I believe you should be able to configure the new ECU to use the crank signal for spark timing. That alone will make spark timing a lot better. Still not the greatest for high RPM spark delivery in terms of spark intensity, but should be fine to 6000RPMs (guesstimate). This is just due to a single coil having to charge and discharge rapidly 3 times every revolution of the crank, plus jumping the rotor to cap in addition to jumping the gap in the plug itself.
In terms of cam I think basically what La fiera is saying is that you will want more duration due to valve event timing for the additional stroke of the 3.4 vs 2.8, there is less dwell time with longer stroke to rod ratio, so I bet he would recommend the 272 over the 260. I am sure he will chime in with more info! Personally I would recommend the 272 over the 260, I always felt like on my 2.8 I could have used more cam. I think general rule of thumb is as displacement goes up, you can afford more cam.
[This message has been edited by zkhennings (edited 05-17-2023).]
One of the best if not the best cam off the shelf for a 3.1/3.4L with limited intake and exhaust. This cam would be perfect for your project and it will sound amazing at idle. The power comes in very punchy which will make the car feel a lot faster.
I believe you should be able to configure the new ECU to use the crank signal for spark timing. That alone will make spark timing a lot better. Still not the greatest for high RPM spark delivery in terms of spark intensity, but should be fine to 6000RPMs (guesstimate). This is just due to a single coil having to charge and discharge rapidly 3 times every revolution of the crank, plus jumping the rotor to cap in addition to jumping the gap in the plug itself.
Yeah... definitely the upper-rpms is a problem. Back when my engine was stock, I noticed a significant difference EVEN just replacing the stock ignition coil with a higher output one. I haven't put much thought into it, but the assumption here is that the factory coil couldn't build power quickly enough to supply the ignition at those RPMs. It's never an issue for things like V8s and what have you, because they simply don't require that kind of rpm. If you look at some of the more high-end performance engines of the 60s through early 80s, they even had multiple ignition coils (sometimes a bank of plugs supported by one coil) in order to properly support the ignition.
But... back in the late 90s when I replaced the factory coil with an Accel (I even painted it black to look stock), I immediately noticed better performance in the upper RPMs... felt like it pulled harder. I hope to actually solve this problem with the use of the MSD 6EFI.
Only big question for me is where I'm going to hide it. I want it out of the way, and thankfully it's already black so it won't really stand out. I might mount it under the driver's side vent. Still not as awesome as CoP or DIS, but next best thing.
Yeah, I'm going to send an e-mail to FAST. They basically list an either or... simply because that's probably how most people do it, but I definitely would rather use the crank trigger...
One of the best if not the best cam off the shelf for a 3.1/3.4L with limited intake and exhaust. This cam would be perfect for your project and it will sound amazing at idle. The power comes in very punchy which will make the car feel a lot faster.
This cam looks awesome. Question before I buy it, I should also pick up the lifters and other components that are recommended with it, right? I shouldn't be re-using any of the stuff that already comes with the engine I just ordered?
quote
Originally posted by La fiera:
If the motor has at least 9.0:1 it should be ok.
It says 10.25:1 required. My guess is that I'm getting at least 9.0:1 since it's a rebuilt, and they typically plane the heads to some degree (even if nominally); however, that's a full 1.25:1 compression difference... it definitely wouldn't be an issue? Also... I read the whole thread about the ZDDT... I assume then I there's probably something else I could / should be using?
Random point... I ordered the engine with the expected delivery date of mid August. Well... that's 3 months from now. I made the assumption I could just order and forget. Well... I just got an e-mail. There's already a FedEx tracking number... LOL. I have no idea where this is going to go in my garage, hahah...
Thanks!!!
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 05-20-2023).]
If you start with a 3100/3400 block (instead of 3.4 block), in addition to having:
- better oiling/oil pump - splayed crank bolts - a properly baffled oil pan for transverse orientation - starter holes on the correct side - roller lifter guides - knock sensor
...yes you do get a crank position sensor!
