why the hell?
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Doward
It's all about airflow... increase your V6's VE, and you'll make more power.
It's all about airflow... increase your V6's VE, and you'll make more power.
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
From: California
Don't forget about the Mazda RX-8 (1.3L makes 250hp) 
They're newer engines...more sophisticated (hope I spelled that right). They run at higher compression, most are DOHC, have valve timing, use higher octane, etc. It's not just one component that makes'em better. It's every component.
The GM 2.8 v6, I think, has a 8.5:1 compression. But if you love your 2.8, then had aftermarket cams, heads, chip, etc. You could be looking at 80hp's more if you change the cam and heads alone. The stock heads, cam, (not sure about intake) are AWFUL.
Akshay
89 RS T-5
They're newer engines...more sophisticated (hope I spelled that right). They run at higher compression, most are DOHC, have valve timing, use higher octane, etc. It's not just one component that makes'em better. It's every component.
The GM 2.8 v6, I think, has a 8.5:1 compression. But if you love your 2.8, then had aftermarket cams, heads, chip, etc. You could be looking at 80hp's more if you change the cam and heads alone. The stock heads, cam, (not sure about intake) are AWFUL.
Akshay
89 RS T-5
Last edited by Akshay; May 4, 2003 at 06:34 PM.
Trending Topics
Supreme Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,827
Likes: 1
From: Gainesville, FL
Car: 1988 Chevy Camaro Hardtop
Engine: Turbocharged/Intercooled 3.1
Transmission: World Class T5 5 Speed
Correct - 4v per cylinder vs 2... DOHC = quicker rev capabilities... much better exhaust (have you seen our stock Y pipe!?)
Course, that's what I love about domestics - the engines are often WONDERFUL performers - they just need to be opened up! Imports tend to be almost completely razor tuned - what else is there to do, slap a turbo on it? I've dropped .5 seconds at the 1/4 just playing with the current setups. Don't know of any Hondas doing that, without going CAI, or catback, or whatever. I just opened my intake, and removed the cat, played with the timing a bit. Nothing big yet!
Course, that's what I love about domestics - the engines are often WONDERFUL performers - they just need to be opened up! Imports tend to be almost completely razor tuned - what else is there to do, slap a turbo on it? I've dropped .5 seconds at the 1/4 just playing with the current setups. Don't know of any Hondas doing that, without going CAI, or catback, or whatever. I just opened my intake, and removed the cat, played with the timing a bit. Nothing big yet!
Supreme Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,827
Likes: 1
From: Gainesville, FL
Car: 1988 Chevy Camaro Hardtop
Engine: Turbocharged/Intercooled 3.1
Transmission: World Class T5 5 Speed
Originally posted by Xceleratemaro
the replacement for displacement is techonaligy
the replacement for displacement is techonaligy
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
i wonder why car companies havent started using rotary valves yet? they are sooooo much better than poppet valves.
http://www.coatesengine.com/index1.html
http://www.coatesengine.com/lookmom_noCamshaft.htm
Where the CSRV really shines is in its airflow potential compared to a poppet valve Bench-marking a 5.0 L engine from a Lincoln, the stock Ford casting (when tested at 28 inches of H2O) flowed approximately 180 cfm on the intake port at static. The rotary valve for the engine in comparison flowed a whopping 319-cfm at the same test pressure. Equipped with the poppet valve head, the Lincoln engine dynoed at 260 hp and 249 lb.-ft of torque. When equipped with the CSRV head at the same 5,500 rpm test protocol, it made 475 hp and 454 lb.-ft of torque, with no changes to the block or rotating assembly: The higher power was a result of diminished frictional and pumping losses, but the inherent airflow benefit of the spherical valve was the major contributor. With a conventional poppet valve, it can take 34 degrees of crankshaft rotation or more to reach a fully open position, wasting energy and limiting volumetric efficiency. With the CSRV, a comparable port area is exposed in only 2 degrees of crank rotation. The CSRV allows for superior surface flow coefficients from its spherical shape. With the standard 4-inch Ford bore, the factory poppet valve covers only 15.8 percent of the total bore area, while the rotary valve is measured at 20.5 percent.
Since horsepower is defined as work over time, the CSRV allows for an extremely high rpm potential. Test run at Coates' facility have seen a Ford 5.0 liter engine spin to 14,750 rpm!
http://www.coatesengine.com/index1.html
http://www.coatesengine.com/lookmom_noCamshaft.htm
Last edited by Soft Taco; May 4, 2003 at 07:34 PM.
Supreme Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 13,414
Likes: 6
From: Central NJ, USA
Car: 1986 Firebird
Engine: 2.8 V6
Transmission: 700R4
Re: why the hell?
