There have been many threads in the past as to which is better. When I built my 3.4L with a carb there was no aftermarket EFI intake readily avalable so I was able to get decent power going to a carb. Now before this get's into a flurry of debates, Let me just say that the following is dyno proven facts between 2 engines built by the same person and dyno-tuned by the same local shop. The ONLY difference between the engines is the fuel delivery and ignition. The shop that ported the heads was the same shop, the internal parts (rockers, timing chain, oil pump, etc) are the exact same. The ignition system difference is mine used the Crane Fireball set-up and the other is using an MSD set-up. Although I don't believe the ignition systems make any difference in power. The only difference between the cars is one was an auto trans and the other is a 5-spd getrag.

Edit: I forgot he is using the Crane 272 cam so the cam difference's are his has .004 higher lift and 2* less duration than the custom ground cam I used. Using Desktop Dyno there was no difference in power.

Car # 1:
My black 1986 SE
3.4L with a holley 390cfm carb, auto trans.
Last chassis dyno it had (before my V-8 swap)
197.2 HP and 207 ft/lbs torque at the wheels.

Car # 2:
Friends red 1986 SE
3.4L with Trueleo and accel 19# injectors, 5-spd getrag, Dyno-tuned today.
Chassis dyno after tuning. (next week I'll get scans of his dyno and post them, he isn't on the internet.)
205.8 HP and 212 ft/lbs torque

The difference in power to the wheels is most likely the difference in the transmissions and NOT fuel delivery. (This is just my opinion.)
He plan's on driving the car as a daily driver. After the initial 500mile break-in period he is going to try and run it down the 1/4 mile before they close for the winter. He is also going to monitor his gas mileage as well to compare it with what I was getting.

You can be the judge of the result's. I am just posting what we tested.

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

Happiness isn't around the corner...
Happiness IS the corner.
ZZ4 Powered !!

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 09-03-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Oreif: Car # 2: 3.4L with Trueleo and accel 19# injectors, 5-spd getrag, Dyno-tuned today. Chassis dyno after tuning. (next week I'll get scans of his dyno and post them, he isn't on the internet.) 205.8 HP and 212 ft/lbs torque

I have got to get my heads and lower intake ported.

Thanks for posting. It's about what I would have expected.

Interesting results. Just curious, were both cars running stock compression ratio pistons and did they have aftermarket exhaust headers?

quote Originally posted by Francis T: Interesting results. Just curious, were both cars running stock compression ratio pistons and did they have aftermarket exhaust headers?

Compression is not stock. The heads were shaved to give the engine a 9.4:1 ratio. The pistons are stock.
Exhaust consists of Sprint Manifolds, no cat, modded "Y" pipe, and Borla exhaust.

Modded "Y" pipe means the restriction at the "Y" was removed by means of cutting and re-welding.

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 09-04-2005).]

Finally! I can't believe somone actually made over 200whp with a 3.4 on a fuel injected car! I have had my fiero for over 4 years and never wanted to spend a fortune building it, unless the results you shared could be reproduced. I can see the trul-leo intake does indeed make the difference. What kind of ecm was the manual car running? Was there any fuel modifiers(computers) involved or was it the factory pcm? If you could list the exact build sheet of the engine, including who did the heads it would be greatly appreciated. Make sure to let us know ASAP if he gets 1/4 mile time. Again, thanks for the great news!

Tim

quote Originally posted by fiero87: What kind of ecm was the manual car running? Was there any fuel modifiers(computers) involved or was it the factory pcm? If you could list the exact build sheet of the engine, including who did the heads it would be greatly appreciated. Tim

The ECM is stock with a custom burned PROM that was tuned using the dyno.
The fuel system was Accel 19# injectors, a Holley adjustable fuel pressure regulator, and the fuel pump from a Buick Grand National.

I'll gather a list of what was used.

The head work was done by:
United Service Automotive Incorporated
659 W Colfax St
Palatine, IL 60067-2340
847-991-5133

Now list some prices, carbed method is a bit better in price. Not to mention how easier it is coming from a 2.5. Well thats a different debate all together.

