Well... I don't like the higher rpms haha, I don't know, but 5000 is usually the highest I'll take it.
I also edited my previous post with more info.
these 2.8s are fairly tough little things. had a throttle stick a week ago (never found out why since it unstuck as soon as I shut it off) and they do have a limiter they will bounce off of safely at around 7k. very loud when it does it and frighteningly quick, definitely more so than a honda f22 hitting 8k
these 2.8s are fairly tough little things. had a throttle stick a week ago (never found out why since it unstuck as soon as I shut it off) and they do have a limiter they will bounce off of safely at around 7k. very loud when it does it and frighteningly quick, definitely more so than a honda f22 hitting 8k
2 pages, wow haha!
Yeah, I'm sure it is haha, but scary, I think at about 5500 my tach needle starts bouncing around about 1000rpm each way, don't know why, don't really want to know why haha!
Yeah, I'm sure it is haha, but scary, I think at about 5500 my tach needle starts bouncing around about 1000rpm each way, don't know why, don't really want to know why haha!
oh that's the limiter trying to kick in. guess mine is tuned different or I broke something lol.
Hey, I love my 2.8 powered Fiero as much as the next guy... but I'm sorry, I'm finding those 0-60 mph times to be far too... optimistic.
I have several things done to make these times possible, 1.6 rockers, ported exhaust and intakes, power pulley (dubious if it does anything) MSD coil with 0.055" gapped plugs, all new ignition components, no AC on a notchback car (almost the lightest a v6 can get), brand new tires, freshly aligned, new bushings everywhere. I've done many things to improve the time, and I shift the transmission hard, I won't deny that, harder than anyone would on a brand new car, my synchros weren't great when I got it, so I'm having fun, looking forward to a 5 speed or something some day.
I started out with this app getting 8.5 or so, that is hardly unrealistic. I have improved, my car has improved, and through all this, the times on my beater cars (I test every once in a while) and my dad's Fiero, remain unchanged. (His is about 9 seconds) Mine has low miles, and has been well taken care of its whole life, never seen snow, etc. some engines are better than others, I think mine was good from the factory, and the work I've done has only improved it more. The difference between my Fiero and my dad's (86 SE, v6/4 speed manual) is stunning. People who don't know what a gear shifter does have noticed and been amazed at the difference, between 2 "identical" cars.
[This message has been edited by 1985 Fiero GT (edited 07-16-2024).]
oh that's the limiter trying to kick in. guess mine is tuned different or I broke something lol.
Yeah, it's just the needle, the engine still pulls, no difference in some or feel. I was thinking a certain vibration at that point jiggles a wire or something that has an intermittent connection to the tach.
Originally posted by 1985 Fiero GT: lso, factory size 215/60 R14 (not that that makes a difference in rolling diameter).
There is a slight difference in rolling diameter, I made a mistake.
With 215/60R14, 2->3 shift RPM was about 4659 RPM.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick: Hey, I love my 2.8 powered Fiero as much as the next guy... but I'm sorry, I'm finding those 0-60 mph times to be far too... optimistic.
It is optimistic-sounding, especially with short-shifting at 4659 RPM.
That was my best time last fall with a "stock" engine.
Before all the stuff I've mentioned above, and with a massive exhaust manifold leak (albeit on good tires and in good mechanical condition, with timing at 13*). Every other stock car in good shape I've tested it on (1993 Grand Prix, 1989 Cutlass Ciera, 2008 Pontiac G5, 2001 Chrysler Sebring) have been within margin of error/age (at most 1 second slow) of their factory specs, all of the above are also automatic, to take shifting out of the picture.
The app you're using is fine for comparing performances using the same app.
IMO, there's no way the readings you're reporting are anywhere near accurate. Look at the actual six second 0-60 mph cars in that list I supplied a link to above. They'd embarrass a Fiero in a 0-60 showdown.
I'm not trying to be mean. It's just the reality of the situation.
The app you're using is fine for comparing performances using the same app.
IMO, there's no way the readings you're reporting are anywhere near accurate. Look at the actual six second 0-60 mph cars in that list I supplied a link to above. They'd embarrass a Fiero in a 0-60 showdown.
I'm not trying to be mean. It's just the reality of the situation.
I have compared regular stock cars to factory specs as mentioned above and only gotten SLOWER than factory spec, and only up to 1 second slower than factory, I'd call that margin of error/age of the very good condition vehicles, that consistency wouldn't explain my times, I've gotten 4 or 5 runs in the 6s(mods with good timing), with about 15 or so in the very low 7s (mods with not optimal timing). I'll turn your opinion around on you, you really think a 1968 charger, weighing 3500lbs, on somewhere around 210 wide tires (F70-14), would out accelerate those cars and my Fiero? I'm frankly surprised at some of the names on there, Porsches mixed with a Pontiac G6.
