Johnny, what makes horsepower? The reason I ask is because I want your opinion on a friend's Camaro bracket car. The engine is a balanced 350 with cast heads and a factory lt4 roller cam. Last year, he ran a TPI and it would run 12.60's all day long. This year, he swapped on a used single plane intake and a BG 4bbl and the first time out it ran a 12.08. Since going to the carb, the car picked up over .5 and over 10 mph. It is just as consistant as before, just a lot faster. Before you start about not having the injection tuned properly, it was. This guy knows his stuff and has the credentials to back it up. Please tell me again how his car was better when it was injected, I need a good laugh this morning. Don't get me wrong, I love my injected engines for daily drivers. We have a '47 Ford with a TPI 383/700r4 that is a neat old car. Another work in progress is a '53 Ford sedan/delivery with an lt1/4t60e. My wiring guy has a '79 Camaro with the probably the crappiest small block ever created- the late 70's 4.4 liter 267. He is running a TPI on it with LS-1 direct coil ignition and a sequential injection LT1 ecm forced into speed density mode. He is getting 36 MPG on his daily drive with it. So I know that injection kicks ass, but not for everyone and not all the time. Back on topic...what were we talking about again?
[This message has been edited by Cooter (edited 07-15-2005).]
IP: Logged
12:40 AM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5922 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
I am shocked and cannot believe what I just read. You are talking about the days of true horsepower when it was raw and nasty. When you could get a SBC 4 bolt with high tin content in the block out of a dump truck and GM X rods bolt a blower bigger than the engine itself on top of it and drop it in your grandmothers car and go drag racing Back then you did not have to worry if the transmission was going to break either. And everything bolted up. This is why people think this is better or that is better they read something someone wrote and believe it. I guess I need to sell my Fieros because they all catch fire. I'm sorry but you hit a nerve I usally try to not get into this hear say stuff but saying a SBC cannot produce brutal HP with GM parts who do you think started it all Honda?
Engines and transmission didn't break because the cars back then were NOT that fast. Engines back in that day were rated by GROSS HP numbers and if you pick up literature from the day you will discover that most of the cars back then equipped with small blocks only ran 14's/13's in the 1/4 mile. Anyone doing anything serious was using a hemi or other big block and even then they still weren't that fast by today's standards. And if you read a little further you will discover the parts available back then weren't that great either and engines didn't last very long at all.
But you know what, before I went to college and learned about all of this stuff from published literature and trained experts, I once thought the same way you do now. But thats ok, don't take my word for it; I only have years of training and a degree in High Performance Automotive Technology to back these FACTS up. In fact, why don't you people here who don't believe me run out right now to your local junkyard and pick up one of those 4 bolt main truck motors from yesteryear and throw some boost or nitrous on it, as is, and let me know how it works out for you.
AGAIN, SINCE SOME OF YOU PEOPLE SEEM TO BE NOT READING MY ENTIRE POST CAREFULLY... I NEVER SAID a SBC using production parts couldn't produce a lot of power with boost, however I DID SAY it COULD NOT do it RELIABLY. What I mean by reliable is being able to last for at least 50,000 miles without a rebuild or failure while being raced regularly.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88: Those are the same type of facts that say a Getrag cannot be used with a 350 because it will explode. Those facts don't take into account the number of people successfully doing it every day.
You know what, I am sure many people have SBCs hooked up to getrags and they are surviving just fine... However, what you probably don't realize is 95% of the people who own SBC powered fieros NEVER RACE THEM, or "abuse" the transmission with hard launches and 'performance' shifts. But hey, I have learned here on PFF that most people don't care to do this because they have nothing to prove by going to a dyno or dragstrip. Furthermore, not all SBC engines are capable of producing 300hp or more in a Fiero, you certainly are not going to order up the cheapest crate motor from GM or get a junkyard truck motor that is going to produce anything close to that amount of power. Hell, the LT1 swap I did for Mr. Pat last year ran a 13.2 with a auto 4T60-E, and that engine is probably pumping out close to 300 crank hp with the mods I did to the induction and exhaust to help it breathe. I bet his LT1 is probably producing more power than 80% of the SBC's installed in Fieros today. Honestly, I have no hate for SBC or any V8 Fiero owner for that matter. Ever since I have had a driver's license, there has ALWAYS been a SBC-powered vehicle in my driveway that I drove-daily. Again, I don't dislike SBC's or V8s for that matter which is why I am puzzled that most people here on PFF think I am biased against them -- I'm not. If thats what you want, run it and good luck to you.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88: Ideal? No. But the SBC is the most hot rodded engine in automotive history and to suggest that anyone who wants to hop up their engine needs to get an aftermarket block just doesn't take into account the millions of successful stock block buildups over the decades.
