Wow, Aaron, calm down, Jeez man!!! I wasn't knocking your precious whipple, I know its a superior blower, I'm not stupid! maybe I should have elaborated when I said it had moderate parasitic loss. I meant ONLY at NO BOOST CONDITIONS. its internal 1.35:1 compression ratio is kinda hard to miss. It makes boost internally all the time, that is a paracitical loss, I cannot get a figure on this loss, no website, graph or quotable statement I have ever found gives the value. Now, if there was a clutch on the front, this would be a non issue, but untill then you are stuck trying to turn the blower all the time. Where did you get the 6hp crusing loss figure? If you are making 1 PSI of boost, I hardly consider that part throttle, more like 107% of naturally aspirated WOT. Thats crusing throttle? I think not. steady crusing, at a reasonable speed is always in vacumme range, preferably between 30-45 KPA. I can see the internal compression in the whipple making 1 PSI of internal boost, perhaps drawing 6 horses, but you don't boost an engine when your doing steady 60 MPH. it takes approximatly 28 horses to maintain 60 MPH on a Fiero, 6 horses extra draw would cut away significantly at mileage if it really takes that much just to idly spin the blower. Again, at 2000 RPM's engine speed, I quote that it takes 1/3 HP to spin the Eaton blower, making no boost.

Eaton obtained the right to produce lysholm blowers for OEM apps, so look for the price of even lysholm's to come down in the future. Maybe some of the technology used on the eaton roots blower will make its way into the lysholms? lower resistance teflon coated rotors and clutched input pulley? The future will tell. Mazda Millenia IIRC is one of the only OEM apps with a lysholm.

Also, when you are plotting Eaton graphs (witch are kinda crappy graphs) you have to keep in mind that they use Delta T, as opposed to Delta T above a specific inlet temp, or just a plain fixed inlet temp and the graph depicting outlet temp only. Because of this, using boyles law, 150 F inlet temp gets you 248 F (98 F difference) at 10 PSI, while a 0 F inlet temp gets you 78 F (78 F difference) at 10 PSI, So when you do adiabetic calcs your 10 PSI efficiency could be anywhere from 64.5% AE (using the 150 F inlet temp) to 51.3% AE using the 0 F inlet temp figure) the best 10 PSI Delta T listed is 152 F on an M112 FYI. So, it really depends on a factor that is not given. You can only assume they mean by standard temperature and pressure.

Another thing to be weary of is what size blower you are using for comparison, every comparison must be apples to apples, a 1.85L blower to a 1.85L blower, otherwise the comparison is bull or skewed. But I still don't see the need to spend an extra $1500 on a blower that only gains (more like saves) you 13 horses. Its biggest gains are all about temperature output. Thats where the whipple really shows what it can do.

I do intend to use a unique water injected cooling system to combat the fairly high temps, Im anticipating very strong cooling from this. My concept is, that the blower doesn't put out 10 PSI, it just pumps into the intake plenum where the air collects, creating pressure and accelerating its molecules creating the heat from inside the intake, its not really the blower that creates the heat. Thats my theory on where the heat comes from, Its the turbulance and friction from the rotors that adds the additional innefficient heat. So what I plan on doing is do all my cooling in the intake manifold. This is radically different then an intercooler where it only cools the air that passes through it, I don't feel that it cools ALL the air. again, its my theory that I need to test. I plan on cooling the air using an air water ventauri where 120 PSI of air will pull water from a tank (that will be pressure balanced with the plenum and spray just below the blower (perhaps at the blower outlet too?) . I may use many ventauris for this, or perhaps have one per port. The Idea is to have the atomized water and air spray interact with the manifold air as much as possible, heck even into the combustion chamber.

Enough typing. I need sleep more.