[This message has been edited by 1985 Fiero GT (edited 07-16-2024).]
...you really think a 1968 charger, weighing 3500lbs, on somewhere around 210 wide tires (F70-14), would out accelerate those cars and my Fiero?
I'm beginning to suspect you've never really driven a fast car. Seriously. I had a 1967 4-spd Chevelle SS396 years ago that would've easily out accelerated any 2.8 Fiero... probably even with one or two of its spark plugs disconnected. Now granted, I had done some work to its engine, but it was quite the sensation to be pinned to the back of the seat when all four barrels were engaged. I currently have a 1998 5-spd JDM Subaru Impreza WRX STi, and it's a freaking beast that'll wind up (very quickly!) to 8000 RPM.
I love my Fiero(s), but man oh man, none of them can hold a candle acceleration-wise... to either my (long gone) NA muscle car from the 60's, or my current turbo'd AWD machine.
That's 13-18hp extra, not including the power pulley, ignition coil and larger spark plug gap, and my Fiero is a similar weight to a formula, especially with my spare tire delete, and no AC.
I'm not saying I fully believe the 6.16 second run, but at least 6.5 second.
I'm beginning to suspect you've never really driven a fast car. Seriously. I had a 1967 4-spd Chevelle SS396 years ago that would've easily out accelerated any 2.8 Fiero... probably even with one or two of its spark plugs disconnected. Now granted, I had done some work to its engine, but it was quite the sensation to be pinned to the back of the seat when all four barrels were engaged. I currently have a 1998 5-spd JDM Subaru Impreza WRX STi, and it's a freaking beast that'll wind up (very quickly!) to 8000 RPM.
I love my Fiero(s), but man oh man, none of them can hold a candle acceleration-wise... to either my (long gone) NA muscle car from the 60's, or my current turbo'd AWD machine.
I haven't in fact driven any fast cars, but a 6 second car is not considered that fast any more. many common cars (Pontiac G6/cobalt) hit that, and for a stock Fiero to only be half a second-a second off that, is not unreasonable that another 18hp along with a blatant disregard for my synchros, would reach 6 seconds, see calculator screenshots.
Like I said I do doubt the 6.16 haha, but it would make sense to be somewhere in the 6s, which has been my goal, and I'm very happy with that haha, it definitely feels worlds quicker than it did when I bought it, and it was much quicker than my dad's even then, only difference then was 60,000 more kms, and overall less maintenance on his. (No offense to him )
[This message has been edited by 1985 Fiero GT (edited 07-16-2024).]
...it definitely feels worlds quicker than it did when I bought it
And that's all that matters! Well, that and the fact that you want it to be reliable. No point having a quick car if it's broken down half the time.
[EDIT] Well, that was kind of cool. While I was making this post, I could hear a racket outside. As I looked up and out of my computer room's open window, the Snowbirds blasted by in formation leaving a trail of brightly colored smoke behind them.
[EDIT2] Well damn... it was the Italians! Didn't even know they were going to be here. Apparently, this tour is the first time they've been to North America in 30 years.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 07-19-2024).]
I'm beginning to suspect you've never really driven a fast car. Seriously. I had a 1967 4-spd Chevelle SS396 years ago that would've easily out accelerated any 2.8 Fiero... probably even with one or two of its spark plugs disconnected. Now granted, I had done some work to its engine, but it was quite the sensation to be pinned to the back of the seat when all four barrels were engaged. I currently have a 1998 5-spd JDM Subaru Impreza WRX STi, and it's a freaking beast that'll wind up (very quickly!) to 8000 RPM.
I love my Fiero(s), but man oh man, none of them can hold a candle acceleration-wise... to either my (long gone) NA muscle car from the 60's, or my current turbo'd AWD machine.
I would posture that the 1985 Fiero GT 4-Speed is probably the quickest "stock" Fiero that's out there. I have no basis for saying this, but of all the Fieros I've owned (about 9 of them), most of them V6s, the 85 Fiero GT that I owned was hands-down the quickest.
Now, it wasn't the fastest... at about 70 my 87 SE / V6 Automatic would start pulling on it.
