Hey, I been wondering, how much power have people been able to push out of the GM 60 Degree V6 2.8L (171ci) engine in a Fiero? And what transmission? I had an idea for one high powered one. Here is my idea:

Individual Runner Fuel Injection, using TWM Induction 3006 Throttle bodies and custom welded intake manifold set.
- http://www.twminduction.com...ThrottleBody-FR.html

Custom Fabricated exhaust system, using custom headers fed into a Dynomax dual in dual out X flow Muffler, like this:

In -|=====|- In
Out -|=====|- Out

I know it isnt the way its designed, but the X pipe in the center should work the same if it is used this way
- http://www.jegs.com/webapp/...0002_760549_-1_10265

Crane Cams Cam
Part # 52896 @ The Fiero Store

High Compression pistons

Bored and Stroked Engine Block

4 Bolt main upgrade

Lightweight Aluminum flywheel, and double plate clutch

Roller Rockers

Valve size increase, with port polish

Deck the heads, increase compression as much as possible, try for 11:1 or 12:1, something high, but not insane diesel high.

With work, tuning, and more training for me in the performance buisness, I might push some N/A power out of the old 60 degree V6. of course more parts than that, and lots of money is needed!

[This message has been edited by Racing_Master (edited 12-20-2007).]

A member here is building a high performace carbed 2.8 for me. His goal is around 200hp.

Here is the thread with more details.

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum1/HTML/067909.html

We will take it to a dyno when its done to see the real numbers.

good luck with you project.

dominik

have you added up the cost of all this? like the throttle bodies - you can buy a faster motor for what they will cost you.

boring & stroking a 2.8 is basicly turning into a 3.4 - so, buy the shortblock in the first place. the newer blocks have better oiling, are stronger, the crank also has better oiling, is neutrally balanced, has the position ring for newer ECM's.

next - the cam - the Fiero store cam you picked is grind #260. there is one more, little more aggressive, which most folks pick: the 272

I doubt you will get anywhere near 11:1 by just decking the heads. you'll need custom pistons.

there are some aggressive builds going on right now - breaking 200 HP's without boost is the goal for most.

toughest part is getting that while still using the restrictive iron heads. love the independant throttle bodies

if you have the knowledge to do all that to a 2.8L your wasting your time, the fact that it will no longer look stock defeats the purpose of keeping the 2.8L-3.4L pushrod motors, once you loose the stock appearance its a waste, im picking up a 3800 supercharged engine/trans for $500 you will have ALOT more than that in just throttlebodys and pistons.

the 3800 supercharged series II motors are 240HP and 280ft/lbs, thats more power than 90% of the turbo 2.8L-3.4L motors on this forum.

if your smart enough to do all that performance work to a 2.8L then do a 3800/3800 supercharged/3.4L DOHC/4.9L PFI/4.6L northstar/LT1/SBC

you'll be fine alot of people here even do plug and play wiring harness's for most of those swaps.

matthew

I say go for it and do what you want. I agree that the 3.4L block is better. But I also remember when I first got into Fiero's the hot set-up was a 2.9L stroker engine. Forget how it was done. Your engine build sounds pretty cool and would look very cool.

quote Originally posted by The_Stickman2: I say go for it and do what you want. I agree that the 3.4L block is better. But I also remember when I first got into Fiero's the hot set-up was a 2.9L stroker engine. Forget how it was done. Your engine build sounds pretty cool and would look very cool.

I never heard of a 2.9L stroker motor. I think you mean the 3.2L stroker. The only crank with a different stroke is the 3.1L crank (the only difference between a 2.8L and a 3.1L is the crank stroke) Many have stroked the engine to a 3.1L and then had the cylinders bored out making it a 3.2L. To get to 2.9L you would need to just bore the cylinders. No stroking would be involved.

As for this topic,
The Fiero Store cam is the Crane H260, For performance you should use the Crane H272 cam.


I built two 3.4L engines with roughly 230hp at the crank, (both were normally aspirated) How much power are you looking to get out of a 60* engine?