BTW Aaron, I REALLY take offense when someone tells me to do my research, as if I haven't. I know I could gain some horses by getting a whipple charger, but I don't see spending $1500 or more for it. Also not all turbos are 78% efficient. Most are about 72% some are as low as a god forbid, Eaton, but thats not all that good of a turbo You seem to like to contradict people for some reason. Im not saying everything you say is wrong, but you seem to think that about everyone else.

quote Originally posted by Fierobsessed: Wow, Aaron, calm down, Jeez man!!! I wasn't knocking your precious whipple, I know its a superior blower, I'm not stupid! maybe I should have elaborated when I said it had moderate parasitic loss. I meant ONLY at NO BOOST CONDITIONS. its internal 1.35:1 compression ratio is kinda hard to miss. It makes boost internally all the time, that is a paracitical loss, I cannot get a figure on this loss, no website, graph or quotable statement I have ever found gives the value. Now, if there was a clutch on the front, this would be a non issue, but untill then you are stuck trying to turn the blower all the time. Where did you get the 6hp crusing loss figure? If you are making 1 PSI of boost, I hardly consider that part throttle, more like 107% of naturally aspirated WOT. Thats crusing throttle? I think not. steady crusing, at a reasonable speed is always in vacumme range, preferably between 30-45 KPA. I can see the internal compression in the whipple making 1 PSI of internal boost, perhaps drawing 6 horses, but you don't boost an engine when your doing steady 60 MPH. it takes approximatly 28 horses to maintain 60 MPH on a Fiero, 6 horses extra draw would cut away significantly at mileage if it really takes that much just to idly spin the blower. Again, at 2000 RPM's engine speed, I quote that it takes 1/3 HP to spin the Eaton blower, making no boost. Also, when you are plotting Eaton graphs (witch are kinda crappy graphs) you have to keep in mind that they use Delta T, as opposed to Delta T above a specific inlet temp, or just a plain fixed inlet temp and the graph depicting outlet temp only. Because of this, using boyles law, 150 F inlet temp gets you 248 F (98 F difference) at 10 PSI, while a 0 F inlet temp gets you 78 F (78 F difference) at 10 PSI, So when you do adiabetic calcs your 10 PSI efficiency could be anywhere from 64.5% AE (using the 150 F inlet temp) to 51.3% AE using the 0 F inlet temp figure) the best 10 PSI Delta T listed is 152 F on an M112 FYI. So, it really depends on a factor that is not given. You can only assume they mean by standard temperature and pressure. Another thing to be weary of is what size blower you are using for comparison, every comparison must be apples to apples, a 1.85L blower to a 1.85L blower, otherwise the comparison is bull or skewed. But I still don't see the need to spend an extra $1500 on a blower that only gains (more like saves) you 13 horses. Its biggest gains are all about temperature output. Thats where the whipple really shows what it can do. I do intend to use a unique water injected cooling system to combat the fairly high temps, Im anticipating very strong cooling from this. My concept is, that the blower doesn't put out 10 PSI, it just pumps into the intake plenum where the air collects, creating pressure and accelerating its molecules creating the heat from inside the intake, its not really the blower that creates the heat. Thats my theory on where the heat comes from, Its the turbulance and friction from the rotors that adds the additional innefficient heat. So what I plan on doing is do all my cooling in the intake manifold. This is radically different then an intercooler where it only cools the air that passes through it, I don't feel that it cools ALL the air. again, its my theory that I need to test. I plan on cooling the air using an air water ventauri where 120 PSI of air will pull water from a tank (that will be pressure balanced with the plenum and spray just below the blower (perhaps at the blower outlet too?) . I may use many ventauris for this, or perhaps have one per port. The Idea is to have the atomized water and air spray interact with the manifold air as much as possible, heck even into the combustion chamber.

With the optional bypass valve installed on a Whipple, at part throttle cruising, the compressor is making that boost internally, not manifold pressure. What I meant is that it is still compressing air, and the Eaton is not. This makes it draw about 6hp using my calcs with the 2300's map. So you are turning it all the time, but it isn't bad. It is drawing horsepower, but the air its compressing is still attempting to equal out the vacuum. So you're still under vacuum, just not much, so the motor still makes more power. yes the extra 6mph would be really bad for mileage, but you also have to remember, that with the blower spinning, the motor is making a lot more power, therefore your throttle is not as open, using less gas. This would be hard to calculate, but with a bypass, the WhippleCharger is generally better than the Eaton in terms of mileage.