Are the heads P&P?

quote Originally posted by Custom2M4: Now list some prices, carbed method is a bit better in price. Not to mention how easier it is coming from a 2.5. Well thats a different debate all together.

Just to build the engines as far as cost is: (parts and head work)

Carb'd 3.4L $1679.00
EFI 3.4L $1925.00

Note: This includes buying all parts NEW. Dyno-tuning cost is the same per hour, I honestly don't remember how long it took time wise to tune mine. We were at the shop for about 4 hours yesterday.

The engine blocks were bought at the same time and had the starter holes already drilled. (Bought them from Twin Lakes Fiero along with 2 cradles. Bob gave us a very good price for everything.)

quote Originally posted by goatnipples2002: Are the heads P&P?

Heads are ported, polished, decked (shaved) with SS valves (5-angle valve job) and Comp Cams 1.52 roller tipped rockers / heavy duty pushrods.

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 09-04-2005).]

quote Originally posted by fiero87: Finally! I can't believe somone actually made over 200whp with a 3.4 on a fuel injected car! I have had my fiero for over 4 years and never wanted to spend a fortune building it, unless the results you shared could be reproduced. I can see the trul-leo intake does indeed make the difference. What kind of ecm was the manual car running? Was there any fuel modifiers(computers) involved or was it the factory pcm? If you could list the exact build sheet of the engine, including who did the heads it would be greatly appreciated. Make sure to let us know ASAP if he gets 1/4 mile time. Again, thanks for the great news! Tim

This was done a long time ago with a little boost . But I know it's pretty cool to see the N/A guys moving foward. Congrats to those involved on the milestone.

Peak HP and Troque are great to see on both engines, but what are the torgue curves like?

I recently broke down a dyno chart to show the area-between-the-lines in detail to show what more CFM does for these engines. While it was done on a car with our intake it can also be applied to the a carb setup as both will increase CFM. If someone knows how to post a text and chart done in MS Word let me know (rspiderii@aol.com) and I'll send you the file to put up here. It's very much related to this topic and quite interesting.

Well, those results are great, however I am missing some information.
what throttle body was used on the Truleo intake?

Also, I know this is me being a pain, but do you have a stock crossover you could put back on the EFI motor and dyno again?
If you ask me, you got 40rwhp from higher compression and the crossover and again possibly a much larger throttle body (which is an option with the Truleo intake).

This does give me bigger goals for my motor now. So I'm excited. I was using an H260 cam, 15.9lb injectors and a stock crossover and compression ratio on a tired 100+k block when I made 150.

Shoot, that's 242 Gross hp and my goal was 225-230!

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 09-06-2005).]

So the MSD gave you 8Hp more?? I knew MSD was better Just joking. I think the key item here is what most people don't do when they do this type of swap and that is dyno (read $$) tunning. Good to see that the Truleo finally can provide EFI the opportunity to meet the 3.4 potential. Add a turbo and you are hanging there with the best. Would be nice to post both dyno charts to see how the behave. Thanks a lot for sharing

------------------
Palm Beach Fieros
http://pbfieros.tripod.com

Thanks Oreif.

As always, quality over quantity. I think your estimation is correct. The auto tranny will bleed off more hp. for all the well known reasons.

The research also shows that the final outcome between carb and EFI is not so dissimilar.

For those guys thinking about carb for their 2.8's, I am still working out little issues with mine, so either way, EFI, or carb, the mods are challenging apart from the cost difference.

Thanks again.

Arn

Would you happen to know the TB bore size and Carb barrel size that are on those two engines?

quote Originally posted by Francis T: Would you happen to know the TB bore size and Carb barrel size that are on those two engines?

Carb = 390cfm 4-bbl Holley (vacuum secondaries)
Throttle body = 62mm RSM J-body

What does that 62mm flow? ~360cfm I'm guessing... Also, what rpm was peak hp and peak tq made at? I'll guess 4100 for peak tq...

