GM has documented 100HP/L on iron heads. So HEADS aren't the restriction. It doesn't matter that GEN3 can flow 25-33% more under un-natural circumstances if other parts of the motor are going to limit the VE. TPI has a naturally high VE.
You keep saying both of these things, but neither one is correct.
TPI does NOT have "high" VE. Take a look at the Nissan VQ35DE engine for what qualifies as good VE by modern standards. It's a port injected engine that makes over 300 HP from 3.5 litres in a fully streetable, emissions compliant, pump gas burning state of tune. At 280 ftlbs, it makes WAY more specific torque than the L98 TPI. It redlines at or under 7,000 RPM, so it's not turning unreasonably fast either.
So that's what a 3.5 litre engine with GOOD heads can do.
You won't get close to that with the iron V6/60 heads; it's possible with the aluminum heads.
2nd point, as I pointed out on the other thread, is that neither the aluminum nor the iron heads can keep up with a 3400 and keep it at 100% VE. Neither head flows enough air. The heads ARE the last restriction. The aluminum heads are a heck of a lot closer to the engine's demand than the iron heads, by numbers you posted.
[This message has been edited by Will (edited 02-19-2013).]
IP: Logged
12:33 PM
FFIEROFRED Member
Posts: 750 From: GULFPORT, MS Registered: May 2008
The TPI V8 makes enuff TQ @ 1500 rpm to make the fat "F" car / vet pull away in over drive, on the interstate. No fuss, no bother. Just a little presser on the gas and the car picks up speed. The datson 3.5 doesn't make enuff TQ @ 1500 to turn my BBC over to start it. Thing about it, if you put the chevy V8 in the datson ( I am old enuff to call them that), on the dotson trans, the V8 would chuck the trans right out. If you put the 3.5 in the chevy in place of the V8 tpi motor, with the chevy trans / gears, it would be a dog.
IP: Logged
09:55 PM
Will Member
Posts: 14250 From: Where you least expect me Registered: Jun 2000
The TPI V8 makes enuff TQ @ 1500 rpm to make the fat "F" car / vet pull away in over drive, on the interstate. No fuss, no bother. Just a little presser on the gas and the car picks up speed. The datson 3.5 doesn't make enuff TQ @ 1500 to turn my BBC over to start it. Thing about it, if you put the chevy V8 in the datson ( I am old enuff to call them that), on the dotson trans, the V8 would chuck the trans right out. If you put the 3.5 in the chevy in place of the V8 tpi motor, with the chevy trans / gears, it would be a dog.
If the transmission is geared properly, you won't miss the bottom end power. I had an LT1 in my Firebird and although the torque was fun, running out of power at 5000 rpm quickly got old, especially since that's well below the stock redline. Add on top of that its much easier to get traction when most of the power comes on up top. I bet you need gigantic tires to grip on an actual track with that BBC. My Fiero did a 1.9 sec 60 ft. with 205/45/R16 street tires and although that's not an amazing 60 ft., that was a completely stock 3500. My Firebird with the LT1 was only able to get a best 2.2 60 ft with 275/40/R17 Yokohama Advans (street slicks) because I would just spin most of the way through 1st, 2nd, and even 3rd at full throttle. Yes, it's possible to put the power down, but its much easier to go for top end power.
Anyways, costwise if you're considering a 3x00 bottom end swap, it will most likely be cheaper to simply swap the whole motor. OTOH, if you wanted to start with a RWD block, it might be cheaper to reach your power goals with iron heads, but that in no way makes them superior.
IP: Logged
12:01 AM
FFIEROFRED Member
Posts: 750 From: GULFPORT, MS Registered: May 2008
My BBC was 467 ci, in a gutted sting ray, on nascar short track tires ( real big and sticky ) for autocross. I ran in the "run what you brung" class. Made power out to 6800. I also got fed up with the TPI / crossfire power band. ( had both in this fiero ) Along with 2.5, 3.0, 3.8 sfi before the V8's. they were not ENUFF! I missed the vet.
I fixed that problem.
No matter what engine you are doing, use the best parts you can. In a fiero the best heads for the MONEY are the iron heads, as long as you are using the 3800SC II heads ( along with the rest of the 3800SC II)
How fast do you want to go = how much money can you spend?
Put down the key board, take it out and play with it, at the track.
IP: Logged
06:19 AM
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5348 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
Now fixed tune, no dyno, same track, 2012, bad launch and a bent driverside front wheel (and frame) from an earlier collision with a Ford Lightning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGMxJXTOGhY Lap time: 19 seconds
YOU DO THE MATH - benchracers!
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-20-2013).]