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

Happiness isn't around the corner...
Happiness IS the corner.
ZZ4 Powered !!

Out of Naturally Aspirated, I plan on something like 450hp. Thats the reason I am making it as high compression as I can, and trying to get a good performance cam, and rid of parasitic draws on the engine where possible. I might go looking for a roller cam, instead of flat tappet, because of the less friction. Thanks for your input, and I will go check out a price of a 3.4L engine, either perfomance block or just the stock cast iron, and check the cost of machining. Me, again, planning way too early on this, but I just get so anxious. When I get into High Performance Powertrains, I might be able to loan a bit and get some cash to do all this. Does anyone here know where good custom ECUs can be bought? Not just reprogrammed stock ones, a full custom ECU for the Induvidual Runner injection? If and when I do this build, not much if any is gonna be left stock, maybe just the block. I might even Dry Sump it, so it will never be starved for oil.

If you are pricing blocks, there is a huge price range depending where you look. My personal fav' is the GM bowtie 3.4 block. But, it requires deep pockets.

Arn

Is this for real?

quote Originally posted by Racing_Master: Out of Naturally Aspirated, I plan on something like 450hp.

There is NO WAY you will get anywhere near 450HP on a naturally aspirated 60° V6. The purpose-built race engines were lucky to get 300HP, with individual throttle bodies, high compression, radical valvetrains, aluminum heads, etc etc. Those engines were also so radical that they weren't street driveable.

Sorry to be so blunt, but you need to re-evaluate your expectations.

450 is not going to happen without forced induction, even then it would be reaching. And that kind of power will need a better intake, headers, head work, maybe a bottom-end girdle, forged piston, better rods, 1.6 rockers, etc, etc,etc, and maybe even a drysump.

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



Trueleo.com/fiero.htm
RSpiderII@aol.com

i think the only people who try stuff like that are mechanics/machinists who can play with ideas since there's no labor charge involved. you know? as something to play with in their spare time. maybe that's you, don't know what you do. if so, more power to you (literally). for anyone else probaly it would be better to either hop up what they have on a more conservative level or switch engines to give them selves more potential.

450HP?? yikes!

a basic rule of thumb - which barely applies to these motors is 1 hp / cubic inch. the other basic rules, in liters, for DOHC engines is 100 HP/liter.
450 is WWAAYY out of reach. even boosted thats a tough goal to reach.

450hp is a lot for N/A, but people who drive 3.4L F bodies have been pushing 400hp out of the 3.4L N/A. Plus I am taking a high performance class to learn how to build the engines right. For running in 93 octane, it is possible if it is tuned right, though it definately would make more HP on royal blue.

quote Originally posted by Racing_Master: 450hp is a lot for N/A, but people who drive 3.4L F bodies have been pushing 400hp out of the 3.4L N/A. Plus I am taking a high performance class to learn how to build the engines right. For running in 93 octane, it is possible if it is tuned right, though it definately would make more HP on royal blue.

I'd love to see some info on that.

quote Originally posted by Racing_Master: 450hp is a lot for N/A, but people who drive 3.4L F bodies have been pushing 400hp out of the 3.4L N/A.

I think you are mis-reading your source. There have been a couple of 3.4L F-body cars that have hit around 336 hp at the wheels but all the ones I know of have been with turbo's not N/A. If you know of one that is N/A and even over 300hp on pump gas, Please post your reference's.

quote Originally posted by Oreif: I never heard of a 2.9L stroker motor. I think you mean the 3.2L stroker. The only crank with a different stroke is the 3.1L crank (the only difference between a 2.8L and a 3.1L is the crank stroke) Many have stroked the engine to a 3.1L and then had the cylinders bored out making it a 3.2L. To get to 2.9L you would need to just bore the cylinders. No stroking would be involved. As for this topic, The Fiero Store cam is the Crane H260, For performance you should use the Crane H272 cam. I built two 3.4L engines with roughly 230hp at the crank, (both were normally aspirated) How much power are you looking to get out of a 60* engine?

