So seeing as how the 3.1 is the only motor to have all generations of heads...
Gen 1: 150 hp (iron) Gen 2: 140 hp (aluminum, but intake ports are fail) Gen 3: 170 hp (roller cam with bigger ports over gen 2)
If you ask me, Gen 1 heads flow better than Gen 2 even if the Gen1 were stock (not ported). Gen 3 was an improvement over Gen 2, but its not proven better than ported Gen 1 heads yet. We have GM flowing 275hp from a 2.8 probably with an open exhaust and we have a 3500 flowing 274 hp definitely with an open exhaust from Gen3 heads.
Lol wut?!
you're kidding right? let's see some graphs to show what the HP and TQ curves look like. the gen 3 WILL have the broadest torque curve. Hell, a stock 3100 dyno'd 160 WHP on 60V6.
------------------ I know these lines Look crooked on paper, but I swear I've got them straight in my head.
you're kidding right? let's see some graphs to show what the HP and TQ curves look like. the gen 3 WILL have the broadest torque curve. Hell, a stock 3100 dyno'd 160 WHP on 60V6.
The numbers I quoted are GM's numbers. http://www.edmunds.com/chev.../features-specs.html Gen1 3.1 made 140 hp in the Camaro and Firebird (1990-1992) with 8.5 compression...but I'm pretty sure there was a minivan version that made 150hp, regardless that's the same as Gen2. From what I remember about the 3.1 motors is that there was a special one that used the 1.72/1.42 valves where as most used the 1.6/1.3 valves and they made less power. Let's put it this way, a 3.1 with the Fiero cam, Fiero compression ratio and Fiero HO valves would be rated at 150, just like the 2.8 is rated at 140 in line with the 3.4 being rated at 160.
So:
GEN1 2.8 = 140hp (Fiero) GEN1 3.1 = 150hp using Fiero parts and compression ratio, non-HO versions made 120-125 and the 1991 Pontiac 6000 and Firebird/Camaro-140 with 8.5 compression instead of the Fiero's 8.9 GEN1 3.4 = 160hp which came with 1.72/1.42 and Fiero cam STOCK - but we're not comparing the 3.4 in this case, just heads GEN2 Aluminum head spec: LH0 3.1 made 135-140 hp. L82 Gen3 made 160HP LG8 Gen 3 made 170-175 hp
So I stand by my statement that the roller cam design separated the men from the boys, not the heads.
PS, here's Will selling Falconer IRON heads that flowed enough for 300HP: http://www.thirdgen.org/tec...s-falconer-race.html I wil note that the exhaust ports were ported to D shapes. I personally wasn't impressed with them because they got right of the vane on the intake, where as Oreif's ported flow #'s didn't and posted higher numbers. That's why I opted out of that sale and got my heads ported right. I did port my exhast side much more than Oreif though.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-09-2013).]
if you have the time and resources I suggest you bolt on an LX9 topend to your 3400, get rid of the assembled steel cam in favor of a solid core grind. the assembled cam found in those engines are known to break, im sure you would hate to have that happen, LOL. Have you asked around at 60degreeV6.com? theres way more support for the 660's over there and im sure more than a few can offer up some good results.
I wouldn't put too much trust in those numbers as a measure of expectations Lou, keep in mind that GM has to work within EPA guidelines to avoid certain penalties and could've been holding that motor back. The 3.9L was rated ~240/240 initially but they displayed a ~270/258 HO version at a SEMA show that never went into production. Although the 2003, 3100 Century and Grand Prix are late models regarding cylinder head design, GM Powertrain states 175 hp and 195 lb/ft @ 9.6:1 compression and that's a pretty serious advantage over the 3.4L which has .3L of additional displacement and pretty much the same compression at 9.5 if I recall correctly. That's 56.5 hp per litre vs. 47.1 hp per litre, something to think about.
if you have the time and resources I suggest you bolt on an LX9 topend to your 3400, get rid of the assembled steel cam in favor of a solid core grind. the assembled cam found in those engines are known to break, im sure you would hate to have that happen, LOL. Have you asked around at 60degreeV6.com? theres way more support for the 660's over there and im sure more than a few can offer up some good results.
I do believe those cam failures were secondary to intake manifold leaks where cam bearings were damaged from coolant contamination first and failed some time after the repair due to runout that eventually caused the cam to break from fatigue.
