i love seeing all the 60deg guys actually have a good convo for once! and from what ive read on 60degreev6, and just a lot of other general reading, the ecu tunablility of the newer DBW ecu's is still extremely limited.
that being said, I wonder if a standalone unit like the MS could handle it?
Whether you get the harness or not depends on what you can negotiate with the yard from which you buy the engine. They want to sell you parts, so asking for a harness at least gets you a price for the harness. Anyway, with the harness and with a shelf stand-alone tune, which I understood to be available by this time, it doesn't sound much more complicated for the extra capability. Even if VVT doesn't float your boat, the extra displacement, the extra flow from the better heads and bigger bores and the extra resulting power/torque for the same size/weight package still sounds like a winner to me.
I am interested in establishing a configuration table showing which applications had which options. I thought that the Uplander/SUV version of the engine had a traditional cross-over style exhaust that would work well in a Fiero, while the cars had "cast header" type manifolds with close-coupled cats and a cross-under vice cross-over pipe. Among the exhaust, oil pan and DOD options, it sounds like there's a mix/match combo that would work very well in a Fiero.
I have the uplander engine and the exhaust is as you described, the front manifold is a cast header manifold much better in design than the duals with y-pipe connection. The DOD motor was intriguing but I recall some discussion about performance limitations due to the special heavier lifters used to allow DOD capability. A fixed lobe variable cam has its limits though and given that you're probably correct about there being the ability to program a simpler install of the 3.9L, the 3.6L would be the best bang for the buck given the effort involved as I know there was a lot of work put into a standalone OE, PCM arrangment for it.
Checkout GM Powertrain to establish an option list.
Originally posted by ericjon262: That's because their market usually isn't performance based. I can't speak for anyone else, but traction control isn't really something that interests me, every vehicle I've driven with it doesn't really have control of traction, IMO, it just acts like a big on-off switch when the wheels start spinning, making the car much harder to control IMO.
Traction control is a bit more complex than just the DBW throttle body. It an also apply different amounts of braking pressure to each caliper individually, via the ABS. But on most cars it's not really highly tuned to give optimal balance between performance, traction, and driver control. They're mostly tuned for the mass market of people who don't seem to know how to brake and drive in slippery conditions properly. So to compensate for the people who panic-brake in hydorplane conditions, or who don't let off the pedal. There's also the torque management aspect in the stock tuning, which sacrifices some performance to protect the driveline. In most stock cars, yeah, they won't necessarily feel that great.
What I like about all this tech being in all the cars though, is that's widely available and opens up a lot of tuning opportunities, that just didn't exist before.
Traction control is a bit more complex than just the DBW throttle body. It an also apply different amounts of braking pressure to each caliper individually, via the ABS. But on most cars it's not really highly tuned to give optimal balance between performance, traction, and driver control. They're mostly tuned for the mass market of people who don't seem to know how to brake and drive in slippery conditions properly. So to compensate for the people who panic-brake in hydorplane conditions, or who don't let off the pedal. There's also the torque management aspect in the stock tuning, which sacrifices some performance to protect the driveline. In most stock cars, yeah, they won't necessarily feel that great.
What I like about all this tech being in all the cars though, is that's widely available and opens up a lot of tuning opportunities, that just didn't exist before.
Fair enough, but from what I've seen, many of the ABS parameters aren't exactly tunable, or at least the software to make the changes isn't there...
Traction control is a bit more complex than just the DBW throttle body. It an also apply different amounts of braking pressure to each caliper individually, via the ABS. But on most cars it's not really highly tuned to give optimal balance between performance, traction, and driver control. They're mostly tuned for the mass market of people who don't seem to know how to brake and drive in slippery conditions properly. So to compensate for the people who panic-brake in hydorplane conditions, or who don't let off the pedal. There's also the torque management aspect in the stock tuning, which sacrifices some performance to protect the driveline. In most stock cars, yeah, they won't necessarily feel that great.
What I like about all this tech being in all the cars though, is that's widely available and opens up a lot of tuning opportunities, that just didn't exist before.
Traction control and stability control are different things. Traction control reduces engine power to keep the drive tires from spinning or sliding in a corner. What you're talking about is stability control.