I agree The Eaton grapghs are crappy, as I mentioned before, but oh well, you work with what you have. I was assuming a 20*C inlet temp for the 2300AX and the Eaton, and a 25*C inlet temp for the 3300.

It does a lot more than that. It saves you horsepower, saves gas mileage, reduces discharge temperatures significantly, flows MUCH more air, turns slower, and sounds MUCH better About the size, I'm comparing what I'd use to what you all ARE using, which are M90s. With the Whipple, the optimal blower is the 3300AX, but I included the 2300 becuz it is smaller and cheaper, plus more common.

That last paragraph would work great, and really improve the Eatons series. But the problem is, is that after all that fabrication and expense, you're probably over the cost of the Whipple anyways, and the Whipple would still run more efficiently and make more power.

Would anyone be interested in copys of this manifold adapter? Im starting to consider manufaturing them to cover my tooling costs. So far Ive spent $150 on a new craftsman bandsaaw and metal blades, $90 on a nice dremmel and attachments, and $30 on steel. All this for one project. But in the past Ive learned that if you need something, its just better to bite the bullet and go out and buy it rather than try and make something work like it wasnt designed to.
I have no idea yet as to how much I would charge, much will depend on the welding and if I run into any problems I havent anticapated. Im definitely making plans for the pieces before I have them welded together so I can reproduce them in the future. What would you guys think would be reasonable for a bolt on adapter that would bolt right to a M90?

150 for a craftsman bandsaw that can go slow enough for steel? where? i need a new bandsaw

I wouldn't pay more than $50, but that is me. I normally get all of my pieces laser cut by www.stainlessworks.net, or .com, I don't remember. I send him CAD files, or the old manifold, explain what I need done, and he laser cuts them out of stainelss steel, and he is quite affordable for laser cut items. I also really like the laser cut, it is smooth, and SOOOO perfect.

Just my .02, I bet the adapter would be pretty popular, so make a few extra and toss em to the side for later.

quote Originally posted by Fierobsessed:I do intend to use a unique water injected cooling system to combat the fairly high temps, Im anticipating very strong cooling from this. My concept is, that the blower doesn't put out 10 PSI, it just pumps into the intake plenum where the air collects, creating pressure and accelerating its molecules creating the heat from inside the intake, its not really the blower that creates the heat. Thats my theory on where the heat comes from, Its the turbulance and friction from the rotors that adds the additional innefficient heat. So what I plan on doing is do all my cooling in the intake manifold. This is radically different then an intercooler where it only cools the air that passes through it, I don't feel that it cools ALL the air. again, its my theory that I need to test. I plan on cooling the air using an air water ventauri where 120 PSI of air will pull water from a tank (that will be pressure balanced with the plenum and spray just below the blower (perhaps at the blower outlet too?) . I may use many ventauris for this, or perhaps have one per port. The Idea is to have the atomized water and air spray interact with the manifold air as much as possible, heck even into the combustion chamber.

I would inject the water before the inlet to the blower. When the water mist hits the hot rotors, it atomizes very quickly, cooling the blower, and distributing the water vapor. The only drawback to this is it can blow the teflon coating off the rotors of the later blowers. I know a guy with a GTP using this type of water injection, and the blower is cool enough to touch after a hard full-boost run....something you couldn't do with the water injection turned off.

Marty

I had kinda hoped darth would stop in and visit this thread so I could check with him on programming options. I have a TGP ECM. Would that handle the boost control? do I need to have it reprogrammed for the displacement increase? Since it was designed for a 3.1 w/ turbo, I dont know if the 3.4 TDC injectors are diffrent? Ive never looked into this kind of thing. Help would be appreciated

hmph, it would be interesting to see what this motor does with a s/c on it. any1 care to speculate what it would do(properly tuned) vs a l67??

quote Originally posted by 86GT3.4DOHC: I had kinda hoped darth would stop in and visit this thread so I could check with him on programming options. I have a TGP ECM. Would that handle the boost control? do I need to have it reprogrammed for the displacement increase? Since it was designed for a 3.1 w/ turbo, I dont know if the 3.4 TDC injectors are diffrent? Ive never looked into this kind of thing. Help would be appreciated

the TGP ecm has the boost tables - stock its setup for 8-9psi boost - too much more and i think it cuts fuel - it also is setup to control a wastegate solenoid.. I don't think the solenoid will set any trouble codes if its not hooked up.. or atleast it hasn't on mine - darth should be able to adjust the max boost and the fuel tables just fine. I hope to be sending him some scantool date for the tgp ecm running my 3.4dohc NA this weekend..

