So LS7 design, which is newer than GEN3 doesn't use canted valves and you claim canted is a performance advantage where it was really nothing more than getting it to fit in a low profile package.
Next time you say retard, do it looking in the mirror.
Are Seried 2 or 3 3800SC valves canted? No. Get over it.
You may know this already Lou but don't take the "full retard" statement offensively, it's a line from the Movie Tropic Thunder in a scene that I thought was pretty funny despite how silly the movie is. I still had a great laugh.
There's another benefit of canted valves involving Trigonometry. Sin of 90 degrees = 1 which means an object is subject to the full free fall gravity effect of 1 x 9.8 meter per second squared. Sin of <90 = less than 1 so <1 x9.8 meters per second squared for an angle less than 90, which translates into a reduced rate of drop due to gravity. Theoretically that should translate into less dead weight that the valve spring has to retract which should allow increased stable engine rpm. Kind of like being able to pull 300 lbs up an incline but not be able to actually lift it off the ground. Not saying that's one of the reasons GM incorporated it, but it sure is nice to apply some of what I've learned in school.
Originally posted by Joseph Upson: There's another benefit of canted valves involving Trigonometry. Sin of 90 degrees = 1 which means an object is subject to the full free fall gravity effect of 1 x 9.8 meter per second squared. Sin of <90 = less than 1 so <1 x9.8 meters per second squared for an angle less than 90, which translates into a reduced rate of drop due to gravity. Theoretically that should translate into less dead weight that the valve spring has to retract which should allow increased stable engine rpm. Kind of like being able to pull 300 lbs up an incline but not be able to actually lift it off the ground. Not saying that's one of the reasons GM incorporated it, but it sure is nice to apply some of what I've learned in school.
I'm not sure how much the physics of gravity applies here. In a 60 degree V6, assuming the car is on level ground, and all mounts and suspension is good and straight, then if the valve stems are parallel to cylinder walls, the valves are already tilted 30 degrees out from vertical. Canted valves decreases that angle, pulling the stem closer to vertical, which would increase the g-force applied to the valves, rather than decrease it.
So the effect here would be the opposite of what you suggest.
The benefit of canted valves is that it allows for a higher turn-in radius in the intake port, which allows for smoother and increased flow on the intake side, albeit with the cost of a tighter turn radius in the exhaust port, where raw flow is slightly less important. And of course, canted valves allow for more compact packaging, as the valves are angled back in slightly, toward the center of the engine.
I'm not sure how much the physics of gravity applies here. In a 60 degree V6, assuming the car is on level ground, and all mounts and suspension is good and straight, then if the valve stems are parallel to cylinder walls, the valves are already tilted 30 degrees out from vertical. Canted valves decreases that angle, pulling the stem closer to vertical, which would increase the g-force applied to the valves, rather than decrease it.
So the effect here would be the opposite of what you suggest.
The benefit of canted valves is that it allows for a higher turn-in radius in the intake port, which allows for smoother and increased flow on the intake side, albeit with the cost of a tighter turn radius in the exhaust port, where raw flow is slightly less important. And of course, canted valves allow for more compact packaging, as the valves are angled back in slightly, toward the center of the engine.
It's possible without actually doing the math however, you are addressing angles in different plains so they can't cancel each other directly; tilting to the right/left for the "V" and for/aft for the splay. The benefit if there, may not be significant but it is definitely a topic area covered by GM as if I recall correctly the valves on some of the later engines are gas(sodium) filled to help lighten them. Force = mass x acceleration, when those valves get to moving fast their ounces multiply into lbs. Of course flow is the main idea here and the selling phrase the same as horsepower although the seldom mentioned torque is where all the fun is. Every little bit helps. The newer 60 degree engines are consistently rated to 6000 rpm plus before redline so splayed valves don't hurt.
The "Sodium filled" valves are for cooling the valves- The sodium transfers heat up the stem away from the top of the heads of the exhaust valves. I would suspect that those valves are actually HEAVIER than the solid valves because of the (Basically) hollow stem which would require making up the strength by much thicker stem(Walls).
And Dobey- Stop telling me more stuff I didn't know about the new LT engines......Dang it! It makes me look dumb and since I retired from Federal service I don't need to look that way anymore! (No matter how hard I tried to look dumb, they would never give me a pay raise....Believe me, I tried....)
[This message has been edited by cvxjet (edited 05-28-2016).]
Originally posted by cvxjet: The "Sodium filled" valves are for cooling the valves- The sodium transfers heat up the stem away from the top of the heads of the exhaust valves. I would suspect that those valves are actually HEAVIER than the solid valves because of the (Basically) hollow stem which would require making up the strength by much thicker stem(Walls).
They are lighter, making them heavier is not only counter productive, it also makes no sense. The metal alloy was strengthened to counter the weight reduction yielding a lighter more efficient valve. The lion's share of improvement may go to the management of heat as you've pointed out however, I read an article on Engine builders touting up to 22% reduction in weight and a gain of up to 350 rpm with no other changes in the valve train.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 05-29-2016).]
You may know this already Lou but don't take the "full retard" statement offensively, it's a line from the Movie Tropic Thunder in a scene that I thought was pretty funny despite how silly the movie is. I still had a great laugh.
