Ahh, healthy, and now with more energy, I'm back! (though I think I have pink eye now )

Anywho, status on the conversion...

The low-compression pistons are on the way, and it turns out that an adaptor plate meant to link an Ecotec to a 4T65-E tranny (from the late-model Grand Prix's) will work in this conversion, eliminating the need to use the tranny that comes with the motor.

IE: the stock Isuzu or Getrag in the Fiero's CAN be retained!!!!!!!!!!!!

This means that the conversion will cost over $2,000 less that it would have, and the time it would take to install the drivetrain is reduced by over 2-3 months.

With the tranny that came with the motor, it would have meant custom axles ($$$), custom tranny mounts, custom shift links, custom slave cylinder, and who knows what else, maybe custom spindles too!

And who know's if any of that would have even worked!

So, I've contacted Pontiac directly, and they're very good about answering e-mails, beleive it or not. They're one of the last big businesses that I still have great faith in. That's why I'm sticking with the Fiero so much, and why I personally endorse the upcoming 2006 Solstice, becuase although it isn't mid-engined, it still retains the same philosophy of the Fiero.

"Take what parts you already produce, and throw 'em together to make one hell of a car!"

The Solstice is a RWD 2 seater, that uses off-the-shelf parts, has a 4-banger (the Ecotec) that makes over 1,200 HP (in its race form), and the engine bay of that car can hold a 350 V8. If that doesn't scream modern day Fiero, I don't know what does.
-----
I'll keep you guys posted on Pontiac's response.

------------------
PETTY OFFICER (no more airman!) Michael C Casaceli
Patrol Squadron Ten, United States Navy
1988 Pontiac Fiero 2.5L, soon to be 2.2L Ecotec Turbo (THE PROJECT HAS STARTED!!!)
1988 Oldsmobile Firenza 2.0L non-turbo (R.I.P.my beloved J-body. KIA by a Ford)
1994 Chevy S-10 4.3, it's finally here, and it is gorgeous!

[This message has been edited by fieroturbo (edited 06-12-2004).]

I spent some time looking at the Saab 6 speed a couple of days ago. It uses the same transaxle mounting that GM has used for years... mount outboad and above the top of the transmission. I think that mount could sit on top of the Fiero left frame rail and actually be pretty easy to transplant. Axles and shift linkage remain a problem...

------------------
'87 Fiero GT: Low, Sleek, Fast, and Loud
'90 Pontiac 6000 SE AWD: None of the Above

Luck, Fate and Destiny are words used by those who lack the courage to define their own future

That's why I'm sticking with the Fiero transaxle. Nothing changes.

A six-speed Saab would be nice, but if DKOV comes through with his 6, we'll have a better alternative for our Fiero's.

This thread has been quiet for a day. Any more updates? Once you're done with your swap, can I just drop off my Fiero and an Ecotec for you to install? <g> I'll give ya a 12pack

Um, lemme see how this one goes first, just to make sure it works out ok.

My hope is, as I said earlier (page 2 or something), is to make this into a kit, with adaptor plate, exhaust, fuel system, electrical and all. Complete instructions with color photos.

Though I would need an 84-87 donor car to test it out on those years, so I could use your's for that.

Mine is an 88, and if the motor fits into that, it will fit into any year. The 88 is a tighter squeeze, and I am kinda worried about the right wheel well being in the way of the head. Also, the trunk might be in the way of the turbo setup, so that may also have to get modded.

Believe it or not, it seems that the electrical side of things will be super easy. The harness is totally complete, with the ECM sticking in the engine bay. So really, to make it "work," just plug in all the connectors, and hook up the battery to the cables on the harness, and voila! No gauges would work though. That's where the rigging comes into play with the Fiero harness and the Ecotec harness.

My hope was to eliminate all Fiero Engine related electrical parts, but the stock tranny can now be used, so to keep the speedometer working right, the stock ECM is going to have to stay. God knows how I'm going to get the check engine light to stay off. Only thing I can think of is to put dummy loads on the harness, and get an O2 sim.

Bryson may have an idea, since he's aready been down this road with the quad 4, which isn't to far off from the Ecotec's principle of wiring. Both motors came from Cavaliers.
---------------
Any idea's, feed em to me.

Hold off on the 12 pack though. I don't turn 21 till August. The Navy isn't too keen on underage drinking.

------------------
PETTY OFFICER (no more airman!) Michael C Casaceli
Patrol Squadron Ten, United States Navy
1988 Pontiac Fiero 2.5L, soon to be 2.2L Ecotec Turbo (THE PROJECT HAS STARTED!!!)
1988 Oldsmobile Firenza 2.0L non-turbo (R.I.P.my beloved J-body. KIA by a Ford)
1994 Chevy S-10 4.3, it's finally here, and it is gorgeous!

hey fieroturbo: i just started reading this thread out of boredom, and wow! im blown away (pun intended). great thread going here. you are one sharp dude for your age. chemistry background myself, been in business for all of my working life (im 50 now). keep up all the good work.

imputting a 4.9 in my fiero - lots of power, relatively cheap swap, no heavier than a 2.8v6, 27mph (alleged) on the highway. but im really intrigued by the potential of the ecotec here - i didnt know that it had been so well developed in europe.