Pontiac had 2 prototype Turbo Fiero's running 2.9's It's mentioned in the Fiero book. Will have to try an find the specs.

I agree with what everyone else is saying in this thread. Even with the 3.4 DOHC people are struggling to get more than 240 to the wheels n/a, even though it's been done, it was costly. The heads on the pushrod engines are the biggest hold up, and even with performance heads their still a limitation, you just cant flow that much air with any 60* pushrod head. Not saying that you cant get enough power out of it to make you happy, but 450, not going to happen, sorry. Dont take it as a flame at all, but more of a challenge if you would like.

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

--180* t-stat, cams, 96-97 intake swap, FFP pulley, A/C Idler, P/S idler, ported exhaust mani's, ported lower intake, flowmaster exhaust, EGR delete, K&N filter, Darth Chip-- --13.8 @ 99 (before cams full street trim)--
--Check out the Fiero Kingdom!--
Beater: Flat black 90 CRX with a JDM D15 VTEC <--ballin'!

Racing_Master I see you are from Blairsville, are you a student at Wyo-Tech?

quote Originally posted by m0sh_man: the 3800 supercharged series II motors are 240HP and 280ft/lbs, thats more power than 90% of the turbo 2.8L-3.4L motors on this forum.

Not to mention a hell of a lot more reliable..

quote Originally posted by RotrexFiero: Racing_Master I see you are from Blairsville, are you a student at Wyo-Tech?

Yep, I am here at Wyotech in Blairsville, currently going into Street Rod after this Down Week. I know that 450hp sounds kind of a streach, 171ci 450hp might be high, but think of it this way. 450/171=2.632HP/CID, while my buddy Duane has a 350 chevy smallblock Naturally Aspirated with a high rise intake, on Carbs none the less, and its pushing 600hp. 600/350=1.714hp/CID. This is taking the 2.8 without increasing the CID. the 2.8L might not be able to make it THAT high, since its a tiny 2.8L engine. Duane's Corvette makes 600hp on 93 octane, but 1300hp on the jug (its a drag racing engine, over 30,000 dollars in it). Now lets bump the 2.8L to a 3.4L.

207CID 3.4L, 450/207=2.174 HP/CID

A streach for a carb, due to unmetered airflow, it runs rich too often, washes cylinder walls down, and a whole lot of stuff goes out the window. Induvidual Runner Injection allows a lot of airflow in, with Speed Density air metering, even though it is only a guess on air flow, its better than a carb, burning more efficiently. Each throttle body of the 3006 series throttle bodies are 52mm. 52*6=312mm total opening. No restrictive filters either, you run IRFI wide open usualy. This is WAY more than enough air for the volumetric efficiency we are looking for. Now mate that with the exhaust that allows a lot of air through, mandrel bent, short as possible. Camshaft that allows high Rev limits, and strong valve springs, high as hell compression (much more than street use and daily driving would be) and high performance heads, it is way possible to push 450bhp flywheel out of the 3.4L 60 degree V6. Though your reliability of the engine and fuel mileage goes pretty far down, with IRFI it might run 5miles a gallon, better than carbed beasts which run around 5 gallons a mile. This engine setup might be best for racing only, due to it needing rebuilds constaintly. I might make it 450hp on a button (different computer tuning) and something like 250hp for fuel economy.

