quote Originally posted by Raydar: The green (top) line was my best of 4-5 runs, this past weekend. It's the same engine with the Trueleo intake (same throttle body), 1.6 rockers, cat replaced with a test pipe, underdrive pulley, and a chip that was burned by Troy to complement the manifold. The numbers were 134.41 HP & 172.74 TQ. .

Good stuff, but this doesn't tell me much about the intake itself since you have other mods with it. Don't get me wrong, I think this intake has great potential.

I'm rebuilding a 2.8 this summer and hope to dyno it with a stock intake and then with a truleo.

Dave

Avenger, too bad you're not in Virginia, those were bit exspensive for 3 dyno, especially without a wadeband A/F readout. There has to be someone up your way that's cheeper.

My local place charges me $65 for three pulls. This summer I plan to take the yellow car to baseline with the stock tired 2.8 base and nitrous. Then I'll go back to do the 3.4 base and with nirous. Later on (end of year?) may get the intake and do a final one with it. But this will go very slow as I'm still spending most of the time fine tuning the V8

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: don't forget that cam specs relate to engine displacement as well. Increasing the motor displacement will effective weaken the cam, all else being the same. JazzMan

Yeah, that's the observed phenomenon. In my opinion, the underlying reason for that is that the ratio of port flow to cylinder displacement goes down. More cam is needed to pick the throughput back up at any given RPM.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: It was the first time I had any engine dynoed and I was being cheap as it cost $100 for 3 runs, that was without the A/F ratio, which would have cost even more. They didn't do any chip burning there neither so ithe A/F ratio would have done me no good at the time. Now I know better and Im looking for another place that can offer me more for my money and maybe not cost as much.

Damn, we have some Dyno Days at Miz Dez Racing and it's like $60 for 3 runs... Since my brother was a good customer (400rwhp 98 Firechicken) I did 12 runs for $100.

just an idea here, but wouldn't you got better dyno numbers if your automatic was in lock up. yes or no and why

------------------
85 GT 3.4
Auto 3.08
14.9 @ 90 1.9 60"

quote Originally posted by Lilchief: just an idea here, but wouldn't you got better dyno numbers if your automatic was in lock up. yes or no and why

I've wondered about that, myself. Everyone suggested unhooking it.
I suspect that it may be a "wash".
Next time I dyno it, I'll do it both ways if I can. Assuming I can get hourly rates like last time. (IIRC, it was $70/hour for as many runs as I cared to do. Wideband included.)

On second thought, next time I dyno it, I might have the Getrag installed.

quote [B]Originally posted by ditch:[/Bwrong, I think this intake has great potential. I'm rebuilding a 2.8 this summer and hope to dyno it with a stock intake and then with a truleo. Dave

Thats what I want to see be sure to post results

[This message has been edited by Sullivan (edited 05-30-2005).]

Trueleo is doing an intake for Redraif's (new member here, she has an Indy Fiero also) 1987 Firebird which has a 3.4, and if it gives us gains like that we'll be VERY happy! Her Firebird has a 95 Camaro 3.4 shortblock with ported 2.8 heads (about to come off for a valve job and serious porting), a Reed custom grind cam (.223/.228, .471/.480, 112lsa), PF&E headers with a 2 1/2 y-pipe and 3" single exhaust, and a few other mods. Dyno figures are with the stock chip, and the tune is way off. As soon as we get the intake (we're using a 65mm TB) we'll post the results with the change.

Was going to post the dyno chart, but not sure how???

[This message has been edited by Pontihack (edited 05-31-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Pontihack: Was going to post the dyno chart, but not sure how???

Click the little blue and red "Pennocks Image Poster" box at the bottom of the page, download it and follow the directions.)

Or email it to me. I'll post it for you.

Here's Pontihack's dyno chart.

Sorry for the delay, Joe. Last part of the week was a killer at work.