but lets see, thinking as i write: with the ecotec 100 lbs off my 2400lbs would put me at 2300lbs.

lets do the math: i did the battery relocation thing: lets figure approx 2500lb car - assuming battery at 50lbs, means that the battery is 2% of the weight, moving it from rear to front (assuming 100% of battery weight was on rear, now 100% on front) gives us a 4% change - 2%less on the rear and 2% more on the front. i have heard different numbers for the fiero factory weight distribution (i guess it depends on engine, tranny, options, body style) GT at 44/56 and the notchie 4banger at 45/55. now move the 2% and we get 46/54 fro the GT and 47/53 for the notchie duke.

now(still thinking as i write) 47/53 on a 2500 lb car means that 1175 lbs is in the front and 1325 in the rear. 100 lbs less weight in the rear (4% of assumed 2500 lbs) moves us from 2500 lbs total to 2400 lbs total. therefore there would only be 1225 lbs in the rear or 51%. the front would still have 1175 lbs or 49%. the notchie at least would have a 49/51 weight distribution, and the GT would have a better ratio as well. this would allow use of inexpensive factory grand am wheels with a slightly wider tire in the rear, say 205 55 16 in front and a 215 55 16 in rear, solving the need for custom rims in the rear to handle 235's.

question: what kind of mpg are you expecting? with your 88 and ecotec?

jon

------------------
I'm the original owner of a white ' 84 2M4 purchased Dec 10, 1983 from Pontiac. Always garaged, no rust, 4-wheel drifts are fun!

[This message has been edited by longjonsilver (edited 06-14-2004).]

Fieroturbo,

Just got my latest issue of Chevy Performance Magazine and they have a short teaser article in there about a joint venture project between them and Kit Car magazine. It involves a performance build on an ecotech motor that will be put into a Cheetah kit. They're claiming a 300hp ecotech for this project. The complete buildup will be featured in Kit Car Magazine. Just thought you would like to know.

quote Originally posted by Will: I spent some time looking at the Saab 6 speed a couple of days ago. It uses the same transaxle mounting that GM has used for years... mount outboad and above the top of the transmission. I think that mount could sit on top of the Fiero left frame rail and actually be pretty easy to transplant. Axles and shift linkage remain a problem...

The Saab trans is also double synchro'd. That alone would be worth the trouble IMHO.

quote Originally posted by longjonsilver: hey fieroturbo: i just started reading this thread out of boredom, and wow! im blown away (pun intended). great thread going here. you are one sharp dude for your age. chemistry background myself, been in business for all of my working life (im 50 now). keep up all the good work. imputting a 4.9 in my fiero - lots of power, relatively cheap swap, no heavier than a 2.8v6, 27mph (alleged) on the highway. but im really intrigued by the potential of the ecotec here - i didnt know that it had been so well developed in europe. but lets see, thinking as i write: with the ecotec 100 lbs off my 2400lbs would put me at 2300lbs. lets do the math: i did the battery relocation thing: lets figure approx 2500lb car - assuming battery at 50lbs, means that the battery is 2% of the weight, moving it from rear to front (assuming 100% of battery weight was on rear, now 100% on front) gives us a 4% change - 2%less on the rear and 2% more on the front. i have heard different numbers for the fiero factory weight distribution (i guess it depends on engine, tranny, options, body style) GT at 44/56 and the notchie 4banger at 45/55. now move the 2% and we get 46/54 fro the GT and 47/53 for the notchie duke. now(still thinking as i write) 47/53 on a 2500 lb car means that 1175 lbs is in the front and 1325 in the rear. 100 lbs less weight in the rear (4% of assumed 2500 lbs) moves us from 2500 lbs total to 2400 lbs total. therefore there would only be 1225 lbs in the rear or 51%. the front would still have 1175 lbs or 49%. the notchie at least would have a 49/51 weight distribution, and the GT would have a better ratio as well. this would allow use of inexpensive factory grand am wheels with a slightly wider tire in the rear, say 205 55 16 in front and a 215 55 16 in rear, solving the need for custom rims in the rear to handle 235's. question: what kind of mpg are you expecting? with your 88 and ecotec? jon

Here's some real data from a previous post:

"A buddy of mine weighed my '84 that I just put a Quad 4 in and my 88 GT (stock 2.8L). This was done with a Longacre Computerscales system that he uses on a stock car.
Neither car has a sunroof. The '84 had a full tank and the 88 GT a 3/4 tank. The '84 has power nothing and the 88 GT has power everything. The '84 has a stock battery up front. The '88 has the battery in the rear. The '84 has Koenig Theory 16 X 7 wheels with Kumho 215/50 tires. The 88 has the stock lace wheels and Yokohama 215/60 in back and 205/60 in front.

88GT with spare tire, jack and lug wrench:
Front - 1205 lbs
Rear - 1604 lbs
Total - 2809 lbs

88GT w/o spare tire etc.
Front - 1169 lbs
Rear - 1599 lbs
Total - 2768 lbs

84 Quad 4 w/o spare tire etc.
Front - 1122 lbs
Rear - 1500 lbs
Total - 2622 lbs

I was surprised by the results. The '84 seems to feel much lighter driving and I think that people here have quoted numbers under 2500 lbs for a stock '84. But this was done with a high tech weighing system and when I jumped in the car it pegged my weight pretty well. You could knock 50 lbs or so off by running with a 1/4 tank, 35 lbs by removing the passenger seat and a some more lbs with a lighter battery. But all in all getting under 2500 lbs seems tough."