Did I miss anything?
I've already ordered a 3.4 V6/60 Gen 1 block... literally have to call the company and schedule a time for delivery. So at this point, it doesn't make sense for me to get another one. I also want it to be super reliable, and as stock looking as possible. I probably would have gone with one, but now it just doesn't make any sense for me to go that route.
Tell you what though... if I get another Porsche 944 next year, I'm throwing out that piece of **** 2.5 Porsche motor and dropping in a 3500.
82-T/A yes the 3050 Crower will work with 9.0 or better CR. I would order it with the matching components, springs and lifters. If possible get the lifters with the Groove down the side to provide more oil to the cam lobes. also if your engine doesn't come with a high volume oil pump I would change that up as well.
I've already ordered a 3.4 V6/60 Gen 1 block... literally have to call the company and schedule a time for delivery. So at this point, it doesn't make sense for me to get another one. I also want it to be super reliable, and as stock looking as possible. I probably would have gone with one, but now it just doesn't make any sense for me to go that route.
Tell you what though... if I get another Porsche 944 next year, I'm throwing out that piece of **** 2.5 Porsche motor and dropping in a 3500.
Please recall, when I say 'block' I mean just the short-block. I resell the aluminum heads to AL head zealots who are replacing their warped heads for basically what I paid for these dime-a-dozen junkyard motors. Then I get the short-block rebuilt with 3.4 pushrod or 3.4 TDC pistons depending on if it's a street motor or not. I considered using LFX 3.6 pistons in my current 3.500+ build but used custom ones instead.
The 3.6 [LFX] uses the 3.37" stroke over the 3.31" stroke to achieve 3.6L using pistons that would normally get you 3.5L (97mm/3.7" diameter)...
82-T/A yes the 3050 Crower will work with 9.0 or better CR. I would order it with the matching components, springs and lifters. If possible get the lifters with the Groove down the side to provide more oil to the cam lobes. also if your engine doesn't come with a high volume oil pump I would change that up as well.
RGR, thanks. Yeah... I've already ordered the high-flow oil pump... will definitely be using it... no reason not to! Thanks!
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias:
Please recall, when I say 'block' I mean just the short-block. I resell the aluminum heads to AL head zealots who are replacing their warped heads for basically what I paid for these dime-a-dozen junkyard motors. Then I get the short-block rebuilt with 3.4 pushrod or 3.4 TDC pistons depending on if it's a street motor or not. I considered using LFX 3.6 pistons in my current 3.500+ build but used custom ones instead.
The 3.6 [LFX] uses the 3.37" stroke over the 3.31" stroke to achieve 3.6L using pistons that would normally get you 3.5L (97mm/3.7" diameter)...
Honestly... it's kind of crazy. When I bought the 3.4, it said that I would get it until August, so I was like... ok, great... I can buy and forget. I got a call later today stating that they want to schedule the delivery, and I'm like... **** ... what? It's getting dropped off at some point betwen 0900 and 1700 on Wednesday. LOL...
But yeah, I bought the entire long block. I'll still have to drill and tap for the starter, and also remove the heads so I can clean them up, etc... but my goal is mostly reliability. Reliability ---> Originality ---> Performance ---> Cost. In that order.
I had a 1984 Porsche 944 5-Speed a little over a decade ago. I really do miss that car. That's a car that I really think needs a smooth running engine. I never did like the Porsche 2.5L 4 cyl. The Porsche people of course think it's an amazing engine, they talk about it having two balance shafts going counter to the rotation of the rest of teh assembly to defer negative torque effects. But honestly, it's just a Porsche 5.0 with one side lopped off. It's not the best... it's really a slant-4, and I've always felt like the V6/60 is a perfect motor for there.
