quote Originally posted by DKOV: For the record... Like you, "I have a problem with is misinformation being spread around" Such as... [b] Saying that all you need to do to run 8K RPM's is mod the ECM. You've left out my comments about adding different springs and, at the very least, shims. * you said beyond 8K, you need springs. I guess everyone else isn't into the whole "discussing and sharing ideas" thing That was my entire attempt. I share my ideas, and you say I'm lying. Well, you said "not that you're lying but..." *"not calling you a liar...but not (seen) many answers that make a bunch of sense to me" is what I said You even commented to me how civil I was being despite your rudeness and how my civility would change by the time you were done. You knew exactly what you were doing and why. Don't try and pawn your behavior off on me. I took alot more than MANY would have from you. *Ok. If you say so, then I'm sorry. Really. I promise you if you hear it from me, I'll be pretty clear about it, if I know it for a fact, heard it from a good source, or just heard it somewhere. If I'm just making it up, I'll tell you that too. That's just how I am. What you have shown is just how you will use bits and pieces of a conversation to argue your point. *if they are relevant, yes, and when the rest of the conversation is archived for everyone to read, I don't see the point in quoting the whole thing. The one time I did quote some extra for context, you defended your ownership of a lotus, ideas for a supercharger, etc, that I never questioned. By your own words, you say that if the information comes from a "good source" than it is accurate. Yet, work done by professionals on my motor is invalid simply because you don't "like me" and therefore, am NOT a good source. Apparently, you are as guilty of personal bias as any one of us can be with our sources. *I didn't say if it comes from a good source it's accurate. I said I would say where it came from, be it a good source, etc. I don't dislike you. Actually, quite the contrary, I kinda like you. Were you not so far away I would definitely be willing to offer to buy you dinner, for the time to sit down and talk to you. If you're ever in AL, invitation stands. If you want my phone number, PM me. (please, noone be petty enough to take this as some freaky veiled threat or something, ok?) Disagreement does not mean "misleading", false or untrue. *I agree. DKOV---know this is going to be real hard for you to believe, but I'm trying to help ya out in a way. I've been trying to tell you if you present what you know in a different manner, people might take you more seriously. From as long as I can remember... since before I installed my motor through today, I have said things like "from what I am told", "from what I've seen on xxx website", "from what so-and-so tells me" and so on... I have never claimed to be an authority on these or any engine mods. That's not who I am. I just know what I've been told, and like you, when I have "bought into" the integrity of the source, it's Gospel to me. You and I are not any different in this way. *Ok. I guess I just chose the wrong posts of yours to read. I said I hadn't read everything you've ever posted. Sorry, again. Apparently all you have to do is post a dyno chart... I was probably never even going to run a dyno until after the Turbo install but because of you and how important it seems to you, I went out and, on a whim, spent the afternoon and a bit over $100 to provide you with what you asked. For that, I'm told, "if it's real"... Proof that it wasn't important to you to begin with. *I'm sorry. At that point, can you not see where I would be skeptical? Everything's important to me. One of my biggest problems. I consider you to have the potential to be the best source of info on DOHC modifications. I have given my sources. Those I know. Shared with all of you in threads past. I'm critised by you for "misleading people with facts that I do not know" and yet condemned because I won't comment on facts I do not know. You speak of inconsistencies. I would ask you to read through your posts and see a few of your own. Bottom line is that, approached differently, we could have made alot more progress by now. I've told you that I have a pretty good pile of information to sift through, from the Previous Owner and I was digging through it to find some answers. You made it clear to everyone that you did not want answers. *not sure how I made that clear, but if I did, sorry. I agree... it's a shame. I could have been a descent source. Heck, I don't even know yet if I have all that decking and cam information handy... it's sitting in a box in my closet. Just image if it WAS there and I posted it for all of you. How great would that be? It is a shame... trully. DKOV - PS - Sorry everyone. I shouldn't have let myself get caught up in this. It won't happen again. *Go on, everyone...tell me what an a$$ I am again. I've already apologised a few times for the length of all this. Sorry, again, everyone, for everything. Anyone want to continue calling me names, or anything else, my Email address is FieroTech@toast.net, and phone number is available upon request. But I really would prefer intelligent conversation to namecalling. Either way, like others have said before, we're done here. Thanks to everyone for teaching me how things are on the forum. I've apologised, I mean it, and I'm done. Whoever wants the last word, it's up for grabs. take care... Jer [This message has been edited by DKOV (edited 05-18-2002).][/B]

Fierotech...

