

 |
| Iron duke 172 bhp / 220 ft*lbs! (Page 4/5) |
|
lou_dias
|
OCT 03, 01:28 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by sanderson231: The point of your post was to promote modifying an Iron Duke rather than swapping to an engine with more potential. I you don't believe me go back and re-read what you wrote. Modifying an Iron Duke is just plain wrong.
|
|
I think I know my own point. How you interpreted it is up for debate. This is a post about a duke build. Instead - people with swaps come here and bash it. A person doing said build doesn't care about anyone else's swap... Just like a person doing a swap with engine X doesn't care about trolls coming into their thread saying they should have just done a swap with engine Y. Their reasoning is irrelevant. The decision has already been made.
|
|
|
Patrick
|
OCT 03, 04:26 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by sanderson231:
The point of your (Lou's) post was to promote modifying an Iron Duke rather than swapping to an engine with more potential.
|
|
I'm surprised/puzzled by this comment. I felt the intent of Lou's post was simply to share an interesting video about an Iron Duke with other PFF members. Has it motivated me to spend big bucks on my '84 duke? Not a chance!  [This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 10-03-2022).]
|
|
|
sanderson231
|
OCT 03, 10:45 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by lou_dias:
I'd never waste the amount of time people do on 'swaps' so I appreciate people taking stock equipment and making it work better.
|
|
What you said - you didn't come out and say it but you are basically advocating pouring money into an Iron Duke just because it's "stock" equipment.
The people that did the Iron Duke build had a vision and obviously had fun going where no man has gone before. They probably learned a lot that can be applied to other projects. It's been done once. Why repeat it? I have a vision of building the ultimate N/A Quad 4. I want to do it just because I haven't seen one done before. Is it worth the time and money versus just a rebuilt Quad 4 HO. A lot of people would say no. I'm fine with that. ------------------ formerly known as sanderson 1984 Quad 4 1886 SE 2.8L 1988 4.9L Cadillac 1988 3800 Supercharged[This message has been edited by sanderson231 (edited 10-03-2022).]
|
|
|
lou_dias
|
OCT 05, 12:10 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by sanderson231:
What you said - you didn't come out and say it but you are basically advocating pouring money into an Iron Duke just because it's "stock" equipment.
The people that did the Iron Duke build had a vision and obviously had fun going where no man has gone before. They probably learned a lot that can be applied to other projects. It's been done once. Why repeat it? I have a vision of building the ultimate N/A Quad 4. I want to do it just because I haven't seen one done before. Is it worth the time and money versus just a rebuilt Quad 4 HO. A lot of people would say no. I'm fine with that. |
|
Well, at least you are admitting in putting words in my mouth. I've done 2 6-speed swaps. Have you seen me post any getrag rebuilds?[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 10-05-2022).]
|
|
|
Raydar
|
OCT 05, 11:44 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by sanderson231: ... Modifying an Iron Duke is just plain wrong.
|
|
I wouldn't say that. One of the guys in our club has modded his. (S10 head, moderately lumpy cam.) It's maybe 120-130 HP. It's certainly not going to rip anyone's face off, but he has a lot of fun with it, and is quite satisfied. Only spent a few hundred dollars above the cost of a stock rebuild, which it was getting, anyway. I've thought about (just for the hell of it) bolting an early, cast iron SD head onto an 87 bottom end (has a stronger crank, but will eliminate the unobtainium force balancer), along with a lumpy cam and a larger (maybe a 4.3 or 305?) TBI. Would it run? Most likely. Would it run well? Probably, after some tweaking. Would it blow up? Maybe. But it would be hellishly fun while it lasted. And would certainly surprise people, since it could be built to look nearly stock. Is it financially foolish? Absolutely. But we already drive Fieros, so there is a precedent.
Jeez, y'all. Lighten up a bit. It's a hobby. We don't all have to do it the same way.[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 10-05-2022).]
|
|
|
Blacktree
|
OCT 05, 02:45 PM
|
|
This thread makes me do this multiple times.
|
|
|
ericjon262
|
OCT 05, 08:08 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Raydar:
I wouldn't say that. One of the guys in our club has modded his. (S10 head, moderately lumpy cam.) It's maybe 120-130 HP. It's certainly not going to rip anyone's face off, but he has a lot of fun with it, and is quite satisfied. Only spent a few hundred dollars above the cost of a stock rebuild, which it was getting, anyway. I've thought about (just for the hell of it) bolting an early, cast iron SD head onto an 87 bottom end (has a stronger crank, but will eliminate the unobtainium force balancer), along with a lumpy cam and a larger (maybe a 4.3 or 305?) TBI. Would it run? Most likely. Would it run well? Probably, after some tweaking. Would it blow up? Maybe. But it would be hellishly fun while it lasted. And would certainly surprise people, since it could be built to look nearly stock. Is it financially foolish? Absolutely. But we already drive Fieros, so there is a precedent.
Jeez, y'all. Lighten up a bit. It's a hobby. We don't all have to do it the same way.
|
|
I'm fairly certain the 4.3 and 5.0 and 5.7 TBI units are identical with the exception of the injectors. you'll probably need an EBL or other ECU to actually use it, I'd bet the stock duke ecu doesn't have two injector drivers. super duty parts are cool, but as already noted in this thread, the duke engine block isn't all that stout, the castings are pretty thin, which tends to mean they also aren't very rigid, which usually leads to cracks under stress. I'm kinda curious what a dyno of a 3.0l ecotec would look like, personally, I wouldn't particularly want to build either, but each has some merits, the built duke would still bolt in the stock mounts, the ecotec would almost certainly be lighter. ------------------ "I am not what you so glibly call to be a civilized man. I have broken with society for reasons which I alone am able to appreciate. I am therefore not subject to it's stupid laws, and I ask you to never allude to them in my presence again."
I invited Lou Dias to trash me in my own thread, he refused. sorry. if he trashes your thread going after me. I tried. No pushrod 60V6 Fiero has been faster according to the 1/4 mile list.
|
|
|
Will
|
NOV 27, 10:29 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ericjon262:
I'm fairly certain the 4.3 and 5.0 and 5.7 TBI units are identical with the exception of the injectors. you'll probably need an EBL or other ECU to actually use it, I'd bet the stock duke ecu doesn't have two injector drivers. super duty parts are cool, but as already noted in this thread, the duke engine block isn't all that stout, the castings are pretty thin, which tends to mean they also aren't very rigid, which usually leads to cracks under stress. I'm kinda curious what a dyno of a 3.0l ecotec would look like, personally, I wouldn't particularly want to build either, but each has some merits, the built duke would still bolt in the stock mounts, the ecotec would almost certainly be lighter.
|
|
I think the Ecotec is absolutely at its displacement limits with GM's current 2.5 version. The L3B 2.7 4 cyl in the trucks (and now Cadillacs?) might be able to go to 3.0, but it's pretty darn new.
|
|
|
Raydar
|
DEC 01, 05:36 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Will: ... The L3B 2.7 4 cyl in the trucks (and now Cadillacs?) might be able to go to 3.0, but it's pretty darn new. |
|
Is the 2.7 based on existing Ecotec architecture? Or is it a "clean sheet"? I always assumed the former, but didn't have any reason to pursue it.
|
|
|
FieroWannaBe
|
DEC 08, 09:25 AM
|
|
I have been commenting with RacerD on youtube, who should be the engine builder. the Flow data for his ported S10 head has been uploaded:
- S10 Duke Head
- Lift Stock 1.72 E Ported 1.97 Ported E
- 0.1 46.3 46.6 63.9 65.9
- 0.2 89.9 86.3 127.8 112.1
- 0.3 111.2 125.3 166.7 141.7
- 0.4 121.3 145.3 189.9 156.6
- 0.5 127.2 192.1

