quote Originally posted by crzyone: No point speculating. A dyno sheet is the only thing people believe nowadays. Unless you can provide one, or you are claiming stock engine specs then there is no need to list your HP level. Period.

exactly. anyone can claim anything. especially with such vague detail.

if we look at the numbers: 3.2 liter + turbo, yes, with todays DOHC motors, 250 HP would be a cake walk. heck - 3.2L make that handily WITHOUT boost.

but - in the end - as long as you are satisfied - wtf. I enjoy my 160 HP 3.1
and - nothing to back that up - but - not an unreasonable claim either.

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: heck - 3.2L make that handily WITHOUT boost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...h_Feature_engine#3.2

I dont do paperwork anymore. No one believed the dyno sheet 12 years ago, and never believed the time slip on my Magnum...so who cares. They didnt even believe the 1/4 time when I posted a video showing the times. Like said you can do anything you want if you want to bad enough. I had about $7000 in the 3.1. It redlined at 7000 too, so call me a liar if you want. If I liked to lie I could say my Super Bee has 600 hp too. I remember all the people here laughing at the live dyno test I put up on youtube. Some people believe the earth is 5000 years old too. In a nutshell, I really dont care what anyone thinks about anything...I live my own great life just fine.

No intercooler, small inefficient turbo, stock injectors and pump (assuming), pump gas... Just those factors alone make it impossible to make 275hp from an iron head 3.1

You can not care all you want, but your power claim is out to lunch. Most dyno graphs or videos show enough proof for people to believe you. Saying a million years ago someone else got these numbers is not going to cut it.

If you give inaccurate information and someone goes out and copies your build and wonders why they can't get the same power levels as you, I would call that bad information. Are you willing to give bad information and have someone scratching their head when they can't reproduce what you did? NASCAR engine builder or not, your engine doesn't add up.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: ask if I care what you think...... That was now almost 10 years ago. A friend who built Nascar engines built the whole thing, Headwork, roller rockers and lifters, and tons of other tricks. Another friend is still using the same engine in his road race car. It also did 177 mph by GPS, 200 mph speedo and Sheriffs radar gun all at same time on a 10 mile stretch of Interstate. So you know where you can stick your boots. Oh, and it blew the doors off my buddies Shelby Mustang on top end. My 08 Bullit Mustang has hot cams and exhaust work and cant get within 30 mph of my old kit. My 413 Super Bee wont do 120 mph with 375 hp. by the way, Design One Turbos claimed their bolt on Fiero kit made 250 hp according to sources, bolted on to bone stock 2.8s. I never seen anyone produce a dyno sheet to refute it.

Damn...didn't know Nascar engine where built by Jasper....

"No, mine was a 3.1 with the design one kit. The engine was professionally built by Jasper Racing Engines. It ran ' O ' ringed heads, 3 angle valve grind (oversized), some porting and polishing, balanced, roller rockers, etc. It dynoed at over 275 hp when new. The car was a rocket and had no trouble getting up to over 150 with an almost 7,000 rpm. Ask anyone in my local club. Should be able to find out about it in the archives. I sold it to a friend before I sold the Ferrari kit. Hes still using the same engine racing in SCCA."

And to do all that on a stock pump:

"Mine used stock injectors and ran perfectly for 100K. Stock fuel pump, Accel coil. Made plenty of HP. I ran usually around 5 pnd boost since it was a daily driver. I did run it with a brand new custom built V6."

Come on Rog....We are not a bunch of 17 year old Hooter girls......your sly talk will not work on us....

a stock fiero fuel system is good for 180hp, on a good day.

Your story could hold some water if you were running an upgraded fuel pump, and a custom fuel pressure setup, as you can turn stock fiero injectors into some pretty decent injectors at 80psi of fuel pressure. The stock fiero pump will not support anything over 60psi, and even at 60psi you should have issues flowing enough fuel for even stock injectors.