Not debating the fact that the SBC is the most hot-rodded engine in history. I never said you couldn't hop-up any SBC engine either. What I did say was there ARE limitations to the stock block and components. If you don't believe me, why don't you prove me wrong and build one up using stock parts and put 15-20psi of boost to it and see how long it lives.
quote
Originally posted by Oreif:
A carb does NOT get fuel "pushed thru an orifice" The fuel is DRAWN thru the ports by the actual air being drawn over the pressure drop.
Sir, with all due respect, you are incorrect. You probably think air gets "sucked" into the engine. This is NOT TRUE. Fluid and air are pushed, and flow from a high pressure area to lower pressure area. The venturi in a carburator creates a pressure drop which causes the fuel in the float bowl (under atmospheric pressure) to be pushed thru an oriface (main jets and passages) and sprayed into the lower pressure region under the venturi. Basic law of flow dynamics, look it up if you don't believe me.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 07-15-2005).]
IP: Logged
01:16 AM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5922 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
Getting back on-topic, your engine of choice SHOULD be based on PERSONAL PREFERENCE. The reason why I chose the 3800 and then to later turbocharge it is because I knew what it was capable of for a very low price. I have an extremely reliable car that runs low 12's, gets 30mpg, is quiet, A/C blows ice cold air, and in the end I only have about $3500 invested in the whole thing, including purchasing the car. I beat the hell out of it every time I drive it and have put 12,000mi per year on it since I built it years ago and it still starts up the next day asking for more. Does this make my swap better than yours? Who knows and who cares. It is what I wanted and I am happy with it, thats all that counts.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 07-15-2005).]
IP: Logged
01:39 AM
John Boelte Member
Posts: 1012 From: Indianapolis, IN, USA Registered: Jun 2002
Sir, with all due respect, you are incorrect. You probably think air gets "sucked" into the engine. This is NOT TRUE. Fluid and air are pushed, and flow from a high pressure area to lower pressure area. The venturi in a carburator creates a pressure drop which causes the fuel in the float bowl (under atmospheric pressure) to be pushed thru an oriface (main jets and passages) and sprayed into the lower pressure region under the venturi. Basic law of flow dynamics, look it up if you don't believe me.
Not so much as incorrect, more like inaccurate terms. First I never said "sucked" I said "drawn thru". Yes pressure flows from high to low. What I was meaning (and didn't explain well) was the outside air, draws the fuel along as the air travels to the low side. Which still may not be the "proper" way to explain it but oh well. My degree's are in electronics and optics. At least I didn't state shooting fuel at a hot piece of metal causes better atomization.
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero: I only have years of training and a degree in High Performance Automotive Technology to back these FACTS up.
W.J. has years of training AND practicle experience as an Automotive Engineer to back up his statements. Which surprises me you didn't respond to what his "qualifications" are since you asked? (quote: Warren Johnson is a driver... What exactly are his qualifications concerning engines and fuel systems?)
This is like watching a train wreck. It keeps going and gets uglier and uglier. Why do I keep coming back?
its entertaining? I still can't understand why people have such a hard time saying that they engine that they preffer or that was right for them at the time isn't the best engine.
IP: Logged
11:52 AM
Capt Fiero Member
Posts: 7658 From: British Columbia, Canada Registered: Feb 2000
Ya I know all these 3800SC guys need to take a chill. =-) That was a joke guys.
How bout we say it like this.
The 4.9 is the best motor for me The 3800 is the best motor for you The SBC is the best motor for him The 3.4 DOHC is the best swap for guys that like to sound exotic ( better ) The Ecotec is best for gas mileage with spunk best for him too The 3800 Turbo is best for ..... going fast on a budget if you can build things yourself. <<< Friendly jab. Oh best for The other guys. The 3.4 Push rod Camaro motor is great for everyone that wants to spice up the Fiero. The mainstream guys. The 4.6 Northstar for those that want to sound exotic and have bawls, speed and fat wallet to do it, is great for all guys. I think those are all the popular engine swaps.
Now lets all hug........................
[This message has been edited by Capt Fiero (edited 07-15-2005).]
