 
     |
| Project 3400 Roller Cam Block (Page 31/82) |
|
lou_dias
|
FEB 10, 06:11 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ericjon262:
if the falconer port job is so crappy, then why is it your benchmark????
I will say it againstock gen 3 heads flow more at low lift then max effort ported Gen1 do anywhere, and continue to flow more to thier peak.
|
|
YOU are the only one who called it my benchmark. Build your own motor and be happy with it and move on from this thread. You are adding nothing to it because bottom line: I'm not switching to GEN3 heads.
|
|
|
|
lou_dias
|
FEB 10, 06:14 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Will:
The 270 HP 2.8's were pure race engines... you know this. They had the Falconer throttle per cylinder intakes, custom long tube headers, REALLY big cams, sky high compression, and only had to live long enough to finish the race.
A Gen III/IV engine in the same state of tune would make over 350 HP.
|
|
Would/should/could... Best I've seen from the 3500 is a .510" cam and open exhaust doing 274.... There's no "rule" that says a street motor can't run multiple throttle bodies, HOWEVER, the 3500 that put down 274 isn't streetable since you can't run open exhaust on the street.
| quote |
And the first 3500's made 215 HP stock. IIRC, the 3400's were 185 HP in teh GAGT's.
|
|
Why are you comparing at the wheels #'s to gross?[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-10-2013).]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
FEB 10, 06:15 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by lou_dias:
If you're going to use the roller cam block, don't waste your time on non-roller cams. There are performance roller cams available...but if you are just looking to be a street-sleeper, the stock roller cam makes plenty of power <6000rpm.
|
|
Thanks Lou, I appreciate it. However, I was under the impression those two links WERE roller cams? Are they not? Just want to make sure.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
lou_dias
|
FEB 10, 06:21 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Thanks Lou, I appreciate it. However, I was under the impression those two links WERE roller cams? Are they not? Just want to make sure.
Thanks! |
|
It doesn't really say one way or the other. Define what you want your power band to be. If you are not looking to rev past 6000, I wouldn't throw money at a cam. The stock one peaks at 5200 so you'd be shifting around 5600 anyway. It also idles great.
|
|
|
|
lou_dias
|
FEB 11, 10:11 AM
|
|
Why iron heads aren't the issue:
General rule of thumb is 2.2 CFM = 1 hp.
If iron heads can flow 150 CFM per port when 'reasonably' ported, I'm using this # to illustrate the math, that means they can flow 900 CFM when you take into account all 6 intake ports.
Doing some rough math, that means iron heads can flow enough to support 410 HP. This hypothetically means GEN3 heads can flow to about 550hp.
In reality, there is such a thing as CAM OVERLAP...Not to mention the amount of vacuum that a piston can actually produce. In other words you'd need a much bigger motor than a 3.4 before the heads become a limitation OR you'd need to spin it to >10,000 RPM. Good luck with that in a non-boosted application.
Some time ago, better heads than ours did the math on a 3.4 motor and came to the conclusion that at 6000RPM, a 3.4 is flowing 400CFM or there abouts. When it comes to the Fiero, the restriction has always been the intake. The Trueleo intake has been flow tested on heads that were rated at 146 cfm per port and it flowed to 146 cfm, ie as much as THOSE heads could flow.
I hope this settles the "head" issue once and for all.
Looking back at my dyno, you'll see my peak was at 4400-4500 rpm. If you measure the CFM of the Fiero intake neck, you can figure out the limits of the amount of power I can make. At 4500 rpm a 3.4 would need 300CFM...guess what the limits of the Fiero intake neck are? Any guesses?[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-11-2013).]
|
|
|
|
Will
|
FEB 11, 10:15 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by lou_dias:
Would/should/could... Best I've seen from the 3500 is a .510" cam and open exhaust doing 274.... There's no "rule" that says a street motor can't run multiple throttle bodies, HOWEVER, the 3500 that put down 274 isn't streetable since you can't run open exhaust on the street.
|
|
LOL... Okay, if you don't see why your assertion that a competition engine with the old stuff makes the same power as a street build with the new stuff is reason to use the new stuff, then you can just go ahead and keep on building under performing engines...[This message has been edited by Will (edited 02-11-2013).]
|
|
|
|
lou_dias
|
FEB 11, 10:19 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Will:
LOL... Okay, if you don't see why your assertion that a competition engine with the old stuff makes the same power as a street build with the new stuff, then you can just go ahead and keep on building under performing engines... |
|
#1) I will build the motor I want to build
#2) running Webers on the street is legal
#3) running open exhaust on the street is not
#4) my cars run on the street
#5) enjoy whatever motor you build and leave mine alone
Using your logic, you're saying that a 2.8 with an open exhaust making 275 hp <> to a 3500 with an open exhaust making 275 hp. So you're saying 275 is not equal to 275. Horse power is horse power and the age of the engine has nothing to do with it.[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-11-2013).]
|
|
|
|
Will
|
FEB 11, 10:54 AM
|
|
|
|
|
ericjon262
|
FEB 11, 01:33 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by lou_dias:
#1) I will build the motor I want to build
#2) running Webers on the street is legal
#3) running open exhaust on the street is not
#4) my cars run on the street
#5) enjoy whatever motor you build and leave mine alone
Using your logic, you're saying that a 2.8 with an open exhaust making 275 hp <> to a 3500 with an open exhaust making 275 hp. So you're saying 275 is not equal to 275. Horse power is horse power and the age of the engine has nothing to do with it.
|
|
actually, this is exactly what I have been trying to tell you, they are not equal, it's about torque across the RPM range
cammed 3500 with ported heads and intake through a 5 speed, look at how flat the torque curve is. on your dynograph, torque is nosing over @ 4000 RPM, and making a sharp decline because the heads can't flow enough air to make it happen.
I'm going to leave you with that, do what you want, but where Will left off, you can't make it drink...
p.s. throw your best shot.
------------------
I know these lines Look crooked on paper, but I swear I've got them straight in my head.
Built not bought...
http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/119122.html[This message has been edited by ericjon262 (edited 02-11-2013).]
|
|
|
|
lou_dias
|
FEB 11, 01:52 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ericjon262:
actually, this is exactly what I have been trying to tell you, they are not equal, it's about torque across the RPM range
cammed 3500 with ported heads and intake through a 5 speed, look at how flat the torque curve is. on your dynograph, torque is nosing over @ 4000 RPM, and making a sharp decline because the heads can't flow enough air to make it happen.
I'm going to leave you with that, do what you want, but where Will left off, you can't make it drink...
|
|
comparing the torque of a 2.8 to the torque of a 3.4 is pretty useless, you guys keep switching goal posts. The point is that iron heads flow enough to make more horsepower than anyone ever has naturally aspirated so your argument is useless. Why can't you honor a simple request to exit my thread. You are not adding to it. Would you like me to troll your thread?
PS,
Horses don't drink kool-aid.[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-11-2013).]
|
|
|
|