There's another benefit of canted valves involving Trigonometry. Sin of 90 degrees = 1 which means an object is subject to the full free fall gravity effect of 1 x 9.8 meter per second squared. Sin of <90 = less than 1 so <1 x9.8 meters per second squared for an angle less than 90, which translates into a reduced rate of drop due to gravity. Theoretically that should translate into less dead weight that the valve spring has to retract which should allow increased stable engine rpm. Kind of like being able to pull 300 lbs up an incline but not be able to actually lift it off the ground. Not saying that's one of the reasons GM incorporated it, but it sure is nice to apply some of what I've learned in school.
While I know there are amazing V8 canted heads out there, you just have to realize GM didn't put racing heads on their generic mule motor. The fact that the Montana version with it's taller intake is rated 5 hp higher should be a clue that the engine was designed to fit a low profile FWD hood, not the race track. I already did the math on the valves. That's where the "magic" is. Skinnier stems.
My ancient iron low tech poor flowing heads just let me beat a C5 Corvette at the track today...I did 3 engine swaps and 2 rebuilds last year. When he can build a motor/car in under 3 years, he should then and only then consider opening his mouth. And no, the C5 wasn't stock.
My dynos are lower and lower because I keep moving up to larger and larger wheels/tires for my racing... I've been racing for 21 years with various motors. Even with Camaro 16x8 255/55's and 12" brakes, I did 187 rwhp with a restricted intake. That's a heaver application than stock. When I switched intakes and wheels, I dyno'd at around 175 with 275/40's on 17x9.5's - that's a large gain in rotating mass... When I switched to 315/35-17's on those same wheels, I lost another 10 hp just going up in tire width. On stock wheels and brakes, I'd be making a lot more power.
The troll also ignores the fact that I have a 3400 swap as one of my alternating daily drivers. My other is a stock-ish 3.4 roller cam iron head motor running the stock Fiero exhaust. Stock wheels on both cars and guess what - they perform about the same...but still much slower than the one I race with. I'm not going to retrofit brakes and tires on my race car and pay for another dyno just to shut up a troll. My well-documented racing speaks for itself. Hopefully I'll have a video of the C5 race in a few days.
I have 2 3400 top ends in my basement. I have 1 extra set of AL heads and had sold another.
In the end, GM obviously knows how to make canted heads. They didn't invest in racing technology for the 3X00-60 motors and then short-change the heads on the Corvette. The canted design allowed them to continue to put those motors under their generic commuter cars. It was just a means to an end or else GEN2 motors would have been better performers out of the gate. Newsflash - they weren't.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 05-29-2016).]
While I know there are amazing V8 canted heads out there, you just have to realize GM didn't put racing heads on their generic mule motor. The fact that the Montana version with it's taller intake is rated 5 hp higher should be a clue that the engine was designed to fit a low profile FWD hood, not the race track. I already did the math on the valves. That's where the "magic" is. Skinnier stems.
My ancient iron low tech poor flowing heads just let me beat a C5 Corvette at the track today...I did 3 engine swaps and 2 rebuilds last year. When he can build a motor/car in under 3 years, he should then and only then consider opening his mouth. And no, the C5 wasn't stock.
My dynos are lower and lower because I keep moving up to larger and larger wheels/tires for my racing... I've been racing for 21 years with various motors. Even with Camaro 16x8 255/55's and 12" brakes, I did 187 rwhp with a restricted intake. That's a heaver application than stock. When I switched intakes and wheels, I dyno'd at around 175 with 275/40's on 17x9.5's - that's a large gain in rotating mass... When I switched to 315/35-17's on those same wheels, I lost another 10 hp just going up in tire width. On stock wheels and brakes, I'd be making a lot more power.
The troll also ignores the fact that I have a 3400 swap as one of my alternating daily drivers. My other is a stock-ish 3.4 roller cam iron head motor running the stock Fiero exhaust. Stock wheels on both cars and guess what - they perform about the same...but still much slower than the one I race with. I'm not going to retrofit brakes and tires on my race car and pay for another dyno just to shut up a troll. My well-documented racing speaks for itself. Hopefully I'll have a video of the C5 race in a few days.
I have 2 3400 top ends in my basement. I have 1 extra set of AL heads and had sold another.
In the end, GM obviously knows how to make canted heads. They didn't invest in racing technology for the 3X00-60 motors and then short-change the heads on the Corvette. The canted design allowed them to continue to put those motors under their generic commuter cars. It was just a means to an end or else GEN2 motors would have been better performers out of the gate. Newsflash - they weren't.
I usually bow out when the name calling starts but I enjoy discussing the topic of performance. As for the vette heads, they're in an entirely different class than what we have on the V6 and I can't accept valve splaying as a means to continue fitting the V6 in modern GM cars which are no smaller now than they were at the introduction of the 2.8L. The Vette has titanium valves and locks and retainers on at least the intake where the greatest valve weight is to the tune of far more weight reduction than any theoretical gain from splaying the valves would afford, not to mention the titanium connecting rods. The displacement and angle of the LS motor block are two of a number of dynamics that have different requirements than the smaller, narrower V6 and generally improvements here trickle down to the V6 which is likely why the 3900 V6 shares the same bore with the early LS motor as well as some other cylinder head improvements I don't recall.
