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! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Two cars only time for one project.. for now.; Too many ideas roaming around this brain,would love some input from all you creative cats. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 6 2016, 03:09 AM (1,078 Views) | |
| espltd | Feb 7 2016, 09:35 PM Post #16 |
|
Tinkerer
![]()
|
"+ Evap system, fuel system all the way back back to the tank, probably a lot more, and you need the correct 2000 computer - can't use the one you have" So upon closer inspection of the donor car I m seeing what you mean about the evap system. The way its all tied into the gas tank and fuel filler would mean quite a bit of creative plumbing to say the least. Plus the need to use the gas tank from newer car, which although dimensionally measures about the same I also have a feeling its deeper thus would need some kind of shimming to make room. Still not seeing where the fuel lines are any different from the tank forward though As far as wiring and which year to configure as, I figure using all the wiring, fuse / j boxes, and even instrument cluster since it matches. All that together and Id call it a 2000. Around this neck of the woods the state referee smogs it as whatever the new engine / computer says it is. I guess all this doesn't really have to matter a lot since I could just register and smog it right now as the stock engine. In this county you don't have to ever smog again after that, or until you sell it. I d just prefer to have it all done right is all. Anyway guess I will take this one slowly and keep examining all possibilities before jumping in. |
![]() |
|
| myredvert | Feb 9 2016, 08:33 AM Post #17 |
|
myredvert
![]()
|
That's on me, sorry. I really meant everything in the back associated with the tank is different, and that's more than just the evap portion of the system. Even in the front end that will involve more than "just the engine." if the fuel lines are the same from front to back or can be tied into, grat, but each and every component associated with it and the evap system will need to come from the 2000 unless you want a permanent Check Engine Light. The differences in the OBD II systems and all that they monitor to determine when to run a test and what they test (and how it tests it) is significant. IF you were to do something like this, swapping the entire harness seems like your best chance. And there will likely have to be some modifications to the harness, as there are some components used to signal the PCM that are different from the auto to manual, e.g., the clutch position vs the transaxle range switches. If you're lucky the harness will have both connectors on it - if not you're going to have to do some harness modifications as well. There's the point, no one really "knows" much of anything, considering we don't have access to the documentation on the programming. Considering there is one year (and only one) that they designed a "dual purpose" ECM for one application of the 1.3, my guess is that the ECMs are different for many more reasons that just simple things. Otherwise, they would have continued making single ECMs/PCMs that are applicable to both. While it may allow the car to run, I certainly wouldn't confuse that with operating as designed or even running well. And as far as your "as far as I have read" scenario, that's a pretty interestingtheory considering the PCM can't know when reverse is selected in a manual transaxle. That's a function limited to the automatic transaxle and PCM by way of the transaxle range switch, which it will no longer have. |
![]() |
|
| espltd | Feb 9 2016, 11:56 AM Post #18 |
|
Tinkerer
![]()
|
Well thanks that definitely gives a lot more to think about now. Did not realize how completely more complex the late model 4 cyl is vs my 98 3 cyl. I know I sure wish the guy who actually competed this swap successfully would have gotten more into what he did with the Evap system. Per that earlier link all he said is that is that it ran fine but with the cel on. As far as the pcm getting a computer from a manual shouldn't be a problem, and I can't see a reason any 98+ wouldn't work for the application, they are all the same configuration if I'm not mistaken on that too. |
![]() |
|
| espltd | Feb 9 2016, 12:02 PM Post #19 |
|
Tinkerer
![]()
|
The really frustrating part is how little an information there is on all this. I can find little to no info on the whole Evap system in the rear, tempted to just drop the tank and study. |
![]() |
|
| ZXTjato | Feb 9 2016, 12:11 PM Post #20 |
|
bass heads
![]()
|
a properly rebuilt 3cyl and the 4:39 transmission ratio is quite ample output for a great feeling car. if i was in your place with what you have what i would do- get/rebuild engine to factory spec or better use a transmission form a later model 3cyl (4:39) ratio convertable hubs 13" geo rims or 14" GT rims with the correct rubber and a brown spedometer gear. use a lightweight fly wheel, be it a light geo one or a 4cyl one under drive pulley for that good pep feel rebuild the suspention, hit the KYB strut sale. this includes polyurithane ball joint boot from autozone, the factoy ones just are not good. i would also include some poly sway bar links. use sway bars from a sedan or late geo metro. interior- i would use some esteem seats given you can find nice ones, i would tear out all the carpet and re do the padding. budget dependant on type you buy, but new is better than the old sock smell. this is just me on that 4 door, i assume all this would probably be less that 1K and you will have one nice car. less stress and quick time vs 4 cyl swap i know im struggleing a bit with my blue 4 door in some of these regards. Edited by ZXTjato, Feb 9 2016, 12:14 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| espltd | Feb 9 2016, 12:22 PM Post #21 |