Wow guys! 4 consecutive top notch posts there. Thanks for the input on this task of mine.
--------------------------------
longjonsilver: FINALLY!!! Someone has decoded my train of thought. Never thought it would have taken a chemist to do it though . Thanks for the compliment by the way.

Anyway, yes, the big key is lighter weight and better vehicle balance, which as you know more than anyone, means better braking, handling, acceleration, MPG, etc, the list goes on.

I don't know what kind of mileage I'd get, simply because I don't know an exact number for the stock Fiero, or a stock 2003 Cavalier, which the motor is from. I do know that the Ecotec is FAR more effecient than the duke, that is for sure, but the upside is that the 7psi of boost I'm starting with won't kill the MPG too much, if even at all, especially since I'm using low compression pistons (which should be arriving sometime this week).

Something else to take into consideration, is that for the first year or so, I'm going to retain the stock Isuzu, which has a lower gear ratio than the Getrag, meaning (for you non-science minded people) the engine has to spin less to get at a cetain speed compared to the gear ratio in the getrag, which means more MPG and higher top speed, but less acceleration.

At some point though, I do need to convert to the Getrag, as the torque levels will exceed the 200ft/lb limit of the Isuzu.
--------------------------
Lambo: THANK YOU for that info. Just out of curiosity, is the cheetah kit a start from scratch kit, or a Fiero based kit? What tranny are they using? And why are they only yanking 300 HP from it??? That is very mild for this motor.
--------------------------
Bushroot: I'll keep that in mind later down the road. Something you may want to pass along to DKOV with his 6-speed. You may save him a couple....hundred-thousand dollars by doing so (lol).
--------------------------
Sanderson: The reason I didn't go with the Quad 4 is because of engine weight. That block of yours is iron, whereas the Ecotec's is aluminum, so that 2622lbs of yours would probabbly hit the 2500lb area for me.

Every pound counts. Ask any pro drag racer. Heck, I know of guys that race pro street, and they take out their cigaratte lighter to shave weight (lol). They'll even do the subway diet during race season too, just so the total weight can be as low as possible.

Saddly, the turbo kit will add some extra weight to my setup, but the 500HP capability is well worth it.
--------------------------
All: My goal for the wheels is this. In the looks department, I wanted to go with Roh Black Ice Fury's, but the weight is just too much for those, so I've narrowed it down to Velox VX Scythe's.

I'm leaning towards 17X7.5 front with 245/45's on them, and 18X7.5 in back, but to get the closest to the stock speedo reading, I need a tire that will be thinner width (225/40) than the ones in the front, so it may just have to be 17's all around I guess.

For now though, I'm going to hang onto my 14" Pontiac Hurricane rims (painted black ) with Yokohama AVS ES100's at 205/60 R14. I love these tires, and I don't want to get rid of them just yet.

Thanks again guys!

------------------
PETTY OFFICER (no more airman!) Michael C Casaceli
Patrol Squadron Ten, United States Navy
1988 Pontiac Fiero 2.5L, soon to be 2.2L Ecotec Turbo (THE PROJECT HAS STARTED!!!)
1988 Oldsmobile Firenza 2.0L non-turbo (R.I.P.my beloved J-body. KIA by a Ford)
1994 Chevy S-10 4.3, it's finally here, and it is gorgeous!

[This message has been edited by fieroturbo (edited 06-14-2004).]

My 2003 Cavvy with the 2.2 Ecotec and a Weapon R intake gets approximately 32 miles per gallon. That is mostly city driving, heavy foot, decent sized spoiler and a heavy set of 12" subs in a box and amp in the trunk. This is on a 2 door that has a stock weight of 2,676. So, mine is probably running around 2,800lbs

The weight wasn't listed in the owners manual, or on the sticker on the door. I found it here:
http://www.automotive.com/reviews/12/2003/chevrolet/cavalier/summary-specification/

I keep watching the auction on eBay. If my Fiero doesn't sell, I'm gonna get me an ecotec engine and drop it in there. I'm definitely interested in the kit you're planning on making. I've got a question tho... I've seen on eBay some cavvy's with trashed bodies but the interiors and engines are good. Would it make the swap easier if the entire set up gets replaced, computer and wires and all?
I'm thinking of doing a custom interior with the gauges from the cavalier. It shouldn't be too hard to just replace the whole thing, right? But how would the turnsignals get wired up so when you use the signal it shows on the dash? Gah, I suck at wiring.

[This message has been edited by Arnjolt (edited 06-14-2004).]

If you're getting 32 with the getrag, then with the lower geared Isuzu, I should pull 35, I hope. I'm shocked that the weight wasn't listed anywhere on the car though. I think that's kinda illegal actually. Go see the dealer about that.

And yes, the more complete of a motor setup you can get, the better. Honestly, if you can get the motor and wiring harness, you should be all set. The ECM is mounted to the harness (photo is on page 1 I think).

As far as the interior, I've seen people take Sunfire (Cavalier is the same) interiors and throw them into Fiero's... or was it Grand Am's, I dunno. Honestly, anything can be done, if you have the money. Personally, I'd just get a dash kit from Pisa Fiero Parts. They have some really nice kits. Do a search on pennocks, I know I've seen a Grand Am dash swap for sure.