IP: Logged
12:42 PM
ericjon262 Member
Posts: 3109 From: everywhere. Registered: Jan 2010
Now fixed tune, no dyno, same track, 2012, bad launch and a bent driverside front wheel (and frame) from an earlier collision with a Ford Lightning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGMxJXTOGhY Lap time: 19 seconds
YOU DO THE MATH - benchracers!
wrong dyno again.... 2000-6000....
IP: Logged
12:45 PM
ericjon262 Member
Posts: 3109 From: everywhere. Registered: Jan 2010
Originally posted by ericjon262: Superdave's cars were not "race prepped" I'm not sure where you keep getting that... his motor is a HCI 3500. that hardly means "race prepped" if his motor is race prepped, all the LSX motors running a .600" lift on the street must all be Pro mods...
I'd like to see you run half the cam Superdave runs, and not give up all of your low end, head flow matters, and it matters alot in the world of performance.
I'll make the comparison again. this is like saying you can put 305 TBI truck heads on a aluminum head 350 LT1 and make the same power (or more) because it has a roller cam... it's not going to happen... ever.
Answer, if this was the case, how come the L03 in a truck with a flat tappet cam, and the L03 in a Camaro or firebird with a roller cam both made the same power and torque?
If there were an appreciable difference in power, GM would have given both engines a separate designation, it's easier to sell a base model Camaro with 200HP Vs 170HP....
you have claimed 300 HP numerous times, you have yet to back it up with a dynograph, you have also not told us whether that was net power, gross power. crank power, at the tires, ect... you have nothing to back up your claims.
I've said it before and I will say it again, post a dynograph showing a FLAT torque curve from 2000-6000 RPMs, and I will shut up.
still waiting on your answer lou...
------------------ we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...
Do you really lack reading comprehension that bad? Or do you get off on trolling? I told you the car is not currently in my possession. I'm not scared of dynos, you troll, I've posted many over the years. Why can't you just shut up and wait?
quote
Originally posted by ericjon262: still waiting on your answer lou...
Apparently you do get off on trolling... WTF do I care about trucks? This engine used throttle-body fuel injection. Why are you even talking about it? Just to troll.
From Superdave's ACTUAL BUILD PAGE that I linked in the first post, not that you bothered to read it obviously: "•Full race ported & polished heads •Mirror polished combustion chambers •Port matched and polished LIM, 800 grit polished intake tracks. " If you think you are going to get 275 rwhp from stock 3500 intake and heads, again, I have land in Florida I'd like to sell you.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-20-2013).]
Now fixed tune, no dyno, same track, 2012, bad launch and a bent driverside front wheel (and frame) from an earlier collision with a Ford Lightning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGMxJXTOGhY Lap time: 19 seconds
YOU DO THE MATH - benchracers!
How is your lap time on a 1/4-1/3 mile oval track relevant to the discussion of whether aluminum or iron heads are better? There's a lot more to oval track lap times than just power, and aside from weight and balance considerations, material composition of the cylinder heads are irrelevant.
And you're the trolling one here. The entire purpose of your post was obviously to troll the aluminum vs iron head discussion. There is basically no other reason to make the statement. If you want the best performance, spend the money and buy race ready aluminum heads, or get them made for your application if they aren't available. And there's a lot more to making power than which head you put on an engine. And you sure as heck wouldn't want to use the stock Fiero intake, injection system, or exhaust, to get the most power.
Lou, your build may work great for your application, but it doesn't mean it's the best, nor does it mean that everyone else is somehow wrong for choosing something else.
IP: Logged
02:17 PM
PFF
System Bot
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5348 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
How is your lap time on a 1/4-1/3 mile oval track relevant to the discussion of whether aluminum or iron heads are better? There's a lot more to oval track lap times than just power, and aside from weight and balance considerations, material composition of the cylinder heads are irrelevant.
I am being called out to post a dyno for a car not in my possession. I did the next best thing and posted ACTUAL TRACK RESULTS. I have said I'm making more power with my Trueleo/DIS/7730 setup now that its tuned properly. The same v6 car that dynoed at 158 rwhp with a bad tune and did a 20.5s lap did a 19s lap with a good tune. I'm sure someone can figure out how much HP I'm making compared to before and it's definitely above the 187rwhp I made with the Fiero intake, distributor, ECM and not as bad a tune. I posted my dynoed 175/265 4.9 5speed car as just another baseline (same track, same driver, same kind of car).
quote
And you're the trolling one here. The entire purpose of your post was obviously to troll the aluminum vs iron head discussion. There is basically no other reason to make the statement.
