300 ci Buick Engine in a Regal?

[mpneroz]

I have a nice clean 300 ci Buick engine just sitting around with 76,000 miles.  I came across a clean Regal body that needs an engine.  My wheels started turning.  Regal was a V6 (which is shot) not sure of the condition of the trans in the car, though it is said to be good.  Would a 300 work?  If so what motor mounts would be required,  Obviously a different radiator would be needed.  Thoughts?

[Aaron65]

You may want to run over to V8buick.com for more details, but you should have no problems with the motor mounts or transmission bellhousing pattern.  I'm not sure what the inlet/outlet situation is, but you may even be able to get away with using the Regal's radiator.  If you don't have any smog worries, and you aren't looking for 12 second quarter miles, why not?  One note of caution: the 300 has very few aftermarket parts, so if you're looking to hop it up, you need to be creative, and may want to consider another engine.  If you're just looking to cruise, it should be an easy swap.  Good luck.  

[joe_padavano]

Since you didn't specify, I'll ASSUME that your Regal is a 1978-1988 model. I don't think these ever came with Buick V8s, and I'm not sure if the V6 motor mounts are in the same place as those for the V8. Yes, bellhousing will bolt up, but I beware that your V6 car likely has the anemic TH200 trans. Obviously exhaust routing will be custom.  You might need to get creative with accessory brackets, pulleys, and water pump length. You'll probably want a bigger radiator.

 

Bottom line is that while you CAN do this, if your only goal is to have a running car, replacing the V6 with another one is likely less expensive overall. 

[Pfeil]

9 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

Since you didn't specify, I'll ASSUME that your Regal is a 1978-1988 model. I don't think these ever came with Buick V8s, and I'm not sure if the V6 motor mounts are in the same place as those for the V8. Yes, bellhousing will bolt up, but I beware that your V6 car likely has the anemic TH200 trans. Obviously exhaust routing will be custom.  You might need to get creative with accessory brackets, pulleys, and water pump length. You'll probably want a bigger radiator.

 

Bottom line is that while you CAN do this, if your only goal is to have a running car, replacing the V6 with another one is likely less expensive overall. 

 If it's a 1978-88  Regal you can not do it legally.

[Pfeil]

The federal tampering prohibition is contained in section 203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). Section 203(a)(3)(A) of the Act prohibits any person from removing or rendering inoperative any emission control device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine prior to its sale and delivery to an ultimate purchaser and prohibits any person from knowingly removing or rendering inoperative any such device or element of design after such sale and delivery, and the causing thereof. The maximum civil penalty for a violation of this section by a manufacturer or dealer is $25,000; for any other person, $2,500. Section 203(a)(3)(B) of the Act prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling, or offering to sell, or installing, any part or component intended for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine where a principal effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine, and where the person knows or should know that such part or component is being offered for sale or is being installed for such use. The maximum civil penalty for a violation of this section is $2,500. 
EPA received many questions regarding the application of this law to a situation where one engine is removed from a vehicle and another engine is installed in its place. EPA's policy regarding "engine switching" is covered under the provisions of Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. lA (Attachment 1). This policy states that EPA will not consider any modification to a "certified configuration" to be a violation of federal law if there is a reasonable basis for knowing that emissions are not adversely affected. In many cases, proper emission testing according to the Federal Test Procedure would be necessary to make this determination.

A "certified configuration" is an engine or engine chassis design which has been "certified" (approved) by EPA prior to the production of vehicles with that design. Generally, the manufacturer submits an application for certification of the designs of each engine or vehicle it proposes to manufacture prior to production. The application includes design requirements for all emission related parts, engine calibrations, and other design parameters for each different type of engine (in heavy-duty vehicles), or engine chassis combination (in light-duty vehicles). EPA then "certifies" each acceptable design for use, in vehicles of the upcoming model year. 
For light-duty vehicles, installation of a light-duty engine into a different light-duty vehicle by any person would be considered tampering unless the resulting vehicle is identical (with regard to all emission related parts, engine design parameters, and engine calibrations) to a certified configuration of the same or newer model year as the vehicle chassis, or if there is a reasonable basis for knowing that emissions are not adversely affected as described in Memo 1A. The appropriate source for technical information regarding the certified configuration of a vehicle of a particular model year is the vehicle manufacturer. 

