Holy crap! Is that forum still in existence? Last time I checked, it looked like a lot of dead links, and only a few recent posts.
it does, I'm one of only a small handful of people who still post there, facebook stripped all of the users away. Same for many of the forums that used to have a large following with hundreds of posts per day.
------------------ "I am not what you so glibly call to be a civilized man. I have broken with society for reasons which I alone am able to appreciate. I am therefore not subject to it's stupid laws, and I ask you to never allude to them in my presence again."
By efficiency, I'm meaning that a N* like Will's probably burns less fuel to make similar power. it probably also has a ton more room to grow compared to your 3.4
A Dynojet drum has a known moment of inertia. A power source that can change that drum's RPM from X1 to X2 in Y time makes (X2^2-X1^2)/Y power. This is physics. Any tool that measures that same power source at the same rate of change of RPM and produces a different number is WRONG. There are LOT of ways a Mustang dyno can produce radically different results than a Dynojet.
Yep you are right Will but that test was Dynojet sponsored. But to get that out of the way I took my 2.8 to both dynos and look what happened.
Dynojet dyno
Mustang dyno
Exactly the same!
But like you said, I use dynos as a tool to measure my improvements not to brag. I use the comparison with your N* as a reference of what an individual can achieve with any engine. I know that if you make yours as radical as mine you'll be in almost at the 500WHP N/A because it has the hardware to achieve that. Through your build I've admired the skills you have to make parts. For example, I don't have the machinery or the knowledge to make a Quater Master clutch set fit in my engine (my dream) but I know that's beyond me, and you did it and I admire that.
So what I'm trying to say is that if you felt that I was putting you down in any way by comparing my engine to yours that was not the case. And if you felt that way I owe you an apology, you are my best critic! I'm looking forward to see your N* on the dragstrip and not brake more axles like me!
You know La Fiera I love the way you have added so much power to an 3.4 and you have proven it many times congratulations!
The points I want to bring is: Engine reliability, not sure how many km this 3.4 will endure, Fuel consumption = Ouff ...
Of course, your goal is not to make it an everyday car.
I made a swap in my fiero 87 with a 3.5L Pontiac G6 2005 LX9 5 speed and I have another fiero 86 with a 3.8SC automatic, both with very few modifications. The 2 engines run like clocks with very good performance and a good fuel consumption and a very good reliability.
We have 2 different thought. And for finish your 3.4 since you converted it to the E85 I really don't like is rough idle.
Merry christmas everybody and La fiera continues to surprise us with some new modifications on the future 3.7 L
Its nice to see international fans Claude! Fuel comsumption I don't care, its a Time Attack Racing car. More gas means more power!
Reliability, better than any stock 3.4 or any other stock GM engine at this power level because I improved things the factory missed because of budget.
The Idle roughness is not because of the E85, its because of the aggresiveness of the camshaft. Here where I live in the south they call that Lickin'!
Thanks for the support Claude!
[This message has been edited by La fiera (edited 12-25-2019).]
I've seen one of your videos and your car looks and sounds radical! Very well built engine. Like to know what wheels and tyres you are using? Regards, Rafe
I said: And for finish your 3.4 since you converted it to the E85 I really don't like is rough Idle: You replied: The Idle roughness is not because of the E85, its because of the aggresiveness of the camshaft. Here where I live in the south they call that Lickin '!
I said: And for finish your 3.4 since you converted it to the E85 I really don't like is rough Idle: You replied: The Idle roughness is not because of the E85, its because of the aggresiveness of the camshaft. Here where I live in the south they call that Lickin '!
But like you said, I use dynos as a tool to measure my improvements not to brag. I use the comparison with your N* as a reference of what an individual can achieve with any engine. I know that if you make yours as radical as mine you'll be in almost at the 500WHP N/A because it has the hardware to achieve that. Through your build I've admired the skills you have to make parts. For example, I don't have the machinery or the knowledge to make a Quater Master clutch set fit in my engine (my dream) but I know that's beyond me, and you did it and I admire that.
