anywhere in the 14s would be cool in a v6, I got a stick and I do pretty well, but with 4.11s, sh[i]t that would be quick, on the street.

 

I was just gonna say I know why you were saying 4.10 and not 4.11, cause for our rear end in the thirdgen the gears would be a 4.10

just how it is, not that our rear end is that small or weak but it only gets 4.10 gears no 4.11s for it.

 

i was looking on _____ and i did their gearratio for each gear and they gave me a chart. if i had stock gears there is no way i could run 3k@75, i tried the same thing but with 4.11 gears, and it came out to similar results of what i am running now.
here are the specs i pluged in:

tire size: 225/60r/15
final drive gear ratio: 4.11
5th gear ratio: 0.75

btw: 1-5 = all my gears
0-6000=rpmrange
numbers inside are the speed at that rpm/gear


1 2 3 4 5
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
500 3.6 5.3 7.3 9.6 12.8
1000 7.1 10.6 14.6 19.1 25.5
1500 10.7 16.0 21.9 28.7 38.3
2000 14.3 21.3 29.2 38.3 51.0
2500 17.9 26.6 36.5 47.9 63.8
3000 21.4 31.9 43.8 57.4 76.6
3500 25.0 37.2 51.1 67.0 89.3
4000 28.6 42.5 58.4 76.6 102.1
4500 32.1 47.9 65.7 86.1 114.8
5000 35.7 53.2 73.1 95.7 127.6
5500 39.3 58.5 80.4 105.3 140.4
6000 42.9 63.8 87.7 114.8 153.1

 

Where'd you get that chart? I could use one.. I'm running 235-60 15's with a 4 speed auto tranny and mine doesn't hit very higher than 30 mph in 1st gear...

 

i did the test again wiht regular gears and my current tires, here are the results with 3.42 gears:


1 2 3 4 5
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
500 3.9 5.9 8.0 10.5 14.1
1000 7.9 11.7 16.1 21.1 28.1
1500 11.8 17.6 24.1 31.6 42.2
2000 15.7 23.4 32.2 42.2 56.2
2500 19.7 29.3 40.2 52.7 70.3
3000 23.6 35.2 48.3 63.3 84.4
3500 27.5 41.0 56.3 73.8 98.4
4000 31.5 46.9 64.4 84.4 112.5
4500 35.4 52.7 72.4 94.9 126.5
5000 39.3 58.6 80.5 105.5 140.6
5500 43.3 64.4 88.5 116.0 154.7
6000 47.2 70.3 96.6 126.5 168.7

ok no way can i do 40 in 1st, there no fking way, 3rd wont even touch 65, and when my limiter hits at 4500rpm, there aint no way i doin almost 130

i am confusing the hell out of myself LOL, i dont know what i can do to fix my speedometer,
how can i get accurate speed readings?

 

Nixon1 , i got the chart from http://www.car-videos.com/tools/speedrpm.asp

 

Gears
rpms 1 2 3 4 5
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
500 3.8 7.1 11.6 16.6 14.9
1000 7.6 14.2 23.2 33.1 29.7
1500 11.4 21.3 34.8 49.7 44.6
2000 15.2 28.5 46.4 66.3 59.5
2500 19.0 35.6 58.0 82.9 74.4
3000 22.7 42.7 69.6 99.4 89.2
3500 26.5 49.8 81.2 116.0 104.1
4000 30.3 56.9 92.8 132.6 119.0
4500 34.1 64.0 104.4 149.1 133.8
5000 37.9 71.2 116.0 165.7 148.7
5500 41.7 78.3 127.6 182.3 163.6
6000
redline 45.5 85.4 139.2 198.9 178.5

This is what mine is SUPPOSED to look like. Now, 2nd gear sounds correct...but first is way too high. My car won't do 40 in first gear. MAYBE it'll do 35, but that's a pretty big MAYBE..it screams between 30 and 35. So..what the hell is going on with my tranny??? Lol. *** I wish my tach worked so I'd know anything for SURE.

PS-IGNORE fifth gear. I dont have fifth gear. Program punched it in for me for some reason...at 0.78.


I re-input the data, and the closest match I'm getting is 3.73. Hmm... Hey, anyone know where the numbers are stamped on the tranny? I'd like to run a check to make sure it's original...and is there a way to find out your rear end in the same fashion???

 

how can i get my guages recalibrated and my speedogears fixed so it reads correctly?

 

Well, if it's any consolation, I was running a 14.82 at 89.3 miles an hour in the quarter mile with a 2.8 V6/60 HO (140hp/175lbs stock) with a 4.10:1 Muncie 4-Speed FWD tranny.

It was in a 2,535 pound 1985 Pontiac Fiero GT 4-Speed. The tranny was "stock" but the internals, etc were all from a similar Muncie 4-speed from a 4-cyl Chevy Cavalier.

The engine at the time when I ran that at Moroso had about 150-155k miles on it. The engine was original, never opened either.


THe car had straight exhaust on it. It also was a completely bare-bones car, no options whatsoever extept "GT Interior" (cause it was a GT), Leather Steering wheel, WS6 Performance Suspension, and A/C. The A/C didn't work, so I removed it.

Great car that was.. I sold it with 163k miles on the motor.

Ran strong as hell.


The car originally came with 3.65:1 gears.


