i can't, I won't, and I don't stop

[powerdoctor]

WTF grasshopper?
A ricer? ..... huh?
A liar ? because i didn't know what block it was? ... Umm O.K.?
A thief ? how do you figure....

Oooo.. sorry I made a typo.. z - v ...damn! I suck...whatever.

Sorry I am not hovering over the dude boring my blocks asking him for EXACT numbers ... .020 - 1/8 inch, who cares ????

Are you guys that petty?

I don't just build little v6's, I have built all kinds of engines, 100's of them, and no one ever complains.

My engines run better and make more power than most of the "high performance" shops around here.

I am not scared to experiment and build wacked out engines to see if they work or not.
I have had more run strong than blow up, and the blow ups are teaching me what not to do.

I have over 20 years experience doing this, I am certified A.S.E. and state as well.

You need to get a life.

Just another live at home in his mommies basement hater, thats what you are.

Oh and "ben" or "slappy" , not trying to be mean...
the steel turbo crank is p#10110549
The cast one is p# 10146900
This is from the GM dealership, they are different parts.
If you know for sure its not steal than what is it?

Sorry ben for not knowing exactly what block I had ... oops.
And I never tried to be mean, you all started attacking me over the block instead of just saying " hey you might be wrong on the block ".
I even asked what you guys thought it may be...
The 3.5 and 3.9 are still to new and have not been passing through the shop for rebuilds so my knowledge of the extremely new engines is still limited.
Sorry once again, but you kept hounding me this...


And what other "miss information" am I passing on ZOFO ?

ZOFO said ....
"You have been called out on some of the most basic facts and still you try to push your obvious ignorance as fact."

"If you were wise you would stop the BS and actually read and listen and ask intellegant questions."

So I am still "ignorant" and full of " B.S. " nice.


Other than the bore and some casting #'s , what am I off on?

A 3.1, 3.4, ect is nothing more to me than a stroked and bored 2.8, the original 60 v6 engines I started rebuilding years ago.
The blocks have not changed that much, nor the cranks/ rods ect...

Again, not trying to be an ass here, but I have ALOT of knowledge about these engines as well, while it may not be numbers and GM derived data, I have REAL WORLD experience .

I have tried alot of stuff with these engines and I have seen alot with these too.

If you went to my site and looked at all of my pages you should know how much other stuff I have built, some conventional, some wild.

Yet you still want to refer to me as ignorant and full of B.S.

Is that how you start a " new day "
Seems like you are still trying to " be the man " and save face.

What did I say about this site other than I was having problems uploading pics and I have to keep signing in all of the time.
I am glad someone, who ever it is , made this site for this engine.

But I did not realize that the v6 gods came down and blessed this site with the only 4 people in the world that know about this engine.
And for me to add my insights and experiences was taboo...

Do I know everthing about this engine ...NO.
but I do know alot more than most, and to dissmiss me over some block confusion is retarded.

[jp_grasshopper_007]

WTF grasshopper?

Sorry I am not hovering over the dude boring my blocks asking him for EXACT numbers ... .020 - 1/8 inch, who cares ????

who cares? your block and your pistons! someone other than powernurse tell me if I'm wrong but a 3x00 shouldn't be bored .125 over. and dude you should know EXACT #'s if you're building a motor or buying/ordering pistons.

[ForcedFirebird]

I would still like to know how you are getting the iron heads and top end to flow.

[powerdoctor]

The iron heads are not that bad guys.
The intake was choosen to display the injectors and regulator ect...
I figure with the spools the upper end flow won't be a problem.

[jp_grasshopper_007]

he read that one book by that one guy

[powerdoctor]

this is an old 3.1 I built with a set of "hyperpooppectic pistons", iron heads and a 3.4 plenum, and it had no upper end flow issues.

[ForcedFirebird]

The iron heads are not that bad guys.
The intake was choosen to display the injectors and regulator ect...
I figure with the spools the upper end flow won't be a problem.

How can you say that? How much flow have you been able to get from them? 150, 180 CFM max? The 3400 small port heads flow that out of the box.

Some comparisons between iron, 3400 and 3500 heads...

http://s158.photobucket.com/albums/t87/forcedfirebird/headpics/?start=all

[zofo61]

"hyperpooppectic pistons".....your kidding right?

