quote Originally posted by lou_dias: Sorry, but his Camaro sounds exactly like the same motor he swapped into his Cavalier...note for note.

it's alot easier to tell if someone has ITB's by look than it is by sound....

again, post a dyno showing a FLAT torque curve from 2000-6000+ RPMs using iron fiero heads, and I'll back off, but I'll say it again, you are wrong. the iron fiero heads were OK 26 years ago when they rolled off the line, but by todays standards, they're junk.

------------------
we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...

Built not bought...

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/119122.html

quote Originally posted by ericjon262: it's alot easier to tell if someone has ITB's by look than it is by sound.... again, post a dyno showing a FLAT torque curve from 2000-6000+ RPMs using iron fiero heads, and I'll back off, but I'll say it again, you are wrong. the iron fiero heads were OK 26 years ago when they rolled off the line, but by todays standards, they're junk.

I have already agreed to post that dyno around May.
Why can't you accept that my torque curve was perfectly flat until I hit the 4500rpm limit of the Fiero intake neck behind a 3.4? Oh because that would mean that I would outperform every stock-cammed 3X00 on the planet, that's right...we can't admit that now can we?

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: I have already agreed to post that dyno around May. Why can't you accept that my torque curve was perfectly flat until I hit the 4500rpm limit of the Fiero intake neck behind a 3.4? Oh because that would mean that I would outperform every stock-cammed 3X00 on the planet, that's right...we can't admit that now can we?

when did I say it wasn't flat until then? again, post a dyno, back up your claims. as I said in the other thread, I would like to see you run a real cam, and not give up your low end.

------------------
we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...

Built not bought...

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/119122.html

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: You have some funny math there. The intake stroke is 180 degrees. A cam with a 270 degree duration starts opening earlier than TDC so that the exhaust back pressure can help fill the combustion chamber prior to TDC. This is also why an exhaust of the right size is important. Too small or too big and it doesn't help the intake stroke prior to start of the actual intake stroke. So once the actual intake stroke starts, the cam is already partially lifted if not mostly, and in fact roller cams achieve full lift faster than non-roller ones. TPI intakes also emulate a mild supercharger effect because the closing of one intake valve increased pressure to the one that's opening up. This is how TPI intakes achieve such a high VE. The real world combustion cycle of an engine controlled by a cam is why I say the extra "flowbench-rated flow" of the Gen3+ heads is mostly useless.

Math is only funny if it's done wrong... What's wrong with my math? You can't find a hole in it. It's also built on your own reasoning about average flow per cylinder.

TPI doesn't achieve a high VE. It does better than cross-fire, but not as well as anything modern. Specific torque numbers show that. L98's made 345 ftlbs from 350 cid. LS6's made 385 ftlbs from 346 cid. The L98 was good for it's day, but at the bottom of the muck heap today. Also, TPI engines fall flat at high RPM; their VE curves drop dramatically above peak torque. Not only do modern engines produce better VE, they do it with "bigger" that flow the air the engines need to carry the torque curve to a higher RPM and make much more power.

If head flow doesn't matter, a Pro-Stock engine wouldn't see any reduction in power if it were built with L98 heads. Is this really the case you're trying to make?

I think you're a little confused about how the scavenging process works.

A 4 stroke engine is a misnomer. It is a 4 CYCLE engine and the processes can and do overlap and occupy the same crankshaft timing. The first cycle is a positive mass flow, followed by an isentropic compression, thirdly a heat input and isentropic expansion, followed by a negative mass flow. A mass transfer cycle almost always surpasses the 180 degrees of piston motion in the cylinder. Defining the mass transfer as merely 180 degrees of crank rotation severely limits the potential airflow capability of the motor.

The relevance of this is extremely important for the development of any efficient power plant.

[This message has been edited by FieroWannaBe (edited 02-19-2013).]

quote Originally posted by ericjon262: when did I say it wasn't flat until then? again, post a dyno, back up your claims. as I said in the other thread, I would like to see you run a real cam, and not give up your low end.