Todd

 

Checking is simple.
LOOK FOR OBVIOUS AS YOU LIFT UP THE CAR ON LIFT
Bolts chewed by "Tools". NEW OR DAMAGED Brake hose ends (at rear axle)
90% of time you have original stuff.
Why?
These V-6 rides were never meant for performance upgrades.
TRANNY MAY FIND
codes
MAY FIND
last SIX numbers from your rides VIN stamped on it next to a casting code area.
AND the USUAL date casting codes.
Simply
last number of a sequence will equal the year your ride WAS BUILT!
1985 MODEL YEAR ride
BUILT Sept 12,1984 (J124)
Rear axles ONLY HAVE casting DATE CODES and CASTING APPLICATION GEAR CODE and HAND STAMPED GEAR RATIO CODES.
Usually by center diff area.

All this is moot if previous owner "Did Something!"
In that case, again, look for the obvious. (extra goop at gasket seams).

 

actually, in carbureted form, the V6/60 was used in circuit track racing.

There are actually LOTS of performance parts offered for the V6/60.

Several different intakes available, roller rockers, multiple cams offered, etc.

NO where NEAR what the SBC has.. but still... there is stuff out there, you just have to find
it, and be able to afford it.

 

The ENGINE was used, yes.
Parts are only altered/adapted V-8 parts, in metric version (90%).
Specific parts are almost obsolete as there is no true profitable market.
Try to state me wrong, BUT go to any HI PO catalog & ask them for parts for an engine that is no longer REGULAR PRODUCTION OPTION assembly line available, as in TODAY & NOW. THE REAR WHEEL DRIVE VERSION ONLY (not the FWD in Buick Rendevous)
You can try, won't find truly much.
Let's start with street legal headers
EVEN WHEN THE V-6 60* powered CAR WAS BRAND NEW.
Headers were STREET LEGAL FOR THE TRUCKS!
Next is street legal superchargers for the 60* engines.
Let's keep going.
Turbos?
Only on a computer screen.
Dispute, but even back then the HI PO manufacture shummed this 60* market.
AND THE ONLY STREET LEGAL EPA APPROVED SUPERCHARGER was for the
S-10 Blazer a TRUCK LINE.
As Tom P pointed out, the EPA restrictions were much less strict on TRUCKS then the car lines.
You can state all ya want, won't truly find very much these days.
Except the wisest HI PO choice is
THE NEW OVER THE GM PARTS COUNTER 3.4 mill with warranty.
Add Hi Po ignition parts (and a distributor rebuild), clean 3.4 injectors and a decent tranny rebuild, decent exhaust system (freer flow "Y" pipe, CC & 2 1/2" I pipe, good muffler) and go.

 

Actually, the engine is still currently used in the Pontiac Grand Am GT, and the Oldsmobile Alero. It's also used in the Pontiac Aztec (as is the Buick), it's used in the Pontiac Grand Prix (base engine).

And as a matter of fact, GM sells the "Performance CRATE 3.4 V6/60" direct from their performance catalog.

There are MANY currently produced aftermarket parts for this engine that work for ALL versions of the motor.

Crane Cams makes TWO different cam-shafts for the computer controlled version of the motor, and they make 6 other different cams for the NON computer controlled versions. There are also two other companies that make cam-shafts for this engine and offer a number of different options. Crane Cams also sells two different sets of roller rockers.

Cloyes makes aftermarket performance timing chains / gears for the engine.



And just like a small block chevy, there are different style heads, some with more performance than others. Unfortunately, they are usually not interchangable between the different gens of engines. Gen 1, Gen 2, and Gen 3. However, you can change the ENTIRE engine between cars, regardless of the generation of motor.

Like, for example... one of the more common engine swaps for a Fiero is to take the 3.4 V6/60 from the earlier 4th generation Camaros and Firebirds. The engine drops RIGHT into place to replace the motor in the V6 Fiero (which is a 2.8 V6/60 FWD motor). The motor bolts right up. The only difference is that you need to relocate the starter, and have the new starter holes (provided already) be tapped.


Oh yeah, they sell aftermarket intake manifolds by Holley and Edelbrock.

The only thing you CAN'T find for this motor, are a good set of headers. Well, they make them, but the headers are easily accessible from the major catalog providers.

Anyway, I don't really see how a V6 camshaft for a V6/60 can be an "adapted" V8 part.

There are plenty of parts available for this engine, and the motor is almost as interchangable as the V8. However, it's obvious, that parts for this motor aren't as widely available as parts for the V8 SBC, not even close. But there are parts out there, they make them, continue to make them, and even more so now with as many cars using the motor as they do. Which by the way, like I said before, the FWD and RWD versions are completely interchangable. The usual only differences are flywheel, and starter locations.

However, to be completely honest, I don't see the point of rebuilding a 2.8 into a 3.1 or a 3.4 in an f-body. Unless you're VERY attached to the originality of the car and / or the engine, it's going to be VERY expensive to soup it up in comparisson to what it will be to buy / build a very mild 350 SBC.

By the way, SLP Performance offered a supercharger in the Pontiac Grand Prix GTX in 1989 on the V6/60. It was a factory option... like purchasing a RAM-AIR TransAm from the dealer.
They also produced a Turbo charged 2.8 V6/60 in the GrandAm in the mid 80s also.

Oh yeah, GM also sells an all aluminum V6/60 block for use as a Gen 1 or Gen 2 motor. It will accept both types of heads and can be bored as a 2.8/3.1 or a 3.4.

 

In addition, I almost completely forgot...

Companies like Federal Mogul and TRW also sell aftermarket parts for the V6/60. They sell Hyperutectic pistons and Forged pistons for all sizes...