quote Originally posted by RacerX11: .......... The only drawback to this is it can blow the teflon coating off the rotors of the later blowers. I know a guy with a GTP using this type of water injection, and the blower is cool enough to touch after a hard full-boost run....something you couldn't do with the water injection turned off............ Marty

wow; that is interesting. Obviously it is absorbing a lot of heat, and THAT sounds like cavitation (damage) happening in the blower. If that is what is happening then the teflon is just the 'first' layer of what is going to 'disappear'...... it will actually blow holes in the metal too.

But that is the price of doing it that way; I don't know what mod you could do to defeat that (if you keep that system). This is where an I/C would be better (non-destructive) but there are limits to what you might be able to squeeze in space-wise.
gp

water itself won't blow holes in metal.. not without oxidizing it away.. even on water jet cutting machines - the water is just a carrier for an abrasive media..

the teflon is just a surface coating - it does bond to a certain extend but its still just like paint for the most part.

Ive looked a little into waterinjection as an alternative to an intercooler...Ideally you want to spray water in the compressed air to cool it...: now with the M90 style superchargers that would be after the sc...mounting a nozzle in the lower (3800) intake likely will not work efficiently because of its shape...or you need to fab some rail with multiple small nozzles. So with my 3800sc swap I return to the proven concept of using an intercooler.
With the higher intake of the 3.4tdc / supercharger it could work though..most nozzles have a 90 degrees spraypattern....mixing the water with a small amount of methanol acts like an octane booster which will be good fighting KR.
well thats what I read...

maybe this could work?:

I'm guessing but I think that is what is happening. This is a bit of a thread hijack I guess but is intended to at least give some food for thought on different items that apply to blowers and boost, so it IS related........???

well the blower is just a pump of sorts; and cavitation in pump bodies is well recognized/documented and strongly avoided; because it happens so easily. That is what NPSH is all about; to make sure that a pump has enough pressure on the suction side to avoid this (in a conventional system). (You'll note that most 'pumps' that deal with GAS have a dryer installed at some point; partly for that reason and partly for others of course.)

When you do not have enough pressure on the inlet side, and if the negative pressure is high enough, the pump will cause air 'pockets' to form momentarily inside the volute at the point of highest negative pressure. Then they suddenly collapse again (when pressure increases enough), which causes another resultant (almost microscopic) low pressure pocket, which in turn, exaggerates the problem. This sudden change of state from/to/from liquid to gas to liquid is so violent and explosive that it CAN and DOES actually remove small bits of metal from the inside of the pump casing. And that is cavitaion.

You can hear it going on in a pump that is 'inflicted' with the problem and you can see the physical evidence of the damage it does. It isnt' a warranty item, either, it is a design flaw in the application, not the pump itself. So a blower is a very high quality pump and would generate a high negative pressure; so when water is introduced, you would get this sort of thing happening in a very small but constant fashion.

So I figured that if it can break the metal to metal bond then it would probably break the teflon-metal bond easily too.
Anyway
food for thought and maybe useful; maybe not.
two more cents
gp

quote Originally posted by 86GT3.4DOHC: I had kinda hoped darth would stop in and visit this thread so I could check with him on programming options. I have a TGP ECM. Would that handle the boost control? do I need to have it reprogrammed for the displacement increase? Since it was designed for a 3.1 w/ turbo, I dont know if the 3.4 TDC injectors are diffrent? Ive never looked into this kind of thing. Help would be appreciated

It would need to be adjusted, both for the extra fuel and the extar RPM, but it should work if the programmer knows what he is doing.

3300 on a 3.4 is a gratuitously huge blower. It moves nearly twice as much air in one revolution as the 3.4 does. You'd need to run it at a 60% drive ratio. How well does it seal at such a low speed?

