I've also heard of some amazing things being done with the 60* V6 here. It all depends on what facts you want to look at. I think that a 60* V6 bottom end built up with all forged components would hold up to more than 400rwhp, but...I'm not an expert.
I must admit Atilla, I am becoming more and more intrigued with, and swayed toward, the idea of a rear-turbo. Overall...it just sounds like a better way to go.

 

The V6/60 problem isn't the crank, rods or pistons, it's the main webs, so even a girdle doesn't help. The Buick 3.8 never was a 60 degree, always 90. It's not far behind the 4.3, but it IS behind. Mostly it's head flow per dollar, max effort Buick heads can't equal my stage 1 Vortecs.
The 3.4 DOHC is much better for airflow, but the blocks fail. If you do go that route, join www.realfierotech.com, they can help with which year of heads, which year of cams, which year of intake manifolds, et cetera. I saw one of these disaster engines at Pick-N-Pull today. They're sweet to 7250 rpm, but 210 HP just isn't good enough considering the displacement, flow and revs. It's crap, but it likes a centrifugal supercharger.
A popular mod is retarding the exhaust cams 20 degrees, but don't combine this mod with boost.

 

the plastic intakes are from the vortech v6's they have a spider harness that is crap!!! if it ever runs rough or smokes black thats it! there a better motor then the 86-95 tbi 4.3. i have a zr2 with the sfi vortech v6 and i like it.

ive been thinkin of doing this swap, ive seen the gmc slyclone and the typhoon there awd 4.3 litres that are single turbo runnin like 350awhp easy.

 

Huh...the info you gave me on the main webs being the problem goes counter to everything else I've heard about the 60* V6. Most of the guys here on TGO into the 60* V6 say it's a really strong block...
Well, Atilla, the idea of the rear-turbo isn't looking as attractive to me anymore. My buddy, who's really into turbo's, says that the turbo lag on a setup like that would be HUGE. Between the distance the exhaust would have to travle to start spooling the turbo and the distance the air would have to travel from that far back, through the intercooler, and finally into the manifold, he says it would be a lag time of three or more seconds before I finally started to make power off of the turbo. How accurate would you say that is?

 

Has your buddy tried the rear-turbo? I've ridden in 2 and driven one. While it's not as instant as a Whipple, it's no worse than the front-turbos I've driven.
Rear turbo doesn't use or need a heavy and costly front intercooler, the long piping from the rear does the trick.
I used to have my shop not 200 yards from Squires' first shop. The Z28 was the best, it was black, I loved watching and hearing that one, but the silver Toyota pickup looked to be the easier fit and the better "sleeper" for surprising M3 drivers.
I never even sat in either of those, but I made friends with a few of Squires' customers, and we'd meet up at the dragstrip.

 

iam talking about the fuel injection.. the stock harness had a little box with 6 injectors and hoses runnin into the mani. its crap! there is a conversion that put injectors in each port of the mani and thats the way to go. and yea the v6 itself is very strong. there is a guy in town that has a single turbo extream s10 and its like 350hp on 10psi.

 

TOOLEGIT86 your in the middle of a different conversation.

 

yea i figured...

 

No, my buddy has not driven in a rear-turbo system car. I'm playing the two of you off of eachother. Were the cars that you experienced V6 or V8 motivated? That would make a difference. If they were V8, they would be producing more exhaust than a V6 and the boost wouldn't take as long to build up. How much lag was there? In seconds, if you remember...
Not needing an intercooler would be rather nice. Just adds to the ease of plumbing. The oil lines would have to be pretty long, though...
Still trying to wring out as many facts as I can.
Oh, and toolegit86, I'm not really sure what context you're approaching this thread with, but, rest assured, if I go with the 4.3L V6, I'll be using an Edelbrock Performer intake manifold that I will bung for a fuel injector in each intake runner.

 

You think V8s producing more exhaust reduces turbo lag? That's not even a valid thought. Here's why: With the V8, the exhaust is a single 3", the V6 is 2.25", so there's the velocity to the turbo. The turbo itself, you size the A/R for whatever balance you want between rate of spool and flow.
Squires doesn't run engine oil all the way back, they rig up a small electric pump, a cooler like a B&M Supercooler, with a small electric fan attached, and a small reservoir, whatever will fit nearby.
Now, you wanting 400+ HP might make you think you need a 3" exhaust, but since the turbo itself is the restriction, you can keep the stock exhaust that was used with the 2.8s, 3.1s, LG4s and LO3s without much real loss.

 

in regarding this swap, wouldn't the stock tube manifolds from the 4.3 trucks work better?

 

First, tubing isn't inherently better than iron "logs". Partly because the iron can be Extrude-Honed, then, just like tubing, ceramic coated inside.
Second, what trucks? My '94 W/T1500 4.3 had iron logs, my '06 Sierra 1500WT 4.3 has iron logs, my '89 S-10 4.3 had iron logs, the '96 Astro 4.3 had iron logs, my '03 S-10 4.3 had iron logs, So I think I've seen the full scope of 4.3 trucks, none of which had these tubular manifolds you're referring to. I'm guessing that you probably saw one with rusty Edelbrock headers. Those won't fit this swap. If you still think I'm missing something, that's cool, but please either post pics, or at least clue us in to what the tubulars came on.

