Tech / General Engine Is your car making a strange sound or won't start? Thinking of adding power with a new combination? Need other technical information or engine specific advice? Don't see another board for your problem? Post it here!
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: CARiD

Is the RS a bad platform?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 21, 2006 | 01:20 PM
  #101  
vorgath's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,701
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA
Car: 1991 Camaro RS
Engine: LO3
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.42 LS1
Zion,

did you ever check the block casting numbers ???
Reply
Old Jan 21, 2006 | 01:44 PM
  #102  
Zion's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: Canadia
Car: 1991 RS
Engine: 90' TPI 305
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: posi disc 3.23's
Originally posted by SLEEPER 86
if you decide to change the cam just get what fel-pro calls a "head kit" it will have all the gaskets you need.
i would also highly reccomend a new timing chain as well,my favorite personally being the cloyes "true roller".just remember there are three different ways to mount it,advanced 4*,straight up,and retarded 4*.straight up is just fine.read and follow the directions.
by the time you get the manifold off,all that is left to change the cam is to pull the water pump(another good thing to replace while you're there,timing cover,timing chain,timing gears(you'll need a puller,but they're cheap,and you'll use it over and over),lifters,and cam.
too bad you're in canada,i have a set of '601 heads you could practice porting on that i would give ya!i also have an rpm manifold(non vortec)i'd sell pretty cheap,it needs a water outlet heli-coiled(easy),but it is otherwise in perfect shape.do you have center bolt valve covers?i forget,and don't want to re read the whole post!if not,i also have a set of chromed tall chevy covers along with the T shaped hold downs,washers,and chrome spreaders that really make a stock engine 'pop'.all for sale cheap,P/M me!
looks like this post is gonna make it to 100 replys!LOL!
Eric B
Yeah i have the centerbolt.

WHY DONT YOU LIVE IN CANADA!


Yeah i figured it would be more around the $200 range. Thats alright though. Cam swap sounds easier then i thought...



EDIT: I havent checked the casting numbers yet. This is Iroc22's old engine, so ill ask him what it was.
Reply
Old Jan 21, 2006 | 04:31 PM
  #103  
1991CamaroRslow's Avatar
Supreme Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,833
Likes: 0
From: Cincinatti OH
Car: 1991 L03 700r4 RS
Engine: 1987 WS6 Trans AM Lb2
Transmission: Th350 red neck Performance 3k stall
Axle/Gears: 95 Mustang 8.8 built with 3.73s
If you have a TPI engine you already have a superior cam to the TBI cam. I would save the cam swap for when you take the engine apart and do heads etc. Exhaust, intake, gears and posi then you can practice some prom tuning on it. If you can't hit 14's on this combo something's dead wrong.
Reply
Old Jan 21, 2006 | 04:50 PM
  #104  
Zion's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: Canadia
Car: 1991 RS
Engine: 90' TPI 305
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: posi disc 3.23's
Originally posted by 1991CamaroRslow
If you have a TPI engine you already have a superior cam to the TBI cam. I would save the cam swap for when you take the engine apart and do heads etc. Exhaust, intake, gears and posi then you can practice some prom tuning on it. If you can't hit 14's on this combo something's dead wrong.

sweet!

what kind of 14's?

low? *crosses fingers*
Reply
Old Jan 21, 2006 | 05:05 PM
  #105  
1991CamaroRslow's Avatar
Supreme Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,833
Likes: 0
From: Cincinatti OH
Car: 1991 L03 700r4 RS
Engine: 1987 WS6 Trans AM Lb2
Transmission: Th350 red neck Performance 3k stall
Axle/Gears: 95 Mustang 8.8 built with 3.73s
I would have to say yes. Better intake, headers and 3in exhaust, 3.73 gears and a posi, I would put money on it I could get this combo deep into the 14's without much effort. After that I would buy a nitrous kit for the carb intake I swapped on and spray the thing into the low 13's or 12's until it exploded dramatically
Reply
Old Jan 21, 2006 | 05:11 PM
  #106  
Zion's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: Canadia
Car: 1991 RS
Engine: 90' TPI 305
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: posi disc 3.23's
dramatically? i like the sounds of this...

lol


seriously though, i think this will be my plan of action. Should i start a new thread now to find the best setup of those parts and installation?
Reply
Old Jan 21, 2006 | 05:15 PM
  #107  
vorgath's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,701
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA
Car: 1991 Camaro RS
Engine: LO3
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.42 LS1
Why don't ya do a

