As some of you know I started with 3.1 TGP engine that was slated for a late model 3400 top end leaving only the TGP block, rods and crank. While working on a piston oiling system for this engine I discovered a bent rod.
This left only the TGP block and Crank, I wanted to use all of the Gen 3 roller components but found the block had no provisions for the lifter girdle that keeps the roller lifters from turning in the bore.
That left only the TGP crank, not much left of the old TGP time to find another engine for my swap.
After my short affair with the TGP, I found a 96 Cutlass TGP with a 3.4 DOHC engine with a blown transmission and less than 100K on the OD for 250$, the only hitch was I’d have to wait until the end of December when the owner gets home from school to pick it up.
I decided to wait, but while I waited I did a lot of internet dating and almost fell for a 3900 with its factory piston oil injected bottom end and big SBC bore on the top, but in the end the VVT among other things drove us apart.
Now December is just around the corner and I have finally settled on the 3.4 DOHC for my project.
I have been looking at how to get some more low end torque and HP from the 3.4 DOHC engine other than the turbo/s I plan to use, these seem to be common complaints with these engines and most all fixes I read have to do with changing cam timing, regrinding the cams or custom cams.
I was talking with my local machinist and showing him the stock cam specs and general engine numbers HP bore stroke and so on.
He suggested that I design the engine around the stock cams and not the cams around the engine. Here is what he came up with.

Number one increase the stoke of the engine to improve low end torque, since I plan to regrind the 3500 LZ9 crank from 2.25 down to 2.1 or stock 2.0 journal size, just offset grind it for more stroke. He suggested 6mm.
(84mm stroke increased to 90mm)

Number two increase the bore 40 over.
(Bore 92mm at 40 over = 93.020mm)

Number three increase the dwell time of the piston with a longer rod.
(5.7 rod to the popular SBC size of 5.85)

Doing the math this comes out to be 3.7 just shy of 3800 engine displacement.
(224 CU or 3669.8 = 3.7 liter)

Of course a custom piston will be needed to get a forging, so moving the pin to accept the longer rod will cost no extra.
Stock piston height is 1.464 and can be shrunk to as little as 1.200, using the 5.85 rod should put piston height somewhere around 1.250 leaving plenty of material for the rings.

This are preliminary numbers I should have details on the exact math soon, I know how you guys like squeeze the numbers so any observations would be greatly appreciated.

I was under the impression that the LZ9 crank would be incompatible with previous 60* motors due to the changes made for the altered bore center on the 3900/3500 VVT motors...

Am I incorrect?

Carbon,

Sorry about that misprint it should read LX9 not LZ9, the LX9 engine is used in 2004 – 2006 and is based on the 3400 family not the 3500/3900 engine family with the extra bore spacing.
After debating this with Joe Upson, Will and other I’m almost sure you could also the 3500/3900 cranks as those blocks are wider, not longer. I believe that is why the rods in those engines are 5.8s not the standard 3400 5.7.

The expected cost is a follows:

3500 forged crank and balancer used – 150$
Crank turned down and stroked **** – 200$
5.85 Small Chevy forged rods used – 200$
Narrowing SBC rods to fit crank **** – 75$
Custom Pistons New – 500$

For less than 1200$ I will have a completely forged rotating assembly stroked to 3.7 that should easily handle 600 HP and 8000 RPM, this far exceeds what I am looking to get.

Add the stock heads, intakes and valve train and I should have what I want in the engine, somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 HP with a 7000 RPM Redline on 10 pounds of boost running 87 octane fuel (I hope)

The only other mods will be the exhaust manifolds, maybe a throttle body and megasquirt as the ECM.

Those of you who know me, know I will document everything and provide a lot of pictures as this project progresses.

I should be picking up my 3500 crank and balancer from Action auto parts in Hopewell VA next week, they are selling me a accident damaged 3500 engine (broken accessory bosses) complete with 48,000 miles on it for 150$.

