From my research (GM part numbers) the LFX cams are all the same. Intake manifold port shapes are different for RWD and FWD engines as are the head intake ports to match the manifold and probably account for about half the power difference. As mentioned earlier, the air filter/intake and exhaust system differences between the cars probably account for the rest.
I also posted in the other "hi feature" thread. As I start actually doing stuff, I'll start a new thread. I'll share everything I learn. But you're way ahead of me, at this point. I suspect it will stay that way.
FWIW, the Impala guys have "discovered" an aftermarket intake manifold that seems to be worth some power. I forget who makes it, though.
It appears that Overkill is doing the intake. I think you mentioned he was doing your tune. He probably offers a "package" of both, that are designed to work together. I think you alluded to that in your other thread.
It would be interesting to hear how much power he expects, using the whole package, with a good free-flowing exhaust.
Edit - I just went to Overkill's website. No pictures are posted. Makes me wonder if it even exists, yet. (Not to hurl stones. I didn't look terribly hard. Lots of stuff going on, here, just now.)
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 09-08-2016).]
Overkill is selling the Jacfab intake and spacer. It's a stock Impala LFX intake that has been filled and ported, makes about 11 more hp and 15 ft lbs. I did the same mods to my intake.
So far the highest output by an LFX Camaro manual is 317 RWHP and 247 ft.lbs on E85, 80 mm throttle body, etc, etc.
[This message has been edited by mender (edited 09-08-2016).]
So that's... 355 at the crank? (10% loss?) And they're rated at 320, out of the box? Not bad.
Wonder what the Impala version is capable of. Do any of the FWD versions have the "big" port heads?
I'd expect a fair bit more than 10% loss in a Camaro, even if it's a manual. If it's an auto, even more loss. At ~17% loss that's about 382 HP at the crank. But look at the torque number though. 247 lbs-ft, or about 298 at the crank with 17% loss. I'd like to see the dyno graph for that, because those numbers don't really add up, given what the stock/tuned LFX makes, and where it makes it. Both peak torque and peak HP would need to be at about 6800 RPM for those numbers to match. That must be a really flat torque curve.
That was on E85, and typically a high compression engine will make a bit under 10% more power on alcohol. Here's an earlier dyno run from the same car (automatic car), about halfway down the page: http://www.camaro5.com/foru...php?t=233394&page=36
Pretty stout, 302 hp @6760 rpm and 267 ft.lbs @ 4850 rpm
HIs later test was with a better tune and bigger TB so I mostly believe the 317 hp but the 247 ft.lbs seems quite a bit off, should probably be more like 280 to make sense. I questioned it too but didn't get any response. The owner has been talking about a return to the dyno so maybe the next numbers will work out.
[This message has been edited by mender (edited 09-09-2016).]
Originally posted by mender: That was on E85, and typically a high compression engine will make a bit under 10% more power on alcohol. Here's an earlier dyno run from the same car (automatic car), about halfway down the page: http://www.camaro5.com/foru...php?t=233394&page=36
Pretty stout, 302 hp @6760 rpm and 267 ft.lbs @ 4850 rpm
HIs later test was with a better tune and bigger TB so I mostly believe the 317 hp but the 247 ft.lbs seems quite a bit off, should probably be more like 280 to make sense. I questioned it too but didn't get any response. The owner has been talking about a return to the dyno so maybe the next numbers will work out.
10% would be around 360 at the crank. According to those numbers, it gained 100 HP at the crank. The 247 lbs-ft makes sense if it's at the same RPM as the 317, and that is 6760, but it definitely doesn't make sense as the peak. If the heads, intake, and throttle are ported/polished, then I could maybe see the 100 HP bump at that RPM, but the peak number must be something else, and down around 5000 RPM, if it's stock cams with stock cam timing for the VVT.
Found some far more detailed and impressive info on the 2016 upgrade motor I linked to on page 1 and had to bring this thread back. GM didn't lightly smooth over the newest version of this motor, they really went to work on it, so much so that it has two timing chains and 6 sprockets now instead of the previous 3 chains and 9 sprockets and does 335 hp and 284 lb/ft on regular unleaded gas! That suggests plenty of room for double digit boost and high compression, as far and likely even farther than I managed with the 3900. I'd love to get my hands on one of these right now. The torque is coming up nicely, still not where I'd like to see it but better.
Here's a link to a long list of improvements, some are preexisting attributes being relisted;
From my research (GM part numbers) the LFX cams are all the same. Intake manifold port shapes are different for RWD and FWD engines as are the head intake ports to match the manifold and probably account for about half the power difference. As mentioned earlier, the air filter/intake and exhaust system differences between the cars probably account for the rest.
The intake manifold ports are different, but the head ports are the same between FWD and RWD engines. The LFX uses an aluminum lower spacer/adapter that goes between the heads and the plastic upper intake manifold:
The JacFab spacer you linked goes between the stock aluminum spacer/adapter and the intake manifold, so there are two versions depending on the intake port shape at the upper intake manifold.