For many years, I'd have a Pontiac Grand Am as a rental car... the one with the 3400 V6/60, and I always loved how smooth that engine was. It pulled hard in that big plastic-clad 4-door sedan of a Grand Am, and enjoyed the noise it made. I never liked the turbo in the Porsche 944s... and I just think a 60 degree engine (with those harmonics) is really what the 944 should have had, something like that. So... I absolutely plan to buy another 944 and swap in a 3400 or 3500. I don't want any of that barn-door Jetronic-K BS stuff.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Yeah... definitely the upper-rpms is a problem. Back when my engine was stock, I noticed a significant difference EVEN just replacing the stock ignition coil with a higher output one. I haven't put much thought into it, but the assumption here is that the factory coil couldn't build power quickly enough to supply the ignition at those RPMs. It's never an issue for things like V8s and what have you, because they simply don't require that kind of rpm. If you look at some of the more high-end performance engines of the 60s through early 80s, they even had multiple ignition coils (sometimes a bank of plugs supported by one coil) in order to properly support the ignition.
But... back in the late 90s when I replaced the factory coil with an Accel (I even painted it black to look stock), I immediately noticed better performance in the upper RPMs... felt like it pulled harder. I hope to actually solve this problem with the use of the MSD 6EFI.
Variations in engine power with spark energy is not something I understand.
It seems to me like an ignition system either works or it doesn't; if the mixture catches fire on every cycle, then that should be good enough.
For an engine power increase to have occurred, are you implying that the factory Fiero coil was failing to ignite the mixture on every cycle? If not, via what mechanism did the Accel coil improve performance?
[This message has been edited by pmbrunelle (edited 05-22-2023).]
I assume weak spark due to the coil failing to energize fully would lead to power breaking up at higher RPMs due to either weak spark acting like retarded ignition due to slower/poor flame propagation or general misfires on random cylinders.
In my dyno of my 2.8 (earlier in this thread) up to 6000 RPMs the power gets wavy at the top. I think this was probably mainly due to valve float but I imagine you would see something similar if the coil can't handle what is being asked of it.
The 2.8 was probably designed for a 5500rpm max when stock and was running out of breathe well before then.
The Accel coil may be designed for faster charge/discharge (speculating) I am not an EE though so I won't pretend to be.
[This message has been edited by zkhennings (edited 05-23-2023).]
Variations in engine power with spark energy is not something I understand.
It seems to me like an ignition system either works or it doesn't; if the mixture catches fire on every cycle, then that should be good enough.
For an engine power increase to have occurred, are you implying that the factory Fiero coil was failing to ignite the mixture on every cycle? If not, via what mechanism did the Accel coil improve performance?
Like zkhennings said, I too am not an EE... I've got a CS degree, and a law degree, neither of which is helpful for understanding the principles of an ignition coil. On that, for some reason, I never had the opportunity to take Circuits 101 in college either.
There seems to be a narrative that a "weak spark" produces less power ... at the very least, it seems fairly universally believed (right or wrong). If that is incorrect, then the assumption must be made that any spark, no matter how strong or week, is essentially more than adequate to ignite the combustion mixture. I also understand that an engine can still combust simply as a result of heat and compression... as such with a diesel engine that doesn't have spark plugs. Incidentally, when you have a gas engine that "diesels" ... the engine is still running because the carburetor is either emptying the float, or the movement of the engine continues to power the mechanical fuel pump which feeds the carburetor, even though the ignition has been turned off. This would be evidential that an engine does not necessarily require ignition to fire under specific conditions, but we widely accept a "gas engine" won't run without an ignition system.
When I was younger, and far more dumb than I am now, I bought all the silly things to upgrade my Fiero. A side scoop, the "Tornado Air" because the Fiero Store sold it (haha), and even the Accel ignition coil. While almost all of these made absolutely no difference in performance... the Accel coil did. My car had 75k miles on it at the time, and was ~10 years old at that point, so I have to assume the factory coil was at least still decent.