Thanks Raydar!

wow that graph almost look backwards -

quote Originally posted by Kohburn: wow that graph almost look backwards -

Yeah... thats what happens when you don't scale torque differently than HP...

221.3 ft*lbs! WTF? Something's not right about that slope. Where's the whole graph (<2300rpm)? I think you oversized the exhaust.

The car has a 2800 stall and 3.73 gears, so no lower #s. Keep in mind this car has 19lb injectors and a stock chip; we have a new chip in it now but haven't dynoed it yet. Also, how do you figure the exhaust is too large? That typically kills low end torque, and this 3.4 has more torque down low than any I have ever seen. The gains shown on the graph are due to only one change, exhaust. Once the fuel pump is changed out to a larger one, and we get the Trueleo intake on, hopefully power won't drop off so much.

------------------
86 Fiero SE, soon to be a V8 Fastback
87 Trans Am 455 Project
97 Camaro SS #359 (daily driver)

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

quote Originally posted by Pontihack: The car has a 2800 stall and 3.73 gears, so no lower #s. Keep in mind this car has 19lb injectors and a stock chip; we have a new chip in it now but haven't dynoed it yet. Also, how do you figure the exhaust is too large? That typically kills low end torque, and this 3.4 has more torque down low than any I have ever seen. The gains shown on the graph are due to only one change, exhaust. Once the fuel pump is changed out to a larger one, and we get the Trueleo intake on, hopefully power won't drop off so much.

I'd like to hear all your mods. Considering you make such high torque...it drops quick. I still made more hp (149.8) but damn that's a nice tq figure. Also, don't you think that high stall converter is a waste since you don't get to take advantage of all the low rpm power? It sounds like you have alot of mismatches in your total system package. Just my opinion. No flames intended.

Lou

I don't take anything you said as a flame, nor do I intend to flame anyone here or elsewhere with my statements below, or to sound at all arrogant or condescending. That said...

I wouldn't say its mismatched so much; more that we are still discovering all the problem areas of these engines and trying to deal with them, on what has been a fiarly limited budget. Frankly, I have never seen numbers out of one of these engines (any displacement) that I deemed impressive...just a lot of people making mediocre numbers using the same parts and techniques. Its rare I see anyone over 140rwhp (no where near acceptable to me), so I don't tend to choose the same parts as everyone else. That just guarantees mediocrity. Our goal is 200rwhp naturally aspirated, and with the mods that are taking place in the next couple of months I think we'll get there, or at least very close. I think we'll also get a much flatter curve, as there are obviously issues with the current setup as the RPMs increase. When this project was started, there were no aftermarket 2.8 intakes (that is just happening now for the F-bodies), no headers, and little good information on what would wake these engines up. A lot of what we have done has been trial and error, but I honestly don't feel that any of the choices made have been far off, considering the ultimate plans for it. Some things may seem overkill at first, but will work together well as a final package. So far the main thing we have been criticized for is the exhaust sizing, but our hunches proved to be correct.
Until this dyno test, the engine was very exhaust limited...problem now solved. The Trueleo intake and new throttle body combo should enable far more airflow than we have now (ported stock, which is barely adequate for a stock 2.8). The fuel pump is also being upgraded to a larger one, as the stock replacement AC Delco pump is unable to keep up under load. The heads on this car, while being mildly ported, haven't had a valve job in at least 60k miles, and I suspect the valve job that was done then (before I was involved with the car) was a very basic one.We're planning to do more work on the heads and lower intake, switch to 1.6 rockers, and possibly an upgrade in valve sizing. The stock 2.8 programming was still in place for this test, and was way off...the new chips we are testing make a good SOTP difference, and likely will show improvement on the dyno.
Lots of people question the convertor choice, but it is matched to the camshaft and only about 5-600 rpm higher than stock. Its in a heavy third gen Firebird, and it does help get it moving off the line. Its just gasping for air (and a little more fuel) beyond that.