Last edited by vorgath; Jan 21, 2006 at 05:17 PM.
Reply
Old Jan 21, 2006 | 05:30 PM
  #108  
Zion's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: Canadia
Car: 1991 RS
Engine: 90' TPI 305
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: posi disc 3.23's
there is to much information on these boards!!!


besides, everyone kept telling me to start one...
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2006 | 10:37 AM
  #109  
Zion's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: Canadia
Car: 1991 RS
Engine: 90' TPI 305
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: posi disc 3.23's
does anyone know if my engine could handle a 50 wet shot mulitple times after all the other mods that have been mentioned are on?
Reply
Old Jan 26, 2006 | 03:56 PM
  #110  
kdrolt's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 849
Likes: 2
From: MA
Car: 93 GM300 platforms
Engine: LO3, LO5
Transmission: MD8 x2
Originally posted by sofakingdom
... Especially considering that his claims should be published in The Journal Of Irreproducible Results; since no one has ever, to my knowledge, been able to reproduce them, or has even come remotely close.


Dyno Don ported 193 the (350) casting lightly and briefly, and posted the results on TGO before anyone else did. He obtained 196/183 cfm. Stock was 178/146 cfm.

On the same head type, Fast355 got 224/216 cfm with more porting effort.

HRM (via Westech porting) got 208/190 cfm on 4.3 v6 heads. Stock was 135 cfm on the intake side. A 4.3 is 3/4 of a 350, so the results are applicable to the comparison with the two above (both 350s).

That's three different tests by three different people on the same basic GM head design. The results are not identical, but then again the porting level/effort on each was not done identically so no surprise there. The trend, however, is clear in a peer review sense. The results have been reproduced and they are more than remotely close. And they're close to par with ported iron TPI heads.

Last edited by kdrolt; Jan 26, 2006 at 06:46 PM.
Reply
Old Jan 26, 2006 | 04:35 PM
  #111  
sofakingdom's Avatar
Supreme Member
20 Year Member
Community Builder
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 27,899
Likes: 2,437
Car: Yes
Engine: Usually
Transmission: Sometimes
Axle/Gears: Behind me somewhere
Problem with porting swirl-port heads is, you gotta grind about a half-pound of metal out of each intake port, to get rid of the swirl-port ramp. Then once you do that, the rest of the head isn't too much different from any other head.

Where you run into trouble, is that porting costs money. Time, lots of it; and if you want those big numbers, it needs to be time from somebody that knows what they're doing.... and those people aren't cheap. So you pay for lots and lots of hours, and they're mighty expensive hours. Except just for the "thrill" of getting swirlies to run good, you're money ahead - LOTS of it - to get better castings to start with. Junk stock castings are cheaper than flow bench time.
Reply
Old Jan 26, 2006 | 06:08 PM
  #112  
kdrolt's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 849
Likes: 2
From: MA
Car: 93 GM300 platforms
Engine: LO3, LO5
Transmission: MD8 x2
Originally posted by sofakingdom
Problem with porting swirl-port heads is, you gotta grind about a half-pound of metal out of each intake port, to get rid of the swirl-port ramp.


Really? You must know this from experience then, with your scientific background. You've claimed ramp removal and a half pound of metal. Applying science to your claims:

A half pound is approx 226.8 grams.
Iron density is roughly 7.8 g/cc

So you're talking about removing 29 cc from each intake port (226.8/7.8). Stock ports are approx 168 cc, so by your "argument" the port size would go up from 168 to 197 (168+29) cc.

That's a big jump in port volume, which is a problem because no one that's ported them has removed the swirl ramp. It makes no sense to do that (they'd become the functional equivalent of iron TPI heads, which you could have started with had you bought them) and you lose the benefit of the swirl in combustion speed.

So ramp removal is overstated by you (no one has done that), and you also overstated the mass or volume of the metal removal.

Example as proof:
Dyno Don, who actually ported a set of 193s, said he removed about 7 cc worth of iron in this thread. 7 cc is a lot less than 29 cc.

Where you run into trouble, is that porting costs money.


Sorry but it's no trouble, and the cost isn't large if it's DIY porting. Most people, especially people that own budget 20-year-old 3rdgen Fcars instead of new Corvettes, wouldn't spend the money to have someone else port them.

Time, lots of it; and if you want those big numbers, it needs to be time from somebody that knows what they're doing.... and those people aren't cheap.