This is my idea, though it seems it is kind of radical, so now since you are all saying its impossible, I 100% am going to attempt it Once i get the time and money (RAHH! COLLEGE!) I will try it! and be sure to let you guys know of the progress

quote Originally posted by Racing_Master: This is my idea, though it seems it is kind of radical, so now since you are all saying its impossible, I 100% am going to attempt it Once i get the time and money (RAHH! COLLEGE!) I will try it! and be sure to let you guys know of the progress

I don't think it's impossible, I just think that for the kind of money that is going to cost you could get a more powerful engine that has aftermarket support.. Either way, good luck with it and if you decide to do this you better make a build thread!! :P

quote Originally posted by Racing_Master: Yep, I am here at Wyotech in Blairsville, currently going into Street Rod after this Down Week. I know that 450hp sounds kind of a streach, 171ci 450hp might be high, but think of it this way. 450/171=2.632HP/CID, while my buddy Duane has a 350 chevy smallblock Naturally Aspirated with a high rise intake, on Carbs none the less, and its pushing 600hp. 600/350=1.714hp/CID. This is taking the 2.8 without increasing the CID. the 2.8L might not be able to make it THAT high, since its a tiny 2.8L engine. Duane's Corvette makes 600hp on 93 octane, but 1300hp on the jug (its a drag racing engine, over 30,000 dollars in it). Now lets bump the 2.8L to a 3.4L. 207CID 3.4L, 450/207=2.174 HP/CID I might make it 450hp on a button (different computer tuning) and something like 250hp for fuel economy.

There are a LOT more performance/power handling parts available for the small block than there ever was for the 60*v6. Admittedly, if you want to spend a tremendous amount of money on the engine, you can probably get to 450 horsepower. If you're okay with using the 3.4 instead of the 2.8, why not just go with a newer, better 60*v6 engine altogether? Try out the High Feature V6. 3.6 liters, 4 valves/cylinder. The crankshaft is forged, stock, and both the crank and block have been run far over 1,000 horsepower in a turbocharged drag effort by GM. You'll still get to innovate; nobody has used the engine for a naturally aspirated drag racing effort, and it hasn't been greatly modified for naturally aspirated horsepower in ANY street car I know of. Some formula series in Australia is using it to make about 400 horsepower naturally aspirated, but that's as far as it has been taken without boost that I've heard about.

Every modern engine with 450 horsepower has 450 "on a button" and far less most of the time. The button is the throttle pedal. An engine that runs well under partial throttle is an engine that is relatively economical under partial throttle. There isn't a reason to have different timing and/or fuel maps unless you want one for pump gas and one for race gas.

I'd like to, again, suggest you try out GM's "High Feature" v6 engine if you want to make tons of naturally aspirated horsepower from a general motors 60*v6. That kind of innovation would look really good on a resume for a Wyotech grad that wants to go into performance auto stuff. The 2.8 is old, the High Feature v6 is one of the most common engines in new GM vehicles. You could kill several birds with one stone.

quote Originally posted by Fiero Brick: There are a LOT more performance/power handling parts available for the small block than there ever was for the 60*v6. Admittedly, if you want to spend a tremendous amount of money on the engine, you can probably get to 450 horsepower. If you're okay with using the 3.4 instead of the 2.8, why not just go with a newer, better 60*v6 engine altogether? Try out the High Feature V6. 3.6 liters, 4 valves/cylinder. The crankshaft is forged, stock, and both the crank and block have been run far over 1,000 horsepower in a turbocharged drag effort by GM. You'll still get to innovate; nobody has used the engine for a naturally aspirated drag racing effort, and it hasn't been greatly modified for naturally aspirated horsepower in ANY street car I know of. Some formula series in Australia is using it to make about 400 horsepower naturally aspirated, but that's as far as it has been taken without boost that I've heard about. Every modern engine with 450 horsepower has 450 "on a button" and far less most of the time. The button is the throttle pedal. An engine that runs well under partial throttle is an engine that is relatively economical under partial throttle. There isn't a reason to have different timing and/or fuel maps unless you want one for pump gas and one for race gas. I'd like to, again, suggest you try out GM's "High Feature" v6 engine if you want to make tons of naturally aspirated horsepower from a general motors 60*v6. That kind of innovation would look really good on a resume for a Wyotech grad that wants to go into performance auto stuff. The 2.8 is old, the High Feature v6 is one of the most common engines in new GM vehicles. You could kill several birds with one stone.