Sincerely, no ill feeling. If you were closer, I'd take you up on dinner, BUT... the beer is on me

DKOV -

Wow...

Fierotech

quote Triad, I've tried to answer your questions. I've said that most of the mods DKOV came up with are valid. I've passed on what I've heard. I've given you a web address for some forums that I've found some good information on. I brought up MWS's website, which seems to be about the best thing out there, as far as options, documenting things (which noone wants to do) and sharing information. I've not said anything is impossible. If you'd like, I'll give you my phone number, and we can talk about it, I'll tell you everything I can about a DOHC, and anything else you ask about. I promise you if you hear it from me, I'll be pretty clear about it, if I know it for a fact, heard it from a good source, or just heard it somewhere. If I'm just making it up, I'll tell you that too. That's just how I am. Heck, give me your number, I'll make it my dime if you want. That, unfortunately, is all I have to offer."

Thanks man.

I have one more request guys.

DKOV, seen your videos, but never seen your website. Care to link it here? Thanks man.

Thanks all of you for your info. I wish we could have waded through it better, since there is obviously a need for serious info on this swap here. I'll do my best to document mine as we go, but I think the real issue is mods anyway, and I apparently won't be diving into that anytime soon...

Thanks.

Triad:

I'm surprised at you
www.gopc.com/F355/F355x.html

Enjoy

DKOV -

After modifying a few multi-valve engines,it's not surprising at all that those numbers are what they appear.
The valve area in one of these motors is equivelant to a single 46mm intake valve,and a Porsche with that kind of valves will certainly make some power.
Other examples;'70s Fiat=85 hp stock;125 with cam timing changes,exhaust,bigger carb.

'80s 16valve Jetta=125 hp stock;155 with bigger exhaust cam(just an intake cam from another motor),and exhaust,heavily ported intake manifold air filter mod.

So why the heck can't a newer engine do the same?
Am thinking that the cams DKOV has are most likely stock,and re-indexed since the car passed smog,but who knows?
Won't be able to make next weekend either;prego wife takes center stage,but later on when your motor is all loosened up.

LowCG:

It's too bad. The NW Fiero Club does a lot of club meetings throughout the summer though. Perhaps another a meet or just the pair of us out for a fun run. Still sounds like fun.

Perhpas I can bring my Fiero to a race day up at SIR and meet you there?

There is a Lotus Owners Club meet at PIR this Friday, if you're not busy

Give out best to your wife, my wife and I have gone that route twice now and have two boys to show for it. Almost 3 yrs fo the oldes and almost 2 yrs for the youngest. Do you know whay your having? Is this your first? Pretty exciting, isn't it?

Good Luck!

DKOV -

quote Originally posted by lowCG: Am thinking that the cams DKOV has are most likely stock,and re-indexed since the car passed smog,but who knows?

Don't forget that he's using a newer designed engine in an older car. Over the years, injector/valve/piston design and placement (not to mention massive calibration tweaking) have become a very important element to having better emissions numbers. For example...I'm sure that the N* without any cat. con. passes the emissions specs for our Fieros with flying colors.

Bryce
88 GT

quote Originally posted by lowCG: Am thinking that the cams DKOV has are most likely stock,and re-indexed since the car passed smog,but who knows?

I don't think so. Smith retimed his cams and put 240 HP to the wheels. He had a '96 engine with larger ports that DKOV's, headers, custom intake plenum. To make 50 MORE HP, without the intake and exhaust mods almost certainly requires higher lift/longer duration cams.