Johnny, what makes horsepower? The reason I ask is because I want your opinion on a friend's Camaro bracket car. The engine is a balanced 350 with cast heads and a factory lt4 roller cam. Last year, he ran a TPI and it would run 12.60's all day long. This year, he swapped on a used single plane intake and a BG 4bbl and the first time out it ran a 12.08. Since going to the carb, the car picked up over .5 and over 10 mph. It is just as consistant as before, just a lot faster. Before you start about not having the injection tuned properly, it was. This guy knows his stuff and has the credentials to back it up. Please tell me again how his car was better when it was injected, I need a good laugh this morning. Don't get me wrong, I love my injected engines for daily drivers. We have a '47 Ford with a TPI 383/700r4 that is a neat old car. Another work in progress is a '53 Ford sedan/delivery with an lt1/4t60e. My wiring guy has a '79 Camaro with the probably the crappiest small block ever created- the late 70's 4.4 liter 267. He is running a TPI on it with LS-1 direct coil ignition and a sequential injection LT1 ecm forced into speed density mode. He is getting 36 MPG on his daily drive with it. So I know that injection kicks ass, but not for everyone and not all the time. Back on topic...what were we talking about again?
Your comparing two different manifold designs. The power difference is nothing to do with injected or carb'd. Do a single plane manifold with Port injection, and I would put money they would put out similar numbers.
Thats the point of the arguement. Its not that a Carb can't put out the the same numbers as FI. Or vice-versa. Both can put out similar numbers. You can only get so much power from an engine. The FI is just more accurate and automatically adjusts to all conditions far better than any carb. Yes, a carb may adjust to changes, but an ECM can do it more accuratly. This is why FI has better drivability. Go start your carb'd car on a cold morning. The FI car will be easier to drive.
You can also tune a FI car better thru the whole powerband. Not just WOT. Maybe the new carbs are better at this. I don't know, I'm a FI fan. Carbs are ugly IMO.
I realize carbs have their place. Who cares about cold weather startup on a race car. Me, I like my AC, CC, PW, PL, CD player and fuel injection. I want to be able to hand the keys to my mom, and not spend 5 minutes teaching her how to drive the car.
IP: Logged
02:45 PM
Fiero STS Member
Posts: 2045 From: Wyoming, MN. usa Registered: Nov 2001
Its not that a Carb can't put out the the same numbers as FI. Or vice-versa. Both can put out similar numbers. You can only get so much power from an engine. The FI is just more accurate and automatically adjusts to all conditions far better than any carb.
I was giving my friend Johnny a hard time about this comment he made:
quote
Originally posted by JohnnyK:
No, a carb and EFI will not make the same amount of power if both are properly tuned. EFI is like having a carb that is being perfectly tuned CONSTANTLY.. A carb is mechanical, fuel injection is electronic, making up for the mechanical downfalls. There is no advantage to carbs at all, except perhaps familiarity.
Johnny, have you installed the injection system on your Mustang yet? How does it run? How did you run the wiring harness? Climate protected ecm case or are you mounting the ecm inside the car? Where? Is it mass air or speed density? OEM or aftermarket ecm? Wide band or narrow band? Is it a closed loop capable/feedback system or will you have it set up to run in open loop mode? Does your transmission have the correct output to run the VSS and a cable driven speedometer? Does the ecm you are using support any of the highway modes? Doing your own tuning? What AFR are you shooting for under PE? Do you have the VE tables worked out for your combination of heads, cam and intake?
Johnny, you do know that a lot of FI systems are running in open loop at WOT and the ecm is just guessing at what it thinks the air/fuel ratio should be by using an RPM vs. air/fuel ratio table? It is not making any adjustments. During normal driving, the FI is tuning itself, but all that it has learned gets tossed when you stick your foot in it and it becomes 'spray and pray'. At that time, the engine does not care where the fuel is coming from, as long as it gets enough fuel for the amount of air coming in, it will make nearly the same power with a carb, TBI or multi-port injection. The biggie is the intake manifold. A single plane intake with a 600 CFM 4bbl on a 350 will make more peak horsepower than the same engine with a TPI but it peaks at a higher RPM. It will have a wider powerband but less peak torque under the curve. Does that mean that the carb is better? For some people, yes. If I am just daily driving and it is okay for my engine to peak out at 4000 rpm, then the TPI kicks ass. But if I am playing with my 1970 Nova drag car with 4.56 gears and I need something with a much wider RPM range and I don't have the big money to run an alcohol EFI system with, then a carb is a much better choice. Checking the temp and humidity and making a jet change is not a big deal when you have hours in between runs.
I have provided a pretty good example of where in this application, a carb was better. Since there was no distinction made in the intake design, my comments still hold true. If you want to get into different intake designs, then you open a completly different bucket of worms. I was trying to keep it simple for Johnny's sake.
[This message has been edited by Cooter (edited 07-15-2005).]