If you're referring to the short distance races on the circle track there are some advantages the fiero will have at less power and better traction to the rear wheels, but nose to nose on the line and straight ahead on the drag strip track is what I consider "truth serum". You've done a lot of great work with the iron heads and that can't be taken away from you.
While I know there are amazing V8 canted heads out there, you just have to realize GM didn't put racing heads on their generic mule motor. The fact that the Montana version with it's taller intake is rated 5 hp higher should be a clue that the engine was designed to fit a low profile FWD hood, not the race track. I already did the math on the valves. That's where the "magic" is. Skinnier stems.
My ancient iron low tech poor flowing heads just let me beat a C5 Corvette at the track today...I did 3 engine swaps and 2 rebuilds last year. When he can build a motor/car in under 3 years, he should then and only then consider opening his mouth. And no, the C5 wasn't stock.
My dynos are lower and lower because I keep moving up to larger and larger wheels/tires for my racing... I've been racing for 21 years with various motors. Even with Camaro 16x8 255/55's and 12" brakes, I did 187 rwhp with a restricted intake. That's a heaver application than stock. When I switched intakes and wheels, I dyno'd at around 175 with 275/40's on 17x9.5's - that's a large gain in rotating mass... When I switched to 315/35-17's on those same wheels, I lost another 10 hp just going up in tire width. On stock wheels and brakes, I'd be making a lot more power.
The troll also ignores the fact that I have a 3400 swap as one of my alternating daily drivers. My other is a stock-ish 3.4 roller cam iron head motor running the stock Fiero exhaust. Stock wheels on both cars and guess what - they perform about the same...but still much slower than the one I race with. I'm not going to retrofit brakes and tires on my race car and pay for another dyno just to shut up a troll. My well-documented racing speaks for itself. Hopefully I'll have a video of the C5 race in a few days.
I have 2 3400 top ends in my basement. I have 1 extra set of AL heads and had sold another.
In the end, GM obviously knows how to make canted heads. They didn't invest in racing technology for the 3X00-60 motors and then short-change the heads on the Corvette. The canted design allowed them to continue to put those motors under their generic commuter cars. It was just a means to an end or else GEN2 motors would have been better performers out of the gate. Newsflash - they weren't.
here's the dyno overlay again lou... your iron head 3400 vs an aluminum head 3500.
I'm sure you'll say this isn't apples to apples though, but somehow make the argument that your car vs a c5 vette on a 1/2 mile dirt circle track (or w/e you race on), is a fair comparison... so here's where I add a stock 3500 in a fiero dynograph.
here's your dyno
now, I have some pictures of actual race heads
oh yeah, they're aluminum, canted valve, and like the LS7 heads you posted earlier, completely irrelevant to the conversation of aluminum V6 heads.
I don't ignore facts, as a matter of fact, I bring them to the table, you bring your feelings and opinions, which are not in any way facts.
also, the Montana intake (smooth no 3400 cast into it) is no taller and makes less power. the LNJ manifold, which is taller, is only taller because the TB is mounted on the top of the manifold and not the side, the argument could be made that the air distribution is better on the LNJ manifold, but real world, you're not gonna see a huge improvement out of 5 hp either way. skinnier valve stems only help if they use skinnier guides, but that is still only part of the picture, also, please, show us your math work.
you continue to call me a troll, but I am the only one who posts technical data to back up the claims I make.
please tell me where anyone said GM put race heads on the 3400 and 3500. I have made the statement that they are a modern design unlike the iron heads, but never have I called them race heads. gen 2 engines were merely a stepping stone, much like the LT1/LT4(90's) they were plagued by very poorly designed intake manifolds, much like the gen 1 engines. for comparison's sake, here's a stock 2.8 intake next to a 3500 intake.
I also disagree that the heads use canted valves purely out of space consideration. fuel economy, emissions, and power play a role in everything an automaker does to an engine.
GM didn't need to use a more complicated head on a corvette to make the same power, the use a much larger bore. and would have the ability to run way larger valves. the LX9, with smaller valves and a way softer camshaft, makes 57 hp/l whereas an LS7 makes about 72 hp/l personally, I believe that gap could be closed very quickly if GM was *more* focused on performance of the 3500 than NVH and fuel economy. also, 57 hp/l is well into LS1 territory, which is only 53-61 hp/l(depending on application), out of an engine never designed to be a powerhouse specifically.
my crew chief is not amused
------------------ "I am not what you so glibly call to be a civilized man. I have broken with society for reasons which I alone am able to appreciate. I am therefore not subject to it's stupid laws, and I ask you to never allude to them in my presence again."
You're also not to bright comparing dynos with different setups.
You are so dumb. I gave you all the information about my setup and you still think you can compare dynos...
You're ignorant, you just regurgitate information you hear. I told you about my setup. Bigger brakes, bigger wheels is skewing my dyno down. You're like a baby that never learns.
Originally posted by lou_dias: You're ignorant, you just regurgitate information you hear. I told you about my setup. Bigger brakes, bigger wheels is skewing my dyno down. You're like a baby that never learns.
Stop ruining threads trying to save your own ego.
Nobody cares about your setup or your larger brakes or wheels as excuses for the peak number you made on a dyno chart. You spent a lot of money trying to get as much out of an iron head 3.4 as you could, and that's great and all, but it doesn't mean the iron heads are better, or that any of your other claims are valid. Stop trying to assert yourself as some sort of authority because you spent a bunch of time and money to get your 3.4 to the peak plateau it's at, and you somehow need to justify that expense.
