MAX HP OF A 2.8 V6 CARBURETED
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,092
Likes: 1
Car: 87 Vette
Engine: 355/195AFR/SR/219CAM/1.6
Transmission: TH700R4/Vigilante
Axle/Gears: D44/3.45
MAX HP OF A 2.8 V6 CARBURETED
well i was wonderin how much HPS will be the max of a 2.8 carbureted engine 1982 stock (little mods)and totally modified ??
who can help me ?
who can help me ?
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 886
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Stock and totally modified? umm...
Power is a function of and is in direct relation to money. i.e., the more money, the more power.
------------------
89 iroc-z 305 tbi
k&n filtercharger, open element air filter. nuffin' else
Power is a function of and is in direct relation to money. i.e., the more money, the more power.
------------------
89 iroc-z 305 tbi
k&n filtercharger, open element air filter. nuffin' else
Moderator
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,408
Likes: 1
From: Bayville NJ and Newark at NJIT.
Exactly right.
More money = More Horsepower
I've heard of engines getting 200 HP per litre (twin turbo Interceptor)... I think thats pushing things to the max, so that would mean 560 HP from a 2.8L. Those dragsters, don't even know thier HP to Displacement ratio... but 3000-5000 HP out of a V8 is pretty sick..
It's impossible to say for sure... there is only so much an engine can take. But, like previously mentioned, if you got some big bucks burning a hole in your pocket and you know how to implement it, you could push some pretty big stuff with it...
------------------
1985 Camaro SC - 2.8L, auto.
Mods:
Removed air baffles, mandrel bent cat-back pipes (but stock replacment muffler, Dynomax Turbo and Catco converter are on thier way)
More money = More Horsepower
I've heard of engines getting 200 HP per litre (twin turbo Interceptor)... I think thats pushing things to the max, so that would mean 560 HP from a 2.8L. Those dragsters, don't even know thier HP to Displacement ratio... but 3000-5000 HP out of a V8 is pretty sick..
It's impossible to say for sure... there is only so much an engine can take. But, like previously mentioned, if you got some big bucks burning a hole in your pocket and you know how to implement it, you could push some pretty big stuff with it...
------------------
1985 Camaro SC - 2.8L, auto.
Mods:
Removed air baffles, mandrel bent cat-back pipes (but stock replacment muffler, Dynomax Turbo and Catco converter are on thier way)
Supreme Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 13,414
Likes: 6
From: Central NJ, USA
Car: 1986 Firebird
Engine: 2.8 V6
Transmission: 700R4
Plus, one guy's idea of totally modified is different than anothers...
You've got a few differences between your early '82-'84 block and the later 85-up 2.8 blocks. Your '82 2.8's crank has 2 small middle journals. Starting in '85, the 2.8's got a large journal crank- all journals were sized the same, and that means the crank can take more strength. Another difference between your 2.8 and 85-up 2.8's (besides the obvious carburetion vs injection) is the heads- 85-up 2.8 heads had larger ports & valves. The last difference is that 85-up 2.8's got a camshaft with a more agressive (can you call a 2.8 cam "aggressive"???
) grind.
In fact because of the heads & cam & injection, the '85 2.8 was called the "High Output" 2.8. The HO designation was dropped for 1986. You can put the '85-up heads & stock cam into your engine, they'll fit.
I know it sucks, but don't expect figures of 200 HP out of the 2.8 without nitrous, or -very- expensive machine work. The 2.8's not meant for insane power. Of course, I'm not going to talk you out of doing it! I'm all for working up the V6- hell, I'm doing it myself. I'm just against the million-dollar BS I hear (supercharge it! turbo it! twin-turbo it!). I've yet to see proof of such claims- and with the cost involved, you could build one helluva powerful v8.
------------------
-Tom P (Hot rodded 1986 Firebird 2.8l) from http://www.f-body.net/mailbag/3rd/3rd_mailbag.html message boards
---Think your car could be pic of the week? Visit http://www.f-body.net for details!
[This message has been edited by TomP (edited June 08, 2001).]
You've got a few differences between your early '82-'84 block and the later 85-up 2.8 blocks. Your '82 2.8's crank has 2 small middle journals. Starting in '85, the 2.8's got a large journal crank- all journals were sized the same, and that means the crank can take more strength. Another difference between your 2.8 and 85-up 2.8's (besides the obvious carburetion vs injection) is the heads- 85-up 2.8 heads had larger ports & valves. The last difference is that 85-up 2.8's got a camshaft with a more agressive (can you call a 2.8 cam "aggressive"???
) grind.In fact because of the heads & cam & injection, the '85 2.8 was called the "High Output" 2.8. The HO designation was dropped for 1986. You can put the '85-up heads & stock cam into your engine, they'll fit.
I know it sucks, but don't expect figures of 200 HP out of the 2.8 without nitrous, or -very- expensive machine work. The 2.8's not meant for insane power. Of course, I'm not going to talk you out of doing it! I'm all for working up the V6- hell, I'm doing it myself. I'm just against the million-dollar BS I hear (supercharge it! turbo it! twin-turbo it!). I've yet to see proof of such claims- and with the cost involved, you could build one helluva powerful v8.
------------------
-Tom P (Hot rodded 1986 Firebird 2.8l) from http://www.f-body.net/mailbag/3rd/3rd_mailbag.html message boards
---Think your car could be pic of the week? Visit http://www.f-body.net for details!
[This message has been edited by TomP (edited June 08, 2001).]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
1984, 1986, 28, 28l, camaro, carbureted, engine, horsepower, hp, max, maxed, turbo, turbocharger, twin, v6