Water injection into a supercharger will strip the teflon from the rotors unless it's atomized very finely. It's not cavitation, it's straight up media blasting.
The proper place to inject is where the air is hottest... this provides the fastest heat transfer and fastest vaporization of the water.

I'd like to know where all this info on the whipple blowers came from. I was doing this same research a couple of years ago and all I was able to get out of Whipple was a sheaf of documents that were illegible because they'd been copied 16 times and had to be FAXED to me... WTF I ask.

Mercedes runs clutched lysholm blowers on several of their applications, including the SLR McLaren.

------------------
Turn the key and feel the engine shake the whole car with its lope; Plant the gas pedal and feel in your chest neither a shriek nor a wail but a bellowing roar; Lift and be pushed into the harness by compression braking that only comes from the biggest cylinders while listening to music of pops and gurgles. Know that you are driving an American V8. There are finer engines made, but none of them are this cool.

Luck, Fate and Destiny are words used by those who lack the courage to define their own future

What info do you need? The Whipple's compressor maps?

As for the 3300, it is a HUGE blower. But, I compared it to the 2300 on a 3.4L DOHC, and here are the differences:

At 8psi, the 3300 is .3% more efficient, cooler discahrge temperature by 5*C, spins 2300rpm slower, draws 1.4 less hp, and has 1% less volumetric efficiency. At 12psi the 3300 is .3% more adiabatically efficient, cooler discharge temperature by 7*C, spins 2800rpm slower, draws 1.3 less hp, and is again 1% less volumetrically efficient. So they may look nearly identical, but overall, the 3300 would add up to about 30 more horsepower, and has the potential to run more boost before detonation and such. It also can run more boost at a higher efficiency. Also, the maps shouldn't be compared, the 2300's map uses a 20*C intake, the 3300's uses a 25*C. So in the above numbers, its discharge is cooler even tho its intake is warmer. So it'd work, but yes, it is a massive blower.

If you want the maps, I could find them for you, but they are very much so legible.

I got my engine back in and IT WILL FIT!!!!! Ive got at least 1/2 over the highest point on the blower, Im going to have to trim the passenger support a little, but nothing visible. I can actualy stack 2 2x4's and a 1x4 on top of the upper intake with the engine stock, and it just barely touches enough to scratch the dirt on the decklid.

You have to post pics. I cant believe it fits, I know mine won't

Unfortunately my digital camera has been hijacked, but I took some regular pics, I'll take the camera and have it developed onto CD tomorrow. You have to keep in mind, my SC will be sitting 1/16" above the fuel rail with the intake Ive designed, im sure thats much lower than anything you've looked at, in addition Ive lowered the engine with new mounts, but just a little. I do have the ability to drop the engine more, there's 2 3/16 steel plates spacing the front of the engine up so it sits level, in addition I could drop it another 3/8" by switching to a shorter mount, but then I would have to re drill the tranny mounts or the engine would be very lop sided

[This message has been edited by 86GT3.4DOHC (edited 04-21-2005).]

maybe i'm just slow.. but I was just thinking about something..

the stock fiero 2.8 was rated at 140hp with 8.6:1 compression and 2 valves per cyl
the 3.4 DOHC is rated at 210hp with 9.5:1 compression and 4 valves per cylinder...

if you ignore the vastly superior heads of the 3.4 - then the increase in HP is only proportional to the increase in displacement... these engines must be seriously detuned to only have the same HP/L ratio as a stock 2.8 -- and the only place they can realy be detuned is the cams..

How's that math go?
140/2.8 = 50
210/3.4 = 62
The TDC was originally supposed to be the "Quad 6" and have the same specific output/state of tune as the Quad 4 (IE, it would develop 280 HP all motor). However, the buffoons at hydramatic couldn't come up with a transmission that would come close to hanging onto a 280 HP Q6 by the production date, so the engine was detuned with extremely mild cams. It still kills autos pretty easily, though.