Aww, throwing in insults again. How nice of you. I will be using a 89+ 5.0 and T5 combination for my mustang. It will be mass air, not density, so it will adjust fine for my cam and head modifications. The ECM will be mounted behind the firewall under the glove box (inside). Me and my buddy will modify the wiring harness ourselves (otherwise it will run about $1100 or so I believe?). Originally I had a 351W I was going to use but it was carbed and if the rest of the stang is being updated (More rubber, different suspension geometry, poly, discs, etc), I might as well go FI.. Don't get me wrong, I WAS going to go with a 390 4v as thats what it originally had, but since those parts have long since disappeared in kansas.... I can't think of any way to fit the 351 with FI in a mustang while keeping it budget friendly (And I have a low budget). The lower 5.0 manifold will not work, I believe I would have to go totally aftermarket. I don't like the idea of total aftermarket due to parts availability. Or a truck system, but I don't like that either.
IP: Logged
07:04 PM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5922 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
W.J. has years of training AND practicle experience as an Automotive Engineer to back up his statements. Which surprises me you didn't respond to what his "qualifications" are since you asked? (quote: Warren Johnson is a driver... What exactly are his qualifications concerning engines and fuel systems?)
The reason why I didn't respond to your comment about WJ is because it wasn't very specific. Exactly what field of Automotive Engineering is WJ qualified in? WHEN did he get his training? 20 or 30 years ago? Like I said before, the quote you provided by WJ concerning the EFI vs. Carbs debate contradicted itself many times. Every time I read it, it makes my eye twich because it makes no sense compared to what I have been trained and what I have read in published training manuals on the subject. Now if you think what I was trained improperly or the materials that were provided to me are inaccurate or incorrect then maybe I wasted my money going to college. But again, just because a DRIVER makes a statement, doesn't make the content of that statement truthful or factual.
And about your hot surface fuel atomization comment... I have to disagree. The hotter the enviroment, the better the vaporization of the fuel thus the better the atomization. Heat makes molecules in a gas or liquid expand, or spread apart from each other, and also helps vaporize liquid fuel faster; the more heat, or the hotter the surface, the more time there is for more of the fuel to vaporize before it enters the cylinder. This is a basic law of physics. But, I digress: I have something for you to try. Go out and pull the carburator off of one of your vehicles and look down inside of the intake manifold. Is the floor completely dry? I bet not.
At the local cruise spots after it gets late and after people's cars have cooled down due to the amount of time they have been sitting you can tell who is carbed and who isn't when they start their cars, getting ready to leave. They stumble, stall, or idle really high (due to the choke settings) and can't be driven very well until they warm up. This is because the intake manifold is cool and the fuel from the carburator is NOT getting ATOMIZED (or more accurately, vaporized) properly until the engine warms up. PFI on the other hand, injects the fuel at the hottest point possible in the intake system, right on the intake valve. Still, there is a type of fuel delivery that is superior to PFI, and that would be Direct Cylinder Injection, very similar to what diesels use. This Direct Injection technology is relatively new concerning gasoline engines and manufacturers are beginning to tinker with it. Guess what, the preliminary tests I have seen are showing larger power gains (and better effecientcy) vs. any other fuel delivery system out there and even allows you to use inferior grades of fuel because the fuel injection timing can be altered to eliminate detonation. Can your carb do that?
And about the whole cost debate. Everybody just wants to talk about initial costs. How about the costs for carb rebuild kits or jets, or the time it takes to make changes to your carb? How about the inferior fuel mileage carbs are notorious for? After a while I bet the cost difference issue becomes a moot point, especially when gas is $2.46 per gallon.
Again, if you like carbs and prefer to run one on YOUR vehicle, then by all means do so and I hope you are happy with it. After all, its YOUR car and do with it what you wish.
Aww, throwing in insults again. How nice of you. I will be using a 89+ 5.0 and T5 combination for my mustang. It will be mass air, not density, so it will adjust fine for my cam and head modifications.
Thanks! I try to be nice and since you know everything, you should have seen that coming Yes Johnny, I am kidding with you this time. I am impressed with what you have planned for your 'Stang. Now get off your ass and get it done! My grandpaw moves faster than you and he's been dead for 18 years.
IP: Logged
11:03 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
I only have years of training and a degree in High Performance Automotive Technology
Question: What is a degree in High Performance Automotive Technology? Is it a technical college program? A Bachelor's degree? Is it proprietary to an automotive shool (i.e. Hot Rod U or UTI)?
I'm curious, because you also ask what type of Automotive Engineering WJ studied. I don't have the answer to that, but when I was studying Mechanical Engineering at NC State, Automotive Engineering was an offshoot of the Mech. Eng. curriculum. Basically you got your BSME, with a concentration in Auto Eng classes (not really a minor, just choosing classes most appropriate to the automotive field).