250 hp can be made if you turn enough rpm take away as much of the restrictions in the intake path . what you are trying to do is flow enough air at a certain rpm to make the hp so the more restrictive the intake path is the more push psi you have to run to push that air in and the higher the rpm the more air the engine will use with out any boost so there is no set ruel for how much boost you will need it all depends on how many rpm are you going to turn and how restrictive will the intake path be

quote Originally posted by engine man: 250 hp can be made if you turn enough rpm take away as much of the restrictions in the intake path . what you are trying to do is flow enough air at a certain rpm to make the hp so the more restrictive the intake path is the more push psi you have to run to push that air in and the higher the rpm the more air the engine will use with out any boost so there is no set ruel for how much boost you will need it all depends on how many rpm are you going to turn and how restrictive will the intake path be

no, just no.

Every car I have ever dyno'd has made peak hosrepower between 4000-5000 rpms... On stock intakes (many different types of stock intakes) with only 1 or 2% power differences between obviously restrictive and better flowing intakes.

lets see stock intakes that where designed for max power at 4000 to 5000 rpm wow isn't that amazing but if you take and made the whole intake path flow better for like 7000 rpm you wont need as much boost thats what i am talking about due to the engine is using more air at 7000 rpm than at 4000 rpm why do you think they turn F1 engines rev so high just due to they like the sound of 19,000 rpm no it's to move as much air as they can but the engine is so small they must crank the crap out of it to get the air flow and you must have the right turbo flow for the rpm

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 02-15-2011).]

quote Originally posted by engine man: lets see stock intakes that where designed for max power at 4000 to 5000 rpm wow isn't that amazing but if you take and made the whole intake path flow better for like 7000 rpm you wont need as much boost thats what i am talking about due to the engine is using more air at 7000 rpm than at 4000 rpm why do you think they turn F1 engines rev so high just due to they like the sound of 19,000 rpm no it's to move as much air as they can but the engine is so small they must crank the crap out of it to get the air flow

Sort of, you're taking the long way to make the point. They spin the engine that high so they can gear it down to the equivalent of a larger displacement motor than they're allowed that would spin at say half the rpm and make the same power. I don't recall the technical lingo but spinning an engine at a higher rpm produces more hp as long as it remains efficient at the higher rpm.

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: Actually it was 210 hp on 7psi. And I always looks at those #'s as gross hp. Predator(Pennock's member) had a design 1 kit and dynoed in the 180's which is about right once it was tuned right. (210-25hp drivetrain losses = 185). I believe the stage 2 Design1 kit added a knock sensor and raised the boost to 10psi and that was claiming more but 250 seems high to me...but you may be right but again most likely a gross # not net. This is going back to 2001ish, ya I been here a while... I had a turbo 3.1 rebuild with 8 psi and I was right under 200rwhp myself but ran into problems and swapped in the 4.9. The turbo 3.1 was faster than the 4.9 for sure... I was using the KKK K3 turbo from a Volkswagon. Contrary to the popular belief, the Fiero iron heads CAN FLOW when properly ported and polished. My own NA franken 3.400 motor put down 249 ft*lbs and 187 rwhp with the Fiero intake. So I don't doubt your 275rwhp claim at all.

!ndeed on those heads: when we did our flow bench testing of our intake manfolds, the stock heads we used flowed enough CFM to support over 300HP see dyno and flow bench numbers at trueleo.com.
BTW: 3.4s with headers, better intakes and a few other mods have mode over 215HP on the dyno, so a 3,2 turbo should have no trouble.
Do use an intercooler.

