That doesn't look too bad. The one advantage to the system on the SHO 3.2 is that it has runners coming from both sides to the on lower intake runner evening out the system but that should did work. That is one of the nicer looking Dual TB's I have seen, simple yet functional.

Those systems have produced some good numbers, and if designed right, it should be able to out perform the Trueleo and at a lower cost to produce then it would be to buy the Trueleo. But then again, the Trueleo uses your stock TB and linkage so there isn't anywhere near as much that can go wrong.

You got any Dyno numbers for that bad boy?

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: thats why there is a 20 hp increase in the ram air engines over the standard. stick a funnel out the window at 30 with a hose on it stuck inside the car in your face. or better yet stick your head out the sun roof and tell me there is no increase in air flow, now hit the gas and see how the airflow increases, cram that down the intake and its a poor mans turbo. i take it you are an engeneer then. but i was at a buddies this morning and we looked in a 1970 motors manual just to be sure and you were right, almost. motors rate the 1968 pontiac engine with and without the ram air option, there isnt a 20 hp gain its only a 10 hp gain between the standard 455 ci engine. look it up, MOTORS 1970 edition. not the factory.

Well there are a few things you don't understand.
First, adding Ram Air scoop is not a "poor man's turbo" You do not get any "boost" or compression of air. The Fiero intake can only flow so much air. Unlike some other engines, the Fiero intake was perfectly matched to the engine in terms of flow. The problem is if you mod the engine, the Fiero intake starts to become a restriction. Running a 3" hose from the throttle body to a spot above the roof may give you an increase of 1-2hp at high speeds (over 50mph) but that is all you are going to get. The only way to get more air is to either open up the intake manifold or compress the air with a turbo or a supercharger. (no the electronic fans on Ebay won't work.)
The article link to the Dodge Shadow is not compareable to the Fiero. The Shadow air filter assemby is very restrictive and the Fiero basicaly has a cold air intake from the factory. Adding a cold air intake to an engine that has a restrictive air filter assembly will increase power, but the increase is due to cooler air temp and flow BEFORE the engine.

Second, As for the difference in Ram Air engines of the '70's you'd better go back and read the Factory manual spec's again. The difference between the stock engine and the ram air engine was more than just the scoop. The camshafts are different. In fact Pontiac made 5 different ram air engines. Ram Air engines I and II had different camshafts, Ram Air III used a larger camshaft, different heads, and a larger carb. Ram Air IV had oval port heads and intake manifold. Ram Air V was a race engine that had even larger ports and a huge cam.

"Ram Air" engines (even the new Grand Am and Trans Am) have other difference's internal to the engine and the differences can be measured on a dyno. That means not "at speed" so the air scoop or any air passing thru it has no bearing on the dyno results.

quote Originally posted by Alex4mula:

this is the best approach I've seen for this. its simple. its cheap. just a box slapped on top of the lower plenum. dont even need the leftover parts from the old upper plenum. just the box. port the piss out of the last bend of the lower plenum, and slap the box on. dual TB's while looking VERY cool, are just complicating what should be pretty simple.

quote Originally posted by Alex4mula: Building a 2.5" exhaust is much easier than building an intake manifold. I think I'll ditch my Borla exhaust and build one instead for this swap. Problem is I won't be able to test it before and after. But depending on the final dyno numbers I will see if it did any good overall. Got a question; So your dyno result was with no cat nor muffler? Was it with stock cam too? I think you told me way back but I forgot.

mind you, I was running the cat, just hollowed, and I was using the 2" IRM "dual" exhaust instead of a muffler.
On the 146.3 it was a Grooms rebuilt 3.4 stock TB with a spiral max infront of it and the Crane 2030 cam

On the 149.8, it was the H260 cam, Darrel's TB, same everything else on a tired 100k+ block

common parts:
heads were ported, 1.52 Magnum roller rockers
ported middle and lower intake
the exhaust I mentioned earlier with sprints
Accel BIG block coil (good for 3ft*lbs and 1.9rwhp on the dyno)

if I didn't have the stupid spiral max and had Darrel's TB back then, I'm quite sure I would have broken the 150rwhp 'barrier'.
Then there's the forth-coming TDC pistons to raise the compression a point...and the also forth-coming 2.5" exhaust.
The shortened intake...(also forth-coming)
oh yeah, I might use a roller-block if I can find a performance roller cam. I'll have to check the Grand Am forums...
My goal is 180rwhp...call me crazy.

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

Okay, here are some pics of my intake mod. After porting and gasket matching my intake system I went back and radiused the turn from the upper to the middle removing about 1/4 inch of material from the outer parts of the turn. This didn't satisfy me, so I bought some 1/2 by 2 aluminum bar stock to make spacers to go in between the upper and middle mans to make an even smoother turn. After]https://images.fiero.nl/pffimages/plate_2_1.jpg[/img]After I had made the spacers to match the gasket, and marked them as to which side they went on, I then bolted them to the middle manifold. I was surprised at how far off they were (1/16") since I had already matched both the upper and middles to the gasket. Anyway with the plate bolted to the middle manifold, I matched them together with my highspeed. I then did the same thing with the upper plenum. The half inch gives plenty of room to make corrections in the transition from the upper to the middle. Now I know that the upper plenum, the plate, and the middle manifold are perfectly matched. I would guess that prior to the porting work I did that, because of the way the inside of the runners was cast, that the radius of the turn was only about 3/4 of an inch though it looks like more from the outside. Now, with the porting and the spacers, it measures a full 1 3/8. Here's another view.

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

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: My goal is 180rwhp...call me crazy.

Port the heads, Increase the cam to the H272, Increase compression to 9.5:1, and Increase intake manifold flow.
This on a 3.4L will get you 197.2rwhp or 225hp at the crank.
Been there, Done that.

quote Originally posted by Oreif: ... and Increase intake manifold flow. ...

Mmm... I think you mean by that to go carb intake

http://members.cox.net/fiero/

Whoever said they never say a 2.8 make over 150rwhp...look here 198. With the stock intake.

lou - What big block coil did you use?

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

quote Originally posted by vEnOm: Yep, something like this. This was my first choice before the Trueleo intake.

That is the intake I built for my 3.4 pushrod in my X-11. It used a Y-pipe to clear the distributor, connected to a single Ford 65mm TB. It would be super easy to modify it to mount 2 TB's, but I felt the single 65mm would flow plenty, and not force me to deal with the problems associated with dual TB's. I never got any dyno numbers on it, but it will be finding its way onto a healthy 2.8 next spring, when I plan to get back-to-back dyno numbers.

Here are some pictures of the unit installed:

Marty

quote Originally posted by goatnipples2002: http://members.cox.net/fiero/ Whoever said they never say a 2.8 make over 150rwhp...look here 198. With the stock intake.

I would love to see the Dyno sheets, the formula he used to calculate the drivetrain loss, as well as the list of other mods he has done. By looking at his site I see a bored stock intake (he must have bored holes in it to get that kind of flow), Headers, larger exhaust, performance muffler, and bigger injectors.

For just short of 200, he's got alot more going on under that hood, or his math or the math of the Dyno are way off.

Just my $0.02

quote Originally posted by goatnipples2002: http://members.cox.net/fiero/ Whoever said they never say a 2.8 make over 150rwhp...look here 198. With the stock intake. lou - What big block coil did you use?

There is no way a 2.8L with NO internal mods to the long block is going to make 198hp normally aspirated. With his mods listed, He is probably closer to about 155-160hp. Wonder what the "calculated driveline loss" is? Why doesn't he list the RWHP?

Oreif, I measure the stock runners to be 17 1/2 inches long from the center of the upper plenum to the back of the intake valve. Give me a break, how much is 1/2 inch going to affect the rpm range?

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

quote Originally posted by triker: Oreif, I measure the stock runners to be 17 1/2 inches long from the center of the upper plenum to the back of the intake valve. Give me a break, how much is 1/2 inch going to affect the rpm range?

It will move the power band down 400rpm for the .5". So If your peak power was say 140hp @ 4600 rpm It is now about 138.6hp @ 4200rpm.

So if your cam has a peak of 4600-4800rpm, You will actually lose power. Of course your loss will be actually less as you ported the intake, But I would bet if you dyno'd the engine with and without only the spacer, You will find the power curve will shift lower with the spacer and you will lose some peak power.

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

I call BS on the 198 calculated HP too. Where are the dyno charts?

i just posted I didn't say anything whether real or not. I talked to him before and he's some rich guy that doesn't know jack about what a fiero is capable of. He spent goobs of money on stupid stuff, instead of a V8. Just posted what I found.

quote Originally posted by goatnipples2002: http://members.cox.net/fiero/ Whoever said they never say a 2.8 make over 150rwhp...look here 198. With the stock intake. lou - What big block coil did you use?

read this:

quote Actual engine horsepower was calculated based off the horsepower at the rear wheels with drive train loss factored in.

I'd like to know how much drivetrain loss he factored in... The way I read that is that he added back an estimated number for drivetrain losses... Really a useless number. I can claim my drivetrain losses are 100hp so now my 150rwhp is now 250 gross hp. Show me a dyno or shut up, that my philosophy.

Accel makes a big coil, I forget the part number, but it's big and I had to mount it to the trunk wall on the engine side near the cruise control unit and get a longer coil wire. On the dyno, I still had the factory unit in place and switching to the Accel gained me 3 ft*lbs and 1.9rwhp. Also, I originally bought that Accel coil in '96 and I'm sure the factory unit was newer than that. So claims about the factory unit being old are kinda moot.

I think the coil I used was for Mustang 5.0's.

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: I'd like to know how much drivetrain loss he factored in...

See my post above:

Well I found out that the guy used 35% as a driveline loss. He dyno'd rwhp at 128.7rwhp.
In reality that is 153.6hp at the crank using the standard getrag loss of 15%. So with all those mods he gained 13.6hp.

It all makes sense now. If the drivetrain lost 35% I think it would be time for a new drivetrain.

lou - you still have the coil? If so could you check it to see the part #. Was it plug and play?

quote Originally posted by Oreif: See my post above: Well I found out that the guy used 35% as a driveline loss. He dyno'd rwhp at 128.7rwhp. In reality that is 153.6hp at the crank using the standard getrag loss of 15%. So with all those mods he gained 13.6hp.

don't forget it's a loss from gross. so you have to take 128.7/0.85 = 151.4 or 151.4 - 15% = 128.7 that's why I just add 18% to my rwhp (17.647%)

I formally apologize in advance. I have never done this, and will never do it again.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: never liked engineers, they have no real world knowledge. evertime an engineer hands me a blue print i cringe, "it works on paper" and then when it doesnt they blame me, even when i show them its not possible they say,"the computer says it will work" idiots with degrees. i can count on one hand -my thumb, ring finger, and traffic finger the engineers that have a clue and know what they are doing, and they spent at least 5 years in the field, working seeing what works and doesnt work. heres some guy who did a real world test on his own, you be the judge. http://www.karlsnet.com/mopar/ramair.shtml

Look man, there's only so much you can say before you sound like an actual douche. I started reading this thread trying to see both sides, and I never get involved in a flame war but you're such an amazing exception to my rule that I had to get involved.

If you don't like engineers then stop using the things they design... for example... EVERYTHING. I hope you're not accessing the internet with a computer, because an electrical engineer designed that. I hope you're not driving a car because a chemical engineer designed the method for creating gasoline. Don't bother riding a bike either, materials engineers design the composites bikes are made off, oh and the rubber int he wheels. I guess you can live in your house, since an architect designed that, but I hope you don't have a blender, microwave, TV, couch, can of soup, windows, air conditioning, heating, light switches, plumbing, or a lock mechanism on your doors.

Just because you don't implictly understand the internal workings of everything around you doesn't mean that it's worthless. If it weren't for engineers there's a healthy chance you wouldn't be alive today. You think doctor's create all of the equipment they use? Or that pilots built the plane you fly in? How about that car that you drive? Was that made by auto mechanics?

Granted there are bad engineers, but there are also bad people. Count yourself among them.

And now I formally apologize to everyone who is treating this thread with respect. I apologize for making it my own personal flame war. Regardless of response, I won't say anything further.

-Shawn

If you want to flame me in turn for being so rude in this post, please do so by PM or by my e-mail address. Thank you.

wow - go get 'em!
I was gonna leave that alone, because his ignorance speaks for itself....kinda like that 88formla awhile ago with the 14 second minivan...lol

anyways, while on the subject & the thread - I discovered we dont need any better intakes, because most cams dont make power over 5000 rpm anyways....

back to your regularly scheduled thread

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I discovered we dont need any better intakes, because most cams dont make power over 5000 rpm anyways....

Cams might not need more air or a better intake but the engine does. My 2.8 would gasp at about 5k so a 3.4 would choke up even faster and would be more apparent.

[This message has been edited by goatnipples2002 (edited 08-24-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: wow - go get 'em! I was gonna leave that alone, because his ignorance speaks for itself....kinda like that 88formla awhile ago with the 14 second minivan...lol anyways, while on the subject & the thread - I discovered we dont need any better intakes, because most cams dont make power over 5000 rpm anyways.... back to your regularly scheduled thread

show me a STREET cam that can idle SMOOTHLY at 1000rpm and make PEAK power over 5200 rpm for a v6/60 PUSHROD motor.

ps
oh and when you build a v6/60 with more rwhp than either of mine then maybe you'll have some useful input

and incase you didn't know 350 cfm is ideal for a 3.4 @ 6000 rpm now tell me how much flow you need to feed the engine @ 5000 rpm vs how much a 57mm TB gives you.

