So I was flipping through motor trend today. I read an article on the new malibu. Apparently it has a 60* V-6 with aluminum block and heads. This would shave some weight off our cars eh? So, besides possible cross-member difficulties, what's to stop us from swapping out our block and heads for one from a late model car? Similar to what people do with the 3.1 -> 3.4 block swaps?

 

I beleive that the cratemotor that GM sells is an aluminum block 3.4 meant for RWD vehicles so it would fit f-bodies and S-10s. It costs nearly $2K though but it is a complete longblock.

 

The FWD ones have the motor mount wholes wrong from what I have read. Also, the starter is on the wrong side.

Then the intake is on backwards.


So, if you want to re-drill the block for the starter. And make your own motor mounts. Find an intake that will "reverse" and mount up fine. Give it a try.

 

I believe the 3400 gen III intake is reversible. There was an article that someone posted a while back of his 4th gen that he converted over.

Be mindfull that chevy also made a 3500 block that is an elongated 60v6. Nothing swaps over to this as the bore spacing has been increased.

 

i have that same mag. i just look at this morning, its got DOHC

 

The FWD 3.1/3.4 blocks are still steel right? Just thought of that.

How ever, due to better heads and valvetrain, they got like 20more hp then the rwd version?

 

You knew that Dale. I think 94+ FWD engines get roller cams too. Just better head design thats the only thing there is to making power. The block is only good for oiling and holding things together. As far as i know though, all 60v6 blocks are iron.

I'm probably wrong on the bore spacing above, but I know chevy did that to a certain 60v6.

 

I know, I had a brain fart

I counted the roller cam as part of the valve train.

 

Why is there still so much mystery over the genIII 660s on here? First_Firebird and myself have posted numerous times the correct info.

The 3500 does not have a longer block.

Yes, '94 + (1993 Cutlass included) have roller cams, but up to '95 used stamped steel rockers, in '96 roller fulcrum rockers were added.

All production 660 blocks are cast iron. I have not read about this new Malibu engine however. Just FYI it may not be of the same 60 degree family that were are familar with, but again I will have to look at it to determine that.
ate 3.4 is an iron block, if it was an aluminium block it would cost a whole lot more than $2K. The GM 660 bowtie block (Aluminium) was selling for almost twice that on it's own.

All 660 intakes will reverse, the RWD won't allow the use of the dizzy in a reversed position, but will still bolt up.

Yes, the mount pads are different on the FWD as compared to the RWD blocks, some more different than others. 3500 most different so far.
The cr

 

I assumed there would be FWD RWD issues, but it's good to talk about these things b/c I almost bought an intake from 60degreev6.com not realizing that the TB would have pointed the wrong way. Isn't there any way a v6 guy can get a better intake for HP instead of the torguey ones we have? Probably 100% custom all the way.

 

hmm? cam is valvetrain...

GM offers an all aluminum block in 60 degree V6 form. What I wonder is why no one has bought one of those run the cast iron heads, and seen what it can do. The block is a 3.4 bore I think. Iron heads make more power, and the 60 degree V6 heads are light anyway. I think it would run pretty good. As far as starter...just move the battery.

~Couch
----------
http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_..._v6_perf.shtml

you might could adapt something that would work with the lower plenum of one of these.

~Couch

 

Hu? Why would you stick iron heads on an aluminum block? The iron heads make less power than the 3x00's. Infact the 3x00 heads flow more on the exhaust side than the iron's intake side! GM's racing block has a 2.8/3.1 bore (3.504") and is drilled for fwd or rwd- starter bosses on both sides. Go to summit and search for part no. 10051141.

Blue1989RS- You're probably thinking of the 3.9 block. I believe it has wider bore spacing.

The edelbrock manifold's a little pricey, but definately outflows the stock one. Not worth the hassle converting to carb in my oppinion.

 

hmmm bit of healthy bashing between bl85c & NAASBC355 recently eh, now now girls ;-) lol
im getting edelbrock intake - guna do a p&p job on it though just to make sure, then holley 390 then either edelbrock/holley carb nos system. guna be sweet.........

 

The aluminum Bow Tie block has a maximum bore of 3.5" and a max bore capability of 3.582".

The 3.4 has a 3.622 bore and unless you stroke it, the Bow Tie block was never meant to be a 3.4. Stroking will be on the expensive side sine GM never offered a longer stroke than 3.307" on the 4.4" bore spaced blocks.