------------------
[IMG]




trueleo.com
RSpiderII@aol.com

they spin the that high to make power you can only go so high on the boost the fuel wont take it and the higher you spin the air pump the more air you move and to use what there intake system can flow they need to spin it that high lets say you have a cylinder that is 50 CI and you have one head that flows 200 CFM and another that flows 270 CFM the engines peak power potential rpm will change due to the cfm of the intake tract and the cylinder will always be 50 CI so it must cycle more times to use the cfm of the higher flowing intake than the lower flowing intake

quote Originally posted by engine man: they spin the that high to make power you can only go so high on the boost the fuel wont take it and the higher you spin the air pump the more air you move and to use what there intake system can flow they need to spin it that high lets say you have a cylinder that is 50 CI and you have one head that flows 200 CFM and another that flows 270 CFM the engines peak power potential rpm will change due to the cfm of the intake tract and the cylinder will always be 50 CI so it must cycle more times to use the cfm of the higher flowing intake than the lower flowing intake

You're still saying the same thing, if they don't spin the engine high enough relative to the size they will not have the power it takes to get the performance they need. They're running naturally aspirated so they need to spin higher to produce the same power levels they'd get spinning lower rpms with boost which accomplishes the same thing, more air through the engine to make it perform like a larger displacement motor.

[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 02-15-2011).]

yes with boost you can spin it slower but you can only go to a point with how much boost you can run with a certain fuel or it starts to detonate so you must go to a higher rpm so i see this as a kinda both correct thing as long as the fuel can take the boost you can spin the engine slower and make the same power as spinning it higher with less boost to make the same power as long as you can flow enough air at the higher rpm and larger displacment engines flow more air at lower rpm

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 02-15-2011).]

I don't know where this conversation is headed with your comments, engine man, but it has seemed to have veered way off from what the OP asked.

Strictly speaking, 3.2 liters of displacement in an otto cycle engine is more than enough displacement to produce 250 hp.

However, a 30 over 80s or 90s GM 60 degree 2.8 with a 3.1 crank isn't likely to make that 250 hp reliably or easily. Stroking the engine robbed it of RPM potential, since increased piston speed with larger stroke means higher probability of critical failure in the bottom end. And the engines in question don't have particularly strong bottom ends.

Is it doable? Certianly. Is it likely that the OP's combo will do it? Not very. At least, not more than a few times.

i Know sory what i am trying to say is yes 250 hp should not be a problem i am not sure how much boost it will take that will depend on how restrictive the intake is for the amount of rpm and air he needs to flow

quote Originally posted by engine man: i Know sory what i am trying to say is yes 250 hp should not be a problem i am not sure how much boost it will take that will depend on how restrictive the intake is for the amount of rpm and air he needs to flow

Well, except it is a problem with the engine in question.

well according to my turbo calculator it is 10 psi of boost at 5000 rpm you will make 250 HP or 14 psi at 4600 rpm

that is 23.3 lbs of air flow per minute

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 02-15-2011).]

quote Originally posted by engine man: well according to my turbo calculator it is 10 psi of boost at 5000 rpm you will make 250 HP or 14 psi at 4600 rpm that is 23.3 lbs of air flow per minute

Oh, well then, it must be true, since your turbo calculator you found on the internets says so.

No it's not 100 percent due to we dint know what flow numbers there basing it on but lets say it is 80 percent then your looking at about 12 psi at 5000 rpm and at least this is based on a formula instead of just BS dribble and of course you need all the right parts to go with it cam intake exhaust tune

quote Originally posted by engine man: No it's not 100 percent due to we dint know what flow numbers there basing it on but lets say it is 80 percent then your looking at about 12 psi at 5000 rpm and at least this is based on a formula instead of just BS dribble and of course you need all the right parts to go with it cam intake exhaust tune

Garbage in, garbage out.

80% VE? Out of an iron head 3.1? LOL...

Can the engine make 275hp? Sure! Good flowing intake and exhaust, large efficient turbo, fuel system to support it, ignition system that can handle the denser air, an intercooler that isn't from a saab fitted in the engine bay vent... The engine can make it, not sure how long but it will. Water/Meth will help with detonation resistance so you can run more advanced timing and more boost pressure. The stock bottom end is weak, and the oiling sucks in the early 60* V-6s.

My whole argument is that Roger's engine couldn't or didn't make 275hp. It doesn't have the fueling, intercooling or turbo to pull it off.

