It sounded like what he was saying is that because the bore spacing is the same, it's a safe overbore because the distance between bores is not less than it is on a stock 3500...
Maybe I jumped the gun in thinking that he meant that.
It's a big overbore and maybe any given block can take it, maybe not. That much overbore should be preceded by a sonic check. However, the LX9 blocks are so cheap that there's no reason not to use one.
Personally, if I were building a pushrod V6, not using the 99mm blocks, I'd use the LX9 block and go to 3.736 to use 305 Chevy pistons.
[This message has been edited by Will (edited 05-13-2013).]
It's a big overbore and maybe any given block can take it, maybe not. That much overbore should be preceded by a sonic check. However, the LX9 blocks are so cheap that there's no reason not to use one.
True... not all 2.8 blocks will survive being bored out to the 3.4 spec either.
Originally posted by carbon: True... not all 2.8 blocks will survive being bored out to the 3.4 spec either.
I'm using a 2001 LA1 block bored .020" over. From the machinist's catalog, pistons are available up to .060" over, iirc. At .080" over, it's the same bore as stock 3500 LX9 pistons which are 3.7".
The LX9 is supposed to be based on the 3400, but with a 3.7" bore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...igh_Value_engine#LX9 Seems like the same crank so it should handle the over-bore. UNLESS they changed the 3400 in 2004... Can anyone confirm or refute a crank change from 2004+ compared to <2004?
It's possible that once they changed to the "high value" branding that the block got slightly longer and wider to accommodate the 3.5L in 2004 is what I'm saying and that means that all the parts would have changed then as well.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 05-13-2013).]
Originally posted by carbon: There is no way to reach the specs of the VVT engines with either the LA1 or LX9 block.
An offset ground steel 3500 crank along with Honda Accord V6 H-beam rods, the chevy version that use a ~1.8xx crank throw
quote
Originally posted by Will: Personally, if I were building a pushrod V6, not using the 99mm blocks, I'd use the LX9 block and go to 3.736 to use 305 Chevy pistons.
That would be a challenge unless there are 305 pistons in production with a compression height short enough to work with the rod and stroke combo. The 3.6L pistons are 94 mm also and flat top except for the valve reliefs and would probably be easier to adapt. A connecting rod shorter than 5.6" may get you in clearance trouble with the crankshaft, the single oil squirter or both on the LX9 block or dangerously close.
That would be a challenge unless there are 305 pistons in production with a compression height short enough to work with the rod and stroke combo. The 3.6L pistons are 94 mm also and flat top except for the valve reliefs and would probably be easier to adapt. A connecting rod shorter than 5.6" may get you in clearance trouble with the crankshaft, the single oil squirter or both on the LX9 block or dangerously close.
At least Keith Black and maybe other manufacturers make extremely short pistons for SBC's with 3.750 stroke and 6.000 rods in the 305 bore. The resulting engine would be a 331, and would probably make a very nice towing engine due to the low surface area to volume ratio of the cylinders.
My friend is helping me remove the speakers on Saturday. While he's taking care of most of that, I'm gonna load up the current chip and reflash and burn a new one with more timing below 3000rpm. I think the cut-off is 2800 actually. I'll get a dyno by the end of June, hopefully.
Race day is Sunday? Is the car ready? Get some pics!
The only thing different externally is the wheels in the back were moved to the front and the back got new set of rims and 275/35/17 Hoosier R6 tires. These tires may not be allowed on the track.
It's supposed to rain Sunday so I hope the sun comes out. I'd hate to have done all this work to get it ready just to be pushed off a week.
Gonna replace my leather seats with speakers in them with some older cloth stock seats. Gonna remove speakers from the sail panels and dash and remove the subwoofer. All this tomorrow.
I've already removed the A/C compressor and bracket and headlight assemblies... My goal was 100lbs. Would have liked to have added the Norm's fiberglass front end but 2 trips to Vegas (going again June 5) won't allow it.
Hopefully everyone can see these, I'll try to get the poster to make them public. Round 5 got cutoff but I won and made it to the finals. Then in the finals, I blew another rear wheel bearing and settled for 2nd place.
There should be some better videos on youtube in a few days.