As Six_Shooter said we have posted several time over about the parts interchange between the FWD and RWD 60*'s.

I will add to Six's comment, though, that there is a VVT version of the 3500 that is basically a de-stroked 3900 (that has the increased bore spacing). If using 3500 parts, be sure to use the 2004-2005 Malibu/G6 and some Equinox engines (Eqinox plenum is difficult to use with the TB mounted high in the center).


The intakes on the 60* (just like the heads) are symmetrical and can be turned 180* to work in a RWD configuration. The only interferance I had was with using a RWD timing cover, the top tab need to be cut off for clearance...




I will say it again...

The iron heads professionally ported (costing almost $1k, Tiago had them ported) were only able to flow 158/142cfm int/exh and the stock small port GenIII heads flow 162/139cfm (all at .500"). I haven't gotten a flow bench together, but Ben at 60*v6 has flowed the stock 3500 heads at ~218cfm@.500" intake with the manifolds and TB attached (minus the throttle plate).

anybody who is serious about getting more power from theier 660's need to let go of the iron heads. The extra work of using a 3.4 block (or fabbing a DIS), and adapting the parts is worth it. Even boosted most 3.4's never get much past high 13's. purple82ta just made over 270hp/290tq to the wheels in his Cavilier powered by a 3500 and is running mid 13's N/A.

 

zs&tas- swapping to a carb setup is pretty involved. Unless you already have a pre-'85 carb'd v6 it's probably not worth your time.

And I'm not bashing on anyone, I'm just being a smartass.

 

As far as porting goes it doesn't cost me anything but time as I am a professional head porter/engine builder/ASE Certified Master Machinist. In the world of V8's You are lucky to get a set of Chrysler casting# 302 heads to flow 215 @ .500 lift at 28" of vacuum where as a set of factory Chevrolet 350 heads can flow up to 250 after porting without blinking an eye. Yet the two motors are extremely competitive flow testing and comparing two unrelated kinds of cylinder heads is somewhat usless information. It's a relative meassurement of improvement um... a before and after shot there will never be a time when the motor will pull 28" of vacum through a runner, and you'll find that when you test heads below 28" of vacum
the flow numbers are all over the place and make no sense Smokey Yunick discovered that back when he basically invented the flow bench. If all ot whay you are suggesting is try then why are these old school 350's with factory iron heads and blocks literally running circles around most of this LS1 stuff? Or why the newer 3.8 90 degree V6 doesn't stand a chance against the old Buick 231 even though the old heads don't look so pretty on the bench they perform in a way that is no laughing matter, and yes I'm talking about naturally asperated I should know one of my fience's project cars is an ugly ol 82 regal factory painted maroon with maroon interior that I built a Buick 231 for it has a 500cfm Holley two barrel (had one laying around at the time.) for induction performer manifold and the always open headmen headers with a pretty stout build that isn't all that wild except the heads I ported, and as I have said I build them loose it well pretty much out run any factory car built including many V8 f bodies not vette's except maybe the late 70's ones, but most everything else in general. That little 173 cu in. 60 degree V6 set a lot of reccords in it's day to the suprise of many including the builders themselves. I seem to recall... Grumpy did Grumpy Jenkins build a sand dragster with one of those motors... I'll get back to you on that, but I do remember the machine itself, and that it was seemingly unstoppable for a time because the rig was so light compared to the bigger iron block V8 dragsters with all the extra reinforcement they requiered. This right here is why if you ever read Smokey Yunicks writings and research about cylinder heads and flow testing he warns all those without ton's of time money and experiance to leave it up to the professionals. Reason being is that only a professional can read and decifer flow charts, the way it is supposed to work is that you port and flow all the runners in the same kind of heads, and keep reworking them till they all flow much more, but more importantly the same. Different heads have no relation to each other on the bench. That said:

you missunderstand what im saying. Iron heads inhearently make more power then aluminum heads all else being equal, because they don't shead heat as fast. Obviously a better flowing aluminum head with canted valves and heart shaped chambers is more likely going to make more power on paper thats not what I was getting at. The problem at hand is a RWD set up that weighs less and still retains an intake system that faces the right way. I never said anything about carb's did I? As I recall I mentioned adapting the lower intake plennum from the Edelbrock stuff to whatever you choose to use. Has anyone ever seen one of those without the top plenum on it. It's aluminum so you can weld anything that will fit to it I just wonder what it would take to use one of those. All I offer is theories, and different avenues of thought to try to solve the puzzle. I have no intention of knocking anyones ideas down. If this were my delema I would attack it as such: Port the Iron heads (they flow pretty good when ported) then have them dipped in a thermal barrier coating over at Poly Dyn then get as much bore out of the block that I can get a piston for as a start. Not to say that the old iron heads could ever outperform their newer aluminum counterparts on paper or in theory, but being as they are iron they have some advantage in heat retention, and the practicality of not having to try to adapt something to the crazy port aluminum brothers they have may outway the relitivly small hp gains you could possibly get from just simply the supierior chamber shape and valve angles. What i'm saying is that the payoff may be in the combination not just in a pair of heads. As far as the details about the block it's good information to have you'll have to forgive me I was working from memory. Unfortunatly Ive seen a lot of numbers and motors sense the last time I looked anything up about one of these motors.

~Couch

 

Theories, theories- everyone's got a million of them.

You think iron heads have more power potential because they retain heat better. Explain your theory to me.

I think aluminum heads have more power potential because they dissipate heat better which leads to lower charge temps, lower combustion temps, far less chance of detonation/preignition enabling you to run a higher respective c/r. Everything I've seen or researched has led me to believe that aluminum is a superior material for heads in just about every way.

I never said you mentioned anything about carbs, you're reading into things too much. But you didn't bother to explain your idea behind using edelbrock's lower manifold either. I don't think there's too many diy'ers with the skills or recources to custom fabricate something for the upper manifold.

People need to see that there's no reason 3x00 heads/manifolds can't be retrofit onto rwd blocks as a complete setup. These swaps have been done many times and is well documented. Go check out www.60degreev6.com to see what I mean. The manifold can be reversed on most 3x00 top ends and retrofitted with only minor clearancing to the front cover. And the gains of doing this swap are anything but minor. Most people have seen 40-50hp gains over the stock setup, with the stock cam.

 

Iron heads making more power than aluminum is a well documented fact, and frankly a warn out topic in the world of building engines here just to name a few:

http://www.hughesengines.com/general...icleID=1000002

http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/te...ads/index.html

http://www.stangfan.com/online/forum9/thread639.html

http://www.dgmotors.biz/cylinderhead.htm

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles...est/index.html

As far as that topic goes I'll leave it up to my sources. And didn't you say just a post or two ago that converting to carb's isn't worth the trouble in your opinion...thats what I was addressing. I also must remind you sir I test my "theories" on my dyno that's where I have personally laid to rest for myself the aluminum vs. iron heads debate.

~Couch
----------
as far as 40-50 hp, im sure my set up would yield just a few more than that and probabaly with less dollars spent...for me, thats why I said "if it were my delema..."

 

So to simplify whats been said: If you just want an easy fix because you are in some way incapable of going with my idea then go for the swap mentioned by the many above. If you happen to be an inquisitive b@st@rd like myself and like using the old stuff then try my idea and let us all know how it goes.

~Couch

 

I'm not in this debate, but on the 60* in particular, it would take an immense ammount of money to get the irom heads to perform the way that the GenIII top end does.

It has been documented on a chassis dyno, all else being equal, that the "small port" GenIII top end makes over 30hp more.

As mentioned by bl85c, the AL heads allow a MUCH greater CR. 12:6 already has been documented with 3.4 DOHC pistons and 3500 heads running on 87 pump gas with proper tuning.

 

And as I said before twice now thats to be expected from a head that has canted valves, and heart shaped chambers with angled, and centrally located spark plugs...that is if you read that part. 12.7 is possible with either head ultimatly just depends on fuel and timing. I believe the argument was all other things being equal Iron heads make more power than aluminum heads. I happen to have everything I would need laying around the shop except a block, cam, and a set of pistons... as I was making the point before if I were working on this issue myself...on my own (non street legal) car, in my own shop, with my resources, and my testing equipment, if that were the case I would use the heads, intake set up, crank, rods, valves, etc. I already have then I would not be so quick to dismiss the old iron stuff as worthlsess or outdone. True you can run higher compression ratios with aluminum heads, but it still goes back to the ol physics stuff: retaining the heat caused by the combustion process in the chamber during more of the power stroke= more power. The reason you can run more compression ratio is because the aluminum heads bleed off combustion heat so much faster, but also sacrificeing potential power to do so. In all testing done by anyone if you have two identical heads on an engine there is a hp loss when swiching to the aluminum heads. When you raise the compression ratio while using those heads there is more heat in the chamber therefore you might get some of the lost power back, depending on piston configuration however some pistons can hurt both head flow and flame travel in the chamber. Therefore in more casses then not with identical heads you can never get the lost power back, but thats not to say that the power will make up for the extra weight...necissaraly. I.E. if you have a heavy car then you would want to run Dart Iron Eagle Platinum series heads, and if you run a light car you would want to run AFR 195's they flow about the same, but because in the heavy car you wouldn't be making any real difference in weight savings, but you need the extra power, in the light car every pound counts.