His Camshaft:
| quote | | 244 251@.050. 303 311 adv, with .570 intake lift and .580 ex. on a 114 LSA installed at 106 In C/L |
|
| quote | | The port volume is only 166cc, the major problem is in the bowl around the valve guide, and you cannot fix it w/o hitting water. Changing to the SD head would be a problem for my headers, because the D shape Ex port s very small also. If I get time this winter I want to build a new dual throttle body intake and get the Port Injection up and running again. |
|
I have an SD4 head casting 10031323:
 Test Pressure inH2O 28 Lift In Intake CFM Exhuast CFM W/ 2BBL Manifold Intake Valve Dia in 2.02 0.05 38 26 36 Exhuast Valve Dia in 1.63 0.10 63 53 51 Throat Diameter in 1.82 0.15 85 75 87 E Throat Diamter in 1.46 0.20 116 105 118 Intake Volume cc 180 0.25 137 119 137 Exhuast Volume cc 74 0.30 160 130 156 Chamber Volume cc 55 0.35 178 140 173 I Gasket CSA sqin 3.42 0.40 194 149 188 I Pinch CSA sqin 2.26 0.45 215 156 200 I Throat CSA sqin 2.36 0.50 229 163 209 Valve Stem Size in 0.313 0.55 237 168 220 E Gasket CSA sqin 1.5 0.60 248 171 230 E Pinch CSA sqin 1.25 0.65 236 174 E Throat CSA sqin 1.81 0.70 235 176 I Port Length in 4.25 0.75 237 178 E Port Length in 3.13 0.80 240 179

With a 4.06" bore block and a marine 3.5" stroke crank, I think the head he made is sized ok for a street motor up to 6000RPM. Running an iron SD4 head, with its 180cc would be raising the potential RPM for peak power from 6000 to 7000, provided it has the cam. Which, the lift on his cam can take advantage of the larger port and peak flow, but I don't agree with his LSA selection nearly as much, but he has much more experience in engine building than me. But from what I think, his flatter torque curve gave up some peak power and cut the power production early, I think would need to narrow the 114 closer to 109 or 110 with the SD4 head on a duke running a 2 barrel carburetor.
I have no doubts his crankshaft added quite a bit of strength to the duke, its just a matter if the block can live eating all the torsional excitations from that big of a 4 cylinder, and I would probably try to keep the engine from making its peaks past the 6500RPM speeds to play it safe. If anything he may be giving up some ring seal, and a few HP across the range, but I don't think his block will blow up quickly. People raced these motors in boats and in sprint cars and not all of them used Super Duty blocks.
|
|

 |
|