------------------
86 Fiero SE, soon to be a V8 Fastback
87 Trans Am 455 Project
97 Camaro SS #359 (daily driver)

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

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: 221.3 ft*lbs! WTF? Something's not right about that slope. Where's the whole graph (<2300rpm)? I think you oversized the exhaust.

Ok I guess its my turn to throw some info up! Now in all the dyno pulls the only difference was the exhaust and some time on the motor. Not even 10,000 mile difference though! The car was given a full tune up prior to both runs.

The graph is comparing my best pull with the cut out closed with the old crimp bent 2.25in system with the cut out closed!

Max Power = 141.3 @ rear wheels (+20%) = 169.56hp @ the fly wheel
Max Torque = 221.3 @ rear wheels (+20%) = 265.56ft-lbs @ the fly wheel

This puts me at 9hp over stock 3.4 flywheel numbers... (160hp)
(Granted the 2.8 plenum probably is more restrictive then the 3.4's & my heads are 160,000 miles w/o a valve job!)
My torque is 65.56 over stock 3.4 flywheel numbers... (200TQ)

My RW gains with the 3inch exhaust over the 2.25...

Horsepower gains...15.4HP
Torque gains...18.2ft/lbs

And when the cars 3in cut out was uncapped...I had instead 140hp and 222TQ...so esentially the same...meaning the system is very efficient!

****
Someone asked on another thread...

I went from a 2.25 crimp bent sys to a 3in mandrel how do I know what would have happened if I had gone with the 2.5 mandrel bend system? Maybe the 2.5 would have been better!

Reply:
Well I have PF&E headers and their mandrel bent y-pipe was 2.5 at its exit (2in primaries into 2.5in)...it flowed to a 2.5 inch pipe then to a 2.5 inch cut out. So it was effectively a 2.5 inch system to the open cut out. I opened the cut out on a run not listed on the above dyno sheet...it is what gave the indication that I was in need of a better exhuast system.

Here is that run compared to the old crimp bent 2.25in system...

134HP and 207 TQ At the wheels... so if I had only gone to a 2.5 inch system and it was as effective as the cut out, I would have flowed just that on a 2.5 inch system!

So my dyno difference from a 2.25 crimp bent sys to a 2.5 decent system...
9hp gained
4ft/lbs tq gained!

If I compare this dyno to the other dyno...

So my dyno differences from a 2.5 inch system to a 3in mandrel bent sys with custom 2.5 inch primaries to a 3in (y-pipe)
7hp gained
14ft/lbs TQ gained!

As I said before... with the 3in sys I can run open with the cut out and there is essentially no difference. See a near perfect exhaust system will actually have little to no difference with a open cut out!!

So that explains the graphs better!

------------------
"I'm just a girl..."
1984 Indy Fiero Pace Car
1987 Red & Black Firebird: "RAIF" WEBSITE: www.redraif.com
OTHER CARS’ WEBSITES:
1982 Trans AM / 1990 Chevy Dually / 1976 Scout II / 1987 Nissan Pulsar

[This message has been edited by redraif (edited 06-10-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Or look at it another way. Put 1.6 rockers, a test pipe and a power pulley on a 3.4 with a Fiero intake, and you'll still hit that wall at 4500-5K. You may hit it a bit more quickly, but you'll still hit it.

Wonder why the fieros hit he wall...I noticed it on the dyno pulls you all posted. mines seems to hold out a bit longer. Wonder why? Programming? I notice my HP curve lasted longer and hit the peak at a higher rpm after the new 3in exhaust. Seemed to hold out and peak at 5600rpm with the 3in. Where as before it flattened out at 4500-5400 till it fell off!

[This message has been edited by redraif (edited 06-10-2005).]

quote Originally posted by redraif: Wonder why the fieros hit he wall...I noticed it on the dyno pulls you all posted. mines seems to hold out a bit longer. Wonder why? Programming? I notice my HP curve lasted longer and hit the peak at a higher rpm after the new 3in exhaust. Seemed to hold out and peak at 5600rpm with the 3in. Where as before it flattened out at 4500-5400 till it fell off!

