No engine swap section?

[Helirich]

It would seem like there should be a "engine swap" section on this forum. I saw in a "data sheet" somewhere that there have been a number of differnt swaps. Of course, many of those people may not be on here or don't care to take the time to post. But anybody that has any info on a swap could contribute. I don't know if it's proper for a newbie like me to suggest this to the mods. (Maybe it's allready here and I can't find it.)

Obviously, Josh and Nick could have their threads moved to it. They would be the hp kings. But I would be interested in all swaps. I specifically would like to know if any body has done a swap where they lost weight and gained hp. Doing a quick search on the net, I see a Subaru EJ2.5 is 50 lbs. lighter and 165-175 hp in stock non-turbo configuration. Can't argue with Subaru reliability. Has anybody heard of that swap?

[dn010]

The custom Deloreans/mods section is as close as you're going to get.

[Ron]

Maybe this link will help: Google (https://www.google.com/search?as_q=engine+swap&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=dmctalk.org&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&tbs=)

[Josh]

There is a restoration section of the forum, I dont feel engine swaps are mis-represented.

Ive went through this several times with the EJ, it is simply far to wide to fit in the frame. The valve covers would hit the fiberglass on both sides of the bay, nevermind the engine cradle portion of the frame that tapers inwards.
Im sure if you wanted to cut off the rear portion of the frame and the suspension that comes with it you could do something but its alot of work for an engine that is notorious for reliability issues. Sure the naturally aspirated variants are fairly bulletproof, but not much of an upgrade over stock in terms of power.

[Helirich]

There is a restoration section of the forum, I dont feel engine swaps are mis-represented.

Ive went through this several times with the EJ, it is simply far to wide to fit in the frame. The valve covers would hit the fiberglass on both sides of the bay, nevermind the engine cradle portion of the frame that tapers inwards.
Im sure if you wanted to cut off the rear portion of the frame and the suspension that comes with it you could do something but its alot of work for an engine that is notorious for reliability issues. Sure the naturally aspirated variants are fairly bulletproof, but not much of an upgrade over stock in terms of power.

I was wondering about that, being it's a flat engine. The fiberglass wouldn't matter to me, but I don't want to cut the frame.

[dn010]

If you don’t want to cut the frame then you’re pretty much limited to a 3.0 or B280F PRV swap. A lot of other engines require frame mods to some extent.

[CFI]

As Josh mentioned, the Subaru engine is too wide and not much of a horsepower gain. In fact, it would be much easier to bump up the PRV to 165-180 HP than to do that swap.

[Nicholas R]

If you don’t want to cut the frame then you’re pretty much limited to a 3.0 or B280F PRV swap. A lot of other engines require frame mods to some extent.

I'm going to disagree with you on that one.

One of the main reasons I used the LS engine 10 years ago was because it was possible to do without cutting the frame. Since that time over two dozen different LS swaps have been completed or are in process. The reason the LS platform has become the most popular DeLorean engine swap is largely because it doesn't require cutting the frame.

At the same time I'm pretty sure Henrik's VR6 swap didn't require cutting the frame.

So maybe you're limited to a 3.0, a B280F, an LS engine, a VR6, or other straight and V-style engines that have front sump options.

[Henrik]

... Henrik's VR6 swap didn't require cutting the frame.

That is correct. All that was needed was to weld new attachment points for the engine mounts:

http://deloreanvr6conversion.blogspot.com/2015/08/new-engine-mounting-points.html

[Henrik]

... front sump options.

Ah yes, that jogged my memory: We did replace the oil pan on my VR6 engine in order to clear the frame:

http://deloreanvr6conversion.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-donor-engine.html

[dn010]

I'm going to disagree with you on that one.

One of the main reasons I used the LS engine 10 years ago was because it was possible to do without cutting the frame. Since that time over two dozen different LS swaps have been completed or are in process. The reason the LS platform has become the most popular DeLorean engine swap is largely because it doesn't require cutting the frame.

At the same time I'm pretty sure Henrik's VR6 swap didn't require cutting the frame.

So maybe you're limited to a 3.0, a B280F, an LS engine, a VR6, or other straight and V-style engines that have front sump options.


I stand corrected. I was under the impression the cradle needed to be recontoured or the rear frame section temporarily removed but admittedly now that I think about it, I can't recall what engine it was that was going in - maybe it was the 351 swap. I just remember seeing photos without the rear section thinking it must have been done for a reason.

[Josh]

I stand corrected. I was under the impression the cradle needed to be recontoured or the rear frame section temporarily removed but admittedly now that I think about it, I can't recall what engine it was that was going in - maybe it was the 351 swap. I just remember seeing photos without the rear section thinking it must have been done for a reason.

I do require a few holes to be drilled for my swaps but it is very minimal, 10 mins with a drill, no welding and no structural impact.
If i wanted to I could revert everything back to stock with no issue, I do not like when a swap involves cutting the frame as the frame in these cars is very insignificant to start with.