Did the TB plug into the harness, or did it have to be adapted?
Was the manifold an off-the-shelf Trueleo? Or was it modified to accept this TB?

You do realize that the copycats are going to be beating a path to your (or his) door, don't you.
I'll be right there, in line. I'm not proud.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 09-07-2005).]

I sincerely doubt that he gained 40whp from that slight bump in compression.... or even close to what you said about the x-over pipe. Lou, why is it you are so against the trueleo intake? It seems that at every turn you have some other explanation for more power instead of giving credit where it is due. My assumption is that with "proper" fuel injection tuning that somone finally utilized the 3.4 to close to its max NA potential. Speaking of compression ratio, anyone know what CR you get when you use factory 3.4 heads with 3.4 TDC pistons?
Tim

quote Originally posted by fiero87: I sincerely doubt that he gained 40whp from that slight bump in compression.... or even close to what you said about the x-over pipe. Lou, why is it you are so against the trueleo intake? It seems that at every turn you have some other explanation for more power instead of giving credit where it is due. My assumption is that with "proper" fuel injection tuning that somone finally utilized the 3.4 to close to its max NA potential. Speaking of compression ratio, anyone know what CR you get when you use factory 3.4 heads with 3.4 TDC pistons? Tim

I'm not against the Trueleo intake, I just take the opposite approach. I don't understand why everyone is quick to blame the Trueleo for a 40 hp gain. I've done a number of mods and dynoed the results so I have a good idea what mods are worth. No previous Trueleo equipped engine has made more power than my stock ported intake motor so do you think it was the Trueleo or maybe something else that led to these gains. Here's something this motor has that most others (including my own) don't have: tuning, exhaust restrictions removed from the crossover pipe, .5 bump in compression and a big-ass throttle body. If you don't think that those mods can add up to 40rwhp, then you don't know much.

If just grinding off the casting in the stock exhaust manifolds can get you 10rwhp, then how much will the crossover porting do?
You don't think raising your compression ratio increases hp? Then why did the smog motors of the 70's lose big hp numbers over their 60's counterparts?
You don't think you can net an extra 10rwhp from tuning your motor to your mods? You got alot to learn.

People got to realize that engines are SYSTEMS, not individual parts thrown together that when you change one, you automatically make more power.
Oreif made 197rwhp employing techniques that have been around forever. It wasn't one magic part, it was everything being matched to work together. Convetional science says that you can make bigger gains by throwing more air in a car vs allowing more air to leave the motor. That's true when you actually have a turbo or supercharger throwing the air in. Real world practice has shown that a freer flowing exhaust is the cheapest and fastest way to get more horse power out of a motor for your money.

This EFI car has a 62mm throttle body, I would like to know how that flows compared to a 390 cfm carb. If it flows less then I will assume that Truleo flows better than the Edelbrock intake. If it flows more then a few of those extra hp can come from having the bigger TB.

Let's compare motors:
My 150rwhp motor used the H260 cam, this EFI motor the H272
Mine had stock compression, this one was raised .5
Mine didn't have a ported crossover, this one did
I had a Darrel 57mm tb, this one had a 62mm
Mine ran a stock 88 chip, this one was tuned perfectly
I had a ported intake, this one had a Truleo
my motor had well over 100,000 miles when it was dynoed, this one is a fresh rebuild with a couple extra cubes

I've made not secrets about what parts I used to make my power. I've documented a 3 ft*lbs and 1.9 rwhp gain in power just by using an ACCEL coil vs. the stock one. I've documented a 10 rwhp gain(separate from the 150rwhp dyno run but that same day) just by removing the EGR valve off the crossover and letting the exhaust flow out of there as well. That alone told me that there was much more to be had from a better exhaust system. Until about a month ago during one of these discussions, I never knew the stock crossover has such a restriction. I went to give Oreif a + rating when I finally got it out of him but couldn't because I had already done so about 2 years ago.