~Couch

 

Interesting reading, but I don't see how any of those articles prove that iron heads make more power than aluminum. And if it is true it's a mute point. Al heads have higher detonation resistance = higher possible c/r.

That's what I said, but again it had no relevance to what you said. I was offering my oppinion based on an assumption of what the edelbrock manifold might be used for and had nothing to do with what you said.

I've done and witnessed alot of dyno testing myself and have found that aluminum headed engines make more power by taking advantage of it's qualities. And there's a simple way to get rid of aluminum's 'heat-robbing' characteristics- thermal coatings. Things certainly won't be 'apples to apples' between 3x00 and iron head setups. A 3x00 setup is guaranteed to make more power.

 

You are preaching to the choir.

We are having a discussion on a board where the general topic is a 20yr old "performance" car with a v6 in it

I also have a fabrication shop complete with CNC machines (3 of them), and just tinker with the 60*v6's for fun.

The fact that you or I have access to advanced equipment doen't help the people looking for advice here.

A DIY'er with avg tools can use the available GM parts to make an exceptional motor that should have no problem keeping up with a stock LT1. I find it impressive that with a few modifications (and knowledge) can make ~1hp/10cc's using stock components, just as impresssive as seeing a ~540hp SBC (again using stock components).

The swap in question is at a minimal cost if one is willing to do the work themselves.

 

Let's not turn this into an oldschool vs newschool debate because this thread has already strayed enough from the topic. All ohiotemplar wanted to know is if there's an aluminum block out there for us. Yes, there's sevral. The racing block, the prototype 'porsche-eater' block and supposedly the malibu block.

 

Took me a few days to figure this out, its called an LS1.

 

OLDSKOOL BABEY ! all this new complicated tuning crap and week **** ally - irons much tougher ! times are no beter though eh???? save money use iron stuff kicking around and it will make a bomb proof motor for years.
;-)

 

Last I checked, the LSx engine equipped cars ARE driving circles around the older LTx engines.

I have never seen an equally prepped LTx engine outperform an LSx, EVER!

The 660 iron heards are anything but light. I did weigh them once and IIRC they were about 45 lbs EACH, where as the genII and III (both alumnium) weigh about 25 lbs each, a considerable weight savings.

Beyond that, explain to me why all but very specific aftermarket heads are being made of aluminium?

the only iron head performace heads I can think of are from Chrysler, to be used in certain racing organizations, because rules do not allow the use aluminium heads.

I also wasn't aware that there was any problem with getting heat into the combustion chamber or rather, to stay there. Everything documented suggests quite the opposite and that getting enough heat OUT of teh combustion chamber seems to be the issue.

I would be rather surprised that if someone could find one set of the EXTREMLY rare genI 660 heads that they would lose any power over using the iron heads, in fact I would very surpairsed if there wasn't a slight increase in power, due to the ability to be able to use more aggresive tuning with the aluminium heads.

There's no reason to try and use the Edlebrock lower with any heads that will be swapped, namely the genIII heads, since the genIII LIM can easily be turned 180 degrees to have the TB at the front of the engine.

 

The iron headed top end weighs 81lbs, the AL weighs 45.

 

[quote=Six_Shooter;3616362]Last I checked, the LSx engine equipped cars ARE driving circles around the older LTx engines.

Wow you obviously haven't read too much about me... no see I was thinking much older than the LT motors. I was thinking like the original design that even NASCAR still uses. The one that is unarguably the best engine ever concieved. Don't believe me find one real reccord that has ever been broken by an LS1 that was set by the old scoo SBC.