I have a posted dyno from 2009. Short memory?
Yes, I'd like to run a better cam now that I have the intake to support it but back in 2006 when I was having the engine built, no company offering perfomance cams was posting specs. Dynos I saw back then only showed 5hp increases...hence I stuck with the stock cam.

I'll refresh your memory: Here is my dyno with the Fiero intak, a way too rich tune and retarded (at the distributor) timing:

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-19-2013).]

What everyone is trying to get at here, is that the GENIII heads give you a better starting point. A higher compression 200+ hp motor that uses 87 octane, with a mild cam, and excellent drivability and economy that is almost a bolt in. Whereas, the same result from an iron head requires short block changes, intake modifications, and head work to match a stock 3500 engine. No one doubts your engine is making the performance it is. Everyone arguing here is trying to say the same effort to the 3400 top end would have yielded better results. Iron heads DO NOT make more power by heat retention. Yes the Fiero intake is restrictive. But it is not the only restriction in the engine; the biggest is the poppet valves in both heads, which has been improved in later heads. Neither engine surpasses 100% VE, so the intake and exhaust tracts are limiting both engines, that alone is evidence that the heads ARE a restriction.

220 engine hp from a full out gen 1 3.4 engine or, 200 whp from a drop in 3500.
There is no heavy fab work required for the swap, drilling some holes is needed, just like any 3.4 swap. But you lose those darn cool red aluminum valve covers and intake.

quote Originally posted by FieroWannaBe: What everyone is trying to get at here, is that the GENIII heads give you a better starting point. A higher compression 200+ hp motor that uses 87 octane, with a mild cam, and excellent drivability and economy that is almost a bolt in. Whereas, the same result from an iron head requires short block changes, intake modifications, and head work to match a stock 3500 engine. No one doubts your engine is making the performance it is. Everyone arguing here is trying to say the same effort to the 3400 top end would have yielded better results. Iron heads DO NOT make more power by heat retention. Yes the Fiero intake is restrictive. But it is not the only restriction in the engine; the biggest is the poppet valves in both heads, which has been improved in later heads. Neither engine surpasses 100% VE, so the intake and exhaust tracts are limiting both engines, that alone is evidence that the heads ARE a restriction. 220 engine hp from a full out gen 1 3.4 engine or, 200 whp from a drop in 3500. There is no heavy fab work required for the swap, drilling some holes is needed, just like any 3.4 swap. But you lose those darn cool red aluminum valve covers and intake.

Stock 3500's dyno between 160 and 175 rwhp. It's a better "starting point" if you consider having to do a "full swap" as a starting point which is beyond what alot of people are willing to do.
I have shown that just using the block, oil pump, oil pan, crank, rods and cam, you can make the same power with some tweaks to the Fiero intake and exhaust and still look stock. That's the point you aren't getting.

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: Stock 3500's dyno between 160 and 175 rwhp. It's a better "starting point" if you consider having to do a "full swap" as a starting point which is beyond what alot of people are willing to do. I have shown that just using the block, oil pump, oil pan, crank, rods and cam, you can make the same power with some tweaks to the Fiero intake and exhaust and still look stock. That's the point you aren't getting.

