Summit has two cams listed for the computer controled engine, one has 198'-204' duration @ .050 with .401-.423 lift, the other has 204'-214' with .423-.423.

I have an 85 se with TH 125 auto. trans. , which cam would work best? I'm leaning toward 204-214.

Keep in mind this is for the 3.4 L.

Thanks for the help.
Yucon

Go with the 204/214 with .423/.423 lift. This is the same as the Crane 2030 cam. The .401/.423 is the same size cam in the Fiero 2.8L engine. The original cam in the 3.4L are .389/.401 lift. This is the GM economy cam. Straight from the box the 3.4L is 160hp. With the Fiero cam it's about 170hp and with the .423/.423 it's about 175hp.The difference is with the .423/.423 cam, you get a little better mid-range power.

Also, when changing cams in a 3.4L you need to remove the cam sensor. GM does make a cover for the hole, or you can just cut the sensor down.

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

Happiness isn't around the corner...
Happiness IS the corner.

Thanks Oreif, that is great info., you've been a big help and I thank you.

Yucon

I would suggest not changing the cam at all.
The cam that comes in the crate 3.4 is a Crane grind, it's specs are as follows:
204 int. 216 exh @.050. Lift: 427 int. 454 exh.
I'm not sure if this cam is in the regular production 3.4's or not but if it is, and it's very likely that it is, then the cams you're looking at are smaller and you'll actually lose power. I've seen a few people on this board switch to other cams in their 3.4's and they seem to be the people that report it as not being to much of a difference over the 2.8 engine. I doubt that GM would put a bigger cam with the same HP rating in a crate engine that's intended for S10 pickups and leave a smaller cam in a Camaro/firebird. That doesn't make much sense since the truck would need the lower end grunt to pull things and the sports cars would need the added upper range HP and midrange torque.
Again, i'm not positive that this is the case but i am positive that the GM crate 3.4 does has the cam i listed above which is obviously bigger then the "compucam" type cams you're looking at. If you're really not sure, why not go with the cam that's in the 3.4 crate engine instead? It's obviously bigger then the others you're looking at and if they put it in the crate engine then it must work perfectly well in that engine.

------------------
Dave Gunsul
Activities Director
Northern IL. Fiero Enthusiasts.
86 GT mod.
85 SE V6 daily driver

quote Originally posted by Dave Gunsul: I would suggest not changing the cam at all. The cam that comes in the crate 3.4 is a Crane grind, it's specs are as follows: 204 int. 216 exh @.050. Lift: 427 int. 454 exh. I'm not sure if this cam is in the regular production 3.4's or not but if it is, and it's very likely that it is, then the cams you're looking at are smaller and you'll actually lose power. I've seen a few people on this board switch to other cams in their 3.4's and they seem to be the people that report it as not being to much of a difference over the 2.8 engine. I doubt that GM would put a bigger cam with the same HP rating in a crate engine that's intended for S10 pickups and leave a smaller cam in a Camaro/firebird. That doesn't make much sense since the truck would need the lower end grunt to pull things and the sports cars would need the added upper range HP and midrange torque. Again, i'm not positive that this is the case but i am positive that the GM crate 3.4 does has the cam i listed above which is obviously bigger then the "compucam" type cams you're looking at. If you're really not sure, why not go with the cam that's in the 3.4 crate engine instead? It's obviously bigger then the others you're looking at and if they put it in the crate engine then it must work perfectly well in that engine.

The crate motor that is sold thru GM's websites is NOT intended for fuel injected cars. You will have problems with the Fiero MAP sensor with the high exhaust lift and the longer duration. (Anything higher than .440 and the Fiero map sensor will go wacky. You would need to convert to the 3.4L Ram Air engines Air Flow Sensor.) The cam in the HT 3.4L set-up to provide low end torque and higher horsepower with a carb. Which was what was used on the early S-10's. The production 3.4L cams in the F-bodies IS the smaller economy cam. I pulled the cam out of the engine I have, which came out of a 1994 Firebird. The cam was mic'd out and it matches the GM economy cam. This was done to provide better fuel economy on the V-6 3500lbs F-bodies. What I posted above is true, acurate, and verified thru GM.

