 
     |
| New cyl heads, on an already new motor... (Page 2/2) |
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
SEP 14, 08:12 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Dennis LaGrua:
As for horsepower from the 3.4L P/R engine, stock is 160HP with a bit more torque. With a ported head you may get to 175HP . The improvement will be noticeable but not dramatic
|
|
Thanks Dennis, that's a reasonable number... and I'll be happy with it. It's still 35 more horsepower than it had when it was stock.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
SEP 19, 08:15 PM
|
|
|
Just got them in the mail! I'm psyched... they look great!!!
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
MAY 26, 09:58 PM
|
|
Figured I'd update this thread with pictures I just took of the cyl heads (comparison performance vs stock):
Performance vs Standard: Exhaust ports are completely smoothed out...
Performance vs Standard: Intake ports are smoothed out.
Performance vs Standard: Coolant passages are hogged out a little bit and made to gasket-match.
Performance vs Standard: Tulip Valves (narrower shaft to allow more air into the combustion chamber)
Performance vs Standard: Don't know this makes any difference other than they're stainless. Seem to be more dished.
Standard on left, Performance on right: better springs, hardened keepers & retainers...
|
|
|
|
lou_dias
|
MAY 26, 10:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
MAY 26, 10:55 PM
|
|
Yeah, I remember this video. So in your other set of heads, you actually installed larger valves? I know you have a totally different intake, but did you notice a significant increase from the larger valves?
Truth be told, I just wanted the valves, but couldn't find them anywhere. I eventually discovered that ARI had a set, but only already installed in the heads. So I was like, ok, I guess I'm getting heads.
The performance heads were a "mild port." So definitely not like what you have... but I just didn't want to put in a 3.4 V6/60 without at least trying to do a little bit.
Speaking of... when I had the heads off, I noticed it said 1.00 on the cyl head. Does that just mean standard size? Or is that a massive overbore? There was no spec sheet or documentation really with HOW the rebuild was done.
I was expecting to see something like .010 or .020 on the piston tops... but a big honking 1.00 ... no idea what that's suggesting.
EDIT: I just found this...
"Conversion factors my man! There are 25.4mm in one inch so each .001" equals .0254mm. 40 x .0254 =. 1.016mm. SOOOOOOO! .040" = 1.0mm"
Ok, so they are .040 overbore pistons. Man... someone must have really ragged out that engine to need .040 overbore pistons, or it had a **** -ton of miles on it before they rebuilt it. I had to go w/ .040 pistons on my daughter's Iron Duke, but that had almost 200k miles on it.[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 05-26-2024).]
|
|
|
|