Francis has mentioned possibly making a Trueleo exhaust. I have publicly stated that I would be customer # 1 if he does. So I am not here bashing a product or a person, I am just stating facts from real-world experience and not fancy advertising.

I've listed the differences here and the fact that no prior Trueleo motor has been documented to make more rwhp than mine. I leave it to you people to make an educated guess as to why this motor made 205rwhp and others haven't.

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 09-07-2005).]

Another reason why I want to know where the peak torque on this motor is - is because I'm not overly impressed with the torque figure and it leads me to believe that this power is peaky really high in the rpm range. Probably at 6000rpm.

I ask because I will build a motor to suit MY driving needs. My goal is/was to make peak torque at about 3800 rpm and peak hp between 5000-5200 rpm. I'd be happy to see 185rwhp @ 5000 and 225 ft*lbs at 3800 rpm. That's a great STREET motor. These are my goals and not anyone else's.

Now, I don't know about that particular engine, but I can assure you this, and have the dyno results posted on our site, our intake is not peeky at all, it has a very wide powerband. As for a ported stock intake vers ours, there is a big difference in flow. The trueleo was flow benched and calculated to 300HP.

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: What does that 62mm flow? ~360cfm I'm guessing... Also, what rpm was peak hp and peak tq made at? I'll guess 4100 for peak tq...

62mm = 435cfm
205.8 HP @ 5200rpm
212 ft/lbs torque @ 4100

The cam is what determines what RPM range the peaks fall at.

The 40hp gain wasn't just from the intake, It was everything being matched. Which included, unrestrictive intake, Both heads had the pockets ported out to the max aside from port matching the intake and exhaust. The heads were shaved to increase compression, large cam, and specifically fine tuning. The first run we only had 177hp and it was running very rich across the band. The 19# injectors along with the 55psi fuel pump required very careful tuning to get them set. You definately need an adjustable fuel pressure regulator to get things right.

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: My goal is/was to make peak torque at about 3800 rpm and peak hp between 5000-5200 rpm. I'd be happy to see 185rwhp @ 5000 and 225 ft*lbs at 3800 rpm.

Then you would need a custom ground cam to move your torque down. The higher lift cams available for the 60* V-6 pushrod engines tend to center the torque peak around 4000 rpm. and the HP around 5100 rpm. In comparison my engine's peaks were 100 RPM less (5100 and 4000). Also you need to take into account the cast heads. Which even ported and polished are not the best flowing heads (compared to the aluminum heads on the newer 60* V-6's) So the dyno curves will be flatter and the RPM peaks lower as well. This is why the aftermarket cams are set-up the way that they are. If we were able to use the aluminum heads then you could get your peak hp into the 6000 rpm range.

The only reason both engine make decent power is because everything was matched together. We started with an engine block and a cam and built everything around that. The problems com in when you increase one thing but not all the others. This makes tuning that much more difficult.

Raydar ~ The IAC and TPS sensors plugged right in to the harness. You need to get the 85-89 version P/N 62TB1GJ28-1102
As for which Trueleo he got, I'll have to check. I know he did some port matching between the TB and the intake. We just calculated the TB flow needed to be 390cfm or better and since we couldn't locate a 59.67mm TB we went with RSM's aftermarket version.

quote Originally posted by Oreif: Raydar ~ The IAC and TPS sensors plugged right in to the harness. You need to get the 85-89 version P/N 62TB1GJ28-1102 As for which Trueleo he got, I'll have to check. I know he did some port matching between the TB and the intake. We just calculated the TB flow needed to be 390cfm or better and since we couldn't locate a 59.67mm TB we went with RSM's aftermarket version.

Excellent!
Just a couple more questions... Did the TB bolt holes have the same spacing as the Fiero TB?
Did you do anything to "bulletproof" the bottom end? ARP bolts, studs, etc?
I think I read before that yours was balanced. Was the EFI engine balanced as well? Or was it "out of the box"?

Thanks, man. This is one of the most encouraging threads I've seen in a while.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 09-07-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Oreif: The only reason both engine make decent power is because everything was matched together. We started with an engine block and a cam and built everything around that. The problems com in when you increase one thing but not all the others. This makes tuning that much more difficult.