The easiest way to get that kind of power would be to swap in a 3.4tdc. Good flowing heads and a turbo suited for your power goals. This is one of the more drop in engine swaps, and with forced induction can be a monster in a fiero.

quote Originally posted by crzyone: This is one of the more drop in engine swaps.

Was. The 3800 is more of a monster. Cheaper too.

quote Originally posted by engine man: No it's not 100 percent due to we dint know what flow numbers there basing it on but lets say it is 80 percent then your looking at about 12 psi at 5000 rpm and at least this is based on a formula instead of just BS dribble and of course you need all the right parts to go with it cam intake exhaust tune

And a block, and a crank and rods that won't snap under the stress. Formulae are good, but you need them all really. Heck, with proper air flow, a 3.2L V6 could make more than 250hp easy. But nobody builds perfect engines.

A better BSFC on a turbo motor is going to be in the .6 range.

------------------
10.5@134 3800 turbo 88 coupe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5li6oojNCIM

Ultimate 3800 swap thread

Don't all 60 degree block from 88 and up have some splayed crank bolts (4 bolt mains at that) for extra strength?
In other forums, the 60 degree block has been shown to handle >300rwhp reliably.

Is it "possible" that he made 275rwhp. Yes. Does everyone know how his engine was built? No. Do we need to argue about it? I don't think so.

There are alot of myths about the iron heads. While the intakes of the 3X00 motors are nice, I am not convinced that the aluminum heads substantially outflow the iron heads when properly ported and polished. We have flow bench results from Trueleo that tells us alot.

Given the same 3400 rollercam block, my iron-head motor outperforms most or all NA aluminum head motor's I've seen. I even match the TDC 3.4 in HP and exceed it in torque (vs stock 3.4 TDC ofcourse). With the Trueleo intake and L98 throttle body, I believe I've come close to breaking the 200rwhp barrier but haven't dynoed it yet. If I clean or change 1 spark plug, it feels as fast as my stock 6speed '97 vette. I don't want change a plug and run a dyno and not be able to repeat the results next week without changing a plug every 2 days. It's cold out and my 4.9 car is giving me headaches still so I don't know when I'll get around to investigating further...but I will. Then it will be dynoed. I've posted about 4 dynos from 4 different motors over the years so I ain't no stranger to it.

the block rods crank and pistons are more than strong enough to do the job the only things you will need are a better intake and the right cam and turbo
If formulas are not worth any thing then all the engine building software such as desk top dyno are worth nothing and the formulas GM Ford ectect are worth nothing i mean you got 1 guy who builds intakes and said the heads are good for 300 HP na i think i would take his advice over all of us he is building engines and sticking them on the dyno

quote Originally posted by engine man: the block rods crank and pistons are more than strong enough to do the job the only things you will need are a better intake and the right cam and turbo If formulas are not worth any thing then all the engine building software such as desk top dyno are worth nothing and the formulas GM Ford ectect are worth nothing i mean you got 1 guy who builds intakes and said the heads are good for 300 HP na i think i would take his advice over all of us he is building engines and sticking them on the dyno

I have no idea what you started rambling about there, but nobody said formulae are worthless. But if you've only got one of them, out of 200 necessary, then you're only seeing 1/200 of the picture. And yeah, if FrancisT flowbenched the stock heads and that data says they can get enough air through to make 300hp with, then I'm sure that's true. But there's a lot more to making reliable consistent power, than how much air the heads can flow.

quote Originally posted by L67: Was. The 3800 is more of a monster. Cheaper too.