That's an uneducated opinion. I started this thread to not have to keep posting OT on the subject in other threads.
quote
If you want the best performance, spend the money and buy race ready aluminum heads, or get them made for your application if they aren't available. And there's a lot more to making power than which head you put on an engine. And you sure as heck wouldn't want to use the stock Fiero intake, injection system, or exhaust, to get the most power.
You're missing the point. My 'claim' is that Fiero V6's are not limited in power by iron heads but by other factors. My other point is that the roller cam design of the newer engines is the most significant item that bumped the power up over the previous generation. For instance GEN2 motors did not have roller cams and posted similar #'s to GEN1 motors...which again is another point in my favor.
I have seen the reports where AL versions of the same heads produce the same power. That's not the arguement or the issue. The V6/60 aluminum head enthusiasts claim that the RE-design of the head is superior. Fact is GEN2 aluminum heads have the same combustion chamber design as GEN3/4 yet produced no more power than GEN1 in stock-stock applications. GEN3 essentially came with a factory port job over GEN2. The intakes on the motors were also enlarged...as was the exhaust. So I gave my GEN1 heads a port job on the intake and exhaust and 'like black magic', I made comparable power.
quote
Lou, your build may work great for your application, but it doesn't mean it's the best, nor does it mean that everyone else is somehow wrong for choosing something else.
Yes, that is quite true, however, I have every "aluminum head enthusiast" and his brother trying to ram down my throat that I should switch to aluminum heads.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-20-2013).]
The TPI V8 makes enuff TQ @ 1500 rpm to make the fat "F" car / vet pull away in over drive, on the interstate. No fuss, no bother. Just a little presser on the gas and the car picks up speed. The datson 3.5 doesn't make enuff TQ @ 1500 to turn my BBC over to start it. Thing about it, if you put the chevy V8 in the datson ( I am old enuff to call them that), on the dotson trans, the V8 would chuck the trans right out. If you put the 3.5 in the chevy in place of the V8 tpi motor, with the chevy trans / gears, it would be a dog.
Originally posted by lou_dias: Yes, that is quite true, however, I have every "aluminum head enthusiast" and his brother trying to ram down my throat that I should switch to aluminum heads.
Ignore them then. Why do people care what your engine is running? Unless you're running a High Value V6 (the 3.5/3.9) then it doesn't really matter. The Gen II aluminum heads will probably allow you to make more power, assuming the CR would be the same, and that the aluminum heads flow better. The change to a roller cam from a flat tappet wasn't the only change, so trying to simplify all of the complexities of the engines down to that one thing, is just silly. Surely, having built the engine you are running, you should know that. You aren't making the power your making in that engine, just because it's a roller.
All this talk about lap times, power, etc… is irrelevant to discussing which head is better. What matters is design aspects of the head, and how much air they flow.
Forget all the dyno numbers. Flowbench numbers for the heads, chamber volume, and valve, port, and plug angles are what matter. Do you have any of that information? Because as far as the heads are concerned, that's what matters. If you want to talk final output numbers in terms of hp or torque curves, there are a lot more variables in play than simply which set of heads you started with.
IP: Logged
03:14 PM
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5348 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
Ignore them then. Why do people care what your engine is running? Unless you're running a High Value V6 (the 3.5/3.9) then it doesn't really matter. The Gen II aluminum heads will probably allow you to make more power, assuming the CR would be the same, and that the aluminum heads flow better. The change to a roller cam from a flat tappet wasn't the only change, so trying to simplify all of the complexities of the engines down to that one thing, is just silly. Surely, having built the engine you are running, you should know that. You aren't making the power your making in that engine, just because it's a roller.
All this talk about lap times, power, etc… is irrelevant to discussing which head is better. What matters is design aspects of the head, and how much air they flow.
Forget all the dyno numbers. Flowbench numbers for the heads, chamber volume, and valve, port, and plug angles are what matter. Do you have any of that information? Because as far as the heads are concerned, that's what matters. If you want to talk final output numbers in terms of hp or torque curves, there are a lot more variables in play than simply which set of heads you started with.
I would say flowbench is not as relevant since it doesn't simulate your actual combustion cycle. What I mean is the scavenging effect or the reversion waves. Also flowbench goes to .6" of lift. Most street cams are under .5" so who cares about the extra flow? Track times and dynos are "real world" performance.
It's funny, back in 2004/2005, I predicted a 2.5" exhaust would wake up the 3.4: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...-051176-14.html#p557 What's even funnier is a said this: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...-051176-16.html#p606 but my machinist gave me 1 3/16" opening... O_o, but I did everything else including surpassing 180rwhp... I guess I proved myself right. As I said, I've been experimenting with 3.4s for a long time.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-20-2013).]
