I am going to build a nice gt. I want to upgrade performance on the stock 2.8. So what are the best bang for the buck upgrades?? (hyperchip, exhaust, ect?)
Port the exhaust manifolds. Remove the restriction in the Y-pipe.
There are others, such as opening up the neck of the intake.... but now you're starting to spend money, especially if you also do the other upgrades (cam, etc) to make it worthwhile.
The parts are limited and many are expensive if you are going for more power.
If you keep it simpler to the exhaust like he stated and the rockers it is not bad but modest gains at best.
If you want real power just do a LS V8 or 3800 SC as it is a whole lot cheaper and much more power.
To do a 2.8 you can spend twice the money with half the results. The engine just was never made for high power and to make such would take a lot of work and still have areas of weakness.
The LS has off the shelf parts for mods and V8 conversion kits to make it easier to install.
Also the new Aluminum LS is much lighter so handling will not be an issue.
I am going to build a nice gt. I want to upgrade performance on the stock 2.8. So what are the best bang for the buck upgrades?? (hyperchip, exhaust, ect?)
I had a pretty much stock 86 SE, couple things I did. The cat was plugged when I got the car, removed it and put in a pipe. Left it that way (just lazy a high flow cat would have gave the same results) Removed the intake water catcher (lest restricted air flow to the filter) Ported exhaust, just removed the restrictions at the heads, didn't get the Y pipe done. That helped the engine but didn't get great returns on effort. If you want it to be a performance car then you are going to have to replace the engine. If you want it to look like the stock engine you can get a 3.4 but then you are limited. Personally if I had the time and place to work on it I would find a 3800 and drop in the engine and transmission. That will give you a significant upgrade and the engine and transmission would be matched pretty well. If you go with a V8 you should research the transmission as there isn't a lot of choices that match the low end TQ of a V8 mine ran out of gears very quickly.
I'm kinda shocked that an intake was never made to put s 3800s/c on a 60% chevy v6
A small turbo making ~6 PSI peak boost would be far cheaper/easier to do. All you really need to turbo a 2.8 is a custom Y-pipe with the flange to mount the turbo, and a tune for it.
Originally posted by hyperv6: Also the new Aluminum LS is much lighter so handling will not be an issue.
If you don't need 300+ HP, the Caddy 4.9 is probably a much better option. It's a smaller package, built for FWD, is pre-OBD-II, and much cheaper/easier to swap in.
The standard LSx V8 is not really as light as some people think. Yes, the block and heads are aluminum, but a finished and fully dressed engine still weighs more than the stock 2.8 does. Almost 500 lbs as installed in a manual Corvette (around 460-470 for auto, as flywheel is much heavier than flexplate). The 2.8 weight is around 375 lbs IIRC.
Thanks for all the good info. Is there a 5 speed option for use with the 3.8 conversion? Is there a direct fit kit out there to do the swap from 2.8 to the 3.8 supercharged? Is there any real gain with putting in a hyperchip in the 2.8 computer? If they even still make them.
Thanks for all the good info. Is there a 5 speed option for use with the 3.8 conversion? Is there a direct fit kit out there to do the swap from 2.8 to the 3.8 supercharged? Is there any real gain with putting in a hyperchip in the 2.8 computer? If they even still make them.
The stock 5 speed can be used with a stock 3800 engine. If you want to go for big power though, you'll want to swap to the F23 (which is not a direct bolt-in, but is a much easier swap than the F40) or the F40 six speed, for a manual trans.
The hyperchip is not worth the money, even if someone gives you one for free.
I'm kinda shocked that an intake was never made to put s 3800s/c on a 60% chevy v6
There was a supercharger made to fit the later aluminum headed 60 degree V6 and was used on several GM show cars. The problem was no one bought them as they were not cheap. I think it was discontinued a few years ago. It is a shame as it was a nice set up.
For about the price of a kit engine swaps were cheaper.
A small turbo making ~6 PSI peak boost would be far cheaper/easier to do. All you really need to turbo a 2.8 is a custom Y-pipe with the flange to mount the turbo, and a tune for it.
6 PSI does so little for the cost.
The heat also becomes an issue and mounting an inter cooler is not easy.
The old Miller Woods deal was a boost but not much and most of the engines and the turbo units were only expected to last about 100K miles. With todays oil maybe a little more but they need to be water cooled.
Add much more boost then you need to O ring the heads as the gaskets will fail.
We had a guy that did it all with a Turbo back in the 80-90's and he broke a lot of parts and spent a lot of money to make it fast.