Don't think so Tim. I did a 3.4TDC Swap. Pretty much a drop in engine. Plus, I wasn't talking about what is the bigger monster, just the easiest engine swap. the 3.4 uses a slightly modified 2.8 engine mount. How does it get easier than that?

quote Originally posted by MstangsBware: Damn...didn't know Nascar engine where built by Jasper.... "No, mine was a 3.1 with the design one kit. The engine was professionally built by Jasper Racing Engines. It ran ' O ' ringed heads, 3 angle valve grind (oversized), some porting and polishing, balanced, roller rockers, etc. It dynoed at over 275 hp when new. The car was a rocket and had no trouble getting up to over 150 with an almost 7,000 rpm. Ask anyone in my local club. Should be able to find out about it in the archives. I sold it to a friend before I sold the Ferrari kit. Hes still using the same engine racing in SCCA." And to do all that on a stock pump: "Mine used stock injectors and ran perfectly for 100K. Stock fuel pump, Accel coil. Made plenty of HP. I ran usually around 5 pnd boost since it was a daily driver. I did run it with a brand new custom built V6." Come on Rog....We are not a bunch of 17 year old Hooter girls......your sly talk will not work on us....

Yes Jasper supported lots of Nascar teams, several in fact. My friend worked in the engine shop. They still provide racing assemblies to Nascar. They also were one of the sponsors on my Thunderbird stock car along with Hooters and also sponsored the Drag boat I raced by building 454s for it. And yes I have all kinds of video, photos and paperwork to back that all up.

So see, that just shows how much you know. You dont even have facts straight on Hooters, they have to be 19 to serve...no where are the waitresses 17.

"


The 2011 racing season is almost here. The NASCAR Driveline Division of Jasper Engines & Transmissions looks to build upon the success of the 2010 season by building transmissions and rear end differentials for some of the top teams in NASCAR.

Joe Gibbs Racing drivers Denny Hamlin, Kyle Busch and Joey Logano drove in the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series in 2010 with cars equipped with a JASPER 4-Speed Transmission, as did Michael Waltrip Racing drivers David Reutimann, Martin Truex, Jr. and Marcos Ambrose. Penske Racing drivers Kurt Busch, Brad Kesolowski and Sam Hornish, Jr. raced cars equipped with a JASPER Rear End Differential.

“We came up just short of winning the 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Title with Denny Hamlin,” says Terry DeKemper, JASPER NASCAR Driveline Manager. “Denny finished second in NASCAR Sprint Cup Series points, Kyle Busch was eighth.”

NASCAR Sprint Cup Series teams using JASPER NASCAR Driveline products accounted for 15 wins in 2010 with nine pole starts, 60 top five and 108 top ten finishes.

JASPER could be found in other NASCAR racing disciplines. Brad Kesolowski won the 2010 NASCAR Nationwide Series using a JASPER Differential. Ryan Truex won back-to-back NASCAR K & N East Division titles using a JASPER 4-Speed Transmission.

“We are leasing more transmissions this year, and have some quotes out to some other teams,” says DeKemper. “It looks like our division will be as busy, or busier, than last year.”

In 2010, JASPER incorporated a single-rail version of its 4-Speed Race Transmission. This style of gearbox allows a single external rail to rotate and move two internal forks to engage the four forward gears. This makes the transmission lighter in weight and allows for fewer external parts. “There is less chance of debris getting caught in external components,” added DeKemper. “The bottom end of the transmission is the same as in previous years, so we know that’s bulletproof.”

Filed under Racing Releases

"Doug Bawel has a unique position in racing. He is not only part owner in a Cup race team, but he is also the President of the company sponsoring the team, Jasper Engines & Transmissions. Bawel introduced Jasper to Cup Series racing in 1989. Jasper Engines & Transmissions produces the transmissions and differentials for the No. 77 entry at its manufacturing facilities in Jasper, Ind. The Jasper Motorsports engine operation has also joined forces with Penske Engines in a combined venture known as Penske-Jasper Engines to supply engines to the No. 12 (Ryan Newman), No. 2 (Rusty Wallace) and No. 77 (Brendan Gaughan) cars."

Consider yourself enlightened.

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 02-16-2011).]

So you are still claiming you made 275hp with a stock fuel pump, injectors, no intercooler, small turbo and on pump gas?

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

1991 R324 Skyline GTR 430awhp. Track Built.

Yes when it was delivered to me. I soon cranked down the boost because I figured it would add reliablity and still have more than enough power for playing. Engine shop sponsored my race car and boat, so see no reason for them to lie to me.