|
Tinkerer
![]()
|
Yea I'm looking at something along those lines as well, and a good 3 tech cam. Probably just use the seats from the wrecked car though since I actually like those and its sitting there. Its just, I really like the possibility of an mpi engine, and since gts are rare as can be around here.... much less a 94. Keeping the 3 its probably the rational choice though.: ( |
![]() |
|
| espltd | Feb 9 2016, 12:26 PM Post #22 |
|
Tinkerer
![]()
|
And I have considered doing the 4:10 trans in my 98 for a slight mileage bump. So that would be a simple change over. |
![]() |
|
| myredvert | Feb 9 2016, 12:48 PM Post #23 |
|
myredvert
![]()
|
Youre right about the little amount of (objective) information available. Best studying you could do is with the actual factory service manual for the 2000, and your goal should be to get all of the applicable systems into the other car. Can't have your cake and eat it too - the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (check engine light) is not "just a light that's on," it's indicating that something (or things) are very possibly not operating correctly. People far too often substitute words like "fine," "strong," "perfect," purrs like a kitten," etc. or whatever other cutesy phrases they think sound cool when the only appropriate description would be "runs acceptably to me," because they have no actual understanding of what running as designed (perfectly) actually is or how to measure/evaluate that condition objectively. It's one perfectly acceptable thing to be satisfied with the performance regardless of the things that don;t work correctly, it's another to make believe it's something it's not. for a 2000, 1.3, manual transaxle configuration, there can be only one (highlander reference? )... one correct PCM model of two posibilities, depending on whether the emissions system is a California or Federal system. 33920-52G0 0 for a 2000, 1.3 manual transaxle, CA emissions. It was used in 98, 99, and 2000 in 2 and 4 dr 1.3 manuals. 33920-52G6 0 for a 2000, 1.3 manual transaxle, FED emissions. It was used in 99 and 2000 2 and 4 door manuals. |
![]() |
|
| ZXTjato | Feb 9 2016, 12:53 PM Post #24 |
|
bass heads
![]()
|
i have not done that combo personally but im sure some one will chime in about the car being a smidge more weight. i dont see any issue as long as your drive is mostly rolling. my drive is heavy stop and go or flat out wide open speed, so economy for me is non existent. your 98 may see some good with that transmission and a frontal air dam, or a camback, or those wheel covers. tall gear, slick in thr air
|
![]() |
|
| freegeo | Feb 9 2016, 01:19 PM Post #25 |
![]()
|
I would check into that more if I where you. I know the ignition systems are different. 2000 I believe is a coil on plug system and 98 still has all plug wires. Wire harness would be different. Normally if you want to do something like that you need everything off the car you are taking the engine out of. |
![]() |
|
| espltd | Feb 9 2016, 01:53 PM Post #26 |
|
Tinkerer
![]()
|
I thought they were all coil on plug except the earliest 98s? Nonetheless you are right that would be an important consideration thanks. Ideally yea I would have a complete donor car. Unfortunately 98+ 4 cyl in manual are almost non existent in my neck of the woods. In 1 1/2 years if keeping an eye out I have seen exactly zero, the only parts one I've located is missing the engine and a number of other parts. Hence the reason I broke down and picked up this auto. Plus it was so cheap I couldn't really go wrong. |
![]() |
|
| gamefoo21 | Feb 9 2016, 02:32 PM Post #27 |
|
2 Swifts n a Turbo Sprint
![]()
|
Early 98 1.3L 16V SOHC engines have coils sitting on the side of the head where the distributor would have been. Late 98 and newer 1.3L 16V SOHC engines mount the coils to the valve cover. The G10 never got switched off the distributor system. The G13BB in 1998 and newer Swifts, Metros, and Fireflies never had a distributor type ignition system. This was the only engine to not have a distributor. It's also not a coil on plug setup, it's a coil with short leads firing two cylinders and is a wasted spark setup. The G13BA in 1989 to 1997 cars all had distributors. Edited by gamefoo21, Feb 9 2016, 02:38 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| espltd | Feb 10 2016, 10:26 AM Post #28 |
|
Tinkerer
![]()
|
Realistically been thinking if I must do a 4 cyl swap, the smarter thing might be to put it in the 98 daily driver. OBD2 should make wiring much easier, and the fuel systems would be at least more similar. Like I said too many ideas ! I m a little ADD me thinks |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Geo Metro Lounge · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2


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




)... one correct PCM model of two posibilities, depending on whether the emissions system is a California or Federal system.


7:25 PM Jul 10