Great now that i have you in here, i will be letting u in my newest project...
As many of you may know my father and i have been doing a lot of work on the plastic fantastic, the 3.4 went in with no problem, well with out a MAJOR problem...
I have been nothing but ecstatic about its New found life, well after I found my job last night (whoo hoo go Pep Boys ;-) ) my father “got on it” merging onto a major highway, Man that was fun…

Except the fun kind of only lasted till around 4 grand…

Also many of you guys know I am a co-owner in a business catering to rice and ricers, its sort of embarrassing having my fun end at 4k when my customers get fun up to 7k.

I have narrowed it down to lack of air, cause after all that is what a motor is, a big air pump, air comes in and air goes out…

My problem is on the intake side of things, the 2.8L intake is too restrictive to have fun up in the RPM range, so to fix this I am going to make a “custom”…

I took measurements of the 2.8l intake and the 3.4l intake and they appear to have the same external dimensions…

So here is my question for you guys comes:

Will the Fiero take a ½ inch “spacer”, between the uppermost intake and middle intake, so that the upper intake will clear the distributor?

If it doesn’t I would like to go with the rustanng hood scoop but I am weary about cutting the hood and it still not clearing it…

My other question is for the tech junkies, if I got rid of the “dividers” on the upper and middle intake, would this affect the flow characteristics?

If so would it be positive or negative?

Also relating to that I would assume that if I radiused (rounded over) the “dividers” on the lower intake that would help right?

Please keep in mind that this motor will be Turbo Charged in a couple of months… so that is high on the priority list…

One last thing though, for the EGR, MAF, and the TPS have different connectors, if I spliced these connectors in to the original fiero harness, it would function properly given that the wires all do the same thing correct?

Thnx I will be posting some more inof that I have later "Ogre" wants his computer

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

I would love for someone to finally develop an intake for the 3.4L's just so we can stop all the crying about our intakes and just let the car run decent. Its not going to make it no race car but it will definitely help the performance without a doubt. Good luck and keep us posted.

Amir

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

1987 GT 5 spd: 2.8L
(15.57 @ 87mph)
1988 Formula 5 spd: 3.4L
(15.56 @ 84mph)
My Website: http://www.members.cox.net/rare88/

should i bench this project cause there is little too no interest here ??? comeon guys i am asking some questions i know alot of u have this information about intake performance,

and if not, i bet you know somthing about it from the "old" days of carbs and the like...

plzzz

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

Originally posted by pred1tor83:
--------------
I have narrowed it down to lack of air...
My problem is on the intake side of things, the 2.8L intake is too restrictive to have fun up in the RPM range...

Yup. This is pretty much a recognized problem with the Fiero induction system on the 3.4.

I took measurements of the 2.8l intake and the 3.4l intake and they appear to have the same external dimensions…

I understand the throttle bodies are the same diameter. Wouldn't surprise me if most of the characteristics are similar, although I don't know for sure.

Will the Fiero take a ½ inch “spacer”, between the uppermost intake and middle intake, so that the upper intake will clear the distributor?

Are you talking about the Camaro or the Fiero upper intake?
I have seen people add chambers to the top of the Fiero plenum to increase the total volume. The chamber was nearly an inch taller than the plenum, and I believe it fit under a stock decklid. Don't know if raising the entire plenum will work or not. Try making little "towers" out of modeling clay, and placing them at strategic places on the plenum, then close the lid.

My other question is for the tech junkies, if I got rid of the “dividers” on the upper and middle intake, would this affect the flow characteristics?

If so would it be positive or negative?

I'm guessing that you are talking about the shared "wall", where the runners are siamesed together. Removing them will probably increase the flow, but it will greatly throw off the balance between the cylinders. The ones that are still "by themselves" will still be restricted. Anything that is done to increase flow to any cylinders should be done to all cylinders.

Also relating to that I would assume that if I radiused (rounded over) the “dividers” on the lower intake that would help right?

See above.

Please keep in mind that this motor will be Turbo Charged in a couple of months… so that is high on the priority list…

A turbo will negate a lot of the restriction in the stock system. If you're going to turbo it, the porting becomes much less important.

One last thing though, for the EGR, MAF, and the TPS have different connectors, if I spliced these connectors in to the original fiero harness, it would function properly given that the wires all do the same thing correct?

Again, Im guessing you are talking about the Camaro sensors. (Are Camaros MAF?!) Can't help you there. GM uses the same sensors on a lot of different engines, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're the same. Best to compare part numbers, or go to one of the parts stores, and see if the replacements are the same part numbers.

A lot of these answers are based upon stuff that I've read and seen, over the years. Others may have different opinions.

Good luck. My 3.4 wants fresh air, too.

------------------
Raydar

First rule of hot rodding:
If "more" is enough, then "too much" is just right.