Camaro head ports:
Impala head ports:
This makes the Camaro intake manifold a possibility on the FWD enignes.
The intake manifold ports are different, but the head ports are the same between FWD and RWD engines. ... This makes the Camaro intake manifold a possibility on the FWD enignes.
It also possibly means that an intake manifold could be fabricated, that would possibly outflow both intakes, if one were so inclined. This is encouraging.
Joseph Upson... That's good info, too. I wonder how much more difficult it would be to adapt the newer design.
Edit - I see that it also has AFM (cylinder deactivation.) While that's a good thing for economy, I'm not really interested in that for a performance engine. At the risk of sounding like a Luddite, I think I would prefer something simpler. DI and VVT are complex enough.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 09-30-2016).]
It also possibly means that an intake manifold could be fabricated, that would possibly outflow both intakes, if one were so inclined. This is encouraging.
Joseph Upson... That's good info, too. I wonder how much more difficult it would be to adapt the newer design.
Edit - I see that it also has AFM (cylinder deactivation.) While that's a good thing for economy, I'm not really interested in that for a performance engine. At the risk of sounding like a Luddite, I think I would prefer something simpler. DI and VVT are complex enough.
AFM is simple enough, and trivial to remove from engine families where there are versions without it in production cars. The feature itself is not overly complex either, especially if using the factory ECU (which you currently need to do, to get working DI).
AFM is simple enough, and trivial to remove from engine families where there are versions without it in production cars. The feature itself is not overly complex either, especially if using the factory ECU (which you currently need to do, to get working DI).
Perhaps. I wonder if the new ECU has been "cracked" yet. I'm certain that at least the 2012 Camaro LFX ECU (E39?) has been cracked. There are accounts all over the web of people running them stand-alone. Tunercat even has a definition file.
Perhaps. I wonder if the new ECU has been "cracked" yet. I'm certain that at least the 2012 Camaro LFX ECU (E39?) has been cracked. There are accounts all over the web of people running them stand-alone. Tunercat even has a definition file.
Trifecta (and maybe others by now) can do stand-alone LLT's as far back as 2009.
Yeah. I know. Except everything I've seen about the F40 is a complete pain in the ass. And would seem to require a lot more fabrication than I'm prepared (or skilled enough) to deal with. (I don't weld. Yet.) And that's aside from the initial cost of the oddball Saab F40. If someone (Paul?) comes up with a kit that makes it a direct bolt in, then I might spring for it.
I am also quite familiar with the T-550. I have one (with the GM metric pattern) bolted to my 4.9. Since it's essentially a Getrag, it can use stock tranny mounts and axles. All I had to add was a clutch line adapter fitting (for the HTOB) and Rodney's FWD shift lever kit. Done deal. It does quite nicely, and I haven't broken anything, yet. (I try not to shock load it, but I am not averse to rolling along in gear with the clutch engaged, and then matting the right pedal.)
why the saab F40, and not a GM F40? different gearing or something?>
why the saab F40, and not a GM F40? different gearing or something?>
They are both "GM" in the sense that they were produced for GM cars. The trans is a Getrag.
The Saab is the only car with a High Feature V6 that came with a manual in transverse configuration. The G6 F40 is the wrong bell pattern. The Ecotec F40 is also yet another different bell pattern. The G6 also has some other differences from the HF/Ecotec versions. The gearing in the earlier Saab 2.8t F40 trans (at least, the FWD version, not sure about AWD) should be the same as the 2006 G6 F40.
They are both "GM" in the sense that they were produced for GM cars. The trans is a Getrag.
The Saab is the only car with a High Feature V6 that came with a manual in transverse configuration. The G6 F40 is the wrong bell pattern. The Ecotec F40 is also yet another different bell pattern. The G6 also has some other differences from the HF/Ecotec versions. The gearing in the earlier Saab 2.8t F40 trans (at least, the FWD version, not sure about AWD) should be the same as the 2006 G6 F40.
The Saab actually got the shorter MU9 gearing while the '06 G6 has the MT2 gearing.
why the saab F40, and not a GM F40? different gearing or something?>
The Saab was apparently the only High Feature V6 available with the F40. The 3.6 in the G6 was only available with an automatic. The F40 in the G6 was only bolted to the LZ9 (3900). Maybe the Ecotec. Definitely not the HF 3600 V6. I've been a G6 fan/owner for several years. I don't think I'm mistaken. (It would be cool if I was wrong, however. )
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 11-28-2016).]