Here is what GM states on their website:
"The HT 3.4 is a bolt in replacement for the 2.8 V6 in your 1982 - 1985 S-10 pickup or Blazer with automatic transmission. And it's emission legal in 49 states (Yes, you guessed it, California said no.)"

The 82 thru 85 S-10/S-15 trucks were ALL carb'd.
Fuel injected engines do not need the higher lift cams. The VE is better than a carb'd engine.

Anyone who builds engines can also verify the above about these cams.

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 08-08-2002).]

I certainly didn't mean that as a flame oreif.
There are people running around with that bigger crane cam in Fieros though without problems. Bob at Twin Lakes has installed some of them if i'm not mistaken. I know he told me, when i was looking at doing a 3.4, that if i wanted a brand new engine it would be that HT 3.4. I also know someone running around with a 3.2 with that cam with no problems. The big problem would probably be with the emissions. I can't see any way that cam would pass a smog test. I'm sure the Fiero's injection system wouldn't exactly be thrilled with it either.
Like i said in the original post, i wasn't sure if that was true or not that GM hadn't changed the cam. However you are definitely correct about the carbed S10's being in those years you posted above.

------------------
Dave Gunsul
Activities Director
Northern IL. Fiero Enthusiasts.
86 GT mod.
85 SE V6 daily driver

Who knows about the cam thing. I have a Crane 2030, WCF Headers, Full Borla Cat Back, K&N, Darrel Morse ported throttle body and upper plenum and 1.52 roller rockers and ran my 3.4L Formula at the track to a measly 15.56 @ 84mph. The car dynoed at 140hp at the wheels and 192 ft/lbs. Can anyone convert that horsepower to crank horsepower. I have been very surprised but my 87 Fiero GT with a 2.8L, new clutch, flywheel, K&N, and Spin Tech Muffler and ANSA Tips ran a 15.57 @ 87 mph. I don't know how that works, but I think my 87 may weigh a little less since it has no AC and cruise like my 3.4 does.

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

1987 GT 5 spd: 2.8L
1988 Formula 5 spd: 3.4L

Haynes gives .2626-.2732 for the stock cam, although I have not mic'd this one yet.

I don't know if 15 hp is worth nearly $200, in this particular car. Is there a noticable, useable, difference in power?

Yucon

quote Originally posted by Dave Gunsul: I certainly didn't mean that as a flame oreif.

Dave, Sorry if my post sounded like I took it is as a flame, I just wanted to get the information across. Guess I could have worded it better. There was no malice inteneded in my post. I have researched 99% of this in the last few months as I am building an engine and attempting to set it up correctly. Actually with how I'm doing it, I had to get a custom grind cam to match my fuel and ignition requirements.

quote Originally posted by Rare87GT: Who knows about the cam thing. I have a Crane 2030, WCF Headers, Full Borla Cat Back, K&N, Darrel Morse ported throttle body and upper plenum and 1.52 roller rockers and ran my 3.4L Formula at the track to a measly 15.56 @ 84mph. The car dynoed at 140hp at the wheels and 192 ft/lbs. Can anyone convert that horsepower to crank horsepower.

The difference between the crank HP and rear wheel HP, is generally 15-20% (depending on who says it and what trans your running, auto trans having the higher loss) With 140 at the wheels you should be around 165-170hp. You don't mention which trans the Formula has but I assume it's the 5-spd. The AC will make a difference in HP due to weight and drag on the engine, but the cruise control will not.

Now as for the cam differences. When the intake and exhaust lifts are equal, like the Crane at .423/.423, Your torque peak is moved slightly higher in RPM. The Crane cam is designed to increase mid and upper power.