“Hypereutectic” means over eutectic. The word eutectic refers to a condition in chemistry when two elements can be alloyed together on a molecular level, but only up to a specific percentage, at which point any additional secondary element will retain a distinct separate form.

I guess the main element in your build was "poop"....which means they were full of "poop"

Hence the commonality of your skills and your information.


I tried , now I quit

No Banana for your Monkey

Zofo .......out

[SappySE107]

That book is outdated for sure and the iron heads do suck compared to the gen 3 heads. 3500 heads would have been the best. There is nothing HO about those iron heads other than they are better than the 1.6/1.3 valve iron heads. But you build lots of engines so you knew all that.

Liar because you called a 3400 a 3900 and KNEW it. No excuses. Thief cause you steal from junkyards. I didn't say anything negative or mean. I asked what it had to do with my company. Said it was an interesting project. Then I asked why iron heads. Then I asked how the combustion chamber lined up cause you said 3900. Then I said you should probably use head studs for your applications instead of head bolts. Then I told you the CPS didn't work and explained the 24x sensor. Then I closed the thread because it was getting out of hand. Get your facts straight before you claim that I was being mean or hounding you.

/moved to off topic.

[Canyonero]

Finish it up and get it on the dyno.

[ForcedFirebird]

Hypers are good for N/A apps, not rcomended for boost. A cast piston will hold better than hyper in the case of detonantion. I have seen over 30psi on stock cast pistons in a turbo Dodge 2.2 that ran 10's in a Reliant K-car. He might still have a site, google it. (thedodgegarge maybe?)

[Superdave]

How can you say that? How much flow have you been able to get from them? 150, 180 CFM max? The 3400 small port heads flow that out of the box.

Some comparisons between iron, 3400 and 3500 heads...

http://s158.photobucket.com/albums/t...ics/?start=all

lol.. and 3500 heads flow 230 intake stock.


that book is WAY out of date.. GM stopped making iron head '660's for a reason.

[powerdoctor]

Alright...

I'm going to write this so to try to stop the madness.

Heres an example of what I am talking about.

I will use a 305 as a start.

The 305 has a 3.736" bore with a 3.480" stroke.
The 3.4 rwd has a 3.622" bore with a 3.307" stroke.

In 1988 the rated out put of the 305 with mpfi, like a fiero, fire bird ect... was 240 H.P. at 4000 rpm.

http://chevy.jpbconcepts.com/1c7o7.html

This engine ran about a 180 cc intake on the heads and had the same rod as the 3.4, about the same bore, and stroke, and valves with a .465" inch lift cam, and 9.0/ 1 compression give or take.

If you divide the 240 by 8 you get 30 H.P. per cyl.
30 H.P. x 6 = 180 H.P.

So a stock mpfi 3.4 with iron heads should make this power with its iron heads, like the 305.

If you increase the compression , port the heads, add a bigger cam, add headers, exhaust, and a "tune" how can you not make over 250 H.P.

Another chevy the 327 in 1967, an engine with less stroke, but everthing else about the same, made 350 H.P. with 11.0/ 1 compression.

http://chevy.jpbconcepts.com/1c7o3.html

Even a 289 hipo, with similar specs, can achieve almost 300 H.P. on 175 cc heads.

http://www.fordclassics.com/enginespecs.html

So again I don't understand why you don't feel these heads aren't worth a crap.

A stock 302 H.O. 1990 with 175 cc heads, mpfi rated at 225 H.P. with only a supercharger can make almost 400 H.P.

400 H.P. divided by 8 cyl. = 50 H.P. x 6 cyl for a v6 rating = 300 H.P.
The 302 H.O. has similar bore stroke and head cc, as a 3.4 rwd.
It makes that kind of power with a .444 lift cam.

Now take that 300 H.P. and through my 200 H.P. N.O.S. shot on it and you have 500 H.P.

I have no doubts my mill or any other iron head 3.4 could produce these #'s

As for me being a thief and "robbing" the junk yard ... lmao... its a figure of speach.
The turbo crank I have was listed at $800.00 dollars.
I buy cores with the crank in it for $50.00
Thats a "steal" and I am robbing them on price ya tart.