Stock 3500's have dyno’d 160 and 175 FWHP in automatic cars with stock airboxes and quiet exhausts. Bridgetown had an uncorrected 177 whp in his stock 3400 (LA1), not an LX9 3500. How is a full swap any different than building a new engine like what you did, or any more effort? An engine comes out, and a new one goes in. Yours required rework to the long block, short block, and replacing gaskets, etc. I don’t see how that is less work. That seems like more work. Both routes require a tune of some sort of ECU. Your heads have been ported heavily. Your intake was machined, that adds costs and labor to the process.
It is also hard for people to understand why someone wants to keep an unreliable ignition system over the now more common and more reliable V6 coilpack. (I don’t get why people ditch the OBD2 computer and wiring and feel they have to adopt the '7730 and add crank triggers and other nonsense).
The stock look gains what? That's what I am arguing. Red intakes and valve covers, and a Fiero sticker? A crappy distributer with ignition modules that dies at random? Then someone can do yet more work and "upgrade" to the 3400's native DIS after they tire of replacing ignition modules. And then one gets tired of the wall at 4500rpm from the Fiero intake, so they switch to a Trueleo or some bastardized starship enterprise thing, The point is there is LESS effort to swap complete than some hybrid that lowers the initial output of a complete 3400 or 3500 engine, than one needs to get the same or better performance from a worked iron head motor.
People looking to do the least work possible, they swap in the GEN I 3.4, not a 3400 roller cam block with LQ1 pistons, and heavily ported iron heads, machines upper and lower intakes, and then spend a long time tuning.

3500's are cheap and filled many chevy venture engine bays. The iron 3.4 short of new from GM is harder to find these days. The 3500 made 200hp factory and can bolt in with some drilling and a little grinding, Buy a harness and a tune.
The cost from going to 110WHP to 170+ WHP this way sounds a lot cheaper than yours.

I'm not trying to say what you did is bad, invalid or insane. But it is surely not the path of least resistance, nor is it taking full advantage of the available hardware 60 degrees have available. With regards to a LX9 with irons heads, I still wonder why, they will make more power without.

[This message has been edited by FieroWannaBe (edited 02-19-2013).]

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: My statements were that both types of heads exceed the needs of street motors and even street/strip motors.

And this is flat out wrong.

Neither head is even close, but the aluminum heads are better than the iron heads.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 02-19-2013).]

I thought the stock 3500 computer wasn't "tunable" and that's why people changed ECMs to either the early OBD2 systems, or the 7730.

For what it's worth, I bought a LX9 this morning and plan on swapping the whole thing. I would like to keep my air conditioning and some of the water pump plumbing which means I also have to use the Fiero timing cover and pulley, forcing me to use the 7730 computer. Unless I have missed something here.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: I thought the stock 3500 computer wasn't "tunable" and that's why people changed ECMs to either the early OBD2 systems, or the 7730. For what it's worth, I bought a LX9 this morning and plan on swapping the whole thing. I would like to keep my air conditioning and some of the water pump plumbing which means I also have to use the Fiero timing cover and pulley, forcing me to use the 7730 computer. Unless I have missed something here.

check over at 60degreeV6.com for other support, im sure a few members have a base tune for you to use. theres also a highly modified version of $A1 for the tune, called nAst1

I had a 3400 with a 5 speed that dyno'd 204hp to the wheels. All stock.

quote Originally posted by joshua riedl: I had a 3400 with a 5 speed that dyno'd 204hp to the wheels. All stock.

If you had a 3400 with a 5 speed it wasn't stock.

The engine was internally stock with a stock fiero flywheel running a stock General Motors PCM with a few codes deleted, bolted up to a stock fiero transmission. It even had stock spark plugs.

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: I have a posted dyno from 2009. Short memory? Yes, I'd like to run a better cam now that I have the intake to support it but back in 2006 when I was having the engine built, no company offering perfomance cams was posting specs. Dynos I saw back then only showed 5hp increases...hence I stuck with the stock cam. I'll refresh your memory: Here is my dyno with the Fiero intak, a way too rich tune and retarded (at the distributor) timing:

no companies offering performance cams??? WOT-Tech offers plenty of cams, and you can always have a stock cam reground....

your dyno, you knew exactly what I meant, post a dyno showing a flat torque curve from 2000-6000+RPMs like superdave's dyno and I'll shut up.


you still havent' answered me about the L03 camaro and truck motors.

How come the camaro motors don't make more power than the trucks? they have a roller cam, the trucks have a flat tappet everything else is the same except for the accessory drives and maybe the exhaust manifolds... your logic would say the camaro motor should be 20+ hp more then the truck, yet both carry the same power and torque rating... it's alot easier for GM to sell a 190hp base model camaro then a 170 hp...