Im done here. My life dont revolve around proving anything to anyone. Not too long ago I heard the same crap spouted here about the Callaway Corvette I was buying. Everyone was saying no way it had over 500 hp straight from the dealer even though its even in the dealer brochures. Any how many times have know it alls told me C2 Corvettes never had 375 hp pure show room stock 327s. Anyone who knows squat about them knows they did....you didnt need a dyno sheet to prove it.

so NOW im done here.

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 02-15-2011).]

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: You dont even have facts straight on Hooters, they have to be 19 to serve.

Actually, it varies by state. The 19 rule is for states (like Ohio) where you have to be at least 19 to serve alcohol as wait staff. Mostly, it's 18.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: My life dont revolve around proving anything to anyone.

Well, if you post power figures with parts that can absolutly not support it then you do have something to prove. We have had others on this site with wild claims aka MasterTunerAkimoto, which were eventually found out to be complete liars. We have also had people on this site forge time slips for their cars. There is no shortage of BS claims on car forums. Your positive rep and post count do not make you immune to people questioning your claims.

Disclaimer to all that believe you can make 275hp on a 3.1 with a small turbo, stock fuel system, pump gas and no intercooler- You Cant! Don't believe you can and try to copy Rogers build looking for the same "results". You won't get them.

Don't leave out 87 octane!

------------------
Turbo 3800 E85 5spd spec5
11.53@126.7

quote Originally posted by crzyone: Don't think so Tim. I did a 3.4TDC Swap. Pretty much a drop in engine. Plus, I wasn't talking about what is the bigger monster, just the easiest engine swap. the 3.4 uses a slightly modified 2.8 engine mount. How does it get easier than that?

As did I. I've read over your build many times. It's been a long time since you swapped the N*.

The 3800 is also pretty much a drop in engine (the 98 GTP engine mount requires one hole be drilled for plug and play with the '88 cradle). I thought it was an easier swap than the DOHC was. Besides, weren't you pretty fed up when the power steering bracket broke on your engine? I know I was. The DOHC is way too big, I'll give you that. The way you stated "monster" is a little ambiguous. In regards to room, there's barely any for charge piping. In regards to power handling, the 3800 wins hands down. In regards to swap frequency, they're rarely used anymore, everyone's using the 3800 these days - understandably so.

-Emc209i

The dogbone mount I did was basically copying what others did and yes, it was a crappy mounting place. Who knew it was such a weak area.

As for 3.4 turbo done right, there are only 2 I know of. Aaron is one of them and I imagine his GT35R moved his car pretty well. Matt Hawkins also built an impressive 3.4tdc turbo. Both are using manual transmissions, so I don't expect their 1/4 mile times to be on par with the auto 3800 guys. I would say as long as the bottom end of a 3.4 stays together, it has potential to make nore power on the same boost levels than a 3800, only because it's a better flowing head.

If I built another fiero it would be a tossup between a 3.4tdc and a northstar. Never really been on the 3800 bandwagon.

[This message has been edited by crzyone (edited 02-16-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Will: Garbage in, garbage out. 80% VE? Out of an iron head 3.1? LOL...

Stop blaming the heads
Flow-bench numbers for Stock intake and SR14 & LR17 below. With a stock iron head

Valve lift .100" .200" .300" .400" .500"
Stock intake CFM 55.945 106.88 124.415 131.93 139.445

Trueleo Short runner CFM 62.625 114.395 133.6 146.96 146.96

No intake-head CFM 64.295 116.9 133.6 146.96 146.96

On the flow-bench we tested the cylinder head with no intake on it all to get a baseline. We tested the bare cylinder head and intake at 5 different valve lifts in the above listed amounts. We then tested the stock intake manifold with the results above. TAs you can see with the results, our intake showed an improvement stock and will flow as much CFM as no intake on there from .300" lift and above. Pictures on the flow-bench at H.P.WORKS below.

The above nubers will supprt well over 250 HP more 300HP with iron heads.