My point exactly. Everything needs to be matched from top to bottom. Throttle body to exhaust tip.

One last question: What was your A/F ratio throughout the RPM range?

I'm going to look into a custom roller cam and use a roller cam block if I can find one cheap enough in the junk yard.

I also intend to shorten the intake and go with the TDC pistons with as big an overbore as I can get (3.5L). And a custom exhaust.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Excellent! Just a couple more questions... Did the TB bolt holes have the same spacing as the Fiero TB? Did you do anything to "bulletproof" the bottom end? ARP bolts, studs, etc? I think I read before that yours was balanced. Was the EFI engine balanced as well? Or was it "out of the box"? Thanks, man. This is one of the most encouraging threads I've seen in a while.

Neither of the engines were "balanced", We just replaced the bearings, checked clearences and new rings. All the bolts used on the bottom end were new stock bolts.
The only difference from stock was the head bolts and exhaust bolts. We used the ARP head studs and Rodney's exhaust studs for the Sprints. (both engines).
We used stock bolts for everything else, but they were new bolts. (oh and we got rid of the TORX bolts for the waterpump/timing cover and went with hex headed bolts)

The TB bolt patter is different, I'll see him later tonight here at work so I'll get more info on the TB swap.

Cool!
Thanks!

That is amazing that you picked-up 29 hp just by tuning the set-up correctly. That makes the money spent on dyno tuning just as important as any upgrade that was added to the engine.

Thanks for sharing all of this valuable info!

quote Originally posted by Brian27: That is amazing that you picked-up 29 hp just by tuning the set-up correctly. That makes the money spent on dyno tuning just as important as any upgrade that was added to the engine. Thanks for sharing all of this valuable info!

That's why even though we burn chips our intakes per how your engine is built, we do recommend doing a dyno run with wideband to be sure you're getting the most form your mods.

I'll ask again.

Oreif, what A/F ratio was that EFI motor running?
Is 13:1 the ideal? My car ran 12.8:1.

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: I'll ask again. Oreif, what A/F ratio was that EFI motor running? Is 13:1 the ideal? My car ran 12.8:1.

As far as I know, (and of course I'm coming from a turbo standpoint), 12.8 is great on a turbo, maybe a hair lean. But From what I hear on N/A motors, that's a little rich. Stock on (at least my saturn) is 14.7, I've heard that that's about where most motors run.

Either way, 12.8 should be a good split and be making pretty good power. More when oreif comes back

------------------
AIM= Fish100770
96 Saturn SL2 Turbo (evil SL2)

My cardomain site: cardomain.com/memberpage/702872

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: I'll ask again. Oreif, what A/F ratio was that EFI motor running? Is 13:1 the ideal? My car ran 12.8:1.

He is bringing the dyno graphs to work tonight. I'll try and get them scanned / posted tomorrow.
I'll have to look at the graphs to answer the ratio. If I recall the A/F graph is along the bottom of the dyno graph.

cooguyfish ~ 14.7 is what EFI with emissions run during normal driving. Lou is wanting to know what it runs at wide open throttle. Generally 12.8 is about average.

quote Originally posted by Oreif: He is bringing the dyno graphs to work tonight. I'll try and get them scanned / posted tomorrow. I'll have to look at the graphs to answer the ratio. If I recall the A/F graph is along the bottom of the dyno graph. cooguyfish ~ 14.7 is what EFI with emissions run during normal driving. Lou is wanting to know what it runs at wide open throttle. Generally 12.8 is about average.

See, I heard that 14.7 was what the saturn goes for, but never that that was just in "light" throttle conditions. Not that I'm doubting you, that makes a lot of sense since I thought going from a 14.7 to a 12.5 was a bit of a jump just because of the turbo. anyways, enough of my ramblings and thanks for clearing that up.

quote Originally posted by Oreif: He is bringing the dyno graphs to work tonight. I'll try and get them scanned / posted tomorrow. I'll have to look at the graphs to answer the ratio. If I recall the A/F graph is along the bottom of the dyno graph. cooguyfish ~ 14.7 is what EFI with emissions run during normal driving. Lou is wanting to know what it runs at wide open throttle. Generally 12.8 is about average.