Wish me luck

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: Carbon, Sorry about that misprint it should read LX9 not LZ9, the LX9 engine is used in 2004 – 2006 and is based on the 3400 family not the 3500/3900 engine family with the extra bore spacing. After debating this with Joe Upson, Will and other I’m almost sure you could also the 3500/3900 cranks as those blocks are wider, not longer. I believe that is why the rods in those engines are 5.8s not the standard 3400 5.7. The expected cost is a follows: 3500 forged crank and balancer used – 150$ Crank turned down and stroked **** – 200$ 5.85 Small Chevy forged rods used – 200$ Narrowing SBC rods to fit crank **** – 75$ Custom Pistons New – 500$ For less than 1200$ I will have a completely forged rotating assembly stroked to 3.7 that should easily handle 600 HP and 8000 RPM, this far exceeds what I am looking to get. Add the stock heads, intakes and valve train and I should have what I want in the engine, somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 HP with a 7000 RPM Redline on 10 pounds of boost running 87 octane fuel (I hope) The only other mods will be the exhaust manifolds, maybe a throttle body and megasquirt as the ECM. Those of you who know me, know I will document everything and provide a lot of pictures as this project progresses. I should be picking up my 3500 crank and balancer from Action auto parts in Hopewell VA next week, they are selling me a accident damaged 3500 engine (broken accessory bosses) complete with 48,000 miles on it for 150$. Wish me luck

VVT trouble in the 3.9 is a mis nomer long ago addressed with simple fixes: Resized cam journals of previous cams to fit the 3.9L allowing use of the non VVT timing set= $100 Delta Cams. Degreeing in and locking the stock VVT cam in place= cost of degreeing equipment, or the latest, sleeves for the stock non VVT cam bearings to allow use of any of the stock 60 degree camshafts with the appropriate timing chain assembly, check WOT on the 60 degree forum.

That's an amazingly good price for custom pistons, does that include the rings? and you left off the cost of balancing the assembly. Better hope they don't have to add weight to the crank because that'll cost more (chevy rods are heavier and increasing the sroke = greater centrifugal forces that need to be countered). You'd be much further ahead if you started with the larger engine and set the cam up correctly. I could be wrong, but given how long I've been planning and researching a 3.9 build up, you're not going to get away with less than $1200 in expenses for what you're planning to do unless a gun is involved :-)

The cost of the rebuild, machine work and components will be roughly the same from one v6 to another and as far as balancing goes.. one is simply not serious about an engine build unless a thorough balance job is in the plans.
The list of parts I have here is what is needed beyond your standard rebuild. The piston price is valid and was quoted from a local source CP in Ashland VA, I did not ask about the rings as they are usually implied, but I will ask when I speak with him again.
The keys to getting a good price on a custom piston are 1 never order during race season
2 use a standard slug size (92mm in my case) and 3 shop around and you’ll be surprised at what you find.

3.7 that’s pretty damn close to 3.9 and with 4 valve DOHC heads there should be no question who will come out on top in that fight.

As always Joe thanks for the input.

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: The cost of the rebuild, machine work and components will be roughly the same from one v6 to another and as far as balancing goes.. one is simply not serious about an engine build unless a thorough balance job is in the plans. The list of parts I have here is what is needed beyond your standard rebuild. The piston price is valid and was quoted from a local source CP in Ashland VA, I did not ask about the rings as they are usually implied, but I will ask when I speak with him again. The keys to getting a good price on a custom piston are 1 never order during race season 2 use a standard slug size (92mm in my case) and 3 shop around and you’ll be surprised at what you find. 3.7 that’s pretty damn close to 3.9 and with 4 valve DOHC heads there should be no question who will come out on top in that fight. As always Joe thanks for the input.

