As promised.

The blue (bottom) line was my 3.4 as dynoed last year.
It used the stock Camaro cam (which specs the same as the Fiero cam), 19 lb. injectors, Darrell Morse's bored TB and plenum, Sprint manifolds, aftermarket "muffler shop" cat, and a custom chip.
The numbers were 115.47 HP & 158.51 TQ.

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.

Edit - The red (center) line was all the new hardware, with the same chip that I ran last year.

Not bad. Keep in mind that this is through an automatic tranny.
The heads and lower intake have not been ported.

This was also not the "best" chip. I had another chip that was also burned by Troy that is just a little "fatter", and seemed to run a little better in the car. Unfortunately, I broke off one of the pins before I could dyno it. Made the ECM (not to mention the driver) really unhappy.

The more I look at the chart, the more surprised I am regarding the TQ figures. I really thought I had lost bottom end when I installed the 1.6 rockers. Sure doesn't seem to be the case.
------------------
Raydar
88 3.4 coupe...........

Coming soon...
88 Formula, presently under the knife.
Read Nealz Nuze!

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 05-03-2005).]

Did you change anything from the time you did your 115hp run last year? Also did you get your car tuned before running on the dyno? Those aren't bad numbers. I still need to get my 3.4 dynoed. Thanks, Mark

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

NIFE
silver 88GT - bone stock
blue 87GT - 3.4 roller cam, coilovers, 88 cradle swap, many other mods
www.comcast.net/~mark3340/default.htm

quote Originally posted by Dough19: Did you change anything from the time you did your 115hp run last year?

Sorry. Had to edit in the info after I posted the chart.
The extent of the tuning was to bump the timing up until it rattled, then back it off until it didn't. I'm running NGK UR6 (one range colder than "normal") plugs that have been in there for 6-8 months / 5000 miles.
I also tried removing the "S" tube from the air filter canister (with the garden variety parts store element). Didn't make enough difference to be noticeable.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 05-03-2005).]

That's alot of area under the torque curve that you've gained. Another testament to the worthiness of the intake manifold!

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

Raydar,
Glad to see you have finally gotten to the dyno. The area under the curve is nice. Those results are about what I would expect. If you need another chip email me and I will send you one, just let me know which one.
Troy

quote Originally posted by Troymx576: Raydar, Glad to see you have finally gotten to the dyno. The area under the curve is nice. Those results are about what I would expect. If you need another chip email me and I will send you one, just let me know which one. Troy

Thanks Troy.
The chip that I dynoed was the mid-range one. The "fat" one is the one I need replaced. I still need to talk with you about the coast-down fuel cutoff and TC lockup. I never got MAP and TPS readings for you. Still need to do that, I suppose.
I'll PM you.

Instead of looking at the gain at peak power and tq, look at the max gain across the board!! At 5252 RPM you gained almost 35hp and 35 ft-lbs! It looks like you gained more hp even higher up, but your baseline run didnt go past 5200rpm. 35hp on an engine with an original max power of 115hp is a 30% increase, with gains as low as (and probably lower than) 3100rpm!! If I had a 2.8 or a 3.4, I would get this intake without a doubt. It seems to be exactly what the engine needs, especially if you are doing other modifications to up the power. Excellent product, guys!
--Bryson

------------------
88 Fiero GT Quad4 Turbo =) 396 whp!

quote Originally posted by bryson: Instead of looking at the gain at peak power and tq, look at the max gain across the board!!

Please don't misunderstand. I feel that gain, across the board, every time I plant my right foot.

An opinion?
If you do this manifold, please take the time and expense to have the heads and lower intake ported. It's got to be worth it.

Thanks for putting up the results. I'm sure that will help a lot of people doing the 3.4 pushrod.
My guess on your low end grunt is that you've moved the torque band higher which makes it feel like it doesn't have as much torque when in fact you actually have more. This is what usually happens when you increase power. People think that they've lost torque when in actuality it has increased but at a higher rpm. In a manual trans car you can take advantage of this by simply reving higher. The auto will still go faster too but it will pick up more power as it's moving rather than right off the line and then struggling on the top end. You can still load the converter before you take off or get a higher stall converter to compensate though.