Where I noticed the difference was in the upper RPMs. Normal power range was totally unchanged... but in the upper RPMs, the power felt like it continued to pull strong, longer. My assumption here has been that the factory coil simply cannot produce the actual power needed at the rapid pace that the higher RPMs are requiring... and the increased capacity that the Accel (or MSD, or any of the other aftermarket coils) are able to produce, allows a higher voltage / stronger park in the upper RPMs. I'm not believing that I'm getting 40k of volts at 6,500 rpms... but maybe I'm getting 20k. I can't remember what the stock ignition coil puts out... 25k or 30k, I can't remember. But at that same RPM, maybe it's only producing half of that.
I have to assume there is some point to this though, otherwise we'd never have gone to dual ignition, and then DIS ignition, and then CoP ignition, for which each is iteratively better ... with the goal getting a hotter spark, more quickly and directly to the source of ignition.
EDIT: It is a frustration for me because I know DIS ignition would be significantly better. Most modern cars today use COP by default. But going with DIS ignition would just be so much better than the old-ass coil that I have. But, I'm solving that with the MSD 6EFI. In addition to a higher-voltage coil, it also fires rapidly... hence the "multiple spark discharge." While I still think a DIS would be better than a coil, and a multiple-spark on a DIS would be even better, the multi-spark on a hotter coil is going to be my best bet while still looking stock. I just need to find a place where I can hide my MSD box (it's black, so it shouldn't stand out too badly).
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 05-23-2023).]
Also, don't know if I mentioned, but the engine is arriving literally tomorrow... which kind of sucks because I wasn't expecting it until late August.
Good news though, is that I'm going to take the opportunity to build it out a little bit, and I'll have my daughter help. That way, the engine will be ready to go by the time I get my car out of storage.
I think it is awesome you are getting your daughter into cars and got her a Fiero. Mad respect. If I ever have a daughter she is certainly at least going to get exposed to turning wrenches, and hopefully she is into it.
I think it is awesome you are getting your daughter into cars and got her a Fiero. Mad respect. If I ever have a daughter she is certainly at least going to get exposed to turning wrenches, and hopefully she is into it.
Yeah, I thought about it for a while when she was younger... always told myself I would do it. And then I realized one day... she's 14 years old. I have maybe 4 years left with her, and she'll be legally allowed to drive by herself in 2 years so... it's now or never, so I just decided I was going to do it. She actually really likes it too, and gives her a sense of pride that she's doing something that (probably) not a single other kid in her school knows how to do, let alone another girl.
An inductive ignition coil needs to be designed such that its L/R (Inductance/Resistance) time constant is somewhat less than the interval between spark plug firings.
With applied voltage, the ignition coil current increases over time, until it asymptotically approaches a value which is determined by R. This can be considered as a first-order linear system.
By increasing the inductance, more magnetic energy is stored in the coil for a given current, however, the greater the inductance, the longer it takes to charge. So there is a tradeoff...
Ultimately, you reach a performance limit with a given mass of iron/copper, so within the stock form factor, you can only adjust the RPM vs. energy tradeoff.
For information, ignition coils supply an electric current to the spark plug when fired, not a defined voltage. The voltage is a function of the electric current, and resistance of the wires/gaps.
I think that distributors were phased out due to a desire to simplify the mechanical aspect, remove the need for timing adjustment, and the need to measure engine position at the crankshaft.
Crankshaft position (without the slack of gears/chains) allows for a more accurate spark, so potentially more optimized spark timing, without risk of over-advancing and knock. So this was a way to gain efficiency.
OBD2 added the requirement of detecting misfires; accurately measuring crankshaft position and double-differentiating it allows the computer to detect torque variations from misfires.
This brought us to wasted-spark coil packs + crankshaft position sensors.
Later on, the EPA required that cars maintain good emissions performance without maintenance for a long time. Spark plug wires (a maintenance item) had to go, which brings us to COP.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: There seems to be a narrative that a "weak spark" produces less power ... at the very least, it seems fairly universally believed (right or wrong).