I wouldnt think removing the dividers would be a good idea. one of the things you have to maintain is evenflow. with the upper plenum, you would end up with 4 cyls on a short runner, but open intake, and 2 with a long runner thats not as open. you dont want to the flow to get that uneven. it will mess with the ECM & fuel/air mix. you can do quite a bit of intake porting with a dremel, like them bumbs for the injectors, get them smooth down. smooth the radius of where the upper & lower plenum come together. get daryl morse to ream the throttle body & upper plenum. or even go a step beyond that and do something like WestCostFiero did with their intake. right now, what is needed and a bigger throttle body & upper plenum, and the runners opened up a little more.

quote Originally posted by pred1tor83: <SNIP> My other question is for the tech junkies, if I got rid of the “dividers” on the upper and middle intake, would this affect the flow characteristics? <SNIP>

If you're talking about the walls between the discreet runners in the plenum, removing them would not change the constant flow rate (what you'd see on a flow bench) one bit. What removing would do is shorten the length of the runners, increasing the frequency at which the Helmholz effet is most efficient (increases the RPM at which dynamic flow is most efficient). Due to the fact that two of the six runners are not siamesed with the others, this will create a little imbalance in how the most efficient "ram-tuning" is accomplished, diluting the effect a little at the most efficient frequency for each runner length (i.e. there will be two overlapping frequencies of interest, which at once serve to aid the other and partially cancel the other).

I've been a little bit of an RPM junkie for years (used to race DOHC Toyotas into the 12K RPM range), so I've been considering taking a spare plenum and modifying it to see if I can coax a few more RPM out of the engine without any other changes, but the entire package was designed to work at lower RPM.

------------------
Steve Chin
87 GT 5-speed
79 Trans Am 455-HO Edelbrock heads, Ram Air IV cam, Richmond Gear 5-speed, 2.56:1 12-bolt, VSE Fire-Am suspension, smog-legal
72 K/5 Blazer 357, Edelbrock Performer heads, NV4500 5-speed w/ synchro reverse

just use the gen2 aluminum heads with the lower/middle intake from the aluminum head 2.8/3.1 and then make custom top manifolds w/ dual TB's to clear the distributor, just like martin white and some other people have done, only with the iron heads.

------------------
Eric
'87 GT 5-speed Gold/Tan NOW with a 4.10 4-speed
3.4 TDC + other goodies coming summer of '03

Problem's already solved:
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Archives/Archive-000001/HTML/20020208-2-014612.html

that is a nice set-up but do you know how much harder itwould be to route a turbo system w/ that???

I am looking for somthing that will leave people with the "is that factory" look, so i am going to use as much as i can from factory parts, but yes that is a nice intake

Thank you guys sooo much for the help with the division of the 4 cylinders that are siamesed (sp)... i thought about it, but i sorta kicked it to the back....

Here are some pics of my drawings/concepts

I Have another problem though, how would i cut the intake??? a machine shop???

Its not thick metal, but after all its not somthing i can take a saw too lol, more thinking

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

If you make something like that, get it dynoed and everything and it definitely shows good improvement I think a lot of people would buy one from you. Keep us posted as a lot of us guys would love to see something in production as I would maybe want to turbo my car down the road. Thanks.

Amir

Why not just use the intake manifold from the 3.4?

its the wrong way, look at your car, the throttle body is located @ The Driver side...

The camaro/firebird v6 throttle body would be pointed to the passenger side, wher your battery is

to further compund this, it has now air induction from that side of the car, which would make mounting and installing a turbo almost impossible,

i take that back, it could be done, just not well, and not as cheap as i would like to do it...

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

The Fiero and Camaro throttle body have the same diameter butterfly. The Fiero throttle body will fit the Camaro intake by drilling and tapping the holes and using a thin aluminum plate between them. Travis and 1slo2m6 have this intake now and have not let me know what is happening with it. Travis, when you read this, please email me back to make payment arrangements.

thast a v-6 somthin dont look right???

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

The engine is a Camaro 3.4 with the factory intake turned around on the engine with an extension welded in so the plenum clears the distributer. This was a very early picture of this swap and all the hoses and ignition wires had not been routed correctly.

I hate to say it because I am having the same problem, BUT... if you are going turbo (in the long run) all of the modification would be in vain. Also you will have to either to go back to the stock setup to go turbo or will have to make additional mods to get the turbo to work with the new intake.
Something to think about.

------------------
Ed

http://hometown.aol.com/idomy0wnracing

I was wondering if the Camaro intake was reversible.

Can it be bolted on backwards if the distributor isn't in place?

I so, that sounds like the solution. If you're truly upgrading, you should be rewiring for DIS anyway...

quote Originally posted by Will: 1.) I was wondering if the Camaro intake was reversible. 2.) Can it be bolted on backwards if the distributor isn't in place? 3.) I so, that sounds like the solution. If you're truly upgrading, you should be rewiring for DIS anyway...

Answers:
1.) Yes and the Fiero fuel rail bolts right onto it.
2.) Probably.
3.) DIS is not that much of an improvement- I ran my 3.4 with both and the distributer was smoother.

quote Originally posted by IDoMy0wn Racing: I hate to say it because I am having the same problem, BUT... if you are going turbo (in the long run) all of the modification would be in vain. Also you will have to either to go back to the stock setup to go turbo or will have to make additional mods to get the turbo to work with the new intake. Something to think about.