Thanks for the reply, I might try it, though it will all be based on budget. The IRFI might cost me almost half the engine's cost, (roughly $2,000 for the setup less ECM). so, it might be close to next year when I try this, and if I have a good job by then, and stable credit. I am not one to Drag race a Fiero, i think drag racing is boring to build a car for. In all honesty, I would rather drive 120mph for 5 hours then 300mph for 5 seconds .

quote Originally posted by Racing_Master: Yep, I am here at Wyotech in Blairsville, currently going into Street Rod after this Down Week. I know that 450hp sounds kind of a streach, 171ci 450hp might be high, but think of it this way. 450/171=2.632HP/CID, while my buddy Duane has a 350 chevy smallblock Naturally Aspirated with a high rise intake, on Carbs none the less, and its pushing 600hp. 600/350=1.714hp/CID. This is taking the 2.8 without increasing the CID. the 2.8L might not be able to make it THAT high, since its a tiny 2.8L engine. Duane's Corvette makes 600hp on 93 octane, but 1300hp on the jug (its a drag racing engine, over 30,000 dollars in it). Now lets bump the 2.8L to a 3.4L. 207CID 3.4L, 450/207=2.174 HP/CID A streach for a carb, due to unmetered airflow, it runs rich too often, washes cylinder walls down, and a whole lot of stuff goes out the window. Induvidual Runner Injection allows a lot of airflow in, with Speed Density air metering, even though it is only a guess on air flow, its better than a carb, burning more efficiently. Each throttle body of the 3006 series throttle bodies are 52mm. 52*6=312mm total opening. No restrictive filters either, you run IRFI wide open usualy. This is WAY more than enough air for the volumetric efficiency we are looking for. Now mate that with the exhaust that allows a lot of air through, mandrel bent, short as possible. Camshaft that allows high Rev limits, and strong valve springs, high as hell compression (much more than street use and daily driving would be) and high performance heads, it is way possible to push 450bhp flywheel out of the 3.4L 60 degree V6. Though your reliability of the engine and fuel mileage goes pretty far down, with IRFI it might run 5miles a gallon, better than carbed beasts which run around 5 gallons a mile. This engine setup might be best for racing only, due to it needing rebuilds constaintly. I might make it 450hp on a button (different computer tuning) and something like 250hp for fuel economy. This is my idea, though it seems it is kind of radical, so now since you are all saying its impossible, I 100% am going to attempt it Once i get the time and money (RAHH! COLLEGE!) I will try it! and be sure to let you guys know of the progress

Just because you can get a 312mm intake opening and a set of open tuned headers does not mean the engine will be able to utilize them fully. Here are some things to also consider. The Iron heads can only be ported so much and no where near the flow rates requied to support 450hp normally aspirated. With your friends 350 there are plenty of aftermarket high flowing heads. Next is the cam, The largest cam made for a 60* V-6 is just barely over 1/2" of lift (Around .520 and is solid lift). The friends 350 can get a 3/4" lift and higher cams. Your best bet is to use a newer 60* V-6 with the aluminum heads, You can get a lot more flow thru them, they have roller cams, and have displacements of 3500, 3600, and 3900. The only huge drawback is there is a very limted aftermarket for the 60* V-6 engines (old and new) where other engines like the 3800 series and the SBC V-8's have a much larger aftermarket and many more parts available for performance and/or racing. You would be better off buying SD4 parts and building a 2.7L or a 3.0L SD4. The Rod Shop had an SD4 engine running at 532hp on alcohol. You can get all kinds of SD4 parts from here:
http://www.kansasracingproducts.com/products.html

A 450hp SD4 is alot more realistic than a N/A 60* V-6.