Porting any heads, incl 416/081/083 iron heads, will also take time. There are threads on TGO that already prove it. And again, people on TGO with ported heads have them mostly because they ported the heads themselves. So the porting=money argument is, like your other points, a weak one.

Last edited by kdrolt; Jan 26, 2006 at 06:51 PM.
Reply
Old Jan 26, 2006 | 08:25 PM
  #113  
vorgath's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,701
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA
Car: 1991 Camaro RS
Engine: LO3
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.42 LS1
Do most people actually <b>totally</b> remove the ramp in the stock swirl intake ports ?




Zion,
strip some pounds of the car. I would actually try to do some "body work" i.e. actually chassis work, so you can end up with a finished weight of the car.

Ever since I removed my entire backseat assembly I've noticed more body flex sound. Roll cage and subframe connectors will add weight.

Last edited by vorgath; Jan 26, 2006 at 08:28 PM.
Reply
Old Jan 26, 2006 | 08:54 PM
  #114  
ShiftyCapone's Avatar
Supporter/Moderator
25 Year Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 13,757
Likes: 560
From: Cincinnati, OH
Car: '90 RS
Engine: 377 LSX
Transmission: Magnum T56
Originally posted by sofakingdom
I was educated in various scientific type disciplines, and the guiding principle in all forms of REAL research is, no matter how much of a breakthrough you have come up with, it has to be able to be duplicated by others. If it can't, then part of the task of "peer review" is to figure out where the unverifiable results came from.
I too took those courses and had the same outlook as you. About a year and a half ago I couldn't have agreed more. I may have been the biggest skeptic of them all at one point. Then people like Fast355, kdrolt, dyno don, Dewey316 started developing trends and started to produce flow, track, and dyno data to validate their claims. Then they backed it up with Fast355 running 15.5's in a 5500lb van and Dewey making almost 300hp on untouched 187 heads with a full exhaust, mild cam and tuning (ran 13.9 with same combo). They went into great detail about their combo's, theories, flow data, track data, and dyno data. The hearsay that I previously took at face value didn't have any hard data to contradict them. I had a hard time accepting it because to many people for so many years had bashed these heads. It was easy to hop on their wagon. I am not saying these heads are great by any means, and they are limited for all out performance, but the data produced thus far does not indicate that a TPI or stock untouched vortec head is that much better for a budget build. I realize that vortec heads have great flow out of the box but they come at some cost ($300 to $500 + intake). Our peer review has concluded that chip tuning is the bottleneck for all TBI modders. It has plagued the TBI crowd for two decades because people never truly took the time to understand it and learn it. They would throw miss matched parts at these motors and fail to do the necessary tuning. It was easy to blame the heads after you replace everything but them. There is a some great new stuff in the DIY PROM world which makes tuning these cars easier. More and more trends are starting to be seen as the afore mentioned people educate us on tuning and swirl port porting. This is an exciting time for budget LO3/LO5 builds.

Originally posted by sofakingdom
87 was the first year of center-bolt valve covers; 416s use perimeter-bolt. With a possible exception of some VERY EARLY production slipping out the door with last year's motor, no 87s would have had early-model heads. Likewise for 187s on 87 cars.
That was a bad typo on my behalf and I did mean '88. There are a few original owners of '88 LO3 cars with 416's and one or two '92 cars with 081's. I have no reason to doubt them and they are here somewhere in the archives of TGO.

Last edited by ShiftyCapone; Jan 26, 2006 at 09:59 PM.
Reply
Old Jan 26, 2006 | 09:07 PM
  #115  
1991CamaroRslow's Avatar
Supreme Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,833
Likes: 0
From: Cincinatti OH
Car: 1991 L03 700r4 RS
Engine: 1987 WS6 Trans AM Lb2
Transmission: Th350 red neck Performance 3k stall
Axle/Gears: 95 Mustang 8.8 built with 3.73s
I would have to agree on the tuning side with these cars. I didn't tune my 91 RS but I did up the fuel pressure and manually advance the timing, this made a literal WORLD of difference with my other mods (exhaust and no air cleaner, no I didn't run it this way just played with it). The fuel pressure and timing mods were basically a "band aid" fix for good tuning. There's also a bunch of stuff you can do to those TBI units to get them flowing alot better (grinding off the big walls in front of the bores, grinding down the throttle shaft, putting in 3 or so injector spacers). I have 2 or 3 of them hanging around just in case I ever get a hankering to mod on one. BTW I sold the adjustable fuel pressure regulator I made for one to a kid in an 88 Firebird with a TBI and it made a huge difference in his car. In Zions case however we must keep in mind he DOES NOT have the swirl port heads anymore, he now has the 305 TPI heads, cam, and block. This is going to make his car respond much better to the smaller mods he can do and I'm sure it's in need of a chip tune.
PS This thread is massively long and has changed topics like it has ADHD. I hate to admit it but I keep coming back to it like it's crack I'm surprised one of the mods hasn't closed it yet.
Reply
Old Jan 26, 2006 | 09:53 PM
  #116  
kdrolt's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 849
Likes: 2
From: MA
Car: 93 GM300 platforms
Engine: LO3, LO5
Transmission: MD8 x2
Originally posted by vorgath
Do most people actually <b>totally</b> remove the ramp in the stock swirl intake ports ?
No!