quote Originally posted by Will: How's that math go? 140/2.8 = 50 210/3.4 = 62 The TDC was originally supposed to be the "Quad 6" and have the same specific output/state of tune as the Quad 4 (IE, it would develop 280 HP all motor). However, the buffoons at hydramatic couldn't come up with a transmission that would come close to hanging onto a 280 HP Q6 by the production date, so the engine was detuned with extremely mild cams. It still kills autos pretty easily, though.

lol early morning for me.. somehow i got in in my head that 3.4 was 50% bigger than 2.8 - oops

so theoreticly the $500 cam regrind could bump it up to 280.... that's be nice

I'm wondering just how much the cams will restrict a turbo from making its potential..

well there is the old story about how GM couldn't get a strong enough trans built so they detuned and detuned....... from about 290 or so downwards. So the story goes.....
You WOULD think it would be capable of more. I suppose in their own way, doing the 'free-er flowing mods' like intake manifold mods, headers and a bit of cam timing A LA Mike Smiths experience (240+WHP) sort of shows us what better cams (breathing) would in fact accomplish. So a good point, Kohburn.

IF and WHEN I get mine done and running (getting dragged down by work all the time!) I have no prob getting custom cams done by CHRFab; but not spending the money till all the other stuff is done first. $500 for a set is a very acceptable cost; it is the specs that will be a bit of a guess. But......worth a try.
gp

quote Originally posted by fiero308: well there is the old story about how GM couldn't get a strong enough trans built so they detuned and detuned....... from about 290 or so downwards. So the story goes..... You WOULD think it would be capable of more. I suppose in their own way, doing the 'free-er flowing mods' like intake manifold mods, headers and a bit of cam timing A LA Mike Smiths experience (240+WHP) sort of shows us what better cams (breathing) would in fact accomplish. So a good point, Kohburn. IF and WHEN I get mine done and running (getting dragged down by work all the time!) I have no prob getting custom cams done by CHRFab; but not spending the money till all the other stuff is done first. $500 for a set is a very acceptable cost; it is the specs that will be a bit of a guess. But......worth a try. gp

a lot of people swear by the specs of the highest output Q4 cams.. atleast its proven cam profile ---

I mean, if we got the same hp/L as a stock acura rsx then we'd have 340 hp NA althought it'd be gutless so i preffer to use boost to get that hp

[This message has been edited by Kohburn (edited 04-21-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Will: How's that math go? 140/2.8 = 50 210/3.4 = 62 The TDC was originally supposed to be the "Quad 6" and have the same specific output/state of tune as the Quad 4 (IE, it would develop 280 HP all motor). However, the buffoons at hydramatic couldn't come up with a transmission that would come close to hanging onto a 280 HP Q6 by the production date, so the engine was detuned with extremely mild cams. It still kills autos pretty easily, though.

It was not detuned becuz of the tranny. GM can build auto trannies to hold power, they can build a tranny. They aren't stupid. Think of this. In 1991, the fastest Camaro made was what, 240 MAYBE 260hp? DO you want a Lumina running away from your 5.7l Z28 Camaro? No. GM wouldn't let this happen. Also in 1991, the fastest Corvette had 285hp. A 280hp Lumina would walk a 285hp Corvette, and you just can't have Luminas beating your Corvettes. That is the reason it was detuned, and it was doen so with the intake manifold and camshafts, which explains why it is so easy to get really decent power from simple bolt ons. Let this engine breathe, and it comes alive.

Also I doubt HIGHLY that you will get 280hp with just cams. You need the mods to support them, which includes an intake that is worth a damn. If the new cams have a 4500-7500 power curve, yet the intakes is 3000-5500, you are not very efficient. But with supporting mods, 350+ N/A is plausible.

[This message has been edited by AaronZ34 (edited 04-21-2005).]

quote Originally posted by AaronZ34: It was not detuned becuz of the tranny. GM can build auto trannies to hold power, they can build a tranny. They aren't stupid. Think of this. In 1991, the fastest Camaro made was what, 240 MAYBE 260hp? DO you want a Lumina running away from your 5.7l Z28 Camaro? No. GM wouldn't let this happen. Also in 1991, the fastest Corvette had 285hp. A 280hp Lumina would walk a 285hp Corvette, and you just can't have Luminas beating your Corvettes

This is comparing apples and oranges. Its about a reliable "transverse" mounted tranny. Looks that didnt happen..

