Why did this thread have to come back up... as if it wasn't painful enough, I'm this close to driving my 3.4tdc...
Soon, as soon as my wiring harness gets here its off to the exhaust shop fo finish welding up my exhaust system. I'd say 2 weeks and it'll be on the road. woohoo!
Soon, as soon as my wiring harness gets here its off to the exhaust shop fo finish welding up my exhaust system. I'd say 2 weeks and it'll be on the road. woohoo!
Oh sure, rub it in. Seriously; I hope you'll report here on how you enjoyed the first drive. I know you will enjoy it.
IP: Logged
11:46 PM
Sep 23rd, 2004
86GT3.4DOHC Member
Posts: 10007 From: Marion Ohio Registered: Apr 2004
Voided, you might wanna slpi over before I get all the heavy stuff on it , I dont know how bad its gonna slow down, but Iver gotta add all interior, all body, and the door frames Anyone have guesses on what all that weighs? What impact that might have? But anyway Ive gotta get it running more consistentatly first, its got a loose wire in the C203 connector that keeps cutting off the engine, and it seems quirky, running awesome one second, but then missing really bad.
man you guys are almost convincing me to go 3.4 tdc -- been really craving a N* tho the tdc seems like a really easy swap front engine mount and dogbone, wire it, burn chip, done
IP: Logged
09:50 AM
Black-Azz-GT Member
Posts: 2326 From: Florida Keys Registered: Oct 2003
Hey, thats great. Its a tossup between a 3.4tdc and a 4.9 in the 1/4, looks like it comes down to the driver. Difference would be the 3.4 is still pulling hard and the 4.9 would start loosing its breath.
Wonder if that slip is with retarded exhaust cams? Its supposidly good for another 28hp.
Hey, thats great. Its a tossup between a 3.4tdc and a 4.9 in the 1/4, looks like it comes down to the driver. Difference would be the 3.4 is still pulling hard and the 4.9 would start loosing its breath.
Wonder if that slip is with retarded exhaust cams? Its supposidly good for another 28hp.
who you callin retarded?
the website said that was stock
IP: Logged
07:20 PM
86GT3.4DOHC Member
Posts: 10007 From: Marion Ohio Registered: Apr 2004
Whoa! I can't thank you enough for posting that time slip! That proves what i've been feeling when i drive Jeffs car. His wheel spin and wrong chip are holding him back as i've been saying. I can't wait to see what will happen when he tries some of the ideas we've been talking about. Oh jeez, now i really want one in my car, now look what you've done Koburn! lol Thanks again for posting that. Big happy plus for you!
IP: Logged
10:57 PM
Sep 25th, 2004
The_Ikon Member
Posts: 629 From: Mississippi, USA Registered: Mar 2004
i'll take three please. one stock, with an auto (cruiser), one turbo, (aww the sound of boost), and one with an N/A build... (ummm... high end power, with the sound...)
or i'll just take one of those new 60* v-6's from the caddy CTS.
Hey, thats great. Its a tossup between a 3.4tdc and a 4.9 in the 1/4, looks like it comes down to the driver. Difference would be the 3.4 is still pulling hard and the 4.9 would start loosing its breath.
Wonder if that slip is with retarded exhaust cams? Its supposidly good for another 28hp.
Its my guess that slip is not with retarded cams. A 4.9 isnt' even close to a 3.4 dohc. for one the traps are much higher. And two there is at least .7 secodn advantage with a dohc engine. linenoise has a run a best of 14.6 @ 90 after many runs to get it dialed in. Most 4.9's have turned 15's. In fact all 4.9's that I have seen timslips from ahve tunred close to a 15 flat. Wetpoop ran a 14.4 @ 96 his first time at the track. Meaning with better driving and better launch he can run a 13.9 as well. The dohc swap is much faster then a 4.9 esp up top. Its not even comparable.
DOHC all the way.