I'm betting that DKOV's car has cams entirely custom-built from steel billets, to a spec that the previous owner thought would make more power. The displacement and valve area and breathing are all there, so really all of

I still maintain that there is NO good reason that a full-on built-to-the-nines modern 4-valve engine cannot make 100bhp/litre, while STILL passing emmisions, and remainin streetable. Several OEs do it right now. Some use fancy variable intakes/cams to boost down low torque for enhanced streetability, but if one were willing to forgoe a little down low, a plain old fixed-timing cam, and fixed intake, should pump the same high-end juice.

If he told me he was making MORE THAN 340bhp n/a, then I'd start to get suspicious.

Frankly, *I* have a hard time beliving only 215bhp from 3.4litres with 4valves. Seems attrotious to me.

Best!
Ben.

------------------

Ben Cannon
88 Formula, T-top, Metalic Red. (2:13.138 at Sears Point) "Every Man Dies, not every man really Lives"
88 Formula, Northstar, Silver, In-Progreess. -Mel Gibson, "Braveheart"

quote Originally posted by artherd: Frankly, *I* have a hard time beliving only 215bhp from 3.4litres with 4valves. Seems attrotious to me.

Blame hydramatic. At the time, they didn't have a transmission which could handle 280 ftlbs. The engine was detuned to 215 because of the incompetence of transmission builders.

They should have been able to build a strong enough manual trans. I think they should have offered the 280 HP engine with a stick and the 215 with an auto.

There's SO much potential in that engine. It was originally supposed to be the "Quad6". It was 1.1 litres bigger than a Quad4, but only put out 25 more HP? Get real.

Well,we just found out,so it'll be awhile until anything more is known about the baby,thanks for the goodwill.
So are you going to be in the lotus,or the Fiero on Friday?
I need to get in touch with Jet City Fieros,if that's the same org. as the NW Fiero club again,since I was moving back to Detroit a couple years ago,and didn't get involved then when I bumped into a member at SIR.

quote Originally posted by artherd: <snip> I still maintain that there is NO good reason that a full-on built-to-the-nines modern 4-valve engine cannot make 100bhp/litre, while STILL passing emmisions, and remainin streetable. Several OEs do it right now. Some use fancy variable intakes/cams to boost down low torque for enhanced streetability, but if one were willing to forgoe a little down low, a plain old fixed-timing cam, and fixed intake, should pump the same high-end juice. If he told me he was making MORE THAN 340bhp n/a, then I'd start to get suspicious. Frankly, *I* have a hard time beliving only 215bhp from 3.4litres with 4valves. Seems attrotious to me. Best! Ben.

I agree, regarding the 100HP/litre figure. Honda's doing it, Ferarri's doing it, etc.

Also agree that these almost always use variable valve timing, dual path intakes, and/or dual path exhaust systems, and it *should* be doable without all of that, sacrificing some "streetability". Also, though, most of these motors are doing it spinning more than 7K...S2000 redlines at 9K, F355 at 8500, etc., and there are some doubts I've seen from guys playing with these motors as to weather or not a DOHC is real happy at these kinds of numbers. I can't attest to the validity of these doubts, nor the need to spin a DOHC over 7500 to make 100HP/litre, but it's something to consider.

Lastly, I also agree that 63.24 BHP/L out of a semi-modern 3.4L 4valve OHC motor is pretty atrocious...but 65.22 BHP/L (using the 300HP output figure) from a slightly more modern 4.6L 4valve OHC motor isn't a whole lot of difference...but we have to remember that both of these are stock motors, that GM has to sell to EVERYONE, not just people who're happy having to keep the motor spinning over 4K just to get it to pull itself down the road...and GM *probably* figures the average Caddy buyer expects their motor to go several hundred thousand miles with minimal maintinence.