My R6's had treadwear rating of 040...they enforced the rule of 100 minimum...so I had to go home and swap wheels moving the front to the back and putting my old ones back on the front. That sucked. In the finals race, I had the same HELD wheel bearing wearing out the splines issue I've been having for the past few years. Seems I'm good for about 10 -12 laps then I need a new bearing and outer axle end... I think I'll be looking into getting a longer axle end. Any suggestions?
Here's a shot of me waiting for my first race, then 3rd race:
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 05-27-2013).]
I had problems with my front end driver's side that just got replaced and my right (passenger) rear wheel bearing gave out finally in the last race... Poor lap times considering I have an underdrive pulley and 100 less pounds...
Round 1 @ 2:58
I'm at 1:36 for round 2
Round 3: @ 2:19
Round 4, 5 and 6
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 05-28-2013).]
Thanks. I wasted $1000 on rims and tires they didn't allow me to use. I'll have to find another rear wheel/tire combination that will give me a shorter tire with 275mm width. Facing a possible pay cut at work though due to poor sales so that may have to wait.
In the meantime to get the car drivable again, I'm waiting for a new rear bearing from Arraut Motorsports and I need to find another outer axle end. If anyone has one, please let me know. I put an ad up in the mall.
What kind of tires did you get that they didn't let you use it? I got Dunlop Direzza ZII Spec, they are awesome. 245/45/17 rears and 215/45/17 fronts. 275 is too wide for the little time you spend on track. You are not getting enough heat in them. If you use a narrower tire it will heat up faster.
Ok, bearing and axle end should be replaced by the end of the week. I will try to burn a new chip and call for a dyno soon. Next race is 7/7/13.
Update: mechanic just called, only the bearing needed replacing, he also shaved down the bolt that was interfering with the axle-casing so now my axle-nut should be fully tightened and this issue should not happen again. Joy!
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 06-12-2013).]
Originally posted by carbon: You think? Looking forward to the results!
Me too. I haven't done any changes to the tuning yet. I know what to expect. Loss of torque <3000 RPM, lots of HP 3000-5500 RPM. I also want to discuss with these guys about the injector voltages to see what the know about the stock Mustang injectors I'm using. I think that will affect my daily drivability more than my WOT performance though. I do plan on adding back some timing <3000rpm though. I'm also curious to my actual vs. dialed-in a/f ratio to see how much more I can push it to ~13:1 ... So post-dyno, I will do some tuning...and eventually another dyno.
Shitty and fragged up. I'll post sometime this week. I have a best of 149 hp and 167 torque which makes no sense and my fuel curve was whacked. Also didn't get to cool my motor, got there and dyno'd it right away. I also lost in the first round to a car I've beaten before due to bogging the launch...I think I need to go back to 16's ...
Post the dyno sheet, I'd like to see your A/F also.
I'll try to take it to work and scan it. What is standard temperature? I think it was 95 and really humid when I went at 11:30am. I don't know if he was showing me corrected or uncorrected #'s but he claimed to be 13% below dynojet dynos. When he showed me 149 the other value was 162.5 and I was confused as to which was which. The first Mustang dyno I went to several years ago was specifically calibrated to Dynojet specs.
I scanned it to PDF. Perhaps tomorrow I'll screen copy the pdf pages as images and upload them.
This dyno shop is definitely not all there. Says I made about 167 ft*lbs of torque. That's about what a 2.8 makes. I think he somehow managed to scale down my power via certain parameters he put in. Even the most basic of 3.4 swaps makes about 200 ft*lbs. This dyno is basically saying I am making 20% less torque than the most basic of 3.4 swaps. This dyno run was bogus. Perhaps he was trying to let me pay him to "tune it"...
Here's me racing a 200hp turbo MX-3 that weighs 2400 lbs with the driver in it according to him. You can really see my launch stumble here that's been holding me back.
I think my oversized wheels are hurting my launches and overall acceleration.
Anyway, there is no way a car weighing 2400 lbs with 200Hp is barely edging a car weighing 2900 lbs with 149 hp. Some simple crtoss multiplication and I should be making well over 200hp myself.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 07-11-2013).]
So when will you be taking it to a real dyno to answer all the doubters? Can you take it back to the orignal shop where your other numbers came from, to do a true comparison?
