Running the VIN on my car on a couple different sites, shows it as a 2.8 HO V6.
Now I know I've seen some harrassment and teasing when people say they have a High Output, but my question is.....Was It A High Output or is it the same as any 2.8 in the same year range?

Thanks

I can say with very little certainty that I am absolutely kind of positive all 2.8V6's are considered HO on the parts sites / etc.

Only the 2.8L V6's installed into Fieros were the HO version !

The Biggest difference is the larger valves in the heads.

eHHH,, I'd say, compared to other engines with the same displacement, no.. It seems that the HO part that fiero's have is a cosmetic thing rather than performance, IMO.

The 3800sc isnt considered a HO engine, but it really is.

------------------
02' 3800SC Poly, Koni, 17" 245-40's, "RWD" V6SC>V8 ;)

HA!

The HO 2.8 was available in many cars. The X-11 Citation was the first to recieve it if i'm not mistaken in carbed form. All multi point injected 60 degree V6s were the HO version. The smaller valved 2.8's (lower output) were found with carbs or throttle body injection. That excludes the X-11 obviously.
Fiero had a unique intake design allowing more torque and low restriction exhaust allowing more HP. This resulted in Fieros numbers being higher then other HO V6's like the Z24 for example. The Z24 was rated at 5 HP and 5 LB FT of torque lower then the Fiero. I believe, but am not positive, that Camaros and Firebirds had the same power output after the Fiero came out because they used the same intake system. The intakes certainly look the same but please correct me if i'm wrong on this.

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

Activities Director N.I.F.E.

there are 2 types of iron heads for the 2.8, the normal & the HO. The differnce being the valve size. the HO's have bigger dia valves. The next diference is in the cam. I'm not sure if other 2.8 HO's had the same cam as the Fiero 2.8 HO. I dont think they did, but dont know. I think, with the iron head, you have: the 2.8, the 2.8 HO, and the Fiero 2.8 HO+cam. but, not sure about the cam.

The cams are all the same in the HO engines. GM lists their HO cam being for; "all fuel injected 60* V6's"
The lower powered 2.8's do have a smaller cam but all the HO engines had the same size cam is what i'm fumbling to say here.
The HO heads have 1.72 intake and 1.42 exhaust valves. The low output (standard) 2.8 had 1.60 intake and 1.30 exhaust valves for comparison.

The 2.8 in my cutlas is not considered a HO engine, yet the valves are the SAME size and the fiero valves.

Did I hear somepleace that the pistons for the Fiero V6 was aluminum? If thats the case the lighter pistons might have something to do with the 5 extra ponies.

Yes, there's 2 versions of the 2.8 V6 with iron heads. The base version had about 115-120HP and the Fiero verion has 135-140HP. The Fiero has larger valves than the regular version and a higher lift cam. The Fiero cam is actually more agressive than the one used in the F-body 3.4 V6, I believe. The HO heads on the Fiero were also used on other cars, but I don't think they got the same cam as the Fiero.

So yes, it is an HO.

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

quote Originally posted by Formula88: ...The Fiero cam is actually more agressive than the one used in the F-body 3.4 V6, I believe. The HO heads on the Fiero were also used on other cars, but I don't think they got the same cam as the Fiero. So yes, it is an HO.

Yes. The 3.4 F-body cam is more of an economy cam. Doesn't have as much lift.
This may be what contributes to all of the low-end grunt that the 3.4 has, though.

------------------
Raydar

88 3.4 coupe. 17s, cut springs 'n all.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Yes, there's 2 versions of the 2.8 V6 with iron heads. The base version had about 115-120HP and the Fiero verion has 135-140HP. The Fiero has larger valves than the regular version and a higher lift cam. The Fiero cam is actually more agressive than the one used in the F-body 3.4 V6, I believe. The HO heads on the Fiero were also used on other cars, but I don't think they got the same cam as the Fiero. So yes, it is an HO.

what he said..
i was about to start typing but you got it all.. my old olds cutlas cruiser had the 115hp multiport 2.8 - fiero had the HO 2.8 with same heads as the cast iron head 3.1 and 3.4 but a more agressive (higher RPM) cam than the 3.1 and 3.4

quote Originally posted by 2M4 Dale: Only the 2.8L V6's installed into Fieros were the HO version !

That's all forks....

------------------
" My intention is to " give a different point of view ", not to offend in any way; peace."
Link to car pictures of PFF members: http://fieroz.com/photo.html

I had a new 1988 Cavalier stationwagon with the 2.8 fuelinjected 3 speed auto. It was sold to me as 125 hp. It was quick

My next V6 was a 1990 Cavalier wagon with a 3.1 Eurosport rated at 140HP. It was quicker

The 1988 Cavalier did not have a HP engine.

My 1985 GT is the 2.8 HP engine rated at 140 HP.

Logic says the Fiero 2.8 must be HP compared to the Cavalier issued 2.8

Incidentally, both the Cavalier wagons went like stink. Real sleepers. Neither could have caught my GT even on a good day.

The heads and cam are the same as listed in the GM performance book. The larger valves and cam are correct. The intake exhaust and closed loop computer differed from Chevys mass air system. As for the pistons all engines anymore are one form or another aluminum. Also just to note the piston were cast alum. and the rods in the 2.8 are forged. Also dont compare 3.1 and 3.4 to a 2.8 as they were much more advanced 60 degree family engines than the Fiero 2.8 was, mostly in the heads and intake.

Thanks Everyone.

A "+" for all those who replied. (Even the HA!)

------------------
Jim
www.jkfiero.com