This is one sick 2.8 please keep us updated on the progress and if possible can you take a video of the car on the dyno. I and I'm sure many other members here would love to hear that engine. I wonder what you could do with s 3.4 built this way.

quote Originally posted by TiredGXP: I noticed that the AFR on your dyno sheet tends to be in the 12.5:1 range under boost, My first thought was "wow, someone managed to tune for boost without needing to wash the cylinders down with fuel to control detonation!", but on reflection, I thought maybe 12.5 was a bit lean for such a high boost level given that it's common to aim for 12.8 to 13 in a normally aspirated engine. Does point out the benefits of a proper intercooler setup though. Cheers

True. We could have made it richer, but we didn't have to. I might have to if im going to take the boost even higher. As you can see its getting slightly richer with boost and rpm.

He He !
Now this gives me inspiration to take my 2.8 a little bit further.
May not get your power output without the forged crank ? Well yes, I would get the power, but only for the fraction of a second before the crank snapped in half !!
Do you have the name and address of the company that did your crank ?

I'll definitely be turbo charging like you have done.

We should start up a European Fiero power outputs list on this forum. Just to show them across the Atlantic that we know a thing or two about performance (but without the displacement).

PS My clutch slipped in 5th as well – it was worn. Replaced it with a "stage 2".

[This message has been edited by Englishrafe (edited 10-16-2009).]

Boretti,
I know the guy you need to contact to. He's been running 2.8 bored to 3.0 for over 5 years with +500 hp. For my knowlage, only problems has been with powertrain and massive heatload.
He have been on this forum but been pissed off by too many people saying "it can't be done". Not even dyno papers and video clips seemed to prove his point.

Name is Mika Ruusuvuori and he has used nick Audison. I cannot remember was that nick on this forum. PM if you need direct phone number.
Let this be his proof of consept: http://www.2bluesc.com/view...er%2FMika+Ruusuvuori

quote Originally posted by iluvsd619: Yeah. Im shocked too. This is very impressive for a 2.8. Who did your manifolds?

The manifolds is welded by a guy last name Halvorsen in a small town called Skien in norway. all the parts are from ferrita.
http://www.ferrita.com/eng/...ersal-assortment.php

By the way does anyone know a company that actually has the head studs for this engine? I can't seem to find it..

I believe that the V6's use 11mm head bolts. Several European auto makers use this size, including VW. The Cadillac Northstar uses this size, for example, and uses two head stud kits for VW 1.8's. Call ARP up and talk to them about the diameter and length of stud you need. The VW studs may be right, or ARP may have a kit for the V6 already, or something else may work.

quote Originally posted by boretti: By the way does anyone know a company that actually has the head studs for this engine? I can't seem to find it..

ARP sells them.
Here are the ones I used on my 3.4L build:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/ARP-233-4003/

If you have a place that can get ARP kits locally the ARP part number is 233-4003

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 10-17-2009).]

Thanks guys!

say guys/gals....Hello. Quick question. I am new to the whole fixing/modifying thing, but thought about putting a turbo on my 2.8.
Little brother said it could not be done. well he is standing corrected now. Anyway, with a friend/mechanic and some money. on a scale from 1 to 10.
how hard is it to do this???? you know after y'all figure it out for me.Thats so nice of you. Thanks in advance-
Daniel

With a friend with tools and lots of money? Definitely a 1! Just hand over the car and cash and come back in an hour. See it on TV all the time......

Seriously, difficulty is directly proportional to the amount of tools, knowledge, time, and most importantly, money. The old saying is "horsepower costs money, how fast do you want to go?" If you are like most of us, you want it done the least cost route. Biggest bang for the buck and all that. Start another thread and tell us what you want out of the car and what you have to spend. And be prepared for the "just swap in a xxxx engine". I.E. keep an open mind..

I am thinking the felpro gaskets will hold if you simply change to studs. The far better clamping will actually make them take a bit more abuse before they pop. Honestly I have seen people use double gaskets (but not that high of boost) and studs and run without problems...

Also remember when you are that far into high HP for the engine territory when you fix a weak point, the next weak point will fail... Be ready for that, your gasket failures can be saving something else from failure. Glad to see someone proving the nay-sayers wrong about the 60 degree V6 Pushrod engine.