 

I see what you're saying, Atilla. I don't mind admitting I was wrong. Thanks for straightening me out.

 

I hope you weren't offended by the "not even a valid thought" comment, I wasn't bashing, just being matter-of-fact.

 

Some of the one's I am talking about came on early OBS 4.3 trucks, they also came on 4.3 Caprice's. I have a set at home that I'll take pics of to show you but these are definately stock GM pieces.

Here's the website I got the idea from. They have a couple of pics of the same one's I have. I have seen about 3 caprice's with these same exact manifolds here in town.

http://www.fastchevettes.com/43cont2.html

http://www.fullthrottlev6.com/forums...tubular&page=2

 

well hot damn, that is interesting. Thank you!
Now, with a 4.4" shorter engine, there's less obstacle to fixing the excessive front overhang:

 

BTW those are called factory headers. You kinda confused me with the "tubular manifolds" stuff. I thought you were referring to the intake manifold and was like 'wtf.'

I've been following this thread, and have thought about doing this swap. I want to go with an Edlebrock Performer carb intake though. I'm probably going to end up running a CSC on it also. This will be a winter project, so it is just in the works.

Question. What year 4.3s did not have the balance shaft in them? (The Performer carb intake will not work with a balance shaft.)

 

The 4.3L V6 came with a balance shaft '92 and later. So, I think your best bet would be to look for an '85-'91 4.3L block.

 

No, factory headers are what allegedly came in the trunks of the '67-'69 Z/28s. The correct term IS tubular manifolds. Deal with it, newb. I'm in no mood for quaint colloquialisms or local yokel slang. Tubularness isn't the definition of header or not. Mopar used to make a few cast-iron headers back in the '60s. I'm not sure, but I think Pontiac may have tried it too. If you want a defining characteristic of what determines manifold or header, it would be these: If best flow is the priority, it's a header. If best flow isn't the priority, then it's not, and if there isn't a separate tune for each port, all the way to a collector that isn't a log or an enlarged runner, then it's not about best flow. Look at those Caprice manifolds, that driver's side most definitely is NOT about best flow.

 

Alright guys lets play nice..........anyways, I thought I would share a better pic of the manifolds to show what they look like with all the heat shielding taken off. This is a very informative thread, let's keep it moving.

 

Sorry I haven't yet taken those last pics I promised, of the crank pulley's relation to the steering link, and the underside view of the outlets of these logs. Chemo causes a sick feeling. I'll try to do it Monday.

 

definitely wanna see where this is going. So a truck engine in a passenger car is illegal huh? What about those 5.3 swaps that people often do? And what if your state doesn't perform under hood inspections and it passes the emissions test? Sorry if this was covered but I didn't read it totally in depth. Good luck!

 

Under federal law, whether or not actively enforced where you live, it is illegal. Stupid, but illegal. Using the 5.3 can be legal if you use an automatic, because the Impala SS came with a 5.3/auto. Or if you bore the 5.3 to 5.7. The type of metal the block is cast from has no effect on emissions. Most people run whatever they can get away with, but if Obama has his way, all of them will regret it.
Running technically legal does cost more initially. Well, unless you're happy with 140 horses. In which case, don't swap, just maintain the stock engine.
The only upshot of Obama is that if he has his way, then Cali can't get any stricter than it currently is.

 

That is completely stupid, I hear you. I wonder what the penalty is if you get caught.

 

I think I'd have to take a slight issue with that statement. On severely OLD 80's technology, the 89 TTA did quite well. Disregarding all other aspects other than the heads, the heads used on the Buick Grand National engine in the TTA were just swapped in stock Buick Lesabre front wheel drive 3.8 heads. They flow pretty darn well and there are some good aftermarket heads available. Those stockers are still plentiful in the larger wrecking yards, too.

I'd like to see a flow test on them before I condemn them. I see a handful of guys on this site running 3.8 Buicks and they all seem to be running rear wheel drive heads.

I am gearing up to do drop in a Buick V6 and I am going to use the front drive heads, which flow better than the rear drivers do.

My other question is, how much different is the flow between your good vortec heads and my Buick heads (or the non vortec heads for your 4.3) once you introduce positive pressure from the turbo? As a veteran diesel tech, it seems that when you put boost into the runners, most of the head mods don't do much anymore. The cam selection and the overlap for maximizing cylinder pressure seem to have more effect on the power of the engine.

Just curious what you are thinking about all of this...