Do you know which injectors were on your Formula? The 2.8L injectors will cause a power loss. They are 15lbs injectors. The 3.4L injectors are 17lbs.
Below is probably why you were disappointed with the Formula's 1/4 mile performance.
The Fiero Throttle body stock is 300cfm, With Darrels bore, it runs 320cfm. Technically a 3.4L should have something in the 350cfm range to match the actual draw of the engine take in. (cubic inch/2 X max RPM/1728 X VE = CFM) With a max RPM of 6000 for the 60* V-6 and a 3.4 being 204 cubic inches comes out to 354cfm. (VE in most fuel injection systems is 1) That means that once you get over about 4600 RPM the TB cannot supply enough air flow into the engine so your VE will drop. If you still have the Formula, you should have better 1/4 mile times if you shifted just under 5000 RPM.
The other problems are the ignition system. The stock GM ignition system loses power over 4500 RPM so now you have a weaker spark and you have less air (running rich) at the higher rpm's. The power loss over 5000 is greater than with the 2.8L Which requires 300CFM. If you go larger in CFM like going to Darrels TB on a 2.8L It aids in keeping the VE at 1 all the way up to 6000 rpm. Even when restrictions like a dirty air filter or carbon build-up in the intake system occur.
Basically the restriction in the entire intake system is the throttle body. You can port/polish/bore what you want in the heads/intake but the TB will still restrict your flow on a 3.4L.

(NOTE: the above CFM/cubic inch discussion is for normally aspirated engines. Using forced induction like a turbo or a supercharger calculates airflow differently. Dennis L. has eliminated the above problem by using a turbo. This is why his car seems to have such high gains over a N/A 3.4L)

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

Happiness isn't around the corner...
Happiness IS the corner.

My suggestion would be to try a custom grind. I tried the 2030 without considering the fact that it was first designed for the 2.8L in my 3.4L. In order to obtain the same performance increase in a larger motor from a specific cam series, it would need to be increased spec. wise or else it will tend to build bottom end performance in the larger engine, consistent with the desktop dyno extrapolation. I wasn't impressed with its performance and intend to go with a custom grind. As long as you explain what you are trying to accomplish they should be able to build a bigger cam that is computer friendly. I do believe that as long as the cam produces enough vacuum the MAP sensor should behave. Increased lobe separation is what helps keep the performance cams under control for the computer controled cars. Give it a thought. I installed a crane cam for the TPI 350 in a TPI 305 and the top end performance was something to bragg about.

I was mistaken on the manual, it was from the Chilton. This is getting more intreresting with each additional post, however at time I'm as lost as a houndog in a hail storm. If I use the crane 2030 type, how rich is the engine going to run? Such as, real bad fuel mileage, and damage to the engine.

Should I consider an ajustable fuel pressure regulator?

I have a small South Bend lathe, can I just chuck up the t.b. and cut a few mm out of it?, or is there fuel jets to be drilled as well?

I'm wondering now about the whole project, I was thinking this was an ez swap, but it looks like it has some bugs after you get the engine in.---I'm in too deep now, so I won't quite, but I need more info. Should I buy the cam?

Thanks, Yucon

quote Originally posted by Joseph Upson: My suggestion would be to try a custom grind. I tried the 2030 without considering the fact that it was first designed for the 2.8L in my 3.4L. In order to obtain the same performance increase in a larger motor from a specific cam series, it would need to be increased spec. wise or else it will tend to build bottom end performance in the larger engine, consistent with the desktop dyno extrapolation. I wasn't impressed with its performance and intend to go with a custom grind. As long as you explain what you are trying to accomplish they should be able to build a bigger cam that is computer friendly. I do believe that as long as the cam produces enough vacuum the MAP sensor should behave. Increased lobe separation is what helps keep the performance cams under control for the computer controled cars. Give it a thought. I installed a crane cam for the TPI 350 in a TPI 305 and the top end performance was something to bragg about.

