Search



Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > Power Adders
Register Forgot Password?

Power Adders Getting a Supercharger or Turbocharger? Thinking about using Nitrous? All forced induction and N2O topics discussed here.

Welcome to ThirdGen.org!
Welcome to ThirdGen.org.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join the ThirdGen.org community today!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-31-2011, 08:17 AM   #1
Supreme Member
 
project89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Utah
Posts: 8,633
Car: 89 RS 89 iroc 87 firebird
Engine: 3.1 Turbo/ 355 twin turbo
Transmission: a4 w/ 4500 stall/ a4 / t5
Axle/Gears: strange s60 /w 3:42's

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

i figured id write up my experiences turbocharging a v6 thirdgen and a v8 thirdgen

im going to cover putting turbos on stock engine components( minus cams) not built engines with aftermarket heads etc,and cover the cost of both builds + hp levels and there reliability

based on other builds i have witnessed i believe the results between a v6 and a tpi v8 to be very close hp wise , reliability and cost will be a whole different factor as im finding out myself with my v8 build

first up my basic v6 turbo build

92 3.1 v6

cam = 100$
headers = 150$
injectors = 125$
ms ecm = 311$
intercooler = 40$
turbo = 150$
wastegate = 50$
bov = 25$
oil lines = 75$
misc tubing = 100$
couplers n clamps = 50$

for a grand total of 1,176$'s

this combo dynoed 270 rwhp and 370rwtq @ 9 psi with timing locked out to 10* btdc

the average 3.1 will dyno right aroun 100rwhp
with that figure we come out with about $6.90 spent per 1hp added

the car actually makes more power then the dyno numbers above sine ive fixed the ignition issue but i dont have a dyno sheet to back it up. so im using my posted dyno sheets for this writeup


the reliability of the car/motor is awesome i daily drove this car everywere 34+ mpg on the highway and i abused the hell out of it and it never gave up



build number 2 89 iroc sbc 350

while i thought my car had a 400 in it i rechecked the codes on the engine and after getting a better look at them i relized i had looked up the wrong codes


what i have is a 350 with 882 heads

while not the same as the stock l98 the motor is very close to what would come stock in a thirdgen

882 heads flow a tiny tiny bit more then the l98 heads so the different motor should not make much of a difference

i hav converted it back to tpi from carb though but im not going to include the cost of that since most would be starting with a tpi motor to begin with

so cost of build materials so far

ms ecm = 300 bucks
turbo = 175$
wastegate = 60$
bov = 25$
injectors = 250$
fuel pump = 189$
intercooler with plumbing kit and couplers /clamps = 175
cam = 158$
headers = 142$
oil lines = 100$
misc tubing flanges = 180 bucks (reason this is so high is cause of the special vband needed for my turbos downpipe)
non ac heater box = 100$

so far this total is at 1,854$'s

i cant comment on reliability or hp numbers yet as im still building this thing but the last of my parts will be here in 2 days so by this comming weekend this thing will be up and running

im also going to dyno this engine n/a and with the turbo to get the hp numbers to compare to the v6 and the reliability part will obviously have to wait till i get some time on the setup


so thats all for now ill update this in about a week though
__________________
Car 1 1989 Iroc-z 353SBC 200cc HEADS 224/224 CAM HSR TWIN GT3582 TURBOS 1,000+HP OR BUST AKA THE DAILY DRIVER
Car2 1989 RS 3.1L v6, KB pistons, delta cam,ported heads/intake, custom stainless turbo headers, garrett 60-1 turbo 380+HP@9PSI
Car3 1988 Firebird. stock bottom end, ported heads, delta cam, custom intake, gm 4-71 roots blower HP???? TBD


project89 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 11:21 AM   #2
Supreme Member
 
88fastgta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,798
Car: 1988 Flame Red Trans am GTA
Engine: Forged 355 4 Bolt, FIRST TPI
Transmission: T56 in progress
Axle/Gears: ls1 torsen 3.42 gear

Classifieds Rating: (9)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

i think this is my first ever v6 post but that power number looks good man..considering the cost to get those number are impressive... with that number you will stomp mostly any bolt on 350 tpi car for sure... ive always wanted a v6 camaro for a daily driver...
__________________
Forged 355 4 bolt, FIRST fuel injection , AFR Headed, Hotcammed engine

Fully gutted, Full Suspension, Lowered, t56 six speed,LS1 3.42 torsen braced/girdled rear end

want: moser 9 inch
http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/vb...=view&id=62362
88fastgta is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 10:09 PM   #3
Supreme Member
 
project89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Utah
Posts: 8,633
Car: 89 RS 89 iroc 87 firebird
Engine: 3.1 Turbo/ 355 twin turbo
Transmission: a4 w/ 4500 stall/ a4 / t5
Axle/Gears: strange s60 /w 3:42's