One thing you don't see in this image is the narrower bottom end of the aluminum head. Also, the aluminum head goes flat then falls to the valve. The iron head offers a smoother transition and there is plenty of material that can be removed to increase flow.
It looks simple in terms of a cut away, but the runner design may justify those differences, you also have to keep in mind the limitations posed by effective velocity, I would imagine that there is a point where engine output would need to be increased to stay within range of flow capability, one of those too much, or too little is bad situations. I ruined a perfectly good set of 350 heads before gaining that understanding, by over porting the intake runner.
I wouldn't put too much trust in those numbers as a measure of expectations Lou, keep in mind that GM has to work within EPA guidelines to avoid certain penalties and could've been holding that motor back. The 3.9L was rated ~240/240 initially but they displayed a ~270/258 HO version at a SEMA show that never went into production. Although the 2003, 3100 Century and Grand Prix are late models regarding cylinder head design, GM Powertrain states 175 hp and 195 lb/ft @ 9.6:1 compression and that's a pretty serious advantage over the 3.4L which has .3L of additional displacement and pretty much the same compression at 9.5 if I recall correctly. That's 56.5 hp per litre vs. 47.1 hp per litre, something to think about.
Joseph, My argument is that the crowning achievement of GEN 3 is the roller cam...which I've retrofitted and made comparable power DESPITE a mediocore tune and intake neck restriction. Heck even my CR ratio is close to a stock 3500.
It looks simple in terms of a cut away, but the runner design may justify those differences, you also have to keep in mind the limitations posed by effective velocity, I would imagine that there is a point where engine output would need to be increased to stay within range of flow capability, one of those too much, or too little is bad situations. I ruined a perfectly good set of 350 heads before gaining that understanding, by over porting the intake runner.
The aluminum heads do a lot more direction changes within the head. It forces the air too "swirl" If you look at the shading you'll see what I mean. The iron heads offer a straight shot into the combustion chamber. If you look at the choke points of the two heads, you can see that it's easy to enlarge the iron head choke point, again providing more overall flow. Aluminum heads are good at producing low end torque. I don't think they can truly keep up with properly ported and polished iron heads on the top end. Yes, the 3X00 intakes are higher flowing, but again, there are fixes for that on the Fiero side as well.
Basically, iron head performance has been limited by bad intakes. Oreif built 2 3.4's with the 272 cam. One made 197 rwhp and the other 20X (I forget maybe 205rwhp). I wish he had used the 3400 block and cam. One was carbureted and the other used the Trueleo intake. I believe both used a ported stock exhaust. The Fiero performance problem lies in the intake and the tune, not the heads
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-09-2013).]
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, the aluminum head is closer to it than the iron head as it is already pointing downward at the valve more so than in the iron head and that seeming choke point may be for the benefit of velocity. Except for high revving, I believe you will lose a good bit of bottom end performance if you grind away the areas you have circled. The trend in the cylinder heads I've been seeing including the LS motors is a raised runner ceiling to reduce the angle before entering the cylinder. Whatever you decide I hope it works.
Originally posted by Joseph Upson: The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, the aluminum head is closer to it than the iron head as it is already pointing downward at the valve more so than in the iron head and that seeming choke point may be for the benefit of velocity. Except for high revving, I believe you will lose a good bit of bottom end performance if you grind away the areas you have circled. The trend in the cylinder heads I've been seeing including the LS motors is a raised runner ceiling to reduce the angle before entering the cylinder. Whatever you decide I hope it works.
With the splayed valves, the air is going up at an angle (think left or right) then wrapping around and swirling in. This introduced extra length to the path. In the iron heads, the vane is designed to help the direction change from upwards to down wards, there is no curving left and back around.
Funnily enough all my 3.4's have out torqued this stock 3500 LX9...though it is an auto... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNxETy9j-7s You know what they say: dyno's don't lie. ;-)
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-09-2013).]
One thing you don't see in this image is the narrower bottom end of the aluminum head. Also, the aluminum head goes flat then falls to the valve. The iron head offers a smoother transition and there is plenty of material that can be removed to increase flow.
see how much higher the port starts at in the Al head? helps with airflow by the air to take a strait path through the intake, instead of snaking around to find it's way to the port. as for the WTH in your pic, the valves in the Al heads are canted, this allows the valve to open away from the cylinder wall, which allows for more effective use of the curtain area of the valve. basically, air flows around the WHOLE valve instead of just around the short side radius like in old school style heads.
you say the iron heads flow better, how about posting some flow numbers to back it up
3500 heads, stock and ported, flowed at 28" on a 3.73"bore.