Actually, if you can find a beat up Grand Am, take the dash and motor, cause alot of newer Grand Am's have Ecotec's in them. One of my Navy buddies has a 2002 Grand Am with an Ecotec... with Nitrous . Not the best upgrade for the motor, but it files really nice. You'll probabbly have an easier time with the Grand Am version, since the engine bay size is closer to a Fiero's size than a Cavalier, so that my have the best harness.

Look for a Grand Am first.

------------------
PETTY OFFICER (no more airman!) Michael C Casaceli
Patrol Squadron Ten, United States Navy
1988 Pontiac Fiero 2.5L, soon to be 2.2L Ecotec Turbo (THE PROJECT HAS STARTED!!!)
1988 Oldsmobile Firenza 2.0L non-turbo (R.I.P.my beloved J-body. KIA by a Ford)
1994 Chevy S-10 4.3, it's finally here, and it is gorgeous!

quote Originally posted by fieroturbo: That's why I'm sticking with the Fiero transaxle. Nothing changes. A six-speed Saab would be nice, but if DKOV comes through with his 6, we'll have a better alternative for our Fiero's.

What I was getting at was that you don't HAVE to mount it the way the Fiero transmission is mounted, and mounting it the way GM did may be easier.

quote Originally posted by bushroot: The Saab trans is also double synchro'd. That alone would be worth the trouble IMHO.

actually...
It has triple cone syncrhos in 1st and 2nd, doubles on 3rd, 4th and reverse(!), ans singles on 5th and 6th.
I read a road test not too long ago saying that the Saab could be shifted as fast as the test drivers could move their arms.

quote Originally posted by fieroturbo: that the 7psi of boost I'm starting with won't kill the MPG too much, if even at all, especially since I'm using low compression pistons

Actually, the boost won't do much to your gas mileage. The low compression pistons are what will hurt your gas mileage more.
BSFC at low MAP is VERY dependent on compression ratio.

------------------
'87 Fiero GT: Low, Sleek, Fast, and Loud
'90 Pontiac 6000 SE AWD: None of the Above

Luck, Fate and Destiny are words used by those who lack the courage to define their own future

Just wanted to say I'm enjoying this thread please keep up the good work. Also....you said those wheels were lighter than other wheels....do you know how much they weigh? I want 17/18 inchers on my 4 banger Fiero as well but I'm also concerned about weight. Those look great!

------------------
I have the precious gift of patience.....it just takes too long to use it!

I've seen the Pisa dash kits. Nice, but I dunno. I was thinking of making something on my own. The stock sized speakers suck. And unfortunately there aren't any damaged Grand Ams on ebay. I'll keep looking tho. I'll know if I'm keeping the Fiero on June 18th, approximately 10pm. <g> I'd like the money, but I'd also like a turbo charged Ecotec in that baby.

What does the engine bay size matter if it has the same computer and engine when comparing a Grand Am to a Cavalier? I also think the 2003 and 2004 Malibu also has the Ecotec option.

[This message has been edited by Arnjolt (edited 06-15-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Arnjolt: I've seen the Pisa dash kits. Nice, but I dunno. I was thinking of making something on my own. The stock sized speakers suck. And unfortunately there aren't any damaged Grand Ams on ebay. I'll keep looking tho. I'll know if I'm keeping the Fiero on June 18th, approximately 10pm. <g> I'd like the money, but I'd also like a turbo charged Ecotec in that baby. What does the engine bay size matter if it has the same computer and engine when comparing a Grand Am to a Cavalier? I also think the 2003 and 2004 Malibu also has the Ecotec option.

The Olds Alero had Ecotec's as well as Malibu's, but what I was getting at with the Grand Am was that you could grab the Pontiac dash, and the Ecotec all from one car, which saves you from having to look for 2 cars. What I was getting at with the harness is that the wiring may be a smidge longer that what's in the Cavalier, giving you more slack to work with.
------------------------------------

quote Originally posted by Key OF David: Just wanted to say I'm enjoying this thread please keep up the good work. Also....you said those wheels were lighter than other wheels....do you know how much they weigh? I want 17/18 inchers on my 4 banger Fiero as well but I'm also concerned about weight. Those look great!

Thanks for the compliment. They are lighter, by about 10 lbs, I think. I have an issue of Sport Compact Car magazine that weighs the Scythe (16lbs???), as well as the Fury which was about 28lbs. I have to look for the issue. It's buried somewhere in my "library."

Something to keep in mind about wheels and their weight... if you have 17lb 14" wheels, and you go to 17lb 16" wheels, you will still loose wheel horsepower, even though the wheels weight the same. The reason why, is that there is more weight to the outside of the wheel, and it becomes much like the principle of how a lever works, where the position of the fulcrum determines the leverage... or something like that.

Long Jon, any chance you can better explain this one for me? It's hard for me to put my mind on paper. Wish I could plug a PC monitor into it sometimes.

In a nutshell, if you get larger diameter wheels, get ones that are lighter than the stock weight, otherwise you will loose wheel HP.
--------------------------------------

quote Originally posted by Will: Actually, the boost won't do much to your gas mileage. The low compression pistons are what will hurt your gas mileage more. BSFC at low MAP is VERY dependent on compression ratio.