There's some great info in this above post! I forgot all about the lobe sep. He's right, that does effect the computer. The map is sensative to loss of vacume, that's why i said that duration is the killer and not AS MUCH lift. Vacume loss also hurts the brakes. A simple cure for that is to use a vacume res. canister. It stores vacume at idle so that when the motor is at a point where there is low vacume you can still have good brakes.
The tuning thing sounds like a lot to do but it's not as bad as you might think. Get the adj. fuel regulator and a good A/F meter and you'll be good to go. Use small incraments when adjusting the pressure because to much is not a good thing. Anyone with a 3.4 should have an adjustable reg. anyway because some of them are rich and some of them are lean when installed. You need to adjust the fuel slightly to make it run smooth. You also have the small 2.8 intake system to deal with so haveing some flexability with the pressure is a good thing to get it running as good as possible.
I'm glad orief brought that up because i've mentioned it before and been bombed on here because everyone thinks that the Fiero intake and t-body is so efficient when in fact it's not. The injection system is also harder to handle since it's a speed density system. If only we got the mass airflow system like the X-11's got we'd be in a lot better shape for performance upgrades.
BTW the cam i'm running right now has 446 lift (thats with 1.52 rockers) and it runs fine.

------------------
Dave Gunsul
Activities Director
Northern IL. Fiero Enthusiasts.
86 GT mod.
85 SE V6 daily driver

I'm trying to follow this thread...

It seems to me Orief is right. Get the 204/214 with .423/.423 lift if 15 HP is worth the money to you.

I run a 212*/212* duration cam (@.050" L) and .444" I /.439" E total lift 113* lobe centers and it runs fine. The manifold vacuum is high the low end response is crisp and reversion in minimized due to the wide lobe center. I would not want to use a much larger cam than this.
This cam was custom cut for my turbo application by Comp Cams.
When comparing cams it is important to compare "Apples to Apples". OEM's measure duration differently than the aftermarket cam grinders. .050" L is the standard reference point for measuring duration.

------------------
87GT 3.4 Turbo Best 0-60 5.2 seconds
http://turbofiero.fierojoe.com/turbo.htm

quote Originally posted by Yucon Eric: I was mistaken on the manual, it was from the Chilton. This is getting more intreresting with each additional post, however at time I'm as lost as a houndog in a hail storm. If I use the crane 2030 type, how rich is the engine going to run? Such as, real bad fuel mileage, and damage to the engine. Should I consider an ajustable fuel pressure regulator? I have a small South Bend lathe, can I just chuck up the t.b. and cut a few mm out of it?, or is there fuel jets to be drilled as well? I'm wondering now about the whole project, I was thinking this was an ez swap, but it looks like it has some bugs after you get the engine in.---I'm in too deep now, so I won't quite, but I need more info. Should I buy the cam? Thanks, Yucon

You'll only run rich at RPM's over 5000. Yes running rich will damage things but you must remember that you won't be running the high RPM's alot. So the fuel mileage will only be bad if you were to hot rod the car constantly. The only affects it will have during normal driving is a slightly higher build up of carbon if you are constantly flooring the car and shifting higher than 5000 RPM's.

An adjustable Fuel pressure regulator is basically a must for the 3.4 with the Fiero intake. Actually an adjustable regulator should be used on any engine that you modify. (2.8, 3.1, 0r 3.4) As with any engine, they are designed to work a certain way. When you change something you affect other things. I would bet that even a stock 2.8 would gain some benefits from an adjustable regulator. Not all 2.8L engines are identical.

Boring the TB is good but you'll never get it to 350cfm. Darrel bores his out 5mm and this get's it to 320cfm. If you wnat to experiment, remember when you bore the TB you also need to make the throttle plate larger, the intake face needs to be bored and the IAC port needs a little machining to keep it's canted aspect to the incoming air.
Darrel does all of the above for around $150.00 There are no "fuel jets in the TB it's just a tube with the throttle plate and a few vacuum ports. The IAC port needs to have the angle for proper flow during idle.

quote Originally posted by Oreif: (Anything higher than .440 and the Fiero map sensor will go wacky. You would need to convert to the 3.4L Ram Air engines Air Flow Sensor.)

Oh how untrue this is! I have a Crane Cam with .454/.480 lift with a split duration of 204/216 and 112 degree lobe seperation and I am useing the stock map sensor. This is on my built up 3.2L. I dont need no stinkin 3.4L, mine's faster!