 

Take issue all you want, the flow bench cannot be argued with.
As for boost versus porting, with more port flow it takes less boost pressure to get the same results, and the ultimate potential is more. Boost pressure creates unwanted turbulence and harmful heat. Turbulence during the compression stroke is good, but not during the intake stroke.
Diesels also benefit from cooler charges, but hot charges don't hurt diesels in any way beyond less power. They're supposed to detonate. Gasoline engines must NEVER have detonation.
Imagine you take your 3.8, build custom manifolds and cam for it, then use the tiny exhaust valve for your intake, and vice versa. Now how much power will it make, even at 20 psi?
There are some good Buick heads, but there are some better 4.3 heads. No Buick heads can approach what is possible with the Brodix -10 heads for the 4.3. And you taking issue isn't about to change that. Even with boost, more flow is better. And there are still 18-degree BowTie race heads out there. They can still be had. Likewise for the BowTie blocks.
3.8 was good, 4.3 is better. The 3.8 is dead, the 4.3 lives on. The choice is obvious.

 

I actually think that the flowbench CAN be argued with, because there are so many engineering factors to be weighed when making the fastest car. I've heard this same flowbench argument about flowmasters, but have never seen the dyno sheets to prove anything. The track times and dyno sheets are the end of the lessons on all of the work we do on our cars.

Also, I make my living fixing diesel powered stuff and I can tell you that detonation is bad in a diesel too. The closest thing to detonation that can ever happen on purpose in there is if the engine uses a pre-combustion chamber. Most diesels are direct injection now and they light the fire when the fuel is sprayed into the combustion chamber, not a detonation. It is a controlled burn, more like when you light a barbecue grill, not an explosion. Detonation is an explosion, and detrimental to the inner workings of any engine.

Anyway, I am not trying to argue, I am honestly asking because I am very interested in this 4.3 swap. To date, I have not seen a 4.3 swap, turbo or otherwise, that beats a TTA or a Grand National. I really would like to see the sheets that show, under boost, how much power those heads you prefer are worth over the stockers.

For that matter, I would like to see the car together and going so that I can evaluate whether or not to use a 4.3 in a future project or not. It seems that you and others are doing some good research and development to make this work, I just would like to see some real world results so that I can evaluate the difference.

Now that I am back from overseas I will be doing my best to re-work my old bird for a Buick V6. I will start a new thread for it when I get the engine ready to go into the car. Again, I am not trying to argue at all, I just wondered where the info came from that substantiated your claims. Flowbench, got it.

Good luck and make sure to put lots of pictures on when you start the assembly!!

 

Flowing heads with pressure (beyond atmospheric) in the intake ports is not something I've had much exposure to, and I freely admit it. Sticking to traditional testing, the Brodix -10 heads can be ported past 300/220 cfm.
The BowTie 18-degree heads are even better. The BowTie 4.3 block can go to 5.4L, for further improvements.
The Buick's small bore of 3.8" shrouds the valves far more than a 5.4L at 4.185", and a Buick's 3.4" stroke doesnt take advantage of cylinder pressure the way a 5.4L's 4.000"-stroke billet crank does.
On the Diesels, I read the Diesel mags every month, and I have an old IDI GM 6.2, but I'm clueless on combustion dynamics, I've given my life to gasoline, because even today, 99% of 9-second machines run gasoline, not a turbodiesel. It's more cheap speed with less destructive torque and less excessive weight, mass, and negative-inertia. Or would that be anti-inertia? Anyway, If you say compression-ignition is different from detonation, then I can't say otherwise, because I'm honestly not sure either way.
I do know that the Ford 2.3 turbo crowd finds power with ported heads, and those mostly don't get pressure-flowed. This leads me to believe that any head that flows better when traditional-flowed will give more boost-flow as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, my job here is done. I showed how to make it fit. Now the 4.3 comes back out. This morning. Permanently.

 

Thanks for all the hard work Atilla. GREAT THREAD!

 

The Buick 6 is very much alive in the aftermarket actually. Not through BMS but it's still around. You can actually get large bore blocks and long stroke cranks. Hell they even make a stroker kit for the production blocks.

Besides this they also made some "very" aggressive race heads for the Buicks in the past. If you were to bench race the Brodies against those I think you would see some heavy competition. That being said production wise the Vortecs blow away any set of production 3.8L heads made.

 

i have seen many exhaust manifolds for 4.3's but never as small and round as these. i know for a fact the manifolds on my 88 c1500 pickup (4.3l v6) would never fit this swap, as they are way to bulky.

 

Since there are no headers for this swap, here's a quick and half-hearted take on porting stock exhaust manifolds.
The manifold pictured below is the '96 Astro AWD driver's side, which does NOT fit this install, but in the first pic here, you can see the carbon deposits showing evidence of excessive turbulence. This is something we can port away, as the following pics will show. There will still be high-rpm backpressure, but that doesn't make this any less worth doing. Especially if you go rear-turbo.

 

Special thanks go out to Jamie Sweet for holding the manifold while I took the "before" pic.

 

 

 

could Gen 1 smallblock headers be modded to fit?just remove a primary and different collectors maybe?

 

With money or skill, sure you could. But at that point, it's cheaper, easier, and more powerful to just use the gen 1 headers, unmodified, on a 350

 

True true, just throwing the idea out there for interested members.