You're lucky to have all that going for you; you're also going to start getting requests....... ......... if you're not careful...

quote Originally posted by Fierobsessed: ........... well maybe I will go over budget, adding it all up now... Oh well. screw the budget if it's more, Its gotta work.

ATTAboy!! join the club LOL .........

quote 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...

well coming up with the proper volume (or lack of it) is one thing but the mysterious quench area/shape is another thing. I think everyone has their own ideas on this so it will be interesting to see how yours works out. I do remember a PHR article (prob about 8 yrs ago?) on building a 350hp 350 SBC - they went to zero quench: the piston finished exactly flush with the deck (as opposed to finishing slightly below it stock) and they did of course obtain their 350+ hp with relatively mild parts. A LOT of the gains were a result of careful machine work and clearances etc. Good, thought provoking article.

quote 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.

This part I simply didn't know about; I assumed different oil pans meant different related items (and I'm old school SBC-minded on things like oil seals) interesting; do you think the pan will actually add any real stiffness ....??? (edit to add some intelligence) if the pan is 'weldable', it could be improved upon/reinforced as a good starting point as a girdle........???

Did you mention what you had in mind for cams? ie a grind/pattern example etc? I ask because boost requires different thinking and a S/C will always be under boost (as opposed to a turbo that might not be) so just wondering.

Sounds awesome and will be pretty cool to follow/see how it works out. I personally would still be tempted to look at improving the oil drainback and increasing the pressure a bit (easy to do that) if the drainback can be helped. That oiling passageway is.......Loooonnnngggggg. Of course, since the budget is out the window ( ) why not a nice dry sump system? .............
Oh yeah; two other items: O ringing the block AND (a thought I have been turning over recently) trying to ADD head bolts (yeah, sounds ridiculous) if possible (somehow?). The old SBC has an arrangement that puts 5 bolts in a circular pattern around each cylinder; works really well. AT the very least I guess ARP studs will help tho.

oh yeah again; (must be morning) chev 4 bolt main blocks don't have anything on a good 2 bolt block (with good core/casting qualities........!!) if the 2 bolt gets some aftermarket main caps and is splay drilled and tapped for new, extra main bolts. It might even be stronger that way. Wonder if the same aftermarket caps could be machined to fit our block?
ok ok
go for coffee now

[This message has been edited by fiero308 (edited 04-22-2005).]

the 3100/3400 pan he is reffering to is a ribbed cast aluminum pan that not only bolts to the block but also bolts horizontally to the crank bearing caps..

quote Originally posted by Kohburn: 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

If you look at this thread over at 60degree dot com about halfway down the page you'll see a custom cam idea I had that beats the W41 cams. My name's Cannonball over there.
I got a really nice gain in power plus a nice flat power curve:
http://60degreev6.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=3998
There are places that will do custom grinds affordably but the real question is, is there enough room for these cams and will they work? I've asked over there but nobody seems to know. Maybe someone here will. Even if the answer's no, it would still be nice to know. Will's got a big brain, Will, will it work or is it back to the drawing board? Anyone?
Edit; my appologies if I'm taking your thread way offtrack here 86DOHC. I don't mean to but I got all excited when I started reading about better cams so I had to ask.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Dave Gunsul (edited 04-22-2005).]

lol Ive kinda given up caring. its ok without the pics its not as interesting anyway. just so you guys know, im stalled on the project until I get my working engine finished. Ive just got to hook it up not, its bolted in and the struts and brakes back on. Then I'll get back to cutting the manifold and finding someone to weld it. Plus I still gotta figure out what to do about the ECM. Im tempted just to plug the 3.1L turbo ECM in and the map sensor from it and see what happens, but Im afraid I'll overboost and blow the crap out of the engine....

FINALY PICS!!
With the SC sitting on the engine, and a chuck of 2x4 laying flat on top of it, the decklid will still close!

However when the pulley is positioned correctly, im going to have trim just a little off the decklid support, no biggie!