I would say flowbench is not as relevant since it doesn't simulate your actual combustion cycle. What I mean is the scavenging effect or the reversion waves. Also flowbench goes to .6" of lift. Most street cams are under .5" so who cares about the extra flow? Track times and dynos are "real world" performance.
It's funny, back in 2004/2005, I predicted a 2.5" exhaust would wake up the 3.4: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...-051176-14.html#p557 What's even funnier is a said this: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...-051176-16.html#p606 but my machinist gave me 1 3/16" opening... O_o, but I did everything else including surpassing 180rwhp... I guess I proved myself right. As I said, I've been experimenting with 3.4s for a long time.
I am not trying to get you to switch, if your happy with what you have, more power to you. I am trying to prevent people from thinking they have to copy what you are running to achieve a maximum effort 60 degree. Prevent people from tearing a part a 3400, to put on ported iron heads and lq1 pistons, and thinking they will be improving the 3400. If they are going to port any head and intake to put on it should be the 3500. Thats whay Im trying to do.
Originally posted by lou_dias: I would say flowbench is not as relevant since it doesn't simulate your actual combustion cycle. What I mean is the scavenging effect or the reversion waves. Also flowbench goes to .6" of lift. Most street cams are under .5" so who cares about the extra flow? Track times and dynos are "real world" performance.
Well, then trying to argue about the heads is not relevant. The flowbench numbers will show you 0.500 lift as well as 0.600 and everything below 0.500. The flowbench numbers will tell you how to pick the right cam and rockers, to match what your heads are capable of doing. And again, whether those heads are aluminum or iron, is basically irrelevant. I can't find exact numbers for the iron and aluminum heads for the 60 deg engines, but everything I can find, does suggest the aluminum heads are better.
Simply because you built an iron head 60 deg V6, and made the power you made, doesn't prove that iron heads are better. If you want to talk "real world" performance, then just swapping to a Series II or III 3800 SC is probably better. Or the 3.5/3.9 V6. They're probably cheaper to build than your hybrid engine, and will offer greater improvements for doing similar work to them down the road.
IP: Logged
04:21 PM
ericjon262 Member
Posts: 3109 From: everywhere. Registered: Jan 2010
I would say flowbench is not as relevant since it doesn't simulate your actual combustion cycle. What I mean is the scavenging effect or the reversion waves. Also flowbench goes to .6" of lift. Most street cams are under .5" so who cares about the extra flow? Track times and dynos are "real world" performance.
Data is your friend, the heads level off around there, so it's a good stopping point for flow data. I see plenty of street cams with .500-.550 lift, look at the LSx crowd, some of those guys run .600 lift cams on the street. I don't see how you think head flow is irrelevent, no it doesn't say how the head reacts to pressure waves, but it does tell you that you can fill/empty a cylinder faster or slower. it's very relevant to power output. oval track times aren't very helpful either, each one is different. 1/4 mile or 1/8 mile would be much more scientific, but even still it's not a good representation because the driver/suspension/weight can be a HUGE difference.
again, the truck motor and camaro motor are identical except for the roller cam in the camaro motor, same heads, same intake, same bottom end. if you want to make the LT1 arguement you made in the other thread, I'll remind you, the B body LT1 uses a different cam, and different cylinder heads, along with a lower compression ratio.
so why doesn't the camaro motor make 190 hp instead of 170? it would be a much easier sale to make with 20 more hp right? oh and before you say the SBC used a different style of HR cam, the setup is almost identical except the 60v6 used a shorter lifter to fit below the deck.
------------------ we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...
I would say flowbench is not as relevant since it doesn't simulate your actual combustion cycle.
So why would a head that flows more on the bench make less power during the "actual combustion cycle"?
Yes, I cam aware that heads can be too big for a particular displacement or cam, but that's NOT happening in the V6/60... Not even close.
If you want data about the "actual combustion cycle", chamber and port pressure traces can be found via a google image search.
The overlap period can see as much as 100 inches (of WATER) of draw due to scavenging, but that's only at low valve lift. By the time the lift increases to the point at which the port can flow more air, the exhaust valve has closed and the draw on the port is back to what the piston makes, which is ~10 inches.