Really? I coulda sworn that low compression pistons improved MPG, because with high compression, it takes more power for the compression stroke (if you try to turn the flywheel of a 12:1 compression motor, you'll know what I'm talking about).

I could be wrong. I am an electronics technician, not an engine mechanic. Engine electronics theory is my forte.

Reguardless, I'm running boost, therefore, I need low comp pistons to prevent detonation (preignition). Plus it will alow me to run higher boost levels in the future.
---------------------------------------
Thanks again guys!!!

------------------
PETTY OFFICER (no more airman!) Michael C Casaceli
Patrol Squadron Ten, United States Navy
1988 Pontiac Fiero 2.5L, soon to be 2.2L Ecotec Turbo (THE PROJECT HAS STARTED!!!)
1988 Oldsmobile Firenza 2.0L non-turbo (R.I.P.my beloved J-body. KIA by a Ford)
1994 Chevy S-10 4.3, it's finally here, and it is gorgeous!

[This message has been edited by fieroturbo (edited 06-15-2004).]

quote Originally posted by fieroturbo: Really? I coulda sworn that low compression pistons improved MPG, because with high compression, it takes more power for the compression stroke (if you try to turn the flywheel of a 12:1 compression motor, you'll know what I'm talking about). .

But you get that power back on the power stroke. The fundamental reason that diesels get good mileage is that they are very high compression ratio engines.

quote Originally posted by sanderson: But you get that power back on the power stroke. The fundamental reason that diesels get good mileage is that they are very high compression ratio engines.

That, and diesel fuel has more BTUs per gallon...

JazzMan

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That, and diesel fuel has more BTUs per gallon... JazzMan

True, but only 10-15% more

OOOOOOOOOOhhhh, Now it makes sense (the light bulb in the ol' noggin just tuned on).

I'll keep that in mind for the 2nd Ecotec (2 years down the road) motor buildup. Thinking 10.5:1, over the stock 10:1, or maybe higher, we'll see. Supercharging that one, and hoping to get the 2.4L version with Variable Valve Timing. If not, I'll keep it at 2.2 with the supercharger.

If I build up motors to go with the kits, it won't be like mine. If any boost at all, it will be the upcoming bolt on supercharger, like the one in the Saturn Ion Redline. Add that in with ported heads, 1mm increase in valve diameter, and a fresh set of cams, and 250HP+ is well within reach in a much more compact and simpler package than what is going in my Fiero. Could be the 4cyl solution to the 3.8SC, for those that want an iron duke alternative, rather than a V6. In fact, the word on the street is that the exact configuration I just mentioned (minus the valve diameter, and a destroke to 2.0L) will be in the form of a crate motor, straight from GMPP, just like crate motor 350's and 502's.

All of it is due in 2005 from GM, which will be about the time I finish my project.

------------------
PETTY OFFICER (no more airman!) Michael C Casaceli
Patrol Squadron Ten, United States Navy
1988 Pontiac Fiero 2.5L, soon to be 2.2L Ecotec Turbo (THE PROJECT HAS STARTED!!!)
1988 Oldsmobile Firenza 2.0L non-turbo (R.I.P.my beloved J-body. KIA by a Ford)
1994 Chevy S-10 4.3, it's finally here, and it is gorgeous!

WOW!

Just read on jbody.org that the 2.0L Supercharged crate motor is coming sooner than I thought.

Price is as follows: MSRP-$4950.00, gmpartsdepot.com: $3,665.00, Engine code LSJ

205HP, 200lbs/ft of torque, 9.5:1 CR, 2.0L, this will make your Fiero beat an RSX!!!

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

If you want to avoid the junkyard/ebay search, they have a 2.2L stock version as well.

Engine code L61, $2,120.00, 140HP.

Reguardless, they're both cheaper than brand new 3.8 SC's and 4.6L Northstars as well. Just look on the site.

------------------
PETTY OFFICER (no more airman!) Michael C Casaceli
Patrol Squadron Ten, United States Navy
1988 Pontiac Fiero 2.5L, soon to be 2.2L Ecotec Turbo (THE PROJECT HAS STARTED!!!)
1988 Oldsmobile Firenza 2.0L non-turbo (R.I.P.my beloved J-body. KIA by a Ford)
1994 Chevy S-10 4.3, it's finally here, and it is gorgeous!

[This message has been edited by fieroturbo (edited 06-16-2004).]

quote Originally posted by fieroturbo: Really? I coulda sworn that low compression pistons improved MPG, because with high compression, it takes more power for the compression stroke (if you try to turn the flywheel of a 12:1 compression motor, you'll know what I'm talking about).

Like Sanderson said, you get more power from the power stroke of a higher compression engine. Efficiency of the Otto cycle is related to the compression ratio. IOW, a high compression engine is more efficient and will get more power than a low compression engine from the same mass of mixture.

There are a number of reasons diesels are more efficient... unthrottled (no pumping losses), higher compression, higher fuel energy content...
At the same compression ratio, however, the Otto cycle is more efficient than the Diesel cycle... but diesels run much higher compression and make up for it.