I am going to build a nice gt. I want to upgrade performance on the stock 2.8. So what are the best bang for the buck upgrades?? (hyperchip, exhaust, ect?)
Skip the chip unless you want the lock up convert to remain out till a higher RPM. Or if you want to run a 160 stat.
Intakes are a waste as this is a close loop engine computer and to get any real gain you need to have the computer tuned with a new chip.
The exhaust is pretty free and only the manifolds need cleaned up as they have flanges inside that create issues.
Changing the rocker ratio helps a little but not much.
There are no simple cheap bolt ons parts for tons of power here. In many cases you will still have less power than a base Eco tech 2.5 4 cylinder.
We have come so far today with engines and computers the modern ones are so easy to mod. My Turbo 4 in my other car gained 65 HP with only a change of the maps and a computer flash. 300 HP from only 2.0 liters on 23 PSI of boost on pump gas and still under a GM warranty is great.
We thought the 80's were great after the 70's but today is the golden era of engine performance and it is now we need to take advantage of it as regulations may force it out as we can only drop so many cylinders.
Originally posted by hyperv6: 6 PSI does so little for the cost.
The heat also becomes an issue and mounting an inter cooler is not easy.
The old Miller Woods deal was a boost but not much and most of the engines and the turbo units were only expected to last about 100K miles. With todays oil maybe a little more but they need to be water cooled.
Add much more boost then you need to O ring the heads as the gaskets will fail.
We had a guy that did it all with a Turbo back in the 80-90's and he broke a lot of parts and spent a lot of money to make it fast.
Of course it does little for the cost. Nobody said it did a lot. But if we're talking about bolting a blower to a 2.8, a turbo is going to be vastly cheaper. The heat from a small turbo making peak boost less than 10 PSI isn't going to be a huge problem. An intercooler isn't needed. What point are you making here? That you don't understand turbos and are afraid of them, because some people push the limits and break things, so all turbos are bad?
I am thinking that my best bet would be to put a 3.8 supercharged motor in it. Is there a certain year engine needed? What else needs to be changed? Is there a swap kit that can be had?
Looking at cost, engine swaps are expensive, done with keeping money in mind, you are looking at anywhere from 3500.00 at the cheap end ( if that is possible) to 15000.00 for a turn key conversion. If you can do most of your own work, the 2.8 can be built to about 190hp at the crank. ( I'm just repeteing what I have read, so let's not everyone else get upset over these numbers). The 2.8 will respond to all normal methods of increasing hp, cam, roller rockers, porting and polishing the intake and exhaust manifolds and valves, balanceing the crank, boring the block for bigger pistons. So, if you want to keep the stock look, start with a 3.4 (its rated at 170hp at the crank to begin with) and go from there. For about the same amount of a 4.9 caddy conversion, you can build a 3.4 and get close to the same hp. I said close, not the same and dont even think about matching the torque of the 4.9.
There was a supercharger made to fit the later aluminum headed 60 degree V6 and was used on several GM show cars. The problem was no one bought them as they were not cheap. I think it was discontinued a few years ago. It is a shame as it was a nice set up.
For about the price of a kit engine swaps were cheaper.
Sally,man.. an intake that you can bolt on a junkyard (read cheap) s/c to and dump in the bigger injectors from same donor .. is the way to go.. not an all new, it cost more than the car kit.
A small turbo making ~6 PSI peak boost would be far cheaper/easier to do. All you really need to turbo a 2.8 is a custom Y-pipe with the flange to mount the turbo, and a tune for it.
and a wastegate/blow off valve/intercooler, plumping , bigger injectors, a new tune,, and ecu that allow it..
the turbo has lag, inless it is a well sorted set up.. unlikely in the diy world.. a s/c is torque right here right now. no waiting.. s/c cars are much easier to drive at the limits than a turbo car.. as the s/c will do the same thing every time. the turbo won't The learning curve of driving a turbo car is much longer, to learn how to keep the power up and smooth,, something not needed in a n/a or s/c powered one..
Originally posted by E.Furgal: and a wastegate/blow off valve/intercooler, plumping , bigger injectors, a new tune,, and ecu that allow it..
the turbo has lag, inless it is a well sorted set up.. unlikely in the diy world.. a s/c is torque right here right now. no waiting.. s/c cars are much easier to drive at the limits than a turbo car.. as the s/c will do the same thing every time. the turbo won't The learning curve of driving a turbo car is much longer, to learn how to keep the power up and smooth,, something not needed in a n/a or s/c powered one..
