math is not really your friend is it?

17psi, 67 psi fuel pressure = 50psi of effective flow pressure. And rarely does it correspond directly.. in the real world anyway.

with a 1:1 rising rate regulator, whatever your "static" fuel pressure is (aka open to air), is going to be the calculated fuel pressure... When it comes to math games, I usually error on a 85-90% inefficiency of the ability of air pressure to keep fuel in the injector... so 70psi rail pressure, 20psi of boost would equate to roughly 52psi of fuel pressure in terms of flow.

quote Originally posted by Four_hundred_86: Ok just throwing this out but why not use 3400 heads which flow a little better and what not, Side note make sure you get the metal felpro problem solver gaskets for the lower intake. The stock one leak really bad and fairly easily.

The heads and intakes are the same on 3100/3400 2000 and newer engines, the heads are the same part number as are the intakes on both engines (I sourced most of this info at 60degreev6.com) these are the best production heads available other than the 3500 heads which will not work on the 3100 due to bore and combustion chamber size. These heads are the gen 3 large hole type as are the intakes, what makes them especially important is they have a 28cc combustion chamber just like my gen 2 heads so I can maintain the stock 8.8 turbo compression ratio.
The exhaust valves are the same size on the gen 2 and gen 3 heads so I will remove the valves and replace them with the stainless exhaust valves from the gen 2 TGP head.
The intake valves on the gen 3 head are 1.76 vs the gen 2 valve at 1.72 this allows for the use of 3500 intake valves which will pop right in and are 12% lighter.
Will has stated that I can use 3500 or 3900 springs with out machining the head, so I am looking into this to see the spring rates so I can compare the seat pressures vs the LS1 yellow spring numbers.
These heads are also desirable for the following reasons: they have D shaped exhaust ports, canted valves, heart shape combustion chambers and come with factory roller rockers. The flow difference between gen 2 and gen 3 top end is somewhere around 40% depending on what numbers you look at.
The intakes gaskets are definitely a common failing to this model, the problem seems to have been solved by not using the hard on plastic orange coolant that comes from the factory, a new style gasket and a new torque procedure.

Thanks for your interest

------------------
Scoobysruvenge

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: Will has stated that I can use 3500 or 3900 springs with out machining the head, so I am looking into this to see the spring rates so I can compare the seat pressures vs the LS1 yellow spring numbers.

*I* didn't say that.

quote Originally posted by darkhorizon: math is not really your friend is it?

These facts are from an engineering manual I own.
There are several methods for getting more fuel to the engine…

Lengthening Injector Pulse Duration
Determine the time of one engine revolution at redline and the maximum duration of an injector pulse (calculate and see if additional time is available to lengthen the pulse)
Injector pulse duration can be measured with an oscilloscope or pulse duration meter, the measurement needs to be taken at full throttle near peak torque (approximately 2/3 of redline) as RPM increases from 3000 and the injector is open for longer percentage each revolution sequential reverts to non-sequential EFI.



Time of 1 revolution 60 min/sec
Redline

Time of 1 revolution 60 min/sec
5500 RPM = 0.0109 = 10.9 msec

Example

Available increase = time of one reveloution
redline pulse duration -1

Let redline be 5500 and redline pulse duration = 6.2 msec

Available increase = 10.0 msec – 6.2 msec = 4.7 msec

Available increase 10.9
6.2 -1 = 0.758 = 75.8%

Increasing Nozzle Size
Simply changing the nozzle size and leaving the ECM tune the same will deliver more fuel all the time under all conditions and must be corrected via some type of tune.

Increasing Fuel Pressure
Increasing fuel pressure as a function of boost pressure is a viable method of increasing fuel flow, but pressure changes through the nozzle are proportional to the square root of the pressure change across the nozzle.

As I read this above information I do not think that when using the Increasing Nozzle Size method for producing more flow an increase in the fuel pressure is needed, as Increasing Fuel Pressure is a method of increasing fuel flow by its self, if what I read is correct wouldn’t that be double dipping ?????