Thats bull $hit I have two in my shop I just weighed them on my shipping scale...more like 15 pounds bare.

cost of manufacturing(SP?), lightweight, and ease of workability, and most importantly on the high end stuff repairablilty. Hmm. buy new castings everytimg one gets hurt...rework them...or get these welded and keep using the same castings over and over again...hmmm...

A good freind of mine runs a Pro Mod car with a "water motor" when he switched from nitrous to blower It was often that we would blow a hole right through the chamber with hp because with the nitrous set up we removed a ton of material off the block mating surfface of the heads which lived fine with high compression nitrous, but not blower low compression be punched holes in every chamber welded all of them up and those heads are still in use 3 years later at very little cost to the team. vs working with iron heads where once there dead they are gone, done period.

The baddest and most popular street heads on the market right now are the Dart IRON EAGLE platinum series heads. They flow the same as AFR for runner volume and outrun every comparable aluminum head on the dyno BY FAR.
Not to mention the IMCA heads, the Sportsman 2's, etc.

Where have you been doing your research. There Is a reason Poly Dyn has thermal barrier coatings out for everything too keep heat in the chamber. When the piston is pushed down the cylinder it's pushed by a majical force called heat which is the rapid acceleration, and movement of excited particiles so therefore heat=HP. Aluminum doesn't have the heat retention neccisarry to retain the "push" some of the heat energy from the combustion process escapes it's grasp bleeding power from the chamber thats why you can have a higher compression ratio for the same fuel as an iron head because you must have a higher compression ratio to get some of the lost energy/heat back. Not to mention when you get into domed pistons they get in the way of flame travel killing precious hp. The Iron heads prduce power like that of aluminum heads with much higher comp. ratios.

hmm I have a set. I run carbs on everything because I prefer power, and it's nothing to me to tune it either way. If any of you had read the above I never said: "my way is better" I simply said: "this would be my way"


Unless you did it the way I would do it, and use the iron option.

~Couch

 

They proved it by dyno testing. They also said it many times in each instance that even with the higher compression ratio's you never get back the lost power. Besides ultimatly Iron heads win anyway because they act and produce power like Aluminum heads with higher compression ratio's, but you can only get the ratio so high. Ultimatly you can run less detonation prone fuels, and get even more compression ratio out of the iron castings and get even more heat.

I call bluff this topic is so well known among engine builders that it's not even talked about anymore it's just an understood fact. I'm here in Houston like literally 30 minutes away from THE POLY DYN. I have known the owner for years I am one of his many comercial accounts, and he still charges me 2 russian brides every time I walk in the place. AERA has several bulitens writen by and backed up by everyone in the industry from engineers all the way to the top dogs in racing saying that Iron heads simply perform better than aluminum when the flow numbers and head configurations are equal. In fact we have had several dicussions at the meetings about customers arguing this fact, and how it explain it to them. I personally tested open chamber Dart Iron Eagle 200's against AFR 195's just recently. They both it astonishinly similar flow numbers on the bench, but when tested even with much more aggresive tune, and higher compression ratio on a 355 chevy with flat tops running a Holley carb, and HEI distributor (Accel) we got the absolute most power out of the AFR's we could with that combination, we switched over to the Dart's even putting all the valvetrain hardware from the AFR's into the Dart's, and with the first pull we got over 15hp gains, and a much higher power output ave. After we were done the Dart's were distroying the AFR dyno numbers by a pretty large margin especially in torque totally dwarfing the shiny pretty CNC machined heads. The Darts are just rough castings no CNC machining no fancy shine, no flash, no fuss nuthin. Half the cost dry run tunning put AFR away. I tossed the AFR's and am now running Dart Iron eagle heads breaking all the personal records I ever set with them, and usually on the first try. I mean our results were clear as day there was no comparison between the power production of the two. It was like the motor woke up from it's nap. So buy $700 Iron heads and perform better or spend over $2000 on a set of heads that you might be able to get to run as good. Dunno bout you but seems like a clear decision to me.