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by 88fastgta View Post
i think this is my first ever v6 post but that power number looks good man..considering the cost to get those number are impressive... with that number you will stomp mostly any bolt on 350 tpi car for sure... ive always wanted a v6 camaro for a daily driver...

yeah the v6 is pretty impressive, i have high hopes for the sbc as well

after fixing the timing issue that cars run low 12's @ 9 psi which should put the rwhp numbers more along the lines of 330ish.

a few ppl have told me that since it made so much tq with such limited timming that the motor would prolly make around 325whp and 410ish ftlbs at the rear wheels once that issue was fixed. which the track times support. but again without a dyno sheet i didnt want to use those figures in figuring out the cost per hp . but for the hell of it

using 325rwhp at the number for a gain of 225whp over stock =
$5.22 per hp added


im really looking foward to finishing my 89 iroc and seeing what cost per hp is, and seeing just how much it will make.

to be fair though i dont know if i should dyno the car at the same boost level.im assuming this would be the most level way to do it though

maybe even redyno the v6 car at a higher boost level then the v8 car again at the same boost level as the v6 car to get to see what happens hp wise as boost comes up on the 2 different motors

of course higer boost numbers will increase hp gains and lower overall cost of hp per $ spent as well since it dosent cost anything to increase boost
project89 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2011, 11:36 PM   #4
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Miami & Coral Springs
Posts: 2,564
Car: Sometimes. Usually.
Engine: 2.0 Liter @ 250 hp
Transmission: Synchro soup
Axle/Gears: 3.91278172

Classifieds Rating: (0)

Send a message via AIM to Kingtal0n
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

My personal opinion:

Engine options for high performance street applications (where throttle response, fuel economy, low end torque, drivability is important):

#1: Inline 4-cylinder. Useful for vehicles that weigh up to 2800lbs.
#2: Inline 6-cylinder. Useful for vehicles that weigh up to about 3500lbs.
#3: 350+ cubic inch V8. Useful for most vehicles that weigh up to anything.


V6 does not even make its mark. why? lets do a pros/cons:

Pros of an Inline engine:
1 head, 1 head gasket. Intake on one side, exhaust on the other side. One exhaust manifold. One intake gasket. plugs are easy to access from the top, and most have hemispherical combustion chambers. No more header fingers.

Inline cons: displacement is generally low compared to a V8

Pros of a V8 engine:
Displacement is generally high

V8 Cons:
2 exhaust manifolds, 2 intake gaskets, 2 head gaskets, 2 sets of exhaust tubes, more valvetrain hardware, etc...

See where I am going with this??

A V6 engine... has all of the cons of a V8, and The cons of the inline engine (low displacement). Its got the worst of both worlds. Pick one or the other, IMO.

Last edited by Kingtal0n; 06-28-2011 at 11:41 PM.
Kingtal0n is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2011, 11:44 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 412
Car: 1990 camaro RS
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 2.73

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingtal0n View Post
My personal opinion:

Engine options for high performance street applications (where throttle response, fuel economy, low end torque, drivability is important):

#1: Inline 4-cylinder. Useful for vehicles that weigh up to 2800lbs.
#2: Inline 6-cylinder. Useful for vehicles that weigh up to about 3500lbs.
#3: 350+ cubic inch V8. Useful for most vehicles that weigh up to anything.


V6 does not even make its mark. why? lets do a pros/cons:

Pros of an Inline engine:
1 head, 1 head gasket. Intake on one side, exhaust on the other side. One exhaust manifold. One intake gasket. plugs are easy to access from the top, and most have hemispherical combustion chambers. No more header fingers.

Inline cons: displacement is generally low compared to a V8

Pros of a V8 engine:
Displacement is generally high

V8 Cons:
2 exhaust manifolds, 2 intake gaskets, 2 head gaskets, 2 sets of exhaust tubes, more valvetrain hardware, etc...

See where I am going with this??

A V6 engine... has all of the cons of a V8, and The cons of the inline engine (low displacement). Its got the worst of both worlds. Pick one or the other, IMO.

uhh the v6 weighs about 200lbs less then a SBC the factory red line in the v6 is higher, the smaller engine means more room for the turbo and stuff (dont have to cram it all in) so it has pros too...
90 camaro cj is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2011, 11:54 PM   #6
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Miami & Coral Springs
Posts: 2,564
Car: Sometimes. Usually.
Engine: 2.0 Liter @ 250 hp
Transmission: Synchro soup
Axle/Gears: 3.91278172

Classifieds Rating: (0)

Send a message via AIM to Kingtal0n
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by 90 camaro cj View Post
uhh the v6 weighs about 200lbs less then a SBC the factory red line in the v6 is higher, the smaller engine means more room for the turbo and stuff (dont have to cram it all in) so it has pros too...
But why not an inline 6 then? you would have even MORE room to work with... and an even higher redline (an oem 2jz spins 8,000 rpm from the factory and comes equipped with solid valvetrain hardware OEM...) And +/- 200lbs or even 350lbs is nothing when you consider the addition of 100+ horsepower thanks to the displacement of a V8? that could be 300+ extra horsepower if we are talking forced induction! And a properly built V8 will spin just as high as an equivalent V6, you have to look at the speeds and weights of the individual components not the size of the engine.

