With the wealth of 2.8's on the market why bother putting Nitrous opn a 4cyl iron duke? This engine has been dubbed one fo the worst motors GM has ever made. (Superduty aside) When I did my swap I sold a clean 50,000 mile 2.8 to a gentleman doing a cheap swap. I sold the engine and ecm for $300. Throw on a couple cheap speed parts such as a free flow exhaust , ported manifolds ...ect you would see 125hp @ the wheels....something even a Nitrous fed 2.5 would have a hard time doing.

Perhaps I am from the old school , but if your going to put nitrous on a car make sure that you start with a good foundation. I know a 2.8 can run all day long on a 75 shot without problems.

Just wondering why the money wasn't put towards something more permanent and relaible

Jim Davenport

[This message has been edited by Phaeton (edited 07-03-2004).]

Jim,

Sometimes ya just gotta work with what ya have for now. There's other issues like wiring the '84 chassis that make it more difficult too. But I have to stick up for the Duke a little by saying that is certainly not one of the worst GM motors. I can think of a few that certainly weigh in more on the Crap-o-meter than the Duke. For instance, the infamous 4-8-6 Cadillac motor that was supposed to run on varying cylinders depending upon need. It didn't work. Or the Cadillac 4.1 which self destructed due to the antifreeze eating the aluminum. And just so people don't think I'm picking on the Caddys, there's the early A body 3.0 engine (the carb'd version, not the fuel injected one that was in the N bodies). All major pieces of poop, whereas the single most downfall of the Duke is the fiber cam gear. There's been reports of bad rods from the factory, etc. but I personally had an '86 Duke go to 250,000 before I retired it for the Formula (which had 45k, so ... ). The only work I had to do to the engine was valve seals. Otherwise I never opened the motor. I can't say THAT engine sucked.

Eric