------------------
James Essar
Co-Founder of NEO Fiero Club!
88 V6 Coupe 3.2L V6 With NX Nitrous Wet shot (100-150HP Shot)
Stock 4, Wanna Race?

quote Originally posted by FieroMaster88: Oh how untrue this is! I have a Crane Cam with .454/.480 lift with a split duration of 204/216 and 112 degree lobe seperation and I am useing the stock map sensor. This is on my built up 3.2L. I dont need no stinkin 3.4L, mine's faster!

The split duration helps. If the vacuum drops below 13.5 HG the Map sensor goes wacky. I know that the Lunati performance cam with the .442/.442 lifts does cause the SES light to come on an read a MAP senor error due to low vacuum at idle. But I think it's duration is up near 218/218.
How is your idle and power brake booster, Did you need to use a vacuum can?
With the NOS, What 1/4 mile times do you get?
Do you know what the HP is with the NOS and without?
(I'm asking because I'm curious about HP vs. 1/4 mile times. I've been watching the 3.4 performance thread to see if I can get a good sampling of how much HP it takes to push a Fiero to a certain time)

The idle is good. Steady at 1000 RPM. Sounds really mean tho! My breaks are good too, and nope, didnt have to use a vacuum can. I would say my HP ratins are around 230HP, maybe less without nitrous...and 125 more HP with nitrous. I used the G-Tech on my car before the nitrous and was getting 14.3's with 5.7's 0-60 almost every run. And that was with 24# injectors and the car running WAY too rich! Never got to test it with the nitrous, but man does the nitrous put you back into the seat! I have yet to get to the track, so I dont have any slips. Soon maybe.

quote Originally posted by FieroMaster88: Oh how untrue this is! I have a Crane Cam with .454/.480 lift with a split duration of 204/216 and 112 degree lobe seperation and I am useing the stock map sensor. This is on my built up 3.2L. I dont need no stinkin 3.4L, mine's faster!

This would be the friend i mentioned earlier that is running the Crane cam that comes in the crate 3.4 engine in his 3.2.
As i said many times above, the big cam and the computer not working together are not always true. Make sure you keep the duration down and pay attention to what your lobe seperation is before you buy the cam and you'll be fine.
I have ridden in this car and the idle is acceptable and it is indeed fast! I can't comment on the brakes because i never drove the car but we never crashed so i guess they're fine
Edit: typo

------------------
Dave Gunsul
Activities Director
Northern IL. Fiero Enthusiasts.
86 GT mod.
85 SE V6 daily driver

[This message has been edited by Dave Gunsul (edited 08-09-2002).]

quote Originally posted by FieroMaster88: The idle is good. Steady at 1000 RPM. Sounds really mean tho! My breaks are good too, and nope, didnt have to use a vacuum can. I would say my HP ratins are around 230HP, maybe less without nitrous...and 125 more HP with nitrous. I used the G-Tech on my car before the nitrous and was getting 14.3's with 5.7's 0-60 almost every run. And that was with 24# injectors and the car running WAY too rich! Never got to test it with the nitrous, but man does the nitrous put you back into the seat! I have yet to get to the track, so I dont have any slips. Soon maybe.

230hp without NOS and 14.3's sounds great!
I am hoping to get close to that with a normally aspriated 3.4
As for wacky MAP, It maybe more of what Dave says. It would most likely to cause more emission problems than driveability. The average 2.8L at idle runs about 14.1hg This puts a voltage of about 4 Volts to the ECM, At less than 13.5hg the voltage goes over the 4.5V limit and the ECM compensates by using the TPS for the fuel delivery. Since emission testing is done at idle and the ECM would be switching between the MAP and TPS for fuel and the lope rate, This may cause the emissions to go out of spec.

