure about the others. The going rate for the rearends (used) for the two I have mentioned are $800 plus. People know those 8.5's are fairly valuable and they charge for it. I got my CZF tranny from a guy who had thrown it in a dumpster believe it or not, and yes, it needs a rebuild.



Then you are very fortunate in your area. They are not so common in mine.



I didn't know that he knew for sure it was a 2.29 car. That aside, they put these trannys in Cutlasses and such with 307's. While I will admit I don't know what rearends were in them. I doubt they were MUCH HIGHER than 3.08 at the most. These trannys went in a LOT of different cars. IF the car can't pull itself in OD, (a good point I had not thought of actually), there is nothing saying he can't just lock the converter and leave it in 3rd at cruise. He will still get better mileage than the TH350 and he can still go to gears down the line.



I didn't say it would make a huge difference, I said you would get a better launch. Perhaps I was incorrect when I said the gearing would crutch the rearend better than the TH350, but I stand by my other statement: HE HAS NOTHING TO LOSE. You're surely not gonna tell me he will get worse gas mileage with a lockup TC in 3rd are you? A good 200R4 is a better tranny PERIOD.

Sounds like you have this exact car. If so, then touche. I was under the impression that if 200R4's were available in this chassis from the early '80's ('82?, '83? ) to the extinction of that particular body style, mounting would not be a huge issue. I could be mistaken. The swap is pretty straightforward for my Chevelle, perhaps it isn't so for this particular car. I'd say at the very least, look into it. The 200R4's are good trannys, and I find it hard to believe there are so few options with mounting, but if dyeager has this car, then he knows about he mounting issues. I'd be willing to bet there are ways around this though. At least check out the links.

 

SS's did not, just '84 H/O's, 442's, and the '84+ GN's. (not really up on GN history so if I'm mistaken on the year, don't shoot me)

In '83, there was very little in the way of "performance" G-bodies. In any case, if it weren't a performance model, it was geared to get the best freeway mileage it could, (CAFE) at the least expense to GM. The 200C is still a much more common find in these cars than a 2004R.

Since this car is a 3 speed one originally, then yes, the gears ARE that numerically low. As a matter of fact, an '85-86 Cutlass Salon (nothing different from Grandmas Cutlass Supreme in the way of drivetrain power) with the 2004R had 2.56 gears. And that's with an anemic 307. So your doubts are way off base.

I understand you aren't familiar with these exact cars, so I'm stating facts that you proabably don't know, not trying to be condescending. You don't think 3.42's or 3.73's vs. 2.56 or 2.29 would make 10 times the difference of the slightly lower 1st ratio of the 200 compared to the 350?

Lockup third might net him 2MPG on the freeway, but then again, if this is an '83 with a stock TH350, (or a 200C) it's got lockup from the factory anyways. (TH350C)

The 2004R's were available in the G-bodies starting in 1983, the H/O being the *only* one that year, and until 1985, ONLY the "performance" variants got that trans. (GN, H/O) SS had TH350C until 1985.

I don't think that most of the 2004R's ARE that good. Pull apart a couple of the non-performance ones, and you will find PLASTIC thrust washers in place of roller bearings for one. I don't think that is an improvement over a TH350.

Don't read me wrong, I've got 3 CQ code 2004R's, I like them, and I have one in my car, but unless you swap to different gears, the true potential of that tranny isn't going to be realized in this car. And putting more power to a weak variant of a 2004R will still result in failure.

 

Yeah, but I wouldn't use the heads & cam.

I wouldn't re-ring at 70k miles. I would do valve guide seals.

Yes.


I don't know what applications that works on, but it doesn't work on a g-body as the crossmember & pan won't mingle happily. I have a feeling they didn't test that theory before writing about it.


I consider that "article filler" as opposed to "something that matters" since it would be 1-5 hp tops.


except 82-84.5 700s which had the same input size.


Try 10. The lowest 2 are shared.


84 Hurst Olds, 85-88 442, and 84-87 Turbo Regals. That's it.

83 T-type, 83 Hurst Olds, and various 84-up. The only 83's with the provision in their frame for the crossmember were the 2 mentioned. Nothing else got that in their frame until 84. You can weld that member in easily and it's now available aftermarket.