2.8/3.1/3.4

They also sell each of these pistons in overbore sizes 10,20,30, and even 60 overbore.

NOS sells kits for the factory intakes and fuel rails. THey make all different kinds of piston rings, aftermarket and performance connecting rods, aftermarket crank-shafts, timing covers, waterpumps, distributors, you name it, they sell it.




By the way KED85, if you haven't already purchased donor motors for your two cars that you're doing engine swaps on, then you might want to consider going here..

http://www.engine-parts.com/GMV6/gm28stroker.html

they sell complete engine stroker kits to convert your 2.8 into a 3.1 or a 3.4 for $500 dollars. Comes with everything you need, connecting rods, pistons, rings, flywheel, etc. It's much cheaper to do it that way rather than buy a new motor.

Oh yeah, this is another good place where you can purchase aftermarket parts for the V6/60 like underdrive pulleys etc. They have listed over 40 different cam-shafts available for this engine.
http://www.s-series.org/htm/performance/60degree.php

here's another

https://www.spoperformanceparts.com/...html?CATID=172

 

Please don't confuse people about a FWD block vs the CORRECT FOR OUR F body RWD blocks.
I've bought used LOW MILAGE 3.4 (1995 Camaro/Firebird for $800 & the Blazer was a $900 item).
I got 44K & 50K used running motors.
Rebuilding a 60* V-6?
I plan to toss/throw away these 3.4 blocks when their life is thru.

The heads.
ONLY FOR RWD, THREE HEADS available & two versions are not worth rebuilding unless done real cheap!
NO ALUMINUM HEADS AVAILABLE for the REAR WHEEL ENGINE.
FWD stuff fit?
Sure if you have a big hammer & wallet. NOTHING LINES UP, CABLE ATTACHMENT, SENSORS OR ACCESSORIES (AC/comp, PS pump, alt.)
It's not worth using a FWD engine at all in the F bodies.
Why?
It's not the right answer when there are close to 100,000 plus of used 3.4 RWD engines available in wrecking yards for such fair price. Some here have grabbed them for $210 COMPLETE)
And the GM crate 3.4 (12,000 WARRANTIED) engine is only $1700.
YA CAN'T REBUILD ANY ENGINE FOR ONLY $1700 anymore, unless ya get stuff for free, including machining.
One person spent like THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS rebuilding a little 2.8. Big deal... many have bought complete running cars for way less than that. And they run for a long time, too!

Thanks for typing the suggestion, tho.
Love the help from friends here!

PS Once ya open the OLD little V-6 for cam work/head work, you might as well finish the job & get a complete 3.4 engine to slip in.
You'll never equal the 3.4 165 HP & 200 Foot Pounds of torque in a well built assembly line reliable engine.

Again the FWD 60* stuff is NOT the right answer for even considering placing under the RWD F body hood.

I only deal in Street legal stuff as I'm in CA & I work with the smog law rules (but bend them alot! just like any NASCAR race team).
Ya can argue alot, but the facts for the lack of RWD HI PO parts speak for themselves.
Paxton once offered a SC for the 60* RWD mill.
No longer, either.
INTAKE Manifolds?
Only for carb version & they are identical to the factory intake offering, differing in only an "Interchangable top piece for a factory 2 BBL/aftermarket not smog legal four barrel carb".
Big deal. The intake set up runs about $300+
The special small 390 CFM carb for the Edelbrock intake?
Try about $600 from Holley.

Like I've offered, there isn't much if anything truly unique HIPO for the 60* mills.
Never truly was (smog legal the only stipulation) unless ya step up to the factory offering of the RWD 3.4 mill (used running low milage mills or the factory Over The parts Counter crate engine).

 

I second this quote. $10-10.5 per horsepower is a damn good price range to be in for a new crate motor.

edit:I have never hear 4.11 refered to as 4.10's until this board. I grew up around racing here in so.cal since the late 60's

 

I grew up around racing here in so.cal since the late 60's.

Where the GREEN WITH ENVY GERBIL that works with that response!

:hail:

Merry Chrstmas!! AFGT!

PS all I can offer is that I STARTED READING (great education, too! along with the DC COMICS!) about the SOCAL racing scenes in the mid to late 60's.

Just received my 1956 Hot Rod mags & you should read those articles. What a privlidged treat to read & feel that energy from back then....

Back to today
These 60* things, work with a common sense budget, know when to toss away project cars & find a better foundation to play on the street.
The 60* mill is limited,
not entirely limitless (try the Chevy Small Block) in power & parts.
Keep that common sense budget & you'll do great! NOT LOTS OF POWER, but you can have some fun!

PSS In the 1956 Hot Rod mags tech question & answer section, they mention "4.1" gears, used/available in the 1956 Chevy rear ends. Chevy 1955 and prior rear axles were "unique" designs (quoting "Racer" Brown). Never knew/imagined that.

 

As far as I knew, 4.10 is the rear gear ratio that's made for a 10 bolt 7.5" or 7 5/8" rear, the ones on our 82-92 third gen's.

I believe the 4.11 ratios are only available for a "real" differential, like a Ford 9 or 9.5 inch, or a GM 8.2 or 8.5.

 

From Summit:
RMG-6903221, GM: 10-bolt, 7.5 in. ring gear, 4.10 ratio, ring and pinion set

From Richmond's catalog (richmondgear.com):

Page 8 of their catalog, under "7.5/7.625 street gear":
ratio: 4.10
teeth: 41-10
part #:69-0322-1
carrier: 3

From Strange (US Gear)'s website ( http://www.usgear.com/us_strange.htm )

10 Bolt G.M. (77-89) 7.5"
part #01-875410, 4.10 Ratio
part #01-875410X, 4.10 Ratio (Thick)
(I guess "thick" is used to make up the difference in carrier?)


