hey everyone . this is a writeup on how to swap a 2.3 throttlebody onto a 98+ 2200 engine . this is not hard to do . i done it in about maybe 15 20 minutes .



stock throttlebody on right 2.3 on left

only a few simple handtools are needed . here is a picture.





Step 1 :
disconnect your battery so your car has no power going to any parts.

step 2.
take off your intake and unplug the 2 sensors one is on the corner facing towards the altenater and the other one is on the back side .

step 3.
disconnect the 4 vacuum lines. one large one , one medium and 2 small one . they are all in the same area on the back side .

step 4.
dissconnect throttlecable from the roter.

step 5.
the stock throttlecable is held on with 4 10mm bolts . un screw them and pull throttlebody off . no hard at all .

this is what it will look like when everything is off.



now for the fun part.

the 2.3 throttlebody only reuses 2 of the short 4 10mm bolts.

step 1.
so place the throttlebody on the intake manifold and simply bolt it on .

step 2.
connect the large vaccuum line to the throttlebody as well as the medium one .

now on the 2.3 throttlebody there is only 1 small vaccuum line connecterand the stock 2200 throttlebody had 2 . all you need to do it go buy a "T" or "F" ( i bought the F fitting) fitting from autozone or any auto parts store for about $1.50 and connect the 2 vaccum lines from the car into 1 and connect that into the 2.3 TB.

step 3. plug you sensors back in and reconncect your throttlecable and there you go ..


you just bolted on 5 to 8 horespower .

i hope this helps a few people out with the swap . i did this swap not knowing much about it and it was easy for me .

i thought there was an issue with the throttle cable connection also>?



"There is no point in looking fast if your not."

it hard to explain how i did it ... the ball on the cable was too large to fit in the hole so you can either grind it down some or twist the cable in it like i did . i can't get pics right now cause the camera broke . i will as soon as i can though.

blade0604 wrote:you just bolted on 5 to 8 horespower .

Have numbers like this ever been conclusively proven? A throttle body will help, sure...but an engine's breathing is still controlled by it's cam(s).

In the battle for higher HP numbers in every ad slick, I find it hard to believe a company like GM would have overlooked such a minor change to help their numbers.






09:f9:11:02:9d:74:e3:5b:d8:41:56:c5:63

i can aggree that a lot of these things are way too good to be true as far as simplicity and cost to HP gains, but then u also have to think that GM is not just concerned with upping their numbers, theyre also going to be looking at cost and efficiency in manufacturing, maybe it would have cost just a hair more to do it like this at the factory, or maybe the newer TBs give a slightly better gas mileage number than the 2.3 TB. thats just my take on it, cuz as much as being competative means to GM, and trying to keep their HP up might matter to them as well, they got the 2.4 and Eco for that, and they would probly rather have their low end gas saver engine be just that, low end, gas saving, and cost effective


On the other hand....you have other fingers.

i had lots of toys when i was young.slinky,etc.but once i found my penis,that was all she wrote

1Bad02Cav wrote:i can aggree that a lot of these things are way too good to be true as far as simplicity and cost to HP gains, but then u also have to think that GM is not just concerned with upping their numbers, theyre also going to be looking at cost and efficiency in manufacturing, maybe it would have cost just a hair more to do it like this at the factory, or maybe the newer TBs give a slightly better gas mileage number than the 2.3 TB. thats just my take on it, cuz as much as being competative means to GM, and trying to keep their HP up might matter to them as well, they got the 2.4 and Eco for that, and they would probly rather have their low end gas saver engine be just that, low end, gas saving, and cost effective

actually TB size has to do with volumetric efficiency...

jimmy z is right, no one has dynoed TBs really and posted em on the 2200 as it stands, so you cant just make a claim of 5-8 HP.

and you cant go off of what other cars have done..


just waiting to see how many more how to;s on this same 2.3 replicated subject comes out. theres atleast 3 so far.


also as a note. t or F fittings do work, but essentially you are splitting the vaccum meaning its not reading the vaccum as accurately. some cars have been known to have issues in the long run because of it.