By the way, Dave and I have been Emailing between each other about this same topic. I got an Email from him that had another interesting thing. It seems that with the 3.4's folks have a slight hunt at idle. It seems that using a MAP sensor from a 1990-1992 Chevy 5.7L out of a Camaro helps eliminate the hunting idle. I wonder if the Volts per HG is a different scale? I would assume so since the V-8 is a 90* and our V-6's are 60*.

quote Originally posted by Dave Gunsul: I would suggest not changing the cam at all. The cam that comes in the crate 3.4 is a Crane grind, it's specs are as follows: 204 int. 216 exh @.050. Lift: 427 int. 454 exh. I'm not sure if this cam is in the regular production 3.4's or not but if it is, and it's very likely that it is, then the cams you're looking at are smaller and you'll actually lose power. I've seen a few people on this board switch to other cams in their 3.4's and they seem to be the people that report it as not being to much of a difference over the 2.8 engine. I doubt that GM would put a bigger cam with the same HP rating in a crate engine that's intended for S10 pickups and leave a smaller cam in a Camaro/firebird. That doesn't make much sense since the truck would need the lower end grunt to pull things and the sports cars would need the added upper range HP and midrange torque. Again, i'm not positive that this is the case but i am positive that the GM crate 3.4 does has the cam i listed above which is obviously bigger then the "compucam" type cams you're looking at. If you're really not sure, why not go with the cam that's in the 3.4 crate engine instead? It's obviously bigger then the others you're looking at and if they put it in the crate engine then it must work perfectly well in that engine.

Originally posted by Oreif:
I pulled the cam out of the engine I have, which came out of a 1994 Firebird. The cam was mic'd out and it matches the GM economy cam. This was done to provide better fuel economy on the V-6 3500lbs F-bodies. What I posted above is true, acurate, and verified thru GM.

Is it possible that you are both right here...??? 95 was the last year that this engine was used in a Camaro and there is a noticable difference in driving a 94 vs's a 95. I was told that Chevy is/ was selling off the remainder of their inventory as a crate motor.??? thanks pc

quote Originally posted by SanBerdueFiero: Is it possible that you are both right here...??? 95 was the last year that this engine was used in a Camaro and there is a noticable difference in driving a 94 vs's a 95. I was told that Chevy is/ was selling off the remainder of their inventory as a crate motor.??? thanks pc

I highly doubt it. The Crate motor is specifically designed to replace the old truck motors that use a carb and output 160hp. Also the horsepower rating between the 94 and 95 wasn't rated differently. (also 160hp) The cam size change would cause a significant change in HP and torque.
The reason both are rated at 160 is because the carb'd engine has a lower VE due to the carb's seperate barrels and venturi's where the TB on the F-body cars is basically a tube with a throttle plate. The lower VE would require the engine to need a larger cam to compensate for this.

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 08-09-2002).]

OK,here's the deal, the 204-214 cam has a 109 degrees lobe seperation. And get this , there's a $20 rebate, so if the seperation sounds right I'll order this one.
Who has the best price on the ajustable pressure reg, and gauge? Summit doesn't have them and "The Store" has something like a $150 price tag.

Thanks for all the help,

Yucon

I can't let this topic die, I've gotta know about the cam lobe seperation, wheather or not the 109* is exceptable. And where to buy the ajustable reg. and gauge. 204/214 Crane

Thanks, Yucon

quote Originally posted by Yucon Eric: I can't let this topic die, I've gotta know about the cam lobe seperation, wheather or not the 109* is exceptable. And where to buy the ajustable reg. and gauge. 204/214 Crane Thanks, Yucon

I am sorry. I thought that you had made up your mind already. The only thing that i can add is that when in doubt go to the company that has spent the most time and money researching your questions. This is copied from http://www.gmpartsdirect.com have fun with it.

12353919 Camshaft Kit
All models car and truck Chevrolet V6/60º (2.8L & 3.1L) for off highway use. Smooth idle, daily usage, off road, towing, economy, mild turbo-charged 8.0 - 9.5 to compression ratio, 2200 - 2600 cruising RPM. Basic RPM range 1500 - 4000, 6500 RPM attainable with proper valve springs and lifters. This camshaft kit is designed and manufactured by Crane Camshaft Co.r for GM Service Parts Division. The kit includes (1) camshaft and (12) tappets. The duration at .050 lift (intake/exhaust) is 204º/214º, while the value lift is .420"/.442". Lobe centerline is 112.