I don't see where you're coming up with the iron heads offering a smoother transition anywhere??? I have a set of iron heads here in front of me, I need no picture to tell me they are junk compared to the later castings.
this is the equivalent of saying L98 TPI heads outflow LS1 heads.... does anyone else think this is nuts?
Edit: I found flow numbers for these amazing iron heads, you ready for this???
If you bothered reading your own link regarding the WOT port job, you'd read "most people think ported is ported". Just comparing Falconer heads to Oreif's and you can see large variations. I can't speak for Oreif's work but on the intake side, he exceed what I thought (and proved by looking at Oreif's) was a crappy job by Falconer. Falconer added a D shape to the exhaust and exceeded Oreif's but Oreif's build include either Sprint manifolds or stock manifolds with the restriction removed. So basically he left the exhaust ports at ~7/8" or basically stock, and again you can see that in his exhaust #'s.
Let me remind you that my exhaust ports are at 1 3/16", not 7/8". On the intake, I left the vane but had it polished and my machinist did open up a lot coming in from the valve side and again I stress I had my ports fully polished. I don't have Oreif's or my own in had so I can really compare them. Oreif tuned the motor he built with the Trueleo perfectly to 197rwhp. With a better exhaust he could have done better. Me with a better exhaust but MUCH crappier intake and a mediocre tune did 187rwhp.
I'm not going to pull my heads just to flow test them. I will, however, post a dyno around May when I have the car back. As I've mention about 1000 times, I'm now running the Trueleo intake and a good tune and am making more power than 187 rwhp.
PS, You do realize that IF I switched to aluminum heads to save 26lbs that it would be GEN2 so that I can maintain my headers, right? I actually have the 3400 intake in my basement but sold the Gen3 heads.
If you ask me, Gen 1 heads flow better than Gen 2 even if the Gen1 were stock (not ported). Gen 3 was an improvement over Gen 2, but its not proven better than ported Gen 1 heads yet. We have GM flowing 275hp from a 2.8 probably with an open exhaust and we have a 3500 flowing 274 hp definitely with an open exhaust from Gen3 heads.
The 270 HP 2.8's were pure race engines... you know this. They had the Falconer throttle per cylinder intakes, custom long tube headers, REALLY big cams, sky high compression, and only had to live long enough to finish the race.
A Gen III/IV engine in the same state of tune would make over 350 HP.
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias:
Basically, iron head performance has been limited by bad intakes. Oreif built 2 3.4's with the 272 cam. One made 197 rwhp and the other 20X (I forget maybe 205rwhp). I wish he had used the 3400 block and cam. One was carbureted and the other used the Trueleo intake. I believe both used a ported stock exhaust. The Fiero performance problem lies in the intake and the tune, not the heads
And the first 3500's made 215 HP stock. IIRC, the 3400's were 185 HP in teh GAGT's.
[This message has been edited by Will (edited 02-10-2013).]
If you bothered reading your own link regarding the WOT port job, you'd read "most people think ported is ported". Just comparing Falconer heads to Oreif's and you can see large variations. I can't speak for Oreif's work but on the intake side, he exceed what I thought (and proved by looking at Oreif's) was a crappy job by Falconer. Falconer added a D shape to the exhaust and exceeded Oreif's but Oreif's build include either Sprint manifolds or stock manifolds with the restriction removed. So basically he left the exhaust ports at ~7/8" or basically stock, and again you can see that in his exhaust #'s.
Let me remind you that my exhaust ports are at 1 3/16", not 7/8". On the intake, I left the vane but had it polished and my machinist did open up a lot coming in from the valve side and again I stress I had my ports fully polished. I don't have Oreif's or my own in had so I can really compare them. Oreif tuned the motor he built with the Trueleo perfectly to 197rwhp. With a better exhaust he could have done better. Me with a better exhaust but MUCH crappier intake and a mediocre tune did 187rwhp.