Traction control has been available on the aftermarket for a long time, but had to function by retarding timing or cutting cylinders, neither of which is particularly easy on the engine. DBW, at least at the OE level, makes TC work MUCH more smoothly by only opening the throttle as much as the tires can take. I'm not sure what aftermarket TC units can do via CAN-bus nowadays, though. Obviously, wheel speed sensors are required.
i love seeing all the 60deg guys actually have a good convo for once! and from what ive read on 60degreev6, and just a lot of other general reading, the ecu tunablility of the newer DBW ecu's is still extremely limited.
that being said, I wonder if a standalone unit like the MS could handle it?
Lol... When we don't have to deal with the guys who think iron heads are the way to go, we can have useful discussions.
MS's primary virtue is simplicity... I don't think it's done anything with VVT yet.
The 3.6 DI ECM's can be set up for standalone use. New ECM capabilities are developing every day.
Originally posted by ericjon262: Fair enough, but from what I've seen, many of the ABS parameters aren't exactly tunable, or at least the software to make the changes isn't there...
I think it's tunable, but just that it's one of the things that's way down in there and so few people are interested in tweaking, that HPTuners/etc… probably just haven't bothered with it yet. It's also a little more of a safety concern, so they might just be avoiding it all together.
I've started looking at building a scanning/logging/tuning app, and have been reading a lot about the protocols and commands for getting info, tuning, and getting the security hashes and such, to be able to flash various modules. It's pretty complex, but almost everything on the bus can be reprogrammed. There's a way to query individual modules/sensors and check if they are programmable, so should be pretty easy to check for it, once I get the basic scanning bits working, and figure out what all the IDs are for different modules.
I have the uplander engine and the exhaust is as you described, the front manifold is a cast header manifold much better in design than the duals with y-pipe connection. The DOD motor was intriguing but I recall some discussion about performance limitations due to the special heavier lifters used to allow DOD capability. A fixed lobe variable cam has its limits though and given that you're probably correct about there being the ability to program a simpler install of the 3.9L, the 3.6L would be the best bang for the buck given the effort involved as I know there was a lot of work put into a standalone OE, PCM arrangment for it.
Checkout GM Powertrain to establish an option list.
Not sure what you're describing for the Uplander exhaust. I thought that there was a 3900 application similar to the old 3100 and 3400 FWD setups with had a front log, crossover pipe going above the transmission and a rear manifold that connected to the crossover pipe and the catalyst. Is that not what the Uplander has? Which application has the crossover-type manifolds?
I don't get over to www.60degreev6.com very much anymore... should probably find some key threads there.
Originally posted by Will: Are these the W-body manifolds?
Are there examples of the different oil pans out there?
Do the Gen III oil pans fit the Gen IV engines?
The manifolds in the picture are from the Uplander, GM used both arrangements, I used the two into one via "Y" pipe version manifold for the twin turbo arrangement. From what I recall, the oil pans get tricky and I believe the VVT motor's oil pan only works on the VVT blocks and I recall some talk about uniqueness among the timing cover bolt pattern also. The 60 degree forum is pretty good for these facts as the motor was dissected there and comparisons made to reveal differences like the 1.7:1 rockers and larger cam bearings as well as cam specs.
I thought GM stopped production of the 3.9L around 2009 but it appears it was used as late as 2011. It's still rated for 87 octane with 9.8:1 compression, impressive. Here is a link to a list of engine options and applications:
I'm leaning towards an LZ4 or LZ9 swap at some point. I've got an LZE (Flex Fuel LZ4) in my 2010 G6, and often thought that it would be a sweet swap in a Fiero, bolted to a manual tranny. Tuning shouldn't be a big deal, since the LZ9 was available from GM with an F40. (I would be using a Beretta Getrag or an F23.) The LZ9, as installed in a G6, has VVT but no DOD. It also has a two stage intake (tunes the runner length.)
I have the Tunercat software for the LZE and the 4 speed automatic transmission controller. (Separate boxes and separate definition files.) While I understand that it will take more than this to make this engine forget about the BCM and other stuff, I'll be happy to answer any questions that I can find answers for, including the physical installation of the LZE/LZ4 in the G6.
The only thing that I have changed in my car was the speedometer calibration, when I went to larger wheels and tires. It's tempting to try to get more performance out of it, but I have to remind myself that I bought this car as a commuter, and I don't want to do anything to compromise the fuel economy or the utility of the package. I might however screw around with the tranny (4T45E) a bit. It's the typical GM slushbox in every sense of the word. But again, I don't want to compromise anything. The 4T45E is not the strongest...