Last edited by Kingtal0n; 06-29-2011 at 01:29 AM.
Kingtal0n is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 12:12 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 412
Car: 1990 camaro RS
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 2.73

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingtal0n View Post
But why not an inline 6 then? you would have even MORE room to work with... and an even higher redline (an oem 2jz spins 8,000 rpm from the factory and comes equipped with solid valvetrain hardware OEM...) And 200lbs is nothing when you consider the addition of 100+ horsepower thanks to displacement?

I think if you take a step back and really think about it...
if memory serves me right the 2jz is still like 100 pounds more then a 60*v6 do the upgrade to aluminum headed v6 and youll be looking at 150 pound differance and doing that swap is a helluve a lot easier then sticking a toyota motor in a F body.... and the room you gain on the sides you lose on the front of the motor. not to mention the fact that with a v6 most of the engine weight is behind the front wheels which = better handling

Last edited by 90 camaro cj; 06-29-2011 at 12:27 AM.
90 camaro cj is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 01:23 AM   #8
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Miami & Coral Springs
Posts: 2,564
Car: Sometimes. Usually.
Engine: 2.0 Liter @ 250 hp
Transmission: Synchro soup
Axle/Gears: 3.91278172

Classifieds Rating: (0)

Send a message via AIM to Kingtal0n
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by 90 camaro cj View Post
if memory serves me right the 2jz is still like 100 pounds more then a 60*v6 do the upgrade to aluminum headed v6 and youll be looking at 150 pound differance and doing that swap is a helluve a lot easier then sticking a toyota motor in a F body.... and the room you gain on the sides you lose on the front of the motor. not to mention the fact that with a v6 most of the engine weight is behind the front wheels which = better handling
Whoa slow down, XD
I never said to stick an inline 6 into an F-body, that is simply rediculous.
And a 2jz is far more than 150 extra pounds!

Im on your side man, I love all internal combustion technology. If someone is specifically requiring those individual characteristics such as weight offset to balance the handling capability of the suspension geometry- then by all means use the configuration engine necessary for the application, be it a 12-cylinder or 3 rotor!

Most of us are just looking for something cheap and reliable, easy to maintain, easy to find cheap parts in bountiful quantity, especially used oem parts that fit the profile for the high performance application. The inline 4-6 engines are popular enough to fit this bill, as are most of the popular V8 configurations out there.... V6 stuff on the other hand, is limited and application specific in comparison.
Kingtal0n is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 01:36 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 412
Car: 1990 camaro RS
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 2.73

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingtal0n View Post
Whoa slow down, XD
I never said to stick an inline 6 into an F-body, that is simply rediculous.
And a 2jz is far more than 150 extra pounds!

Im on your side man, I love all internal combustion technology. If someone is specifically requiring those individual characteristics such as weight offset to balance the handling capability of the suspension geometry- then by all means use the configuration engine necessary for the application, be it a 12-cylinder or 3 rotor!

Most of us are just looking for something cheap and reliable, easy to maintain, easy to find cheap parts in bountiful quantity, especially used oem parts that fit the profile for the high performance application. The inline 4-6 engines are popular enough to fit this bill, as are most of the popular V8 configurations out there.... V6 stuff on the other hand, is limited and application specific in comparison.
lol aite i was just trying to point out that doing a turbo v6 has pros too. but ya im liking the numbers from the little v6 and with some decent wieght reduction some ppl have there V8s down to what 2800ish i think. so a v6 could be close to 2500 with a 5 speed thatd be a nasty road course/auto cross/ drift car, 325hp on 2500lbs gets it to 7.7 lbs/hp thats better then the new Camaro SS lol and if you built the internals and added more boost and stuff that could prolly be faster then the knew vette zr1 lol
90 camaro cj is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 01:53 AM   #10
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Miami & Coral Springs
Posts: 2,564
Car: Sometimes. Usually.
Engine: 2.0 Liter @ 250 hp
Transmission: Synchro soup
Axle/Gears: 3.91278172

Classifieds Rating: (0)

Send a message via AIM to Kingtal0n
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by 90 camaro cj View Post
lol aite i was just trying to point out that doing a turbo v6 has pros too. but ya im liking the numbers from the little v6 and with some decent wieght reduction some ppl have there V8s down to what 2800ish i think. so a v6 could be close to 2500 with a 5 speed thatd be a nasty road course/auto cross/ drift car, 325hp on 2500lbs gets it to 7.7 lbs/hp thats better then the new Camaro SS lol and if you built the internals and added more boost and stuff that could prolly be faster then the knew vette zr1 lol
A turbo anything has pros, such as you can turn up the boost to anything and make as much power as you want

same reason why everybody loves nitrous and brings it up instantly to bump #'s any place, any time.

#'s simply regard the combustion of a given mass of air, and have no bearing on most common scenarios. The most common scenario is, I have whatever is sitting in my driveway, right now, what can I do with it and how much $$ is it going to cost to get there. Will it be reliable, will it get good fuel economy, will it run for three months or ten years, and does it even matter?

If I say I know a whole community of people with the same car/engine running similar combination's for 22 years with proven reliability for a wide range of oem parts... that is a worthwhile database of component life expectancy... I can depend on parts in a way that not even the most reputable aftermarket company can aspire to.
Kingtal0n is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 08:15 AM   #11
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,002

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingtal0n View Post
My personal opinion:

Engine options for high performance street applications (where throttle response, fuel economy, low end torque, drivability is important):

#1: Inline 4-cylinder. Useful for vehicles that weigh up to 2800lbs.
#2: Inline 6-cylinder. Useful for vehicles that weigh up to about 3500lbs.
#3: 350+ cubic inch V8. Useful for most vehicles that weigh up to anything.


V6 does not even make its mark. why? lets do a pros/cons:

Pros of an Inline engine:
1 head, 1 head gasket. Intake on one side, exhaust on the other side. One exhaust manifold. One intake gasket. plugs are easy to access from the top, and most have hemispherical combustion chambers. No more header fingers.

Inline cons: displacement is generally low compared to a V8

Pros of a V8 engine:
Displacement is generally high

V8 Cons:
2 exhaust manifolds, 2 intake gaskets, 2 head gaskets, 2 sets of exhaust tubes, more valvetrain hardware, etc...

See where I am going with this??

A V6 engine... has all of the cons of a V8, and The cons of the inline engine (low displacement). Its got the worst of both worlds. Pick one or the other, IMO.
There are not a lot of inline third gens out there which is a huge con. If you want a GM engine your choices and aftermarket are fairly limited, after that you need adapters which is also a huge con IMO. Don't forget that you can also have split port heads on an inline (int/exh on the same side) and in general they KILL performance compared to a "cross flow" style head. Look at a 300 or even a 200/250 Ford.

Very good power on the 60 degree engine there, definitely enough to have lots of fun with a daily driver vehicle.
Drac0nic is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 08:39 AM   #12
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Miami & Coral Springs
Posts: 2,564
Car: Sometimes. Usually.
Engine: 2.0 Liter @ 250 hp
Transmission: Synchro soup
Axle/Gears: 3.91278172

Classifieds Rating: (0)

Send a message via AIM to Kingtal0n
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drac0nic View Post
There are not a lot of inline third gens out there which is a huge con. If you want a GM engine your choices and aftermarket are fairly limited, after that you need adapters which is also a huge con IMO. Don't forget that you can also have split port heads on an inline (int/exh on the same side) and in general they KILL performance compared to a "cross flow" style head. Look at a 300 or even a 200/250 Ford.

Very good power on the 60 degree engine there, definitely enough to have lots of fun with a daily driver vehicle.
I've never heard of a "split port head" ;D and I refuse to look at any Ford XD tryin to blind me? I cant imagine the factory spending much R&D on creating a high performance standard 200-300 cubic inch model when they are focusing on the larger displacements as high performance OEM equipment.

I only comparison the engines themselves as non-specific models (except the amazing 2jz which should always be mentioned as it sets a standard); never once mentioning a vehicle, only weights.

For inline engines, my opinion is, I prefer to keep the weight below 3200~lbs for a daily, which removes a thirdgen as a possible vehicle in which to have an inline-anything. I would not suggest any engine regardless of configuration below 320 cubic inches of displacement for a thirdgen for two very good reasons:
1. The vehicle is oem equipped to handle a V8 adequately (no special mounts)
2. the cost of installing a random 350+cubic inch engine will be the same or cheaper than anything else you can dream of (equivalent year/model)

Why should we rock a V6 when the V8 has more support more displacement and costs the same or less? Even if its a carbed 350 from an 86 van, we could slap a used ebay blower on that for pretty cheap and have 500 ft.lbs of torque by stepping down at any rpm Just sayin

Last edited by Kingtal0n; 06-29-2011 at 08:48 AM.
Kingtal0n is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 05:22 PM   #13
Supreme Member
 
project89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Utah
Posts: 8,633
Car: 89 RS 89 iroc 87 firebird
Engine: 3.1 Turbo/ 355 twin turbo
Transmission: a4 w/ 4500 stall/ a4 / t5
Axle/Gears: strange s60 /w 3:42's

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

i think ur missing the oint of this thread . i started this to comare the cost and reliability of modifying stock engines that come in these cars

this way somone could see what each motor could do vs the cost of swaing from the v6 to a v8 and also how reliable each are once they are modded
__________________
Car 1 1989 Iroc-z 353SBC 200cc HEADS 224/224 CAM HSR TWIN GT3582 TURBOS 1,000+HP OR BUST AKA THE DAILY DRIVER
Car2 1989 RS 3.1L v6, KB pistons, delta cam,ported heads/intake, custom stainless turbo headers, garrett 60-1 turbo 380+HP@9PSI
Car3 1988 Firebird. stock bottom end, ported heads, delta cam, custom intake, gm 4-71 roots blower HP???? TBD


project89 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 05:23 PM   #14
Supreme Member
 
Thirdgen89GTA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland Suburbs
Posts: 4,185
Car: 1989 Trans Am GTA
Engine: LT1, LE3 heads, 231/239 LE cam.
Transmission: M28 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 10bolt waiting to explode.

Classifieds Rating: (4)

Send a message via AIM to Thirdgen89GTA Send a message via Yahoo to Thirdgen89GTA
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

You forgot one of the real advantage to a V6. More compact design locates the weight behind the front wheels compared to an I6 or V8. Overall more compact and lighter than a I6 of comparable displacement. Crank is on average lighter as well.

With a correctly sized turbo a I4 Turbo F-body would move out very well and maintain good drivability.

A turbo charged V6 using one of the new DOHC all aluminum V6's would make very good power.

The new 3.6L V6 in the Camaro would make it much faster than a stock L98 was. Better handling too. I wouldn't be surprised if a stock 3.6L took a thirdgen into the mid 13's @ 103-105mph easy.

There are many options out there now. If not for the time and cost of retrofitting a new V6 into a thirdgen I would do it. I just do not have the time or place to devote to a project like that. Right now my "project" requirements mean the car must be torn down and drivable within a 24hr period usually. Can't leave a car apart for even a week.

I already have an Lt1 in the car, so heads/cam is easy.
Thirdgen89GTA is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 06:10 PM   #15
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sebastopol CA
Posts: 1,743
Car: Base 91 'bird
Engine: 3.1 v6
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt 3.27 & PBR

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

How about attaching names/sources for the shopping list of V6 parts? Plus how long did it all take and what was the difficulty? What skills are needed other than basic mech stuff? Welding?
Base91 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 10:53 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: chicago
Posts: 687

Classifieds Rating: (1)

Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

I have yet to see an inline 4 or 6 engine with a hemi combustion chamber.Does such a thing exist??? most use pent roof style combustion chambers.

it is more cost effective to build a SBC or BBC.
daverr is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 08:16 AM   #17
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,002

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by daverr View Post
I have yet to see an inline 4 or 6 engine with a hemi combustion chamber.Does such a thing exist??? most use pent roof style combustion chambers.

it is more cost effective to build a SBC or BBC.
I have heard the Mitsu V6es used em. Then again there are so many heads out there that are way better all around than a traditional style hemi head that it's hardly worth a bother.

I can see a third gen with a moderately sized 4 cylinder getting both good performance and milage with some boost as well, the powertrain may be a bit interesting depending on the platform. I'm almost thinking Quad4 as the easiest performance swap because it uses the standard FWD bell housing you can get from say a 3800 Camaro. I'd love to see an Ecotec stuffed into one of these things with some boost though. You could probably tune it for a strictly MPG setup and still be pretty quick.
Drac0nic is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 11:16 AM   #18
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Miami & Coral Springs
Posts: 2,564
Car: Sometimes. Usually.
Engine: 2.0 Liter @ 250 hp
Transmission: Synchro soup
Axle/Gears: 3.91278172

Classifieds Rating: (0)

Send a message via AIM to Kingtal0n
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drac0nic View Post
I have heard the Mitsu V6es used em. Then again there are so many heads out there that are way better all around than a traditional style hemi head that it's hardly worth a bother.

I can see a third gen with a moderately sized 4 cylinder getting both good performance and milage with some boost as well, the powertrain may be a bit interesting depending on the platform. I'm almost thinking Quad4 as the easiest performance swap because it uses the standard FWD bell housing you can get from say a 3800 Camaro. I'd love to see an Ecotec stuffed into one of these things with some boost though. You could probably tune it for a strictly MPG setup and still be pretty quick.
I believe most of the High performance OEM Japanese engines (sr20det, 2jzgte, rb26de~~ etc..) use appropriate shape combustion chambers (hemispherical or nearly so) they have dialed in the "ignition timing vs cylinder pressure" to the point where you can swing timing wildly under significant boost (125+ horsepower per cylinder, 15-20psi, pump gas) anywhere from 6*-13* of ignition timing and still be "fine" although the best numbers come from EGT vs A/F vs Torque like most engines, considering the way the engine is assembled of course and parts involved.