I don't know how much I trust Randy's "chart"; he might've just left 4.10 out to make things easier. 'Fact, that Strange page lists 4.11's for Ford 8.8's & 9.0's and 9.5's, and GM 8.2's (10 bolt) and 8.8's (12 bolt). He doesn't show any 4.11's for a GM 8.5, so I guess I was wrong in my previous message.

 

KED85, I gotta disagree,

the INTERNALS of the 2.8/3.1/3.4 engine, First generation, REGARDLESS of FWD or RWD, are COMPLETELY interchangable.

As a matter of fact, the all cast iron 3.4 block from the Camaro / Firebird in the 4th gen is COMPLETELY interchangeable with the FWD 2.8 V6.

Like I said, the Pontiac Fiero IS Rear Wheel drive, but the engine / transmission is a Front Wheel Drive set-up. The exact same set-up found in the Chevy Baretta, the Cavalier, the Corsica, etc...

they're all interchangeable.

Do you not think that FWD cars have A/C, or alternators?

ALL V6/60 heads have accessory bolt holes on ALL sides, both sides of each head.

The only difference between the the RWD block and the FWD block in the first gen, are the starter bolt hole locations. The holes are even on the other side, they just need to be tapped.

If you wanted, you could RIGHT NOW, take a 3.4 V6/60 with 175hp and 215lbs of torque from the Pontiac GrandAm GT RAM_AIR 2002 car, and drop it into a mid 80s Camaro. Transmission will bolt right up to it, all you need is to keep the flywheel that came with that engine.

The engine mounts are the same, etc.

Normally I woulnd't care, people can believe what they want, but you're giving people wrong information. If someone came across a built up 3.4 from a FWD car for like $100 bucks, because of you, they might not buy it because you're telling them it won't work.


I've personally helped pull MANY engines from 4th gen f-bodies and helped drop them in Fieros, and I had one friend that was beefing up a completely stock looking Chevy Cavalier (boxy one) as a sleeper. He turbo'ed a 3.4 V6/60 that he pulled from a 4th gen camaro and dropped it in his Cavalier with the 5-speed german designed Getrag Front Wheel Drive manual transmission.

It bolted RIGHT up.


However, I DO think that 3.4 engine for $1,700 bucks is a decent deal, but I also think it's completely pointless building up a 2.8 V6/60 into anything so long as it's in a heavy car like the f-body. There's just no point when it's just as easy to drop in a small block chevy.

 

V-6 Internals, of course, are obvious.
The Fiero is a FIRST GENERATION FWD 60* MILL, only (from the factory).
The FWD blocks of the SECOND GEN won't EASILY swap over.
Again, it's way easier to just find the right engine.
THEN
you dont need to find the RWD 3.4 heads (SPECIAL & BETTER THAN the 3.1/2.8 ones).
Nor buy other stuff just to redrill some holes into an engine block.
Believe me I investigated alot before I bought/already swapped in my two 1995 Camaro 3.4 mills.
I even spied upon a Fiero place that does swap in the 3.4 mills to the Fieros. YET THEY USE THE RWD 3.4 MILLS ONLY.
If ya have a big wallet & hammer & lots of time, ya can install anything under a hood.
Using the right product from the beginnning of the entire project just makes common sense.
ESPECIALLY when there are so many 3.4 RWD mills out there. They are so easy to find. AND FAIRLY PRICED.
OF THE ATLEAST 30 PLUS PEOPLE I'VE COACHED/TOLD HOW TO SWAP THE 3.4 under their hoods (and everyone reports smiles for miles)
none have used/started a fwd mill. None.
The object of my 3.4 engine swap is to get it done quick and simple.
Not making the swap complicated, ever.

 

KED85, just for reference, the heads on the 2.8 V6/60 found in the Fiero actually ARE the High Output cyl heads. They are the same heads that GM Performance Parts sells as the PERFORMANCE REPLACEMENT HEADS, they are also the same heads that come with the 3.4 GM Performance engine, that's why the Fiero 2.8 V6/60 puts out 140hp stock rather than the 130 that the other 2.8s do.

Those heads on the Fiero motor are the same as the RWD motors that use those heads. Most commonly found only on the Fieros, and the 3.4 all cast iron engine.

 

Next time I see a V-6 Fiero in the yard, I'll check.
I REALLY DOUBT IT BUT WON'T DISAGREE
Why?
Think that head would not be used all across to lower cost?

What is the exact difference between the MPFI 2.8/3.1 head and the 3.4 heads used only on the SFI 3.4 mills of 1993 model year to mid-1995 F-bodies?
And offer the part casting number, I'll check it against my two 3.4 engines.

And I'd say the extra 10 hp is because of a better exhaust system used on a Fiero instead of the choked-up F body set up.
See the F body "Y" pipe to see why and don't forget the poorly designed cast iron manifold logs instead of "header exhaust style of Fiero V-6 60* engine bays".


And what is the true cost
of "just adding two holes to a 3.4 FWD engine and installing a starter and dropping the engine into the F body engine bay"?

Let's add.