------------------
we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...

Built not bought... Because bolt-ons don't.

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/119122.html

Does 250 ft.lb. at the wheels sound a bit high to anyone else? 80 over stock?

Lou keeps saying that the iron heads:
1) Are plenty good enough for any motor build
2) Have a "higher VE rating" (BS terminology to begin with, since VE is for a WHOLE SYSTEM)

Let's review a fundamental we all (should) know about engines.

Peak torque occurs when the mean cylinder pressure is at it's highest, and that mean effective pressure (MEP) is at it's highest when cylinder filling (aka VE) is at it's highest.

By Lou's dyno's own admission, regardless of "rich tune, timing left on the table, blah blah" and other bs excuses, his heads and intake simply aren't sufficient to fill the cylinders above 4000 RPM.
Because the cylinders get less air and fuel, they make generate less pressure, which results in less torque at the wheels.

I know that some sanctioning bodies, NASA, for example, won't accept dyno results with smoothing factor greater than 5.
Do you have the raw data to look at?

quote Originally posted by ericjon262: the 3400 could have been stock...

In theory, but a 3400 w/5 speed = swap = different car/transmission + custom air channel + custom exhaust - some accessories = NOT STOCK

quote Originally posted by ericjon262: no companies offering performance cams??? WOT-Tech offers plenty of cams, and you can always have a stock cam reground.... your dyno, you knew exactly what I meant, post a dyno showing a flat torque curve from 2000-6000+RPMs like superdave's dyno and I'll shut up. you still havent' answered me about the L03 camaro and truck motors. How come the camaro motors don't make more power than the trucks? they have a roller cam, the trucks have a flat tappet everything else is the same except for the accessory drives and maybe the exhaust manifolds... your logic would say the camaro motor should be 20+ hp more then the truck, yet both carry the same power and torque rating... it's alot easier for GM to sell a 190hp base model camaro then a 170 hp...

Why must you troll? I had my motor built in 2006. The 3500 had just been around a year. Performance parts were few and far between for 3400's.
This is all in my thread.
I snapped 2 axles with that build once in 2008 and once in 2009. 2010 was wasted swapping to the 7730+Trueleo. Again, documented in my thread. Did some racing in 2011 with bad tunes. Finally got it right for 2012 season until my collission on the Labor Day weekend in 2012 where I lost in the race for 3rd place of the event. If you think 187rwhp is enough for finishing in the top 6 of the events that I do then I have land in Florida I'd like to sell you.

Why are you talking about trucks?
Why can't you shut up and wait 2-3 more months for a dyno?

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-20-2013).]

quote Originally posted by KurtAKX: Does 250 ft.lb. at the wheels sound a bit high to anyone else? 80 over stock? Lou keeps saying that the iron heads: 1) Are plenty good enough for any motor build 2) Have a "higher VE rating" (BS terminology to begin with, since VE is for a WHOLE SYSTEM) Let's review a fundamental we all (should) know about engines. Peak torque occurs when the mean cylinder pressure is at it's highest, and that mean effective pressure (MEP) is at it's highest when cylinder filling (aka VE) is at it's highest. By Lou's dyno's own admission, regardless of "rich tune, timing left on the table, blah blah" and other bs excuses, his heads and intake simply aren't sufficient to fill the cylinders above 4000 RPM. Because the cylinders get less air and fuel, they make generate less pressure, which results in less torque at the wheels. I know that some sanctioning bodies, NASA, for example, won't accept dyno results with smoothing factor greater than 5. Do you have the raw data to look at?

D

Did you really just ask me for raw data from a 4 year old dyno?
The A/F ratio is right on the dyno. The first run showed detonation past 5400rpm and we cut this one off at 5200. If you looked at my thread, you'd see that.