I find that "weak spark" idea smells bullshitty. The automotive modification world seems rife with myths, so I'm cautious when I read stuff like this.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: If that is incorrect, then the assumption must be made that any spark, no matter how strong or week, is essentially more than adequate to ignite the combustion mixture.
Yes, that is my hypothesis, as long as the spark is strong enough to light the fire.
Once the initial spark occurs, the flame grows like an onion; a layer of mixture on fire causes the next surrounding onion layer to catch fire, and so on, until the limits of the combustion chamber are reached.
I think that more spark energy can cause the flame kernel's initial size at the instant of ignition to be larger. If you give the a smaller spark a bit more timing advance, then I think the onion can grow to the same size at the same instant as the larger flame kernel from a bigger spark.
quote
Originally posted by zkhennings: I assume weak spark due to the coil failing to energize fully would lead to power breaking up at higher RPMs due to either weak spark acting like retarded ignition due to slower/poor flame propagation or general misfires on random cylinders.
I think that once the onion of a certain size gets going, whether it came to exist from a large spark, or from a smaller kernel that grew, doesn't matter. This is intuitively what I understand, but I am not certain.
I remember the time I broke a rocker arm (and thus one cylinder was inoperational) that the engine mostly drove normally (besides the loud tapping sound). So I'm not sure that generalized misfires would be easily detectable by the butt dyno. My butt dyno is not sensitive.
Maybe misfires were happening to the stock car with the stock coil, but not necessarily perceived as misfires?
Misfires should be detectable by an oxygen sensor as an abundance of uncombusted oxygen (corresponds to a lean fuel mixture).
[This message has been edited by pmbrunelle (edited 05-23-2023).]
Originally posted by pmbrunelle: My butt dyno is not sensitive.
That's no bueno Patrick! Do whatever it takes to make it sensitive. Use less cushioning on your seat or something. I have nothing on the seat of my car. Its an aluminum seat bolted directly to the floor with no dampers whatsoever. I want to feel every little glitch!
[This message has been edited by La fiera (edited 05-23-2023).]
Fixed this for you! Wasted spark coils and crankshaft position sensors started with OBD1 so the timeline was just slightly off.
quote
Originally posted by pmbrunelle: ******************************************************************************** I think that distributors were phased out due to a desire to simplify the mechanical aspect, remove the need for timing adjustment, and the need to measure engine position at the crankshaft.
Crankshaft position (without the slack of gears/chains) allows for a more accurate spark, so potentially more optimized spark timing, without risk of over-advancing and knock. So this was a way to gain efficiency.
This brought us to wasted-spark coil packs + crankshaft position sensors.
OBD2 added the requirement of detecting misfires; accurately measuring crankshaft position and double-differentiating it allows the computer to detect torque variations from misfires.
Later on, the EPA required that cars maintain good emissions performance without maintenance for a long time. Spark plug wires (a maintenance item) had to go, which brings us to COP. ********************************************************************************
And I can't believe how light this engine is... the thing probably doesn't weigh more than 300+ pounds. I was able to easily slide it across my garage floor. I can easily lift 200 pounds, so if I was just a little bit stronger, I'd probably be able to lift it up and put it on the workbench. It's astronomically lighter than my Olds 455 big block... which feels exponentially more heavy.
When you say machined spring pockets... I had my engine rebuilt and they put thick washers under the springs to reinforce the head (for my older engine). I had a totally different performance cam. But when you say "use different springs," what would you recommend? When I get this motor, I would honestly prefer to not have to do any machining at all if possible since it'll have already been rebuilt. All I'll be doing is possibly replacing the valves (lapping them the old fashioned way with the spindle and suction cup, haha), and porting everything. If I can just buy the right springs, rather than having to modify the cyl head seats, that would be more ideal. Thanks!!!
Thank you!
Sorry. Missed this question. Wasn't ignoring you. I don't remember what springs I used. I think I recorded what the installed height was, and what the compressed height was, and whether the valve lift was more than what would cause the coils to bind. (IIRC, they may also list a height for "coil bind".)