Who has a drill, that is as large as their pinky, that can be used to just drill two holes
into an cast iron engine block? $

Who has the Drill to use that drill? $$$$

Who has the proper LONG METRIC tap tools for creating raw thread pattern, and the skill for doing it correctly, first time (ya goof & throw away block-oh, that's right helicoil it!)? $$$$

Who knows a machinist that will charge you lots of money to just drill two simple holes as large as you strip down the block and transport it to them and wait and wait until he has the time to drill these two simple holes? $$$$$$$$$$

Again, just find the right solution, easily located and enjoy the finished project, not recreate the wheel.

Let me know the head difference, then I'll just quote the correct answer from the $6 investment of the GM Performance Parts Catalog, available at ANY GM dealer.

Just for refernce, ask any GM dealer the part number for a 3.4 FWD engine block and the part number for a 3.4 1993 to mid 1995 RWD F body engine block.
I'd imagine they are completely different part numbers, too.

 

KED85,

The difference between the heads in the Fiero are that they come stock with the heads found on the 3.4 V6/60 cars.
The heads have 1.72 intake, and 1.42 exhaust sized valves, that's apposed to the standard heads that have 1.6 intake and 1.3 exhaust.

Also, as far as having machine work done, on most blocks, those holes are already there, you just need to tap them. In addition, normally, when you built an engine, you have to take it to a machine shop to have the cyls bored out to fit the new pistons, unless you're going with stock size, but if you get a used engine, why would you want to keep the factory pistons? The Cyl walls might be worn down. In either case, you have to take the engine to a machine shop, so you'd want to have them do it as well.

In any case, I mean.. heh, you don't have to believe me if you don't want to. Doesn't make a **** bit a difference to me. I'm just offering my advice. FYI, the throttle body, factory on the V6 Fiero is a larger throttle body than was found on all of the 80s GM V6/60 engines. It's a factory installed HOLLEY throttle body that's 52mm interior diameter.

However, the runners and lower intake for all 1st gen engines are exactly the same. The runners and intake manifold on your Camaro engine are exactly the same as mine. So you could technically grab a Fiero intake, and hook it up, the only problem is that if you hook it up, the intake will be facing the wrong direction (rear of the engine since it's longitudinally mounted, as apposed to the transverse configuration of the Fiero).


WHY didn't they offer this head for all V6/60s? Well... good question, I'm guessing A) because it was maybe a bit more expensive, and B) it uses more gasoline obviously, and this engine was usually used in cars for economic reasons.

The Fiero on the other hand, was Pontiac's new little child, so they wanted to do everything they could to make it fast.
And like I said, there are THREE accessory bolt holes drilled on each side of the engine heads, both on either side of each head, and these heads WILL fit your engine. They're cast-iron heads.


The only thing you can't do, is interchange 2nd gen aluminum V6/60 heads with cast-iron heads. or vice versa on a 1st gen.

The casting number is 14054884, and they are the same heads that come with the 3.4 V6/60 GM Performance Block.

 

2.8/3.1 60* RWD MPFI heads is casting number 14054884.
Quoting from GM Perf. Parts Book
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE between the
2.8/3.1 RWD MPFI HEAD
and a 3.4 RWD SFI head
is
The dual spring package to handle the higher RPMS of the better cam found in the 3.4 mills (which is almost identical to the Crane cam offering for the 60* mills).
Why?
GM farmed out this work to Crane for these 3.4 cams and spring packages.

The SFI RWD 3.4 heads have the-
"Valve spring that is used in the new 3.4 engine conversion package (P/N 12363230) & designed for moderate performance usage. Manufactured from Chrome silicon wire, spring pressure is 105 closed & 296 pounds open."
It is a Larger Valve Spring than the 2.8/3.1 spring used on the
CARB 2.8 heads
AND
MPFI Heads of the 2.8/3.1 RWD family ONLY.

The 60* V-6 left side head and right side head are interchangable.
Apparently you have not had the pleasure of removing the plug on the passenger side head of a 3.4 to insert the Fan Temp sensor used on the F body ECM cooling systems.
I just checked the side to side interchangability and the accessory holes comments and you are correct.
I, having swapped in TWO running 3.4 RWD mills, never take off heads. Why waste the time & gaskets?

I've coached every 3.4 swapper about that very very important passenger side cooling sensor detail.

In 1987, the 2.8/3.1 FWD heads received the 10166343 spring for the Series 2 FWD engines.

Now the Retainer for the 3.4 spring--
This retainer is used in the new 3.4 engine conversion package (#12363230).
Manufactured from 4140 heat-treated steel, this retainer has a diameter of 1.203" & is designed for use with a 11/32" stem. Use w/#12363215 spring.

What this means is that
the 3.4 heads HAVE MORE MEAT IN SPRING POCKET area, to handle the better stuff (better stronger larger springs, cam & more constant higher RPM abuse), than any 2.8/3.1 heads or any Carb'd 2.8 heads (Which always had a smaller valve & that head was never a subject of my comments).

Next, ya swap in a used running engine to escape rebuilding costs.

So why PLAN a visit to a machinist to begin with by purchasing the wrong FWD 3.4 mill?
That's why ya spend the extra bucks to get he lowest milage used running engine ya can find.
Ya open an engine for rebuilding and you just lost any economic advantage.
Rebuild a 3.4, including purchase cost, for under $1700 and include a warranty?
Not possible.

Blocks.....
I realized that the 3.4 FWD block will be a different part number (for the starter holes plus other details I am sure).

Again, always use the correct RWD stuff for your 3rd gen F body engine swap to better power and more smiles per mile.

Oh, if you try to make a 2.8/3.1 RWD MPFI head use the larger valve spring, guess what?
You'll hit water.