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

I'll take a moment to add that I've been reading some comments made elsewhere regarding the "lack of scientific comparison" concerning other mods that I've made, in addition to the manifold. The manifold (and the appropriate chip to go with it) is what seemed to make the largest portion of the improvement. The other stuff was just icing on the cake.

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.

The manifold just makes the other stuff worth doing.

Sure, it's not exactly scientific. But it's my car. I'll do it how I want.

I'm swapping in a Getrag this summer, after I get the bodywork put back on my other car. I'll dyno it again. I'll bet it breaks the "magic" 150 HP barrier.

Or not. We shall see, either way.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 05-03-2005).]

Hi,
www.geocities.com/lou_dias/Fiero.html
If you look at my dyno sheet on the 3 (out of 12 total) runs I did, the first was how I drove in. The second was with the EGR valve unbolted (i.e. freer exhaust) and the third (on the graph but actually the 12th) was how I drove in but with the timing set properly. This was right after my swap and even before my MAP sensor upgrade and switch to NGK UR4's, all using the stock chip. And this is on a used block with 100k miles.

Read my text (lips):
I made 149.8 rwhp with the stock 2" exhaust (Sprint headers, hollow cat, IRM dual exhaust [no muffler]) If I had popped of the EGR again for run #13, I'm sure my hp would have been in the mid 160's. Just think what a real 2.5" exhaust will do.

Damn, 115 out of a 3.4! A 2.8 does that. Your motor has issues, I don't recall if that was with the Trueleo intake and chip combo. If so junk that chip, the stock chip ain't that bad. Heck it worked great for me. Do a compression test. I repeat - your motor has issues.

5 years ago, I built another 3.4 with 146.3 hp...so it must not be that hard... Get a compression test done, honestly. Or atleast have a good mechanic check your timing.

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 05-04-2005).]

Did you not see the a/f ratio below the dyno graph? with the chip it was pretty much hovering around 14:1 the whole time. Sounds like it's getting the right amount of fuel, but what do i know

quote Originally posted by JamesCurtis: Did you not see the a/f ratio below the dyno graph? with the chip it was pretty much hovering around 14:1 the whole time. Sounds like it's getting the right amount of fuel, but what do i know

Then it's your compression. Is this a rebuild or a tired block?
Funny, my a/f ratio was at 12.8:1...

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 05-04-2005).]

Just so you can compare, here is my dyno sheet for my ARI 2.8-3.4 conversion, it wasn't fully broken in at the time. It does sound like your engine has some issues.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-04-2005).]

Avengador1,
Was yours tested through a stick tranny? Mine's an automatic. And a tired one at that.

Lou, the engine is a Grooms rebuild. I've measured the compression before. Seems like it was ~160 Lbs. It *was* consistant, though.
Also, the chip that I ran, this time, was NOT the best one. Troy burned three chips for me. Lean, mid-range and rich. The last one I dynoed was the mid-range chip. The "rich" chip was noticeably faster on the street, but I broke a pin off of it before I had a chance to dyno it.

Not to mention that the Camaro 3.4 cam is weaker than the Fiero 2.8 cam.
115 RWHP through an automatic is very believable for a good engine. I've heard of stock 2.8s getting about 100 RWHP with a 5-speed.

Now, port the heads and pop in a H-272 cam and see what it'll do.

Mine has the stock Fiero chip and a 5 speed tranny.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Not to mention that the Camaro 3.4 cam is weaker than the Fiero 2.8 cam.

I'm not helping my case here, but actually they have identical specs. The only difference is that the Camaro cam has a tab for the benefit of the cam position sensor.
I spent many hours researching this very thing, one morning. I can dig up part numbers and references if you would like to read the info that I did, for yourself.