75 shot on a dohc with a good launch will put it deep in the 13's at around 104 mph. thats not bad.
SH
------------------ JM / SH
Pick up the bone phone Fred Flinstone and call George Jetson. Get Cable, DSL, or something.... Opinions are like ‘The Punisher” everyone has one ™
IP: Logged
10:34 PM
Oreif Member
Posts: 16460 From: Schaumburg, IL Registered: Jan 2000
dav keeps telling me that my car should be turning much faster than the 14.7 that i ran even with the wide hips that my car has . Thanks for your input punisher! I guess i just need to get this thing to hook up and take care of a few little things on it.
96-97 have different heads. They were rated for 215hp vs 210. With a freeflowing intake and exhaust they probibly have more hp potential than the earlier heads. Nobody has really proved that though...
Get yourself a 91-93, ODB1, easiest to reprogram and modify the harness.
The later engines were rated at more power according to what i've dug up. The cam issue seems to be a slight controversy. Someone checked a set of cams from a 94 engine and found them to be different from what GM has them listed at but I wasn't aware of any cam changes at any time. I have found the compression ratios varied a lot though. Compression Ratio (91-95) 9.25:1 auto 9.5:1 Manual (96-97) 9.7:1 That might account for the power ratings to be different but it doesn't seem like enough of a change to make that much of a difference. Here's the power ratings that I have found: 91-93 auto = 200HP, 215 LB FT. 91-93 5spd = 210 HP, 215 LB FT. 94-95 auto = 210HP, 215 LB FT. 96-97 auto = 215 HP, 215 LB FT. Again, this is what i've found but I find it hard to believe. Compression ratio changes should effect torque as well as HP and yet there is no change shown in torque no matter what the compression ratio is. They did switch to MAF so i'm sure some computer tweaking in the later years was also done with the new system which could accouunt for some changes in power levels too but it still seems odd to me that there's no change in the torque rating. I have read about a lot of concern over the auto trannies that were behind these engines so I guess GM must have kept that torque rating to 215 purposely to make sure the auto could survive behind it. I'm just guessing though. I haven't found any info on different cams used on later years as yet. The only thing about the cams i've found was that they measured a set and found them to be very different from what Gm lists the specs as.
------------------ Activities Director N.I.F.E. www.fierofocus.com
Originally posted by Kameo Kid: First I don't think Chris is anywhere near 15psi, I think it's under 10psi, call him he'll tell ya what it is.
As for the 3.4 DOHC and a Fiero, I did alot of research and soul searching to find out what would be the best swap for me and my driving style.. as many now know I just got mine back from WCF. The only thing better is to throw a TURBO at that DOHC.. I'm in the begining of breaking in the new mill and not running it over bout 4K on the tach.. First off I never even rode in one before the swap but have rode in some very impressive other swaps, V8-California Kidz "awesome", 3800 SC/IC-Skitime "different but still awesome", and 3.4 DOHC Turbo- Chris West's "awesome too" This Turbo DOHC is just the berries, fits the GT and Me to a T... I can't wait to get this sucker all tweaked and tricked out
what dohc ECM is best to use for a future turboed engine? guessing obd1 for ease of programming
Originally posted by Dave Gunsul: 91-93 5spd = 210 HP, 215 LB FT. 94-95 auto = 210HP, 215 LB FT. 96-97 auto = 215 HP, 215 LB FT.
interesting, i would have guessed that they had a different cam for the early auto for more low end torque and less top end
and you said they went to MAF setup later models.. i'm about to buy a 97 montecarlo engine -that would mean i'd need to stick witht he ecm for that engine - am i gonna be able to delete the auto from the ecm?
[This message has been edited by Kohburn (edited 10-11-2004).]
interesting, i would have guessed that they had a different cam for the early auto for more low end torque and less top end
and you said they went to MAF setup later models.. i'm about to buy a 97 montecarlo engine -that would mean i'd need to stick witht he ecm for that engine - am i gonna be able to delete the auto from the ecm?