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 08-24-2005).]

all our pushrod motors hit their peak power early. its being able to keep making power, and not having to shift to the next gear that we are looking for. for me, having 4000 rpm of usable power is much better than 2500 rpm of usable power.

Does anybody race their cars? Just wondering because when I race my 2.8 chokes up when I get in the 5k-5.2k range. For a 2.8 this MIGHT be fine for most, but with a 3.1/3.4 I can assume that these motors require more air/flow. With the fiero intake the bigger motors would probably choke up at like 4.5 that sucks. I might take a civic off the line, but they would creep up on me once their revs got up their. Now this is street racing and the 1/4 on the 1/8 they don't have a chance. Just when they hit the higher revs I'm done, because the 2.8 taps out at about 5.2k. When I put in the 3.4 I don't want to tap out at 4.5k and get beat by 4 cylinder imports. I figure with the ability to rev to redline (6k) I would have a better chance when racing. Maybe I just have it wrong, but I do know more flow is needed.

I have raced my Fiero(s) at Seekonk Speedway in the Specator Drags every year since '95 except this year.
I roast most everyone off the line and because it's a 1/3 mile oval track, I beat myself usually. That's usually the only reason I lose.
I've raced Mustangs, Firebirds, GTI's, Eclipse's...you name it. 0-80 not many cars can keep up with a 3.4 and a getrag. Especially holding curves.
I could redline 3rd gear before tapping the brake entering the 3rd turn.

Oh and I have a VHS of me hitting the concrete wall with my 149.8rwhp 88GT head on @ 60 mph.
I've had all sorts of experiences there.
I know first hand how good a fiero is in a head-on collision.

ps,
My drop clutch was 2000rpm with 225 Z rated tires, I'd chirp and launch hard and was able to cut off most cars just off the line. That's what bottom end torque gives you. Look at my torque curve and tell me how much usable rpm I have. Look at the hp I made @ 6000 rpm - 130, just under most mis-matched swaps make for peak. Anybody here ever drive a VTEC Prelude? It has a useless 1500rpm of usable power at the top end. That thing is gutless for 5000rpm then it screams to 200hp. Is that what you guys want? I shift from just after peak HP down to peak torque. Some of you think you know what you want and think you know how to get there. Good luck. I've already done 5 rebuilds/swaps. I've found a combination that works well together through trial and error. So don't listen to me, my experience is worthless.

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: show me a STREET cam that can idle SMOOTHLY at 1000rpm and make PEAK power over 5200 rpm for a v6/60 PUSHROD motor. ps oh and when you build a v6/60 with more rwhp than either of mine then maybe you'll have some useful input and incase you didn't know 350 cfm is ideal for a 3.4 @ 6000 rpm now tell me how much flow you need to feed the engine @ 5000 rpm vs how much a 57mm TB gives you.

A 3.4L at 6000rpm it requires 359.2cfm. At 5000rpm it requires 330cfm. At 6500rpm it requires 389cfm.
The Fiero TB is 300.1 cfm and it is 52mm. The Bored TB is 57mm and is 354cfm. With a Crane H272 in a 3.4L you can spin up to 6500rpm, Shifting at 5800rpm you need 380cfm.

BUT, This isn't the problem. The problem is the upper plenum. Going by runner length and diameter, It flows 318cfm. Boring the TB side out has no effect on the amount the intake runners can flow. So boring out the TB you increase total intake flow to 318cfm which is about what a 3.4L needs at 3970rpm. This is where everyone gets confused. It's not the TB that is causing the restriction it is the actual intake manifold. Having all 3 sections of the intake manifold ported gets you to 326.4 cfm. Which is still too small for a 3.4L. To provide a balanced intake flow to an engine, it is ideal to have the same or slightly higher flow than the engine should require at max RPM not at it's peak power point.
As an example, Lets look at a stock Fiero 2.8L. At 6000rpm it requires 299.4 cfm. The TB flows 300.1 and the intake flows 318cfm.
So GM matched the 2.8L very well in the Fiero and did a good job tuning.

Now add that onto a higher displacement engine and you can see how restrictive it now becomes.

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: Anybody here with a pre-88 who is looking to build a motor to rev past 6000 and make power - suprise - the motor is rev limited to 6000 then the injectors shut off until the rpms drop. I haven't heard much about reprogramming the ECM's here. So again, what good is a big expensive intake and throttle body gonna do ya when your injectors shut down? <snip> IAnyway there is no point in arguing, I will document my next build starting in 7-8 months. I have my own goals. We'll see what happens then.