Or I might have just given the cam card to the shop who did the head work (he'd been doing head porting for decades, and that was 20+ years ago) and let him choose the springs. Like I said, he's been doing it forever. He did the refurb, porting, and the valve job.
The timing set? Came either from Jegs or Summit. The one with the variable "index" on the gear is probably the most expensive one for our engine. But it'll say clearly that it can be installed "straight up", advanced, or retarded.
Not as much info as you asked for, but there it is.
This cam looks awesome. Question before I buy it, I should also pick up the lifters and other components that are recommended with it, right? I shouldn't be re-using any of the stuff that already comes with the engine I just ordered?
It says 10.25:1 required. My guess is that I'm getting at least 9.0:1 since it's a rebuilt, and they typically plane the heads to some degree (even if nominally); however, that's a full 1.25:1 compression difference... it definitely wouldn't be an issue? Also... I read the whole thread about the ZDDT... I assume then I there's probably something else I could / should be using??
Thanks!!!
That cam is like the 272, only more-so. (MOAR is BETTER!! ) I prefer the staggered lift numbers (intake vs exhaust) since the stock cam is set up that way. (I can hear the people snickering from here.)
As already said, it'll have a nice thump at idle, and should pull like hell if the rest of the engine will flow enough air to support it. I'd try it if I was doing this.
I would be inclined to use the recommended hardware. I might also call Crower and ask if the recommended springs require head work, with that cam. They didn't show the spring specs on the page.
Also... I would be inclined to use GM lifters, even though they are more expensive. I've heard lots of stories about aftermarket "performance" lifters wiping out cam lobes, in just a few hundred miles. I'm not the first to recommend GM lifters.
Follow the installation instructions, and use generous amounts of assembly lube (I have big tub of gray moly lube that came from either Jegs or Summit. Although there may be better options out there, by now.) I would also use high ZDDP oil - for break-in, and going forward. And NOT necessarily Rotella T, which is what lots of people use. There are better oils out there.
The 272 cam also recommended 10.25 to 1 compression. I ran it on stock 3.4 pistons so... 9:1? It ran fine, and it was very forgiving about how much timing advance I could crank in at the distributor - even on regular gas. If you want to run 10:1, use the DOHC pistons. Those will pretty much get you there.
Having said all that, it's been a while since I've done this. If anyone has any better suggestions, by all means please share.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 05-25-2023).]
I don't remember what springs I used. I think I recorded what the installed height was, and what the compressed height was, and whether the valve lift was more than what would cause the coils to bind. (IIRC, they may also list a height for "coil bind".)
Is there a reason you cannot use offset keepers to adjust install height? I did this on my LZ9 but they are a LS1 style keeper, not the twin ribbed keepers like in the 2.8. Possible they don't make offset keepers for the 2.8, but if they do you can adjust install height that way instead of machining the seat down.
I have a question for all here. I am not mechanically inclined. If I wanted to have a shop install a new crate 2.8 engine in my GT, what do you think a fair price range would be for the whole job? Over 5k$ or less??
Originally posted by zkhennings: Is there a reason you cannot use offset keepers to adjust install height? I did this on my LZ9 but they are a LS1 style keeper, not the twin ribbed keepers like in the 2.8. Possible they don't make offset keepers for the 2.8, but if they do you can adjust install height that way instead of machining the seat down.
It's a good thought. But I don't know. Didn't even know that such a thing existed. Anyone else?
I have a question for all here. I am not mechanically inclined. If I wanted to have a shop install a new crate 2.8 engine in my GT, what do you think a fair price range would be for the whole job? Over 5k$ or less??
Including the price of the engine? I think $5K is on the very top edge of "reasonable". If you are supplying the engine, it should be substantially less. Others may differ, and that's okay, too.
The external cone is shifted up by 0.050", relative to the locating lip which engages the groove in the valve stem. This places the spring retainer higher up.
I have the default Crower 86032 spring retainers that were included in the camshaft kit I ordered from them.