The OP was asking about the stock aluminum heads on the 3400, and whether it made sense to replace them with the Fiero top end instead. It obviously doesn't, as the Gen 2/3 aluminum heads (and blocks) are superior to the first gen 60 degree V6 designs. No amount of your bickering and nonsense is going to change that.
Great, you got roughly 220-230 crank horsepower out of a first gen 3.4. We all realize and recognize that. It doesn't make you an authority on the subject of engine airflow and cylinder head design. It just means you spent a bunch of money to do it. Minor work to the 3400 will get those same numbers, and much more work on the 3400 will get it closer to 260-280 at the crank, and with a much higher redline.
That's your opinion. That 2004 C5 was a Z06. What's the power to weight ratio of a Z06? Even when he had traction he didn't do much with it. The white Camaro that beat me did so because I was watching him instead of the track. I gave up 2+lengths coming out of turn 2 wide and was too late and still wide going into turn 3.
You can find it's older dyno in the LS1 forums when it was owned by LS1 user z28bryan. It's over 405 RWP on a 3600 lbs car, I don't remember the exact hp but this driver is running faster laps with it so it's probably close to mid 400's now.
I'm not the one claiming 1 set of heads is better than the other. Quite the opposite. I say it doesn't matter what heads you run and that the older heads can be modified to make similar power with simple "upgrades" like a valve swap and some porting. You need to get over yourself as well, because experience is what makes someone an authority. I have experience with both engines. I also used to own a C5 and decided my Fiero would make a better oval track car and I proved it by beating a C5-Z06...and he even started about 3/4 a length ahead of me.
Just because he can link someone else's dyno doesn't make him an authority. I especially was amused how he could tell me what GM was thinking...
Between my larger wheels brakes and tires as well as G6 transmission and associated hardware and thicker sway bars, I've added overall weight to my car. All I've removed is spare tire, jack, speakers, and A/C compressor and bracket. Does my car run like a 15:1 power to weight ratio car or is it closer to 10:1? All the competitive cars your seeing have a less than 10:1 power to weight ratio. All are modified to handle better than stock which is why a even a stock Z06 gets smoked at that track by a lowly Fiero. Newsflash - I'm in their league.
You internet rocket-scientists really know a lot. Perphas you have an issue with math... If I made 249 ft*lbs at the wheels, despite them being heavier than stock rotating mass and on a Mustang dyno, how much is that at the crank again?
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 05-31-2016).]
dobey - The OP was asking about the stock aluminum heads on the 3400, and whether it made sense to replace them with the Fiero top end instead. It obviously doesn't, as the Gen 2/3 aluminum heads (and blocks) are superior to the first gen 60 degree V6 designs. No amount of your bickering and nonsense is going to change that.
The original poster was not the least bit concerned about heads for a 3400. The original poster was concerned about the need to change to the iron Fiero heads when changing the 1985 2.8L Fiero to a 1989 2.8L Oldsmobile engine that has aluminum heads. The difference is the Fiero uses a distributor and the Olds uses DIS.
The thread has moved to a lively discussion of the 3400 engine in which the OP is not interested at this time. There have been a multitude of theories advanced as to why one head is better than another. Some of it is reasonable. Some of the theories just plain don't make sense. Some very nice pictures of some head work have been posted. Some pretty useless charts and graphs have been posted. Some ETs have been posted which are really pretty useless without a full disclosure of the situation under which those ETs were achieved.
If you boys can't play nice and quit the name calling I will ask a moderator to lock this thread and you can argue among yourselves somewhere else.
I am the OP!
[This message has been edited by lyleap-gmc (edited 05-30-2016).]
That's your opinion. That 2004 C5 was a Z06. What's the power to weight ratio of a Z06? Even when he had traction he didn't do much with it. The white Camaro that beat me did so because I was watching him instead of the track. I gave up 2+lengths coming out of turn 2 wide and was too late and still wide going into turn 3.
You can find it's older dyno in the LS1 forums when it was owned by LS1 user z28bryan. It's over 405 RWP on a 3600 lbs car, I don't remember the exact hp but this driver is running faster laps with it so it's probably close to mid 400's now.
I'm not the one claiming 1 set of heads is better than the other. Quite the opposite. I say it doesn't matter what heads you run and that the older heads can be modified to make similar power with simple "upgrades" like a valve swap and some porting. You need to get over yourself as well, because experience is what makes someone an authority. I have experience with both engines. I also used to own a C5 and decided my Fiero would make a better oval track car and I proved it by beating a C5-Z06...and he even started about 3/4 a length ahead of me.
Just because he can link someone else's dyno doesn't make him an authority. I especially was amused how he could tell me what GM was thinking...
Between my larger wheels brakes and tires as well as G6 transmission and associated hardware and thicker sway bars, I've added overall weight to my car. All I've removed is spare tire, jack, speakers, and A/C compressor and bracket. Does my car run like a 15:1 power to weight ratio car or is it closer to 10:1? All the competitive cars your seeing have a less than 10:1 power to weight ratio. All are modified to handle better than stock which is why a even a stock Z06 gets smoked at that track by a lowly Fiero. Newsflash - I'm in their league.