Thats not an M90. Its an M62, a much smaller blower. I seriously hope you would reconsider using that as the blower of choice, its pretty small by comparison to the M90 (90 meaning 90CI per revolution) and the M62 only pushes 62CI per revolution. If you drove it 2:1, it might make a couple of PSI 1-2 but thats about it. Any more ratio, you would surpass its maximum RPM operation, and subsequently heat the air more then anything. An m90 has a much longer nose, thats the easiest way to tell the model.

I was under the impression that all 3.8L had a M90. This is off a 93 bonny. I dont know, but if it can feed an engine that is 11% bigger 8-10 PSI stock (or in that area, I dont know the exact) Im sure its good for at least 5 on a smaller engine that flows better. Im hoping to regulate it to 5-6PSI to aviod blowing the crap out of the stock bottom end. I know I could go with a bigger blower and make more PSI, but I dont want to push the engine, and Im mostly just going for a little faster, and It makes my pants wet to think what that blower will sound like screaming at 7000 RPM.
Plus forced inductoin will get the engine over its intake problems, leaving me free to open up the exaust and, should I ever find resources to do so, the cams as well

Given the heads on a TDC are rumored to be capable of 280 CFM max, and I want to run ~5 Psi, i would need to be at about 9500 RPM to meet this with the M62, while the M90 will attain this at 6800 RPM. At these given points the M62 will only be drawing 12 HP and the M90 10 HP, at the same given flow, the output tempature of the M62 is +85*, the M90 would be at +80*

While this information doesnt excatly support... well anything,,,, uhh I realized halfway though I had no idea what I was looking into, but I figured Id contiune with my analysis.
Basicaly What Ive shown is that the M90 is a much more efficient supercharger.
Boy anyone who can give me a better, or if possible a REAL analysis pleasde chime in lol.

It wouldn't be too hard to predict a boost chart based on RPM, Displacment and Volumetric efficiency at given RPM's, and taking into account the blowers flow Vs RPM at a given pressure. Witch is basically a strait line according to the charts for the blowers. Either way, assuming 100% VE on the engine and blower, and assuming a 2:1 drive ratio on the eaton M62, The blower will flow 124 CI per crank revolution, while the engine will flow half of its displacment: 103 CI That equates to 20% more flow then the engine can take, or about 20% more pressure then atmospheric, In other words +/- 3 PSI, would be your minimum WOT boost, the number is higher when the VE on the engine is less then 100% or there is some sort of restriction, heads that dont flow much, cams that dont open valves enough, you get the Idea. If the 3800 was a series 1, it came with an Eaton M62, that was from 93-95 IIRC and the series 2 got the bigger Eaton M90 and thats been from 96-02. The M90, if given the same theoretical situation will flow 180 CI per crank revolution is 74% more flow then the 3.4 at 100% VE or about 11 PSI of minimal WOT boost. That's a pretty substantial difference. M112 that I am using is 17 PSI. (thats probably too much) The bypass valve will come in handy, or I might have to dial down the pulley size to get the blower displacment down alittle, witch is really good for temperature. Does anyone have an accurate and reliable VE graph or a flow chart for the 3.4 DOHC? I suppose I could pull that info from the chip, but who knows how accurate that info really is. BTW, the M90 and M62 share no parts except the plastic coupler. The case is VERY different, and the rotors diameter are tiny by comparison to the M90 and M112, witch both use the same larger diameter rotors, the extra displacment comes from the length of the rotor on the M112.

quote Originally posted by 86GT3.4DOHC: I was under the impression that all 3.8L had a M90. This is off a 93 bonny. I dont know, but if it can feed an engine that is 11% bigger 8-10 PSI stock (or in that area, I dont know the exact) Im sure its good for at least 5 on a smaller engine that flows better. Im hoping to regulate it to 5-6PSI to aviod blowing the crap out of the stock bottom end. I know I could go with a bigger blower and make more PSI, but I dont want to push the engine, and Im mostly just going for a little faster, and It makes my pants wet to think what that blower will sound like screaming at 7000 RPM. Plus forced inductoin will get the engine over its intake problems, leaving me free to open up the exaust and, should I ever find resources to do so, the cams as well

