GM 60 Degree V6 Engine in an Alpine

[Barry]

It is time to clear up some misconceptions regarding installation of a GM 60 degree V6 (GM60V6) in an Alpine.

The GM60V6 engine has several advantages as compared to the Ford 2.8 V6:

1. It is still in production and both OEM and aftermarket parts are readily available.

2. It is readily available with OEM aluminum heads, roller cams, roller tip rockers, etc.

3. It is readily available with displacements up to 3.4L.

4. It is available in both carbureted and EFI versions.

5. It has longer rods which is generally accepted as being good.

6. It has conventional exhaust port location (toward the ends of the heads instead of the middle) which reduces "hot spot" problems.

7. The motor mount pads are on the upper part of the block which means they are angled at 60 degrees; by some miracle, this matches the angle of the Alpine engine mount towers and a fairly simple "Z" bracket allows use of the Alpine engine mounts / rubbers.
​

The GM60V6 engine also has several dis-advantages as compared to the Ford 2.8 V6:

1. The longer rods result in a greater deck height which moves the heads slightly "up and out" and that makes header design more difficult with regard to clearing the Alpine steering system.

2. The conventional exhaust port location (toward the ends of the heads instead of the middle) makes header design more difficult with regard to clearing the Alpine steering system.

3. The OEM starter has an integrated solenoid which interferes with the Alpine steering system. The solution is an aftermarket gear reduction starter for a "staggered bolt 153 tooth Chevy V8".​

A wide variety of OEM exhaust manifolds have been used with the GM60V6 engines. Despite posts which may suggest otherwise, I am not aware of any OEM exhaust manifold that is compatible with the Alpine steering system.

If the Alpine steering system is not used, OEM manifolds from early iron-head FWD engines and some S-10 engines fit very nicely. As far as I know, none of the Camaro exhaust manifolds will fit. Fiero exhaust manifolds can be modified to work, but they are generally considered to have poor performance characteristics.

The transmission mount location is similar on all T-5's, so a transmission crossmember from V6 Jose and the use of a modified (drill two holes) M-II mount will properly locate the tailshaft in the tunnel and determine the front / rear engine location.

The bottom line is that putting a GM60V6 engine in an Alpine is not a simple undertaking. If anyone wants to discuss this further, please send me a PM with your e-mail address; I will be glad to share what I know and don't know.

 

[Chuck Ingram]

It is time to clear up some misconceptions regarding installation of a GM 60 degree V6 (GM60V6) in an Alpine.

The GM60V6 engine has several advantages as compared to the Ford 2.8 V6:

1. It is still in production and both OEM and aftermarket parts are readily available.

2. It is readily available with OEM aluminum heads, roller cams, roller tip rockers, etc.

3. It is readily available with displacements up to 3.4L.

4. It is available in both carbureted and EFI versions.

5. It has longer rods which is generally accepted as being good.

6. It has conventional exhaust port location (toward the ends of the heads instead of the middle) which reduces "hot spot" problems.

7. The motor mount pads are on the upper part of the block which means they are angled at 60 degrees; by some miracle, this matches the angle of the Alpine engine mount towers and a fairly simple "Z" bracket allows use of the Alpine engine mounts / rubbers.
​

The GM60V6 engine also has several dis-advantages as compared to the Ford 2.8 V6:

1. The longer rods result in a greater deck height which moves the heads slightly "up and out" and that makes header design more difficult with regard to clearing the Alpine steering system.

2. The conventional exhaust port location (toward the ends of the heads instead of the middle) makes header design more difficult with regard to clearing the Alpine steering system.

3. The OEM starter has an integrated solenoid which interferes with the Alpine steering system. The solution is an aftermarket gear reduction starter for a "staggered bolt 153 tooth Chevy V8".​

A wide variety of OEM exhaust manifolds have been used with the GM60V6 engines. Despite posts which may suggest otherwise, I am not aware of any OEM exhaust manifold that is compatible with the Alpine steering system.

If the Alpine steering system is not used, OEM manifolds from early iron-head FWD engines and some S-10 engines fit very nicely. As far as I know, none of the Camaro exhaust manifolds will fit. Fiero exhaust manifolds can be modified to work, but they are generally considered to have poor performance characteristics.