You internet rocket-scientists really know a lot. Perphas you have an issue with math... If I made 249 ft*lbs at the wheels, despite them being heavier than stock rotating mass and on a Mustang dyno, how much is that at the crank again?
lou, I have said before that your torque numbers are impressive, but every dyno you have posted shows torque way high at the low RPM's, and sharply dropping off in the mid range/top end. every dyno posted of an aluminum head engine shows the same, or slightly less low end torque, and way more mid-range and top end.
also, as I have said before, these fun little oval track races you participate in, are not really good for comparing anything. about the only thing you can gleam from them is the performance of a mod done to your own car, you really can't compare two different cars on it. a driver mod can make a huge difference on a drag strip, on a circle track, it can make an insane difference. if you want to post track times as a performance metric, at least use something that is standard/repeatable like an 1/8 mile or 1/4 mile time, 0-60 time, standing mile ect.
you said you did math to prove the valve performance, please show us your math.
lou, wheels and tires don't skew a whp figure, they will change how you need to adjust to make a "crank hp" number, but even that is guessing at best. all the numbers I have posted have been whp numbers. whp is all that really matters anyways, so what if you make 600 hp crank, if only 75 makes is to the tires.
silly lou, I'm no rocket scientist, I'm a just an instructor/operator at a nuclear training facility.
dobey - The OP was asking about the stock aluminum heads on the 3400, and whether it made sense to replace them with the Fiero top end instead. It obviously doesn't, as the Gen 2/3 aluminum heads (and blocks) are superior to the first gen 60 degree V6 designs. No amount of your bickering and nonsense is going to change that.
The original poster was not the least bit concerned about heads for a 3400. The original poster was concerned about the need to change to the iron Fiero heads when changing the 1985 2.8L Fiero to a 1989 2.8L Oldsmobile engine that has aluminum heads. The difference is the Fiero uses a distributor and the Olds uses DIS.
The thread has moved to a lively discussion of the 3400 engine in which the OP is not interested at this time. There have been a multitude of theories advanced as to why one head is better than another. Some of it is reasonable. Some of the theories just plain don't make sense. Some very nice pictures of some head work have been posted. Some pretty useless charts and graphs have been posted. Some ETs have been posted which are really pretty useless without a full disclosure of the situation under which those ETs were achieved.
If you boys can't play nice and quit the name calling I will ask a moderator to lock this thread and you can argue among yourselves somewhere else.
I am the OP!
I think the answer you're looking for is that many people find it too difficult to switch to DIS, so they want a drop-in motor. Since the 89 intake won't clear a distributor and the Fiero intake won't mate up with the AL heads, a top end swap is required. I may have missed it in all of the discussion, but I didn't see it mentioned that the AL and FE head engines used different pistons due to the different head chamber design. Just slapping iron heads on a block with pistons for an aluminum head would yield stupid low compression. So you either drop in the whole motor and re-wire for DIS, or you replace the pistons and put the Fiero top end on. Many argue that one is more work than the other. If you want it to look original for smog testing, you have to put the iron heads on to use the signature Fiero intake. Maybe that's where you heard "have to".
Interesting foot note although totally useless, if you took the Buick heads off the old aluminum 215 V8's and put them on an Oldsmobile 215 it jumped your compression to 11-1. Old hot rodder's trick.
Originally posted by ericjon262: lou, wheels and tires don't skew a whp figure, they will change how you need to adjust to make a "crank hp" number, but even that is guessing at best. all the numbers I have posted have been whp numbers. whp is all that really matters anyways, so what if you make 600 hp crank, if only 75 makes is to the tires.
silly lou, I'm no rocket scientist, I'm a just an instructor/operator at a nuclear training facility.
That shows your complete and utter ignorance. There are a plethora of videos, one of which I linked that PROVE that WEIGHT OF WHEELS affects dynos. Going to bigger brakes has the same effect. I did both. If I was on a dynojet instead of a Mustang dyno and on stock wheels and brakes when I did 187/249, the butt-hurt factor would be too large for you to grasp.
Stop being a <insert science field of choice> scientist and get a grip on reality.
It's amusing that you disregard all my valid reasons for your incompetence.
Stop being a tool and comparing different dynos from different setups.
Here is a good picture that truly shows the height comparison of FWD AL heads vs RWD FE heads:
As you can see, with a Fierostore SSI valve with it's thinner valve stem, nothing is preventing anyone from grinding the ports into D shape with the flat part facing down like in the LSx heads. These particular heads are bored to 1.25". Not as extreme as my other motor which goes to 1 3/8" to match my 1 3/8" header primaries.
The following picture is a bit misleading since I took it with the GEN3 head closer to me than the iron head. Here the Gen3 head looks taller and wider than the iron head, but it's not. This wasn't a radical port job as this went into my current daily driver (88 Formula). But even in this picture, you can see the ports look comparable in size. If you factor in the perspective of the camera, which you can see by the flash on the AL head, and compare the sizes of the coolant passages on the left and right, you'll see that it doesn't take much to outflow stock GEN3 heads.
So what is easier? Doing a full 3X00-60 degree swap or porting iron heads and replacing valves and pistons? Why do a 3X00-60 swap at all when for less work you can do a 3800[SC] swap and buy premade parts to facilitate the swap.