[Frank DuVal]

What state are you in? I know, it is Federal law, but many states no longer care what is in a vehicle older than 25 years. 

[joe_padavano]

Pfeil is correct, but in the many decades since these federal anti-tampering laws have been put into place, not one private party has ever been prosecuted under them.  They have only been used to go after businesses who were bypassing emissions controls on multiple cars. As Frank points out, state law will usually be the one you need to deal with, and state laws are all over the map.  The reality is that this is only an issue if your state requires some sort of annual or bi-annual inspection. I'll also point out (since both Frank and I live in VA) that just because a car is exempt from emissions testing does NOT necessarily mean that you can bypass the emissions equipment.  VA changed their annual safety inspection law in 2012 to require the visual (not functional) inspection of emissions equipment as part of the safety inspection. That means that they can and sometimes will fail you if you have removed the catalytic converter, A.I.R. pump, etc. Sure, some inspection stations are more lax about this than others, but that is hit-or-miss.  I personally have been failed for safety due to a missing A.I.R. pump, which is why I researched the law.  And yes, in some states you can get an antique registration that exempts you from any inspections, but typically those also restrict where and how often you can use the car.  Of course, since the OP has not responded with the year of the car, or his location, all this is purely speculative until we get that info.

[Pfeil]

The State of Arizona emission test vehicles back to 1967.

The State of California emission test vehicles back to 1975, however the state says vehicles built with exhaust emission controls ( 1966-1975 ) must have their emission systems on and in working order. The reason is this: If the state AQMD ( air quality management control districts ) , CARB ( California air resources board ) determine that the air quality in a certain area of the state or the state itself in general has deteriorated that these cars of 1966-1975 can be brought back into the state testing program. Because it is already written into the law all the state needs is the recommendation by the agencies to initiate the process without a referendum. I should also say that it's not just the CO / HC / NOX that they are talking about, but the CO2 carbon emissions as well, such as if the state can't meet it's self imposed carbon offset requirement limit.

 

  Federally; The EPA has been toned down within this election cycle, however should a new administration that follows the current one produce zealot's in the way of regulation it could pose a problem to those who have thrown their emission systems away.

 The problem is there is no control directly over certain agencies like the IRS and the EPA by the electoral process, so it can only be changed by a high up elected official, and even that is sometimes hard to do as we have seen.  

 

 Does this really matter to the person who has a antique vehicle and is participating in a AACA event? I don't think so. Stock is stock and that is what AACA is all about anyway. This is the way the car came from the factory, this is the way the car should be.     

Edited December 28, 2018 by Pfeil (see edit history)

[joe_padavano]

7 minutes ago, Pfeil said:

The State of Arizona emission test vehicles back to 1967.

The State of California emission test vehicles back to 1975, however the state says vehicles built with exhaust emission controls ( 1966-1975 ) must have their emission systems on and in working order. The reason is this: If the state AQMD ( air quality management control districts ) , CARB ( California air resources board ) determine that the air quality in a certain area of the state or the state itself in general has deteriorated that these cars of 1966-1975 can be brought back into the state testing program. Because it is already written into the law all the state needs is the recommendation by the agencies to initiate the process without a referendum. I should also say that it's not just the CO / HC / NOX that they are talking about, but the CO2 carbon emissions as well, such as if the state can't meet it's self imposed carbon offset requirement limit.      

 

And until we find out where the OP lives, or even the year of the Regal he is talking about, this is a moot point.  Once again, this is not a federal law issue, it's state law.

 

FYI, there has been no federal requirement on CO2 emissions, so there is no standard against which cars can be tested.

[Pfeil]

Federally; The EPA has been toned down within this election cycle, however should a new administration that follows the current one produce zealot's in the way of regulation it could pose a problem to those who have thrown their emission systems away.