IP: Logged
06:56 PM
Feb 21st, 2013
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5348 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
Data is your friend, the heads level off around there, so it's a good stopping point for flow data. I see plenty of street cams with .500-.550 lift, look at the LSx crowd, some of those guys run .600 lift cams on the street. I don't see how you think head flow is irrelevent, no it doesn't say how the head reacts to pressure waves, but it does tell you that you can fill/empty a cylinder faster or slower. it's very relevant to power output. oval track times aren't very helpful either, each one is different. 1/4 mile or 1/8 mile would be much more scientific, but even still it's not a good representation because the driver/suspension/weight can be a HUGE difference.
again, the truck motor and camaro motor are identical except for the roller cam in the camaro motor, same heads, same intake, same bottom end. if you want to make the LT1 arguement you made in the other thread, I'll remind you, the B body LT1 uses a different cam, and different cylinder heads, along with a lower compression ratio.
so why doesn't the camaro motor make 190 hp instead of 170? it would be a much easier sale to make with 20 more hp right? oh and before you say the SBC used a different style of HR cam, the setup is almost identical except the 60v6 used a shorter lifter to fit below the deck.
Are you retarded? I don't give a **** . Troll, they obviously have different exhausts for one thing. For another, I'm not going to look at an old Camaro and an old truck to answer some troll on the internet.
Not here to feed the troll but "lou_dias", You seem to like using my cars as examples so here is the info, right from the guy that built it.
#1, my car is in no way "Race Prepped". It's a 89 RS Camaro with stock suspension, stock brakes, a stock 10 bolt rear, 700R4 trans with a few upgrades, 4K stall and a '04 3500.
a. The engine has a bone stock bottom end, even the original bearings. b. I ported the heads in my garage, they have been touched up a few times over the years to improve flow a little here and there. The lower intake is gasket matched. blended and no longer polished ( double cut carbide burr leaves a better texture). c. The cam is just a regrind on a stock solid core, original stock lifters with some LT1 springs in them. Stock type but slightly longer pushrods, original rockers and all stock hardware down to OEM type headbolts. Timing chain is a stock GM piece. d. I built the headers to work with the cam, fairly simple math, few hundred bucks in materials and done. Exhaust is just 2.25" duals, X pipe and some Hooker mufflers. e. Yes, I had ITB's on it and they were pretty sweet, I switched back to the stock plenum/75mm TB and trapped the same the last time at the track, my 60' times were even better and i managed to break the rear end.
#2, Lets talk about that dyno video of the Camaro. That was and still is the only run it's had on the rollers, The shop's controller was acting up and he ended up refunding my money. That was a very rough tune with the ITB's and you can really hear the issues it had. Do you really think I hadn't made any progress since august 2011 on the tune? Let me lay out some simple facts;
Books from 1982 are less relevant now than they were then. You have no way to prove those numbers weren't fluffed, and their speculations on making 300 HP from virtually stock iron heads are absurd. Falconer even switched to aluminum heads before they stopped building 60v6's.
100HP/liter can be done with iron heads, it takes high compression, a wild solid lifter cam, race gas, upgraded crank, rods, pistons, fully studded block, 8K+ RPM balancing, Dry sump oiling etc... That's pretty sweet, right?
The same can be done with a Gen 3, but reliable and streetable. My 3.5 makes right around 350Hp@ the crank (there is your magic number), on stock compression, mostly stock parts with some porting, home built headers, 89 octane gas and gets 30+ MPG on the highway.
I can see you (and several members here) are very loyal to the old iron heads. That's your right. But don't go bashing other peoples builds when your backup is a 31 year old book based on speculation and un-verified dyno numbers.
Just remember, GM stopped making the iron heads in 1995 that's 18 years ago. If they were so efficient at making power and so awesome, why didn't GM keep casting them? Because they're heavy, have an inefficient combustion chamber and have terrible port flow numbers. No matter how much you try to dispute it, port flow makes power. Anyways, Lou... If you are ever in Eastern Iowa look me up... i'll take you for a ride in the Camaro and show you what a fast V6 feels like.
IP: Logged
12:09 AM
PFF
System Bot
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5348 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
Where did I bash your build? Also, the level of work you described is not different than what a "pro" team would do. Odd that you say your heads weren't race ported when your build page on the J-body site says otherwise. Bottom line is that it doesn't matter who prepped them, what matters it the level they were done to.
I don't care about your bottom end. I would use the same bottom end as I have said, it's the best thing about the newer V6's. My own 3.4 is a 3400 block and cam. Your cam is radical for the street.
Let me just make this very clear: you put about 10x maybe 20x the work I put into my motor. But that's my point. People here are giving other people the impression that you'll make ridiculous HP "easy" just by dropping in a 3500 and swapping a cam. Nothing you did was easy to the average guy.
As for you HP estimate. You are looking at driveline losses the wrong way. When you used your getrag transmission, the average driveline loss near 6000RPM is about 25 hp. It's not a fixed % of engine power.