The reason this is worth mentioning is because the OEM platform for these inline 4-6 cylinder engines includes a head AND valvetrain profile fit for use in most common high performance street applications. An OEM Sr20det head will support 400+ horsepower(cammed) and the OEM 2jzgte head will support 800~ horsepower, even with OEM camshafts. This means no screwing around with parts, you dont even need to remove the head, just slap on a larger turbocharger, use the existing hardware, and drive. <3


#2
Thirdgen + inline 4/6 ;
My opinion here is "WHY?"
Any 4-6 cylinder engine can make 1000 or even 2500 horsepower. There are plenty of ways to increase power in any engine, we ALL KNOW THIS.

The problem is, the thing I am having trouble with is this:
Examine the instantaneous throttle response / torque output of any engine.
Yes, the more displacement you have the more instant torque you get, simply from VE. So lets discuss N/A engines purely for a moment.

An N/A engine operates strictly by displacement. it doesnt matter if we have a 122 cubic inch (2.0L) V8 or inline 4 or 2-cylinder... when you smash the pedal, you only get about 150 ft/lb torque because thats what the displacement can consume worth of air and effectively burn at our atmospheric pressure.

Now stop right there. If I told you that for the same amount of work/time/energy and perhaps even fewer $$ you could smash a pedal and get 350 ft/lb of torque instead of 150... what would you say? And If I said this requires no special modifications no special engine mounts etc... now doesnt this sound good? It doesnt matter if we are talking V8, I-4, etc... once again ALL THAT MATTERS IS DISPLACEMENT.

So this is golden rule #1:
always install the largest displacement engine you can budget, that fits the requirements of the vehicle. If our requirement is high performance street, I would rather have a finely tuned Inline 4-cylinder making 150 ft/lbs than a 1977 chevy 350 van engine... displacement might win in pure torque #'s but we are not just looking for torque in high performance street... we also want "work done" or "horsepower" (cidxrpm/3456) as well as fuel efficiency, and upgradability. that van engine might be "upgradable" but it will require basically everything replaced (from head to... crankshaft) you may as well just rebuild the entire thing...

so this is golden rule #2:
Choose a drivetrain that meets all of your goals with the fewest modifications possible!

The more proven OEM parts on our engine, in our engine, in our transmission, etc.. the more reliable the drivetrain should be. So even though displacement always wins the torque contest, it has nothing to do with the other important aspects of daily driver street performance:
A; Reliability B; maintainability C; accessibility D; economy

I am not going to sit here and pretend that everybody is looking for an economical reliable setup. some people just want to race and they dont care what breaks, they have other vehicles to get around in. Some people dont care about fuel economy for the same reason. This is not my point of view, so do not argue those points. Everything I write is from the standpoint of (daily driver, acceptable performance, affordable and easy to maintain, with as much OEM parts as possible if they are reliable!)

So a short re-cap:
Choose the largest displacement engine you can afford that meets as many of your goals as possible, in general, with as few modifications as possible, that gives the easiest maintenance and reliability as possible. pretty simply standard point of view for us broke enthusiasts

It doesnt say pick nissan > chevy. it doesnt say V8 > I4. These rules apply globally from a common sense perspective and physics, has nothing to do with manufacturer or configuration.
Kingtal0n is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 11:58 AM   #19
Supreme Member
 
DIGGLER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SC
Posts: 2,361

Classifieds Rating: (1)

Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

my gta has an LT1 with a cam, rockers, pushrods, single plane, and ported stock heads. stock pistons, stock rods, stock crank, and a nitrous plate. its been running sub 9 sec. passes for about 3 years now and i havent pulled a valvecover. i think i have replaced 1 header gasket after standing it up on the bumper and slamming the header on the track.

where is that dyno graph i posted awhile back of the 2jz that made decent peak hp and pathetic everything up till 5 grand. the solution to that was supposedly a cam swap. (not stock stuff)
DIGGLER is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 08:26 PM   #20
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Miami & Coral Springs
Posts: 2,564
Car: Sometimes. Usually.
Engine: 2.0 Liter @ 250 hp
Transmission: Synchro soup
Axle/Gears: 3.91278172

Classifieds Rating: (0)

Send a message via AIM to Kingtal0n
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by DIGGLER View Post
my gta has an LT1 with a cam, rockers, pushrods, single plane, and ported stock heads. stock pistons, stock rods, stock crank, and a nitrous plate. its been running sub 9 sec. passes for about 3 years now and i havent pulled a valvecover. i think i have replaced 1 header gasket after standing it up on the bumper and slamming the header on the track.

where is that dyno graph i posted awhile back of the 2jz that made decent peak hp and pathetic everything up till 5 grand. the solution to that was supposedly a cam swap. (not stock stuff)