I already said it above --- no one that I have ever seen, or heard of, has removed the ramp entirely. No one. It would be a massive undertaking that even I would not attempt to justify.

Anyone that hard-over on ramp removal should just get rampless ordinary iron heads to begin with (contemporary example: 083 casting from an iron head L98)

Most of the owners on TGO that have ported heads, any heads, have not paid others to do the porting work. They've done it themselves.
Reply
Old Jan 26, 2006 | 10:29 PM
  #117  
vorgath's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,701
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA
Car: 1991 Camaro RS
Engine: LO3
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.42 LS1
That's why I asked, because I have an extra LO3 in the garage and I was going to port the heads.
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2006 | 12:05 AM
  #118  
Zion's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: Canadia
Car: 1991 RS
Engine: 90' TPI 305
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: posi disc 3.23's
what should i advance the timing too on this new block?

also, is there anyone that has already tuned this engine/injection that i could get a chip burned from? Becuase i have a seriously ran out of time for that sort of thing.

Im getting really excited about the possibilities i have now, i cant wait to start adding parts!


will i need this fuel pressure regulator if im tuning the prom ? or does the computer take over instead?
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2006 | 03:10 AM
  #119  
vorgath's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,701
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA
Car: 1991 Camaro RS
Engine: LO3
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.42 LS1
Correct me if I'm wrong:

1) Adjustable fuel pressure regulator will be needed.

2) Learn to burn chips, very unlikely someone else will have the very same EXACT engine, including induction system, engine block, heads, cam .. similar yes.. exactly same .. no way

Advance it to probably anywhere between 4 and 8
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2006 | 02:00 PM
  #120  
Zion's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: Canadia
Car: 1991 RS
Engine: 90' TPI 305
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: posi disc 3.23's
i put it to 6.
is it normal that when i start the car it revs erratically for a few seconds then stabilizes?
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2006 | 04:25 PM
  #121  
1991CamaroRslow's Avatar
Supreme Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,833
Likes: 0
From: Cincinatti OH
Car: 1991 L03 700r4 RS
Engine: 1987 WS6 Trans AM Lb2
Transmission: Th350 red neck Performance 3k stall
Axle/Gears: 95 Mustang 8.8 built with 3.73s
The weird revving is due to the larger cam, mine did it when I ran the 110 LSA cam, I had to bump the idle up to get it to not die when it was warmed up, you WONT have to do this you have a fuel injection friendly cam, it's just not the same as the TBI cam. You need to do the adjustable regulator it's free and you'll know you did something. Did you ever start a new thread on this? You should start the thread "TBI on a TPI long block" and tell us what all you have done already (I know it's in your sig somewhere but have you done anything new etc.). Do you have exhaust yet? Bumping the timing and fuel pressure regulator are free so you should do those asap and tell us how it reacts to this. Also did you get the prom burning stuff yet? With the TBI you can pull your chip directly out, this will help alot; but remember you need a UV eraser to erase those proms and DEFINETLY get a spare in case you mess one up (I have one here with a broken off leg, junk now).
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2006 | 04:44 PM
  #122  
Zion's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: Canadia
Car: 1991 RS
Engine: 90' TPI 305
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: posi disc 3.23's
FINE!


i made a new topic
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=343158

Last edited by Zion; Jan 27, 2006 at 04:49 PM.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AmpleUnicorn88
Brakes
32
Nov 18, 2015 11:02 AM
3rdgenkindagal
Aftermarket Vendor Review
25
Oct 21, 2015 09:32 AM
Hill1513
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
0
Sep 19, 2015 04:15 PM
gta892000
Electronics
1
Sep 16, 2015 12:40 AM
ericjon262
Engine Swap
7
Sep 11, 2015 06:07 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:52 PM.