Henrik: I watched your video for DeloreanWeekend the other day. It was really nice to see you explaining your car. Nicely done. I had just read the blog prior.

[Helirich]

I do require a few holes to be drilled for my swaps but it is very minimal, 10 mins with a drill, no welding and no structural impact.
If i wanted to I could revert everything back to stock with no issue, I do not like when a swap involves cutting the frame as the frame in these cars is very insignificant to start with

Years ago, My younger brother built a 350 on nitrous. I believe the hp was comparable to a modern LS. He installed that engine in three differnt small cars. In all three, the frames got twisted. In the Delorean, would I be correct in assuming there isn't really any big twisting force because of the engine bolting directly to the tranny/axle? You don't reinforce the frame, do you? I would think the "push force" is not so bad on it.

[Nicholas R]

On the topic of cutting frames, though Josh and I both have a pretty strong stance against cutting them up, that's not to say everyone agrees.

Here are a couple examples of where the frame was cut instead of sourcing a front sump option:

One from a couple years ago:
65944659456594665948

One that is a current Project:
65941659426594365947

Interestingly both of these are V6's which ordinarily one would think would better fit in the engine bay than a V8 like an LS, but in the end it really all comes down to what you do with your oil pan. The GTO front sump option for the LS platform is a defining feature of DeLorean LS swaps.

[Timeless]

Obviously, Josh and Nick could have their threads moved to it. They would be the hp kings. But I would be interested in all swaps. I specifically would like to know if any body has done a swap where they lost weight and gained hp. Doing a quick search on the net, I see a Subaru EJ2.5 is 50 lbs. lighter and 165-175 hp in stock non-turbo configuration. Can't argue with Subaru reliability. Has anybody heard of that swap?
I dealt with the EJ20 & 25 for years at my previous business. They are severely lacking from a reliability standpoint. I would never consider that engine for anything especially a swap.

[dn010]

I did a quick search to try and find what I had seen in the past and ended up at your website. The rear of the frame was removed in photos so I assumed it was done so for a reason. From your message, I'm guessing it was done just for ease of installation but really it isn't a requirement to remove?


I'm going to disagree with you on that one.

One of the main reasons I used the LS engine 10 years ago was because it was possible to do without cutting the frame. Since that time over two dozen different LS swaps have been completed or are in process. The reason the LS platform has become the most popular DeLorean engine swap is largely because it doesn't require cutting the frame.

At the same time I'm pretty sure Henrik's VR6 swap didn't require cutting the frame.

So maybe you're limited to a 3.0, a B280F, an LS engine, a VR6, or other straight and V-style engines that have front sump options.

[Josh]

I did a quick search to try and find what I had seen in the past and ended up at your website. The rear of the frame was removed in photos so I assumed it was done so for a reason. From your message, I'm guessing it was done just for ease of installation but really it isn't a requirement to remove?

It is very common to remove the rear of the frame as you describe, Many PRV cars have this modification. You do not need to angle the engine so much or lift it as high when removing.
It is required with most every swap unless you have the body off. I cut mine off and made a bolt on section with heavier steel (can share the cad file with you if you ever need. My car has been rear ended with no issues last summer! Thats as much testing as I would like to do haha.

[Henrik]

Henrik: I watched your video for DeloreanWeekend the other day. It was really nice to see you explaining your car. Nicely done. I had just read the blog prior.

Thanks Josh! The audio is terrible and the much needed editing non-existent but I think I managed to mention all the highlights :)

[dn010]

It is very common to remove the rear of the frame as you describe, Many PRV cars have this modification. You do not need to angle the engine so much or lift it as high when removing.
It is required with most every swap unless you have the body off. I cut mine off and made a bolt on section with heavier steel (can share the cad file with you if you ever need. My car has been rear ended with no issues last summer! Thats as much testing as I would like to do haha.

Thank you for clarifying Josh, I didn't really know why that section was removed. Of course, with only the measly B280F swap I've done, there was no need to remove this for me but I installed engine first and transmission later and not all in one. I hope an LS is in my future soon, need to get rid of a few other project cars first to make time! Glad to hear the slap on the rear wasn't bad and your custom section held up fine, I'd imagine the original steel wouldn't have held up so well.

[Nicholas R]

I did a quick search to try and find what I had seen in the past and ended up at your website. The rear of the frame was removed in photos so I assumed it was done so for a reason. From your message, I'm guessing it was done just for ease of installation but really it isn't a requirement to remove?


It is very common to remove the rear of the frame as you describe, Many PRV cars have this modification. You do not need to angle the engine so much or lift it as high when removing.
It is required with most every swap unless you have the body off. I cut mine off and made a bolt on section with heavier steel (can share the cad file with you if you ever need. My car has been rear ended with no issues last summer! Thats as much testing as I would like to do haha.

Josh is right; this is a modification I dont usually consider in the frame cutting/hacking category. I tend to look at it more of an improvement. I recall that on all Pearce stainless frames, they made that section bolt in as standard, and from the photos on DPI's website, it appears that their stainless frames also come standard with that section as bolt in:

659496595065951