[This message has been edited by timgray (edited 10-17-2009).]

quote Originally posted by batousai666: say guys/gals....Hello. Quick question. I am new to the whole fixing/modifying thing, but thought about putting a turbo on my 2.8. Little brother said it could not be done. well he is standing corrected now. Anyway, with a friend/mechanic and some money. on a scale from 1 to 10. how hard is it to do this???? you know after y'all figure it out for me.Thats so nice of you. Thanks in advance- Daniel

Have someone do the internal engine stuff for you. If your mechanic is a good welder, he can make the exhaust. It really depends on how far you want to take it, like the last guy said. What kind of hp are you thinking of?

thanks for the replies, I am talking about this build. just puttting on a turbo to a 2.8 L. I do not need the 350 -400 h.p. you got ,not at all. maybe 240- 260 h.p.????by just adding a turbo and related hardware.

If you are looking for 240 HP your are still gonna need forged pistons and probably rods like boretti. I think the crank should be good.

We can take a lesson from the dudes at * * *, one of them blew a piston cause he was running stock internals on 13 psi (i think it was) with no intercooler or knock sensor. You're probably gonna need at least 10 or 12 psi for 240HP, so make sure you get a good intercooler and/or knock sensor.

right on! thanks y'all. I got my eye glued here till the end.. next is a job and I'll be all set.. keep on keeping on.....Later-
Dan

[This message has been edited by batousai666 (edited 10-19-2009).]

For those of you looking for a forged crank and rod upgrade there is a solution.
GM LX9 3500 V6 2004 – 2006 sport a forged crank, yes that is correct a factory forged mass produced crank.

After some recent research and a lot of help from Joe Upson here at PFF this is what I found…

There are 3 basic 3500 engines, LZE and LZ4 3500 based on the 3900 and the LX9 based on the 3400 engine family. LZE and LZ4 engines have a 1.5 mm larger bore spacing due to the 99mm bore size, the stroke for these two engines is 76mm.
However the 3400 inspired LX9 engine had to stroke the engine to 84mm and use a 94mm to make a 3500 due to the smaller bore spacing of the 3400 platform it was based on.
So now we have a 3.1 / 3.4 friendly stroke forged crank that will bolt up in the 60D block. This is not the end of it because this 7484 crank (number found on snout of crank behind the balancer nut) has a 2.25 rod journal.
The 60D stuff uses a 2.00 journal, show stopper unless you get an expensive set of custom rods right… Wrong, GM 4.3 rods have a 2.25 journal, have the same 5.7 rod length and will bolt right up !!! and yes they are readily available in forged for around 400 smackers, but wait there’s more catch.
The 4.3 rods are slightly wider than the 60D rods and need narrowed. I have done this with a set of huge aluminum rods, you can see the process at the thread below. The machine work can be done for around 100 $

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/102001.html

I have located several of these blocks that are accident damaged in NC and Maryland one for 200$ and the other 150$ both with out top ends.

Forged crank – 150 $
Forged 4.3 rods – 450 $
Rod Machining – 100 $

That’s one robust bottom end for less than a grand !

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: For those of you looking for a forged crank and rod upgrade there is a solution. GM LX9 3500 V6 2004 – 2006 sport a forged crank, yes that is correct a factory forged mass produced crank. After some recent research and a lot of help from Joe Upson here at PFF this is what I found… There are 3 basic 3500 engines, LZE and LZ4 3500 based on the 3900 and the LX9 based on the 3400 engine family. LZE and LZ4 engines have a 1.5 mm larger bore spacing due to the 99mm bore size, the stroke for these two engines is 76mm. However the 3400 inspired LX9 engine had to stroke the engine to 84mm and use a 94mm to make a 3500 due to the smaller bore spacing of the 3400 platform it was based on. So now we have a 3.1 / 3.4 friendly stroke forged crank that will bolt up in the 60D block. This is not the end of it because this 7484 crank (number found on snout of crank behind the balancer nut) has a 2.25 rod journal. The 60D stuff uses a 2.00 journal, show stopper unless you get an expensive set of custom rods right… Wrong, GM 4.3 rods have a 2.25 journal, have the same 5.7 rod length and will bolt right up !!! and yes they are readily available in forged for around 400 smackers, but wait there’s more catch. The 4.3 rods are slightly wider than the 60D rods and need narrowed. I have done this with a set of huge aluminum rods, you can see the process at the thread below. The machine work can be done for around 100 $ https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/102001.html I have located several of these blocks that are accident damaged in NC and Maryland one for 200$ and the other 150$ both with out top ends. Forged crank – 150 $ Forged 4.3 rods – 450 $ Rod Machining – 100 $ That’s one robust bottom end for less than a grand !