The transmission mount location is similar on all T-5's, so a transmission crossmember from V6 Jose and the use of a modified (drill two holes) M-II mount will properly locate the tailshaft in the tunnel and determine the front / rear engine location.

The bottom line is that putting a GM60V6 engine in an Alpine is not a simple undertaking. If anyone wants to discuss this further, please send me a PM with your e-mail address; I will be glad to share what I know and don't know.

Hi Barry
Nicely stated.That certainly should clear up the conception of using the
GM V6 as another engine to use.

 

[miket]

Excellent post Barry.

I was able to do it, and I have limited fabrication skills.

My choices was the 3.4 with a 2 barrel Holley.

To me, fabricating the engine and transmission mounts was the easy part. Particulary the engine brackets, which as you stated, use the stock Alpine mounts. I think a FWD block (which I have) may not be as easy.

Even mounting the Holly was easy, but that still leaves a lot to do before you can take it for a drive. And the Ford 2.8 would be no different.

But it's a rocket. Can't wait for spring. Then I'll post another video on youtube. There is one there now which I put up when I first got it running.

Mike

 

[V6 JOSE]

Mike,

You mention that the Ford 2.8 would be the same thing, but that isn´t exactly true. I can put the engine and transmission into an Alpine, in less than 20 hours. A complete running car takes less than a month. Try to do that with the 3.4 V6. The Chev 3.4 required a whole lot more work and expense than the Ford ever would, to get it in there. I really don´t care what someone wants to put into their Alpine, but you need to tell the whole story, so that the guys can decide which way they want to go.

I admire your efforts to convert your Alpine. You did a wonderful job, because you actually completed it and have it running, which others have had for more time and they still haven´t gotten theirs done yet. You now have a car that you are thrilled with, and that´s what it is all about. I don´t even mind if someone advocates for their personal preference, but lets not omit part of the facts, just to make our personal choice look better.

Jose

 

[Chuck Ingram]

Hey Jose
20 hours but then you are the man
And finished in a month.You don't say what kind of hours per day you would be working at it.
Many like myself I'm sure only have a few hours here and there.If we were lucky we could spend maybe 1/2 a day on saturday.
When I did my V6 I would get up early to work on it for maybe an hour before I had to go to work.Evenings were children activities.Work on the house and yard.
Sure in later life I could pull the engine and tranny in a couple of hours and take a couple of hours to reinstall but then thats experience.
I do think it is one's choice to do the whatever he wants and you do make that clear as you have stated time and time again.
Anyway it was a great primer that Barry has written and I for one thank him even if I never drive any kind of a GM product

 

[V6 JOSE]

Hi Chuck,

I claim that anyone who can weld, with my kit, can set the engine and transmission in the car in in twenty hours. The hours are up to each person. Most guys do about how you did it. A little here and a little there, but they all add up to 20 hours. The Ford 2.8 is the easiest engine to put in there, period. All I want to do is tell it like it really is, so that folks can decide to do what is best for them.

Completing the conversion inside 30 days is possible if all the ancilliary parts (modified radiator, driveshaft, alternator, etc. etc.) are there already and the installer has experience doing the swap. Jim Ellis did it on his Vader.

I´m not trying to be contrary. I´m just wanting for the guys to get all the facts.

Jose

 

[miket]

Jose,

I was trying to say that once the engine is in, GM or Ford, there is beasicallty as much to do. Oil pressure line , driveshaft, throttle linkage, rad hoses, fuel line, tunnel mods, speedometer, tachometer, temp guage.

I fabricated my own exhaust, and that alone was major.

Like Chuck I was only able to work a few hours a day, weather permitting. And energy permitting. But with no interruptions, and with all the needed parts and bits at hand, 30 days with someone else fabricating the exhaust for the 3.4 would be reasonable. Naturally the second time around would go a lot more quickly.

But basically I think that mounting the engine was the easy part.

Mike

 

[SDuncan]

I think the biggest advantage of the Ford engine is that the standard Alpine steering system can still be readily used which saves work and retains the original handling of the car. There are always other options out there, they just might require more work and more skill to get it done. For my limited skill set, I would feel more confident doing a Ford swap because most of the tough work has been done by Jose with his kit. Someday, I will prove my theory correct and do a V6 swap, just have to find a decent candidate Alpine first.