I didn't bash your build, I just used it as the best I've found to compare to.
What's happening here is people are in denial of the 249 ft*lbs that I made. There was another forum member here who posted a dyno with 245 ft*lbs or thereabouts from a 3.4 so it's not unheard of. That scares people because with the proper intake and exhaust, it would easily be converted into big HP...and I already have I just don't have the car in my possession to prove it. You'd think the videos of me racing 12-13 second 1/4 mile cars on the oval track would have bought them a clue.
Once my front suspension is put back on and the frame straightened, I'll be back on the dyno...
PS, I too get over 30mph on the highway...I'm using the F40 6 speed.
PSS, Last I saw you were mid 13's. I don't run the 1/4 mile and I didn't build my car for that. It's still not as fast as my brother's 10.3s '99 Camaro... The same guy who built his motor did my dyno run. I guess he must not have know what he was doing on my dyno because he's one of the best LSx tuners on the east coast...
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-21-2013).]
IP: Logged
12:28 AM
ericjon262 Member
Posts: 3109 From: everywhere. Registered: Jan 2010
Where did I bash your build? Also, the level of work you described is not different than what a "pro" team would do. Odd that you say your heads weren't race ported when your build page on the J-body site says otherwise. Bottom line is that it doesn't matter who prepped them, what matters it the level they were done to.
I don't care about your bottom end. I would use the same bottom end as I have said, it's the best thing about the newer V6's. My own 3.4 is a 3400 block and cam. Your cam is radical for the street.
Let me just make this very clear: you put about 10x maybe 20x the work I put into my motor. But that's my point. People here are giving other people the impression that you'll make ridiculous HP "easy" just by dropping in a 3500 and swapping a cam. Nothing you did was easy to the average guy.
As for you HP estimate. You are looking at driveline losses the wrong way. When you used your getrag transmission, the average driveline loss near 6000RPM is about 25 hp. It's not a fixed % of engine power.
I didn't bash your build, I just used it as the best I've found to compare to.
What's happening here is people are in denial of the 249 ft*lbs that I made. There was another forum member here who posted a dyno with 245 ft*lbs or thereabouts from a 3.4 so it's not unheard of. That scares people because with the proper intake and exhaust, it would easily be converted into big HP...and I already have I just don't have the car in my possession to prove it. You'd think the videos of me racing 12-13 second 1/4 mile cars on the oval track would have bought them a clue.
Once my front suspension is put back on and the frame straightened, I'll be back on the dyno...
PS, I too get over 30mph on the highway...I'm using the F40 6 speed.
I'd hope you get over 30 MPH on the hwy, but those heads might hold you back...
his swap was involved because he put a FWD motor in a RWD car. I would be very hesitant to call a 3400 or 3500 swap involved in a FWD car or Fiero...
[This message has been edited by ericjon262 (edited 02-21-2013).]
IP: Logged
12:32 AM
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5348 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
Where did I bash your build? Also, the level of work you described is not different than what a "pro" team would do. Odd that you say your heads weren't race ported when your build page on the J-body site says otherwise. Bottom line is that it doesn't matter who prepped them, what matters it the level they were done to.
I don't care about your bottom end. I would use the same bottom end as I have said, it's the best thing about the newer V6's. My own 3.4 is a 3400 block and cam. Your cam is radical for the street.
Let me just make this very clear: you put about 10x maybe 20x the work I put into my motor. But that's my point. People here are giving other people the impression that you'll make ridiculous HP "easy" just by dropping in a 3500 and swapping a cam. Nothing you did was easy to the average guy.
As for you HP estimate. You are looking at driveline losses the wrong way. When you used your getrag transmission, the average driveline loss near 6000RPM is about 25 hp. It's not a fixed % of engine power.
I didn't bash your build, I just used it as the best I've found to compare to.
What's happening here is people are in denial of the 249 ft*lbs that I made. There was another forum member here who posted a dyno with 245 ft*lbs or thereabouts from a 3.4 so it's not unheard of. That scares people because with the proper intake and exhaust, it would easily be converted into big HP...and I already have I just don't have the car in my possession to prove it. You'd think the videos of me racing 12-13 second 1/4 mile cars on the oval track would have bought them a clue.
Once my front suspension is put back on and the frame straightened, I'll be back on the dyno...
PS, I too get over 30mph on the highway...I'm using the F40 6 speed.