From what I've heard, the DOHC motors ate those autos at a higher than normal rate.

And no, humiliating the Corvette is not a good way to gain brownie points with GM.

quote Originally posted by AaronZ34: It was not detuned becuz of the tranny. GM can build auto trannies to hold power, they can build a tranny.

Hahahaha.
Dude... 4T60E's fall apart if you look at them crosseyed...

This isnt a grand national, you dont need 4 bolt mains. If you use arp studs you should be ok. The tensile strenght of an arp stud is more than sufficent to support 300+ hp. What you need to do is reduce the total rotaing mass to reduce the forces on the crank, as well as time the cams right to release some residual pressure and increase exhaust scavenging to really make hp with this engine. A set of cams with the hot w41 #2 grinds would rock the tdc as far as whatever your intake could support.

on another note, I was unaware of any quad 6, I only knew about the quad 8. any pics of the quad 6?

The TDC was conceived as the quad 6, but fell short.
I'm thinking 4 bolt caps for 450+ at the wheels... pair of t25's or small t3's.

quote Originally posted by Will: Hahahaha. Dude... 4T60E's fall apart if you look at them crosseyed...

I agree. I sadi GM could build a tranny, I didn't say the 4T60e could.

Ive gotten mixed reactions when discussing the strenght of the 60 degree engine series bottom ends. There is a 340 HP turbo 3.4 PR's at the wheels, running around with a "stock bottom end". Thats pretty dam good. Iv'e also heard of numerous broken cranks in Fieros 2.8's so that leaves me with questions. I believe that the broken cranks were on the externaly balanced motors, witch we all know 3.1-3.4's are certainly not. My goal with the 3.4 DOHC SC is to do what everyone wishes they could, but few sucseed. I have set the budget for the engine at $3,000 and I decided to use mostly factory parts from all sorts of other cars, and fabricate the rest. I expect at least 350 horses, but not more then 450, because I don't see the crank or head gaskets surviving that kind of power. I will call it a day when it gets to 400 horses. My bottom end will encompass the 3100/3400 mains and oil pan (Why they didn't do that from the factory when it was available is beyond me) That means I will have to take the engine in to be align bored, yes, on a 0 mile crate engine. I may or may not use the cast oil pan, I may decide just to use the T shaped mains to build an anchor to the block, or just a well reinforced block girdle. No matter what the decision comes to, I want the block to be as stiff as possible, because I believe that a stiff block will help the crank distribute the extreem loads into rotation, not flex and distortion of the crank witch may cause premature bearing wear and or crank breakage, witch could scrap the whole project. Rods are easy, 4340 Steel H breams (probably 5.7", Bit if there is any possibility, I would get the 6.0"'s in an instant!) origionally intended for use on a high horsepower 283/327 SBC with Small journals. Narrowed and retanged for 3.4's stock bearings. Pistons will be a one off custom forged set, my plan is to mirror image the head design and have NO corners or sharp edges. It may not be so easy with the way the valve reliefs would have to be set, But my theory is that the valve relief's are ONLY for belt breakage, so they don't have to be as deep as they are stock. I will also be bringing the piston slightly out of the cylender so that I can utilize the quench area that the 96-97 clover leaf heads provide. The pin will be .927" from the SBC. I plan on having 8.7:1 compression. I will be doing everything in my power to combat possible detonation meanwhile preserving efficiency, and at a reasonable cost. Of course If or when I've done what I set out to do, It will be much more replicable for the next guy to do. The real magic for this engine will be its pistons, they give the compression ratio, the detonation resistance and the efficiency Im looking for, and also allow the use of real strong rods, that aren't even expensive. A quick rundown of what I am using and where they come from:

Eaton M112 Blower, Ford Lightning
Injectors (undecided on needed #'s)
intake, custom fabricated 1/2" and 1/4" 6061 aluminum
Crate 3.4 DOHC
Custom headers (undecided spec's)
Stock head gaskets
ARP Head studs
ARP Main studs
ARP Rod studs
Custom pistons (manufacturer undecided)
4340 Steel H beam rods 5.7" (unless I find a way to get 6.0's to work) from Race Parts
Stock bearings
3100/3400 mains
3100/3400 Oil pan (likley)
Oiling systm will remain stock
Supercoupe crank pulley (if it works out)
1227730 computer with highly modified TGP code
Modified 2.8 Fiero harness
Custom ratio Getrag 5 speed (done!)
Undecided clutch
Walbro 255 LPH fuel pump
Stock ignition (GM DIS)
Thats pretty much it so far, I cant wait till I can work on it again! but I won't see the engine again till either June or September when I go back to NY to visit (and take some of my stuff back with me).

quote Originally posted by Fierobsessed: ............ My bottom end will encompass the 3100/3400 mains and oil pan (Why they didn't do that from the factory when it was available is beyond me) That means I will have to take the engine in to be align bored, yes, on a 0 mile crate engine. .............., or just a well reinforced block girdle. No matter what the decision comes to, I want the block to be as stiff as possible, because I believe that a stiff block will help the crank distribute the extreem loads into rotation, not flex and distortion of the crank witch may cause premature bearing wear and or crank breakage, ........................... ............................ Pistons will be a one off custom forged set, my plan is to mirror image the head design and have NO corners or sharp edges. It may not be so easy with the way the valve reliefs would have to be set, ......................... I will also be bringing the piston slightly out of the cylender so that I can utilize the quench area that the 96-97 clover leaf heads provide. ............................. I plan on having 8.7:1 compression. ...................

Interesting stuff; $3K, huh? if you can do it, more power to you (literally!)

No mention of cams but that is a story by itself; no doubt you will be doing something equally hi-po;
I am wondering how you will get the pistons to pop out and yet give 8.7:1....... won't you need quite a dish into the tops then? So you'll have to work your valve reliefs into that somehow............
The stud girdle is something I have been thinking about; take a Honda or similar in to the machine shop as an example and see how hard it would be to imitate it.
What are the implications for oil sealson the crank in your scenario? Is that a problem of any sort?

so I am thinking that between doing something with the crank/mains, cams and pretty unusual pistons your budget is going to be under fire...... you may want to do what I am doing. Lose the receipts LOL.

But as always keep us posted; it is a super interesting sounding project!!

I never take into account my own labor, and I can do almost all the fabrication, machine work, welding, wiring, programing and designing. I expect the pistons to cost me around 6-800$ alone. The rods will cost about $300. so thats about 1 grand. The engine was heh... $500 (for a crate 96-97, don't hate me please!) and the blower was 400. so I am at about 2,000. for the bulk of the engine. Computer 50, fuel pump and injectors 3-400$ Rings and gaskets $300 Studs... well maybe I will go over budget, adding it all up now... Oh well. screw the budget if it's more, Its gotta work.

As for the pistons, they aren't that bad, The factory pistons according to my calc's,come out of the cylender alittle as it is, plus they have a 2.2" wide .040" pop top, then 4 valve reliefs, in the end it comes up being about 2.5 CC's short of a flat top. with .047" head clearance witch is good for quench. My pistons have to be about 10CC's short of that, so a 12-13 CC dish on a flat top is what I'm looking at. If I can get that by mirroring the combustion chambers and alittle deeper on the valves, to give them reasonable relief's. Well, I take it I'm going to have to manual mill alot of old pistons to see if the design I want is even possible, Im sure it is, since the head is built this way. I wish I had a CNC. It would almost be cheeting...

I dont know why I would have any problems with the crank seals. The front seal is on the timing cover housing, and the rear is part of the rear main, witch is the same for the 3100/3400, 3.4 DOHC 3.4 Pushrod, and even the 2.8. Only the front, and the two central mains are the T-shaped mains. The front one has nothing to do with oil sealing. The front and rear of the cast oil pan also matches the sealing pattern of all 60 degree V6's made after 87, so they will match up, but not necessarily bolt up though. The block would have to be drilled and tapped for the new bolt pattern from what I've read.

That sounds like a really interesting project. Please take the time to document and photograph as it progresses. I'm sure it will be a big help to those like me who have just enough knowledge to be hazardous .

Nolan