As I stated earlier, the 3.4l DOHC actually requires a significantly bigger blower than the 3.8l to produce the same amount of boost, becauz the engine flows so much. And in allr eality, you will blow the top end (pistons), before the bottom end. I would much rather ahve a M90 at 10psi on a stock 3.4 than a M62 at 6-8, this beign that the M90's discharge temperatures are going to be so much lower that your detonation resistance will be a lot better. And about the wetting your pants part, I bet it will sound terrible. THe blower will be spinning so fast in order to make any boost at 7000rpm, that you will nto only be completely out of its efficiency range, but it will probably be overrevving, which elads to warping, substantial heat, etc. Not a good idea. Seriously, as much as I hate the Eaton blowers, M112>M90>M62. Follow this closely, spending the extra $1000 on a M90, or even a M112, will probably save you $3000 in engine internals.

Just becuz your blower is big doesn't mean it makes more boost. Pulleys are good. That is why on the 3.4, the Whipple 3300 is actually better than the 2300, despite it displacing almost as much as the motor. You just get to turn it much slower. What I'm trying to say is, the M62 will be harmful to your motor, and the results won't even be that great.

Maybe you missed the part about how I got the blower for $150. Theres no way Im paying $1000 for one, This is just a little project to play with. And I dont think there is $3000 worth of internals in my engine, I bet I could redo the whole thing for <1000$. But I degress. I ordered my SC gasket for a 93 bonny, and ya know it didnt quite line up, BUT the mounting holes did. So once I confirm that the bolt pattern is the same, I'll make the adapter plate, until then I still have plenty of work to do. Can anyone get me general dimensions of a M90 and a M112 (I could care less about the 112 actualy, but if ya got it.... Mainly deck height. Cause thats my main concern, will it fit under the hood. And lets not forget, which is better a smaller blower that gives 3PSI or a bigger blower that is sitting in the garage cause it doesnt fit ?? A couple of measurements between mounting holes would help in determining if the mounting base is the same, but Im thinking it is.

quote Originally posted by 86GT3.4DOHC: ................. I dont know if you've ever heard a overdriven SC, but its far from terrible, its almost bueatyful, sounds like a jet engine, now couple that with the roar of the TDC engine and I think I will have quite a syphony in the back. That or quite a fire, either should be just as interesting.

LOL
you have a sunroof, right? Next project: EJECTION seat............
should be interesting; keep up the posts!!
gp

The internals of the 3.4 cannot be rebuilt for $1000, he crankshaft alone is $650. I have a rebuild sheet right here showing $2800 for a fully rebuilt longblock.

assuming you have to replace the crankshaft, is that figure the 2800 one?

cause im sure that not all rebuilds will require a crankshaft. unless these motors **** them out on a regular basis or something....

------------------
Brandon Edmonds

1996 Taurus SHO (my baby)
1986 Ford EXP (goin bye-bye soon hopefully)
1986 Fiero (to be my street rocket)
1977 yamaha xs750-2D (in pieces right now, doesnt appear that it will be done for summer, unfortunately)

quote Originally posted by Flyguyeddy: assuming you have to replace the crankshaft, is that figure the 2800 one? cause im sure that not all rebuilds will require a crankshaft. unless these motors **** them out on a regular basis or something....

Yes the 2800 is with a crankshaft. A crank is not needed typically, but I said a full rebuild, in which case a new crank is in order.

has anyone ever thought about increasing the size of the crank bearing journals? increased surface area = more force applied by oil pressure to avoid that 60degreev6 #4 spun bearing

You called it the #4 spun bearing.

Out of curiosity why?

Also, Kohburn, you are the one that is going to be attempting to put a pushrod pan on correct?

