Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Technical Discussion & Questions - Archive
  3.0L V6 Questions

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version


3.0L V6 Questions by Younggun88
Started on: 01-22-2008 11:38 AM
Replies: 7
Last post by: Joseph Upson on 01-23-2008 07:08 PM
Younggun88
Member
Posts: 705
From: Charlotte, NC
Registered: Jan 2005


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post01-22-2008 11:38 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Younggun88Send a Private Message to Younggun88Direct Link to This Post
I was looking on line and if it is at all possible to put the 2.8 crank into the 3.4 block you come up with a 3.0L V6. Is it true that this stroke to bore ration would be healthy for a high reeving car if of coarse built right. Also any info on this combo would be nice.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Joseph Upson
Member
Posts: 4916
From:
Registered: Jan 2002


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 88
Rate this member

Report this Post01-22-2008 12:35 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Joseph UpsonClick Here to Email Joseph UpsonSend a Private Message to Joseph UpsonDirect Link to This Post
A likely better investment would be starting with the 3500 VVT and picking up the few extra parts necessary to make it work from the 60 degree V6 store. The engine has a 3" stroke the same as a 2.8L but with a 3.9" bore, peaks at 6000 rpm and redlines at 6400 rpm which can easily be bumped up with LS6 valve springs. The 2.8 to 3.0 move really doesn't appear to be much of an improvement and certainly wouldn't give you the power improvement to go along with the rev capability that the newer engine would before any modifications are made. Otherwise your idea would work except you would have to address the bore to stroke mis-match since if I am correct no stock pistons exist to permit you to use the stock 3" stroke in the 3.4L block with a stock rod and piston combination. In the end I believe my suggestion would prove more productive cost and performance wise.
IP: Logged
Blacktree
Member
Posts: 20398
From: Central Florida
Registered: Dec 2001


Feedback score:    (11)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 349
Rate this member

Report this Post01-22-2008 01:25 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BlacktreeClick Here to visit Blacktree's HomePageClick Here to Email BlacktreeSend a Private Message to BlacktreeDirect Link to This Post
If you put a 2.8 crank in a 3.4, you'll probably need custom pistons. The 2.8 pistons are too small (diameter), and the 3.4 pistons are too short.
IP: Logged
Younggun88
Member
Posts: 705
From: Charlotte, NC
Registered: Jan 2005


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post01-22-2008 07:16 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Younggun88Send a Private Message to Younggun88Direct Link to This Post
I did not know the 3500 had a 6400 redline. For this idea to work i would need 7,500 to 8,000 rpms. I know what your going to say go buy an ecotec or 3.4TDC. Part of this idea is that fact that i want it to be rare. Money will not be an issue as i plan to build this once i get a higher paying job. I am just dreaming right now. My plan is a Vortec/Novi Supercharger so they work best at high rpms and with a close ratio transmission.
IP: Logged
Joseph Upson
Member
Posts: 4916
From:
Registered: Jan 2002


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 88
Rate this member

Report this Post01-22-2008 07:58 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Joseph UpsonClick Here to Email Joseph UpsonSend a Private Message to Joseph UpsonDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Younggun88:

I did not know the 3500 had a 6400 redline. For this idea to work i would need 7,500 to 8,000 rpms. I know what your going to say go buy an ecotec or 3.4TDC. Part of this idea is that fact that i want it to be rare. Money will not be an issue as i plan to build this once i get a higher paying job. I am just dreaming right now. My plan is a Vortec/Novi Supercharger so they work best at high rpms and with a close ratio transmission.


I think you'll end up with something more different than rare. Front wheel drive engines have splayed valves that are also lighter which are more suitable for high rpm than vertical valves since the full weight of the valve is not experienced by the valve spring. Also if I read correctly on the 60 degree forum the 3.4 DOHC heads don't breath all that great and are surpassed by ported 3400/3500 heads according to flow results so no reason to recommend it. The stock non VVT 3500 is already being run to 7000 rpm with it's stock 3.31" stroke crank by a 60 degree member. I mis stated the 6400 rpm for the 3500 being the redline, it's actually the fuel cutoff set in the PCM. What you decide to do is entirely up to you.
IP: Logged
Younggun88
Member
Posts: 705
From: Charlotte, NC
Registered: Jan 2005


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post01-23-2008 03:03 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Younggun88Send a Private Message to Younggun88Direct Link to This Post
Thanks for the info that is very interesting.
IP: Logged
Derek2M6
Member
Posts: 289
From: Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Registered: May 2006


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post01-23-2008 06:22 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Derek2M6Click Here to Email Derek2M6Send a Private Message to Derek2M6Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Joseph Upson:
Also if I read correctly on the 60 degree forum the 3.4 DOHC heads don't breath all that great and are surpassed by ported 3400/3500 heads according to flow results so no reason to recommend it.


If what Aaron posted was true in a thread about porting the DOHC heads; the heads on the 3.4 TDC/DOHC are some of the best flowing ones out of GM.

http://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...ML/068893-2.html#p76
IP: Logged
Joseph Upson
Member
Posts: 4916
From:
Registered: Jan 2002


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 88
Rate this member

Report this Post01-23-2008 07:08 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Joseph UpsonClick Here to Email Joseph UpsonSend a Private Message to Joseph UpsonDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Derek2M6:


If what Aaron posted was true in a thread about porting the DOHC heads; the heads on the 3.4 TDC/DOHC are some of the best flowing ones out of GM.

http://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...ML/068893-2.html#p76


I'm certain they flow better than the two valvers, just not well enough in stock form to still do very well against a mild port and polished set of 3.4-3.5 heads according to the results of the flow tests on the 60 degree forum. Ported against ported I'm sure they would flow much better. There was a nasty debate that developed from flow results over the heads mentioned as a result of some claims made probably because someone had a difficult time believing the results. I was surprised to thinking there would be no comparison. None the less there is a .1 litre difference between the VVT 3500 and the 3400 DOHC but I believe they are both rated at 215 hp. The VVT 3500 has better flowing stock heads than the non VVT 3500 which has better flowing heads than the 3400. So one could possibly see the likelyhood of the early DOHC heads not being as impressive as what's being produced today given the closeness in power rating of stock heads.

The naturally aspirated non VVT 3500 on the 60 degree forum with a camshaft, port & polish, and headers boasts 273 hp and 259 lb/ft at the wheels and a 13.73s 1/4 mile. The 3.4 DOHC heads have a lot of potential but I would take my chances with the aluminum two valvers. I can't imagine trying to port 24 valves worth of cylinder heads.
IP: Logged



All times are ET (US)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock