Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Whenever I see the word "hate" used in the context of the title of this thread I immediately think "immature." Legitimate criticism is not "hate." I almost didn't even look at the thread because of it.
Hater's gonna hate.
IP: Logged
12:26 PM
TheRealShadowX Member
Posts: 1456 From: Milwaukee Wisconsin USA Registered: Mar 2010
Holy crap!!! That document is FASCINATING!!! On page 3-2 it says there were 1987 versions of the 2.8 that were available with aluminum heads? Is that true?! What cars were available with aluminum headed 2.8's?
Oh, nvm on page 3-16 they go into more detail. Are these heads able to be swapped onto a Fiero 2.8 block or Camaro 3.4 block? Any HP gains or just weight loss? I'm totally interested in this. Thanks for the link! I'll be reading through that a lot.
------------------ (TRSX) The Zombiero - "Thrice resurrected" 1985 GT, 4 Speed Muncie, 3.4PR V6, 15" Lace GT wheels, Power everything, sunroof, Red with gray effects. Driven and enjoyed daily.
Fiero GT- 2 seater, mid engine, rear wheel drive, H.O. V6, manual rack and pinion steering, fully independent suspension, 4 wheel disc brakes, no ABS, no traction control, no speed limiter, available T-Tops. So, outdated econo-box or classic sports car? You decide.
Originally posted by BillS: I would never reinstall a 2.8 in a Fiero. At minimum, if you are doing a rebuild anyway, I'd put the longer stroke 3.1/3.4 crank and pistons in it - very useful improvement for not much money.
In addition to crank and 6 new pistons, you'd also need a new flywheel. Stroking to a 3.1 requires replacing so many parts I'm not sure it's really worthwhile, unless most of the applicable 2.8 parts are already trashed. I haven't done a direct real life comparison but from the published performance specs on both engines, it doesn't look like a very convincing gain for the cost. 2.8 figures are either 135hp, 165ft*lbs or else 140hp, 170ft*lbs depending on the source. 3.1 figures I've seen are 140hp, 180ft*lbs. I don't know what the RPM is for those peak values, but I assume they're close for both engines. The 3.1 has lower compression so that may be holding it back a bit. In combination with other mods, maybe it would produce more compelling results.
IP: Logged
12:05 AM
sardonyx247 Member
Posts: 5032 From: Nevada, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Because 2.8s are breaking after all this age, and there is no point in rebuilding one when you can do a 3.4L for the same money and it is ALOT better block.
Originally posted by armos: Stroking to a 3.1 requires replacing so many parts I'm not sure it's really worthwhile, unless most of the applicable 2.8 parts are already trashed..
Stroking to a 3.1 (3.2 if bored .040 over) only requires replacing the pistons (normally replaced anyway with any rebore) and crank (often replaced because the 2.8 crank, if worn past undersize bearing availability, cannot be welded and ground), that's it. Flywheel or flexplate if working with a pre-88, but those are commonly available and not particularly expensive. The rods, block, dampener, etc, are all the same as the 2.8. So no, it doesn't require much more parts than would normally be replaced on a rebuild anyway. My 2.8 crank was thrashed and at the time the rebuilders were having so much difficulty getting ahold of grindable cranks that the core charge was $200 on that crank. I got a 3.1 crank and saved a hundred bucks on the core charge.
I'd do it again in a hearbeat.
The advantages of doing a rebuild over a swap, often overlooked by the gung-ho swapper crowd, is that it's plug and play. No fabrication, no figuring out how to make it work, make it fit, wire it up, shopping for oddball parts to make something install, etc. Sure, swaps are nice, but some people suffer the fallacy that what's right for them must be right for everyone else, too. And that's just not the case.
I sit on the fence on this one. I have kept one stock and modded two (still have them all). On the one hand, if you think the Fiero will never be worth any more than $2000, and just want to keep up with the Jones', then ditch the 2.8L. I wouldn't throw it away though, and that's where the other hand comes in. If the car ever does appreciate in value, no one is going to want a butchered, non-number-matching car.
Holy crap!!! That document is FASCINATING!!! On page 3-2 it says there were 1987 versions of the 2.8 that were available with aluminum heads? Is that true?! What cars were available with aluminum headed 2.8's?
Oh, nvm on page 3-16 they go into more detail. Are these heads able to be swapped onto a Fiero 2.8 block or Camaro 3.4 block? Any HP gains or just weight loss? I'm totally interested in this. Thanks for the link! I'll be reading through that a lot.