Glad you're optimistic, just remember two things, the 3.4 DOHC is still a cry away from the 3.6 DOHC performance with it's later technology at 272 hp non direct injected, and GM made a 270 HP HO 3900 with a simple cam upgrade, LS6 springs and maybe a little improvement to the cylinder heads, so I wouldn't be so sure about which of the two would come out on top. One extra note, the 3.4 DOHC heads don't exactly put the 3900 heads to shame, 3.9s flow greater than 230 cfm int /150 exh in stock form and someone has 261/172 ported. You may need to aim for a little more stroke with those old DOHC heads to keep up with your optimism. Couldn't resist that, good luck with the project, my small journal H-beams just arrived.

Joe,

How dare you insinuate that the expiration date is out on my heads, the General is rolling over in his grave with your disdain for his hard work.
I’d like to see some 3900 head flow numbers but I could find none (yet) so I stacked up a set of 3400 full race heads against the 3.4 DOCH

Here is a blow by blow 3400 DOHC stock 94 / 95 set of head numbers vs a set of full boogie race heads from the 60D store, where I also referenced these numbers.

DOHC 3400 Race DOHC 3400 Race
Intake Intake Exhaust Exhaust
.050 51.6 35.0 52.2 25.2
0.100 101.2 65.9 99.5 51.8
0.150 150.1 94.5 137.7 87.6
0.200 190.1 124.8 163.7 112.6
0.250 220.1 152.6 183.7 131.2
0.300 245.9 177.6 195.9 148.1
0.350 265.7 194.7 203.2 158.4
0.400 277.6 211.3 210.0 167.1

Total Intake Total Intake
94/95 DOHC 3400 Race
1502.3 1056.4

If we combine the totals and compare just the intake side we see almost a 500 CFM advantage to the DOHC heads over the 3400 race set.

So do your 3900 stock heads flow better than the 3400 race heads???
If they do hats of to GM, but even if you reach that mark there’s still 500 CFMs to go before you catch the stock 3.4 DOHC head flow.
I’m not sure but I don’t think the 3900 heads are gonna keep up in this race, to add a little cream I have the more modern 96/97 heads which should flow more. Add some porting and polishing and you have a real monster.

All in fun guys 


“Never bring a knife to a gun fight”
Some Redneck

You should look up the dohc cam specs and see if those numbers are helping you out.

quote Originally posted by joshua riedl: You should look up the dohc cam specs and see if those numbers are helping you out.

No disdain for the DOHC, but this is what I had in mind when I took that shot at it. There's no doubt the heads have excellent flow character, the question is how well it is utilized. Part of the bottom end torque problem the 3.4 DOHC has is lower air velocity at low rpm due to the increased flow capability that it benefits from in the higher rpm range. The 3.9 heads were designed after the LS1 heads not the 3400 heads and have a lot more potential due to their design. The port job I referred to has some questions regarding accuracy: http://60degreev6.com/forum...ormance-t41450/page7 but it gives a good idea. My observations are centered around the 3.6L DOHC performance and it is a far superior engine to the 3.4 DOHC and it required direct injection to reach 300 hp naturally aspirated and still drive like a tamed machine, so you will definately need to do some extra to exceed it's performance and still maintain a street friendly engine. Otherwise camshafts necessary to put you over 300 hp may still leave you in about the same torque range once they offset the stroke increase.

There's a lot left in all of the 60 degree engines above stock, I just took note of your reason for going as far out of the way as you are for increased performance. WOT on the 60 degree forum has everything you need to make a 300 hp 3900 without any machine work and for much less than $1200, camshaft and thinner head gasket. The 3900 will fit in the engine bay easier also and already has a 6300 rpm stock redline. Both engines make for nice swaps. Just be aware that the VVT cam is no longer a good reason to avoid the 3900.

“Over-camming the engine is the most common mistake made when choosing a cam.
A big cam will not give better bottom end power and big horsepower numbers also won't happen at low rpms without big cubic inches or a turbo/supercharger.”
Doug Friesan

“It’s hard to find a cam that works better than the stock one for a street turbo application.”
Corky Bell

The turbo/s will make plenty of torque, the longer stroke will also add meat the bottom end of the rpm and the longer dwell time on the piston allows for higher RPMs among other benefits.