I'm not going to pull my heads just to flow test them. I will, however, post a dyno around May when I have the car back. As I've mention about 1000 times, I'm now running the Trueleo intake and a good tune and am making more power than 187 rwhp.
PS, You do realize that IF I switched to aluminum heads to save 26lbs that it would be GEN2 so that I can maintain my headers, right? I actually have the 3400 intake in my basement but sold the Gen3 heads.
if the falconer port job is so crappy, then why is it your benchmark????
I will say it againstock gen 3 heads flow more at low lift then max effort ported Gen1 do anywhere, and continue to flow more to thier peak.
------------------ I know these lines Look crooked on paper, but I swear I've got them straight in my head.
Originally posted by ericjon262: if the falconer port job is so crappy, then why is it your benchmark????
I will say it againstock gen 3 heads flow more at low lift then max effort ported Gen1 do anywhere, and continue to flow more to thier peak.
I thought you were pressed for time, how bout you go finish putting your get-up together and leave Lou and those iron heads alone, I'd really like to see your motor go before you head out for Basic.
I thought you were pressed for time, how bout you go finish putting your get-up together and leave Lou and those iron heads alone, I'd really like to see your motor go before you head out for Basic.
Mine will get done, I'm at work right now...
------------------ I know these lines Look crooked on paper, but I swear I've got them straight in my head.
Well, it's too late for me there. However, what's a reasonable price? I've seen camshafts go for $300 and $400 with no published specs... I did find one for $200 but the manufacturer never got back to me on specs... I want a street motor. Your cam defines that. 5200rpm peak if fine by me. Actually perfect.
I've been told that with a 1.52:1 rocker arm, the 272 cam (272 duration) is the best for performance, etc... in the gen 1 block. So that's all I really have to compare to. I don't know enough about this stuff (usually rely on the experiences of others to determine what works best for cam selection). I'm under the impression that duration is better when used with our stock intake, simply because it allows more air to enter the chamber. Would that be a correct statement?
Since I can't use a 272 flat-tappet (or wouldn't want to) in a 3400 block, which would you recommend above? The one with the 262 duration? What difference does it make (if any) on duration if I use the 1.6:1 rockers like it's requesting? Seems to me that rocker arm ratio wouldn't have any effect on duration... but like I said, I'm not overly knowledgeable in this area.
I've been told that with a 1.52:1 rocker arm, the 272 cam (272 duration) is the best for performance, etc... in the gen 1 block. So that's all I really have to compare to. I don't know enough about this stuff (usually rely on the experiences of others to determine what works best for cam selection). I'm under the impression that duration is better when used with our stock intake, simply because it allows more air to enter the chamber. Would that be a correct statement?
Since I can't use a 272 flat-tappet (or wouldn't want to) in a 3400 block, which would you recommend above? The one with the 262 duration? What difference does it make (if any) on duration if I use the 1.6:1 rockers like it's requesting? Seems to me that rocker arm ratio wouldn't have any effect on duration... but like I said, I'm not overly knowledgeable in this area.
Thanks!
If you're going to use the roller cam block, don't waste your time on non-roller cams. There are performance roller cams available...but if you are just looking to be a street-sleeper, the stock roller cam makes plenty of power <6000rpm.
if the falconer port job is so crappy, then why is it your benchmark????
I will say it againstock gen 3 heads flow more at low lift then max effort ported Gen1 do anywhere, and continue to flow more to thier peak.
YOU are the only one who called it my benchmark. Build your own motor and be happy with it and move on from this thread. You are adding nothing to it because bottom line: I'm not switching to GEN3 heads.
Originally posted by Will: The 270 HP 2.8's were pure race engines... you know this. They had the Falconer throttle per cylinder intakes, custom long tube headers, REALLY big cams, sky high compression, and only had to live long enough to finish the race.
A Gen III/IV engine in the same state of tune would make over 350 HP.
Would/should/could... Best I've seen from the 3500 is a .510" cam and open exhaust doing 274.... There's no "rule" that says a street motor can't run multiple throttle bodies, HOWEVER, the 3500 that put down 274 isn't streetable since you can't run open exhaust on the street.
quote
And the first 3500's made 215 HP stock. IIRC, the 3400's were 185 HP in teh GAGT's.
Why are you comparing at the wheels #'s to gross?
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-10-2013).]