------------------
Scoobysruvenge

Correct. Injectors are rated at a certain pressure. If you want to run them at a higher pressure, you need to scale them to get the correct injector flow rate to plug into your ECM.

quote Originally posted by Will: *I* didn't say that.

Sorry will my mistake it was Dark who gave me the Tip

------------------
Scoobysruvenge

Yea, I am 99% sure that the springs will work, but I would obviously double check the installed height and seat clearances before you run them. I have only used them on 3800 applications, as they are much better than a stock 3800 spring.

Increasing pressure is much cheaper and with most injectors "marginally" increases the spray efficiency. A regulator with a base pressure of 50, and a 1:1 rising rate, would be perfect for you, and would make a small/cheaper injector work beautifully. the 33# injectors we use in 3800's are more than good to 340-350 crank hp at 11.0:1 afrs. A motor that is properly intercooled, running at a more sane AFR, would show even more HP with these injectors. I installed 50#'s on my turbo setup, and I know for a fact I will have no issues making 500-520 crank HP, and I would not be surprised that i could get even more than that out of them.

Dark mentioned that on the technology side I should want to run SFI with a MAF and that MS does not support it, however SFI will be available from the MS product.

However, for those applications for which sequential injection is desirable to maximize idle stability and smoothness, lower emissions, and make incremental improvements to cruise fuel economy, Bowling and Grippo are working on the 'MS-II Sequencer™' for which WILL do sequential injection for up to 8 cylinders (and can be used to operate COP ignition systems as well). It will likely not be released until 2008.

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: WILL ..The merit of squirting oil on the bottom of the piston is well documented and is used on everything from MB diesels, formula1 cars, NHRA dragsters and funny cars, turbo charged grand prix cars just to name a few industries who use this technology. The concept is simple lower the temperature of the piston even by a little or a lot and increase boost accordingly (heat educed detonation is the enemy of the turbo) and how you can just say it doesn’t work is ridiculous, there are a lot of hotrods guys who make there living making big horsepower using this technology and they just might disagree, not to mention Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, BMW, GM, and Ford who all use piston oil spray technology on their engines or maybe their just all confused as well. Thanks for the input

You disagree with me about everything when you don't even read what I post.

I did not say that piston oil jets don't "work" or don't "help". Obviously they do what they're designed to do: lower piston temps by a specific margin. They do NOT provide ENOUGH cooling capacity to save *your* pistons from 120 horsepower (coolant and exhaust) per piston of waste heat... You need to reduce combustion temps to do that.

Also, they have almost zero effect on pumping losses.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 04-21-2009).]

Will,
You seem like a smart guy, and I do not want you to think I do not read what you write, you have clued me into some things I need to research about MS that are good questions for me to research in more detail, this is why I post my project details here, but the tact you use and some of the points you are making do not always show your best side, even so I still appreciate your input.

------------------
Scoobysruvenge

Sorry... It's easy to get riled up about silly things on the internet.

quote however SFI will be available from the MS product.

And barely tested... Frequency based fueling is not something you just toss on and go with...

if it comes out..

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: Will, You seem like a smart guy, and I do not want you to think I do not read what you write, you have clued me into some things I need to research about MS that are good questions for me to research in more detail, this is why I post my project details here, but the tact you use and some of the points you are making do not always show your best side, even so I still appreciate your input.

Very reasonable response. I, in fact, agree that Will could often use some more tact, and I tell him that. This is the proper way to come across about it, IMHO.

quote Originally posted by darkhorizon: math is not really your friend is it? 17psi, 67 psi fuel pressure = 50psi of effective flow pressure. And rarely does it correspond directly.. in the real world anyway.

LOL.
Reading is not really your friend, is it? Why don't you re-read what I wrote? It clearly spells out, correctly (math and all), the mistakes you made in your previous assertions. Instead you used different numbers to repeat what I wrote (to correct you), then came up with this mumbo-jumbo about reality not *exactly* matching calculations. Everyone knows that, and I didn't refute that fact, I just didn't need to spell it out to dis-spell your incorrectness.

Please, when you put 'facts' down in threads where people might try to learn something, make sure they are actually 'facts'. It works toward the greater good of the entire forum. That's all I'm saying.