Increasing the stroke and bore will surely net me some noticeable horsepower for this engine, as far as the cams go you don’t need to turn 7000 RPM to make 400 HP, this kind of HP can be had 5500 RPM. Just take a look at Boreti’s thread here at PFF 375 HP on a turbo 2.8 with a mild street cam… sick!

I don’t see all the extra cost or trouble!
I will have a 150$ in the crank and rods, I should be able to get that back from the sale of the top end off this engine, so I will be paying to have the crank turned. Something I would have paid to have done on a crank that wasn’t being stroked. No extra cost here.

If I used the stock rods I would have them shot peened and resized, this cost would be roughly equal to the 200 dollar cost of the SBC rods. No extra cost here either.

Narrowing the rods to fit the 3500 crank is going to cost me, but who could complain about a nice set of after market rods for 75$. You got me 75$ extra cost.

If I want forged pistons for my turbo engine I’m going to have to shell out that jack whether it’s on a 3.1, 3.4 DOHC or a 3900. No extra cost here

So that is a total cost of 75$ more than if I chose your beloved 3.9 or some other push rod v6. Not so much extra cost or trouble here.


Choosing the best possible internal components available at little to no extra cost for one’s engine for me is a no brainer.

4 valve heads vs 2 valve heads… 4 valve no brainer

DOHC vs Push Rod… DOHC no brainer.

Forged vs Cast Internals… Forged of course.

And more displacement to boot!

Excuse me while I wipe the slobber from my chin…..

So where was I… Oh yea my I idea sucks, it’s way to expensive and there are better engines than my 250$ bastard 3.4 DOHC.

Can you refresh my memory on how all that works again.

“This is my engine, there are many like but this one is mine.”
Scoobysruvenge


I was having so much fun I almost forgot…

“Part of the bottom end torque problem the 3.4 DOHC has is lower air velocity at low rpm due to the increased flow capability that it benefits from in the higher rpm range.”
Joe Upson

Do you have any hard data to back this claim up???

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: “Part of the bottom end torque problem the 3.4 DOHC has is lower air velocity at low rpm due to the increased flow capability that it benefits from in the higher rpm range.” Joe Upson Do you have any hard data to back this claim up???

That's another no-brainer, has always been true. High intake velocity makes for better more evenly
distributed fuel/air mix, . . . more power. Low velocity has less inertia(normally aspirated) resulting
in less fill, and less evenly distributed mixture. Poorer burn= less gas expansion= less extraction
(scavenging)=less net power for given volumes of air/fuel.

It has everything to do w/building towards getting the best volumetric efficiency for the given RPM
where one want's to build power.

Hang w/some engine builders who don't give a ratz about high RPM and build strictly for low end torque.
4X4 guys and tractor pullers; it's an art as well as science to get good power w/lot's of "area under
the curve", dyno that is. Good bottom end torque comes from high gas velocities (both intake and exhaust)
at low RPM, high end hp comes from working towards high gas volumes at high RPM. They're not totally
mutualy exclusive, but one has to find the right balance using tract diameter and length to get inertia on
your side.