PSS, Last I saw you were mid 13's. I don't run the 1/4 mile and I didn't build my car for that. It's still not as fast as my brother's 10.3s '99 Camaro... The same guy who built his motor did my dyno run. I guess he must not have know what he was doing on my dyno because he's one of the best LSx tuners on the east coast...
lol, I guess my definition of porting has changed since I typed up that registry about 7 years ago. I do have flow numbers from an independent source, intake flow at the time was about 25 CFM higher than stock @ .5 lift and exhaust flow was marginally better than stock. After that I built my own flow bench and took care of the exhaust side. I maybe gained another 10-12 CFM, no big deal. They still flow over 100 CFM more than the irons at the same lift. The Cavalier dynos were with the almost stock exhaust flow numbers.
Where I come from porting your own heads, building headers, fabricating custom mounts and all that stuff is common, not really hard work.. more fun than anything. I guess I expected that from this community as well knowing how many random engines you guys stuff into these cars. I'd be lying if I said i hadn't considering buying one, just not enough leg room for me though.
I've sold around 20 or 30 swap chips for the 3500/5 speed, an easy 100+ for the 3400/5 speed, mostly J body and L body owners, few Fieros and other random cars. It's a very popular swap in the FWD community. Even though 1st gen Jbodies came with iron heads, there is 0 loyalty to them at all. Maybe that's why i find it so amusing that you guys have such love for them. 3rd gen Fbody guys are the same way, they just love whatever came stock with their cars.
I'm curious, what makes you think my cam is too radical for the street? If anything the converter is what affects street driving more than the cam. I still take it grocery shopping, pick up the kids and drive it to and from work when i get the chance. LS guys run way bigger cams all the time in daily driven cars, with good tuning it's no big deal at all. It's actually pretty nice to drive around when the weather is good (No heat or A/C).
"Moonwell" (the guy that runs V6Z24.com) has put something like 50K miles on his 3400 swap with a MMS stage 2 cam (.556i/.559e,110 LSA 222/225 @ .050), longtube headers, mild porting and a good tune. It runs mid 13's and is dead reliable. 241WHP / 242WTQ.. he's daily driven it since around 2006 like that.
"V6bluebird" (another v6 user) had a 3500 with ported heads, a .506 lift/270 ish duration 111LSA cam from Wot-Tech, my old longtubes and put down about 245WHP... better heads, less cam and similar power to the 3400 (same dyno as above)
On our dyno, most stock 3400 swap cars put down ~195 WHP and ~210 WTQ with a good exhaust setup and a good tune.
Getrag losses are a little less than that, right around 15%. I've spent LOTS of time on the dyno with everything from stock 5 speed Jbodies up to pretty built ones. 700R4 + the rear end are a little over 25%
I never doubted your 249 ft-lbs, but i'm curious as to what RPM it made that at, and what gear you were in? Also, what did the overall torque curve look like, can you post up the dyno graph? Here is mine from the Cavalier back in 2008: http://www.sdsgarage.com/Misc/3500/08-Dyno.gif
Of course dyno numbers are all subjective unless done on the same dyno, the same day. Just like port flow numbers from a flow bench. It's amazing how people don't understand that.
As for your estimated power via circle track racing, there are WAY too many variables there to make any sort of power assumption. A 1/4 mile time slip is still flawed but gives you a much better idea of hp and torque.
Let me just make this very clear: you put about 10x maybe 20x the work I put into my motor. But that's my point. People here are giving other people the impression that you'll make ridiculous HP "easy" just by dropping in a 3500 and swapping a cam. Nothing you did was easy to the average guy.
What's happening here is people are in denial of the 249 ft*lbs that I made. Once my front suspension is put back on and the frame straightened, I'll be back on the dyno...
To clarify, I am not in denial of the torque you made. I believe all of it. I think your curve will look different in your next dyno. Less torque more power. Not extreme because your cam hasnt changed.
I do think a cam change on a 3500 would make great power, like over 220whp and tq. That is over 100whp gain from a 2.8, and the car will be lighter.
Keep in mind, you have had machine work and porting done on your intake and heads. Is that just as easy to the average guy than have port work and a cam reground? You are saying you put no effort into your motor. But your mechanic did. You paid someone to do it, but labor isnt limited to one head or another.
IP: Logged
09:05 AM
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5348 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
Originally posted by FieroWannaBe: To clarify, I am not in denial of the torque you made. I believe all of it. I think your curve will look different in your next dyno. Less torque more power. Not extreme because your cam hasnt changed.
I do think a cam change on a 3500 would make great power, like over 220whp and tq. That is over 100whp gain from a 2.8, and the car will be lighter.
Keep in mind, you have had machine work and porting done on your intake and heads. Is that just as easy to the average guy than have port work and a cam reground? You are saying you put no effort into your motor. But your mechanic did. You paid someone to do it, but labor isnt limited to one head or another.