Thanks,
If I remember correctly, GM programs WOT to be just over 13:1. Is that correct?

Orief, do you know what the fuel pressure and timing were after tuning the engine? I have a 3.1L that is built similar to your friend's 3.4L and it is hesitating when the accelerator is pressed.

Just so you know, My engine was used for all franks 3.4L testing.

my motor is a 1995 camaro 3.4L with stock cam, stock timing, stock pistons, stock heads, stock everything, but the ported exhaust manifolds (exhaust system was all stock except the flowmaster muffler which some say can REDUCE horsepower.

my car did have a crane HI6 ignition box on it, and no catylitic converter.

most 3.4L dyno's ive seen put the stock 3.4L somewhere around 125-135HP, so mine was right on par before the intake, the onlything we changed for the dyno run was the intake and tuning the ship, after which i ran the 142 or so horsepower run, Granted that my a/f was about 11:1 before the intake and tuning, and after tuning we were running around 13.5:1 on the dyno runs probably helped the HP numbers greatly

after seeing the power oreif is getting from teh EFI motor, i really wanna build up my 3.4L pushrod motor!!!

In all honesty i dont see this happening, but id like to see oreif take a ported plenum and throttle body like lou's and put on this EFI motor and go dyno it with nothing else changed, (maybe alittle extra tuning) and see what kinda power it gets.

all in all im very happy with the intake. Id like to stick it on my other fiero with is a stock 3.4L with no mods at all, still has the original muffler, and see what kinda power it puts out with just the intake, and nothing else.

matthew

quote Originally posted by m0sh_man: Just so you know, My engine was used for all franks 3.4L testing. my motor is a 1995 camaro 3.4L with stock cam, stock timing, stock pistons, stock heads, stock everything, but the ported exhaust manifolds (exhaust system was all stock except the flowmaster muffler which some say can REDUCE horsepower. my car did have a crane HI6 ignition box on it, and no catylitic converter. most 3.4L dyno's ive seen put the stock 3.4L somewhere around 125-135HP, so mine was right on par before the intake, the onlything we changed for the dyno run was the intake and tuning the ship, after which i ran the 142 or so horsepower run, Granted that my a/f was about 11:1 before the intake and tuning, and after tuning we were running around 13.5:1 on the dyno runs probably helped the HP numbers greatly after seeing the power oreif is getting from teh EFI motor, i really wanna build up my 3.4L pushrod motor!!! In all honesty i dont see this happening, but id like to see oreif take a ported plenum and throttle body like lou's and put on this EFI motor and go dyno it with nothing else changed, (maybe alittle extra tuning) and see what kinda power it gets. all in all im very happy with the intake. Id like to stick it on my other fiero with is a stock 3.4L with no mods at all, still has the original muffler, and see what kinda power it puts out with just the intake, and nothing else. matthew

Since it wouldn't be too hard to do, why don't you pull out your cross-over and modify that like Oreif did and dyno it. I bet you'll be surprised with the results.

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: Since it wouldn't be too hard to do, why don't you pull out your cross-over and modify that like Oreif did and dyno it. I bet you'll be surprised with the results.

since the dyno run, i have removed my y-pipe and cut it where it connects together ( they sandwich the 1.25" pipes together and cut them down to 3/4" pipes at the y connector, thats nasty!!!!) and i installed 2.5" pipe from there back to the flowmaster, I felt no seat of the pants difference so far, im sure theres gotta be some kinda change, but as of right now there is no difference in actual driving.
im thinking of installing 1.6 roller tipped rockers to see if that will net any difference in the driving.

matthew

2-8hp difference is hard to feel with the SOTP meter. A dyno would be the best way. Also I think it is easier to feel torque differences than HP differences.