Norm

[This message has been edited by gt88norm (edited 11-17-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: “Over-camming the engine is the most common mistake made when choosing a cam. A big cam will not give better bottom end power and big horsepower numbers also won't happen at low rpms without big cubic inches or a turbo/supercharger.” Doug Friesan “It’s hard to find a cam that works better than the stock one for a street turbo application.” Corky Bell The turbo/s will make plenty of torque, the longer stroke will also add meat the bottom end of the rpm and the longer dwell time on the piston allows for higher RPMs among other benefits. Increasing the stroke and bore will surely net me some noticeable horsepower for this engine, as far as the cams go you don’t need to turn 7000 RPM to make 400 HP, this kind of HP can be had 5500 RPM. Just take a look at Boreti’s thread here at PFF 375 HP on a turbo 2.8 with a mild street cam… sick! I don’t see all the extra cost or trouble! I will have a 150$ in the crank and rods, I should be able to get that back from the sale of the top end off this engine, so I will be paying to have the crank turned. Something I would have paid to have done on a crank that wasn’t being stroked. No extra cost here. If I used the stock rods I would have them shot peened and resized, this cost would be roughly equal to the 200 dollar cost of the SBC rods. No extra cost here either. Narrowing the rods to fit the 3500 crank is going to cost me, but who could complain about a nice set of after market rods for 75$. You got me 75$ extra cost. If I want forged pistons for my turbo engine I’m going to have to shell out that jack whether it’s on a 3.1, 3.4 DOHC or a 3900. No extra cost here So that is a total cost of 75$ more than if I chose your beloved 3.9 or some other push rod v6. Not so much extra cost or trouble here. Choosing the best possible internal components available at little to no extra cost for one’s engine for me is a no brainer. 4 valve heads vs 2 valve heads… 4 valve no brainer DOHC vs Push Rod… DOHC no brainer. Forged vs Cast Internals… Forged of course. And more displacement to boot! Excuse me while I wipe the slobber from my chin….. So where was I… Oh yea my I idea sucks, it’s way to expensive and there are better engines than my 250$ bastard 3.4 DOHC. Can you refresh my memory on how all that works again. “This is my engine, there are many like but this one is mine.” Scoobysruvenge I was having so much fun I almost forgot… “Part of the bottom end torque problem the 3.4 DOHC has is lower air velocity at low rpm due to the increased flow capability that it benefits from in the higher rpm range.” Joe Upson Do you have any hard data to back this claim up???

Never intended to rain on your parade or imply your plan was flawed. I only intended to point out your reason for not doing the 3900 that you considered was not a good one given that the cam issue had been resolved. The rest of the rhetoric was all in good fun as far as which engine would perform best. I know about the low velocity air flow in overly flow capable heads from reading and personal experience the hard way. Stick with your plan and see it through. I didn't realize or missed you intended to boost this engine also.

[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 11-17-2009).]

Here is some of the preliminary math I’ve come up with for stroking the 3.4…
The formula is as follows:
Deck Height – (Stroke/2 + Rod Length + Piston Deck Clearance) = Compression Height
6 Inch rod used
Deck Height – 8.818
Stroke/2 – 1.771609095
Rod Length – 6.0
Piston Deck Clearance – .010
Compression Height = 7.781609095
Compression Height subtracted from Deck Height = 1.036390905
With .000 Piston Deck Clearance = 1.046390905
Minimum Deck Height – 1.200
Verdict – Unusable
5.85 Inch rod used
Deck Height – 8.818
Stroke/2 – 1.771609095
Rod Length – 5.85
Piston Deck Clearance – .010
Compression Height = 7.631609095
Compression Height subtracted from Deck Height = 1.186390905
With .000 Piston Deck Clearance = 1.196390905
Minimum Deck Height – 1.200
Verdict – Acceptable with .000 PDC
5.7 Inch rod used
Deck Height – 8.818
Stroke/2 – 1.771609095
Rod Length – 5.7
Piston Deck Clearance – .010
Compression Height = 7.481609095
Compression Height subtracted from Deck Height = 1.336390905
With .000 Piston Deck Clearance = 1.346390905
Minimum Deck Height – 1.200
Verdict – Usable with .000 PDC and .010 PDC

It looks like I will be using those aluminum rods I have after all, the small ring package that the 5.85 (slightly less than the 1.200 minimum needed for a turbo piston) rod requires in combination with .000 PDC I have decided to stay away from the longer rod.
I will still use the stroke and bore increase as previously planned for 3.7 displacement and use my 5.7 aluminum rods in place of the 5.85 SBC rods.