Chevy V8 rods would be better I believe due to abundance of choices and better pricing. The 2.25" crankpin diameter also means more rotating mass so it would be better to turn the pins down to a smaller journal, it would still be stronger than stock. The steel crank is a bear compared to the old cast crank and if I recall correctly outweighs it by about 12lbs. It also leaves the option of stroking the crank with an offset grind, keep in mind the pins can be ground down to suit the stock rod and piston also resulting in a simple journal resize. It's also important to note that the the VVT 3500 has the traditional 2.8L 3" stroke and although there is an LZ4 and LZE 3500, Flex Fuel would be the only difference between the two VVT 3500s therefore equating to two significantly different 3500 engines. So for a 2.8L you need the crank from the VVT 3500, all others with the 3.31" stroke can use the 3900 crank (DOD and non DOD GM doesn't call it that on the V6) and NON-VVT 3500 crank.

There is a lot of debate on the subject of small journal VS large journal and what is best.
If you are looking for weight loss, machining the journals will likely net more weight not less, unless you remove more than 40 grams of material from the journals and then we are back to the exact same weight with a weaker crank.
This seems to be an exercise in chasing ones tail.

5.7" eagle h-beam rods the weights are a good difference, the weight are as follows
5.7" h-beam large journal 630grams
5.7" h-beam small journal 670grams

From every thing I read the real benefits of a small journal crank will be found above and beyond 9000 RPM.

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: There is a lot of debate on the subject of small journal VS large journal and what is best. If you are looking for weight loss, machining the journals will likely net more weight not less, unless you remove more than 40 grams of material from the journals and then we are back to the exact same weight with a weaker crank. This seems to be an exercise in chasing ones tail. 5.7" eagle h-beam rods the weights are a good difference, the weight are as follows 5.7" h-beam large journal 630grams 5.7" h-beam small journal 670grams From every thing I read the real benefits of a small journal crank will be found above and beyond 9000 RPM.

Given the nature of counter-balancing I can't see how reducing crank pin weight will result in having to add weight without installing rods and pistons that are heavier than what they are replacing or without the stroke being increased enough to warrant it due to the increase of centripetal forces (then again the 60 deg motor is naturally balanced so it may not make a difference). If I remember correctly some changes require the addition of weight to the crank such as replacing the stock 630 gr 3900 rods with the 670 gr H beams you have listed. All of my parts are lighter than stock by a good measure > 100 gr, that should result in weight removal from the counter weights. Actually small journal crank pins maybe better regarding some members having indicated rod bearing failure in the 3500 when spun as high as 7000 rpm. I mentioned this before and will state it again that the relative speed between the bearing surface and the crank pin surface will be greater due to the larger pin diameter compared to engines with smaller crank pins rotating at the same speeds. The closer you move to the edge from center of a rotating object the faster the speed you are traveling. I could be wrong but it's worth considering as nothing else has come forth as a possible cause of the failures.

I'm referring to the increased friction resulting from the larger pin diameter.

[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 10-19-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Joseph Upson: I mentioned this before and will state it again that the relative speed between the bearing surface and the crank pin surface will be greater due to the larger pin diameter compared to engines with smaller crank pins rotating at the same speeds. The closer you move to the edge from center of a rotating object the faster the speed you are traveling. I could be wrong but it's worth considering as nothing else has come forth as a possible cause of the failures. I'm referring to the increased friction resulting from the larger pin diameter.

I doubt you'll find that in this application increased relative bearing speed is a cause of failure. With the engine speeds in mind the increase in parasitic loss the (the friction or viscous force) is still small. This becomes more of a concern in racing engines (especially F1) because this loss can increase exponentially with engine speed. I think you'll find that with the material strengths and engine speeds that are available to us mere mortals that live below 7-8K rpm, a pin diameter increase that's reasonable will have few consequences if the lubrication system is up to par.

As with every engineered system, there are always tradeoffs. Remember that a smaller pin diameter at a given width will result in a higher bearing load pressure - it's unavoidable.

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

My Web page | The Turbo Super Duty Build.
You know that little voice that says it can't be done? I duct-taped its mouth shut and pushed it down a flight of stairs. (Leader of the Insurgency)

quote Originally posted by FastIndyFiero: I doubt you'll find that in this application increased relative bearing speed is a cause of failure. With the engine speeds in mind the increase in parasitic loss the (the friction or viscous force) is still small. This becomes more of a concern in racing engines (especially F1) because this loss can increase exponentially with engine speed. I think you'll find that with the material strengths and engine speeds that are available to us mere mortals that live below 7-8K rpm, a pin diameter increase that's reasonable will have few consequences if the lubrication system is up to par. As with every engineered system, there are always tradeoffs. Remember that a smaller pin diameter at a given width will result in a higher bearing load pressure - it's unavoidable.