Listed immediately below is the 86032D, which is an offset spring retainer, but otherwise the same. The spring seat on this spring retainer is located higher up, relative to the cone.
Raising the top of the spring retainer (by either method) brings the risk of interference with the rocker arm, so this should be considered and verified on the engine.
Todd, considering that you're asking very basic questions about how to do a stock rebuild on your daughter's 2.5, are you sure that you're that you're ready to be modifying this 3.4?
I think that the experience of doing a stock rebuild will be a good preparation before modifying an engine with a different camshaft / valvetrain.
Todd, considering that you're asking very basic questions about how to do a stock rebuild on your daughter's 2.5, are you sure that you're that you're ready to be modifying this 3.4?
I think that the experience of doing a stock rebuild will be a good preparation before modifying an engine with a different camshaft / valvetrain.
Sorry, just saw this as I was looking for an old post I'd made (for information). Haha... I'm a lot more technical than I appear to be in my comments, which might even seem self deprecating. When I ask questions, I usually ask very basic questions too simply because I don't want to assume the answer... simply because I think it so.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Sorry, just saw this as I was looking for an old post I'd made (for information). Haha... I'm a lot more technical than I appear to be in my comments, which might even seem self deprecating. When I ask questions, I usually ask very basic questions too simply because I don't want to assume the answer... simply because I think it so.
I do the same thing a lot in person, also good to double check everything, get second opinions, and word questions in a way that everyone understands (even those who aren't technical enough to have the answer!) I with at a garage changing tires, and my co-workers think I can't even pick the right broom to sweep with haha, while I've dropped my fuel tank, done exhaust work, engine cleaning/paint, suspension, polished wheels, interior, and fit a 10" sub under my factory dashboard on my time off!
You need to toss the Fiero intake and replace it with the L32 unit, then port the heads and match to the intake, use the 272 cam, relieve the exhaust if you are using stock Fiero manifolds and I also used a bored out 62 mm throttle body that I matched the manifold to - result c. 190 bhp.
[This message has been edited by BillS (edited 04-13-2024).]
You need to toss the Fiero intake and replace it with the L32 unit ...
THAT is a thing of beauty. Did you dyno it? Or is 190 an educated guess. I would have guessed 200-210, depending upon the restriction of the L32 intake, and the exhaust manifolds.
You need to toss the Fiero intake and replace it with the L32 unit, then port the heads and match to the intake, use the 272 cam, relieve the exhaust if you are using stock Fiero manifolds and I also used a bored out 62 mm throttle body that I matched the manifold to - result c. 190 bhp.
Bill that manifold has no plenum which means that if he gets everything right like you did, he will leave about 30bhp on the table like you did because the engine will empty that plenum at 4000rpms with the 272H cam.
Or.... you could ditch the 60 degree platform and goto the L67 platform for easier, cheaper, more efficient, more reliable faster, lil more modern.... Just tossing that in
Yep, everyone has done that, there is a reason why.
I mean, you can spend a pile of money and in the end be dissatisfied as almost every #3.4LandBigger 60 deg swaps end up for sale cause those people are disappointed in the end
[This message has been edited by jelly2m8 (edited 04-14-2024).]
Or.... you could ditch the 60 degree platform and goto the L67 platform for easier, cheaper, more efficient, more reliable faster, lil more modern.... Just tossing that in
Yep, everyone has done that, there is a reason why.
I mean, you can spend a pile of money and in the end be dissatisfied as almost every #3.4LandBigger 60 deg swaps end up for sale cause those people are disappointed in the end
This is an L44 / L32 thread (see thread title); we don't need off-topic L67 promotion in this thread.
Hahah... thanks guys. Yeah... I know. I know, I know.