 The problem is there is no control directly over certain agencies like the IRS and the EPA by the electoral process, so it can only be changed by a high up elected official, and even that is sometimes hard to do as we have seen.

And federally we still have the law;

 The federal tampering prohibition is contained in section 203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). Section 203(a)(3)(A)

 This is a Federal and state law issue.

Is it relevant to this topic? Yes, many people read this, not just the person asking the question.   

 

 Does this really matter to the person who has a antique vehicle and is participating in a AACA event? I don't think so. Stock is stock and that is what AACA is all about anyway. This is the way the car came from the factory, this is the way the car should be.

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by Pfeil (see edit history)

[mpneroz]

I live in PA.  Not looking to fry tires.  There is an 82 carbed Turbo car in my neighborhood blown engine.  Those carbed turbos were not too good.  I had a 79 I know.  The car has nice Buick wheels and is an automatic of course.  My wheels started turning on the 300 engine in it.  I have a 4 bbl carb and intake set up that I could put on the 79,000 mile 300 that would help the performance a little but a 300 with low miles would be a performance upgrade to a carbed V6 from that period and would be a neat conversation piece for sure.

[Pfeil]

1 hour ago, mpneroz said:

I live in PA.  Not looking to fry tires.  There is an 82 carbed Turbo car in my neighborhood blown engine.  Those carbed turbos were not too good.  I had a 79 I know.  The car has nice Buick wheels and is an automatic of course.  My wheels started turning on the 300 engine in it.  I have a 4 bbl carb and intake set up that I could put on the 79,000 mile 300 that would help the performance a little but a 300 with low miles would be a performance upgrade to a carbed V6 from that period and would be a neat conversation piece for sure.

 So this would be a illegal thing to do according to federal EPA law. Sure you can do almost anything, but there are consequences down the line like supposing you sell the car to someone later on, and so on.

[joe_padavano]

2 hours ago, mpneroz said:

I live in PA.  Not looking to fry tires.  There is an 82 carbed Turbo car in my neighborhood blown engine.  Those carbed turbos were not too good.  I had a 79 I know.  The car has nice Buick wheels and is an automatic of course.  My wheels started turning on the 300 engine in it.  I have a 4 bbl carb and intake set up that I could put on the 79,000 mile 300 that would help the performance a little but a 300 with low miles would be a performance upgrade to a carbed V6 from that period and would be a neat conversation piece for sure.

 

As I mentioned, your biggest problem will be that despite both being Buick motors, there's enough difference between the 300 and an 82 V6 that you will spend a lot of time and money chasing down little stuff or cobbling something together.  It's not a bolt-in.  Another V6 will be easier and cheaper.  A 3800SC would be really cool, but that's a whole different project... 😉

[Frank DuVal]

Right, the 3800SC has a different bellhousing bolt pattern.😉

 

 

[joe_padavano]

34 minutes ago, Frank DuVal said:

Right, the 3800SC has a different bellhousing bolt pattern.😉

 

 

I know, which is why I said it's a whole different project, however it's pretty easy to bolt it to a 700R4 from an S10 with the 2.8L V6.

[Pfeil]

13 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

I know, which is why I said it's a whole different project, however it's pretty easy to bolt it to a 700R4 from an S10 with the 2.8L V6.

And it's still a illegal thing to do, so why advocate doin it?

 

  A "certified configuration" is an engine or engine chassis design which has been "certified" (approved) by EPA prior to the production of vehicles with that design. Generally, the manufacturer submits an application for certification of the designs of each engine or vehicle it proposes to manufacture prior to production. The application includes design requirements for all emission related parts, engine calibrations, and other design parameters for each different type of engine (in heavy-duty vehicles), or engine chassis combination (in light-duty vehicles). EPA then "certifies" each acceptable design for use, in vehicles of the upcoming model year. 

 

[joe_padavano]

1 hour ago, Pfeil said:

And it's still a illegal thing to do, so why advocate doin it?