Wastegate is internal in a lot of OEM turbos. BOV is not absolutely necessary, but is trivial to do, and really you want one that dumps the excess pressure back into the air box, rather than atmosphere. Intercooler isn't needed for the little amount of boost one can apply to a 2.8 and keep it reliable with no major changes. Intake piping needs are minimal as the Fiero makes it easy to put the turbo in the perfect spot, and it was originally designed to get one. Yes, plumbing of oil lines for the turbo will also need to be done, but also pretty easy to do. Bigger injectors may be needed (I haven't done the math for that), but also very easy to find and swap. And I suppose the MAP sensor would need upgraded, but that's plug and play. A tune is needed, but not a different ECM. A flashable would certainly be better, but not an absolute requirement.
A turbo doesn't necessarily have lag. I said small turbo for a reason. The OEM turbo from a 90s Subaru would go well with a 2.8 I think. And I don't know what makes you think a supercharger wouldn't need an intercooler, extra intake piping, bigger injectors, or oil, either. The engineering work to mount an M90 on top of a 2..8 is just not worth it. I'm not even sure it would fit. If it does fit, the angle of the injectors would have to change, you'd need new fuel rails, the thermostat and upper coolant passage would need moved, and you'd have to do something about the cold start injector. Then there's the distributor. You'd also have to switch to 7730, install a crank trigger, and use DIS, digital cruise, and digital EGR.
As for driving, apparently you haven't driven many turbo street cars. A small turbo on a 2.8 that is decently set up could make 80%+ of peak torque available from probably 1500-1800 through to 4500 RPM. There is pretty much zero learning curve for driving a turbo vs non-turbo street car. If you think all s/c cars also have no learning curve, then it sounds to me like you're comparing s/c street cars like a Buick with wild turbo cars, which is comparing an apple and a banana being smashed by a hydraulic press. Sure, one is taller and gets smashed first, depending on how you insert them, but they both get smashed.
I am thinking that my best bet would be to put a 3.8 supercharged motor in it. Is there a certain year engine needed? What else needs to be changed? Is there a swap kit that can be had?
The Series III (last generation) engine is the best, but the Series II may be easier to find. The Series III has drive-by-wire throttle, but a cable throttle can be adapted, and the engine can be run on the Series II ECM, IIRC.
I don't know about a kit, but I think there are a few people making the motor mounts now.
Wastegate is internal in a lot of OEM turbos. BOV is not absolutely necessary, but is trivial to do, and really you want one that dumps the excess pressure back into the air box, rather than atmosphere. Intercooler isn't needed for the little amount of boost one can apply to a 2.8 and keep it reliable with no major changes. Intake piping needs are minimal as the Fiero makes it easy to put the turbo in the perfect spot, and it was originally designed to get one. Yes, plumbing of oil lines for the turbo will also need to be done, but also pretty easy to do. Bigger injectors may be needed (I haven't done the math for that), but also very easy to find and swap. And I suppose the MAP sensor would need upgraded, but that's plug and play. A tune is needed, but not a different ECM. A flashable would certainly be better, but not an absolute requirement.
A turbo doesn't necessarily have lag. I said small turbo for a reason. The OEM turbo from a 90s Subaru would go well with a 2.8 I think. And I don't know what makes you think a supercharger wouldn't need an intercooler, extra intake piping, bigger injectors, or oil, either. The engineering work to mount an M90 on top of a 2..8 is just not worth it. I'm not even sure it would fit. If it does fit, the angle of the injectors would have to change, you'd need new fuel rails, the thermostat and upper coolant passage would need moved, and you'd have to do something about the cold start injector. Then there's the distributor. You'd also have to switch to 7730, install a crank trigger, and use DIS, digital cruise, and digital EGR.
As for driving, apparently you haven't driven many turbo street cars. A small turbo on a 2.8 that is decently set up could make 80%+ of peak torque available from probably 1500-1800 through to 4500 RPM. There is pretty much zero learning curve for driving a turbo vs non-turbo street car. If you think all s/c cars also have no learning curve, then it sounds to me like you're comparing s/c street cars like a Buick with wild turbo cars, which is comparing an apple and a banana being smashed by a hydraulic press. Sure, one is taller and gets smashed first, depending on how you insert them, but they both get smashed.