The Gen II aluminum heads are not worth the metal they are made out of... the 3.1MPFI motor put out the same HP numbers with more torque than the Fiero 2.8... the 2.8MPFI was down 10HP on the Fiero 2.8 with about the same torque...
Gen III and IV are where it's at for the 60* platform, the 2000+ 3100 has +30HP on the 3.1MPFI motor...
[This message has been edited by carbon (edited 06-22-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:25 PM
Tony Kania Member
Posts: 20794 From: The Inland Northwest Registered: Dec 2008
I have a 3.1 stroked 2.8. While it may not blow the doors off of much, I get more compliments on the sound she makes than I can tell you about. I went with some performance goodies (cam, head job, ported everything), and can say that I am more than happy with it. Truth be told, If I were to leave the performance goodies off of my build, the 3.1 would cost about the same. I had a very reputable local engine builder put it together, and it even came with a 7 year or 70,000 mile warranty. Can't beat that with a stick.
I took a guy for a ride in mine last week. He has a 25,000 mile 2.8, and the look on his face told me that I hgad made the correct choice.
Tony
IP: Logged
07:44 PM
chriswf Member
Posts: 406 From: Plano, Texas Registered: Jan 2011
I actually enjoyed my good running 2.8. I just couldn't get past the lure of the 3800 torque, HP, and reliabilty gains, which are all considerable. It's just a whole different animal now.
IP: Logged
11:18 PM
1fatcat Member
Posts: 1519 From: Zimmerman, Mn Registered: Dec 2010
but, there are good things too: pretty compact - great sound
My 2.8 2 cents: Crappy Heads, a Myth The heads are not crappy, they're not great. but they are certainly more than adequite for the job. For years many have falsely blamed the iron heads for the lack of power above 4k when blame lay with intake an manifold that won't flow. We flow benched a stock 2.8 head with one of our intakes with a stock TB and it could support 300+ HP. I'm sure a carb setup would also support abotu same HP. Same goes for the exhaust headers and Y pipe, no flow.
2.8 - 3.4 Weak cranks If you want to build 2.8 for say 220+ HP @ higher RPM (6K+) the iron crank should be changed for a steel one.
Not cost effective vers swap As for the cost effectness of building a really high output 2.8, it's no worse than most other engines. HP cost money. Also, swaps are seldom as cheep or quick and easy as you may think, just look at some of the build times for swaps posted here, months and even years. Also, as someone else pointed out, low milage -under 50k- good engines like a 3800SC are not easy to come by and are seldom cheep. Does it really pay to swap in an engine with say 60 or 70k miles on it?
I'm not a big fan of stroker engines. True, they give you more power off the line, but only for a few seconds and then you have to shift. Most truck engines have long strokes, I for one do not care to drive a sports with the power curve of a truck.
With the right mods and perhaps a weekend or two, the 2.8 can be a fun engine.
In addition to crank and 6 new pistons, you'd also need a new flywheel.
Not necessarily. Take your old externally balanced wheel and get it neutral balanced (they take off the weight on the flywheel). Cheap and easy, especially if you are also getting the rest of the bottom end balanced.
Francis is correct about the various bottlenecks in the Fiero 2.8. There are significant gains to be had by attending to exhaust manifolds and crossover pipe, leaving only the upper plenum which can be solved with the part Francis manufactures. But I still say that the heads don't flow very well in comparison to the alloy heads on the later engines.
And I disagree that the increase in stroke is anywhere near enough to hamper top end performance. They still rev to well over the point where mnost street cams need to take you. If you want a little buzzbomb, buy a Honda S2000. If you just want to run up to 6500 or so, the 3.1/3.4 stroke is not an impediment.
And the increase in torque with the longer stroke comes in well down the range and boosts midrange acceleration nicely, even though the peak numbers don't change a lot.
IP: Logged
04:01 PM
sardonyx247 Member
Posts: 5032 From: Nevada, USA Registered: Jun 2003
2.8L yes weak crank, the 3.1L crank is a strong one, (the 3.4 uses the 3.1 crank) Better balanced, more counter weights, etc... I have yet to see anyone break a 3.1/3.4 crank, same goes for the Camaro forums. The Camaro guys are pushing good power and the bottom ends hold up.