I kept the calculations pretty simple. Stock rod + stock piston compression height = 5.827" + 1.305 = 7.132". New rod and piston assembly = 7.014" + offset grind .125 = 7.139"

Stock rod - SBC small journal rod = 5.827" - 5.7" = .127"

Offset grind 2.25" crank pin to a 2.00 " journal for a stroke increase of .250/2 = .125"

That recovered all but .002" of the .127" difference in rod length.

My LS1 pistons have a compression height of 1.314

So the new pistons will sit .009" higher in the bore which isn't much.

Stock rod, T67 and Small journal 5.7 H-beam

Joe,
Looks to be a sweet set up for your car. I look forward to seeing you get it together, it seems you and I have some common ground on squeezing readily available parts into a project rather than custom everything.
I do not believe you need to divide your offset journal grind x 2, the available stroke should be 2.25 - .010 to clean up the grind giving you a total of 2.15 not .127 worth of stroke.
Or am I getting something wrong???

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: Joe, Looks to be a sweet set up for your car. I look forward to seeing you get it together, it seems you and I have some common ground on squeezing readily available parts into a project rather than custom everything. I do not believe you need to divide your offset journal grind x 2, the available stroke should be 2.25 - .010 to clean up the grind giving you a total of 2.15 not .127 worth of stroke. Or am I getting something wrong???

There's only .250" available for offset work if I intend to maintain a 2.00" crank pin journal down from the 2.25", since we're dealing with a circle that has to be divided by two to yield .125" offset in either direction. I have small journal rods not the standard 2.1" crank pin chevy rod. Remember, regardless you have to center the final crank pin diameter on top of the original, the area you have in excess of the super imposed circle is .125 for 360 degrees so that's all you have available to increase or decrease stroke by. The 2.1 crank pin rod would only have .075 increase available.

Think I'll have to agree with Joseph on the calculations. Since I'm running 6" rods in my 3.4, you should have no problems running 5.85-5.827 rods with an extra .125 stroke. But most likely your oil ring land will be in the wrist pin location, mine is. Make sure you get the right oil ring cause the bottom ring is thicher than the standard or there might have been two rings on the bottom, I don't remember. Make sure you make that clear when you buy your rings. Sounds like it should work. Too bad you can't get a variable intake runner like the 3900, that would be the icing on the cake. Good luck

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

85 GT 3.4
14.9 @ 90 1.9 60' Old TH125/3.06
Unknown New 4T60/3.42

[This message has been edited by Lilchief (edited 11-17-2009).]

Sorry Joe I beg to differ, you might want to do your math again you will get all of the 2.25 accept for 0.010 Think about it, if you start at the far edge of your journal you have the entire 2.25 not half.

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: Sorry Joe I beg to differ, you might want to do your math again you will get all of the 2.25 accept for 0.010 Think about it, if you start at the far edge of your journal you have the entire 2.25 not half.

When I speak of stroke increase I'm referring only to the distance the pin moves further up towards the deck, not the combination of increase above and below. Only the bottom portion of the crank pin will need to be cut and if the machinist is good enough I doubt .010" will be necessary to finish it especially if the top of the pin is not touched.

Your picture is great Joe, but again you get the whole 2.25s worth of stroke, I am speaking from experience as I just made battle plans with Lewis at The Shop in Charles City Va on this very subject on Saturday for my crank.

You will gain .250 in stroke but one half of that is at BDC and the other half at TDC

quote Originally posted by Lilchief: You will gain .250 in stroke but one half of that is at BDC and the other half at TDC

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Journal Size Slack Adj. #
.225 - .010 = .215
2.15 = 5.460999999999999 mm
Take my stock stroke of 84mm and add 5.460999999999999 mm
You come up with a stroke of 89.460999999999999 mm or the 90mm stroke I spoke of earlier in this thread.