quote Originally posted by Oreif: Just because you can get a 312mm intake opening and a set of open tuned headers does not mean the engine will be able to utilize them fully. Here are some things to also consider. The Iron heads can only be ported so much and no where near the flow rates requied to support 450hp normally aspirated. With your friends 350 there are plenty of aftermarket high flowing heads. Next is the cam, The largest cam made for a 60* V-6 is just barely over 1/2" of lift (Around .520 and is solid lift). The friends 350 can get a 3/4" lift and higher cams. Your best bet is to use a newer 60* V-6 with the aluminum heads, You can get a lot more flow thru them, they have roller cams, and have displacements of 3500, 3600, and 3900. The only huge drawback is there is a very limted aftermarket for the 60* V-6 engines (old and new) where other engines like the 3800 series and the SBC V-8's have a much larger aftermarket and many more parts available for performance and/or racing. You would be better off buying SD4 parts and building a 2.7L or a 3.0L SD4. The Rod Shop had an SD4 engine running at 532hp on alcohol. You can get all kinds of SD4 parts from here: http://www.kansasracingproducts.com/products.html A 450hp SD4 is alot more realistic than a N/A 60* V-6.

Doing things people have done in the past is only following the bandwagon, and is not my style. Thanks for the input, but I plan mostly on a 60 degree V6, to try and not radically change the Fiero engine, but more or less upgrade it to today's racing standards. During my High Performance Powertrains class I will learn more and more about building race engines, and tuning ECMs, all the values, calculations, etc. From there, I can work on building a 3.4L Pushrod, or a 3.4L DOHC engine to a N/A powerhouse, and still run the engine transversely. I like the idea of upgrading the V6 due to it not normally being done, IRFI too, again not normally done, N/A power is yet another one, and transversely, and all on top of that, in a Fiero. That is what draws me to do this. It would be either this, or a 4 rotor rotary build, but the rotary engine would be much more work, while having to do a lot of frame mods. With using the same 60 degree V6 block, I do not need to do much to the subframe

I like the idea. But I am more of a I fan. There just more. Balanced and last longer. I would love to see a I6 In the back of one of these lil cars. But would love a 350 popin out the back even more. I might go that route with mine.

------------------
85 Fiero GT
83 280ZX
76 280Z
03 Ranger
All are standards! Auto's Suck!

well, I have always thought using the gen 3 alum heads, with some forged iron head pistons is a GREAT way to get some crazy compression. do a little grinding out of the heads to lower the compression to the level you are looking for, while maintaing the basic shape. CC them to make sure they are even. this will get you your compression, and give you MUCH better flowing heads. heads is why SBC's can make the power they do. they dont make that power you mentioned on stock heads.

other appraoch - tho I know you want NA - is making a 3.4, but using the 2.8 crank - to lower the stroke & compression, and boost the piss out of it. and, with the slightly shorter stroke, you should have a little more room to rev higher also.

Ok been doing a little research. I believe the way the the 2.9 is made is a 3.2L block and 2.8L crank. The 3.1L and 2.8L engine are the same bore but different cranks. The 3.2L I believe is a bored out 3.1L. Now I have found a performance head and it's part # is 14054884. I think it may simply be the stock HO head. I remember seeing a gen I aluminum head though. The gen II heads may be an option and there are some cool intakes for those heads. An aluminum block would be trick but pricey.

quote Originally posted by The_Stickman2: The 3.2L I believe is a bored out 3.1L.

And the 2.9 is a bored out 2.8... bored out +0.030", to be precise.

quote Originally posted by The_Stickman2: Ok been doing a little research. I believe the way the the 2.9 is made is a 3.2L block and 2.8L crank. The 3.1L and 2.8L engine are the same bore but different cranks. The 3.2L I believe is a bored out 3.1L. Now I have found a performance head and it's part # is 14054884. I think it may simply be the stock HO head. I remember seeing a gen I aluminum head though. The gen II heads may be an option and there are some cool intakes for those heads. An aluminum block would be trick but pricey.

A 3.2L is a bored out 3.1L, Install a 2.8L crank and it's a 2.9L.

If you are referring to the all-aluminum engines, It was a 60* V-6 block with a 2.8L crank and a 3.54" bore. The two blocks were specifically made as prototypes. But they still used the 2.8L cranks which had the original stroke.