Understood regarding the bearing load relative to area, however we're still dealing with stock specs of the smaller pin system proving pretty sufficient to this point. Perhaps the problem is rod bolt strength and the fact that there is nothing for the rod bearing tang to press up against to resist spinning at high rpm in the powder metal rod. I know clamping force on the bearing is primarily responsible for keeping the bearing still but I don't see where dual tang stops in the rod cap would hurt more than help.

Joe,

There seems to be some confusion here, and it is probably me. The LZE and LZ4 cranks will not fit anything other than a 3900 or LZ4/LZE engine due to the 1.5mm extra bore spacing used to allow for the larger 99mm bore used on the LZE/LZ4/3900 family.

The LX9 3500 is a 94mm bore and needed no extra 1.5 mm to accommodate the 99mm bore of the LZE/LZ4/3900 engines because it was based on the 3400 engine.

I also understand that the smaller the journal size the less time it takes for the crank to make one revolution netting more friction to the larger pin, but when you said more rotating mass I naturally assumed you were speaking of the weight of the assembly. As you can see rods with a smaller pin size weigh more than rods with a larger pin due to the extra material as all of these rods are from the same die and are machined to the particular engine spec.

When switching to forged internals VS cast items the weight will always go up, I have a bent stock rod already, and will opt for the heavier aftermarket rod over the stock forged piece anytime.
No matter what rod and crank combo you use a balance job is definitely in order.
You could definitely use the stock rods and machine down the journals, but as far as being less costly it is not…
The machine work to turn the crank is labor intensive and requires a lot of set up time, thus adding to the expense. I would think that having the journals machined down would be at least 400 $ and you still have to have the rods narrowed to fit another 100 $

I do not believe that using this crank one can retain the 2.8 moniker, using this crank will stroke the 2.8 to 3.1… not necessarily a bad thing if you are looking for HP.

Thanks for your input Joe, let me know what you think…

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: Joe, There seems to be some confusion here, and it is probably me. The LZE and LZ4 cranks will not fit anything other than a 3900 or LZ4/LZE engine due to the 1.5mm extra bore spacing used to allow for the larger 99mm bore used on the LZE/LZ4/3900 family. The LX9 3500 is a 94mm bore and needed no extra 1.5 mm to accommodate the 99mm bore of the LZE/LZ4/3900 engines because it was based on the 3400 engine. I also understand that the smaller the journal size the less time it takes for the crank to make one revolution netting more friction to the larger pin, but when you said more rotating mass I naturally assumed you were speaking of the weight of the assembly. As you can see rods with a smaller pin size weigh more than rods with a larger pin due to the extra material as all of these rods are from the same die and are machined to the particular engine spec. When switching to forged internals VS cast items the weight will always go up, I have a bent stock rod already, and will opt for the heavier aftermarket rod over the stock forged piece anytime. No matter what rod and crank combo you use a balance job is definitely in order. You could definitely use the stock rods and machine down the journals, but as far as being less costly it is not… The machine work to turn the crank is labor intensive and requires a lot of set up time, thus adding to the expense. I would think that having the journals machined down would be at least 400 $ and you still have to have the rods narrowed to fit another 100 $ I do not believe that using this crank one can retain the 2.8 moniker, using this crank will stroke the 2.8 to 3.1… not necessarily a bad thing if you are looking for HP. Thanks for your input Joe, let me know what you think…

It was never clear to me if the piston spacing was limited to the block or not and I recall GM parts direct seemingly showing the 3900 crank for the 3500 before the VVT version was available but better safe than sorry. The rod weight depends on the manufacturer and hp range. I found sbc heavy duty rods at less than stock rod weight and right at stock weight in the 2.00" journal. Offset grinding my crank is $250 in St. Pete Florida.

We better stop talking so much about cylinder head gaskets in this thread.

I would like to take the time to thank Borretti for inspiring all of us little 60D guys, we hear so much that gen1 and gen2 blocks won’t hold up and we should forget them and get a 3800.
Just goes to show thinking out of the box pays off big.

Hats off to you Mr. Boretti and that buck nasty 2.8 of yours. I am truly inspired to crank some serious HP out of the little engine that could.