------------------
'87 Fiero GT: Low, Sleek, Fast, and Loud
'90 Pontiac 6000 SE AWD: None of the Above

Luck, Fate and Destiny are words used by those who lack the courage to define their own future

The cheetah kit is a start from scratch kit based on a GM concept car from the early 60s. The article shows a concept drawing of what the ecotec/Cheetah will look like. I believe the HP numbers are from a NA set up, no boost allowed.

quote Originally posted by Will: Like Sanderson said, you get more power from the power stroke of a higher compression engine. Efficiency of the Otto cycle is related to the compression ratio. IOW, a high compression engine is more efficient and will get more power than a low compression engine from the same mass of mixture. There are a number of reasons diesels are more efficient... unthrottled (no pumping losses), higher compression, higher fuel energy content... At the same compression ratio, however, the Otto cycle is more efficient than the Diesel cycle... but diesels run much higher compression and make up for it.

Here's a little more on the theory of Otto vs Diesel - bottom line is that compression ratio is a very important consideration for internal combusation engine efficiency reagrdless of whether it is Otto cycle or Diesel cycle.

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/d/di/diesel_cycle.html

Gosh, the Otto cycle, I haven't heard anyone talk of that since junior high. It's starting to come back to me now. My mind is clouded with electronics theory, pushing out the automotive theory, but I understand you guys.

I was always aware of how comp ratio affects power in a motor, but I never thought that higher compression increases MPG too.

The thing is, the higher compression ratio makes the turbo configuration more volatile. I'm trying to enhance the reliability of this motor under boost, which is why I went with low compression pistons. They'll not only allow me to run more boost, but run it with less fear of detonation.

As many of you know, cooling effeciency of the motor compartment is very low in Fiero's, so that will reduce the effectiveness of the air to air intercoolers I have, and with a hot forced induction air charge going into a high compression motor, detonation is sure to occur.
-----------------------------
I'm curious... There are 1.3 and 1.7L turbo Ecotec diesels in europe (Opel and Vauxhall), I wonder if we'll ever see them here in the US? It would be a nice conversion for the Fiero.

------------------
PETTY OFFICER (no more airman!) Michael C Casaceli
Patrol Squadron Ten, United States Navy
1988 Pontiac Fiero 2.5L, soon to be 2.2L Ecotec Turbo (THE PROJECT HAS STARTED!!!)
1988 Oldsmobile Firenza 2.0L non-turbo (R.I.P.my beloved J-body. KIA by a Ford)
1994 Chevy S-10 4.3, it's finally here, and it is gorgeous!

quote Originally posted by fieroturbo: I was always aware of how comp ratio affects power in a motor, but I never thought that higher compression increases MPG too. The thing is, the higher compression ratio makes the turbo configuration more volatile. I'm trying to enhance the reliability of this motor under boost, which is why I went with low compression pistons. They'll not only allow me to run more boost, but run it with less fear of detonation. .

From a thermodynamic standpoint the turbocharger is similar to running with higher compression ratio. Since the intercooler will take some heat out of the combustion air before it enters the engine you can reach higher peak pressures without knock than you can if you just tried to do it with compression ratio.

Something else I noticed when I was at the Saab dealership... The Saab 9-3 Aero has an oil/water heat exchanger (ie, the best kind of oil cooler available) built onto the side of the oil filter housing, attached to the surface I circled in the above picture. The unit overhangs the transmission bellhousing. You might want to look into getting one of those. I can't tell from these pictures... is there a cover there or would that require a differently machined block? If you'd like I can get a picture of the Saab oil cooler.

------------------
'87 Fiero GT: Low, Sleek, Fast, and Loud
'90 Pontiac 6000 SE AWD: None of the Above

Luck, Fate and Destiny are words used by those who lack the courage to define their own future

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 06-17-2004).]

Actually, what I was thinking for an oil cooler was a T-fitting at the oil pressure sensor, with a line going from there to the turbo, then to a remote oil cooler (mounted in front of the passenger side rear wheelwell) and having the cooler go to the oil pan.

The Ecotec actually has a boss in the block to drill out for oil return, living proof that this motor was made to be turbo'd. I'll try to find a good shot of the boss I'm going to drill out.

------------------
PETTY OFFICER (no more airman!) Michael C Casaceli
Patrol Squadron Ten, United States Navy
1988 Pontiac Fiero 2.5L, soon to be 2.2L Ecotec Turbo (THE PROJECT HAS STARTED!!!)
1988 Oldsmobile Firenza 2.0L non-turbo (R.I.P.my beloved J-body. KIA by a Ford)
1994 Chevy S-10 4.3, it's finally here, and it is gorgeous!

quote Originally posted by fieroturbo: The Ecotec actually has a boss in the block to drill out for oil return, living proof that this motor was made to be turbo'd.

Man I am liking this engine more and more!

------------------
I have the precious gift of patience.....it just takes too long to use it!

I've got a question about the turbo. Somewhere I seen something about a different turbo setup needed for an automatic... Is there a difference? Is the fact that you're running an automatic transmission with a turbo going to matter? Or did I misread one of your other threads and you're not going to have an automatic...
mmm... beer...

The motor came from an automatic, but I love manuals too much to give mine up, so I'm converting it to run on a manual (swap the flexplate for a flywheel, and you're set).

Automatics have a MAJOR advantage with turbo setups. Because the gear ratio's tend to be closer together, and because the general operation of the tranny keeps the RPM's higher, there is little, or in many cases, NO TURBO LAG.