Also in the power manual alot of the mods for the 2.8L are stock on the 3.4L, (like the SBC small journal narrowed rods, 3.4 already has them, as per the power manual) Don't stroke a 2.8 to a 3.1, you still end up with a weak 2.8l block
2.8L yes weak crank, the 3.1L crank is a strong one, (the 3.4 uses the 3.1 crank) Better balanced, more counter weights, etc... I have yet to see anyone break a 3.1/3.4 crank, same goes for the Camaro forums. The Camaro guys are pushing good power and the bottom ends hold up.
Also in the power manual alot of the mods for the 2.8L are stock on the 3.4L, (like the SBC small journal narrowed rods, 3.4 already has them, as per the power manual) Don't stroke a 2.8 to a 3.1, you still end up with a weak 2.8l block
The 2.8 crank isn't particularly weak, after 1985 when they went to a modified stronger \crank with bigger bearings. Before that they had a reputation for problems.
The 3.4 rods are the same as the 3.4 rods - no improvement there.
The late 2.8 block is just dandy for power - I built my turbo motor based on that block and it has managed almost 20 years of hard use with 13 psi of boost. The 3.4 block is a new casting with some areas strengthened but I'd have no hesitation using a late 2.8 block in a 3.1 build.
IP: Logged
04:55 PM
sardonyx247 Member
Posts: 5032 From: Nevada, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by BillS: Not necessarily. Take your old externally balanced wheel and get it neutral balanced (they take off the weight on the flywheel). Cheap and easy, especially if you are also getting the rest of the bottom end balanced.
Correct. I'm building an almost all-out norm asp 2.8 and had the stock flywheel balanced to match my new Venolia forged pistons and a new Eagle Steel crank. BTW: I think there are still a few of those new -but discontinued- Eagle steel cranks available on E-bey @ about $120 which is a fantastic price!
IP: Logged
05:09 PM
sardonyx247 Member
Posts: 5032 From: Nevada, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Correct. I'm building an almost all-out norm asp 2.8 and had the stock flywheel balanced to match my new Venolia forged pistons and a new Eagle Steel crank. BTW: I think there are still a few of those new -but discontinued- Eagle steel cranks available on E-bey @ about $120 which is a fantastic price!
Do you mean the 2.8 are the same as the 3.4? as they are not.
Are you sure about that? The difference in stroke was taken up in the pistons with a lower compression height (i.e. moving the wrist pin lower in the piston) and the rods are exactly the same length. Those with a 3.4 that want stronger than stock rods usually convert to the 2" diam. SBC which need to be narrowed and have a smaller pin bush fitted. The 3.4 does NOT come stock with those rods.
Every V6-60 made from 2.8 through 3400 used the 5.7" length rods. None of them ever came with the SBC rods stock. As far as I recall, the 2.8 and 3.4 rods are identical. Not sure if there are any detail changes on the 3400 as I've never had one apart side by side with a cast iron head engine.
IP: Logged
05:31 PM
sardonyx247 Member
Posts: 5032 From: Nevada, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Are you sure about that? The difference in stroke was taken up in the pistons with a lower compression height (i.e. moving the wrist pin lower in the piston) and the rods are exactly the same length. Those with a 3.4 that want stronger than stock rods usually convert to the 2" diam. SBC which need to be narrowed and have a smaller pin bush fitted. The 3.4 does NOT come stock with those rods.
Every V6-60 made from 2.8 through 3400 used the 5.7" length rods. None of them ever came with the SBC rods stock. As far as I recall, the 2.8 and 3.4 rods are identical. Not sure if there are any detail changes on the 3400 as I've never had one apart side by side with a cast iron head engine.
The 3.4L rods are ALOT thicker than the 2.8L rods, when we compared them to the SBC small journal narrowed rods they were as thick, and looked the same, minus the modding to make the sbc rods fit.
[This message has been edited by sardonyx247 (edited 06-23-2011).]
IP: Logged
05:46 PM
PFF
System Bot
Jun 24th, 2011
joshh44 Member
Posts: 2166 From: Nanaimo, B.C, Canada Registered: Aug 2007
i quite like the 2.8. it works just fine for the fiero. sure there are other engines that make more power. im actually in the process of rebuilding a 2.8 engine i just bought awhile ago. its super slow going. but it will get done eventually. i love the way the 2.8 sounds. im quite impressed with the tone it makes from such a small engine. i even get afew complements on how it sounds. and its all stock other then the cat removed and replaced with a glasspack muffler. still have the stock muffler on as well. has a nice throaty sound. and a nice gargle when you let off the gas.