Intakes & throttle bodies
Fiero & F Body.
IF you decide to TRY to use a Fiero intake set up on your 3rd Gen 60* V-6,
guess where the TOP part of the three piece MPFI intake set up exits?
Exactly at the location of your 60* V-6 3rd Gen F Body alternator.

The TB.
The Fiero TB WAS FARMED OUT TO HOLLEY for manufacturing.
IT DOES SAY HOLLEY ON IT
Try to use it in a F Body application?
The Fiero/Holley TB has the virtually identical open size of the
2.8 MFI RWD TB Application.
The 2.8 FWD TB application (to 1987 model year)
The 3.1 RWD TB application
The 3.4 RWD TB application.
Whats different one asks?
Simple.
EVERY THROTTLE CABLE & WATER CONNECTION IS IN THE WRONG PLACE FOR ANY USAGE IN A RWD F BODY APPLICATION.
The closest way you can "make a Fiero/Holley YB work"
is to flip it upside down, but still NOTHING (except bolt up holes) lines up for the correct usage in the F Body MPFI application.
Plus when ya flip over the Fiero/Holley TB, ya loose the "Holley" logo.

Just offering facts from General Motors parts books and my personal visits to the local SoCal wrecking yards.

One visit
I found a V-6 Fiero & a 60* V-6 F body side by side.
I started "swapping the stuff" to find out the truth.
That's how I can honestly offer the answers about the intake & TB stuff.
And I measured an air inlet of the BUTTERFLY VALVE of Fiero/Holley TB & the wrecking yard F body TB for any difference.
NONE.
THEN I measured a 1995 3.4 TB RWD SFI 3.4 intake (F Body) at home, from my latest 3.4 swap project.
NO DIFFERENCE IN BUTTERFLY VALVE SIZE OPENING, also.
My reference was the TB found in my 1985 MPFI RWD Firebird "swapped-on" intake onto the 3.4 mill.

 

KED85,

The point that I was trying to make though is that the heads on the Pontiac Fiero ARE the same heads used on the 3.4s. The Fiero has a 2.8, but the heads are 3.4 heads.

THIS being the case, they have larger valves than ANY 2.8 or 3.1 engines found anywhere in the 1st and 2nd gen V6/60.

So what I was suggesting is that IF you decide to rebuild your 2.8, you can get one of those stroker kits (ARI RACING sells them), and snag a set of Fiero V6 heads.... rather than use the ones you already have on your engine.

Does that make sense?

The 2.8 that you right now have in your Camaro, the heads that I have in my Fiero have larger valves.

The heads have 1.72 intake, and 1.42 exhaust sized valves, that's apposed to the standard heads that have 1.6 intake and 1.3 exhaust.

That's the point that I'm trying to make.


By the way, here is a web page to a guy that I know...
This is his turbo'ed 1986 Fiero GT 5-speed. He snagged a 3.4 V6/60 from a front wheel drive minivan, rebuilt it with all kinds of performance parts, and turbo'ed it. He's putting out over 240 horsepower.

http://www.geocities.com/et1320n12/my_fiero


And by the way KED, I'm not sure what you're trying to do... I guess you're just trying to prove me wrong, but you're not helping anyone out by doing that.

You are completely wrong about the intake plenum.

The intake plenum on the V6 Fiero points to the REAR of the engine. It would be perfect for a COWL induction set-up. You were clearly hooking it up wrong, while it DOES look like you can reverse the way the middle intake or the plenum sits on the middle intake, there really is only one way to install it. AND the Fiero intake points to the REAR of the engine, not the side of the engine that has the accessories on it. I know this for a fact, if you had REALLY looked at a Fiero, you would have noticed that the throttle body is pointing to the drivers side of the Fiero (where the transmission attaches). That's also where the air induction scoop is on the side of the car. The accessories of the engine are on the passenger side.

In addition, there IS a difference between the Holley throttle body and the Camaro throttle body. What you may have measured were the openings... that's WRONG. What you have to measure are the size of the throttle plates. You are incorrect by saying that they are the same. The throttle plate is 52mms on the Fiero, and 49 on the Camaro / Firebird.

And honestly, I'm trying to be patient, which is why I don't understand what you're trying to prove here... you say that all the hookups for the cooling tubes, and the EGR stuff are in the wrong place??? How hard is it to go out and purchase a longer piece of vacuum line, or a longer piece of coolant tube to hook it up?

By the way, it IS all in the same spot too, because on the Fiero throttle body, the lines run the entire length of the intake plenum, and come out in the FRONT of the engine, in the same place where the coolant lines do on the Camaro / Firebird engine. They attach to the throttle body in the front, and then run the entire length of the motor to the back.

Anyway, Having the throttle body face the rear would be awesome for a cold-air cowl induction set-up.

There is also a place that bores out Fiero throttle bodies from 52mm to 57mms. They charge only $100 bucks.

 

I think you guys are coming across from different angles, though. Karl's always pushed the "remove 3.4 from junkyard, install 3.4 in your f-body" as the budget swap, to bring a ton of life back into an old tired 82-92 thirdgen. You're talking about actually hopping the 2.8 block up, which will cost more money from the start.

The swaps would probably cost the same amount of coin if someone were to pull a 3.4 from the junkyard, REBUILD IT FIRST, and then install it in their f-body.

