2.8 with a turbo? Bad idea? Motor performance thread (Page 3/3) BillS SEP 03, 01:27 PM I added a Miller Woods turbo set up to my 88 GT soon after I got it. That gave 190-200 bhp and was a nice result. While driving it that way I picked up another engine and built it for more pressure - putting a lot of money into parts for reliability as well as increasing flow. It was too soon to be able to find a 3.4 engine used, so I got a 3.1 crank (same as the 3.4) and had pistons made to suit it, as well as punching the block .040" to end up with a 3.2 with c. 300 bhp. While I agree with the guys that say the stock V6 has some flow issues that are hard to overcome, I preferred to stay with the stock engine, and aside from the usual port flowing, exhaust work and manifold optimization, a turbo is the easy way to drag a recalcitrant engine kicking and screaming, up to a decent output. I found that the longer stroke was an easily detectable advantage and recommend it. It means new pistons for a 3.1 but the rods aren't changed. La fiera SEP 03, 10:41 PM quote Originally posted by BillS: I found that the longer stroke was an easily detectable advantage and recommend it. It means new pistons for a 3.1 but the rods aren't changed. Yes. Longer stroke with the same 5.7 rods means rod ratio changed for increased piston speed. More piston speed equals more air drawn in and out faster and that results in more acceleration. Chevy guys use longer rods to get high rpms at the crank while the piston is moving slow, and for short track and acceleration off the corners the long rod motor makes more power but it is a siting duck in a track that has lots of turns or on a short oval track. Longer rods need straights to show their legs while the short rod will out acceleletare the long rod motor off the corners by a long shot. So, in a street motor you want a short (stock) rod if stroking the engine to a 3.2 or 3.4. Carver1 SEP 04, 12:27 AM Design One turbo kit. Ugly but works!