It boils down to this: if you want to keep a stock look but want more performance - take a 3X00 block and take your heads to a competent machine shop. If you want more performance but don't want to rebuild a motor why stop-gap yourself with a 3100 or 3400 when a 3800/3800SC is simpler and offers more power out of the gate and beyond. 3100 and 3400 are bad motors when it comes to reliability. I bought a Fiero with a 3100 swap...bad head gasket. Swapped to a 3400, intake swallows coolant. Reliability straight out of the wiki page Garbage. Best part of them is their bottom end which makes for a nice upgrade over the Fiero 2.8.
My next [race] motor will be a 3.5L (3400 block bored to 3.7") and use the 3.6 DOHC pistons with your lovely 1.76" intake valve. My latest 3.4 in the 88 Formula is using the 3100 block that had the bad head gasker bored to stock 3.62" (3.4L bore) using stock Camaro pistons for only a 9.0:1 compression ratio. Weren't you(ericjon) one of the trolls that said it couldn't be done?
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 06-02-2016).]
That shows your complete and utter ignorance. There are a plethora of videos, one of which I linked that PROVE that WEIGHT OF WHEELS affects dynos. Going to bigger brakes has the same effect. I did both. If I was on a dynojet instead of a Mustang dyno and on stock wheels and brakes when I did 187/249, the butt-hurt factor would be too large for you to grasp.
Stop being a <insert science field of choice> scientist and get a grip on reality.
It's amusing that you disregard all my valid reasons for your incompetence.
Stop being a tool and comparing different dynos from different setups.
Here is a good picture that truly shows the height comparison of FWD AL heads vs RWD FE heads:
As you can see, with a Fierostore SSI valve with it's thinner valve stem, nothing is preventing anyone from grinding the ports into D shape with the flat part facing down like in the LSx heads. These particular heads are bored to 1.25". Not as extreme as my other motor which goes to 1 3/8" to match my 1 3/8" header primaries.
The following picture is a bit misleading since I took it with the GEN3 head closer to me than the iron head. Here the Gen3 head looks taller and wider than the iron head, but it's not. This wasn't a radical port job as this went into my current daily driver (88 Formula). But even in this picture, you can see the ports look comparable in size. If you factor in the perspective of the camera, which you can see by the flash on the AL head, and compare the sizes of the coolant passages on the left and right, you'll see that it doesn't take much to outflow stock GEN3 heads.
So what is easier? Doing a full 3X00-60 degree swap or porting iron heads and replacing valves and pistons? Why do a 3X00-60 swap at all when for less work you can do a 3800[SC] swap and buy premade parts to facilitate the swap.
It boils down to this: if you want to keep a stock look but want more performance - take a 3X00 block and take your heads to a competent machine shop. If you want more performance but don't want to rebuild a motor why stop-gap yourself with a 3100 or 3400 when a 3800/3800SC is simpler and offers more power out of the gate and beyond. 3100 and 3400 are bad motors when it comes to reliability. I bought a Fiero with a 3100 swap...bad head gasket. Swapped to a 3400, intake swallows coolant. Reliability straight out of the wiki page Garbage. Best part of them is their bottom end which makes for a nice upgrade over the Fiero 2.8.
My next [race] motor will be a 3.5L (3400 block bored to 3.7") and use the 3.6 DOHC pistons with your lovely 1.76" intake valve. My latest 3.4 in the 88 Formula is using the 3100 block that had the bad head gasker bored to stock 3.62" (3.4L bore) using stock Camaro pistons for only a 9.0:1 compression ratio. Weren't you(ericjon) one of the trolls that said it couldn't be done?
Lou, wheels and tire don't change how much power a engine makes. end of story. the only thing changed, would be the amount of power making it to the ground, it's not going to change the shape of your torque curve, which is the primary thing I point out about your setup. torque is good down low, and that's it, your mid range and top end suck.
isn't the reason for doing a dyno so you can make comparisons between setups??? isn't that the point of measuring anything? so you can compare it to another thing?
one day, you'll figure out that you're not as smart as you think.
I've never said you can't overbore a 3.1 block to 3.4 that I can remember, but I would just get a 3.4 block, it'd probably be cheaper by a longshot, and require less work.
I'll say it again, a 3x00 doesn't need custom parts to swap in, you can use the stock mounts. hell, if you really want to, you can run the fiero accessory drive.
you seem to think the 3800 has never had reliability or gasket problems, every one of them I have worked on has leaked oil as fast as you can put it in, and they also had problems with intake gaskets. also, Wikipedia can be changed by anyone who wants to change it, I've changed it a couple of times to prove that point. it's about as reliable as CNN or Fox news...
I don't like 3800's and IH 60v6's, but I don't spray false information out about them because of it. you don't like AL head 60v6's, and you slander them every chance you get.
[This message has been edited by ericjon262 (edited 06-07-2016).]
I've had 4 cars with the 3800 engine, all with over 300,000 miles and only 1 had to have a head gasket replaced. There was a reason everyone called them the 300,000mile engine. Those were the most trouble free engines I've ever had. But I am using the Duke in my Kelmark.
I've had 4 cars with the 3800 engine, all with over 300,000 miles and only 1 had to have a head gasket replaced. There was a reason everyone called them the 300,000mile engine. Those were the most trouble free engines I've ever had. But I am using the Duke in my Kelmark.