If you're going to use the roller cam block, don't waste your time on non-roller cams. There are performance roller cams available...but if you are just looking to be a street-sleeper, the stock roller cam makes plenty of power <6000rpm.
Thanks Lou, I appreciate it. However, I was under the impression those two links WERE roller cams? Are they not? Just want to make sure.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Thanks Lou, I appreciate it. However, I was under the impression those two links WERE roller cams? Are they not? Just want to make sure. Thanks!
It doesn't really say one way or the other. Define what you want your power band to be. If you are not looking to rev past 6000, I wouldn't throw money at a cam. The stock one peaks at 5200 so you'd be shifting around 5600 anyway. It also idles great.
General rule of thumb is 2.2 CFM = 1 hp. If iron heads can flow 150 CFM per port when 'reasonably' ported, I'm using this # to illustrate the math, that means they can flow 900 CFM when you take into account all 6 intake ports. Doing some rough math, that means iron heads can flow enough to support 410 HP. This hypothetically means GEN3 heads can flow to about 550hp.
In reality, there is such a thing as CAM OVERLAP...Not to mention the amount of vacuum that a piston can actually produce. In other words you'd need a much bigger motor than a 3.4 before the heads become a limitation OR you'd need to spin it to >10,000 RPM. Good luck with that in a non-boosted application.
Some time ago, better heads than ours did the math on a 3.4 motor and came to the conclusion that at 6000RPM, a 3.4 is flowing 400CFM or there abouts. When it comes to the Fiero, the restriction has always been the intake. The Trueleo intake has been flow tested on heads that were rated at 146 cfm per port and it flowed to 146 cfm, ie as much as THOSE heads could flow.
I hope this settles the "head" issue once and for all.
Looking back at my dyno, you'll see my peak was at 4400-4500 rpm. If you measure the CFM of the Fiero intake neck, you can figure out the limits of the amount of power I can make. At 4500 rpm a 3.4 would need 300CFM...guess what the limits of the Fiero intake neck are? Any guesses?
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-11-2013).]
Would/should/could... Best I've seen from the 3500 is a .510" cam and open exhaust doing 274.... There's no "rule" that says a street motor can't run multiple throttle bodies, HOWEVER, the 3500 that put down 274 isn't streetable since you can't run open exhaust on the street.
LOL... Okay, if you don't see why your assertion that a competition engine with the old stuff makes the same power as a street build with the new stuff is reason to use the new stuff, then you can just go ahead and keep on building under performing engines...
[This message has been edited by Will (edited 02-11-2013).]
Originally posted by Will: LOL... Okay, if you don't see why your assertion that a competition engine with the old stuff makes the same power as a street build with the new stuff, then you can just go ahead and keep on building under performing engines...
#1) I will build the motor I want to build #2) running Webers on the street is legal #3) running open exhaust on the street is not #4) my cars run on the street #5) enjoy whatever motor you build and leave mine alone
Using your logic, you're saying that a 2.8 with an open exhaust making 275 hp <> to a 3500 with an open exhaust making 275 hp. So you're saying 275 is not equal to 275. Horse power is horse power and the age of the engine has nothing to do with it.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-11-2013).]
#1) I will build the motor I want to build #2) running Webers on the street is legal #3) running open exhaust on the street is not #4) my cars run on the street #5) enjoy whatever motor you build and leave mine alone Using your logic, you're saying that a 2.8 with an open exhaust making 275 hp <> to a 3500 with an open exhaust making 275 hp. So you're saying 275 is not equal to 275. Horse power is horse power and the age of the engine has nothing to do with it.
actually, this is exactly what I have been trying to tell you, they are not equal, it's about torque across the RPM range
cammed 3500 with ported heads and intake through a 5 speed, look at how flat the torque curve is. on your dynograph, torque is nosing over @ 4000 RPM, and making a sharp decline because the heads can't flow enough air to make it happen.
I'm going to leave you with that, do what you want, but where Will left off, you can't make it drink...
p.s. throw your best shot.
------------------ I know these lines Look crooked on paper, but I swear I've got them straight in my head.
actually, this is exactly what I have been trying to tell you, they are not equal, it's about torque across the RPM range
cammed 3500 with ported heads and intake through a 5 speed, look at how flat the torque curve is. on your dynograph, torque is nosing over @ 4000 RPM, and making a sharp decline because the heads can't flow enough air to make it happen.