Now, I have no idea what Warren Johnson's pedigree is, but I think it's a bit foolish to discount him because he's "just a driver." If you look in any professional drag racing pit crew at the Pro level, you realize the driver does more than sit and steer. They are involved in the process, even if they don't to any actual wrenching (while many do).
How much have you learned just from listening to more knowledgable Fiero owners on here share their wisdom? Certainly WJ has the benefit of access to more experience than you or I combined have.
Thanks! I try to be nice and since you know everything, you should have seen that coming Yes Johnny, I am kidding with you this time. I am impressed with what you have planned for your 'Stang. Now get off your ass and get it done! My grandpaw moves faster than you and he's been dead for 18 years.
On a note that should please you, I ****ed up my quarter panels today, and welded them so one panel doesn't have 'enough' metal to join (contours were different, so they won't line up).. Sigh.. Grind down, try again.. It's this damn body work slowing me up, I've never done it before..
IP: Logged
11:28 PM
Oreif Member
Posts: 16460 From: Schaumburg, IL Registered: Jan 2000
And about your hot surface fuel atomization comment... I have to disagree. The hotter the enviroment, the better the vaporization of the fuel thus the better the atomization. Heat makes molecules in a gas or liquid expand, or spread apart from each other, and also helps vaporize liquid fuel faster; the more heat, or the hotter the surface, the more time there is for more of the fuel to vaporize before it enters the cylinder. This is a basic law of physics. But, I digress: I have something for you to try. Go out and pull the carburator off of one of your vehicles and look down inside of the intake manifold. Is the floor completely dry? I bet not.
Better vaporization???? From what I remember, You want the fuel atomized when it enters the cylinder then upon compression, the air/fuel is compressed then the spark ignites the air/fuel mix, Then the expanding/burning vapors push the piston down. If the fuel or air is too hot, The fuel vaporizes earlier reducing power and during compression it could self-ignite and cause pre-dentonation. If more heat is better, why use an intercooler? Why do pro-dragsters use fuel coolers? Why do aftermarket intakes have designs to reduce the temp of the intake manifold? Everything I have read and was taught states you don't want fuel to vaporize UNTIL after it is in the cylinder not before. Granted the smaller/finer the fuel is atomized, the faster it vaporizes, But again You don't want the fuel to vaporize until it is in the cylinder.
You do know that "atomized" fuel is tiny liquid droplets of fuel and "vaporization" is the point at which the fuel goes from liquid to a gas right? So better vaporization does not "make better the atomization".
Direct injection isn't new on gasoline engines, It's been around since the 1940's. It was used on cars in the late 40's and early 50's. The problem was they used mechanical injection and it was difficult to set-up and costly to repair.
As for gas mileage, My 3.4L with a carb got better gas mileage than my 2.8L and the V-8 is about the same as the 2.8L V-6. Both the 3.4L and the V-8 have no problem starting year round here. In very cold weather I start the car, wait about 30 seconds to 1 minute then drive off. This is with both carb'd and EFI cars. If they idle too high or stumble, Then they are not adjusted correctly. (Exception is if they are using a very high lift cam but even with EFI a high lift cammed engine doesn't like starting/running cold.)
I think some of the disagreements come from members that come from a Fast and the Furious mindset and probably have never experienced torque. On the other hand some members drove and rode in older cars with big v8s with massive torque. Kolburn, I still want to know which engine is the best.
well since you askedfor my input - I say the N* is the best for the fiero - after that a newer sbc then a 3800sc then a 3.4/3.5dohc then a 4.9 or an older sbc then a 3800na etc
now for me the N* was not preffered due to certain issues with getting to the engine for general maintananance, I'm not a fan of the sbc V8's in fieros and really not a fan of cutting the frame or having water pumps in the wheel well or simply the cost ot performance ratio, the SC whine of the 3800sc was a potential issue for me so I went with a 3.4dohc turbo.
as for classifying the engines I would put the:
N* as overall best 3800SC as best bang for buck 3.4dohc as best NA v6 - easiest swap - ecotec turbo as best power to weight 4.9 as cheapest easiest v8
IP: Logged
09:55 AM
RandomTask Member
Posts: 4547 From: Alexandria, VA Registered: Apr 2005
Apples are better! Oranges are better! Apples are better! Oranges are better! Apples are better! Oranges are better! Apples are better! Oranges are better! ...