So when will you be taking it to a real dyno to answer all the doubters? Can you take it back to the orignal shop where your other numbers came from, to do a true comparison?
The shop I wanted to take it to was backed up 2 weeks. I'll try again this Saturday.
I scanned it to PDF. Perhaps tomorrow I'll screen copy the pdf pages as images and upload them.
This dyno shop is definitely not all there. Says I made about 167 ft*lbs of torque. That's about what a 2.8 makes. I think he somehow managed to scale down my power via certain parameters he put in. Even the most basic of 3.4 swaps makes about 200 ft*lbs. This dyno is basically saying I am making 20% less torque than the most basic of 3.4 swaps. This dyno run was bogus. Perhaps he was trying to let me pay him to "tune it"...
That happened to me once when I had my 2.5 SOHC Dodge Spirit Turbo. Had 379whp and 402wtorque, and after a turbo swap and a sheet metal intake and more boost I was doing 366whp and 390wtorque at a different dyno! I took it back to the first dyno and it put down @ 4200rpm; 420whp and 526wtorque.
3rd gear after I asked him to show RPM and add the tail pipe sniffer - duh! My brother says I should be at 14:1 at low rpm and richen up to 12.5:1 on the top end. I will do some re-tuning and hit a more reputable shop up for a dyno...
That happened to me once when I had my 2.5 SOHC Dodge Spirit Turbo. Had 379whp and 402wtorque, and after a turbo swap and a sheet metal intake and more boost I was doing 366whp and 390wtorque at a different dyno! I took it back to the first dyno and it put down @ 4200rpm; 420whp and 526wtorque.
Yeah, you can't compare two different dyno setups even if they are the same brand. It would be nice if there was a standard. Even "SAE corrected" results are all over the place...
Making some assumptions here about ratios but basically if 168 ft*lbs on this dyno = 249 ft*lbs at the original shop and the hp/torque ratio is correct, then I should put down about 221 rwhp at the original shop right now...which is completely in line with the best I've seen from a 3400 AL heads on a stock cam...and completely in line with my actual track performance. What a shocker...
Also, looking at the 3rd gear pull, my "peak" hp is directly at the stock cam's peak hp of 5200 rpm - again, another shocker right? So I guess I'm no longer limited by the Fiero intake neck at 4100 rpm ... who would have thunk it?
...time for a cam upgrade I guess...
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 07-12-2013).]
Making some assumptions here about ratios but basically if 168 ft*lbs on this dyno = 249 ft*lbs at the original shop and the hp/torque ratio is correct, then I should put down about 221 rwhp at the original shop right now...which is completely in line with AL heads...and completely in line with my actual track performance. What a shocker...
Le sigh... this again? All that work and you're in line with stock Gen III heads. I would hope for better for the time and money spent...
quote
Also, looking at the 3rd gear pull, my "peak" hp is directly at the stock cam's peak hp of 5200 rpm - again, another shocker right? So I guess I'm no longer limited by the Fiero intake neck at 4100 rpm ... who would have thunk it?
Excuse me? what work? I threw some money at a machinist. I did no work. You wanna see "work", look at the guy (masospaghetti) doing a full 3500 swap. NOW THAT'S WORK! Besides, wasn't it the ALUMINUM head camp who claimed superiority, where as all I've ever claimed is equality given the dynamics of displacement? (IE you don't have enough cubes to benefit from ported GEN3 heads...) Sorry, but it's me who is still laughing inside. Remember, I'm still not ideally tuned...though I doubt my peak will improve - I have a lot of bottom end power to recover...
This looks like the cam for me: http://wot-tech.com/shop/gm...mshaft/prod_242.html ...but that won't be in the cards until next year...still debating a turbo for next year since picking up a mere 30-45 hp is not going to be enough to overcome the top 2 cars consistently.
Excuse me? what work? I threw some money at a machinist. I did no work.
Don't get mad Lou, Carbon has a point there. Eleven pages on your built and now you are down in power, It has happened to all of us at one time. Just sit down and re-think your set up and follow Will's advice about bench racing. Criticism can make you better, it is just how you take it. Best wishes on your next race!