Originally posted by Soft Taco
how come these little 4 banger porsche/audi/honda/nissan/etc engines can put out well over 250hp, yet the Chevy 2.8 V6 is such a piece of ****?
please explain this to me.
how come these little 4 banger porsche/audi/honda/nissan/etc engines can put out well over 250hp, yet the Chevy 2.8 V6 is such a piece of ****?
please explain this to me.
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
From: California
The GM 2.8L engines perform GREAT in Fiero's and FWD cars like the Beretta, Corsica, etc. It puts the power down VERY quick do to the engine being directly above the drive axle (transaxle).
Also notice that most of these 4 bangers are FWD cars too. If they were RWD, then they would fall into the Camaro v6 catagory. For example, the BMW 318 (4 banger) and 325 (v6), which are slow RWD cars with economy engines.
Akshay
Also notice that most of these 4 bangers are FWD cars too. If they were RWD, then they would fall into the Camaro v6 catagory. For example, the BMW 318 (4 banger) and 325 (v6), which are slow RWD cars with economy engines.
Akshay
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
From: Vermont
Car: 1986 W69 Special Edition
Engine: 2.8/ECM/Int/Exh
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.42 posi
Don't most of the import 4-cyln engines only make peak HP in a very narrow RPM range? It seems you need to really wind them up to get anything useful out of them...
Where did I see this:
"My lug nuts require more torque than your Honda produces..."
Where did I see this:
"My lug nuts require more torque than your Honda produces..."
Supreme Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 7,604
Likes: 1
From: ****SoCal, USA****
The 60* mill was designed during the late 1970's.
Introduced in 1979 for the 1980 Model year Citation.
The top of line in RWD is a 1993-95 3.4 mill.
The FWD got better technology due to market demands.
3rd gens got V-8
The 60* mill was designed as an economy engine & that's that.
Await the next cars coming out with the 60* mills.
They are claimed by GM to be World Class mills & they could be quite right.
If ya want more power, find a faster car.
These 60* do a decent job.
My 3.4 does quite well for all I need & 90% of the time it ain't racing!
Make a better exhaust system (starting at the factory "Y" pipe, 2 1/2" CC, add 2 1/2" "I" pipe & realistic sized muffler system) & ya gain atleast 10+ solid HP. Fix timing ills (worn chain) & increase air flow to engine.
Enjoy driving a classic American Car!
Introduced in 1979 for the 1980 Model year Citation.
The top of line in RWD is a 1993-95 3.4 mill.
The FWD got better technology due to market demands.
3rd gens got V-8
The 60* mill was designed as an economy engine & that's that.
Await the next cars coming out with the 60* mills.
They are claimed by GM to be World Class mills & they could be quite right.
If ya want more power, find a faster car.
These 60* do a decent job.
My 3.4 does quite well for all I need & 90% of the time it ain't racing!
Make a better exhaust system (starting at the factory "Y" pipe, 2 1/2" CC, add 2 1/2" "I" pipe & realistic sized muffler system) & ya gain atleast 10+ solid HP. Fix timing ills (worn chain) & increase air flow to engine.
Enjoy driving a classic American Car!
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 998
Likes: 0
From: Long Island, New York
Car: 91RS
Engine: 305tbi
Transmission: 700R4
Now I average infinite miles to the gallon because my car doesn't run and just gets flatbeded to the junkyard after hitting a telephone poll @75mph.
Banned
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 1
From: Mostly in water off So. Cal
Car: '87 Chev
Engine: 60*V6
Transmission: DY T700
These motors are very powerful when tweaked- GM did not bother doing anything to them from the factory because they were in the baseline cars and were provided as a inexpensive alterative to the V8 in gas mileage and insurance costs. GM will never rival their bigger sport version with their littler econo version from the factory- we have to do that ourselves.
60*V6 RWD motors have excelled in circle track racing (Midgets) and offroad cars (stadium trucks) for years
60*V6 RWD motors have excelled in circle track racing (Midgets) and offroad cars (stadium trucks) for years
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,432
Likes: 233
From: Chasing Electrons
Car: check
Engine: check
Transmission: check
Just to add: My '92 3.1l got 26.5-27 MPG highway stock. Flip a bit in the cal to invoke lean cruise mode and highway MPG is now 31-32 MPG.
As seen on the 'can you beat a 305(TBI)' thread the 3.1's are very close to the low end V8 stuff. Only takes a cat-back and good air-intake ssytem to beat them.
Folks that bought f-body's for performance purchased cars with the 5.7's in them. The 2.8/3.1's were purchased by folks that desired economy. Now, this economy was most-of-the-time had by lower insurance premiums.
The part that kept me from buying one with a 5.7 was the fact that they only came in 'lettered' cars: Z28, IROC, Formula . . . Over doubled the insurance.
I keep telling myself that I bought the V6 because it corners better. Now I just need to build a bit more HP to go with that.
RBob.