The 97 motor is not only MAF but it is also OBD2 which is far more difficult to mess with. Darth Fiero can burn chips for the 91-93 computers. No one's done a chip for the later engines as yet as far as I know. Also; the later 96-97 engines use an intake that covers the plugs making it much more difficult to service so you might want to think twice about the later engines or use earlier model intakes with an earlier model computer. In my opinion, the MAF system is more desirable plus they used a SFI system with that instead of the batchfire the earlier engines had with the speed density system. The trade off is that there's no chip available so the auto codes from the later years computers becomes a limiting factor. For example; the auto computer kicks in the rev limiter sooner so if you don't knock that out you will always be making less power than you could be. If you have the earlier version computer & injection you can have Darth knock those codes out and also do some tweaking for more power. This is not so bad if you had a stock auto Monte but in a low geared Fiero manual it's definitely limiting. So, if you're set on getting a later model engine & computer, you're probably best off going with a earlier style intake/injection/computer so you can tune it. Otherwise you're going to have to find someone who has the software to make a custom chip for it. So far there isn't anyone who does. Jeff has been trying to get one from Westers but they havn't come through yet and i'm doubting they will unfortunately.
IP: Logged
06:33 PM
fieromadman Member
Posts: 2217 From: Oconomowoc WI, USA Registered: Jan 2003
Dave mentioned this but i figured that i would say it in lamer terms. With the 96-97 motors it is possible to switch to the earlier intakes although you might not get as much power. You should port them if your going to switch anyhow which will definatly make a power improvement across the power band, but mainly in the higher rpms which is where the newer design is making the more power. I think that eventually I will be able to get a chip burned for the 94-95 ecm's which are OBD1 but use the MAF sensor and the sequential fire injection. With that ecm setup with the auto chip i was getting 32 miles per gallon on the freeway. I attribute that to the sequential fire injection.
------------------ REMEMBER: If you cant win the race you loose the argument!! 3.4 DOHC Motor Swap-14.7 in the 1/4 mile with no hook-up, crumby exhaust and automatic chip. Better exhaust, chip, cam retarding, and driver to come... I'm feeling lucky! www.geocities.com/j_depies
IP: Logged
08:44 PM
qwikgta Member
Posts: 4659 From: Virginia Beach, VA Registered: Jan 2001
Dave mentioned this but i figured that i would say it in lamer terms. With the 96-97 motors it is possible to switch to the earlier intakes although you might not get as much power. You should port them if your going to switch anyhow which will definatly make a power improvement across the power band, but mainly in the higher rpms which is where the newer design is making the more power. I think that eventually I will be able to get a chip burned for the 94-95 ecm's which are OBD1 but use the MAF sensor and the sequential fire injection. With that ecm setup with the auto chip i was getting 32 miles per gallon on the freeway. I attribute that to the sequential fire injection.
could a 95 ECM be programed to work with a 97 engine? I need to do some more digging - there should be speed shops around that will do OBDII programming or someone than can make one of the older ecm's run the later engine
i swaer i read somewhere that they could burn a chip to use the 91-93 ecm on a 96-97 motor
That should be no problem at all. Darth can burn a chip for the 91-93 computer so, as long as you use the 91-93 computer & injection, you can have the newer motor. What you can't do yet is use the newer injection & computer with the newer motor without difficulty. If you do use the newer computer & injection you wind up with lower rev limit and less power. Sometimes you might even get problems with it running because the computer isn't getting the input from the auto trans too but this has not been an issue on Fieromadmans car and he is using the 95 engine, computer, and injection. His car is not OBD2 though like the 96-97 engines are. The OBD2 might have some suprises/difficulties that Fieromadmans doesn't.
. Thanks for your input punisher! I guess i just need to get this thing to hook up and take care of a few little things on it.
The slips and statistics don't think so....