Now...DKOV's dyno chart shows a motor that's making real close to 100HP/l, AND 250-ish ft/lb of torque from 3K to 6K, better than 175 ft/lbs above 2.3ish...certainly enough to satisfy most of GM's customers. So, am I the *only* one who's interested in how that was done? I doubt it. Apply the same work, math, and theories to a Northstar, and you have a 450HP motor with 350 ft/lbs of torque across the WHOLE powerband. Sounds cool to me; someone ought to do it!

Crap...I said I was done here. Sorry. But...notice, I AGREED with everything you said!

Take care---
Jeremy B.

quote Originally posted by Fierotech: Apply the same work, math, and theories to a Northstar, and you have a 450HP motor with 350 ft/lbs of torque across the WHOLE powerband. Sounds cool to me; someone ought to do it!

Been done.
www.chrfab.com

Havne't I been saying through this whole thread that the "secret" is in the cams? DKOV's engine sacrifices streetability far too much for a modern OEM. Needing to idle at 1100 RPM is entirely unacceptable from an emissions stand point.

quote Originally posted by Will: Needing to idle at 1100 RPM is entirely unacceptable from an emissions stand point.

True, but it "just" within the legality of the SMOG test

I've since returned it to a more "suitable" idle for its liking... 1400 rpms.

It's kinda loud like that

DKOV -

If dkov is getting the numbers he shows, and it is driveable and close to legal, then that is probably all that one is going to get out of this motor. And I apologize for casting doubt to your numbers and integrity.

A 2000 Porsche 3.4 ltr, attains almost 300 hp, and that is with sophisticated fuel injection and variable valve timing. The new Nissan 350z, 3.5 ltr is extimated at 280 hp and that also is with sophisticated FI and variable valve timing. The Ferrari 360 is 3.6 ltr, with 5 vavles (therefore even better flow) with variable timing and sophisticated fuel injection, variable intake and exhaust flow dynamics and extreme rpm, and puts out 395 hp. I can't see the TDC improving on DKOV or Mike Smith's numbers with the primitive F-Inj that originated in the 80's, no variable timing, and belt actuated cams that weren't designed to spin at 8000rpm. And that is if the bottom end were modified to accomodate high rpm use. Remember, Porsche, Ferrari and other exotic engines have dry sump lubrication. I know that the oiling system on the TDC was improved over other 60* chevy motors, but unless you at least knife edge the crank, the reliability will be compromised. As well the compression ratio's for these exotics are @ or above 11:1 ratio's.

Improving the breathing as what DKOV did, is probably the only option that is doable, without increasing the lift (Expensive cams) and higher compression pistons (again a prohibitively expensive mod. IMHO with out forced air, NA would require so serious re-engineering and serious cash to get beyond 290-300, and to have it reliable and driveable.

I love the TDC also, and I think it is the proper motor, but it is late 80's design, with late 80's technology. It is too handicapped by older (though good) technology. We'll just have to be happy with it's looks in the engine bay, and its song it plays to our ears.

Amen

------------------
85GT (daily driver 120,000 miles)
88GT (highly modified sunday driver)

quote Originally posted by DKOV: True, but it "just" within the legality of the SMOG test I've since returned it to a more "suitable" idle for its liking... 1400 rpms. It's kinda loud like that DKOV -

A state smog test is ridiculous compared to Federal emissions standards that OEM's must meet. A car that has anything but a butter smooth idle will NOT pass Federal emissions standards. The good news is that tests to fed standards cost $5-10K and for obvious reasons are only done during development and calibration. An OEM could NOT go that radical and get away with it.

I forget who said it but... By "unacceptable" street driving do you mean, WON'T run or runs so badly it's not worth it, or will only run at high rpms, or what...?

Perhaps my definition and yours differ as to what is drivable. I'm not being confrontational here, I'm just curious.

For example, my car does NOT like to drive below 2500 rpms. By "not like" I mean that if you are modulating the throttle in that range, it goes from absolutely no power, to BIG power at a whim. There doesn't seem to be any real "point" that you can feel in the pedal but there is OVIOUSLY a point when you hit it!