I agree with Ed on this one. If you are planning to turbo the 3.4L what is the real advantage of doing the intake setup? It would seem like a waste of time if this is what you were wanting down the road and just fabricated this for no reason. I thinking turboeing the 3.4L is about the best idea to do with that Engine. What are other people's views on this? Thanks, just kind of curious. What is the best 1/4 mile time to do date with a 3.4L that is turboed? Im not thinking it will be in the 12's but definitely 13's which is respectable and would be cool to have something different not necessarily any Vette killer but something definitel unique I think.

Amir

i know the turbo system will take up most of the restrictions in the intake but, i will be running na for at least 6 mo, and this seems like a good idea at the time...

As for DIS i would rather have to deal with a distributor, just less stuff to go wrong

I do plan on turboing it, but i want to have a "vett" killer, i figure with an upgraded intake, exhaust and a BIG cam, i should almost be able to scoot into the 12's if not 11's with street tires... right now the plan is to do around 300hp, 350lb torque, maybe even through a small shot of nitros just in case u know??

And besides, i have had more than one request to look into this, cause some people dont want to deal with the turbo system, and this intake will dramatically change the behavior of the beast!!!!

Take me for what you will, i am going to get my baby into the 11's and its gonna be drivable on weekends on the street to tear up some hondas, vets, rustangs, and if i am lucky maybe a viper or somthin...

for those of u supporting me in my quest THNAKS GUYS

for the haters, well ill just shakem off for now, and if u wanna keep giving me a hard time, just keep it to yourself, and if a year from dec 25 2002

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

Us dial up guys would really appreciate it if you stopped using your signature for every post within the same thread.

While forced induction does go a long way toward flattening out the engine's VE curve, better breathing == more power, forced induction or not. Also, keeping the engine's high RPM breathing capability closer to its mid RPM breathing capability makes matching a turbo to it easier.

Hey guys, barely made some progress on the intake today,

have been laying low for a bit, but i cut one of the runners off of the 3.4l intake, and its going good...

gatta get some shut eye so i can finish the rest in the mornin'

will have pics then...

on a car pics web page I sen what looked to be a holley upper intake. I am not to sure maybe it was just a cover but it sure did look like an upper intake. it looked really ncie too. If I can find the pics I will post them

This is todays work, not includin' paint...

here you see that i ground down the 3.4 SFI witch stood for sequentail (sp)...

Runners are gone in these two pics

Besides a crotch shot, this shows how i cut down some extra material... lookin clean, now to the paint room or dads garage whatever... it gets done though right

Keep us posted on your project.

Alright made a mistake...

not to bad though, thought i should give it a few coats and then i remembered that i needed to polish the inside, so painting is on hold while i port

I appreciate your work and ingenuity,but I do not believe that this manifold will provide much of an increase over the stock plenum under boost conditions. Boost is compressed air- a large volume of air pressed into a smaller space. Boosting an engine does overcome many of the flow restrctions in the head and plenum. The pressure will increase the flow and the air volume is higher per unit area. While removing flow restrictions are always beneficial, the question always boils down to how much?

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

okey dokey, I tore apart the beast... well at least the top of it, and came up with a few ideas... can't go into details right now, but I will let you in on it

You know that hard brittle crap GM calls vacuum lines? Mine are going to be stainless steel

I'm also planning on relocating a few things and making a custom spacer out of aluminum, that errr, hard to explain. I will have pics tomorow, gotta do some planning ...

QUESTION OF THE DAY :

Does it matter where I put the vacuum ports? I'm going to use the one in the middle for the brake booster signal, but does it matter where they go? I think the PCV should go right next to the brakes right? Man this is getting complicated, please gurus, help me out...

[This message has been edited by pred1tor83 (edited 01-08-2003).]

Darrel Morse did a large dia bore for the fiero plenum by using a ford TB. I would like to see pics of his setup because it was like 60mm. If the 3.4L has same size bore then whats the point of using it. I think if someone does add a larger TB it would throw codes & may bog down. Darrel said his Ford TB was un-tested. I think he wanted 300 for it. I guess you know that you need a low temp welding setup to do aluminum. The 2.8 NEEDS to have upper rpms but the heads need to be redone/redesigned as well. I have a spare 2.8 I also need to experiment with.
Good Luck P:
OUT>

i think you might be right and wrong if it is possible

I think that the 3.4 has a better flow characteristic than that of the 2.8 because the fact that in the 2.8 the air needs to make a 90 degree turn, and that is not happing in the 3.4, and air distribution would go up because there is more internal volume in the 3.4 intake….

As for my stainless steel lines, well made the EGR tonight, looks good and all, tomorrow morning I am going to make wood models of the EGR solenoid, MAP, and a few other things, just so I can make sure they are a perfect fit the first time…

I also think it would be neat to secure them with hose clamps because I am going to use a little piece of vacuum hose for easy disconnect and connection…

Ill get some pics up for you all tomorrow because I am way to tired to get any now

Thanks for your interest guys

Any progress with this?

Bump