I'm going to leave you with that, do what you want, but where Will left off, you can't make it drink...
comparing the torque of a 2.8 to the torque of a 3.4 is pretty useless, you guys keep switching goal posts. The point is that iron heads flow enough to make more horsepower than anyone ever has naturally aspirated so your argument is useless. Why can't you honor a simple request to exit my thread. You are not adding to it. Would you like me to troll your thread?
PS, Horses don't drink kool-aid.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-11-2013).]
I understand what Lou is talking about,and you have both made your respective points. Since this particular thread is about Lou's engine and his HP goal and not your opinion that he shouldn't have his opinion I think that officially means all your doing is pissing in his cheerios (or thread) for no particular reason other than to prove your right.
I'm interested in hearing more,I love when people improve on stuff rather than take the easy way. Doesn't sound like max torque and smooth curve is the point,more about "This was the previous bar,let's attempt to get it higher".
For some reason this reminds me of a guy I personally admire who races an LT1 with worked stock heads and intake at a local track i've had the pleasure to visit with before. This particular car pulls wheelies to my shoulder,and he's a most awesome guy to talk with if you ever get to B.S with him. Ed wright would laugh prob if you told him he could go faster with an LS1,I can almost hear him saying "why the hell would I do that if I have a perfectly good Lt1 lol." Then again,maybe not. But i'm sure lots of other NHRA stock eliminator guys would just say "anybody can go faster with new better parts,but can you run what you brung?"
Then again,i'm just a redneck with a slow car so I don't know crap. It's about having fun and pushing the envelope,so i've been suscribed and continue to be interested-project fail or pass.
[This message has been edited by DefEddie (edited 02-12-2013).]
comparing the torque of a 2.8 to the torque of a 3.4 is pretty useless, you guys keep switching goal posts. The point is that iron heads flow enough to make more horsepower than anyone ever has naturally aspirated so your argument is useless. Why can't you honor a simple request to exit my thread. You are not adding to it. Would you like me to troll your thread?
PS, Horses don't drink kool-aid.
I think the relevance is the shape of the torque curve. Your dyno shows torque falling off at high RPMs which may be a symptom that the engine is not breathing well. The 3500 shows a mostly flat torque curve. It's a given that a 3500 will have more torque than a 2.8.
Your build is impressive though and it's an interesting option for a lot of us.
I think the relevance is the shape of the torque curve. Your dyno shows torque falling off at high RPMs which may be a symptom that the engine is not breathing well. The 3500 shows a mostly flat torque curve. It's a given that a 3500 will have more torque than a 2.8.
Your build is impressive though and it's an interesting option for a lot of us.
My torque curve was flat until I hit the 300CFM limit of the Fiero intake neck.
but that's not what he was comparing...and I out torqued him anyway. He was comparing the fact that GM made a 2.8 with iron heads put out 275 hp because they "think" iron heads can't flow enough to do so yet the #'s they posted to dispute it proves that they can. If I didn't have the intake neck restriction, I would have made power to 5200, the cam's limits. I too can run the same performance cam on my next rebuild. They can't show me a 3400 running stock cam that made more power. There champion is using 3500, a racing cam with .540" lift and an open exhaust and trying to make it sound like a street motor. I built a street motor. I too may use a 3500 block next...but that "next" won't be until one of my current v6's dies. Hopefully that will be my stock 88 formula's v6 so I can get the DAWG mod put back on that old intake and run it on that car for pooops and giggles since Trueleo's are no longer available.
That's the other thing. My 3400 build is running a trueleo and makes power past 5000rpm. All of this could have waited until I post that dyno. Nothing but trolling in the end.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-12-2013).]
I understand what Lou is talking about,and you have both made your respective points. Since this particular thread is about Lou's engine and his HP goal and not your opinion that he shouldn't have his opinion I think that officially means all your doing is pissing in his cheerios (or thread) for no particular reason other than to prove your right.
I'm interested in hearing more,I love when people improve on stuff rather than take the easy way. Doesn't sound like max torque and smooth curve is the point,more about "This was the previous bar,let's attempt to get it higher".