Thats a custom crank. BIG $$$$.$$'s. I dont think the spun #4 is from anything other then a lack of oil FLOW. The 3.4 DOHC has a HUUUUGE MASSIVE oil pump capable of a lot of flow. Its a balancing game though between where the oil goes, the bottom end or the top end. The top end fortunatly doesn't need any more oil then stock no matter how hopped up the engine is, well that is unless you have a valve lift change. But who has that? Practically no one, and even that probably doesnt need any more oil. The bottom end has design flaw that causes #4 to spin. (I've personally only ever spun #6) I've read about drilling oiling paths into the crank, as unethical as that sounds, it's actually highly reccomended in several 60 degree racing articles I've read, and that gets the oil where it has to go. Generally speaking though, the 3.4 DOHC does pretty good as far as cranks and oiling go. I don't often hear about spun bearings, broken rods, and yet to hear of a crank failure. However I have head of broken cranks in the pre 88, 2.8's.

quote Originally posted by AaronZ34: You called it the #4 spun bearing. Out of curiosity why? Also, Kohburn, you are the one that is going to be attempting to put a pushrod pan on correct?

its always been #4 for me - one 86' 2.8 and one 95' pushrod 3.4's

i've thought about it but i think fierobssessed is the one doing it

Sorry Fieroobsessed, it was you.

The reason I brought up the #4 one is becuase that is the bearing that spun on my white Z34, and I wasn't aware it was the common one to go out. Bummer.

About the pan, I have been thinking for a while, and after reading your ideas, next time I can see a 3100/3400 bottom end, I am going to look closer, as this could benefit me. But first I need to learn how to weld aluminum, that way I can still make it bigger. Hmm, 3100/3400 pan, or increase capacity stock pan....

Just so long as you are aware that it doesn't bolt up, From what I hear and I cannot check to verify, (something about 2700 miles between me and my engine) the bolt pattern is different, so you might need to drill and tap the block for the bolt locations, or drill the oil pan? I dont know. But it is something to keep in mind.

quote Originally posted by fiero308: well coming up with the proper volume (or lack of it) is one thing but the mysterious quench area/shape is another thing. I think everyone has their own ideas on this so it will be interesting to see how yours works out. I do remember a PHR article (prob about 8 yrs ago?) on building a 350hp 350 SBC - they went to zero quench: the piston finished exactly flush with the deck (as opposed to finishing slightly below it stock) and they did of course obtain their 350+ hp with relatively mild parts. A LOT of the gains were a result of careful machine work and clearances etc. Good, thought provoking article.

The engine in that article was zero deck. An engine can't run zero quench. The pistons will hit the cylinder heads.
Even with zero deck, the thickness of your head gasket is your quench height.

A 3.1 TDC with flat tops and zero deck will have 9.3:1 or so...

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 04-25-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Fierobsessed: Just so long as you are aware that it doesn't bolt up, From what I hear and I cannot check to verify, (something about 2700 miles between me and my engine) the bolt pattern is different, so you might need to drill and tap the block for the bolt locations, or drill the oil pan? I dont know. But it is something to keep in mind.

Oh, it will bolt up

quote Originally posted by Will: [QUOTE]Originally posted by fiero308: well coming up with the proper volume (or lack of it) is one thing but the mysterious quench area/shape is another thing. I think everyone has their own ideas on this so it will be interesting to see how yours works out. I do remember a PHR article (prob about 8 yrs ago?) on building a 350hp 350 SBC - they went to zero quench: the piston finished exactly flush with the deck (as opposed to finishing slightly below it stock) and they did of course obtain their 350+ hp with relatively mild parts. A LOT of the gains were a result of careful machine work and clearances etc. Good, thought provoking article. [QUOTE] The engine in that article was zero deck. An engine can't run zero quench. The pistons will hit the cylinder heads. Even with zero deck, the thickness of your head gasket is your quench height. A 3.1 TDC with flat tops and zero deck will have 9.3:1 or so...

you're right. It was zero DECK. I stand corrected. but if memory serves me they didn't use much trick stuff...... and that is what I was getting at; it was carefully thought out machining and selected parts that made the power. I bet I still have that article.

there is a way to send a signal to the ecm to always have the torque converter engaged. if you are going down the road for a long period of time with that engaged and crusing at 80mph i blew my cam in 1/2.