See ^^ DIGGLER chose the parts based on exactly what I just wrote and I quote myself
"Choose the largest displacement engine you can afford that meets as many of your goals as possible, in general, with as few modifications as possible, that gives the easiest maintenance and reliability as possible. pretty simply standard point of view for us broke enthusiasts "

The engine Diggler chose meets all of his performance goals, has as few modifications as possible, easy to maintain (no valvecover pulling he said), and its the largest displacement he could afford that hits all of these goals!! Good job
Kingtal0n is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2011, 10:32 PM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CT
Posts: 95
Car: 91 rs
Engine: 350 tbi with EBL
Transmission: t56!
Axle/Gears: 2.733

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

can u show were u bought the v8 turbo from? i know from ebay but many of the sellers give wrong product descriptions an u seem to have very good luck with ebay parts. or a link to the turbo.
L98wit is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2011, 06:58 AM   #22
Supreme Member
 
project89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Utah
Posts: 8,633
Car: 89 RS 89 iroc 87 firebird
Engine: 3.1 Turbo/ 355 twin turbo
Transmission: a4 w/ 4500 stall/ a4 / t5
Axle/Gears: strange s60 /w 3:42's

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by L98wit View Post
can u show were u bought the v8 turbo from? i know from ebay but many of the sellers give wrong product descriptions an u seem to have very good luck with ebay parts. or a link to the turbo.
i gt the turbo off ebay but its not one of the knockoff turbos

its a garrett t6 76mm

i have a pending sale on it right now and if it sells im going to go twins with 2 ebay t3t4s since it will be easier to fit the smaller twins
project89 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2012, 09:56 PM   #23
Supreme Member
 
fasteddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Northwest Ohio
Posts: 5,026
Car: 1991 Camaro RS
Engine: 3.1L/3100 Turbo Hybrid
Transmission: 700R4 3K stall
Axle/Gears: 3.73/Alburn LSD/Moser Axles

Classifieds Rating: (2)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Wow dave dug though and found this thread.... I forgot you started it. Ill just add this pass to ppl to see that A turbo V6 is possible for a beginner to as thats what I am. My set up has ALOT of room for improvement but exceeded my expectations so far. My build cost under 900 bucks. I beat a GT/A 2 times the first time out on the track with my car spinning at the line the first time, in this video by almost a half a second. That was my initial goal, to beat a modern 350 tpi motor down the track and I made it happen. This was at 10psi of boost and like I said earlier alot of room for improvement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeuz8Im_vlg 14.37@97Mph and then a 60 mile drive home with 20-25mpg. Not bad for running in open loop on the ecm. Im sure if I tossed it into closed loop Id get the 25-30mpgs it usually makes.
fasteddi is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2012, 08:52 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
calebzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 797
Car: '85 TA
Engine: 350 turbo
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 3.70 posi 9bolt

Classifieds Rating: (3)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

I know this thread is dated, but the costs seem a little low. Are you tuning without a WB O2? Also, you'd probably want at least a boost gauge.
__________________
'85 TA, 350 w/ forged internals, First TPI, Procomp 190cc heads, Crane 212/218 cam, 58mm TB, 60lb injectors, Holley Commander 950, LC-1, MSD 6A, turbo & intercooled

my cardomain
calebzman is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2012, 04:40 PM   #25
Supreme Member
 
fasteddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Northwest Ohio
Posts: 5,026
Car: 1991 Camaro RS
Engine: 3.1L/3100 Turbo Hybrid
Transmission: 700R4 3K stall
Axle/Gears: 3.73/Alburn LSD/Moser Axles

Classifieds Rating: (2)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by calebzman View Post
I know this thread is dated, but the costs seem a little low. Are you tuning without a WB O2? Also, you'd probably want at least a boost gauge.
I have a WB o2 sensor wired into the ecm to datalog. That SLC-DIY2 kit is very nice and for a low price you just have to assemble some of it.
My boost guage is the laptop when im tuning. It reads very well(I have a Map system) and actauly I have the boost controler set up through the ecm. I really do like the $59 mask as it has alot of options when tuning a turboed car.

SLC-DIY2 Wideband Kit

I tune the ecm(burn chips) Its a slow process but its effective for the price.

Datalog running the stock 7730ecm with $59 mask.

Its is a budget build but turned out well. I have 28lbs injectors, walbro 255lph fuel pump, 2800 stall, (now have some slicks) and many other things that compliment what I have done on a budget.

If id add in the cam and the heads that I ported the price goes up to about 1100 bucks. Not bad for taking a slow 17 sec car and making it run low low 14's with a conservitive tune and street tires AND still having it be reliable. This little V6 seems to really like boost and to rev up. Just as long as the tune is safe the motor is safe. I know that with the slicks and better tuning that I will make 13 second passes within a few weeks.