 

  A "certified configuration" is an engine or engine chassis design which has been "certified" (approved) by EPA prior to the production of vehicles with that design. Generally, the manufacturer submits an application for certification of the designs of each engine or vehicle it proposes to manufacture prior to production. The application includes design requirements for all emission related parts, engine calibrations, and other design parameters for each different type of engine (in heavy-duty vehicles), or engine chassis combination (in light-duty vehicles). EPA then "certifies" each acceptable design for use, in vehicles of the upcoming model year. 

 

 

One, this is only "bench racing" as the OP is not asking about this swap - or is it also illegal under federal law to conduct "what if" builds?

 

Two, it would NOT be illegal in most states to swap a newer, cleaner engine.  The 3800SC was certified to passenger car standards and is newer and thus cleaner than the the original engine in the 1982 car in question. This swap is even legal in California.

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2018 by joe_padavano (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

2 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

 

One, this is only "bench racing" as the OP is not asking about this swap - or is it also illegal under federal law to conduct "what if" builds?

 

Two, it would NOT be illegal in most states to swap a newer, cleaner engine.  The 3800SC was certified to passenger car standards and is newer and thus cleaner than the the original engine in the 1982 car in question. This swap is even legal in California.

 

 

 

 Putting a newer engine is possible IF the engine had all the emissions equipment for the year of the engine. And how many LS engines in older cars have the emission systems including the exhaust do you see at a car show? NONE.

[joe_padavano]

4 hours ago, Pfeil said:

And it's still a illegal thing to do, so why advocate doin it?

45 minutes ago, Pfeil said:

 Putting a newer engine is possible

So which is it? 

[Pfeil]

5 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

 

 

So which is it? 

After reading the law and considering the year of car I say you can't do it.

Before the EPA was established ( 1970)  California law said you could do engine swaps and it went like this. For example, you could put a 1969 Chevy 350 engine in a 1955 Chevrolet but in doing so you would need the engine to comply with 1969 emission systems and emission test numbers. Conversely,  If you put a 1955 Chevy 265 engine in a 1969 Chevrolet the 265 would need 1969 Chevrolet emission systems added to make it comply and pass the visual and emission test.

 

 It wasn't until catalytic converters happened ( 1975 )  on the scene that this type of thing changed because cars emission systems went hand and hand with altitude,  rear axle ratio, weight of the car, type of transmission etc. to match the engine and it's emission system. Back in the mid 70's when I was testing cars for EPA certification if you took away or changed just one of the factors above like say changing a 2.69 to 1 rear end with a 3.08 or a 3.23 to 1 the car would fail a 7 bag emission test. Remember back when certain engines, transmissions or axle ratios suddenly became unavailable? This is why. 

That is why those EPA laws were written. Those tamper proof laws started to be written in 1974 on the eve of cars with catalytic converters.

[joe_padavano]

10 hours ago, Pfeil said:

After reading the law and considering the year of car I say you can't do it.

 

Here are the requirements for a legal engine swap in the state of California, directly from the state Bureau of Automotive Repair. Appendix E in this document has the requirements. The car in question is a 1982, so pre-OBDII, and the 3800SC is an OBDII certified engine.

 

Again, this is purely a thought exercise, since a) the OP lives in PA, not CA, and b) this isn't the swap he asked about.  But feel free to have the last say, since I've now wasted enough time on this and I have real cars to work on.

 

 

[Pfeil]

7 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

 

Here are the requirements for a legal engine swap in the state of California, directly from the state Bureau of Automotive Repair. Appendix E in this document has the requirements. The car in question is a 1982, so pre-OBDII, and the 3800SC is an OBDII certified engine.

 

 

 

 

 Ca. law says if you are installing a OBD2 engine in the car in question, the car must conform to all the OBD2 requirements. EPA says it cannot be done. My understanding is federal law trumps state law.  

[Frank DuVal]

Sort of like when air bags first appeared on cars and customers were weary of passenger side air bags going off and asked me to disconnect them. No, not going to happen. 😲  But I will tell you how the system works and leave it to you to decide and proceed on your own.

 

Just discussing what the law is and if the swap is even possible with available funds. After all, if money is no object, any swap might be possible!😉