The manifolds in the picture are from the Uplander, GM used both arrangements, I used the two into one via "Y" pipe version manifold for the twin turbo arrangement. From what I recall, the oil pans get tricky and I believe the VVT motor's oil pan only works on the VVT blocks and I recall some talk about uniqueness among the timing cover bolt pattern also. The 60 degree forum is pretty good for these facts as the motor was dissected there and comparisons made to reveal differences like the 1.7:1 rockers and larger cam bearings as well as cam specs.
The Uplander used both? Did the W-bodies use both? Is it a difference of years, then?
Originally posted by Will: The Uplander used both? Did the W-bodies use both? Is it a difference of years, then?
I'm not sure what decision goes into which application gets what manifold in this case, although I would expect it to be uniform throughout that line once initiated. There are also 3900 applications that do not have the variable intake as well I understand.
i love seeing all the 60deg guys actually have a good convo for once! and from what ive read on 60degreev6, and just a lot of other general reading, the ecu tunablility of the newer DBW ecu's is still extremely limited.
that being said, I wonder if a standalone unit like the MS could handle it?
I know a robertsaar on 60v6 was working on a OBD1 based programming that could handle VVT, you would have to convert to a cable throttle, but it'd be extremely tunable.
I'm not sure what decision goes into which application gets what manifold in this case, although I would expect it to be uniform throughout that line once initiated. There are also 3900 applications that do not have the variable intake as well I understand.
From what I remember, the DOD engines got the non variable intake.
[This message has been edited by ericjon262 (edited 09-01-2014).]
the 3.4 TDC would flow a lot better if it had any kind of an aftermarket (it doesn't) and the 3500's are a dime a dozen out of 10 year old minivans, malibus, ect in the junkyards.
that being said I really prefer the way the 3.4TDC looks in the engine bay. they look badass. but no, they're dinosaurs and they're definately on the way out even as a swap
I'd bet just a tune will bump it to 500, much like people are getting 300 out of the LNF on just a tune. It is a surprisingly small package for the engine, even with the turbos though, thanks to the exhaust manifold being integrated into the head, but I don't know if it would really fit up in a Fiero well.
.
If only these things were settled by bets among the ill-informed instead of lots of hard cash and facts!
The DI engines can take far more boost and make much more power than the old tech naturally aspirated normally injected engines can.
Take a look at the construction of the LNF some time - many layers of very strong castings and direct injection that cools the piston crown and allows 25 psi+ of boost.
The DOHC 3.4 is a neat historical footnote but I think one is better off to look to the 3.5 or 3.9. And I don't know if anyone has tried a modern generation V6 like the LFX yet - could be pretty interesting if you dropped it from 11.5 compression to 9.5 or 10:1 and did some mild turbocharging.
PS - I get 375 bhp from my LNF and still get 30 mpg.....
Originally posted by BillS: The DOHC 3.4 is a neat historical footnote but I think one is better off to look to the 3.5 or 3.9. And I don't know if anyone has tried a modern generation V6 like the LFX yet - could be pretty interesting if you dropped it from 11.5 compression to 9.5 or 10:1 and did some mild turbocharging.
I would think that modifying a direct injection engine is (for the moment) difficult for the DIYer.
Modifying a carbureted or port injected engine is simpler in a way... you just arrange to have the right TDC volume, BDC volume, and you're done. Fueling is outside the engine; you don't have to worry about it.
With direct injection, the top of the piston has a special shape near the injector and spark plug. I saw a cutaway of a turbo Ford Ecoboost at the auto show, and it had a bowl-shape built into the top of the piston which surrounded the injector and spark plug.
My hat is off to any DIYer who feels they can modify that and not mess up everything.
I do not see the appeal in a DOHC V6... when you can choose a pushrod V8 with more cubes that takes physically less room.
I would think that modifying a direct injection engine is (for the moment) difficult for the DIYer.
.
Actually it is dead easy. If you target around 400 bhp, you don't even need to go into the engine - all mods are done by changing the turbo and obtaining a retune to suit. If you want to hed between 400 and 500 bhp, you should really swap in some forged pistons and after market connecting rods, but that's about it. Yes, you can put in slightly enhanced cams and springs, depending on your intended rev band usage, but it isn't absolutely necessary.