I'm partial to the 2.8, and plan on rebuilding it (and not throwing a 3.4 in), but we all know I'm not completely sane. I'd like to prove to myself that it's the 244,000 miles on my 2.8 that's slowing me down in the 1/4 mile, and not my own inability to mod my car. (sigh) And for the rebuild, I'm not even planning on putting any kind of stroker kit in. Biggest mod I want from an engine-standpoint? Getting an '87 2.8, so it's internally balanced, to make my life easier.

KED mentioned something else before about the throttle linkage for the Holley TB not being in the same spot as the F-body linkage... meaning I can't throw the Fiero TB on my F-body's plenum. Can anything be moved or maybe, new throttle cables used?

Question; how would using larger valve springs require modifying the heads? Are these larger as in thickness or length or in strength? I thought valve springs didn't require any mods. And wouldn't bigger valves springs just be required for a combination using Both a high-lift cam And high-ratio rocker arms, to prevent valve float?

 

Yeah, you can purchase new throttle cables and such. The only real reason why you'd want to go with the Fiero's intake is because A, it's larger, and B) if you were going with some sort of cowl set-up. IE: like if you were trying to hook up one of those Cowl TransAm hoods with your 2.8.

As far as the heads go, it's not just thicker meat for the valve springs, the valves are actually larger too.

The heads on the Fiero ARE the same heads found on the cast iron 3.4 V6/60s. Thus, making them better heads than you have on your 2.8 right now as it stands.

By the way, there are a lot of cool aftermarket cam-shafts that you can purchase other than Crane Cams.

The MAF system that the f-body uses is a lot easier to handle when upgrading things like the cam, etc. The Fiero, on the other hand, uses a MAP + MAT sensor combination to calcualte the amount of incomming air. It measures the manifold absolute pressure, as well as the temperature of the air to do it's incomming air calculations. It's just something that Pontiac has always done in the past with their other cars... before the corporate standard that is.

The Fiero missed the buck passing because the car had originally been designed in early 1979.

In any case, there are several things you can do...

If you really just want to improve performance of your engine, and you're too scared to pull the motor (not you, I mean anyone in general), going with the Fiero heads is a good way to go.
Or going with any 3.4 cast iron engine heads for that matter.

Anyway, I just purchased earlier this morning a Phase 2 cam from ARI Racing, great store, great customer service, and they'll take the time to answer ANY questions you may have too.

www.engine-parts.com

 

Friend Todd.
I'm out to offer correct information.

OF COURSE the Carb 60* V6 heads VALVES are only sized at the size ya mentioned.
AND MY DISCUSSION NEVER REFERRED/DEALT WITH THE CARB'D 60* mills.

ALL MPFI & SFI HEADS have the larger sized valves.
ALL THE MPFI & SFI HEAD VALVES ARE IDENTICAL IN SIZE
NONE larger NOR smaller.
ONLY the 3.4 HEADS have MORE MEAT IN THE SPRING POCKET AREA TO HANDLE THE LARGER VALVE SPRINGS & RETAINERS NECESSARY FOR THE BETTER PERFORMING CAM ASSEMBLY.
You cannot make a 2.8/3.1 head FIT the larger 3.4 valve SPRINGS. You'll hit the water pockets of those 2.8/3.1 heads.
Read what I typed DIRECTLY FROM A GM PUBLICATION.
That's my source of information.

One can easily turn the FIERO intake TOP PART ONLY around and have fit & have the air inlet point toward the passenger sided rear wheel.
WHY?
Cause it will still fit the middle part and be able to be bolted down.

Again, being at the yard & these two subjects side by side, I just layed the FIERO top intake part on top of a 3rd Gen 60* V-6 & examined. That's how I KNOW the FIERO intake air inlet is POINTED DIRECTLY AT THE ALTERNATOR LOCATION WHEN PLACED INTO THE F BODY ENGINE BAY.
IF YOU WANT TO TURN EVEN A 3rd Gen TOP PART INTAKE AROUND (to face firewall of engine bay), you can certainly do that.
But why....

I have a Firebird (shows you're not through in your research/reading for answers).
I have a running 3.4 in the Firebird, currently coaching a 3rd Gen person on a 3.4 swap now and again coached and helped atleast 30 people installing 3.4 mills in their F Bodies.
I throw away the 2.8 & 3.1 engines.
Just not worth the time nor money to rebuild.

Ya swap in the correct answer & be gone & smile for miles.

I'LL BACK UP ANY of my responses with
a visit to a subject for more knowledge (my two 60* V-6 powered rides outside)
Or a visit to the wrecking yard
or the true facts, information offered from a GM brochure or the parts catalogs.
AND actually having done two 3.4 swaps.
With my coaching all the 3.4 swappers report a proper running engine.
Not side street knowledge.
ALL I OFFER ARE FACTS CORRECTLY PRESENTED, that's all.

The TB issue.
IF YA WANNA go buy cables or recreate a wheel just to put a TB with "Holley" logo on your 60* V-6 ride, I've got lots of "Holley" stickers you can have for free. IF ya wanna bore the TB larger, performance gain will be negliable if any gain at all.
The Fiero TB will ONLY BOLT ONTO a F Body top intake manifold. That's the only "fit" that works. Rest of any cable hook ups are totally in wrong place for use in the F Body.

Todd some of your statements are incorrect, have holes and are based on hearsay.

My 1985 PONTIAC F Body has the exact same computer timing/air sensor set up (MAS) as a Chevy Camaro (except the Firebird uses a hard plastic bend piece).

IF you want to spend alot of money/time making a FWD 3.4 mill, using 2.8/3.1 heads & old smaller valve springs, smaller valve guides, using Fiero intake parts, to work in a F Body application, enjoy.