Lewis my local machinist knows his sh@t he has designed oil pans for NASCAR and spent thousands of hours on the dyno testing RD applications for those boys in the 90s
Not only is he vetted, but now that he is semi-retired he has the time to share his knowledge and will bench race with you for hours.
I am lucky to have a HP encyclopedia like Lewis close to home and take advantage as much as possible.

Thanks for the interest.

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: Journal Size Slack Adj. # .225 - .010 = .215 2.15 = 5.460999999999999 mm Take my stock stroke of 84mm and add 5.460999999999999 mm You come up with a stroke of 89.460999999999999 mm or the 90mm stroke I spoke of earlier in this thread. Lewis my local machinist knows his sh@t he has designed oil pans for NASCAR and spent thousands of hours on the dyno testing RD applications for those boys in the 90s Not only is he vetted, but now that he is semi-retired he has the time to share his knowledge and will bench race with you for hours. I am lucky to have a HP encyclopedia like Lewis close to home and take advantage as much as possible. Thanks for the interest.

We're all saying the same thing in a different way. You are counting stroke from 180 degrees from BDC, I'm counting from 90 degrees away from TDC. That's the only difference. I'm doing it that way to insure my rod and piston combination are within my measured limits and to avoid the thought that the crank pin center is literally .250 " additional from the center of the crankshaft main in the direction of the deck providing a literal 3.560" crank throw.

Since all machinist are not created equal and the guys I've conversed with didn't say they would need it, I didn't include a .010" under cut. That part I imagine would boil down to skill and equipment. I've had a 3.4 crank with bearing bits from a spun bearing on the crank cleaned up by a machinist who was able to keep the journal at standard spec limitations so I'm pretty confident the offset can be done without going .010 under the intended journal size. I believe the main determinant is the effort required to do so and whether they are willing to do so. Most important here regardless is that the parts all fit as required.

Wow,

This sure is a tough crowd; I smack down some legit info from a respected source and back it up with hard numbers, so the response then you take a back alley shot at my machinist.
Any machinist worth his salt not going give you a hard numbers before they have the part in hand and further more you must have had some awesome stock cranks, because I’ve never seen one that couldn’t use a few thousandths taken off cure some out of round and a general evening of the to ensure they are symmetrical and bed evenly.
I also have provided my source here unlike the team of drunken minds you reference in your last post as “the guys”
You boys can church it up all you want, and I’m no expert, but I’ve looked at a few displacement calculators and none of them reference 180, 90 or any other degree in the recipe for displacement, for that matter nor do they take BDC or TDC into consideration, where displacement is concerned stroke is stroke.

http://60degreev6.com/forum...head-cam-swap-t26547
Have you checked out this Site/Thread
http://60degreev6.com/forum...a-stroker-lq1-t44359
This is another thread of interest

Thanks Lilchief,

Yes Iv'e read both of these, and they are in part what has sparked my intrest in aquiring the stock cam specs for all years of this engine so I can crunch some numbers.

Thanks for the interest and info.

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

This is what I am talking about... you sure come off as one arrogant ass in your posts. First Joseph points out that you guys are talking about the same thing in different ways and agreeing with you about the stroke calculations, and then you accuse him of taking a shot at your machinist. He told you the results of his research, and that part of what you said didn't come up in the conversation so he left it out of his math, and the need for it could be based on skill or equipment. As far as respected sources, no one here knows oil pan designer 'Lewis' from Adam, so dropping words like NASCAR, vetted and dyno testing doesn't really amount to much. Your source is no more credible than Joe's team of drunken minds...

As it sits right now Joseph has actually built 60* motors and had them running in his Fiero. You just keep jumping from configuration to configuration without building anything, just conjecture. You should look up posts on www.60degreeV6.com made by username no_doz.

I love it when people come blazing onto this forum with the attitude that no one here has ever tried a thing or could possibly have experience enough to be a resource unto themselves.

[This message has been edited by carbon (edited 11-17-2009).]

quote Originally posted by carbon: You should look up posts on www.60degreeV6.com made by username no_doz.