Whether you like it or not when it comes to HP Iron is it. If they made heads out of Tungsten Carbide I would run them. The Physics involved support and prove that the hottest part of the combustion process is when the piston is all the way at the top, as the flame flashes into action at it's most powerful moment (tdc) the heat is released by the piston moving down through the cylinder all the while heat particles are escaping through the piston, the cylinder, and the head...don't know bout you but the attic gets mighty hot in the summer....yup you guessed it the most heat loss is through the head just like you in the winter (thats why people wear stupid looking stocking hats) when this heat is released it's lost energy/heat energy=hp=heat=energy. See how all this is getting put together. Now add fancy thermal barrier coatings to the head, and the piston...haven't seen any of that around lately and suddenly heat has no way out and whuddua know you now have more power. Because instead of loose energy/heat/hp producing particles escaping they now have no choice, but to focus themselves on working on getting the piston down to cool off and eventually escape through the exhaust. I don't know how much more barney style I can make it without getting into physics equations energy efficiancy models.

~Couch

 

I hate to be this blunt, but go stand in the corner! You need a dunce hat.

What we have here is a misunderstanding at the very most basic level of physics.

Heat by itself does not produce power. Heat is useless without a material with which to produce an outcome, and furthermore detrimental to the combustion process by increasing component temps (which lowers physical strength) and increasing the likelyhood of detonation/preignition. Pressure produces power. Pressure is force, force + movement = work; which is power.

Now let me explain what part heat does play in all of this.

Heat is not a particle, it's not a substance. Heat is vibration at the atomic level. It's a means to an end. The more an atom vibrates the 'hotter' it is. The more an atom vibrates the more space it takes up, which pushes other atoms away from it. As the atom pushes other atoms away from itself part of it's energy in the form of inertia is imparted to the atoms it comes in contact with, causing those atoms to vibrate and become 'hotter'.

How do we get these atoms to become 'hot' and influence other atoms in the first place? By way of an exothermic reaction- i.e. burning fuel.

Burning fuel is little more than breaking down large particles (fuels) and recombinding with a catalyst into smaller, highly charged particles which inturn break down other fuel particles and continue the process. Not all particles recombind, but nonetheless play an important role. Inert gases such as helium which make up the majority of the atmosphere do not combine with the catayst, but contribute to the whole of the material to produce the intended work. Application of electricity (spark) to a fuel in the presence of a catalyst (oxygen) is what causes this initial breakdown of fuel particles, and the burning process.

Now when you have a bunch of 'hot' atoms confined in a space they bounce off each other and whatever contains them, which produces pressure. When given a direction this pressure forces objects to move, which is work and ultimately what we know as power. The direction is down (or more accurately 'expanding outward' against the piston), the object is the piston and the outcome is moving your vehicle foreward.

Now onto why increasing combustion temps is dangerous and detrimental to power production. When heat is restricted (via iron heads, thermal coatings, ect.) it continues to build up in materials with poor ductability (low heat transfer). Hot, energized particles (wether they be hot gasses left in the combustion chamber, or the cylinder head itself) can ignite fuel, before the spark plug initiates it. A material that has poor ductability like iron retains heat in the combustion chamber and in itself promoting the buildup of heat, increasing the chance of detonation/preignition. Heat, like most energy forms, follows the path of least resistance so under sustained high-heat operation not only do you end up with hot, detonation prone heads you also rapidly increase piston temps because it has relatively little direct contact area to conduct heat to other components.

Aluminum heads readily transfer heat and quickly adjust with changes in cylinder temp, decreasing heat buildup and the chance of detonation/preignition. By taking advantage of this quality (by increasing the c/r) an engine ultimately produces more power. There is no evidence that aluminum 'sucks' significant heat as to cause unrecoverable power losses, or significant power losses at all. What holds up on a dyno run doesn't always hold on the street/track. Please show me an article that clearly demonstrates significant power losses with aluminum heads. Regardless of fuel quality or octane rating aluminum heads will always tolerate a higher c/r than iron, and keep the engine safer in the process.

And as I said before even if iron heads do produce more power -apples to apples- it's a mute point because the stock 660 iron heads are plain crap compared to the modern 3x00 aluminum counterparts.

I can break things down 'barney-style' just as easily as anyone else, doesn't mean you need to degrade people and become argumentative to do it. Now can we please get ?

 

HEY!! UWHO!!!! WAKEY WAKEY !!! HELLO, ANYBODY HOME??
sorry guys just thought a few people may have fallen asleep through that

 

The way I am taking it, is that in "certain circumstances" it might be benificial to use iron heads...but in our cases (2.8-3.1-3.4) the stock Iron heads suck and it would be better to swap to the aluminum. Now mabye if the aluminum heads were exactly the same as the iron model that we could argue which is better...but they arnt. The aluminum heads have a lot of "improvements" to the design that would make them already "better".