As for driving, every pro driver agrees with my statement.. even the newest porshe has lag, and at times you don't want it.. and at others where you don't want the power ramping up hard. like say mid turn..
yes driven a ton of turbo and s/c cars and owned a bunch.. both have their place.. one is always there always the same you know what it will do at x rpm.. a turbo is like an automatic trans,, it shifts about the same, everytime but the range of when it does it is wide enough that most would rather have a manual.. to have control. same with a turbo.. you have to learn how to keep the power smooth.. and how to ramp it up but not have it come on, on kill..
I was going to mention the Fageol supercharger kit. It's been out of production for many years now. And the supercharger used in the kit is pretty small. I don't remember the exact figures, but it was just barely adequate to feed a 2.8 V6 in stock trim. With other engine mods, you'd quickly reach the limits of the supercharger's capability.
There was also a company in Canada that made a kit to fit a Vortech supercharger to the 2.8 V6 (in place of the A/C compressor). I think that may be out of production, also.
But with that said, there are a few relatively cheap and easy mods you can do to the 2.8 V6 to get a few more ponies out of it. As mentioned above, grinding out the restricted areas in the exhaust manifolds will yield around 8-10 HP. Also, swapping in 1.6:1 rocker arms from a '94-95 3100 V6 will yield around 10-15 HP. These are not big numbers, but an extra 20 HP on a 140 HP engine will be noticeable. Also, if your Fiero still has a stock catalyst in the exhaust, upgrading to a modern catalyst will free up a few ponies too.
Originally posted by E.Furgal: As for driving, every pro driver agrees with my statement.. even the newest porshe has lag, and at times you don't want it.. and at others where you don't want the power ramping up hard. like say mid turn..
yes driven a ton of turbo and s/c cars and owned a bunch.. both have their place.. one is always there always the same you know what it will do at x rpm.. a turbo is like an automatic trans,, it shifts about the same, everytime but the range of when it does it is wide enough that most would rather have a manual.. to have control. same with a turbo.. you have to learn how to keep the power smooth.. and how to ramp it up but not have it come on, on kill..
Not at all true. Every pro driver certainly would not agree with you. If they did, no race cars would have turbos; let alone dominate F1 for a few years with a 1.5L turbo as BMW did. Brakes and gearing are used to control speed in turns, not how much power the car makes. Sure, if you have an improperly tuned turbo setup, it can make driving more difficult.
Again, apples and bananas. You can't compare a turbo to a completely unrelated piece of equipment like an auto trans. There's nothing to learn to drive a properly tuned turbo car. You cannot compare street driving a small turbo car to something built for racing and tuned for a specific purpose. You keep taking a very specific subset of what is possible, and using it as a general comparison for all turbos. That's not how things work.
It's simply all in how you tune it. No different even in N/A cars. You can tune it to be a decent street car, or have a ridiculous cam that doesn't pull enough vacuum at idle, and then try to drive it and stall all the time when backing out of parking spaces.
But sure, you go stick a big blower on your car because you think they're cool, and snap the crank at the first counterweight because you added a bunch of stress and didn't fix the accessory drive to handle it properly.
I'd love to know if the later 60*v6 oem headers fit the older stuff. as it seems even the new 3.6 v6 is the same basic engine . wonder if the ports are still in the same spot or close enough that a little weld here and a grind there would make them bolt on
Not at all true. Every pro driver certainly would not agree with you. If they did, no race cars would have turbos; let alone dominate F1 for a few years with a 1.5L turbo as BMW did. Brakes and gearing are used to control speed in turns, not how much power the car makes. Sure, if you have an improperly tuned turbo setup, it can make driving more difficult.
Again, apples and bananas. You can't compare a turbo to a completely unrelated piece of equipment like an auto trans. There's nothing to learn to drive a properly tuned turbo car. You cannot compare street driving a small turbo car to something built for racing and tuned for a specific purpose. You keep taking a very specific subset of what is possible, and using it as a general comparison for all turbos. That's not how things work.
It's simply all in how you tune it. No different even in N/A cars. You can tune it to be a decent street car, or have a ridiculous cam that doesn't pull enough vacuum at idle, and then try to drive it and stall all the time when backing out of parking spaces.
But sure, you go stick a big blower on your car because you think they're cool, and snap the crank at the first counterweight because you added a bunch of stress and didn't fix the accessory drive to handle it properly.
OMG your are comparing normal joes cars to the spaceshuttle F1's that the computer does everything.. other than hit the go pedal and turn..
Originally posted by E.Furgal: I'd love to know if the later 60*v6 oem headers fit the older stuff. as it seems even the new 3.6 v6 is the same basic engine . wonder if the ports are still in the same spot or close enough that a little weld here and a grind there would make them bolt on
No, they don't. The 3.5/3.9 manifolds might fit, but I think the ports are shaped differently. Also the OEM manifolds are cast and very heavy.