Long and short is... I've got a couple of other cars that are quick (or have had), and other cars I will eventually make quick. But this Fiero not talking about my daughter's now, but my Fiero... it was my first car (not counting the 84 Corolla that my brother let me drive now and then). So I've gone back and forth over the years on different swaps, and for me... I want to build a Fiero that's pristine original looking, but has a little bit more modern performance. What I REALY want to do is the roller block engine that Lou and La Fiera are doing, but I ultimately decided that again, I wanted to keep the Fiero totally stock looking. That means keeping the distributor, and even the factory intake. Though I do plan on doing the DAWG mod to it, and probably also the modification between the intake manifold and the runners that he discovered improves "sharing" of oxygen at the higher RPMs.
You can see here (when I put it away in storage), that I was re-doing everything to the "n-th" degree to make it look original. Everything down to replacement stickers, all new NOS parts, and even the stupid rubber band on the spare tire jack. Haha. I was moving from front to rear, painting the entire chassis as I went along. Everything is done all the way to the back window. Even my Mr. Mike's seats are totally factory SE/GT seats, except made of leather, but otherwise will be the totally stock style. I am going with West Coast Fiero headers, and 2.25-2.5" piping all the way back. Money is going to be less of a concern here, as ultimately I will build out the best 3.4 that I can, while retaining "Fiero Characteristics" like the mostly factory sounding exhaust sound.
What I have so far:
- 3.4 Pushrod / DCC9 sitting in the crate - 3.4 Heads ported, polished, and port-matched by ARI Racing. - SI Stainless Steel valves - H272 Cam - Crower "Cam Saver" Lifters (for the improved oiling on the cam) - All stainless exhaust w/ West Coast Fiero headers. - Port matched from plenum all the way to the heads. - Bored Throttle Body to 57mm, port matched to the intake (that was what everyone was doing back in the day).
I'm looking to do the DAWG mod, and I'll probably even send the entire thing out to an extrude-hone (don't judge me, hahah) to smooth out the intake.
I have a MicroSquirt kit, along with a FastEFI system (and a 6EFI MSD box). I plan to replace the ECM and wiring harness entirely, all with new sensors and such. Goal is that I'd like to convert to SFI from MPFI, and take advantage of the MSD box as well as improved ECM efficiency (all of which will be hidden away so it looks stock). Still not sure if I want to go with MicroSquirt and save my FastEFI for my Olds 455 big block, or use the FastEFI on my Fiero. Anyway, I can't do any of that until my daughter gets her engine off the stand and back onto the cradle. But as soon as it's done, she'll be doing videos re-working my 3.4 for me. The question I have though... since I'm already going to be pulling the heads, and the oil pump, I'm wondering if I can't / shouldn't just go with better pistons. I bought a rebuilt 3.4 engine with a warranty, which means they expect it to last. But why shouldn't I pull the pistons and put top of the line rings in it, along with maybe a set of pistons that will be a little bit higher compression? I think the factory 3.4 is 9.0:1 compression. My goal is 200hp ... not sure if I'll get there, but I'll be happy if I can at least get 190hp. For performance, I'd like consistent mid-14s in the quarter. I'll be using a stock Getrag 5-Speed, as I'm also converting the Fiero from an automatic (or at least was before I put it in storage) to a 5-Speed.
When those cars are done, I'm going to want to do something similar to what Bill has done, and swap in a V6/60 into a Porsche 944. I know most people do the LS swaps... but I just don't need / want that much low-end power for a sports car. The original Porsche 944 had a 2.5L 4-cyl engine that was essentially the same performance (a little better) than a loaded V6 automatic GT Fiero. I want low 14s from the Porsche 944, and I think I can get that by going with a 3400 or 3500 block, doing some of the stuff that La Fiera and Lou Dias have done. I love how smooth those engines sound and feel (I remember when I used to rent Grand Am GTs in the mid 2000s how well they pulled and sounded). So that's what I'll end up doing. I have a complete Porsche 944 interior with 160mph 924 gauges, along with the super rare Saudi Arabia front and rear aluminum bumpers, all sitting in storage). I just need my daughter to get her car finished! haha...
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 04-15-2024).]
) 