But that is the point. I didn't do anything special. I dropped my heads and block off, said "rebuild with stock cam and these 3.4TDC pistons, port and polish these heads". The machinist, having 25 years of experience, just knew how to port heads for optimal flow. My only specification was to not remove the vane on the intake side but when I mentioned it he already knew not to do that on ANY head. For the intake I was specific about shaving it down but otherwise nothing special and the intake was the cheapest mod at about $200 total. I took my car to an exhaust shop and said "give me 2.5" piping from the cross-over on and find a muffler that fits". He was meticulous with his build. My build is completely replicatable and even surpassable.
My 19# injectors cost $25 or $30 on ebay...
I believe I achieve the maxium thru the stock intake neck. Opening that up to >300CFM means my next restriction would have been the 325 CFM 57mm thottle body, so on that 'old' configuration, I might have capped a few hundred RPM higher and maybe 200rwhp. So I made the decision to go Trueleo intake with an L98 'twin' throttlebody.
I personally believe SuperDave/DeathStarr oversized his exhaust and that's why he didn't make more torque with the larger displacement and similar compression ratio... The effective exhaust port diameter of the valve is closer to 1.3" when you take into account the stem and the fact that a 1.42" valve makes contact with the head for about a mm or two on the outer radius. Hence his 1 5/8" primaries are too big if you as me. I'm at 1 3/16".
Here's my 'junk' build as it stands that smokes most of the cars at the events I do:
I'm still not even using performance wires...my headers aren't ceramic coated... ... not using an underdrive pulley...so there is still some power on the table...
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-21-2013).]
I am not telling you you did junk work, or to change anything. I am writing all this becaus there are many different avenues of approach. The topic at hand: I still strongly believe 3500 heads are better than ANY iron head. Any motor makes good power on iron heads, can make more on LX9 heads. the LX9 over other 60 degree parts can yeild more power per dollar.
But that is the point. I didn't do anything special. I dropped my heads and block off, said "rebuild with stock cam and these 3.4TDC pistons, port and polish these heads". The machinist, having 25 years of experience, just knew how to port heads for optimal flow. My only specification was to not remove the vane on the intake side but when I mentioned it he already knew not to do that on ANY head. For the intake I was specific about shaving it down but otherwise nothing special and the intake was the cheapest mod at about $200 total. I took my car to an exhaust shop and said "give me 2.5" piping from the cross-over on and find a muffler that fits". He was meticulous with his build. My build is completely replicatable and even surpassable.
My 19# injectors cost $25 or $30 on ebay...
My point is you could have done the same with the 3500 heads, no? And the 3500 intake would not have needed machining, it will however need a throttle body adapter to run a cable unit. A cam swap on a 3500 is very much repeatable, buy X camshaft, and tell the mechanic to install it. It would probably cost less than a rebuild with lq1 pistons. I believe fiero header systems can be run on the newer heads as well.
19# injectors cannot safely support more than 200hp, they cant respond fast enough to keep up with flow. the 3500 comes with 22# units. (rule of thumb every lb rating with gasoline is good for around 10hp). HP X BSFC / (number of injectors * duty cycle) GM in facotry tune runs injectors at around 80% duty at peak power.
[This message has been edited by FieroWannaBe (edited 02-21-2013).]
IP: Logged
11:05 AM
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5348 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
Now picture 9.86 compression ratio and 2.5" diameter exhaust with longer tube headers. Gee, those 249 ft*lbs seem more attainable now huh? fyi, 3500's come with 9.8:1 compression "stock".
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-21-2013).]
It can support it. But I wouldnt. Those injectors are at around 95% duty cycle, They are almost static. Extended periods at peak power could overheat them easily. There is a reason GM runs 22lb injectors in its 200hp motors.
Now picture 9.86 compression ratio and 2.5" diameter exhaust with longer tube headers. Gee, those 249 ft*lbs seem more attainable now huh? fyi, 3500's come with 9.8:1 compression "stock".
I never doubted that you could achieve 249 ft lbs with 1.5" headers and 2.5" exhaust, on ported heads. without porting on the heads, NO WAY. The stock camshaft greatly favors low RPM torque production.
LX9's stock compresion is more reasoning for just using its GM given components. no extra work to bump compression, no?
Originally posted by FieroWannaBe: Unverified, just like Josh's 3400 at 190whp.
I believe Oreif's 197 dyno was posted in another thread. Oreif is not exactly the lying type. The 205 dyno may have been posted in a new thread as well. It's funny reading back thru my old posts. I did everything I said I was gonna do. Since he made 205/212, it opens up the possibility for me to do 225/249, but we'll see...