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


12363220 Camshaft
This performance flat tappet hydraulic camshaft is used in the new 3.4-liter engine conversion package (P/N 12363230) and is also applicable to 2.8-liter and 3.1-liter engines. Designed to increase mid-range torque and horsepower, this camshaft is ideal for daily performance usage. The duration at .050" lift (intake/exhaust) is 204º/216º, while the valve lift is .427"/.454". The basic RPM range is 1500-4500, and the lobe separation is 107º.
Technical Notes: Use with valve spring P/N 12363215 and retainer P/N 12363216.

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


12364059 Camshaft Kit
Applicable to all 1980-94 Chevrolet 60º V6 (2.8-liter & 3.1-liter) engines, this performance-oriented camshaft kit is designed to significantly improve mid-range torque and horsepower without sacrificing idle quality. The basic RPM range is 1500-4500 with 6500 RPM attainable using proper valve springs. Cruise RPM is designed for 2200-2600 RPM, and a compression ratio of 8.0-9.5 to 1 is recommended. This kit is not legal for pollution-controlled vehicles. This camshaft kit is designed and manufactured by Crane Camshaft Co.® for GM Service Parts Division. The kit includes (1) camshaft and (12) tappets. The duration at .050 lift (intake/exhaust) is 204º/216º, while the value lift is .427"/.454". Lobe centerline is 112.

10207475 Valve Spring
Production design valve spring and damper for cast iron cylinder heads.
Technical Notes: Suitable for .420" maximum valve lift.

12363215 Valve Spring
This valve spring is used in the new 3.4-liter engine conversion package (P/N 12363230) and designed for moderate performance usage. Manufactured from chrome silicon wire, this spring produces 105 pounds of seat pressure at an installed height of 1.70" and 296 pounds open pressure at a height of 1.20".
Technical Notes: Use with retainer P/N 12363216.

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


12363216 Valve Spring Retainer
This heavy-duty valve spring retainer is used in the new 3.4-liter engine conversion package (P/N 12363230). Manufactured from 4140 heat-treated steel, this retainer has a diameter of 1.203" and is designed for use with an 11/32" valve stem.
Technical Notes: Use with valve spring P/N 12363215.

The ball is in your court now as they cover it as well as anyone can. Please let me know as to the results of your choice in camshaft. take care, PC

PS: I have found that if they have to make a deal (rebate)to get you to buy a product, that usually means that there are other products available that work better.

[This message has been edited by SanBerdueFiero (edited 08-10-2002).]

One thing i'd like to add to this that involves the original poster is: you seem to not be interested in tuning and that's why you're chosing the smaller cam. Oreif and i both agree that no matter which way you go (big cam or small) you will have to do some runing. This is essential in any mod or engine swap. The smaller cam will take less time to tune correctly so it maybe the best choice for you. The bigger cam will produce more power but it will require more fiddling. Besides this, you need to read what each cam is intended for and figure that into how and what kind of driving you do. In other words, the cam you chose should be idea for your particular driving habits and needs. I get the impression that you're leaning towards the small 2030 cam and if that's what you want then that's most definitely what you should use.
For me, power is essential. I want more and more. If my car loaps (rumpity, rumpity)i look at that as a good thing you may not.
Pick what's best for you. Just don;t pick one over the other because you're afraid it won't work. My engine right now has more then 440 lift, so does Fieromaster88 ( a lot more in his case) and both cars run fine. They even run smooth, to smooth for me.
If emissions are a concern in your area you must remember that as well.

------------------
Dave Gunsul
Activities Director
Northern IL. Fiero Enthusiasts.
86 GT mod.
85 SE V6 daily driver

As Dave says above, You should pick out a cam for how you drive or want the car to act.
I would even go so far as to say to buy a desktop dyno program, go to all the cam manufacturers and get the specs. The actual HP and torque numbers on the desktop program are not that accurate, but if you type in a baseline engine, then change the cam for each test, you can get an idea what 1 cam will do over another. The things to watch is where the torque peaks and where the HP peaks. This will give you an idea what the cam changes.

Here is a good website that has a run-down of all the cams available for 60* V-6's. They also give a small paragraph of how each one acts.
http://www.60degreev6.com/index.html