But the 85 GT, to 60 at least, was quick. The one I had originally belonged to Darrell Morse, if I'm not mistaken. It was basically a stock car... none of the fancy stuff he did. I think I paid like $1,500 for it back in 1999. It had a 4.10:1 4-Speed that had been swapped into it from an 84 Fiero (unintentionally), and the heads had been decked slightly because the engine had previously overheated. He took the motor out, had the heads decked, replaced the seals, and replaced the crank and rod bearings, and slapped it together. It had 215/60/14s on all four tires with the Hi-Tech 14" rims. When I'd drop the clutch... that thing would never gain traction. I remember at one intersection, 20 year old me had dumped the clutch against a Jaguar (that wasn't racing, and was actually concerned about me hitting him) and my rear tire just spun, and spun, and spun. It started to shimmy to the left at which point I eased up on the gas and then it just continued to burn rubber through the intersection all the way up until 3rd gear. Man, I used to love "Old Fort Lauderdale" when you could do these kinds of things and there was no pearl clutching. It was fast... not a single other V6 Fiero (including my upgraded 87) could hold a candle to it on off the line / streetlight 0-60. The car had no options, not even a sunroof or a spoiler. Just a GT 4-Speed.
Obviously, I don't condone any of that now, and I drive really slow in my Ford Explorer. But whatever it is.
I'd imagine also that he doesn't have the old charcoal canister catalytic converter (which was crap), and you gain a good deal of performance just upgrading to the newer honeycomb style (which is what mind had too). So there's a lot to that. I know the cars gained a little bit of weight over the years... just little things like trunk fan, larger wiring harness and modules for things like the headlights... just little silly things... but it does all add up.
He's also younger than we are... and love it or hate it, we can't shift as fast as we could in our 20s and even 30s.
Man, I could shift from first to second, and second to 3rd in my Solstice like it was a pneumatically-controlled Formula-1 transmission... if I tried that now at 46, I'd probably rip some teeth off those gears.
Anyway, I don't doubt the high 6-second 0-60, as long as he knows when and where to shift for optimal acceleration.
Also, on the engine overrevving thing. I had a floor mat (same car) get stuck under my gas pedal. Instinctively... I upshifted until I realized that was only making me faster and this wasn't going to work out well. So I took it out of gear and it hit the redline like 2-3 times before I could turn off the key.
Engine was fine, but damn... it'll wake you up fast.
I'd imagine also that he doesn't have the old charcoal canister catalytic converter (which was crap), and you gain a good deal of performance just upgrading to the newer honeycomb style (which is what mind had too). So there's a lot to that. I know the cars gained a little bit of weight over the years... just little things like trunk fan, larger wiring harness and modules for things like the headlights... just little silly things... but it does all add up.
He's also younger than we are... and love it or hate it, we can't shift as fast as we could in our 20s and even 30s.
Anyway, I don't doubt the high 6-second 0-60, as long as he knows when and where to shift for optimal acceleration.
Yes my cat is the round small style, not the pellet type, it also appears to have been replaced (as it is welded in, with a few pinholes that most certainly aren't factory)
The getrag actually weighs more than the Muncie, and the 88 front suspension is heavier (I think the rear is lighter though), making mine roughly the same weight as a formula (considered to be the fastest/quickest Fiero).
I have actually gotten best results wearing steel toed work boots, I don't know why, but my foot moves much quicker on and off the clutch with them than with shoes or anything else, like they will improve my time by almost a second, both with the launch and quicker shifts, and I know for a fact I am abusing those synchros haha!
As for the short shifting, I would like to do some single gear runs as was suggested, in first, second, and third, all the way from 2000-5800 or so (maybe less if I chicken out haha) because I don't know whether it's valve float, or the adrenaline and physical motion of the shift/launch wearing out, but by the time it gets to 4500, it seems to not be pulling very hard (as soon as I shift, drops to 3500 or so, it seems to pull harder, even though I'm in a higher gear, like I said, it's likely a placebo effect/impatience for my arm/foot to do something, and I will try to get some g force numbers right through all my gears individually, and gauge my shift points from that, but yeah, I'll heartily use it around town, etc. up to 4000, but preferring a limit of 3250, medium throttle accelerations, downshifts, being in a good gear for corners (my roads here are almost as fun as an autocross course, with how curvy/blind/bumpy/obstacles to avoid, and much less populated haha), only time I'll take it past that is a full acceleration, on-ramp onto a freeway (have one that is so nice, descending sharp curve, tires screeching at 90km/h, only about 100 feet to speed up to 110 and merge before there's no merge lane, and this is supposed to be the trans-Canada haha), 0-60 runs, pulling out of a driveway on an 80 marked road, etc. I've never hit red line (6000), never hit a rev limiter, I have gone 5500 before, a few times, and my needle gets wonky so I don't know what I'm going and I slow it down or shift, or both haha.