Im no expert on this subject, but everything I have read and seen points to the aluminum heads that work on our cars are better that their "older brother", the iron heads. Now if you want to prove all of us wrong...build 2 engines--> one with the iron heads and the other with the aluminum heads...identical specs, just different pistons, heads, and intake, go ahead. Let me know how it turns out.

 

Thank you, grimmics. That's exactly the point being made.

 

Aluminum heads are better on these motors since they are such a better design. Not only are the newer heads better the intakes are too. The old irons and the intakes flow so much less than the aluminum ones. I just wish that there was a way to run the aluminums with a distributor so more people could use them. Its just the UIM that is in the way correct?

 

LIM. The #6 runner is right in the middle of the distributor hole (or the runner that says "1" when turned for RWD applications).

 

 

Too bad it can't be notched to fit without hurting flow.

 

Is that yours? If so, you are working fast!

 

......Mabye................... Ok, no its not mine I could throw on the heads and intake on real quick and make it look like that

 

I've heard that there are places that will build a custom intake for our cars (3.1) Once I get the intake problem solved, I really would like to get some better heads on there and eventually a more balanced crank. So back to my question, isn't there any way us v6 guys can get aluminum block/heads for our engines? Or maybe just a better set of iron heads? My problem is I simply don't know where to buy this stuff. So to recap:

Can I get better:
intake
block
crank
heads
for my 3.1 V6?

It seems like the v8 guys get all the cool parts.

 

BLOCK
Or go with a 3.4 block.
-------------

INTAKE/HEADS
There were custom Potter Racing Heads once upon a time....But good luck finding some.
------------------

And whats wrong with your crank? There has been talk from FirstFirebird about using a 3500 crank...But I am forgetting the details right now. Im sure he will chime in soon.

 

Do you have any sites on those. I searched just to read up on them and all I get is stuff for Harry Potter. I am going to the Moultrie swap meet on Saturday, you never know.

 

All I have is a link to a site with a pic of an engine with them.... LINK
What Ive heard is that very few sets were ever made.

 

this may be a stupid question, but i just can't wrap my mind around this: if the 3500 has increased bore spacing, how is it possible to bolt the heads on a 3.4? are the chambers all off just a little bit from the 3.4 cylinders, or am i interpreting this wrong?

 

The 3500 does NOT have increased bore spacing.

The 3500 combustion chambers are larger than the 3400 chambers, larger in diameter.

 

^^^There are 2 different 3500s I believe, one is VVT. I do know that the new 3600 has increased bore spacing, if you are thinking about that.

 

It's a shame the 3500 heads can't be used on the 2.8/3.1 block. The crank will work if you have the rod dowels turned down.

 

grimmcs - there isn't anything wrong with my crank per se, I just wanted to make sure it was balanced and the best that it could be for reliability. I don't have alot of experience with these cars, but I knew my probe and escort inside and out. the 97 escort and the 1st gen probes had some crappy unbalanced iron crank. Sometimes they flew apart and destroyed the engine. My 99 had a very sought after very balanced crank with 8 counter-weights... whatever that means. LOL - my point is, my camaro is a 92, so my hopes for having a reliable and balanced crankshaft are very low. But you guys are the experts. This spring azreal (he lives near me) from the forum is helping me to acheive my very small goal of reaching 180 HP on my 3.1, naturally aspirated. If you guys say that it's a good crank then I'll leave it alone.

Block - I was hoping for some info about a late-model car I could pull a block/heads off from in a junk yard. I love my car, but 2k for an aluminum block is a little steep.

Heads - what are my options with my current heads? Could I have them modified? Improved?

Intake - Is this the right one? -
http://60degreev6.com/store/index.ph...d&productId=45
http://60degreev6.com/store/index.ph...d&productId=95

And if it is, can I bolt it right up or will I need to get some maching work done? (besides the timeing cover of course I'm sure I can handle that with the ol' dremmel.)
Thanks alot, you guys are always great and very smart. - Nate

 

^^ That intake is for the FWD 3x00. In order to use those youll need to do the 3x00 top end swap. The only aftermarket intake that works with our heads, that I know of, is the Trueleo intake. But I thought I heard that after testing that it was a bad design and to not waste the $600(?) for it.