I do apologize for my "steel" turbo crank, which I thought it was, and so did the dealership.
I listed the part # as 10110549 for the "steel" crank.
The regular crank for the year is part # 10146900
The cranks ARE different as I stated and was argued with about.
This article ( below link ) ben was so helpfull with, explains the crank.
While I was WRONG and it was not steel, and it started as a cast crank, it is heavily modified and fooled me and the dealer.
And has no problem running the stock crank sensor.

http://www.turbograndprix.com/Extensive%20Details%20and%20Differences.htm

See I did learn something .... I was right the turbo crank is different, thanx ben.

monkey full now.

Oh, sorry once again for the "z" typo, it was from a "v" vin car.
1990 model year.
Is there even a "z" vin car ???? I dunno, oh well... who cares?

And about the 3900 remark in my first post...

A 3.4, which i had my motor listed as @ cardomain, was a conservative "shot in the dark"
I knew it was not a 3.1, and 3.4 rwd don't have pistons that stick out of the bore, but the bores were close to a 3.4 rwd, just a hair bigger, so I figured it was a 3.4 at the least.
Then I found this site... The 3.5 and 3.9 has pistons that hung over the deck, so I assumed it was one of these 2 engines.
With out reaserching #'s I just concluded, that if I had a 3.5 with a 30 over bore it was close to a 3.9, so f$ck it I'll post it as that, a 3900.

Learning something again, I now know that its not a 3900 block.

You all say that it is a 3400, well rwd 3.4 pistons are to small, and I am not talking about .003 of an inch either here, they are small by alot.

So maybe it was a bored out 3.4 when I got it, that just got another bore like someone stated before.

Is .060 too much for a 3400? I dunno?

So if it was a 3.4 fwd, and now it has a .060 bore that makes the total bore diameter 93.5 mm.

So its a small 3.5 on the scale then, not a 3.9.

So I have a 3.5 in my fiero with ported heads and 2 turbos/ intercoolers and N.O.S. on a 4 speed.
I'll change my cardomain page to 3500.

Are you guys satisfied yet?

I can admit I'm wrong, unlike other people here.

If some of you guys still don't think I know what I'm doing , sorry, don't pay attention to me then.

For the other that have watched me defend myself on this site and belive in me, thank you.

I will try to cover EVERY single angle of my posts from now on, with full explanations and links and what not.

If I knew you guys were going to shark me so hard I would have stated all of this in the first post, I didn't know I had to.

Learning yet again ... ; )

[IsaacHayes]

It's a 3400, not 3500 block.... And remember 67 motors were rated without the accessories on the motor. There is a lot more to it than how you are generalizing things. The 3.4L is rated at 160hp from the factory. Not 180. The 3400's are 180 from the factory.

Once you get that thing fired up, and on a dyno with proof we will see what it makes. But we are telling you that the choice of parts are not that good, and some of us have gone down that path before and finally realized that it's better to start out with the best parts stock, and then mod that. I understand you may be trying to be inventive, but some times you can't really re-invent the wheel and have it work better than the tried and true round shape :P

[powerdoctor]

So what does the "best stock parts" mean though?
I'm not being an ass or trying to argue, I am asking a real question here.

Are you talking about flow?
Does N/A flow = best stock parts?
Do you feel aluminum makes heads better?

If I have the nitrated, stress relieved, deep fillet "turbo" crank...
Modded 5.7 h-beam rods.
Forged pistons/ floated pins.
A 25 over oil pump with cooler and a 1qt filter.
And the aluminum "stud girdle pan" what else can I do to the lower end?

The cam is a roller, and I am attempting to put a roller chain to it, something I have not seen done, which is another mod and will make power.

The heads are ported, dual springs, hardened retainers, ect...
I have compcams hardened pushrods on roller lifters with hardened guides.

I could benefit from head studs yes, but are the stock hardend ones that bad?
Has anyone broke them on iron heads before?

I could run a copper head gasket, but then worry about longevity due to corrosion.

So other than intake and heads, why does my engine suck so bad to you guys ?

I would rather put 2 turbos and N.O.S. on iron heads instead of aluminum any day.
Do you feel I'm wrong for this too?

seriously asking here...