I'll inform the rest of the board friends the correct and much simpler way to accomplish more power & a quicker return to the road.

For $6 you'll have much better answers (From a GM engineer) than your sources.
I'd never stroke a 2.8 into a 3.4
WHY?
Ya can't.
Where's/What's my source for the answer?
The GM performance parts catalog.
It is a well known FACT you cannot make a 2.8-3.1 block into a 3.4.
Exactly why?
Go invest and throughly read GM Performance Parts Catalog that costs $6 for the CORRECT ANSWER from a GM ENGINEER.

Again, I toss out facts and correct statements, backed up by GM engineers and doing the swap projects TWICE.

I am not sure I know of ARI racing.

A while ago, on ebay, there was some company offering "stroker kits" to make a 3.4 mill from any 60* engine.
No, not possible nor is it correctly done. These stroker kits will cost way more than just find the correct solution, the 3.4 RWD mill.

I paid $800 & $900 for a running low milage 3.4 engine that I slipped in.
No maching cost, nor breaking down a small 2.8/3.1 mill engine hoping teh machining & rebuilding will create a 3.4 that will be reliable not cantankerous.

Besides, one day in the future, if I do want to rebuild my 3.4 mills, I have orignal standard sized bores to go forward from, not needing to toss the away an engine block that can no longer be bored larger for an engine rebuild.

When you create a stroker engine, heating also becomes an enemy.
WHY, as in where is the metal to open the cylinder bore taken from?
That answer results in metal removed from the cylinder wall protecting the engine block water passage.
Thus the engine is now more prone to overheating.

The board members want to see pics of this Fiero FWD 3.4 Turbo conversion.
Me?
I only see 60* V-6 turbos set ups on a computer graphics program. Not one in person yet.

 

Karl, why? What machining would have to be done to the heads? Does the book say how much wider the 3.4 spring diameter is? I've got 2 sets of 2.8 heads in the basement I could look at! I'd have that book by now if the dealership parts department didn't always close so early; and forget about me getting up early on Saturday to go!

And wait a minute... stroker = overheat because you take metal from the bores? I thought a stroked motor meant the crank had a longer throw, no overboring necessary. I thought the 3.1 holes were the same size as the 2.8 holes; no?

Todd, I checked out some of the other 2.8 cams that were available, a while ago.. might've been some new ones out, but I'm still thinking Crane because they seem to be the closest to being emissions legal. (I bet they would be, if CARB didn't throw out all that red tape and expense just to get a damned executive order #!) They make us run on the dyno now in NJ.. they give us the ASM-5015 test, which is 50% load at 15 mph, for checking emissions, and I'd rather not be pulling a cam to just pass emissions. So I think my "risk" will be with the Crane cam... gawd help me if I gotta pull that one out to pass emissions!

 

Oh yah, and Todd, the MAF method was only used on 85-89 2.8's. For the 90-92 f-bodies, GM moved to the speed density stuff.

I've yet to see any of this Fiero stuff up close; all the Fieros I've seen were 4 cyl models. Found a 6 cyl exhaust manifold on the ground once; only knew it from the pictures I'd seen on the 'net.. much better designed than our f-body exhaust manifolds.

 

From what I can say..

as I ain't the engineers...

The heads were just recast/redesigned to have the more meat in the valve spring pocket area.
When the machining process is done on the 3.4 heads, it's set up for the larger spring.
Let me offer words from a GM publication the GM Power book.

This information was released before the 3.4 became available in any model year vehicles produced by GM. Yet still pertains where this discussion has progressed.

Valve Springs & Retainers.
For any hydraulic profile cams up to .420" lift, the production V-6 springs & retainers are sufficient (one assumes low milage springs).
For mechanical cam profiles with up to .560" net valve lift Chevrolet DUAL SPRING part number 330585 (sized at 1.379" diameter) & aluminum retainer part # 330586 may be used.
THE VALVE SPRING POCKET WILL HAVE TO BE ENLARGED & DEEPENED TO ACCOMODATE THIS SPRING.
The nominal installed spring height is 1.72" @which the load is 135#.
For good oil economy a separate intake valve stem seal is required such as is sold by most hot rod shops for installation on the valve guide.

To handle the higher demands placed upon the spring from a more aggressive cam, the spring must have more meat & space to operate.
The 3.4 head has that extra meat built/cast into it, for the larger necessary 3.4 spring assembly.
Ya just can't install a larger spring into a older head and expect the head to not leak water.

That's the only true difference between the 2.8/3.1 MPFI heads & the 3.4 heads.
This is exactly why the 3.4 head will have a different casting number than the 2.8/3.1 head.

Believe me, I'm not trying to dump on someone/ANYONE (to much anger already in the world-off soap box now!) or be "smarter", just passing the correct information provided by the GM engineering staff & the publication/tech writers.

UNFORTUNATLY, my publications do not have the size of the smaller 2.8/3.1 spring for comparison.
My books only offer me the size of the 3.4 valve springs to pass along and a different part number for the earlier used 2.8/3.1 valve springs.

ALSO when the Crane Cam is installed into the 2.8/3.1 package, GM calls out that the larger spring should be used to be able to handle the higher RPMS.


All this ends up that..

The 3.4 mill as a complete item, is a top of the line GM designed hot rod mill.
It has all the good stuff all the right stuff to handle the extra performance pressure GM desinged into it.
YET compared to many new 2003 vehicles engines, this 3.4 mill is so old school.