What about compression ratio? I've seen a Firebird intake. Looks alot like the Fiero intake. Also, my hp didn't go below 135rwhp until about 5600rpm... http://www.geocities.com/lou_dias/Fiero.html (2nd graph it's in mph in 4th gear instead of rpm, every 20mph is 1000 rpm) Before I advanced the timing to make 149.8 (and left it there) I was only making 138.1 (dynorun.001) 4 runs later, I popped of the EGR valve and made 147.5 (dynorun.005) played with the timing for 6 runs and put the egr back on and made dynorun.012 -> 149.8. It was getting late and expensive so I called it a day. Would have been nice to see how much hp I would have made with the EGR valve off. I proved back then that the 3.4 is plugged in the butt with a stock 2" exhaust despite Sprint manifolds, hollow cat and no muffler (IRM dual exhaust). Nobody listened.

Tell me more about your motor, I'm listening.

PS,
in those 3 runs between 1 and 5, I did stuff like no filter and air tube infront of the TB. had a graph similar in shape to yours. Gained no hp but made my peak at 5500 instead of 4500. Tested stock coil vs. accell BIG coil, lost 3 ft*lbs and 1.x hp using the stock coil. I forget the combo I used for the 4th run. Put all back and took off the EGR and made run 5! Then played with the timing for 7 runs.

I'll have to do the TB coolant by-pass next time too...hmmm...

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 06-10-2005).]

Compression is stock, and while I'd like a little more than that right now, the car is going to be turbocharged soon and the stock compression ratio will be better suited for that. Like I said earlier, the car isn't optimized so much right now for the current combination as it is for what it ultimately will be (to avoid having to do things twice). The heads are going to be milled slightly, but if we choose to go with a larger valve (and the necessary unshrouding with it) then the net change in CR will likely be 0. With the airflow capability this engine will have, it should really scream with the turbo!

------------------
86 Fiero SE, soon to be a V8 Fastback
87 Trans Am 455 Project
97 Camaro SS #359 (daily driver)

quote Originally posted by Pontihack: BTW the throttle body coolant bypass doesn't make any appreciable difference (at least in GA) either way, but it is much easier to remove the plenum and it cleans things up a bit, too. I just got tired of messing with that hose everytime the plenum came off.

Well, I think a while back someone dynoed the mod, lol. 1fst2m6 I believe. Couldn't hurt and like you said - cleaner look.

Wasn't aware anyone was still posting here.

quote Originally posted by redraif: Wonder why the fieros hit he wall...I noticed it on the dyno pulls you all posted. mines seems to hold out a bit longer. Wonder why?

It's pretty typical of the 3.4 with Fiero intake plumbing. It's possible that the Fiero intake is even more restrictive than the F-body intake.
I know the Fiero "snout" has to go around the distributor, while the Camarobird is pretty much a straight shot. Also, the Fiero is very restrictive as far as room for any kind of decent exhaust system. I've got Sprint manifolds (people call them headers, but they're not), which are only slightly better than hogged-out stockers. Again, they're very typical of what Fiero people are using.

O/T... Did you say you're going to use 1.6 rockers with that big azz cam that you have installed?
I think that's the most lift I've ever seen on a 60 degree V6 cam. Should be interesting, but I'll bet it's going to take a lot of machining and springs and "stuff".

I haven't looked at the 3rd gen site in a while, but it seems like I read that your manifold is going to be delivered very soon. Please keep us posted.
What dyno are you going to be going to? I may try to show up and "cheerlead" if that's okay, and if my work schedule permits.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 07-04-2005).]

quote Originally posted by ditch: Good stuff, but this doesn't tell me much about the intake itself since you have other mods with it. Don't get me wrong, I think this intake has great potential. I'm rebuilding a 2.8 this summer and hope to dyno it with a stock intake and then with a truleo. Dave

Really, this intake wasn't designed for a 2.8. It will show gains of course, but the most gains will be shown by the engines that pull the most air... fully built 3.4's/3.5's. Don't expect it to work miracles on a 2.8.

quote Originally posted by Will: Really, this intake wasn't designed for a 2.8...