IP: Logged
02:14 AM
G_Reaper Member
Posts: 171 From: Nanaimo, BC, Canada Registered: May 2011
I could totally make up those headers when your ready Josh. Keep me posted on that build. I could keep going and build you a true dual exhaust with glasspacks on both pipes. I've got my cradle out again and I'm detailing the engine bay. painting it black again. don't know what else to do to spruce it up. any bling suggestions boys and girls?
[This message has been edited by G_Reaper (edited 06-24-2011).]
I was thinking for a mild improvement in HP 140 to 220 they sell a rebuilt 2.8l with the 3.1 crankshaft ported intake/exhaust. all you have to do is swap out the external parts and for 2 grand and the time to switch it you gain about 80 HP maintain a completely original look and the f40 trans (600est used to new price $2,068.82) has a kit to modify it to fit the V6 . For large gains I would go with a 2.2 ecotec motor with supercharger from the cobalt and F40 trans from the G6 or any of the V8's that are out there. There are also small changes that you can make to improve air flow one being the stage 1 intake scope and getting rid of the intake muffler. I find engine conversions and mods a point of how much HP do you want compared to how unique do you want it also the 2.8 was made to be free flow so the cat and muffler is in the way.
Why would you want the 2.8 stroked because it can be done and very few do it and it looks original.
Why use a 3800 or V8 because you want killer HP potential.
Edit: I really wish I could find the company that I looked at the motor used the 3.1 crank the heads were ported and they stated 220 HP and the only thing you the buyer had to do was balance the crank install the external parts and put it back in the trans i never did any research i just knew it could be done.
[This message has been edited by hawkebat (edited 06-24-2011).]
I was thinking for a mild improvement in HP 140 to 220 they sell a rebuilt 2.8l with the 3.1 crankshaft ported intake/exhaust. all you have to do is swap out the external parts and for 2 grand and the time to switch it you gain about 80 HP maintain a completely original look and the f40 trans (600est used to new price $2,068.82) has a kit to modify it to fit the V6 . For large gains I would go with a 2.2 ecotec motor with supercharger from the cobalt and F40 trans from the G6 or any of the V8's that are out there. There are also small changes that you can make to improve air flow one being the stage 1 intake scope and getting rid of the intake muffler. I find engine conversions and mods a point of how much HP do you want compared to how unique do you want it also the 2.8 was made to be free flow so the cat and muffler is in the way.
Why would you want the 2.8 stroked because it can be done and very few do it and it looks original.
Why use a 3800 or V8 because you want killer HP potential.
You need to do some more research.
The G6 F40 already bolts right up to the 2.8, as it has the same bolt pattern. The Saab version has the High Feature pattern as it came in the 9.3 Aero with the LP9 V6. If you want an Ecotec 6 speed, look at the new transmission that GM is shipping in the Chevy Cruze.
Getting the "air scoop" for the intake, and pulling the water separator don't really improve the air flow. The real bottleneck is the upper intake manifold.
And to get to about 220 hp, you're going to need more than a 3.1 crank and a simple port job, on a 2.8. Here's lou_dias's dyno chart for his 3400 roller cam build, which has a lot more done to it than a simple porting job. https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...ML/075502-3.html#p98
[This message has been edited by dobey (edited 06-24-2011).]
IP: Logged
05:42 PM
Tony Kania Member
Posts: 20794 From: The Inland Northwest Registered: Dec 2008
There is no way that my 3.1 stroker is making 220hp. I did A LOT! Mine does pull past 5500rpms, but I opened up the intake restriction, and gasket matched the intakes. As just the built 3.1, it fell flat on it's face at about 4700 rpms. I really do need to do some pulls, but in all reality, I believe she is in the 165 to 180 hp zone, but I have not calebrated my seat of the pants dyno in a few years.
I loved the way my '85GT's V6 sounded going thru the 3500rpm range (Borla exhaust and matching CAT from Rodney). I miss that in my 3800SC but there are things that make up for that loss . It would be great to have an engine that sounded that good but with 3800 or better power.
------------------ RickN White 88GT 5spd (<10K miles) White 85GT (SC3800 Series II w/ AOD) White 99 F250SD 7.3PSD 6spd 1956 Ford 860 Tractor w/ Freeman Loader 20Ft H&H Tilt Bed Trailer (Remember - Gravity is not a tie-down)
The problem with horsepower, whatever you come up with, someone will have something else bigger.
I'm waiting for the Apache helicopter engine swap, or the F14 tomcat jet engine swap.. Anyone near a military aircraft graveyard that can get parts cheap?
Originally posted by timgray: The problem with horsepower, whatever you come up with, someone will have something else bigger.