The Trueleo intake comes with a chip that should complement the manifold. They will ask you what mods you have to your engine and burn the chip accordingly. (They work quite well, BTW.)
It's a simple matter to raise the fuel cutoff point or disable it altogether.
Yes, the 88s are disabled. I asked for mine to be re-enabled. At 6600, I think. High enough that I'm not likely to bounce off it. Low enough that I won't frag my engine if I do.

I look forward to seeing your results.

Well... 149rwhp in a Fiero is no big deal at all. Anyone with a stock 2.8 will like it but that's it. I know because my 3.4 146rwhp was nice but nothing compared to my V8. I guess Oreif can attest to that too. I'll do the 3.4 in my other car just because I have the engine and like to play with it and don't want to spend too much. Plus now that I can tune my chips I can play even more. The intake may be more icing on the cake. Hopefully I will be able to bring good factual (dyno) data here for others to use. I received my new springs and lifters. Only left is cam. I can't wait to start...

quote Originally posted by Alex4mula: I guess Oreif can attest to that too.

Well I had 197rwhp with my 3.4L and it was fun, but 309rwhp is much more fun.

Actually, from what I gather from the person who bought my 3.4L, Mating it to a manual trans was alot more fun to drive than when I had the auto hooked to it.

On a side note: The 3.4L I am helping a friend build should be done by the end of this month. We are going to do the dyno tuning September 3rd. It is built the exact same way as my carb'd 3.4L was except he's using Accel 19# injectors, the Trueleo intake, an adjustable fuel pressure regulator, the buick GN fuel pump, and a 62mm throttle body.
I am very curious to see how an EFI version performs in terms of power. The shop that did my 3.4L heads did his heads the exact same way so in effect the only difference will be intake and fuel delivery.
Once it is tuned I'll post the results. He's hoping to have the entire car done so he can bring it to Fierorama on the 11th. (Body parts have been painted, But still hanging in his garage awaiting installation.)

I had 197.2rwhp which if I use 17% loss (trans dyno loss) means my 3.4L should have been tuned to 237hp (It was engine dyno'd at 223hp but the ignition system was upgraded and carb tuning were done after it was installed in the car.) So I expect about the same numbers on the EFI version.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: not gonna get into this i say its ugly you say its not. opinions vary buy it you want iwont

is your fiero a 84 4cyl?

if so, what are you doing in a v6 thread?

matthew

Oreif, exactly how did you port the stock crossover?

Very informative post about flow rates Orief...you should have posted it earlier would have stopped alot of BS...

The intake you use depends on your use AND the tranny you use.

I have the 3.65 4 speed and it needs the extra rpms to compensate for the lack of a 5th gear.

As far as racing is considered...when oval track racing that is more a suspension thing. Drag racing you need to have good flow in the upper rpms because after you launch the rpms stay in the upper range. Street racing is very different from any form of sanctioned racing...when you street race you typically run until you blow the other person out the water or they back down. I primarily street race because the 1/8 mile track cost $20 and the 1/4 is 1.5 hours away. So I need the max that every gear can give. A 3.4 with the fiero intake will cause me to lose because of the lack of top end power.

[This message has been edited by goatnipples2002 (edited 08-24-2005).]

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: Oreif, exactly how did you port the stock crossover?

I had a local exhaust shop cut the "Y" pipe at the upper welds of the "Y" and they cut out the two pieces that extended into the collector. Then they welded it back together. They charged me $75 for the work. When GM made them they crimped the end of each pipe and inserted it into the collector. When you cut at the upper welds and look inside they are crimped in a "D" shape and are about 1/4 of the diameter smaller than the pipe.

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 08-24-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Oreif: On a side note: The 3.4L I am helping a friend build should be done by the end of this month. We are going to do the dyno tuning September 3rd. It is built the exact same way as my carb'd 3.4L was except he's using Accel 19# injectors, the Trueleo intake, an adjustable fuel pressure regulator, the buick GN fuel pump, and a 62mm throttle body. I am very curious to see how an EFI version performs in terms of power. The shop that did my 3.4L heads did his heads the exact same way so in effect the only difference will be intake and fuel delivery. Once it is tuned I'll post the results.

I am so looking forward to hearing about this. I'm betting it will be a beast.

quote Originally posted by Oreif: I had a local exhaust shop cut the "Y" pipe at the upper welds of the "Y" and they cut out the two pieces that extended into the collector. Then they welded it back together. They charged me $75 for the work. When GM made them they crimped the end of each pipe and inserted it into the collector. When you cut at the upper welds and look inside they are crimped in a "D" shape and are about 1/4 of the diameter smaller than the pipe.

so they screwed those up just like the stock manifilds...interesting... I've never heard this mentioned before...