Welcome to the all new Geo Metro Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are features you can't use and images you can't see. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: Join our community! |
| motor; 98 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 24 2014, 11:41 AM (1,207 Views) | |
| jimmeyer97 | Aug 24 2014, 11:41 AM Post #1 |
|
Fresh Fish
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have a 98 metro 3 cylinder stick if I take that engine out will it go into my 95 metro that has a 4 cylinder automatic |
![]() |
|
| Hanuman | Aug 24 2014, 11:59 AM Post #2 |
|
"The Almighty Grounds Cleaner"
![]()
|
yes. change out the engine, engine wiring harness, computer. the mounts between the 3 and 4 cylinder are 1.5" difference on the drivers side tranny mount. but the mounts are also different between auto and manual. you may need to make a spacer. remove flywheel, install spacer and torque converter |
![]() |
|
| jimmeyer97 | Aug 26 2014, 07:08 PM Post #3 |
|
Fresh Fish
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But will the auto trans fit the 3 cyl stick engine I have both cars so motor mounts will work will the computer work |
![]() |
|
| perfesser | Aug 26 2014, 11:26 PM Post #4 |
|
Elite Member - Former Metro owner
![]()
|
'95 is not an OBDII car. 98 is. That is a major difference!! Yes, parts will physically fit, but that's not where your challenges lie.
Edited by perfesser, Aug 26 2014, 11:27 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Cobrajet25 | Aug 27 2014, 02:49 AM Post #5 |
![]()
|
This swap is going to be more trouble than it is worth. Just find the right motor instead of trying to make this swap work. |
![]() |
|
| Johnny Mullet | Aug 27 2014, 06:28 AM Post #6 |
|
Fear the Mullet
![]()
|
Unless you really want the better power from the 16 valve engine compared to the 8 valve
|
![]() |
|
| Cobrajet25 | Aug 27 2014, 08:01 AM Post #7 |
![]()
|
True. But as far as Metro work goes, this is "graduate level" stuff. Plus, he is talking about taking the 4/A out of a '95 and putting in a 3/5 from a '98...not an 8V-to-16V deal. It would be easier to just find a 3/5 in the first place if for no other reason than the mentioned OBDII issue. Unless the car taking the 3/5 is a sedan? Were it me doing the swap, I'd try to find a '95-ish powertrain to swap in. I think it would be a lot easier? Edited by Cobrajet25, Aug 27 2014, 08:08 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Hanuman | Aug 27 2014, 01:08 PM Post #8 |
|
"The Almighty Grounds Cleaner"
![]()
|
" 98 metro 3 cylinder stick if I take that engine out will it go into my 95 metro that has a 4 cylinder automatic" complete engine wiring harness and computer from the 98 3. install in the 95. keep the upsteam 02 sensor for the 98, down stream sensor just secure to the firewall so it just reads "clean air" computer will be happy |
![]() |
|
| Hanuman | Aug 27 2014, 01:16 PM Post #9 |
|
"The Almighty Grounds Cleaner"
![]()
|
]Unless you really want the better FTFY JM granted i think the 3 cylinder has more low end torque than the 4 cylinder does Edited by Hanuman, Aug 27 2014, 01:18 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Hanuman | Aug 27 2014, 01:19 PM Post #10 |
|
"The Almighty Grounds Cleaner"
![]()
|
he never mentioned swapping the tranny's, just the engines. |
![]() |
|
| Cobrajet25 | Aug 28 2014, 12:11 AM Post #11 |
![]()
|
Soooo...a '95 3-cylinder automatic? Wow. I couldn't imagine anything more gutless, and I drive a Metro! |
![]() |
|
| Woodie | Aug 28 2014, 06:10 AM Post #12 |
![]()
|
Yeah, that would be miserable. That's why they never built them that way. And 35 mpg would be the most you'd ever see, long highway trip at 50 mph. |
![]() |
|
| myredvert | Aug 28 2014, 07:38 AM Post #13 |
|
myredvert
![]()
|
If roughly 30% (or more) less is more, then it does.
|
![]() |
|
| Hanuman | Aug 28 2014, 06:51 PM Post #14 |
|
"The Almighty Grounds Cleaner"
![]()
|
you misunderstand. the cylinders have more low end torque at low rpms than the 4 cylinders....once the 4 cylinders get a few rpm they quickly produce more torque. the 3 cylinders feel like a tractor starting out, 4 cylinders feel more like a regular car....no low end punch, but lots of higher rpm punch |
![]() |
|
| myredvert | Aug 28 2014, 07:30 PM Post #15 |
|
myredvert
![]()
|
I understood perfectly that you believe it has more low end torque. What I am skeptical about is whether or not this is actually true. Maybe the heavier weight, not comparing equal final drive/tire combinations or engines with equal compression/performance etc. can make it seem that way, but I would love to see a torque curve that shows the 1.3L torque curve having less torque on the bottom end. It's pretty much the same engine but with an extra cylinder to produce torque and hp with for a very small weight increase. It has 33% more cylinders, produces just under 30% more max torque - so what would explain it having less torque on the bottom end? Are the cams a drastically different profile or the ECMs that different in their fuel mapping to limit the torque it produces at low rpm? While I realize it's not impossible, I'm just interested in actual data and/or facts to support your assertion. Edited by myredvert, Aug 28 2014, 07:44 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Geo Metro Lounge · Next Topic » |


Welcome to the all new Geo Metro Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






9:28 AM Jul 11