Thank you! And thanks for the attention to all you guys! Im glad my project can help inspire some of you. It might prove that the 2.8 has some potential after all. Who knows maybe it can take even more ;-)

Thanks from me too for a great thread! I like the stock look as well and would like to keep it.

Nolan

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: There seems to be some confusion here, and it is probably me. The LZE and LZ4 cranks will not fit anything other than a 3900 or LZ4/LZE engine due to the 1.5mm extra bore spacing used to allow for the larger 99mm bore used on the LZE/LZ4/3900 family. The LX9 3500 is a 94mm bore and needed no extra 1.5 mm to accommodate the 99mm bore of the LZE/LZ4/3900 engines because it was based on the 3400 engine.

The BORE SPACING remains the same as it always was. There's plenty of space between the bores for a 99mm bore.

For the 3900 block, the bores were moved OFF CENTER from the crankshaft to get them away from the cam. On the original 60 degree block, 99 mm bores would intrude into the camshaft space. The bores were moved outward on the deck surface, but maintain their original spacing.

Thus the later large journal cranks *can* be used in the early blocks

quote Originally posted by Will: The BORE SPACING remains the same as it always was. There's plenty of space between the bores for a 99mm bore. For the 3900 block, the bores were moved OFF CENTER from the crankshaft to get them away from the cam. On the original 60 degree block, 99 mm bores would intrude into the camshaft space. The bores were moved outward on the deck surface, but maintain their original spacing. Thus the later large journal cranks *can* be used in the early blocks

Thanks for clearing that up Will.

Another point I missed making light of Scooby is that although the 4.3L has the same crank pin size the rods you listed can't be used with stock pistons for two reasons, the 3900 has two different rod lengths: 5.827" and 5.9" which automatically makes the 5.7 4.3L rod too short. The reason it works with the 5.7" 2 inch crank pin chevy rod is because with an offset grind of .125" the piston crown is restored to nearly stock location, 5.7 + .125 = 5.825", .002 short of original. Perhaps GM planned it this way as there was mention made in their literature on the 3900 having provisions for increased displacement.

That's also why I suggested the offset grind can be used with the earlier V6 rods along with custom pistons or an offset grind short of the cylinder head by .020 using the stock rod and piston in the earlier engines since the 3900 retains the same deck height. Remember this is a forged steel crank so although grinding the pins down reduces its strength, it is still stronger than a cast iron equivalent in an engine not known to have crank failure problems. GM designing the 3900 with the LS1 in mind leaves lots of room for building an HO 60 degree, especially being able to get forged pistons for about $400 per set. So far I have succeeded in having .927 wrist pin bushings made to accept the LS1 piston pin in the stock 3900 rod. I should get some more made since sooner or later someone's going to produce some numbers that make it hard not to go the 3900 route in an HO V6 build.

Happy building.

Will, as usual you are a virtual cornucopia of useful information, thanks for information.

I know you are pushing the 3900 envelope Joe, but must of is 60D guys are playing with 3.4 and smaller engines.
The news of a forged factory crank for these smaller displacement engines for a few hundred dollars is mechanical music to our ears.

I called over to “The Shop” my local machine shop this morning and discussed the 3500 2.25 rod journal subject with Lewis the owner. Lewis has over 30 years in the business and did a lot of work for the NASCAR boys in the 90s.
I gave him the details of our discussions, this is what he had to say about the fore mentioned subject above.

In his opinion the rods used will be the determining factor, as there should be ample material on a 60D crank with 2.25 rod journals to be turned down to 2.1 with no ill effect to accept the SBC 2.1 rods.
He however stated that the crank would then need to be hardened again, he suggested a Nitride coating.
The price he quoted me for having the crank turned and a Nitride coat added loosely around 300 $

So this discussion comes down to price and what parts are readily available.

Standard SBC rods are cheaper due to the production volume, cost for an average set of 600 HP rods made by Scat or Eagle are about 350 $ a set.
300 $ to have the crank sent to the machine shop.
A 100 $ to have the rods narrowed.
50 $ to have the piston pin bore increased to match the rod this was his suggestion as the difference in pin size is so small the bushing would be very thin and subject to failure due to the very small amount of material between the pin and the piston pin bore.

This gives us a total of 900 $ using the 2.1 SBC rods.

The SBC rods with a 2.25 rod journal size good for 600 HP are more expensive at 550 $ for the set.
A 100 $ to have the rods narrowed.
50 $ to have the piston pin bore increased to match the rod.

This gives us a total of 700 $ using the 2.25 SBC rods.