Well, I did a few runs today, and tried revving it to 6000 (on the tach), and I discovered 2 things. First, when revving it out, my shifts take longer, it is physically harder to shift, and the first time I did it, I missed 2nd, did my usual jab from 1st to 2nd, but it "hit a wall" and I released it and the clutch before it had time to engage, thus ruining that test. Second, I tried 2 runs in second gear, from 1500 to 6000, and it "feels" like it really drops off in the higher rpms, with torque kicking in hard at 2500 or so, the GPS shows somewhat similar results, I haven't calculated the rpms, but acceleration seems to drop off the faster you get just in 2nd. (I think the dip in acceleration near the end is an error, but the peak after is still lower than it was at lower rpms)
I did a few runs to 60 revving to 6000, and between the significantly longer shifts and perhaps less torque at high RPM, I got around 7.5 second runs, I turned around and shifted at 5500 or whatever I'm used to, and got a 6.55 second run.
Out of curiosity, the pictured run in 2nd almost hit 60mph, at the top of 2nd, for those with a rpm calculator with the 4 speed, and my 215/60r14 tires, what rpm would I be turning to hit 60 in 2nd, because I'm sure 1 less shift in the run to 60 would make a difference, but I am not about to attempt that unless I know what rpm that would be.
My tach isn't doing the thing where it will start to vibrate above 5500 any more, which I like, and I've found that at about 5900rpm, the shift light comes on, even with my foot to the floor.
Out of curiosity, the pictured run in 2nd almost hit 60mph, at the top of 2nd, for those with a rpm calculator with the 4 speed, and my 215/60r14 tires, what rpm would I be turning to hit 60 in 2nd, because I'm sure 1 less shift in the run to 60 would make a difference, but I am not about to attempt that unless I know what rpm that would be.
My tach isn't doing the thing where it will start to vibrate above 5500 any more, which I like, and I've found that at about 5900rpm, the shift light comes on, even with my foot to the floor.
Hitting "the wall" that you've talked about is a notorious issue in any Fiero that is even slightly modified. Unfortunately, it's not a limitation of the cam or anything like that, it's a lack of airflow (as you know)... directly as a result of a restrictive neck in the intake plenum. When people went with the Truleo intake, that wall basically disappeared to a degree. There's a link with a bunch of dynos (all on the same dyno, different cars), and the Truleo really seemed to keep that horsepower curve up higher. All that said... if I remember correctly, the stock cam just really isn't designed to produce power at too much a higher rpm.
Shifting with a "linkage" manual transmission is much harder to get right than one where you're directly connected to the gearbox. With my Pontiac Solstice, I swear I could shift as quick as an pneumatic F1 transmission. ut with the Solstice... there's just more play and everything else.
As for the shift light and tach, I'd have to assume that when you put everything back together, you ended up grounding the tach filter a bit better than it was.
As for the shift light and tach, I'd have to assume that when you put everything back together, you ended up grounding the tach filter a bit better than it was.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, and I've never before revved it out high enough to see the shift light, I don't know if that's a programmed feature at redline (6000), or just happens to happen due to the computer calculation.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, and I've never before revved it out high enough to see the shift light, I don't know if that's a programmed feature at redline (6000), or just happens to happen due to the computer calculation.
I believe the ONLY intended purpose for the shift light, was to help you maximize fuel efficiency, and that's it.
quote
Originally posted by Dukesterpro:
I wonder what the options for carbed intakes are? Not as a daily but for maximizing intake flow. I guess the heads would still hold you up?
There are... but none of them really seem to be available anymore. Years ago... meaning like... when the Internet was young and people were selling stuff all over, the V6/60 block was quite popular for a variety of things. Everything from racing to even a small plane company that bought out the GM stock of crate motors (yeah...).
BUT, in my research back in 1999-2000 when I was considering a 3.4 at the time, there were a whole bunch of intake and carb options. Offenhauser had a really high-performance intake... two actually. One was designed to take a 4-barrel intake, and the other one they had was designed to take a 6-pack of single barrel Webber / Solex / Carter carburetors (like this: https://st.hotrod.com/uploa...ft-Weber-intake.jpg)
Other than Offenhauser, Holley also made a dual carb intake for the V6, and then there was another vintage company that I cannot remember the name. Edelbrock is the only one who currently makes intakes for the iron block engine... there's a dual plane one, and then a single carb one... etc.
None of it really works for our Fiero because it was all intended to be in a longitudinal installation (F/R placement). But you could have a custom intake made... Edelbrock has this guy: https://www.summitracing.com/parts/edl-3785
... which you could probably bore out and modify for a bunch of solex carburetors. Or you could just do a single QuadraJet conversion.
Correct. It had absolutely nothing to do with any sort of high revving racing application.
Well yes, obviously not made for racing, but I find it funny that it illuminates at wot only very very near redline, from what I know it is a table based on throttle percentage, rpm, and speed, and it was clearly programmed to "shift" at redline when the throttle is to the floor (at least that's what it did this time), I had thought it just "turned off" after like half throttle, but it is clearly still doing something, just interesting to see.