The DOHC V6 won't fit. The ports are evenly spaced, or on the newest iteration of the 3.6 the manifold is built into the head itself and there's only a single port coming off the head for the exhaust.
I think the modified Fiero manifolds would flow better than some of the newer stuff anyway, as the FWD cars all have the Y cast into the rear manifold.
Originally posted by E.Furgal: OMG your are comparing normal joes cars to the spaceshuttle F1's that the computer does everything.. other than hit the go pedal and turn..
No, I was refuting your claim that every pro race driver agrees with you. But no, computers did not do everything when BMW was ruling the circuit with that 1.5L turbo powerplant in the 80s.
Maybe you should try to learn something instead of trying to make clever attacks on a forum:
No, they don't. The 3.5/3.9 manifolds might fit, but I think the ports are shaped differently. Also the OEM manifolds are cast and very heavy.
The DOHC V6 won't fit. The ports are evenly spaced, or on the newest iteration of the 3.6 the manifold is built into the head itself and there's only a single port coming off the head for the exhaust.
I think the modified Fiero manifolds would flow better than some of the newer stuff anyway, as the FWD cars all have the Y cast into the rear manifold.
I saw a z24 in the local yard with a 3.1 and what looked like metal manifold.. it wasn't cast.. and didn't look aftermarket.
Of course it does little for the cost. Nobody said it did a lot. But if we're talking about bolting a blower to a 2.8, a turbo is going to be vastly cheaper. The heat from a small turbo making peak boost less than 10 PSI isn't going to be a huge problem. An intercooler isn't needed. What point are you making here? That you don't understand turbos and are afraid of them, because some people push the limits and break things, so all turbos are bad?
My daily beater is a 23 PSI Ecotech with 300 HP and 315 FT LBS limted only by the transaxle. Yes don't understand Turbo's and hate them?
I know Turbo's and I know Fiero's. I have seen many people combine the two with very limited success. Some of them very good mechanics too.
Case in point. The PPG cars like Fred has had to have a lot of cooling as in traffic the oil temps would still climb to over 300 degrees according to the team manager back in the 80's when he showed me around the cars.
I also remember the Miller Woods set up and know people that had it. The heat was a problem as they were not water cooled housings and often had issues with bearings. The heat also did not help the electronics on the engine either. The lack of a grill on the engine compartment can raise under hood heat to higher than it already is.
The fact is a well sorted modern turbo is possible but not cheap or easy to do in getting worth while results.
I did see one recently at the Pontiac Nationals. It was a Fiero with a LS engine and Twin Turbo. The entire trunk was the air box for the intercooler. It was 850 HP and was a very well done car. The cost was astronomical and the learning curve was tough even for the guy who knew what he was doing.
The real issue with Turbochargers has been heat and the ability to set them up right. Todays Electronics and variable time cams along with Direct Injection have made it so they are very drivable today. But the cars of the past were pretty crude and not durable due to the fact they just did not have the technology of today.
DI and VVT has really changed the Turbo performance. The other keys have been better water cooled turbo housings and better bearings. Then never underestimate what Mobil one has done for the life of a Turbo.
I love my Turbo and it amazes me how much power from 2.0 liters is possible. My Torque curve is 1800-5300 RPM and flat as a table. It is crazy the pressures I see at the injectors with DI but it makes it all work.
So before you tell me I don't know Turbo engines you had better get to know me better first.
Todays modern turbo is a wonderful engine. The key is technology and it is not just something just anyone can just bolt on and do it cheap if you want it done right.
I saw a z24 in the local yard with a 3.1 and what looked like metal manifold.. it wasn't cast.. and didn't look aftermarket.
Well, yes, the 3.1 manifolds will bolt. I think the front manifold is similar to the Fiero manifolds, just being a power log, but the rear is cast with the built-in Y. I don't think they are usable on a Fiero, and the Fiero manifolds and Y-pipe are probably better anyway.
turbo charging is going the way of the do-do bird... You can replace the "exhaust"-side with a electric motor that turns the compressor side. With a 48v battery, you can eliminate lag and make boost without retaining all the heat.
Right now the limiting factor is voltage...and you can always add more of that. A DC->DC converter will give you your 12v for engine, dash, lights, etc...
Makes you wonder if it's more sensible/economical to just make it a hybrid and have the electric motor supplement the gas one...