LOL I noted the similarity. I think we will eventually see scoobysruvenge finish an engine though...

[This message has been edited by TiredGXP (edited 11-18-2009).]

Carbon,

Dude it’s all in fun and trying to add some spice to the reading experience, something I think Joe gets, if he didn’t he would have told me to go pound sand a long time ago.
I’m sorry my writing style doesn’t entertain you, but I like to think that long time members like Will, and Joe Upson get me and my soap box drama and accept for just that.
To my credit I have documented an aluminum rod swap for the 60D as well as a functional piston oil spray system for these engines.
Not the greatest achievements here at PFF, but none the less contributions to the PFF family that I am proud of.
And as for being guilty of changing my mind every now and then, I am guilty as charged, but so are a lot of the members here at PFF.
So go pound sand Carbon (just kidding)
As always Carbon it’s good to hear from you even if it’s to chap my @$$ for something.
“Takes all kinds”
John Wayne

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: Can one of you DOHC guys tell me what the difference is between the 94/95 cams and the 96/97 pieces. I see a lot of people referencing the 94/95 cams a the preferred cams to have for this engine. What’s the deal??? Does anyone have cam specs or know where to get them for these engines???

the 94 95 cams have the same profile as the 91 -93 IIRC most likely they are preferred for the cam cogs which are easy to adjust timing on as compared to the 91-93 cogs. 96-97 are different profile wise ( for one, not as much lift IIRC) but the 96 cams and heads have the older style bucket lifters where the 97 have smaller bucket lifters. Ideally I would use the 91 -95 cams with the 96 heads as the older cams fit the 96 heads.

[This message has been edited by Erik (edited 11-18-2009).]

Pulled this from 60degree some years ago.

91-95 3.4L TDC/DOHC
Intake lift .370". 223 duration. 110 centerline.
Exhaust .370" lift. 229.1 duration. 110 centerline.
IVO 1.5
IVC 41.5
EVO 44.6
EVC 4.6

.050 specs

Intake 205.8 duration, Exhaust 211.9 duration
IVO -7.1
IVC 32.9
EVO 36
EVC -4


96-97 3.4L DOHC
Intake lift .369". 221.8. 110 centerline.
Exhaust .364" lift. 226.2 duration. 110 centerline.
IVO .9
IVC 40.9
EVO 43.1
EVC 3.1

.050 specs

Intake 205.1 duration, Exhaust 210 duration
IVO -7.5
IVC 32.5
EVO 35
EVC -5

Honestly I don't really know what it all means, but the 91-95's have ever so slightly bigger numbers, and therefore are better

quote Originally posted by Fierobsessed: Honestly I don't really know what it all means, but the 91-95's have ever so slightly bigger numbers, and therefore are better

LOL... totally know where you are coming from.

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: Carbon, Dude it’s all in fun and trying to add some spice to the reading experience, something I think Joe gets, if he didn’t he would have told me to go pound sand a long time ago. I’m sorry my writing style doesn’t entertain you, but I like to think that long time members like Will, and Joe Upson get me and my soap box drama and accept for just that. To my credit I have documented an aluminum rod swap for the 60D as well as a functional piston oil spray system for these engines. Not the greatest achievements here at PFF, but none the less contributions to the PFF family that I am proud of. And as for being guilty of changing my mind every now and then, I am guilty as charged, but so are a lot of the members here at PFF. So go pound sand Carbon (just kidding) As always Carbon it’s good to hear from you even if it’s to chap my @$$ for something. “Takes all kinds” John Wayne

Just get to work already and show us some pictures.

IVO - Inlet valve opens

IVC - Inlet valve closes

EVO - Exhaust Valve Opens

EVC - Exhaust valve Closes

LOL... I know the abbreviations and what they stand for... its what those numbers mean for performance that's my problem.

Thanks for the Cam specs I,ll get to work crunching the numbers and let you guys know what I come up with