The inital problem I had going from that old setup to the '7730 + Trueleo is that the timing was way too advanced for my motor even with the base $A1 code...which is why I posted a much poorer dyno right here with the last tune I received from Ryan prior to doing my own tuning: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...L/075502-6.html#p202
I had pre-ignition like a mo-fo and would you like me to send you all the emails I sent Ryan Gick about it when I was letting him attempt to tune it? Once I learned how to tune it myself coupled with half a can of octane booster, the power EXCEEDED my old dyno...I just don't have a new dyno because the the collision. This has all been documented in my thread as it happened...yet the trolls must be fed.

You can look at the videos of my races I posted last year. With the bad tune I did 21-22 second laps at the oval track. With the octane booster and my own tune I am doing laps in the 19 second range and hanging with cars that do the 1/4 mile in the low 13's on this oval track. I'm definately making over 200rwhp, just don't know how much. Haven't noticed any torque loss. Spins 17x9 275mm wide street slick tires with a 3000rpm clutch dump. You do the math.

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-20-2013).]

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: Why must you troll? I had my motor built in 2006. The 3500 had just been around a year. Performance parts were few and far between for 3400's. This is all in my thread. I snapped 2 axles with that build once in 2008 and once in 2009. 2010 was wasted swapping to the 7730+Trueleo. Again, documented in my thread. Did some racing in 2011 with bad tunes. Finally got it right for 2012 season until my collission on the Labor Day weekend in 2012 where I lost in the race for 3rd place of the event. If you think 187rwhp is enough for finishing in the top 6 of the events that I do then I have land in Florida I'd like to sell you. Why are you talking about trucks? Why can't you shut up and wait 2-3 more months for a dyno?

because you're making the claim that all the power comes from the roller cam, so why doesn't the camaro motor make more power then the truck motor? it is as apples to apples as you will get. still waiting for an answer.

------------------
we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...

Built not bought... Because bolt-ons don't.

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/119122.html

quote Originally posted by ericjon262: because you're making the claim that all the power comes from the roller cam, so why doesn't the camaro motor make more power then the truck motor? it is as apples to apples as you will get. still waiting for an answer.

Why don't you ask GM? "Apples to apples" is your opinion. Even the LT1's were different in the Camaro and the Impala. Buy a clue.

As much as I hate to,I would point out that the roller cam is not "giving" the aluminum head engines anything.
The roller valvetrain simply frees up horsepower lost due to friction.
It was always there,just not tapped.
That's the way I see it at least,roller valvetrains simply reduce frictional losses allowing less parasitic drag.
I see a roller valvetrain as a complicated bolt on personally.

Similar to going from a mechanical to an electric water pump,your not making more hp. You're simply repurposing horsepower that was being used elsewhere,it was always being produced however.

My first goal with any engine is to more efficiently use what Imalready have,THEN make the engine capable of more after all frictional or parasitic losses have been handled as effectively as possible.

Does anyone see any flaw in my logic?Always open to suggestions.

*why couldn't someone simply throw together an iron head motor and dyno it?
Then convert the valvetrain with the roller components and redyno?
That would give an approximate number for what the roller valvetrain is freeing up.

[This message has been edited by DefEddie (edited 02-20-2013).]

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: Why don't you ask GM? "Apples to apples" is your opinion. Even the LT1's were different in the Camaro and the Impala. Buy a clue.

You know what's funny, the F and B body LT1s had different heads and cams! This why I used the L03, the only difference is the roller cam, I wouldn't have used them in my example if they had different head castings, so again, why no difference?

------------------
we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...

Built not bought... Because bolt-ons don't.

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/119122.html

quote Originally posted by DefEddie: As much as I hate to,I would point out that the roller cam is not "giving" the aluminum head engines anything. The roller valvetrain simply frees up horsepower lost due to friction. It was always there,just not tapped. That's the way I see it at least,roller valvetrains simply reduce frictional losses allowing less parasitic drag. I see a roller valvetrain as a complicated bolt on personally. Similar to going from a mechanical to an electric water pump,your not making more hp. You're simply repurposing horsepower that was being used elsewhere,it was always being produced however. My first goal with any engine is to more efficiently use what Imalready have,THEN make the engine capable of more after all frictional or parasitic losses have been handled as effectively as possible. Does anyone see any flaw in my logic?Always open to suggestions. *why couldn't someone simply throw together an iron head motor and dyno it? Then convert the valvetrain with the roller components and redyno? That would give an approximate number for what the roller valvetrain is freeing up.