Unless GM fixed it and I doubt it, all 3.6L motors can benefit from an oil catch can. I've read several complaints about it and observed it once again recently following maintenance I performed on my mom's 07 3.6L. I dumped about 2 oz of oil out of the intake tube. It was puddling oil well below 100k miles and many are not aware of this tendency because they don't perform their own maintenance in order to see it. There's not much of a baffle under the valve cover and as much as I've seen in the tube I'm sure the engine is ingesting a good bit given the proximity of the vent tube to the throttle body.
The car is also on its third front catalytic converter with just over 135k miles. The applications with extended oil change capability are risky as some owners have complained of finding no oil registering on the dipstick short of the oil change interval. The initial impression would be that oil is getting past the rings but it's actually being sucked into the motor from the valve cover as many of the complaints are on relatively low mileage cars. I mention this issue after inquiring about a nice 08 Caddi CTS with a bad DI 3.6L at 130k miles. A used replacement motor would run about $2k, which is the best option since it appears to be a timing chain failure with valve damage. With an asking price of $5k, the total with a self repair puts it right a long with running equivalents, minus the wear and tear of labor so no go.
The Saab was apparently the only High Feature V6 available with the F40. The 3.6 in the G6 was only available with an automatic. The F40 in the G6 was only bolted to the LZ9 (3900). Maybe the Ecotec. Definitely not the HF 3600 V6. I've been a G6 fan/owner for several years. I don't think I'm mistaken. (It would be cool if I was wrong, however. )
The Ecotec has been available with an F40, but not in the G6. The Buick Regal Turbo is what brought the Ecotec and F40 together, IIRC. I think the Ecotec G6 cars were all either automatics, or maybe with the F23 or F25 5 speed.
After owning a 3.6L DI for a few years now following my last post above, I have better insight on this motor and am impressed with what I have found so far. Although an oil catch can would be helpful, it is not necessary, considering the number of 3.6L motors with high mileage (200k plus miles) and factory status on the road. Proper maintenance is key and often preferred to modifications for the average driver. You must use good quality oil. I've read fuss about the PCV valve clogging and needing modification, but nothing mentioned about replacing it, considering it's a serviceable part. This is an excellent example of fixing something that isn't broken with an expensive oil catch can that will need to be serviced regularly. If you increase the opening in the PCV valve, an oil catch can becomes a must, because it will allow a lot more oil to pass through it, which can lead to a low oil level depending on change intervals. It's a brilliant way to sell oil catch cans, because you will find quite a bit of oil in them (because of that recommended modification). I have oil catch cans, but I never put them on the car, it doesn't use a perceptible amount of oil between the 5k oil changes, and a mild top engine cleaner sprayed into the intake once and a while should keep valve deposits under control for those worried about it.
In preparation for my intended 3.6L build, I have found that GM has done some outstanding work with this motor, unlike any other V6 that I've seen across the same displacement. I have three of the 5 pistons representing the 5 iterations of the 3.6L; LY7, LLT, and LGX (LY7, LLT, LFX, LF3/4, LGX).
The piston weights are close in range, 390g for the LY7, LLT & likely the LFX which only has exh valve relief fill in next to the LLT piston, in order to gain the .2 compression point it has over the LLT. The LGX piston weighs 400g, and the LF3/4 turbo piston is a toss up until I get my hands on one. The pin work goes from a big fat 142g untapered LY7 pin, down to the tapered, lighter 116 g LGX pin, which is also 23 mm instead of 24 mm like the others, which are also tapered and 120g for the LLT/LFX.
The LGX piston judging from picture comparisons, appears to be the turbo LF3/4 piston with a dome instead of that depression for lower compression for boost. They are the only two pistons of the 3.6 line with a strut like bracing formation bounding the wrist pin hole making the piston look fit to be hit with a hammer safely. The skirt/side perimeter arrangement is also similar between the two which appears to be contoured in a manner that further strengthens the piston. There is a stock LGX Camaro (except for injectors and plugs) with a supercharger running 11.25 in the quarter, Hyperhawk.
GM also modified the connecting rod small end starting with the LLT, which is tapered instead of square and the rod lengths vary; 5.92, 5.94, 6.00 and 5.86, representing the LY7, LLT/LFX, LF3/4 (steel & Ti) and LGX in that order. The above partly explains the bump in rev limits, with the LGX redline set at 7200 rpm. I believe the rev limit for the turbo motors is in the 6K rpm range, but I'm not sure if it's because of piston weight (An aftermarket forged set I've seen boasted 442g) or turbine flow capacity, or GM wanted to be careful not to release a turbo powered V6 scuffing the heels of its V8 equivalent, CTS-V vs. ATS-V, like the Corvette vs. Grand National snafu many years ago.
Almost forgot, the rings are thinner for the LGX also and the the thrust side piston skirt appears to be smaller as well for an added reduction in friction surface. The top ring space has what appears to be a PTFE coating like the others, except for the LY7 and the ring land for the top ring is thicker, again suggesting it is the turbo piston fitted to the LGX.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 09-15-2020).]