Again the 2.9L is NOT a stroker motor.

quote Originally posted by Oreif: A 3.2L is a bored out 3.1L, Install a 2.8L crank and it's a 2.9L. If you are referring to the all-aluminum engines, It was a 60* V-6 block with a 2.8L crank and a 3.54" bore. The two blocks were specifically made as prototypes. But they still used the 2.8L cranks which had the original stroke. Again the 2.9L is NOT a stroker motor.

Then I am using the term wrong, but you are using the crank(stroke) to change the displacement. You may not be enlarging it but you are changing it. By doing this it allows you to use alot more rpms and the engine will spin easier. This is how the Chevy 302 was made to comply with Trans-am rules. It was a 327 block and a 283 crank. The engine would rev for days. So maybe the term is wrong but you are using stroke to change the displacement for an improvement.

quote Originally posted by The_Stickman2: Then I am using the term wrong, but you are using the crank(stroke) to change the displacement. You may not be enlarging it but you are changing it. By doing this it allows you to use alot more rpms and the engine will spin easier. This is how the Chevy 302 was made to comply with Trans-am rules. It was a 327 block and a 283 crank. The engine would rev for days. So maybe the term is wrong but you are using stroke to change the displacement for an improvement.

You can change displacement by changing either bore OR stroke. The shorter the stroke, The higher/faster RPM's you can spin. So if the 2.9L turbo was designed to keep RPM's high, they would change bore first (from the original 2.8L version) to keep the stroke the shorter of the two available crankshafts.
Again, the 2.9L was NOT stroked.

Yes a 302 was a 283 crank in a 327. So a 302 is a destroked 327.
(Because per Trans AM rules, the engine had to be less than 305 cubic inches)
Take a 283 and install a 327 crank and you have a 307. So a 307 is a stroked 283.
The only difference between a 307 and a 327 is the size of the bore. They use the same crankshaft so there is no change in stroke to gain 20 cubic inches. It should be noted that a 307 is a 5.0L engine and a 327 is a 5.3L engine so there was a gain of .3 liters with just a change in the bore.

With regards to the 60* V-6's:
A 2.8L to a 3.1L is a change in the stroke.
A 3.1L to a 3.4L is a change in the bore.
A 2.9L is a .030 over bored 2.8L and a 3.2L is a .030 over bored 3.1L

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 12-22-2007).]

quote Originally posted by The_Stickman2: Then I am using the term wrong, but you are using the crank(stroke) to change the displacement. You may not be enlarging it but you are changing it. By doing this it allows you to use alot more rpms and the engine will spin easier. This is how the Chevy 302 was made to comply with Trans-am rules. It was a 327 block and a 283 crank. The engine would rev for days. So maybe the term is wrong but you are using stroke to change the displacement for an improvement.

What you're referring to with your 327-to-302 example sometimes is referred to "de-stroking" the engine, and it has a rich history within the small-block-Chevy (SBC) family of engines. The 302 is indeed well-known within the SBC community as a high-rev engine, and in fact, likely would make for an excellent engine swap in a car whose weight is as light as that of the Fiero.

The 2.9L V6 you mention is a nice idea, albeit a different story.

GM sold to the general public only two different pushrod 60-degree V6 blocks, and two different 60-degree pushrod V6 cranks. Based solely on those factory pieces, that logically yields with unmodified existing parts, only four possible "mix `n match" combinations for engine displacement:

1. If you've a 2.8L block (one with an 89mm cylinder bore) and a 2.8L crank (one with a 76mm throw), you have a 2.8L displacement engine.
   
   
2. If you've a 2.8L block and a 3.4L crank (one with an 84mm throw), you have a 3.1L displacement engine.
   
   
3. If you've a 3.4L block (one with a 92mm bore) and a 3.4L crank, you have a 3.4L displacement engine.
   
   
4. And finally, if you have a combination of a 3.4L block (one with a 92mm bore) and a 2.8L crank (one with an 84mm throw), you have a 3.0L displacement engine.
   