Apples are better! Oranges are better! Apples are better! Oranges are better! Apples are better! Oranges are better! Apples are better! Oranges are better! ...
watermelon and posts like these are worth the effort to type
its entertaining? I still can't understand why people have such a hard time saying that they engine that they preffer or that was right for them at the time isn't the best engine.
I can say it at the time I put my 4.9 in my car I knew it was the engine that best fit my need for my car. I have since decided that my 85 might get an ecotec(still undecided) because at this time I think this might be the engine I feel it fits the needs of this car are there better yes are there faster yes. I see the problem is with the 3800 swappers they seem to think this is an engine made for God but to be honest I rode in one and it was fast but the thing did not impress me, when I rode in a 4.9 car at the time it did impress me. You can make a brigs and Stratton lawnmower engine out run a SBC if you spend enough money but I like to get the most for less. I'm from the days that cars to me were fast some on here seem to thing that muscle cars were slow but lets let them live in their dream world. Maybe to some they were slow and did not make horsepower but I have not road in a v6 that would put you back in the seat like a V8 will not to say they will I just have not been in one. One thing that impressed me about the too fast too furious movie is they know these new little rice burners are fast and for all purposes they are but they respect the old muscle and know that it can not be beat strait out. I use to go to the drag races all the time I had a blown SBC in a 76 corvette and my friend had a 440 GTX to me those were the days but are there cars faster running 4 banggers yes but do I get into drag racing now, no I have not been in years it does not appeal to me anymore. For the most part because of young people that talk trash and have no respect for their roots.
IP: Logged
10:51 AM
Aug 16th, 2005
jscott1 Member
Posts: 21676 From: Houston, TX , USA Registered: Dec 2001
a lot of the people who do the 4.9 swpa do it because they wanted a reliable inexpensive v8 not because they wanted the maximum potential - a lot of people who do the 3800 do it because its best performance potential for the buck - is a fairly new engine - is extremely reliable
This is the bottom line...the 4.9 is an inexpensive V8 period. It's not the fastest engine out there, and certainly not as fast as a 3800SC. I did my 4.9 because I wanted an inexpensive V8, not a drag car. My first choice for an engine for a drag car would not be a 4.9. I have never been to the track, I have never taken my car to the track, I may never take it to the track.
People on this forum, (and others) seem delighted that my car ran a 15.1 quarter mile (with someone else driving it) and I won't make excuses that it was in limp mode, but I won't lose a wink of sleep if it's the slowest V8 to ever run the quarter mile either. It is perfectly suited to what I want. If I wanted a faster 4.9 I would have internal mods and forced induction. But I have no need for it to be any faster.
I see no reason people have to get to spun up over an engine choice. There are so many other important things in this world to worry about.
Bottom line: most 4.9 owners are going to say they like the 4.9 better than the 3800SC and the 3800SC owners are going to say they like their 3800 better than the 4.9... Again, this all comes back to personal preference. If you really want to compare these apples and oranges, you need to boil all of this down to the numbers...
The avg stock 4.9 runs low 15's / high 14's and gets about 25mpg HWY fuel economy.
The avg stock 3800 Series 2 SC runs high/mid 13's and gets about 30mpg HWY fuel economy.
(Just to add: my wife's stock 3800 Series 2 N/A ran a 14.5 e.t. and gets 37mpg HWY fuel economy.)
Which is better? Again, depends what you want.
Now, undoubtedly there are going to be those who are going to want to compare modded motors and that is fine. But the FACT is that there is virtually NO aftermarket support for the 4.9. That means if you want a cam, pistons, intake, headers, etc etc you are going to have to PAY some pretty good coin to get these parts custom made compared to what you will pay to mod a 3800 Series II.
IP: Logged
01:11 AM
FieroMaster88 Member
Posts: 7680 From: Mattawan, MI Registered: Nov 2000
Now, undoubtedly there are going to be those who are going to want to compare modded motors and that is fine. But the FACT is that there is virtually NO aftermarket support for the 4.9. That means if you want a cam, pistons, intake, headers, etc etc you are going to have to PAY some pretty good coin to get these parts custom made compared to what you will pay to mod a 3800 Series II.
My larger cam in my 4.9 only cost me $125 shipped from Delta Camshaft.....
If you want to run 14's or 15's and have a reliable quick off the line Fiero get a 4.9
If you want a 13's car with nearly unlimited mods and can hit 12's easily then get a 3800sc
I don't see why the need for all the fighting...
What about those who want the torque and sound of a pushrod V8 other than a SBC? What other inexpensive choices do they have without reinventing the wheel or buying a kit? Aren't 4.9s running with 3.4 DOHC's? Why is the 3.4DOHC any better if the criteria is dragstrip times since ETs are so close? I don't hear anybody saying don't swap 3.4 DOHCs.