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: Bowling and Grippo are working on the 'MS-II Sequencer™'... It will likely not be released until 2008.

Typo?

Not a typo, this product is advertized as I have listed it. I have been watching this product for its release, but it has been delayed for Mid- 2009.
I’d like to take this time to point out that this is what the whole MS thing is all about, buy something like MS and it never goes out of date as it is constantly being upgraded with the latest want or need of the end user you and I.
A lot of people dismiss MS as some Johnny come lately phenomenon without any real sand or character , but thousands have already signed on and are doing some truly innovative work with the MS system and the madness has just begun.
In finishing I’d like to point out that some good questions have been have been asked and I will let you guys know what I come up with.

Thanks for your interest

------------------
Scoobysruvenge

There are also threads on the MS forums about using a MAF with MS2 as well, not official mind you, and is definately a work in progress.

As far as the comments about being untested, none of this is production equipment and of course has not gone through the testing that an OE would be able to provide, but that is the nature of "DIY" aftermarket products. Its a given, like if one were really worried about the fuel economy of a supercharged V8 then it probably isn't the engine that you would want for your swap.

While you guys are listening, let me bend your ears about the subject of intercoolers, my plans are as follows:

Mount a water based intercooler on top of the manifold, now I’m sure a hole will have to be cut in the deck lid (I like the mustang scoop ) even though these coolers are compact and the ambient air should not play a huge role, I will still place a heat shield between the cooler and the intake.
I have chose this location because it will reduce the amount of intake and exhaust plumbing, cut turbo lag to the absolute minimum and places the turbo as close to the valves as possible. I have sketched this out and done some measuring and it is far from complex to plumb. I can also tap the water line to cool the coil packs with a water jacket as well as air (a water jacket in the base plate or a tubing cage around the coils)
The benefits of using the 3100/3400 top end and accessories are that the flow over the Fiero heads and intake is simply staggering, no distributer, no mass of spaghetti hoses to clog the engine bay and the high mount alternator also makes more room for exhaust and air flow.
The intercooler will be complemented by a cold water box than will accept regular water for day to day activities or ice and water for track day circulated to a front mount water cooler core, this amount of water and plumbing should ensure 15 or more seconds of water before it is completely circulated back to the intercooler.
I will go to great lengths to make sure the engine bay heat is held down as much as possible, I have seen several mods that can help but I have no experience with them, the GT scoop on the trunk lid , another one that I have seen is to trim the grills above the engine so they still look factory but have a lot of material removed on the bottom, another uses fans and duct work in the trunk to evacuate air out of the bay (a van alternator should provide plenty of juice) of course an oil cooler is in the works as well.
I was also wondering about the merit of scoops on the hood and sides of the car and how much air they flow and how do the hood scoops affect the air across the radiator being that the Fiero is a bottom feeder when it comes to getting air to the radiator.

And this was on my mind

------------------
Scoobysruvenge

Technically you could put 3400 heads on a 2.8 Gen 1/2 block... the issue is with getting correct length pushrods due to lifter differences(roller/nonroller), timing covers and oil pans. The 1988 2.8 timing cover and oil pan can be used with a 3400 block, according to x-thumper-x on this forum, but you would loose the 24x wheel for the OBD-II ECM, but if you were using OBD-1 or aftermarket controllers it wouldn't be problem. You could probably then also use the Fiero alternator bracket and dog bone mount... but one would have to check on that.

On the 60* site the Camarobird guys have done hybrids with the 3.4 and Beretta/Cavaliers with the 2.8/3.1 so it should be documented what needs to be done.

Carbon,

The accessories from the Fiero 2.8 will not work (I tried it), the water pump fits but the bolt holes on the aluminum heads are slightly different than the alt and ac bracket holes on the Iron heads, also the dogbone will need to be modified as the alt on the gen 3 is located right where the dogbone bolts on the iron heads, in addition the 3400 heads have a 28cc combustion chamber volume and the iron heads are in the high thirties if my memory serves me, bolting these heads on a 2.8 without changing pistons would result in a way too low compression ratio in the 7 to 1 range. When I first started playing with the engine I modified the stock Fiero brackets to fit the aluminum heads, this was very time consuming (20 hours or so) and would have worked, but the stock 3100 stuff is so compact and well thought out that I have decided to use it instead of the modified Fiero brackets, make no mistake the factory Fiero acc. brackets are cast aluminum and I used a lot of plate steel to modify them they look good but I still prefer the 3100 stuff.