3800's have had issues, and it seems the people who have had issues, run into issues on every one of them they own, and the people who don't, go forever. my experience with 3800's hasn't been good, but I don't claim that other's haven't had good ones.
I had a Fiero 3100 swap a blown head gasket. It was bored to 3.62" and running great in my Formula with iron heads and I swapped in a 3400 inplace of the 3100 because I'm such a hater of AL head engines. /rolleyes Fact. I don't recommend F-body 3.4 blocks. I built 3 or 4 of them before switching to the 3X00 blocks. They are superior blocks. They come with superior (roller) cams and oil pan design.
3800's never had the amount of issues the 60 degree Series 2 and 3 motors had. Just a fact. dyno's are called REAR WHEEL horse power for a reason... you are correct, power at the ENGINE doesn't change but REAR WHEEL horsepower does change based on your setup (wheels, brakes, axles, transmission) and you are just being an ignorant troll about that fact.
Funny in your wiki image how it blatantly states for series 2, they attempted to make the engine package SMALLER, like they did with the taller 60 degree motors... It was more of a problem with 60 degree motors and my head to head picture really highlights the difference. Thanks for lending support to my case.
I don't slander AL 60 degree motors, their reliability speaks for itself. Actually, you are the ignorant troll who slanders me and iron heads for no other reason than being an ignorant troll. Like I said, my not-even-optimally tuned 187 rwhp using a stock cam with a restricted intake and heavy setup along with 249 ft*lbs on a Mustang dyno gave AL head fanboys like you a case of butt-hurt for some reason. Now you slam me every chance you get. You must have a pretty pathetic life...
The math's already been done in another thread, both ported iron heads and Gen3 heads can flow enough air for over 300 hp yet you still want to whine about how much better AL heads are when almost no one will build a motor that will rev to the required RPM to actually make that power naturally aspirated. You argue for the sake of arguing. That is the definition of a troll.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 06-07-2016).]
Originally posted by lou_dias: I had a Fiero 3100 swap a blown head gasket. It was bored to 3.62" and running great in my Formula with iron heads and I swapped in a 3400 inplace of the 3100 because I'm such a hater of AL head engines. /rolleyes Fact. I don't recommend F-body 3.4 blocks. I built 3 or 4 of them before switching to the 3X00 blocks. They are superior blocks. They come with superior (roller) cams and oil pan design.
more than just the blocks got improved...
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias:
3800's never had the amount of issues the 60 degree Series 2 and 3 motors had. Just a fact. dyno's are called REAR WHEEL horse power for a reason... you are correct, power at the ENGINE doesn't change but REAR WHEEL horsepower does change based on your setup (wheels, brakes, axles, transmission) and you are just being an ignorant troll about that fact.
how am I being ignorant? did you read the whole post?
quote
Originally posted by ericjon262: Lou, wheels and tire don't change how much power a engine makes. end of story. the only thing changed, would be the amount of power making it to the ground, it's not going to change the shape of your torque curve, which is the primary thing I point out about your setup. torque is good down low, and that's it, your mid range and top end suck.
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias: Funny in your wiki image how it blatantly states for series 2, they attempted to make the engine package SMALLER, like they did with the taller 60 degree motors... It was more of a problem with 60 degree motors and my head to head picture really highlights the difference. Thanks for lending support to my case.
I didn't lend any support, a 3800 is several inches wider than a 60v6 iron or Al. Automakers and engineers tend to try and make things smaller, smaller uses less material, and if manufacturing can support smaller components for the same price, cost goes down, or factory installed options go up making a car more competitive. an aluminum head 60v6 is probably only a 1/2" shorter than it's iron counterpart. I've had both in my car. and if the canted valves were installed solely to make the engine smaller, why did GM go to DOHC V6's, which are both taller, and wider than the 3x00, as well as much heavier?
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias:
I don't slander AL 60 degree motors, their reliability speaks for itself. Actually, you are the ignorant troll who slanders me and iron heads for no other reason than being an ignorant troll. Like I said, my not-even-optimally tuned 187 rwhp using a stock cam with a restricted intake and heavy setup along with 249 ft*lbs on a Mustang dyno gave AL head fanboys like you a case of butt-hurt for some reason. Now you slam me every chance you get. You must have a pretty pathetic life...
the only large scale reliability problem the 3x00 is known for, is the lower intake gaskets failing. 3800's have been known to have intake manifolds crack near the EGR valve, and valve cover gaskets leak and start fires(1.5 million cars recalled over this one) am I saying 3800's suck? no, I'm just not a fan of them, had bad luck I guess. am I saying 3x00's are the best engine ever built with no faults? no, they for sure have their faults. are the iron head engines, or 3x00's with iron heads better, no. iron heads are fine if you just need a refreshed engine, and want something that looks stock. However, they will not outperform their later generation counterparts for a comparable build. There's no "butt-hurt" see above bold underline quoted text.
I dare say, lou, you slam yourself.
you posted this:
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias:
As far as fully dressed motors go, I think there's only about a 20lbs or less difference since the 3400 intake overall is larger than the Fiero's and it's accessory system also adds weight over the Fiero's 2.8 system. Practically speaking, there's no real reason to do a full 3400 swap when you can buy premade parts to make a 3800[SC] swap almost plug&play.
It's a case of the ends justifying the means.