[This message has been edited by Unrivaled (edited 08-17-2005).]
IP: Logged
01:49 AM
PFF
System Bot
crzyone Member
Posts: 3571 From: Alberta, Canada Registered: Dec 2000
Nothing against the 4.9, its a good motor. The 3.4 is just a pretty good motor for its displacement. It has a powerband that suits the fiero. Usually, when you think sports car you don't invision a low reving torque engine. Some people prefer that, and thats cool.
Nothing against the 4.9, its a good motor. The 3.4 is just a pretty good motor for its displacement. It has a powerband that suits the fiero. Usually, when you think sports car you don't invision a low reving torque engine. Some people prefer that, and thats cool.
This is a statement that has been repeated so long I think some really believe it. So please answer this. The Fiero came with a 2.5 or 2.8 now tell me which one of those engines are high reving? BTW is the Corvette a sports car? Does it have a high reving engine?
[This message has been edited by Unrivaled (edited 08-17-2005).]
IP: Logged
02:02 AM
crzyone Member
Posts: 3571 From: Alberta, Canada Registered: Dec 2000
Well, GM really didn't have any motors that suit the fiero back in the 80s. The 3.2dohc was to be unveiled in the 1990 fiero. Apparently they also envisioned a dohc fiero. The fiero was made with existing drivetrain and suspension parts. The 2.8 and 2.5 were popular GM engines. The 3.2dohc was made for the fiero, but after the fiero was cancelled they made it into a 3.4dohc and put it in the higher end GM cars such as the GTP and Z34.
Edit to add. The corvette had a dohc motor once. The LT5 was a better motor in almost every way than the same generation LT1. The purists don't want a dohc in the corvette, I think they keep it a pushrod for sentimental reasons.
When I think sports car, corvette is one of the last cars that come to mind. Ferrari, Lotus, Lamborghini, opel, jaguar, MG, Triumph, TVR, etc. Most have small displacement high reving motors.
The only real big torque sports cars that I can think of are the corvette and viper. Anything with more than 2 seats really isn't a sports car.
[This message has been edited by crzyone (edited 08-17-2005).]
IP: Logged
02:30 AM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5922 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
My larger cam in my 4.9 only cost me $125 shipped from Delta Camshaft.....
my bad, so you can get relatively cheap cams? What specs? What else can you get? Cranks, rods, pistons? How much? Not trying to be a jerk, just curious how much it will cost to get a 4.9 into the low 13's / high 12's...reliably.
With all due respect, if I read all of the posts by most 4.9 advocates in this thread and took the statements most made at face value, I would be lead to believe the 4.9 can be built up to perform as good as any 3800SC for the same price or cheaper than modding the 3800SC. I am not necessarily saying this isn't true, but I haven't seen enough proof to convince me that this is the case. You guys have to understand that the reason why people doubt the capabilities of the 4.9 is because there is a lot of talk about what it can do, but there aren't many people actually doing it. The 1/4 mile list reflects this. I know there is concern of disrespect for the 4.9, as one would get the impression by posts in this thread. But if you want the disrespect to end, then I would suggest that you start building the 4.9's up and start running the numbers instead of talking about doing it.
Again, I'm not saying the 4.9 can't be built up to perform, I am just saying that I see a lot of big talk without much proof.
quote
Originally posted by crzyone:
The 3.2dohc was to be unveiled in the 1990 fiero. Apparently they also envisioned a dohc fiero.
Actually, according to the people in charge of the Fiero devopment and prototypes; the 3.2 DOHC engine was in development for the W-body exclusively; and only after the "Fiero People" at GM got ahold of the 89 Proto did the 3.2 DOHC engine find its way into the Fiero.
Well, GM really didn't have any motors that suit the fiero back in the 80s. The 3.2dohc was to be unveiled in the 1990 fiero. Apparently they also envisioned a dohc fiero. The fiero was made with existing drivetrain and suspension parts. The 2.8 and 2.5 were popular GM engines. The 3.2dohc was made for the fiero, but after the fiero was cancelled they made it into a 3.4dohc and put it in the higher end GM cars such as the GTP and Z34.
Edit to add. The corvette had a dohc motor once. The LT5 was a better motor in almost every way than the same generation LT1. The purists don't want a dohc in the corvette, I think they keep it a pushrod for sentimental reasons.
When I think sports car, corvette is one of the last cars that come to mind. Ferrari, Lotus, Lamborghini, opel, jaguar, MG, Triumph, TVR, etc. Most have small displacement high reving motors.
The only real big torque sports cars that I can think of are the corvette and viper. Anything with more than 2 seats really isn't a sports car.