I try to not drive the car after 6 PM because I have to keep the rpms up in 1st gear to be able to reasonably control the throttle and transit neighborhood blocks, and that's LOUD.

If I run it in 2nd with the rpms below 2500 it almost feels like I'm stepping on the brakes, then stomping the gas, then stomping the brakes... sorta... I hope I'm passing on the feeling correctly.

Anyway, it does behave badly in a traffic jam or going slowly.

Now here's where I asked if our definitions differ... I don't mind! I've learned to temper the throttle with the clutch and kinda "push" it around by letting the clutch out a bit to get some push, then pushing it back in and coasting a while. This gets me through the neighborhood okay without P-ing off the neighbors. When I get into traffic, it works to. Just forget leaving the clutch out and trying to drive it that way

Anyway, once I hit the open road and can keep the rpms up, things are just fine. Better than fine

Oh, and I never drive it around at WOT. That's silly. I like to keep the rpm range around 4500 - 6000. Mostly because of noise. At 3000 - 4500 rpms the car is very loud and above 6000, I'm pushing so I'm never there long. 4500 - 5000 seems to be the most quiet range of revs, but the power is still there when I want it.

Does all this sound "normal" or am I being to tolerant of the driving conditions?

"Humbly" asking...

DKOV -

No, you're just an exotic driver who dosen't expect his Ferrari to pull like a disel pickup truck. <shrug> I commute on 18" 35series tyres, to each, their own! ;D)

Best!
Ben.

------------------

Ben Cannon
88 Formula, T-top, Metalic Red. (2:13.138 at Sears Point) "Every Man Dies, not every man really Lives"
88 Formula, Northstar, Silver, In-Progreess. -Mel Gibson, "Braveheart"

I don't know about me being and exotic driver... although the blue hair might suggest it

Just kidding...

Anyway, it has enough torque to break the tires loose at only 1500 if I get on it. That's kinda the point... Seems like there are two settings... Stop and "Oh My God!!!"

But... that's a GOOD thing

DKOV -

This motor is starting to interest me very much. Just wondering if there is a difference between the early engines and the later ones.

------------------

quote Originally posted by SCCA FIERO: This motor is starting to interest me very much. Just wondering if there is a difference between the early engines and the later ones.

I've been told "yes". Both by some individuals on this forum and by the GM Tech that replaced my bottom end after the "torquing" incident.

Not that either are them are the final word but...

According to these, and other, "rumors"... the first 100 - 120 motors or so that came out pre-june of 1990 that were mated to the 5-speed Getrag 284 not only LACKED a speed limiter but came with the originally designed ECU profile (among other things) allowing higher HP. That "rumor" suggests 275 HP.

As with all rumors, subject to verification, it's still a rumor.

However, my personal experience has been that the first run 3.4L TDC that came in my 1991 Grand Prix GTP certainly had more HP than my cousins 1996 3.4L DOHC Grand Prix GTP. Granted, his had an automatic and I had some previously installed performance mods...

Even so, a stock 3.4L DOHC or TDC is PLENTY fast

As a side note... this post is rought with maybe's, possibly's, could be's and such qualifiers

Yes, I've learned my lesson

DKOV -

quote Originally posted by SCCA FIERO: This motor is starting to interest me very much. Just wondering if there is a difference between the early engines and the later ones.

Just to ammend to what DKOV said, other differences are (I'm not 100% sure on years the ECM changed, but at least 85%...) 91-93 used the 9396 ECM, batch fire fuel injection, MAP sensor. 94+ went to a different ECM and SFI, added a cam sensor in one of the valve covers, possibly went to MAF, if not 94, then 95. 96 motors got somewhat of a redesign, with larger intake and exhaust ports, different intake and exhaust manifolds, different heads. I'm not certain if the only difference on the heads was larger ports, or if there were other changes.

HTH's,
Jeremy B.

From what you described,the motor definately has some cam work done to it;mine drives like a stock VW bug at lower rpm's,still loud like you mentioned,from 2,000-2,500rpms,but none of the surging.