The roller cam allows the engine to make more power than a flat tappet cam by allowing more aggressive ramp rates than can be run with flat tappets.

Also, there are bosses cast into the block for the roller lifter guide plate retainer, so a roller cam build has to start with a roller cam block (not sure if there are link-bar lifters that work with the V6/60)

So if I have a performance muffler it doesn't count but you're allowed to use ported heads? How about my stock head 3900? Can we compare those?

quote Originally posted by Will: The roller cam allows the engine to make more power than a flat tappet cam by allowing more aggressive ramp rates than can be run with flat tappets. Also, there are bosses cast into the block for the roller lifter guide plate retainer, so a roller cam build has to start with a roller cam block (not sure if there are link-bar lifters that work with the V6/60)

All other perks of the roller valvetrain aside (and the profiles are definately a perk lol!) I mean when it comes down to it the power comes from less frictional losses from the valvetrain.
The ramp rates have everything to do with the awesome performance and driveability but it is simply a different and better way of doing the same thing without frictional losses and with driveability or power throughout the rpm range I guess.
The ramp rates are extreme because of the less frictional losses not binding up the valvetrain as it would on a non-roller setup.

And you don't have to start with a roller block unless you just want it easy as possible.
A drill and a tap along with various other factory parts from other engines should work fine,you just need the cam,lifters and a way to keep them from spinning in place. Offhand I would explore the vortec spider holddowns and lifter links with the factory lifters and cam.

The roller profiles make more power than the flat tappet profiles.

The roller profiles can do thing that simply will not work on a flat tappet cam. The geometry doesn't allow for it.

GM originally designed roller cams for MPG... the roller setup was worth ~0.5 mpg on an L98. That's why the cars recieved roller cam V8's and the trucks didn't. At the time, it wasn't worth it to get that 0.5 MPG out of the trucks. The V6's were also efficient enough that they didn't need the conversion until later.

The V8's were built in both roller and flat tappet configurations simultaneously. That means that the roller lifter retainer bosses are in the casting in the flat tappet engines (I'm not sure if they're machined or not).
However, the V6's went to roller lifters wholesale. The lifter retainer bosses are NOT present in the flat tappet blocks. Converting a flat tappet engine to a roller cam would require link bar lifters, which I'm not sure are available for the V6.

quote Originally posted by ericjon262: because you're making the claim that all the power comes from the roller cam, so why doesn't the camaro motor make more power then the truck motor? it is as apples to apples as you will get. still waiting for an answer.

READ THE WORDS THAT I WRITE:

I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S BEHIND ABOUT AN L03

quote Originally posted by Will: The roller profiles make more power than the flat tappet profiles. The roller profiles can do thing that simply will not work on a flat tappet cam. The geometry doesn't allow for it. GM originally designed roller cams for MPG... the roller setup was worth ~0.5 mpg on an L98. That's why the cars recieved roller cam V8's and the trucks didn't. At the time, it wasn't worth it to get that 0.5 MPG out of the trucks. The V6's were also efficient enough that they didn't need the conversion until later. The V8's were built in both roller and flat tappet configurations simultaneously. That means that the roller lifter retainer bosses are in the casting in the flat tappet engines (I'm not sure if they're machined or not). However, the V6's went to roller lifters wholesale. The lifter retainer bosses are NOT present in the flat tappet blocks. Converting a flat tappet engine to a roller cam would require link bar lifters, which I'm not sure are available for the V6p.