Im sure some people say that V6's are a waste of time but this is what I had to work with and I have absolutly no regrets. I loved the attention I got at the track the other day when people saw my car and the set up I have. It was definitly a good conversation piece. That right there was worth taking a chance and building a V6. But it is still a fast lil car.

Last edited by fasteddi; 04-18-2012 at 04:49 PM.
fasteddi is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2012, 05:25 PM   #26
Supreme Member
 
sailtexas186548's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kemah and College-Station/Bryan Texas
Posts: 2,485
Car: 1991 z28
Engine: v8
Transmission: manual
Axle/Gears: D44

Classifieds Rating: (2)
Send a message via AIM to sailtexas186548
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by fasteddi View Post
I have the boost controler set up through the ecm.
i'm also running $59 and want to do this, how do you do it? i assume you need a pump like any electric boost controller
sailtexas186548 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2012, 06:08 PM   #27
Supreme Member
 
fasteddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Northwest Ohio
Posts: 5,026
Car: 1991 Camaro RS
Engine: 3.1L/3100 Turbo Hybrid
Transmission: 700R4 3K stall
Axle/Gears: 3.73/Alburn LSD/Moser Axles

Classifieds Rating: (2)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailtexas186548 View Post
i'm also running $59 and want to do this, how do you do it? i assume you need a pump like any electric boost controller
You can just buy the controler off the net. Its just a silenoid controller off of turbo Gm cars such as the turbo sunfire. You just put a vac line into the solenoid controler and another out to your wastegate and then just tune from there on the boost tables
Tables for the MPH vs boost are:
F70_mph for the PSI command
F71_mph for the WG duty cycle


Heres the wastegate actuator
ACDelco# 214-474 I got mine on ebay also and it was a genuine AC delco part.

Heres the Pig tail to the actuator. You then run that ground wire into the ECM pinout and on my 7730 I used the F4 pin IIRC(Its been a few months since I did it so Id have to look to be certain)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/GM-Boost-con...item1c1baf06fa

This was the best 40 bucks I spent on the turbo stuff. It is very easy to control boost spike, and is nice when you can just change PSI to what you want. $59 has over boost properties also which are nice to have just in case.

Are you boosted already with the $59?? Some people run n/a so I was just woundering.
fasteddi is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2012, 08:32 PM   #28
Supreme Member
 
project89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Utah
Posts: 8,633
Car: 89 RS 89 iroc 87 firebird
Engine: 3.1 Turbo/ 355 twin turbo
Transmission: a4 w/ 4500 stall/ a4 / t5
Axle/Gears: strange s60 /w 3:42's

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

fast has a very cheap reliable turbo kit modeled after my first kit its an honest 8-900$ kit, and the car should run low 13's @ 10 psi once he gets the launch down and the tune a lil closer. once the boost gets up around 18-21 psi with the current turbo he should be in the mid to mid low 12's again for the same 900 bucks


the turbo kit on my iroc has changed alot since i started this thread, once i finish working on it this week and get it back on the road i will update this thread with the new cost info
__________________
Car 1 1989 Iroc-z 353SBC 200cc HEADS 224/224 CAM HSR TWIN GT3582 TURBOS 1,000+HP OR BUST AKA THE DAILY DRIVER
Car2 1989 RS 3.1L v6, KB pistons, delta cam,ported heads/intake, custom stainless turbo headers, garrett 60-1 turbo 380+HP@9PSI
Car3 1988 Firebird. stock bottom end, ported heads, delta cam, custom intake, gm 4-71 roots blower HP???? TBD


project89 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2012, 09:51 PM   #29
Supreme Member
 
sailtexas186548's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kemah and College-Station/Bryan Texas
Posts: 2,485
Car: 1991 z28
Engine: v8
Transmission: manual
Axle/Gears: D44

Classifieds Rating: (2)
Send a message via AIM to sailtexas186548
Re: Turbocharged V6 vs V8 cost vs HP/Reliability

wow thats awesome I didn't realize it's was so straight forward, I'll be doing that for sure!

yeah I'm boosted on 59, just really getting the tuning part going I'm on less than 4 lbs LOL, need more injector.
sailtexas186548 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2012, 09:51 PM
ThirdGen
1992 Camaro




Paid Advertisement


Reply

Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > Power Adders

Tags
350, camaro, camshafts, charged, difference, engine, gen, horsepower, hp, inline, rating, reliability, turbo, v6, v8
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 


1982 Camaro '82 || 1983 Camaro '83 || 1984 Camaro '84 || 1985 Camaro '85 || 1986 Camaro '86 || 1987 Camaro '87 || 1988 Camaro '88 || 1989 Camaro '89 || 1990 Camaro '90 || 1991 Camaro '91 || 1992 Camaro '92


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All content copyright 1997 - 2014 ThirdGen.org. All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without the expressed, documented, and written consent of ThirdGen.org's Administrators.

Emails & Contact Details