So what I'm trying to say is that if you felt that I was putting you down in any way by comparing my engine to yours that was not the case. And if you felt that way I owe you an apology, you are my best critic! I'm looking forward to see your N* on the dragstrip and not brake more axles like me!
Ok, I know you're crazy, but didn't quite think you were crazy in the way of comparing a 3.4 to a Northstar. Thanks! I enjoy being a critic
I don't doubt that a Mustang dyno can be made to match a DynoJet chart... but who actually takes the time to dial in the variables to do that? Motor Trend's C8 Corvette dyno shows how easy it is to screw up with a Mustang, even though other vehicles run that same day had more realistic results.
I'll sell you a flywheel once I get my fitment figured out
With all your lightweighting effort, I'm a little surprised you haven't picked up one of these:
Ok, I know you're crazy, but didn't quite think you were crazy in the way of comparing a 3.4 to a Northstar. Thanks! I enjoy being a critic
I don't doubt that a Mustang dyno can be made to match a DynoJet chart... but who actually takes the time to dial in the variables to do that? Motor Trend's C8 Corvette dyno shows how easy it is to screw up with a Mustang, even though other vehicles run that same day had more realistic results.
I'll sell you a flywheel once I get my fitment figured out
With all your lightweighting effort, I'm a little surprised you haven't picked up one of these:
there used to be a racing application of aluminum heads that were identical castings of the fiero heads as well, i havent seen them in years though.
I'd be more interested in the Potter castings, as those were a from-scratch design for racing... a pair of raw castings was advertised on Facebook within the last few weeks.
[This message has been edited by Will (edited 12-27-2019).]
Even at 2.8L, these aluminium blocks were pulling 300HP! Who cares if they couldn't be overbored that much.
If this had been easier to get hold of in Europe (availability, import duties etc…), I would have gone down this route. I would have prefered this solution to going 3800. Much easier to claim originality with the authorities, and keep within the limited (nearly no tolerence) modifications allowed here.
Before I had the fuel pressure dropped from 50psi to 0 within 4 seconds after priming the system. I replaced the fuel pump with a Walbro 480lph and a new FPR. This picture was taken 15 minutes after priming the system. We are good now! It seems that the check valve in the pump was bad.
I almost bought one of those 10+ years ago but when I read the specs, it could only be bored to about 3.2L ...
It should be good for at least a 92mm bore. I'm pretty sure that's what GM calls out as the max bore. It could probably go to 94mm if you stay naturally aspirated and be careful that the head gasket fire ring still falls on the end of the liner.
Originally posted by Will: It should be good for at least a 92mm bore. I'm pretty sure that's what GM calls out as the max bore. It could probably go to 94mm if you stay naturally aspirated and be careful that the head gasket fire ring still falls on the end of the liner.
Argh! My fault. It's the LFX that uses a 3.37" (85.6mm) stroke...to help it achieve 3.6ish liters... I have one in my truck (Colorado) but engine covers prevent me from getting a good look at the block.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-06-2020).]
I'd be more interested in the Potter castings, as those were a from-scratch design for racing... a pair of raw castings was advertised on Facebook within the last few weeks.
Yep you are right Will but that test was Dynojet sponsored. But to get that out of the way I took my 2.8 to both dynos and look what happened.
Dynojet dyno
Mustang dyno
Exactly the same!
But like you said, I use dynos as a tool to measure my improvements not to brag.
I can tell you guys, at Superflow, our chassis dyno has a DynoJet correction factor, because of how their software creates power numbers, its there to help the shop owners create consistency for their customers. Dyno's are a just a measurement tool, and it is up to the user to apply them correctly to gain the results they're after. No manufacturer that I am aware locks the calibrations up so they are set to some permanent standard, all of them can be manipulated by someone who knows enough, or is ignorant enough to just go after numbers.