Ok let me make sure I have your theory correct. Your theory is "low reving engines" are not suited for the Fiero. Even though GM made the Fiero in the 80's with low reving engines. The Corvette is really not a sports car unless it has a DOHC under the hood. Remember both cars are made by GM where the pushrod engine is king and they were never keen on DOHCs. They are only now staring to use dohcs more and more, and what year is this? 2005 and the Fiero stopped production in 1988 fifteen years ago.
What about those who want the torque and sound of a pushrod V8 other than a SBC? What other inexpensive choices do they have without reinventing the wheel or buying a kit? Aren't 4.9s running with 3.4 DOHC's? Why is the 3.4DOHC any better if the criteria is dragstrip times since ETs are so close? I don't hear anybody saying don't swap 3.4 DOHCs.
Because if you read the title of the thread it's 3800 or 4.9 so I was addressing those motors.
And if you do a motor swap for the purpose of sound that's kind of silly in my opinion. Last time I checked at the wheels there wasn't much of a difference in torque either.
[This message has been edited by Hairy_Fiero (edited 08-17-2005).]
IP: Logged
10:49 AM
Aug 18th, 2005
Mickey_Moose Member
Posts: 7583 From: Edmonton, AB, Canada Registered: May 2001
Originally posted by crzyone: When I think sports car, corvette is one of the last cars that come to mind. Ferrari, Lotus, Lamborghini, opel, jaguar, MG, Triumph, TVR, etc. Most have small displacement high reving motors.
...I guess the 427 Cobra isn't a sports cars then (not a small displacement/high reving motor)...but then I guess, you also don't count: GT40, Ford GT, TransAm (also had an OHC motor in the early 70's), Camaro, Superbird, Cuda, Challenger, Mustang, Brickland, Delorean, etc. Also of note since you consider the Ferrari as a sports car - in 84 Ferrari came out with the 288 GTO - ie: big displacement V8 - so this can't be a sports car with reguards to your definition.
quote
Originally posted by crzyone:The only real big torque sports cars that I can think of are the corvette and viper. Anything with more than 2 seats really isn't a sports car.
...I guess the McLaren F1 is also not a sports car since it has 3 seats...nor the Ferrari Mondial series...and I am sure there are a few others...
No offense, but sometimes you are very narrow minded
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:With all due respect, if I read all of the posts by most 4.9 advocates in this thread and took the statements most made at face value, I would be lead to believe the 4.9 can be built up to perform as good as any 3800SC for the same price or cheaper than modding the 3800SC. I am not necessarily saying this isn't true, but I haven't seen enough proof to convince me that this is the case. You guys have to understand that the reason why people doubt the capabilities of the 4.9 is because there is a lot of talk about what it can do, but there aren't many people actually doing it. The 1/4 mile list reflects this. I know there is concern of disrespect for the 4.9, as one would get the impression by posts in this thread. But if you want the disrespect to end, then I would suggest that you start building the 4.9's up and start running the numbers instead of talking about doing it.
Actually there is not really a whole lot of people that have built up the 3800SC either - bottom line here is there is a lot of talk about which is better - when really the bottom line is what YOU want and want it to do. Any car can be built, arguing the point which is better is useless. There is a thread on here someplace that has a link to a hotrod that broke through the straps on a dyno (hmmm, ~1200hp V8) – but does everyone have one?
I don't build my car so you will like it, but so I will like it.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 08-18-2005).]
IP: Logged
01:14 PM
crzyone Member
Posts: 3571 From: Alberta, Canada Registered: Dec 2000
...I guess the 427 Cobra isn't a sports cars then (not a small displacement/high reving motor)...but then I guess, you also don't count: GT40, Ford GT, TransAm (also had an OHC motor in the early 70's), Camaro, Superbird, Cuda, Challenger, Mustang, Brickland, Delorean, etc. Also of note since you consider the Ferrari as a sports car - in 84 Ferrari came out with the 288 GTO - ie: big displacement V8 - so this can't be a sports car with reguards to your definition.
No, I consider most of those muscle cars. The 427 AC Cobra was a debated car back then as well. It was the quickest muscle car from 0-100-0, but people argued it wasn't a muscle car because it only had 2 seats. Cars such as Camaros, Superbirds, Cudas, Clallengers, Mustangs.. those are not sports cars.
Sports cars are small and light, not those huge boats you listed with huge ass engines.
[This message has been edited by crzyone (edited 08-18-2005).]
IP: Logged
02:48 PM
Erik Member
Posts: 5628 From: Des Moines, Iowa Registered: Jul 2002