For some reason this reminds me of a guy I personally admire who races an LT1 with worked stock heads and intake at a local track i've had the pleasure to visit with before. This particular car pulls wheelies to my shoulder,and he's a most awesome guy to talk with if you ever get to B.S with him. Ed wright would laugh prob if you told him he could go faster with an LS1,I can almost hear him saying "why the hell would I do that if I have a perfectly good Lt1 lol." Then again,maybe not. But i'm sure lots of other NHRA stock eliminator guys would just say "anybody can go faster with new better parts,but can you run what you brung?"
Then again,i'm just a redneck with a slow car so I don't know crap. It's about having fun and pushing the envelope,so i've been suscribed and continue to be interested-project fail or pass.
At the oval track I race on, there is an 1997 LT1 Camaro that is the 2nd fastest car that competes (2nd only to a sick 3000GT VR4). He is a second faster than me and no LS1 car can touch him. We have amazing tuners in my area and they specialize in LS1 and this LT1 still is the top F-body dog. Here's the battle for 1st and 2nd...just sick 18 second laps, I'm in the mid 19's... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aom4VafGTgw
Called the collision center today. The suspension is back on the car but they are waiting for a bolt for a caliper. After that, straightening the frame should get scheduled shortly thereafter. Apparently the new side uses a different thread pattern than the old setup. There have been some revisions made since I orignally bought my kit back in Feb 2006...
I'm going to stop by the collision center tomorrow to check up on the car.
Here you can see how the impact on the left side of the car affected the right side of the car. The door is completely pushed back against the rear quarter and even knocked off the molding.
comparing the torque of a 2.8 to the torque of a 3.4 is pretty useless, you guys keep switching goal posts. The point is that iron heads flow enough to make more horsepower than anyone ever has naturally aspirated so your argument is useless. Why can't you honor a simple request to exit my thread. You are not adding to it. Would you like me to troll your thread?
PS, Horses don't drink kool-aid.
Lou's spot-on, the heads are not the power limiter that most believe. We tested our first intake on the flow bench with STOCK IRON heads and the results clearly show the iron heads can support way more HP -over 300- than a 2.8 - 3.4 can make still survive. Below is a printout from our sight. BTW we have improved the design of our intakes a lot since that first prototype used below.
Flow-bench numbers for Stock intake and SR14 & LR17 below.
No intake-head-CFM----------------64.295--------------116.9-----------133.6----------146.96----------146.96
On the flow-bench we tested the cylinder head with no intake on it all to get a baseline. We tested the bare cylinder head and intakes at 5 different valve lifts in the above listed amounts. We then tested the stock intake manifold with the results above. The long runner intake and short runner intake were also tested. As you can see with the results, both intakes are improved over stock and the short runner intake will flow as much CFM as no intake on there from .300" lift and above. Pictures on the flow-bench at H.P.WORKS below.
[This message has been edited by Francis T (edited 03-26-2013).]
Lou's spot-on, the heads are not the power limiter that most believe. We tested our first intake on the flow bench with STOCK IRON heads and the results clearly show the iron heads can support way more HP -over 300- than a 2.8 - 3.4 can make still survive. Below is a printout from our sight. BTW we have improved the design of our intakes a lot since that first prototype used below.
Flow-bench numbers for Stock intake and SR14 & LR17 below.
No intake-head-CFM----------------64.295--------------116.9-----------133.6----------146.96----------146.96
On the flow-bench we tested the cylinder head with no intake on it all to get a baseline. We tested the bare cylinder head and intakes at 5 different valve lifts in the above listed amounts. We then tested the stock intake manifold with the results above. The long runner intake and short runner intake were also tested. As you can see with the results, both intakes are improved over stock and the short runner intake will flow as much CFM as no intake on there from .300" lift and above. Pictures on the flow-bench at H.P.WORKS below.
Even the section on the v6/60 that includes GEN2 heads from Chevy Power Service Manual said that iron heads can flow 1.5HP/ci and that article was well-aware of the 3.4L engine at 207ci... Simply skip to the iron head section: http://www.gafiero.org/docs/60V6Pwr.pdf
However, trolls will be trolls...
Latest "hiccup" with my car is that mounting the old caliper on the new spindle/HUB that got replaced is causing the rotor to bind. It will probably need washers to offset but the results are being communicated back to Richard at Arrat Motorsports...wondering if they are using different calipers now since my kit goes back to when "Lee" owned HELD MotorSports back in 2006.