And you can retune them by remote, doing a run that is recorded, email it to a tuner, load the new tune you get back and test again. After 2 or 3 versions to refine the tune, I was done. Or you can settle for a canned tune without any testing - they will get you from a stock 260 bhp 260 Tq, to abour 305/350 with zero hardware changes.
Stock boost is about 16 psi. I run around 25 psi with 375 bhp/ 375 Tq and have never gone inside the engine. In fact I'd say this is easier, not harder for a DIY to accomplish - just get an LNF with all the ancillaries and work out where to mount everything, and then once it is running in stock form, get a tune.
The hardest part will be the computer - either using a stock ECM and loom or going after market like Megasquirt - there are a bunch available now.
PS - it occured to me that another chore might bear some thought - you need to run a couple of pipes up to a good sized intercooler at the front of the car - usually mounted in front of the radiator. They are 2.75 inch tubes, so that may pose an issue. It might be possible to do a rear mount IC but you'd have to get good air flow through it somehow. Replacement rear wing with an IC in it.......?
[This message has been edited by BillS (edited 02-15-2018).]
I would think that modifying a direct injection engine is (for the moment) difficult for the DIYer.
Modifying a carbureted or port injected engine is simpler in a way... you just arrange to have the right TDC volume, BDC volume, and you're done. Fueling is outside the engine; you don't have to worry about it.
With direct injection, the top of the piston has a special shape near the injector and spark plug. I saw a cutaway of a turbo Ford Ecoboost at the auto show, and it had a bowl-shape built into the top of the piston which surrounded the injector and spark plug.
My hat is off to any DIYer who feels they can modify that and not mess up everything.
I do not see the appeal in a DOHC V6... when you can choose a pushrod V8 with more cubes that takes physically less room.
The DI engines can handle boost as is, no need to drop the compression. Add turbos, add tune, leave engine alone.
My LFX that replaced the LX9 that I was running fits nicely and weighs only 360 lbs. I have room for a couple of turbos if I find I need more than the stock 300 hp.
[This message has been edited by mender (edited 02-19-2018).]
Originally posted by mender: The DI engines can handle boost as is, no need to drop the compression. Add turbos, add tune, leave engine alone.
That's not a statement about the ease of modifying the engine; that's a statement that you don't need to modify the engine.
You're missing the point (Bill also)... for many automotive hobbyists (or at least my perspective), the point of a project car is to mess with its engine (and other systems). If you can't easily modify the engine, that defeats the whole purpose of having such a car.
If you are speaking from a hot-rodding shop owner's perspective, which would be to get the most hp with the least amount of effort, that is different. But that is not DIY wrench turning.
[This message has been edited by pmbrunelle (edited 02-19-2018).]
The easiest mods are the ones you don't have to make.
I stripped my LFX down to clean the intake valves (DI issue) and ported everything from the throttle body to the exhaust flange. Not sure I'd call it a DIY engine.
The easiest mods are the ones you don't have to make.
I stripped my LFX down to clean the intake valves (DI issue) and ported everything from the throttle body to the exhaust flange. Not sure I'd call it a DIY engine.
Yes, I wouldn't think porting a DI head is much different from ported a carbed or port-injected head, perhaps even a little easier since you don't (sometimes) have suspended fuel to worry about.
With direct injection, the top of the piston has a special shape near the injector and spark plug. I saw a cutaway of a turbo Ford Ecoboost at the auto show, and it had a bowl-shape built into the top of the piston which surrounded the injector and spark plug.
Actually, the cup in the top of the piston is to deal with impossibly stringent EPA cold start emissions regulations. It's not necessary in a DIY engine.
quote
Originally posted by pmbrunelle:
Yes, I wouldn't think porting a DI head is much different from ported a carbed or port-injected head, perhaps even a little easier since you don't (sometimes) have suspended fuel to worry about.
Other way around... DI porting is very touchy as in-chamber mixture motion is EXTREMELY important to getting a good mixture distribution and reducing combustion sensitivity to mixture.
quote
Originally posted by pmbrunelle: The DI wizardry is in the combustion chamber.
The whole "combustion space"... as you noted above, the piston crown is important as well, but mostly for OEM reasons.