------------------
Scoobysruvenge

I think you are underestimating the 3500 springs a bit, in the real world people have seen good gains going to the 3500 spring. The install height of the 3500 spring throws off the seat pressure reading a bit, as the height that you will install them at will be lower than that, the same goes for the 3800 guys which is the biggest reason they see gains from it. It may be a bit more deceiving due to the fact that the 3800 spring is most likely weaker than the non 3500 60degree springs, but the difference is pretty clear.

The LS1 springs are not what you want.. They will put tons of strain on your timing set, and they are not a good forced induction spring due to high open pressure, and low closed pressure. For a turbo setup you will want maximum closed pressure, and minimal open pressure if you are running normal to lighter than normal valves.

Your best bet is going to be a crow cams 105 spring, that are available at prjperformance.com (email him if you do not see them listed on the site). The 105 crow cam spring has a much lower open pressure than the "90#" LS spring, and more closed pressure to maximize valve float resistance. They will also have the same seat size as the stock spring (or close to it, I assume the seats are the same size as the 3800 gen1 heads.) as your stock springs.

At the same installed height as the others listed, the 3500 spring would give 94 lbs of seat load.

The Gen III lifter retainer only works with roller lifters. Yes, it screws to bosses on the block.

Putting aluminum heads on top of iron head pistons results in high compression, not low.

I don't think there's an acceptable way to modify the decklid to clear the Gen II/III alternator. Every one I've seen done has inevitably sagged, no matter how it was reinforced. To me it's worth moving the alternator so I don't have to cut the decklid.

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: 3100 Valve Spring Valve Springs Free Length 48.5 mm 1.89 in Valve Springs Load (Closed) 320 N @ 43.2 mm 75 lb @ 1.701 in Valve Springs Load (Open) 1036 N @ 32 mm 230 lb @ 1.260 in Installed Height Intake-Exhaust 43.2 mm 1.701 in Approx. # or coils 6.55 3400 Valve Spring Valve Springs Free Length 48.5 mm 1.89 in Valve Springs Load (Closed) 320 N @ 43.2 mm 75 lb @ 1.701 in Valve Springs Load (Open) 1036 N @ 32 mm 230 lb @ 1.260 in Installed Height Intake-Exhaust 43.2 mm 1.701 in Approx. # or coils 6.55 3500 Valve Spring Free Length 50.0 mm 1.91 in Valve Spring Installed Height 44.2 mm 1.74 in Valve Spring Load - Closed 343 N [commat]44.2 mm 77 lb 1.74 in Valve Spring Load - Open 1041 N [commat]33 mm 234 lb 1.299 in Valve Spring Total Number of Coils 7.10 3900 Valve Springs Valve Spring Free Length 48.5 mm 1.89 in Valve Spring Installed Height 43.2 mm 1.701 in Valve Spring Load - Closed 320 N 43.2 mm 75 lb 1.701 in Valve Spring Load - Open 1036 N 32 mm 230 lb 1.260 in Valve Spring Total Number of Coils 6.55

Be careful with that data, especially if it's from the GM spec sheets on the 60 degree forum and not actual measurements someone performed. It's a known fact that some of the data between the 3500 non VVT, and 3900 is incorrect and may have resulted from GM personel carelessly using copy and paste. For example, both of the mentioned engines list 5.9" connecting rods yet 5.9" and 5.827" has been measured by myself, another member and a machine shop. Another known fact is that the LS6 springs can not be used on the 3500 nonVVT and below without some modification be it valve stem seal changes or the use of seats, the same spring fits the 3900 without a problem, there is also a special dampening cup used on the 3900 spring that is not found on the other engines, it adds about .042" to the bottom of the spring suggesting the closed pressure may also be different from what is listed.