No argument about the power throughout the rpm range because of the extreme ramp rates,no way a flat tappet could do that.
But in the end,i'm saying that peak power (not peak per lift point) is simply made capable due to the better geometry thanks to a more efficient design that happens to have less frictional loss.
At least I think so,i'm pretty sure we agree on the main points but i'm not great at conveying what i'm thinkn'.

And no bosses doesn't mean you can't make something work and have to use link lifters
I'm kinda interested in if it would be easy or not.
I'm sitting on one each of all these motors,and most are already disassembled.
In a few weeks when I get a free engine stand i'll be glad to try and stuff a roller cam into a 3.4 (mock up only).
Might be one of those "wtf for? " moments but I have done dumber stuff out of curiousity.
If the OP would like I can mock up a 3500 with iron heads as well,I should have all versions of gen1,2,3 engines laying around.
Just need time and space,any way I can help.

[This message has been edited by DefEddie (edited 02-21-2013).]

quote Originally posted by joshua riedl: So if I have a performance muffler it doesn't count but you're allowed to use ported heads? How about my stock head 3900? Can we compare those?

Stop with your trolling. You know you fabricated an exhaust. All you're proving is that you're a troll. Who in their right mind calls a swap "stock"?

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: Stop with your trolling. You know you fabricated an exhaust. All you're proving is that you're a troll. Who in their right mind calls a swap "stock"?

I was once accused of lying about having a "stock" vehicle because it had been "tuned" to turn off speed limiter.

So stranger things have happened.

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: READ THE WORDS THAT I WRITE: I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S BEHIND ABOUT AN L03

you keep claiming the roller cam makes the motor, the roller cam is the only difference between the two engines, wake up and smell the coffee, you're wrong. there's more to it than the roller cam, heads make big difference.

also, I already own land in Florida thanks, I live in sunny Pensacola, I bet it gets cold up there in Rhode island...

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: Stop with your trolling. You know you fabricated an exhaust. All you're proving is that you're a troll. Who in their right mind calls a swap "stock"?

I think it is pretty obvious that he is referring to the engine being stock because it has stock internals. Its all depends on your perspective. In the land of swapped Fieros I would call my engine stock, even though its a swapped 3500 with custom exhaust, pre-TB intake, and tune, because I didn't touch the engine. All things considered, the, "'mines stock yours isn't" is a moot argument; its just a difference in semantics...

BTW, love the circle track vids, cant wait to see more. Good luck with the repairs.

[This message has been edited by LZeppelin513 (edited 02-21-2013).]

quote Originally posted by LZeppelin513: I think it is pretty obvious that he is referring to the engine being stock because it has stock internals. Its all depends on your perspective. In the land of swapped Fieros I would call my engine stock, even though its a swapped 3500 with custom exhaust, pre-TB intake, and tune, because I didn't touch the engine. All things considered, the, "'mines stock yours isn't" is a moot argument; its just a difference in semantics... BTW, love the circle track vids, cant wait to see more. Good luck with the repairs.

Thanks.

Even the 3400 made 180hp in some cars and 185hp in the Montana. Different applications net different results. In the case of a swap the exhaust is always custom and usually freer flowing. To me a car is stock if it came from the factory that way. Don't bolt on a CAI and custom exhaust, remove some accessories and tell me it dynoed at 205rwhp from the factory (and not post a dyno). Same with an underdrive pulley. Bolt-ons have as much to do with performance as internals. Once you bolt something else on, it's not stock.

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-21-2013).]

quote Originally posted by ericjon262: you keep claiming the roller cam makes the motor, the roller cam is the only difference between the two engines, wake up and smell the coffee, you're wrong. there's more to it than the roller cam, heads make big difference. also, I already own land in Florida thanks, I live in sunny Pensacola, I bet it gets cold up there in Rhode island...

I'm still waiting for your answer, I've provided data to back up my claims, give us something to back up that the roller cam is giving you all that power.

and arguing over the fact that he had an exhaust and an intake, please, the engine is close enough to stock, nothing substantial has been changed.

------------------
we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...

Built not bought... Because bolt-ons don't.

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/119122.html