What in the world are you talking about? Your TCC wasnt engaged so your cam broke? I dont get it.

quote Originally posted by Fierobsessed: Just so long as you are aware that it doesn't bolt up, From what I hear and I cannot check to verify, (something about 2700 miles between me and my engine) the bolt pattern is different, so you might need to drill and tap the block for the bolt locations, or drill the oil pan? I dont know. But it is something to keep in mind.

this has got me wondering.. what about using the 3100 3400 T bearing caps.. and welding more metal into a stock pan to make it rigid.. or just making a whole custom pan only reusing the drain plug and the curved ends... i think it'd be pretty easy really..

but honestly i've never heard of anyone thats blown one of these cranks - seems oiling always takes it out first..

[This message has been edited by Kohburn (edited 04-26-2005).]

What adds up to 2800?? or are you using dealership only prices, and over the counter? Cause when I priced my rebuild, I was looking at $600, That wouldnt include pistons, I dont remember if it did crank or not, and only the timing belt on the timing system, bust still, if I blow a piston, im looking at more $100 for a piston, then $300 for gaskets and stuff. I could probably get a <10k mile 97 engine for 2500...

quote Originally posted by 86GT3.4DOHC: What adds up to 2800?? or are you using dealership only prices, and over the counter? Cause when I priced my rebuild, I was looking at $600, That wouldnt include pistons, I dont remember if it did crank or not, and only the timing belt on the timing system, bust still, if I blow a piston, im looking at more $100 for a piston, then $300 for gaskets and stuff. I could probably get a <10k mile 97 engine for 2500...

I said a FULL rebuild, new everything. And this is how much it costed me, having a mahcine shop get the block, and assemble the long block. Looking back, I should have bought a crate engine.

quote Originally posted by Dave Gunsul: If you look at this thread over at 60degree dot com about halfway down the page you'll see a custom cam idea I had that beats the W41 cams. My name's Cannonball over there. I got a really nice gain in power plus a nice flat power curve: http://60degreev6.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=3998 There are places that will do custom grinds affordably but the real question is, is there enough room for these cams and will they work? I've asked over there but nobody seems to know. Maybe someone here will. Even if the answer's no, it would still be nice to know. Will's got a big brain, Will, will it work or is it back to the drawing board? Anyone? Edit; my appologies if I'm taking your thread way offtrack here 86DOHC. I don't mean to but I got all excited when I started reading about better cams so I had to ask.

i talked briefly to a machinist and he said something about needing longer valves and since i am assuming u are going more aggressive i think better springs will be a must also. i know 1 guy that said he could get me longer valves for 30-35 bux a pop but i haven't found anything on better springs yet.

if they just remove material and don't add material before grinding then yeah need longer valves or lifters - you should just be able to shim the springs up the same amount you lengthen the valves

4 valves per cyl 6 cyls = 24 valve x 30$ = 720$ in valves.. ouch

Anyone made any progress??? Keep the info flowing.

Thanks
Nolan

Just wanted to let everyone know that this project is still active, just not on the main burner right now, too many things going on, Ive got to get em all running before I start moding them, one day soon when I get a chance I'll knock out the rest of the peices and find someone to weld em.

quote Originally posted by 86GT3.4DOHC: Just wanted to let everyone know that this project is still active, just not on the main burner right now, too many things going on, Ive got to get em all running before I start moding them, one day soon when I get a chance I'll knock out the rest of the peices and find someone to weld em.

I'd suggest buying a welder. It is a tool that will save you uber time, and uber money, plus is a lot of fun to use.

But I don't think it is still active, therefore I need at least 7 pictures for you to prove it, but more would help !

Ive got a MIG that would be capable of putting it together, but Id rather not burn holes in my newly cut pieces, just easier to take it to a pro, plus I know most of the places around town so I can get it cheap. It is still active, but no pics as of yet, when I get something new Ill take some