Considering the 3900s fuel cutoff is at 6300 rpm and it has larger valves than the 3500 nonVVT which has a fuel cutoff of 6000 rpm or lower, it is unlikely the springs are the same despite what the GM literature on the 60 degree forum is stating, there are a few specs that just can't be right based on some of the differences. Another example might be the wrist pin specs, one engine has floating pins and the other does not, but I recall seeing the same specs listed for both.

quote Originally posted by darkhorizon: I think you are underestimating the 3500 springs a bit, in the real world people have seen good gains going to the 3500 spring. The install height of the 3500 spring throws off the seat pressure reading a bit, as the height that you will install them at will be lower than that, the same goes for the 3800 guys which is the biggest reason they see gains from it. It may be a bit more deceiving due to the fact that the 3800 spring is most likely weaker than the non 3500 60degree springs, but the difference is pretty clear. The LS1 springs are not what you want.. They will put tons of strain on your timing set, and they are not a good forced induction spring due to high open pressure, and low closed pressure. For a turbo setup you will want maximum closed pressure, and minimal open pressure if you are running normal to lighter than normal valves. Your best bet is going to be a crow cams 105 spring, that are available at prjperformance.com (email him if you do not see them listed on the site). The 105 crow cam spring has a much lower open pressure than the "90#" LS spring, and more closed pressure to maximize valve float resistance. They will also have the same seat size as the stock spring (or close to it, I assume the seats are the same size as the 3800 gen1 heads.) as your stock springs.

Dark,

I like the whole mad scientist on the cheap spring conversion your selling here, and I freely admit your sales pitch is a strong one and I can see the merit of further investigation on my part because research is cheap and LS1 springs expensive.
Here’s the plan I will look for the installed height of each of these springs 3100/3400/35003900 and 3800 and see what I come up with.

Thanks for the extra information.

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: Carbon, The accessories from the Fiero 2.8 will not work (I tried it), the water pump fits but the bolt holes on the aluminum heads are slightly different than the alt and ac bracket holes on the Iron heads, also the dogbone will need to be modified as the alt on the gen 3 is located right where the dogbone bolts on the iron heads, in addition the 3400 heads have a 28cc combustion chamber volume and the iron heads are in the high thirties if my memory serves me, bolting these heads on a 2.8 without changing pistons would result in a way too low compression ratio in the 7 to 1 range. When I first started playing with the engine I modified the stock Fiero brackets to fit the aluminum heads, this was very time consuming (20 hours or so) and would have worked, but the stock 3100 stuff is so compact and well thought out that I have decided to use it instead of the modified Fiero brackets, make no mistake the factory Fiero acc. brackets are cast aluminum and I used a lot of plate steel to modify them they look good but I still prefer the 3100 stuff.

You didn't ask about whether the stock pistons would work... And I stand corrected about the accessories.

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: [QUOTE]Originally posted by darkhorizon: I think you are underestimating the 3500 springs a bit, in the real world people have seen good gains going to the 3500 spring. The install height of the 3500 spring throws off the seat pressure reading a bit, as the height that you will install them at will be lower than that, the same goes for the 3800 guys which is the biggest reason they see gains from it. It may be a bit more deceiving due to the fact that the 3800 spring is most likely weaker than the non 3500 60degree springs, but the difference is pretty clear. The LS1 springs are not what you want.. They will put tons of strain on your timing set, and they are not a good forced induction spring due to high open pressure, and low closed pressure. For a turbo setup you will want maximum closed pressure, and minimal open pressure if you are running normal to lighter than normal valves. Your best bet is going to be a crow cams 105 spring, that are available at prjperformance.com (email him if you do not see them listed on the site). The 105 crow cam spring has a much lower open pressure than the "90#" LS spring, and more closed pressure to maximize valve float resistance. They will also have the same seat size as the stock spring (or close to it, I assume the seats are the same size as the 3800 gen1 heads.) as your stock springs.

Dark,

I like the whole mad scientist on the cheap spring conversion your selling here, and I freely admit your sales pitch is a strong one and I can see the merit of further investigation on my part because research is cheap and LS1 springs expensive.
Here’s the plan I will look for the installed height of each of these springs 3100/3400/35003900 and 3800 and see what I come up with.