I'm waiting for the Apache helicopter engine swap, or the F14 tomcat jet engine swap.. Anyone near a military aircraft graveyard that can get parts cheap?
This UFO crashed in my back yard. I think the engine is still good though. It can go 0-FTL in less than a second.
The jet engine is not legal for street use. The car is only still street legal because it has the original VW engine up front with full exhaust and everything still. A gravity generator would be fully street legal, though, as it's clean, and doesn't shoot a 10 foot flame out the back. Would even qualify for the ULEV/ZEV federal tax credit come April.
IP: Logged
08:22 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
The G6 F40 already bolts right up to the 2.8, as it has the same bolt pattern.
You need to do some more research.
Yes, the F40 has the same bolt pattern - but that's where the similarity ends. Yes, you can physically bolt up the transmission to the 2.8. It won't work - but it will physically bolt up.
The bellhousing depth is different. The F40 applications use a dual mass flywheel that is much thicker than a 2.8 style flywheel, so you need a custom flywheel. The F40 uses a digital speed sensor, so you need some way to get a speed signal into the Fiero system. The F40 uses a half-shaft with the axles, so you'll need some custom axle setup to adapt the F40 axles to the Fiero. Don't forget custom mounts and shifter.
You may have been aware of this, but when someone says it "bolts right up" people are going to think it's a direct swap - and the F40 isn't. It doesn't require a bellhousing adapter plate. Other than that, it's a custom installation.
IP: Logged
11:24 AM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
There is no way that my 3.1 stroker is making 220hp. I did A LOT! Mine does pull past 5500rpms, but I opened up the intake restriction, and gasket matched the intakes. As just the built 3.1, it fell flat on it's face at about 4700 rpms. I really do need to do some pulls, but in all reality, I believe she is in the 165 to 180 hp zone, but I have not calebrated my seat of the pants dyno in a few years.
Yes, the F40 has the same bolt pattern - but that's where the similarity ends. Yes, you can physically bolt up the transmission to the 2.8. It won't work - but it will physically bolt up.
The bellhousing depth is different. The F40 applications use a dual mass flywheel that is much thicker than a 2.8 style flywheel, so you need a custom flywheel. The F40 uses a digital speed sensor, so you need some way to get a speed signal into the Fiero system. The F40 uses a half-shaft with the axles, so you'll need some custom axle setup to adapt the F40 axles to the Fiero. Don't forget custom mounts and shifter.
You may have been aware of this, but when someone says it "bolts right up" people are going to think it's a direct swap - and the F40 isn't. It doesn't require a bellhousing adapter plate. Other than that, it's a custom installation.
The kit Archie sells for the F40 has nothing to do with bolting to the 2.8 though, which is what the person I was replying to suggested. The kit is to mount it in a Fiero. I said it bolts right up to the 2.8. I didn't say it bolts right up to the Fiero. There is a difference. And there's more to installing one than you listed. Yes, I could have written an entire book about it, but instead I chose to point out the immediate discrepencies in my reply, rather than explain the entire process to installing one. There were several points he was wrong on, and I didn't want to write a 600 page thesis to explain each one. Sorry.
IP: Logged
11:54 AM
Jun 26th, 2011
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
The kit Archie sells for the F40 has nothing to do with bolting to the 2.8 though, which is what the person I was replying to suggested. The kit is to mount it in a Fiero. I said it bolts right up to the 2.8. I didn't say it bolts right up to the Fiero. There is a difference. And there's more to installing one than you listed. Yes, I could have written an entire book about it, but instead I chose to point out the immediate discrepencies in my reply, rather than explain the entire process to installing one. There were several points he was wrong on, and I didn't want to write a 600 page thesis to explain each one. Sorry.
My comment has nothing to do with Archie. It has to do with getting an F40 to work with a 2.8 engine. Mating the bellhousing to the block doesn't get you a working drivetrain. I'm not trying to bust your chops. But, I don't want someone to read "bolts right up" and think it's as simple as removing the Getrag and plugging an F40 in it's place.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-26-2011).]
New car pricing has nothing to do with HP, and everything to do with brand. And it is totally irrelevant as the question is about adding HP to an existing engine, not buying a brand new car. Besides, look at the price difference between the Camaro 2SS and a base Vette. Same HP, but different pricing. Or look at the trucks vs. cars.
i was using a generlization and not reffering to every car. obviously when you buy a corvette your buying it for the name. and i was stating that for referance to how much you could invest for a car and still be ahead in general.