As seen on the 'can you beat a 305(TBI)' thread the 3.1's are very close to the low end V8 stuff. Only takes a cat-back and good air-intake ssytem to beat them.
Folks that bought f-body's for performance purchased cars with the 5.7's in them. The 2.8/3.1's were purchased by folks that desired economy. Now, this economy was most-of-the-time had by lower insurance premiums.
The part that kept me from buying one with a 5.7 was the fact that they only came in 'lettered' cars: Z28, IROC, Formula . . . Over doubled the insurance.
I keep telling myself that I bought the V6 because it corners better. Now I just need to build a bit more HP to go with that.
RBob.
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: Edmond, OK
Yeah, I remember when I was first looking for a camaro. I called Geico and they said they would cover me for 3200/6 mo and all others said 4500/6mo for a Z. Needless to say I stuck with the rs for only 2400/6mo.
Banned
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 1
From: Mostly in water off So. Cal
Car: '87 Chev
Engine: 60*V6
Transmission: DY T700
Originally posted by clasbya
Yeah, I remember when I was first looking for a camaro. I called Geico and they said they would cover me for 3200/6 mo and all others said 4500/6mo for a Z. Needless to say I stuck with the rs for only 2400/6mo.
Yeah, I remember when I was first looking for a camaro. I called Geico and they said they would cover me for 3200/6 mo and all others said 4500/6mo for a Z. Needless to say I stuck with the rs for only 2400/6mo.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 2
From: Madison, WI
Car: 1986 Camaro Z28
Engine: 400
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt Posi 3.73
ahh all that foriegn ****, the 2.8 may not be as fast right now, but lets see which engine last longer, the foriegn pos or the 2.8... well it just depends. im just trying to be an optimistic american.
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: Edmond, OK
Well that was when I was 21. I am now 25, though now my fiance is on my insurance which has a wreck. We are now paying 1800/6mo. This will drop considerable when she turns 25 and she has 5 year good driving.
Supreme Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,661
Likes: 0
From: Toronto
true the 2.8 are alot more stronger and last longer i think, my friend has a 84 and he's got almost 300k on it and it runs amazing never gives him a probelm, went and had the whole thing inspected and they said its in perfect shape includeing the tranny. u no what i notice that alot of people on here with the v8s got like 175k and need a rebuild and there engine went, i think 175k is low for the 2.8. but the 2.8 is not a very powerfull engine in are cars, we do drive a heavy car. so if u dont care for speed i think the 2.8 is a perfect engine.
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: Edmond, OK
But you also have to take into consideration those that have the larger engines tend to run them compared to those with L4's or V6's. I knew some people that had IROC's a couple years back. When they first bought them they were nice and sharp and ran perfect. A few years later they were totally ragged out compared to mine and a few other friends that have smaller engines. I found out they love to race.
I imagine the type of load you put on the car says a lot, regardless the engine type. Mine is a 91 and has just under 200k, hasnt been all that bad of a car and I dont rag it at all. Though unfortunately now its starting to show its age with all the problems its giving me. One thing is for sure, I dont know how it was driven before me seeing it was used when I bought it.
I imagine the type of load you put on the car says a lot, regardless the engine type. Mine is a 91 and has just under 200k, hasnt been all that bad of a car and I dont rag it at all. Though unfortunately now its starting to show its age with all the problems its giving me. One thing is for sure, I dont know how it was driven before me seeing it was used when I bought it.
Supreme Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,388
Likes: 2
From: Caldwell,ID
Car: 2005 BMW 545i
Engine: 4.4L N62B44
Transmission: 6spd auto
Axle/Gears: Rotating
Originally posted by BackInBlackGP
Don't most of the import 4-cyln engines only make peak HP in a very narrow RPM range? It seems you need to really wind them up to get anything useful out of them...
Where did I see this:
"My lug nuts require more torque than your Honda produces..."
Don't most of the import 4-cyln engines only make peak HP in a very narrow RPM range? It seems you need to really wind them up to get anything useful out of them...
Where did I see this:
"My lug nuts require more torque than your Honda produces..."
actually a lot of imports provide a fairly wide powerband due to the variable valve timing
low end might suck
but the power does go on for a long time in mid and high rpms range
Supreme Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,111
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC
Car: '86 Camaro SC, '16 QX60
Engine: 2.8 V6 POWER, 3.5L V6 N/A
Transmission: T-5, CVT
I don't think anyone mentioned the torque of the V6. Even stock it's pretty good. I haven't done anything to my engine (yet) and I can pull at 25km/h (~15mph) in third gear on a slight incline. I mean, it doesn't accelerate all that fast, but the torque is there. I can start in second. If you ask why would I do that, well sometimes I'm too lazy to shift.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dimented24x7
Tech / General Engine
4
Sep 6, 2015 03:51 PM