Wow, I don't know where I read 14:1 was the optimum a/f ratio. I'll shut up now

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Not to mention that the Camaro 3.4 cam is weaker than the Fiero 2.8 cam. 115 RWHP through an automatic is very believable for a good engine. I've heard of stock 2.8s getting about 100 RWHP with a 5-speed. Now, port the heads and pop in a H-272 cam and see what it'll do.

my bone stock 88 2.8 got 112 with 121k miles on it.

quote Originally posted by JamesCurtis: Wow, I don't know where I read 14:1 was the optimum a/f ratio. I'll shut up now

It's optimum for part throttle driving. For WOT accelleration, 13:1 is better. His ass-o-meter even experienced the 'richer is better' effect. Personally, I feel I was a little too rich at 12.8:1 so some proper tuning could have gotten me over the so-called '150 rwhp barrier'.

Raydar,

Maybe I am not up to date on other threads, but where did you pull your 3.4 from?

Andrew Z

quote Originally posted by AndrewZ: Raydar, Maybe I am not up to date on other threads, but where did you pull your 3.4 from? Andrew Z

It's a Grooms rebuilt 3.4 Camarobird motor.

Forget about the baseline and engine issues. He is making a whole lot more power with the new intake. Period. Can he do more? Yeah. But at least now he has real baseline data rather than "I think cause I added this and that I'm making 10hp more bs". Good progress Steve

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

quote Originally posted by Alex4mula: Forget about the baseline and engine issues. He is making a whole lot more power with the new intake. Period. Can he do more? Yeah. But at least now he has real baseline data rather than "I think cause I added this and that I'm making 10hp more bs". Good progress Steve

I agree with you there, when comparing a product to see if there are any improvements most forget to test subject car with no changes, then making ONE change and get the new data, then compare. With what we see here, the answer is yes the intake does perform as it says, that to me makes the intake a good investment if I were to keep my 2.8 and really wanted to mod it.

quote Originally posted by OH10fiero: I agree with you there, when comparing a product to see if there are any improvements most forget to test subject car with no changes, then making ONE change and get the new data, then compare. With what we see here, the answer is yes the intake does perform as it says, that to me makes the intake a good investment if I were to keep my 2.8 and really wanted to mod it.

Keep in mind that several changes were made between last year and now. I still give the manifold the largest portion of the credit.
Mosh got 14 HP and a similarly huge area under the curve with no other changes other than the appropriate programming. I'm guessing mine would have been similar. I'm sure the rockers and cat removal helped a bit at high revs. I believe the underdrive pulley is the only thing that would have helped on the bottom end (as well as the top). All speculation, though.

I'm not knocking his intake gain. I'm just saying something is up. But if his pressure was at >160 in each cylinder...I guess I have nothing to add except check your ignition...or maybe you got a 3.1 rebuild... My GROOMS 3.4 had 201 ft*lbs and 146.3 hp. That was back in 2000...and with that useless SpiralMax sitting infront of my throttle body. I believe I was over 150 hp there once 1fstm6 dynoed it (I sent it to him) and showed me a 3 (i think) hp loss on his 2.8!

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: My GROOMS 3.4 had 201 ft*lbs and 146.3 hp.

Through a 5 speed? 4 speed? Or automatic?
You know this is gonna get better when I lose the slushbox. I'm not even sure the automatic is up to par. There's a rhythmic vibration that comes and goes. Don't know if something is slipping, binding, or just out of balance. But it does make the car hesitate just a bit when I feel it while accelerating from a dead stop.

I do appreciate your input, though. As I said before... We shall see.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Through a 5 speed? 4 speed? Or automatic? You know this is gonna get better when I lose the slushbox. I'm not even sure the automatic is up to par. There's a rhythmic vibration that comes and goes. Don't know if something is slipping, binding, or just out of balance. But it does make the car hesitate just a bit when I feel it while accelerating from a dead stop. I do appreciate your input, though. As I said before... We shall see.

Both my cars have been 5 speed Getrags... I didn't think an auto lost that much...maybe it is the auto constantly slipping... Is there a way to make it lock up completely?

At the minimum, the auto has an extra pump to drive. All the time.
And all the funky planetary gearsets. I don't know how much additional loss it adds but I know there is some.
I didn't think about the TCC lockup. It was recommended to disconnect it. I suspect that it can cause some funky stuff on the dyno.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Just so you can compare, here is my dyno sheet for my ARI 2.8-3.4 conversion, it wasn't fully broken in at the time. It does sound like your engine has some issues.