Thanks for the extra information. [/QUOTE]

Well, remember that the even better option than LS springs, is a crow cam 105 spring.

Here is what I have so far and the 3500 sping seems to have more strength, I will see if I can find some one in the threads who has documented the swap.

3400 Gen 3
Valve Springs Free Length 48.5 mm 1.89 in
3600 VVT
Valve Springs Free Length 42.050-44.850 1.6555-1.7657 in
3500
Valve Spring Free Length 50.0 mm 1.91 in


3400 Gen 3
Valve Springs Load (Closed) 320 N @ 43.2 mm 75 lb @ 1.701 in
3600 VVT
Valve Springs Load (Closed) 247-273 N m 56-61 lb
3500
Valve Spring Load - Closed 343 N [commat]44.2 mm 77 lb 1.74 in


3400 Gen 3
Valve Springs Load (Open) 1036 N @ 32 mm 230 lb @ 1.260 in
3600 VVT
Valve Springs Load (Open) 598-662 N 134-149 lb
3500
Valve Spring Load - Open 1041 N [commat]33 mm 234 lb 1.299 in


3400 Gen 3
Installed Height Intake-Exhaust 43.2 mm 1.701 in
3600 VVT
• Valve Spring Installed Height - Closed 35.000 mm 1.3779 in
• Valve Spring Installed Height - Open 24.000 mm 0.9449 in
3500
Valve Spring Installed Height 44.2 mm 1.74 in


3400 Gen 3
Approx. # or coils 6.55
3600 VVT
Approx. # or coils 7.1
3500
Valve Spring Total Number of Coils 7.10

http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/diy-prom/

There isn't much worthwhile on TGO, but the DIY-PROM board has a lot of good info on how people are modifying and tuning factory programs.

Joe,
Thanks for the information, I am researching this now and will let you guys know what I come up with. There is a low mile 3500 at the junk yard as well as some 3400, if I get some time I am going to take some measurements as well as ask my local machine shop connection and try to get to the bottom of the question at hand.

Thanks for the input

Glad to see another Turbo 60V6 Fiero.

The rest of the thread is funny as hell, bickering about stupid stuff, without being armed with FACTS.
Unless you have messed with and tuned BOTH the MS(II) and factory ECM for boost, AND compared the two, then no one has anything intellengent to say.
Saying crap like "motec costs 5 figures" you ever even looked up the price on one? praising the factory ECM and then say you would never go back to one.?.?, saying math is wrong by changing numbers, The whole fuel pressure thing, you guys are trying to tell each other the same thing and both saying "I'm right, your wrong" LMFAO


Jees, people, pick battles worth fighting.

------------------
"DRIVE IT LIKE A FIERO"
'84 Fiero, engine to be determined
'87Blue GT 3.4L Swap Completed!!!!!!!! Boosted!!!!!!!
Las Vegas Fiero Club
Fiero Road Club Of Northern Nevada

quote Originally posted by sardonyx247: Saying crap like "motec costs 5 figures" you ever even looked up the price on one?

Have YOU?
http://www.motec.com/filedo...talog.pdf?docid=2490
Their catalog lists the M880 (top shelf) at $5600. That's not 5 figures, HOWEVER it's halfway there AND the strength of Motec isn't in just engine management; it's that you can have a single integrated system that handles engine management, data aquisition (not just ECM logs, but all kinds of data from the car: GPS position/speed, suspension position/loading, steering angle, wheel speed, etc) and instrumentation. You can EASILY cut Motec a 5 figure check.

I know what Motecs do, I have experince on them for GNs. You tried to correct me by saying your wrong? Again a funny thread.

I'm saying I was right when I said that one could drop 5 figures on a Motec.

With all those add-ons, Im sure you could get close hitting 10k

Geez, 10k you can't hide money, Hopefully I will spend much less than 10k on the whole car much less the ECM. It all sounds kind of phallic if you ask me.

That's what it takes to get the data you need to campaign a winning racecar at the professional level.