SWAPING A PONTIAC 301 WITH A 1971 OLDS 350

IM LOOKING TO SWAP A PONTIAC 301 WITH A 1971 OLDS 350 INTO A 1979 PONTIAC FIREBIRD.IS THIS AN EASY TASK?DO I HAVE TO CHANGE ANYTHING IN THE CAR? ANY HELPFUL TIPS WOULD BE APPRECITED .THANKS

Reply to
LouLou
Loading thread data ...

sure thats not a 307 your starting with?

Reply to
ed

I DONT KNOW.WHENI BOUGHT THE CAR I WAS TOLD IT WAS A 301.I WAS TRYING TO FIND A PONTIAC 400 BUT I FIGURED THE OLDS 350 WOULDNT BE TOO MUCH OF A PROBLEM TO PUT IN.I WILL CHECK TO SEE IF IT'S A 307.WOULD THE 307 MAKE A DIFFERENCE WITH THE SWAP?

Reply to
LouLou

Please stop yelling.

Reply to
mst

Pontiac did make a 301 engine.

Reply to
NapalmHeart

and tell us what kind of car you're doing the swap in.

70's firebird would probably be easy if the mounts line up. A Fiero might be a bit more work. ;)
Reply to
ray

FIRST SHUT OFF THE CAPS LOCK.

Now. Could I ask why you want to do the swap. That 301 is a better engine that the olds 350. It was BUILT for racing. The 301 is actually a

400 that was decked and destroked to allow it to run in trans am racing. It is one beast of an engine when turned back up. Has a stronger crank, higher revving valvetrain and MUCH stronger block. In turbo form it will really get up and go. Had one in a '78 Grand Prix, man what a beast. bone stock it would run 120mph like nothing. Almost wish I never got rid of it but the frame rotted off in the back (repaired it with a rear clip) and then a deer decided it wanted a ride.

That said IF you still plan on the swap it is easy since they share the same bellhousing. The mounts may need to be moved forward depending on which mounts the olds had. Fuel system won't be a problem since they are both carbed.

Steve W.

Reply to
Steve W.

are you high? which racing series was a Pontiac 301 entered in? I wouldn't use one in a demo derby. If I owned a boat that needed an anchor... I'd use the 301 that came in my 80 TA project car.

150hp doesn't impress me in a 4000 pound car. I'm trying to remember how many bearings it had, but it wasn't enough. The airflow through the heads sucked too.

Ray

Reply to
ray

actually a

The net output of the turbocharged 301 (Engine Code "YL") varied but was generally cited as being 210 horsepower at 4000 rpm, down 10 horsepower from the mighty T/A 6.6 engine laid to rest after the '79 model year. Bolting on the turbocharger bumped the torque up to 345 lb/ft @ 2000 rpm, a 25 ft/lb increase over the T/A 6.6L engine. The compression ratio of the engine was lowered to 7.5:1 and was fitted with a derivitave of GM's Buick electronic control unit to monitor boost and timing settings. Maximum boost was achieved at around 3500 rpm, a little below the shift point.

The turbocharger was a grand idea, but the technology to make it work properly was nonexistent at the end of the 70's. As the newer high octance fuels were ave today were not yet availiable, the engine had to operate on substandard fuels (Sunoco 94 was and the like nowhere to be found) of 87 to 90 octane, and this would have led to severe detonation under boost if it were not for the ECU. By placing a vibration sensor in the valley between the cylinders which would detect detonation, the ECU interrupted this chain reaction by retarding the ignition timing and reducing boost pressure until the detonation was gone. By utilizing these computer controls, this process was repeatedly continued during the operation of the engine, attempting to keep the engine running at optimum performance all the time. By eliminating so much timing, the result was a none to powerful feeling from the turbo engine. With today's fuels, many owners claim quite reasonable performance and many of these engines have lived well beyond the 150,000 mile mark with little other than routine mainenance.

Reply to
Steve W.

ok, I get your point, you like the 301. I'll sell you mine, cheap.

0-60 in 10 seconds isn't a selling feature for me. :)

Didn't they also siamese port the intake and reduce the number of main bearings?

Hey, I like the idea of the 301 - low weight, short stroke... but the reality is they were slow then and are really really slow now.

Two of my favorite car designs are the 80 TA and 80 Vettes, but with non-stock engines... 1980 wasn't a great year for horsepower. :)

Reply to
ray

It's always interesting when people say "X is better than Y" when what they really mean is "For reasons entirely my own, and which may have absolutely no objective or factual basis, I prefer X to Y"...

...and it's especially interesting when they invent hallucinations and delusions to support their preference.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

I like your 1st inclination--using a Pontiac 400. It uses the same engine mounts as the 301 and would be practically a bolt-in job. Exhaust may have to be made up at a muffler shop, as IIRC the 301's had no dual exhaust, and that, to me, would be a must-have with the 400. Another thing: the 400's were a very strong engine, esp. when you consider longevity. And even a stocker, with its added torque, would please you with the before-and-after. Try and use the trans that came w/the 400--it'd be stronger than the 301's. OTOH: If you MUST go w/the 350 Olds, count on fabricating-obstacles. Anything can be put into anything is a saying I've heard all my life. But the saying should not be taken without caveats. IE, the 400 Pontiac would be much less trouble--all the brackets will lign up and be an easy, lasting, and powerful swap. Good luck, s

Reply to
sdlomi2

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.