Just finally looked at the graph. You seem to have the same curve my stock 2.8 had only with 18 more hp (and torque) when I showed it around, I was told that dip after 4500 was a fueling issue by 1fstm6. Maybe fieros have been fuel limited on the stock chip to make less hp... Lord knows the 2.8 likes to spin up. His auto 2.8 made 160 hp with a cold air intake tube mod and custom chip programming (IIRC). Interesing theory, aye?

His nitrous setup got him something like 275hp...yes on a 2.8 auto. Search the archives.

Only thing I want to throw in is remember no two dynos read the same.
My opinion is to put the 17# injectors in or free up (open) the intake manifold and heads.

at 3600 rpm the toque goes way down. Look on page 2 of this thread at to why (timing retard): https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/062128.html

Maybe since we have no knock sensor, they played it extremely 'safe' with timing advance on the Fiero 2.8.

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 05-07-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Raydar: I'm not helping my case here, but actually they have identical specs. The only difference is that the Camaro cam has a tab for the benefit of the cam position sensor. I spent many hours researching this very thing, one morning. I can dig up part numbers and references if you would like to read the info that I did, for yourself.

Hmm. Was it the 3.4 crate engine that had the weaker cam, then? I remember discussion about a 3.4 having a smaller cam than the Fiero's cam.

At any rate, with the improved flow, port the heads, add a bigger cam and throttle body, some free flow exhaust and you should have some decent power. And a good dyno tune is definitely in order. There's definitely some power being left untapped.

Sounds like the Trueleo isn't a miracle part, but it does give a decent improvement - as expected.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Hmm. Was it the 3.4 crate engine that had the weaker cam, then? I remember discussion about a 3.4 having a smaller cam than the Fiero's cam. At any rate, with the improved flow, port the heads, add a bigger cam and throttle body, some free flow exhaust and you should have some decent power. And a good dyno tune is definitely in order. There's definitely some power being left untapped. Sounds like the Trueleo isn't a miracle part, but it does give a decent improvement - as expected.

The cam in the GM crate 3.4 is actually a little more aggressive than the stock Fiero cam, but more importantly, 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

The intake and exhaust lift on the crate motor is .427/.454 respectively.
With the stock cam and the 1.6 rockers, mine calculates out to .420/.437.

My engine also has 19 pound injectors with the fuel pressure set to 44 psi. I think I overkilled it in the fuel supply department and that 17 pound injectors would have been fine. What my engine is lacking is a chip that is dyno tuned to my set-up. I have a bored throttle body and upper plenum that were on it when it was dynoed. I also have a complete intake that was bored and extrude honed that I haven't installed yet. Once I ever get around to that, I will have it dynoed again, to see if there are any more gains. I believe that the stock intake, even if it is bored, gasket matched, etc. will not offer too much gains. I also believe that the Trueleo intake would benefit my engine. I just don't want one at this moment, maybe some time in the future.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: My engine also has 19 pound injectors with the fuel pressure set to 44 psi. I think I overkilled it in the fuel supply department and that 17 pound injectors would have been fine. What my engine is lacking is a chip that is dyno tuned to my set-up. I have a bored throttle body and upper plenum that were on it when it was dynoed. I also have a complete intake that was bored and extrude honed that I haven't installed yet. Once I ever get around to that, I will have it dynoed again, to see if there are any more gains. I believe that the stock intake, even if it is bored, gasket matched, etc. will not offer too much gains. I also believe that the Trueleo intake would benefit my engine. I just don't want one at this moment, maybe some time in the future.

Whoever dynoed your car should have also showed you your a/f ratio across the rpm range just like the one at the top of this thread. I was at 12.8:1 all the way across. I can't complain about my ported intake, but I can complain about the stock 2" exhaust. Give a Trueleo EXHAUST, I'll skip the intake for now. Maybe once I open the exhaust, I'll see the same hiccup in the power band at 4500-5500. It's definitley something I've noticed in top gear. Custom programming seems to be a must.

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.