I made a compelling argument as to why one would consider swapping a full 3400:
quote
Originally posted by ericjon262: yeah, but with a 3x00, the timing cover and water pump are all one piece, there is only one bracket, and one tensioner. the design is simpler, and almost certainly lighter than the fiero accessory drive by a mile. to go along with that, as Will stated, there is no longer a need for a crossover pipe for the cooling system, the intake manifold is simplified by having only an upper and lower, not a plenum, middle intake, and lower intake like a stock 2.8. not to mention, for what they are, the stock fiero intake castings are very heavy.
if you use a stock fiero manual transmission, you don't need to make(or buy) new mounts at all, the stock ones bolt up. hell, you could do it with the stock auto too, but ewww gross.
to which you start making a comparison between stock iron Fiero heads to LS7 heads, claiming they use the same tech because both have inline valves... all the while saying that any comparison made by anyone who isn't you, isn't an apples to apples comparison.
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias: The math's already been done in another thread, both ported iron heads and Gen3 heads can flow enough air for over 300 hp yet you still want to whine about how much better AL heads are when almost no one will build a motor that will rev to the required RPM to actually make that power naturally aspirated. You argue for the sake of arguing. That is the definition of a troll.
Lou, please, provide a link to your "math" both the valve stem diameter math, and the 300 hp math.
if 300hp is out there, please, show us 300 WHP dynographs, or track times that support a claim of such for an iron head engine. I've posted a graph for an Al head making 274 at the tires, was in a 5 speed Cavalier, ran a 13.07@108 MPH same engine in an auto Camaro put down 263 whp and ran a 13.52@99.2 MPH I think that's as close as anyone has gotten to 300 WHP N/A, and dare I mention, both were street driven cars, but if you have something showing more from iron heads, please do tell.
I will say again, like many times before, iron heads are fine if you just need a refreshed engine, and want something that looks stock. However, they will not outperform their later generation counterparts for a comparable build. 20 years worth of research and development wan't all just to build a smaller engine. the ports and combustion chambers are leaps and bounds better, it's been proven both here and elsewhere, just because you are stuck on a set of 1980's scrap doesn't mean you need to spew mis-information and make false claims about things you don't truly understand. your circle track races are cute, but they're about as useful as a wet cigarette when trying to make claims of "results", as there is no "standard" circle track, not to mention how huge a difference can be made between by a better driver. the best handling car in the world is only as good as the driver will push it.
------------------ "I am not what you so glibly call to be a civilized man. I have broken with society for reasons which I alone am able to appreciate. I am therefore not subject to it's stupid laws, and I ask you to never allude to them in my presence again."
Why would I post a 1/4 mile time if I didn't build a 1/4th mile car? I built an oval track car that goes head to head with cars that do 10 to 12's in the 1/4 mile. They clearly aren't gaining much on me on the back straight away.
Your ignorant because you think that if 2 completely different cars both make 300rwhp that the engines make the same power. You keep putting up a strawman argument. Most of the competitive cars I race against have roll cages because they are in the 11's. The Volvo I raced in round 1 on Memorial Day weekend was running a turbo-LS1 swap. Then I spanked the Z06 Vette that should have all this wonderful technology behind it and he was lined of 3/4 of a length ahead of me at the start. Then I lost to a former perennial winner of the event from a few years back by 1 length because of my driving and not lack of power. TROLL - I WILL NOT DRIVE 2-3 HOURS TO A 1/4th MILE TRACK TO SHUT YOUR PATHETIC MOUTH UP!
My brother is part of a team that builds cars out of your league. Name's Marco Dias, some years back ran a 10.09 all motor in a 1999 Camaro. Ran 508Racing and NEDx275 for a long time. We know how to build fast cars up here. You are just trying to win a war on the internet and it's pathetic. I have both a single turbo kit and twin turbo kit in my garage and I don't put it on my race car because I love the challenge I am having. My goal is to win this event with FIERO HEADS and naturally aspirated. I could have switched motors any time I wanted. But then this event would cease to be a challenge. I made a 2nd place finish back in 2012 but my goal is 1st. I've just missed top 3 almost every event.
I go to Vegas several times a year and have dinners with Archie. I can get an LSx kit anytime I want. I don't. I'm #4 in points standings currently against other highly modified cars (and you apparently think they are slower than stock or something you dumb troll) and that will go up after this weekend. I race every 2 weeks FOR FUN...now granted, that's not as often as you troll - but I digress. My racing speaks for itself ... as does your trolling.
In the middle of this video (they cut out some round 1 races including mine but I won obviously), you see me racing a 400+ rwhp Camaro with SBC400 that runs a roll cage and is gutted. His brother Brad runs a twin turbo sbc350 in these events. I actually had the lead coming out of the last turn but something broke in my left rear suspension that threw my camber way out. You can clearly see my camber way out in the video. He ended up winning this event and the one a couple of weeks ago.
Again, none of the cars I race against are anywhere near stock, and that's why you're such an ignorant troll. A lightly modified 2004 Z06 got smoked by your so-called poor flowing low tech iron heads that make no power and have "less power under the curve" and yadda yadda yadda and every other excuse you make. Keep trolling on, troll.
PS, You're still a troll.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 06-15-2016).]
all the while saying that any comparison made by anyone who isn't you, isn't an apples to apples comparison. 