There is a 200 $ cost difference between the two methods, an extra 200 smackers could go toward a nice set of forged pistons. You can get a set of custom JEs for under 500 $

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: Will, as usual you are a virtual cornucopia of useful information, thanks for information. I know you are pushing the 3900 envelope Joe, but must of is 60D guys are playing with 3.4 and smaller engines. The news of a forged factory crank for these smaller displacement engines for a few hundred dollars is mechanical music to our ears. I called over to “The Shop” my local machine shop this morning and discussed the 3500 2.25 rod journal subject with Lewis the owner. Lewis has over 30 years in the business and did a lot of work for the NASCAR boys in the 90s. I gave him the details of our discussions, this is what he had to say about the fore mentioned subject above. In his opinion the rods used will be the determining factor, as there should be ample material on a 60D crank with 2.25 rod journals to be turned down to 2.1 with no ill effect to accept the SBC 2.1 rods. He however stated that the crank would then need to be hardened again, he suggested a Nitride coating. The price he quoted me for having the crank turned and a Nitride coat added loosely around 300 $ So this discussion comes down to price and what parts are readily available. Standard SBC rods are cheaper due to the production volume, cost for an average set of 600 HP rods made by Scat or Eagle are about 350 $ a set. 300 $ to have the crank sent to the machine shop. A 100 $ to have the rods narrowed. 50 $ to have the piston pin bore increased to match the rod this was his suggestion as the difference in pin size is so small the bushing would be very thin and subject to failure due to the very small amount of material between the pin and the piston pin bore. This gives us a total of 900 $ using the 2.1 SBC rods. The SBC rods with a 2.25 rod journal size good for 600 HP are more expensive at 550 $ for the set. A 100 $ to have the rods narrowed. 50 $ to have the piston pin bore increased to match the rod. This gives us a total of 700 $ using the 2.25 SBC rods. There is a 200 $ cost difference between the two methods, an extra 200 smackers could go toward a nice set of forged pistons. You can get a set of custom JEs for under 500 $

Not pushing the 3.9L just mentioning the options available across any of the engines with the newer crank. Of course cost is a factor but for those who want to spend the added expense the options are noted. I would only consider use of stock 5.7 rods with stock style pistons. We don't really know what the rod strength is as no one to my knowledge has broken one due to high HP alone and some of the blown V6s to date are already far in excess of SCAT 500 hp rods when averaged over 8 rods compared to more than 400 hp averaged over 6-60 degree rods. There's just a lot of room to create, that's the main idea.

I'd just accept that I'd be cutting custom pistons and use 6" rods with the 3" stroke. Crower makes them. Summit lists the rod journal diameter as 2.125 or something strange... pretty sure that's a misprint.

Will,
I agree custom pistons are in order if you go through all the trouble to beef up the bottom end.
I don’t know about the longer rod, I remember looking at the TGP pistons I have and if I remember correctly there wasn’t a lot excess material in the stock piston to move the pin location around to accept the longer rod on a custom piston, but I would have to measure one of them again to see.
Refresh my memory Will, how would that affect the stroke of the engine???

Compression height generally isn't a problem anymore in the custom piston world. A longer rod will of course increase the rod/stroke ratio, and the lower CH will decrease the mass of the piston - if it's designed properly. Your tradeoff is maybe more wear on the piston skirt as it won't be quite as resistant to rocking. There are plenty of manufacturers who will go under a 1.000" CH.

Borretti,

What camshaft are you using ???

I'm not saying that your air fuel ratio is the problem with the headgaskets, but it could have contributed to it. I too have a Haltech controlling my turbo engine. I shoot for 11.75 AFR. I've always heard 11.5 to 12.0 is ideal for a turbo engine while in boost. If I were you I would be shooting lower than 13.0-12.5 under boost.

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

180* t-stat, cams, 96-97 intake swap, FFP pulley, A/C Idler, P/S idler, ported exhaust mani's, ported lower intake, sheet metal upper intake, 3" Flowmaster exhaust, EGR delete, K&N filter, Magnecor 8.5mm wires, 36# Injectors, T-62 Turbonetics T3/4, Haltech E6K, Liquid-Air intercooled, Synapse Wastegate. Shooting for 450+whp at 15 psi.

quote Originally posted by Scoobysruvenge: Borretti, What camshaft are you using ???

Im running the comp cam 260H From Fiero store. My idle is still pretty nice. I have a video of the engine idling by the way. Anywhere on the forum I can put that? Or does it have to be on youtube?