I however want the lag (as weird as that sounds). Lag improves traction at the holeshot, but it will sacrifice some throttle response for it, BUT, I have a 7lb flywheel (over the stock 26lb), so this motor will shoot to the rev limiter alot quicker, thus improving throttle response, so it will all even out.

------------------
PETTY OFFICER (no more airman!) Michael C Casaceli
Patrol Squadron Ten, United States Navy
1988 Pontiac Fiero 2.5L, soon to be 2.2L Ecotec Turbo (THE PROJECT HAS STARTED!!!)
1988 Oldsmobile Firenza 2.0L non-turbo (R.I.P.my beloved J-body. KIA by a Ford)
1994 Chevy S-10 4.3, it's finally here, and it is gorgeous!

Maybe I missed something on one of the previous pages, but where did you get the 7lb flywheel from?

I was curious, since my Fiero didn't sell and now I'm planning on doing the swap as well. May even start it within a month, depending.

So an automatic works better with a turbo when compared to a manual. Excellent. I tried driving a manual Fiero. Couldn't do it. Not enough room for me to move my feet. I've no problem with the Cavalier being manual. It's definitely fun to drive. I'm not worried about lag or traction. This is gonna eventually be turned into a kit car and will not be a daily driver.

Will I have to do anything to the transmission besides an adapter plate? Any luck on that yet? Both engines are automatics. And since I am planning on doing a turbo, should I swap the transmission? I'm going for a minumum of 300hp.

Oh yeah, any more updates on the swap?

BTW, you've got a PM from me.

Thanks for all the help!

I'm not convinced that an automatic is better with a turbo, no flames intended. I test drove a WRX auto this evening, and it was a dog off the line! Now this was in sharp contrast to my friend's 5 speed WRX; that thing definately had some power! Now, I'm not sure how the auto would fare if I ran it through all the gears at WOT, but it really just didnt seem like it stood a chance... I dunno

------------------
'86 Sport Coupe 5 speed w/ rally package, KYB shocks and struts, poly cradle and dogbone bushings, fierostore header, high flow cat, and timing 12 BTDC. Many more mods to come, incuding a real live SUPER DUTY!

well, my dad has told me many times (and believe me, he knows A LOT about cars and engines and all), that a manual will jsut about always put out more horsepower than an auto. im not sure just how much, but he said to look at it this way. with a manual, you do everything your self to shift gears and all. with an automatic, it does it itself. to do it itself, it has extra valves and moving parts and all that fun mess that a manual has. and like a DOHC motor, les moving parts=more power. so, with an auto, the engine has to use it's power to open and close valves and move stuff around in the tranny, so it just isnt gonna have as much power as a manual. just my 2 cents though

quote Originally posted by oneblack85gt: and like a DOHC motor, les moving parts=more power.

DOHC's are known for there complexities and sheer number of moving parts. My 3.4 DOHC has twice as many valves, and 4 times as many cams, But it still makes more power! but enough on that...

I still like automatics, slushboxes, or whatever you want to call them. They do have 2 serious advantages over manual's that cannot be ignored. When you hit the clutch to shift, you STOP accelerating. And torque converters can allow the engine to run at its peak power more consistantly, while you are striving to keep it in the powerband with a manual... I still say, in the end, its all about the same. But as far as turbo's go, they do work much better with automatics. They only need to spool once, and you can powerbrake it to get it to boost off the line, thats easier then trying it with a manual. Superchargers are pretty nice with manuals though... They flatten out the torque band and operate within 70-80% of the full torque, from 1500RPM's up!
Thats the logic behind my 3.4 DOHC Supercharged being behind a 5 speed. (whenever that project happens) shameless plug time...

I love how creative us Fiero people are.

[This message has been edited by Fierobsessed (edited 06-19-2004).]

quote Originally posted by oneblack85gt: well, my dad has told me many times (and believe me, he knows A LOT about cars and engines and all), that a manual will jsut about always put out more horsepower than an auto. im not sure just how much, but he said to look at it this way. with a manual, you do everything your self to shift gears and all. with an automatic, it does it itself. to do it itself, it has extra valves and moving parts and all that fun mess that a manual has. and like a DOHC motor, les moving parts=more power. so, with an auto, the engine has to use it's power to open and close valves and move stuff around in the tranny, so it just isnt gonna have as much power as a manual. just my 2 cents though

OHC makes more per cube mostly because of more valves per cylinder and the ability to turn more RPM's safely because of a lack of pushrods slinging up and down. They also turn more rpm's because this setup is mostly on sub 2 liter 4-cylinders with short strokes and slower piston speeds. These engines are inline so the crank is very strong with one rod per journal and extra main caps. This also allows them to turn more rpms. I don't think extremely light pushrods have a great effect on overall power output. A DOHC has lots more and heavier moving parts than ohv engine. A dohc v6 has 4 heavy cams and an extremely long chain or belt to time it all. That is a lot of rotating mass.

What I don't get is how come no one has developed roller cams for the ohc engines yet? Think of the friction loss of these engines over a roller cam pushrod motor. That with a nice true roller timing chain would work wonders and take out some of the bugs of the ohc technology.