As you can see, none of these four alternatives mathematically produces a 2.9L engine.

The fourth alternative I've mentioned (like the first) comes very close, but the fourth alternative likely also would require its compression ratio to be raised in order to compensate for the shorter "throw" of its 2.8L crank in a 3.4L block.

Stickman, maybe you were thinking of this last combination I've mentioned, the 3.0L V6 engine, rather than a 2.9L engine. The 3.0L would be a classic, time-proven prescription for an engine that likes to rev: one with an increased bore-to-stroke ratio, somewhat akin to that you've provided with your 302 SBC example.

Incidentally, none of this discussion about engine displacement constitutes my "opinion." This, regardless of whether I like it or not, is simply the mathematics of engine displacement, which, expressed in liters for a 60-degree V6 engine, equals:

[3.1416 X (Cylinder Bore/2)² X 6 Cylinders]/1,000,000
If you're not thinking of this 3.0L combination I've mentioned, then that begs the question, what GM V6 bore and stroke engine combination would you use to obtain a 60-degree, pushrod V6 engine for the Fiero which would yield the 2.9L engine displacement you've mentioned?

The math (which I certainly didn't invent) simply says you can't do that with a simple "mix `n match" of unmodified, existing GM parts --- does it not?

i dont want to be mean about it but....

THERE IS NO WAY YOU WILL GET THAT MUCH N/A HP OUT OF THE PUSHROD 60* V6

n/a includes W/o nitrous.

The heads on these motors are absolutely junk they WILL NOT flow enough to make that much power. PERIOD

besides i dont care how good your instructor/classmates are you do not have the technology, experience, knowledge to get anywhere near those numbers.

now if you went along the route of the DOHC 3.4L It would barely be POSSIBLE and it would be expensive, unreliable, and un-economical.

if somebody were to take on this task it would be an experienced engine builder who has designed and engineered engines all his life and had the money, spare time, and resources to spare. NOT somebody taking a performance class in college.

sorry but its just a fact,

a much better project would be to build up a SBC as there is about a million different parts for them and just about anything you can think of has been tried and tested on them. (and its cheap)

The most I have EVER seen out of a 60 degree was 550 - 600 hp on that supercharged 2.9L fiero a while back. He was running aluminum heads, and a completely custom intake manifold. He also talked about going with the aluminum GM racing block.

If you really wanted to make 450 hp, I don't quite understand why you wouldn't do it right with a T60 turbocharger. Even dreaming of 450hp on an N/A motor, especially this motor, is just a waste of time and money.

It'll be a hell of a lot easier modifying a 3800. Say what you want about 'bandwagons', sometimes you need to go with whats tried and proven. Just do something different with it. Run ITB's on it.

Add a turbocharger and you have 200hp. That's it.

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

just a quick though on the x flow muffeler idea, i know exhuast is a ways off, but using that muffeler like that is a bad idea, the idea with the x pipe is to alow the pulse of exaust gas from one side flow past the x by venturi effect add a sucking effect to the other side of the x, im not saying the car wont run with your system but your blowing your exhuast pipes at each other.

you can fit a flowmaster 80 serise in there and the make one that is the set up of

_in -| |-in
out -| |-out

but again thats just my 2 cents i think if you plan on tackeling a project like the one just just stated the exhuast is the least of your problems at the moment.

edited to fix diagram

[This message has been edited by xxsportscar (edited 12-23-2007).]

FYI, back in the day, Falconer got about 280 HP from iron head 2.8's and 300 HP from iron head 3.0's. That's with custom cast manifold with throttle per cylinder, long tube headers, ported heads, etc.

What makes anyone think he can beat that full race effort by 170 HP?

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 12-24-2007).]

You could do a properly done turbo 3800 and make 800HP to the crank. It would require significantly less work than doing a 2.8 to half that, and you can keep a stock GM bottom end / pistons / iron heads.