When Troy and Francis started discussing this project, it was targeted at the 2.8.
It didn't take us too long to convince them that this was really the 3.4 swapper's wet dream.

O/T... Actually, this manifold saved me a bunch of money. It delayed my "big azz engine swap" indefinitely. And now that swap is going in the other car.

quote Originally posted by redraif: Basically we want to have the car as it sits...not changes... and put on the trueleo intake! Granted it will have a 65mm TB. Everything else will wait till after we get the dyno numbers for true comparison. ...

Has this been done? Interested in seeing the results.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: O/T... Did you say you're going to use 1.6 rockers with that big azz cam that you have installed? I think that's the most lift I've ever seen on a 60 degree V6 cam. Should be interesting, but I'll bet it's going to take a lot of machining and springs and "stuff".

If you do a search for the 60* v6 performance manual...then go to the cam section....they say not to go over .560 lift, but that is on the heads not sure what the piston to valve clearance is.

[This message has been edited by goatnipples2002 (edited 09-26-2005).]

Quote: "Basically we want to have the car as it sits...not changes... and put on the trueleo intake! Granted it will have a 65mm TB. Everything else will wait till after we get the dyno numbers for true comparison. ..."

Response:
That's what we did with Matt's 3.4. It was stock and did some runs and then we put our intkae on it. The dyno runs for it are on trueleo.com

quote Originally posted by Francis T: ... Response: That's what we did with Matt's 3.4. It was stock and did some runs and then we put our intkae on it. The dyno runs for it are on trueleo.com

Ok. I thought that was another engine to be dynoed before and after.

quote Originally posted by goatnipples2002: If you do a search for the 60* v6 performance manual...then go to the cam section....they say not to go over .560 lift

FWIW... I'm looking at a page that someone posted that lists 21 different hydraulic cam part #s that are available for our engines.
The Crower 3050 is the most radical of the bunch with .470/.492 lift. With 1.6 rockers it's .501/.525.
To go larger would probably require solid tappets, and all the fun that those would bring.

I don't know how much lift the stock springs can handle.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: FWIW... I'm looking at a page that someone posted that lists 21 different hydraulic cam part #s that are available for our engines. The Crower 3050 is the most radical of the bunch with .470/.492 lift. With 1.6 rockers it's .501/.525. To go larger would probably require solid tappets, and all the fun that those would bring. I don't know how much lift the stock springs can handle.

That cam and 1.7s could get you there.

Got that link to the list.

[This message has been edited by goatnipples2002 (edited 08-23-2005).]

Just remember, with all that lift, you're gonna need stiffer springs, and with enough you may need to have the pistons dished so the valves don't hit them.

quote Originally posted by goatnipples2002: Got that link to the list.

Unfortunately, no. All I have is a hard copy.
I could try to scan it, but the font is really microscopic. I don't think it would resolve.

quote Originally posted by Fastback 86: Just remember, with all that lift, you're gonna need stiffer springs, and with enough you may need to have the pistons dished so the valves don't hit them.

.560 is the max lift GM says on unmilled heads.

quote Originally posted by goatnipples2002: .560 is the max lift GM says on unmilled heads.

Ahh, thank you for looking that up, I hadn't found it yet. However, I think the max lift for the stock springs is around .460, so don't forget about those.

quote Originally posted by Fastback 86: Ahh, thank you for looking that up, I hadn't found it yet. However, I think the max lift for the stock springs is around .460, so don't forget about those.

Oh I will never forget...that's why they make double and triple springs