------------------
I have the precious gift of patience.....it just takes too long to use it!

quote Originally posted by doublec4: Maybe I missed something on one of the previous pages, but where did you get the 7lb flywheel from?

Exploitedracing.com. Great company. I've spoken with the owner quite a few times on jbody.org, and through e-mails. He know's his stuff. He's about my age too, but can machine and weld parts like a seasoned metal worker veteran. His dad, who has been a machinist for 30 years, showed him the ropes.

That turbo exhaust manifold on page 1 was his doing, and he did phenomenal. That turbo is from him as well, a slightly used Garrett unit that he used to on his prototype turbo kits.

But yeah, the flywheel is actually 7.75lbs, compared to the 11lbs from RKSport.com. The RK one is good as well, but for turbo apps, the lighter, the better.

quote Originally posted by Arnjolt: I was curious, since my Fiero didn't sell and now I'm planning on doing the swap as well. May even start it within a month, depending. So an automatic works better with a turbo when compared to a manual. Excellent. I tried driving a manual Fiero. Couldn't do it. Not enough room for me to move my feet. I've no problem with the Cavalier being manual. It's definitely fun to drive. I'm not worried about lag or traction. This is gonna eventually be turned into a kit car and will not be a daily driver. Will I have to do anything to the transmission besides an adapter plate? Any luck on that yet? Both engines are automatics. And since I am planning on doing a turbo, should I swap the transmission? I'm going for a minumum of 300hp. Oh yeah, any more updates on the swap? BTW, you've got a PM from me. Thanks for all the help!

Um, it would be best if you wait until I finish my project first, that way if something goes horribly wrong, you don't dig yourself into a hole just as deep as mine.

Plus, if things do go well, I'll have a kit (or I'll at least sell adaptor plates) to make things go smoother for you.

quote Originally posted by SpideR W: I'm not convinced that an automatic is better with a turbo, no flames intended. I test drove a WRX auto this evening, and it was a dog off the line! Now this was in sharp contrast to my friend's 5 speed WRX; that thing definately had some power! Now, I'm not sure how the auto would fare if I ran it through all the gears at WOT, but it really just didnt seem like it stood a chance... I dunno

The WRX has a smaller turbo than I do, thus allowing it to spool quicker, and be more responsive. I beleive that turbo is good for up to 300-350HP. Mine is good for over 500HP, but sacrifices response for it (since the motor is only a 2.2L, less exhaust gasses).

quote Originally posted by oneblack85gt: well, my dad has told me many times (and believe me, he knows A LOT about cars and engines and all), that a manual will jsut about always put out more horsepower than an auto. im not sure just how much, but he said to look at it this way. with a manual, you do everything your self to shift gears and all. with an automatic, it does it itself. to do it itself, it has extra valves and moving parts and all that fun mess that a manual has. and like a DOHC motor, les moving parts=more power. so, with an auto, the engine has to use it's power to open and close valves and move stuff around in the tranny, so it just isnt gonna have as much power as a manual. just my 2 cents though

Manuals do put more power to the ground, I never said it doesn't. What I did say is that auto's are more responsive, however they sap more power to operate, but because the RPM's don't dip down as much they keep the turbo boost up there better than a manual does.

I don't know about your DOHC comment though. A 2.2L OHV will have less power vs. a 2.2L DOHC. Same goes for 350SB V8's. A prototype aftermarket DOHC upgrade for the 350 added 120HP, simply by bolting them on. Read though page 2, I believe I spoke of it back there.

The number of valves has one effect on trannys, and another on motors. One takes power, one makes power.

Even Obessed says so.

quote Originally posted by Fierobsessed: DOHC's are known for there complexities and sheer number of moving parts. My 3.4 DOHC has twice as many valves, and 4 times as many cams, But it still makes more power! but enough on that... I still like automatics, slushboxes, or whatever you want to call them. They do have 2 serious advantages over manual's that cannot be ignored. When you hit the clutch to shift, you STOP accelerating. And torque converters can allow the engine to run at its peak power more consistantly, while you are striving to keep it in the powerband with a manual... I still say, in the end, its all about the same. But as far as turbo's go, they do work much better with automatics. They only need to spool once, and you can powerbrake it to get it to boost off the line, thats easier then trying it with a manual. Superchargers are pretty nice with manuals though... They flatten out the torque band and operate within 70-80% of the full torque, from 1500RPM's up! Thats the logic behind my 3.4 DOHC Supercharged being behind a 5 speed. (whenever that project happens) shameless plug time... I love how creative us Fiero people are.

Nice motor Obsessed *drool , and yeah, those are the main advantages with autos.
-------------------------
The long and short of it, I'm doing a manual setup. I want the lag, because I don't feel like spinning my tires off the start.

Quote me on this: "Burnouts are cool, but 10 second cars are cooler."

------------------
PETTY OFFICER (no more airman!) Michael C Casaceli
Patrol Squadron Ten, United States Navy
1988 Pontiac Fiero 2.5L, soon to be 2.2L Ecotec Turbo (THE PROJECT HAS STARTED!!!)
1988 Oldsmobile Firenza 2.0L non-turbo (R.I.P.my beloved J-body. KIA by a Ford)
1994 Chevy S-10 4.3, it's finally here, and it is gorgeous!

[This message has been edited by fieroturbo (edited 06-19-2004).]