 

[V6 JOSE]

Sorry Mike,

I didn´t see that. You are right about all the little stuff that has to be done after you´ve done the engine install. The biggest difference is in the engine, transmission and exhaust install. My first one took me six months, two days per week and eight hours per day. I made several mistakes that I had to correct, and then had to correct.

When you do the very first of anything, you do a lot of trial and error. It took me about 364 hours to complete. Then comes the work of tweaking all the stuff, like carbs and other things.

In the end, it was all worth it.

Jose

 

[miket]

"In the end, it was all worth it"

Yes, this is absolutely true.

 

[miket]

Barry,

Since this is your thread, let's get back to your conversion. How did you deal with the steering in the end.

I basically followed the tech tip on the Tigers United and used a Midget rack and pinion. My steering shaft is MGB on one end, and Sunbeam at the steering wheel. Both use the same size shaft. I used dune buggy universals. They are compact and inexpensive.

Mike

 

[Jim E]

So a log style header will clear the steering? Sorry Barry I would rather ask questions here than PM

 

[Bill Blue]

Barry, I really thought you said the Citation manifolds would work but you did not like them. Unfortunately, all my messages of that era were lost in a data "transfer" so I cannot check. Am I hallucinating or did you actually say that and later found they would not work?

Bill

 

[Barry]

Barry,

Since this is your thread, let's get back to your conversion. How did you deal with the steering in the end.

I basically followed the tech tip on the Tigers United and used a Midget rack and pinion. My steering shaft is MGB on one end, and Sunbeam at the steering wheel. Both use the same size shaft. I used dune buggy universals. They are compact and inexpensive.

Mike

Mike,

I have never been impressed with the Alpine steering system and it makes engine swaps extremely difficult, so I decided to go in a different direction. I am still working out the details, but it is NOT a fronted mounted R&P setup that requires big notches in the front crossmember like the Tiger design.

 

[Barry]

So a log style header will clear the steering? Sorry Barry I would rather ask questions here than PM

Jim,

It might be possible to fabricate a log manifold that would clear the Alpine steering, but I think the performance would leave a lot to be desired. I am reasonably certain that individual runner headers could be fabricated to clear the Alpine steering system, but it would be even tighter than Jose's headers for the Ford 2.8 which barely clear. Since the problems and solutions are the same for both designs, my opinion is that the header approach would make more sense.

 

[Barry]

Barry, I really thought you said the Citation manifolds would work but you did not like them. Unfortunately, all my messages of that era were lost in a data "transfer" so I cannot check. Am I hallucinating or did you actually say that and later found they would not work?

Bill

Bill,

IMO, the main reason for eliminating the Alpine steering system would be to allow for a simpler / better exhaust setup. I personally would not use the OEM cast iron manifolds (at least not long term), but if the Alpine steering system is not used and fabricating headers is deemed to difficult / expensive, then the OEM cast iron exhaust manifolds from an early ('80-'82 ???) iron-head FWD engine (e.g., the Citation) or some S-10's fit very nicely and should provide decent performance.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the Camaro exhaust manifolds will fit because they turn outward and interfere with the chassis. The Camaro manifolds have a 1-3/4" outlet while the early iron-head FWD and S-10 manifolds have a 1-1/2" outlet. Other than the outlet size and the direction of discharge, all of the OEM cast iron manifolds are essentially identical.

 

[Jim E]

This may be a bit off the wall... how about fenderwell headers

 

[miket]

Barry,

I didn't notch the crossmember. I placed the rack as far back as possible. The tie rods were able to swing back far enough to meet the arms in the forward bosition, but were stressed when in full turn in either direction. So I had the arms on the rack bent slightly as in the Tiger.

If there are ackeman issues, they aren't notible. And I don't have bump steer. So I consider the modification to be a success.

Mike

 

[miket]

I was just browsing the 60degreev6.com site, and I see that in 2004 they configured this engine into a 3.6 for the Cadillac. It's a RWD and puts out 260HP. 100 more HP than the 3.4.

Can you emagine what that would be like in a Sunbeam?

 

[Bill Blue]

I was just browsing the 60degreev6.com site, and I see that in 2004 they configured this engine into a 3.6 for the Cadillac. It's a RWD and puts out 260HP. 100 more HP than the 3.4.

Can you emagine what that would be like in a Sunbeam?

Yes, I imagine it would be an engine bay full, plus maybe a little more. It is a 4 cam engine. A 302 would probably be an easier fit.

Bill